Raymond Williams through Sri Lankan eyes

[Part 7]

Last week, I discussed the ways in which Raymond Williams sought to examine and assess the novel as a form of artistic and social communication. I paid close attention to his privileged concept of the knowable community. While explaining the dominant features of Williams’ approach to the novel, I was keen to identify areas that we as Sri Lankan readers and writers might profitably pursue.

In today’s column I wish to go down that path further, trying to see how best he could inspire us in charting new investigative pathways into the novel. For this purpose, I have chosen to focus on what I think are three important models of fictional criticism in Sinhala, and relate them to the flow of Williams’ critical thoughts on the novel.

Knowable community

The important point about the knowable community, as outlined by Raymond Williams, is that it focuses on the salience and validity of cultural discourses and social formations in the interpretation of common human experiences refigured in novels. This concept aims to put into play an interaction between a culturally activated text and culturally activated readers.

As one critic observed, ‘the cultural project of reading novels as knowable community is Williams’ contribution to a practice of cultural analysis where all the subjects involved in an imagined space of communication operate at different levels of experience and reality; the reality of the community, built and represented by all elements in solution in a whole way of life.’ She then goes on to make the point that the reality of the readers who labour to make sense of what is expressed in an interpretive effort is equally important.

These features of the knowable community that Williams promotes have a deep relevance to the three models of fictional criticism dominant in Sinhala literature.

Sinhala novel

The Sinhala novel has evolved over a hundred years, changing its shape and course in response to newer challenges both literary and social. As the Sinhala novel evolved, three models of critical analysis took shape that had a profound impact on the thought, imagination and critical agendas of discerning readers.

This is, of course, not to suggest that these are the only models available; all I am suggesting is that these are three of the most significant models that continue to exert a profound influence in the field of modern Sinhala literature.

The three models that I wish to identify are closely associated with the three names of Martin Wickramasinghe, Ediriweera Sarachchndra and Gunadasa Amarasekera respectively. It is indeed true that the three of them have also earned a wide and wholly justified reputation as gifted and influential novelists. In a sense, their respective models reflect their own predilections as practitioners of the art of the novel.

Role of Sarachchandra

The first critic who displayed a serious and informed interest in Sinhala fiction was Sarachchandra. His pioneering work Modern Sinhalse Fiction (1943), was some years later translated into Sinhala. At the time when this critical work in Sinhala fiction appeared, there was hardly in existence a set of norms, a readily identifiable set of standards, in evaluating fiction.

It was his intention to create such a set of norms and a critical vocabulary. Initially, his effort met with a lot of resistance and acrimonious debate. However, over the years, discerning readers came to recognise the validity and importance of Sarachchandra’s effort. What we have by way of modern Sinhala fictional criticism is largely an extension of his thoughtful attempts that he initiated some seven decades ago.

In formulating his ideas and assessments in modern Sinhalese fiction, Sarachchandra was guided by a number of key concepts. The first such concept was realism thathvikathvaya. At a time when much of Sinhala fiction was inspired by a kind of non-realistic fiction driven by fantasy, he underscored the need to take a more realistic approach to the art of fiction. Fortunately, Martin Wickremasighe realised the value of this. In some of his early short stories and novels (not the earliest) he demonstrated the need for realism.

This helped in Sarachchandra’s critical endeavours in that he was able to cite actual examples. Hence, the idea of realism, as opposed to romantic fantasy, was a central concept of Sarachchandra.

The second key concept was that of psychological complexity. For example, in critiquing the work of a novelist like Piyadasa Sirisena he pointed out that his characters lacked psychological complexity which he regarded as an essential feature in fiction committed to the exploration of the human condition. This idea of psychological complexity is vitally connected to the earlier concept of realism. Indeed, he saw these as two sides of the same coin.

The third key concept that he deployed in his critical analyses of Sinhala novels was that of organic unity. It was indeed his considered judgment that all the elements that go to form a novelistic discourse should connect closely with each other and form a complex unity; this was what he meant by organic unity.

The fourth concept that Sarachchandra invoked was that of human values. This concept makes its appearance in his later critical writings on the novel. It was his belief that the novel is a dramatisation of a human experience and the inevitable human crisis that it seeks to focus on should illuminate questions of human values. When Sarachchandra began to discuss noels that were written after Martin Wickremasinghe’ s Viragaya, he focused more and more on the compelling significance of human values. He focused in particular on the question of urbanisation, social modernisation and the crisis of values that it precipitated.

As a consequence of Sarachchandra’s efforts a pathway towards fictional analysis was cleared. Discerning readers began to understand why novels like Gamperaliya, Yuganthaya and Kaliyugaya were superior to the normal run of popular novels produced at the time.

As the Sinhala novel became a topic of study at the university, Sarachchandra’s writings became increasingly more influential and consequential. Sarachchandra was writing at a time when the Sinhala novel was taking shape and the kind of concepts he invoked were adequate for the immediate purpose.

It was his conviction that we in Sri Lanka should study the masterpieces of world fiction – Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Flaubert and Mann.- and shape a critical sensibility and evaluative yardsticks accordingly.

When we examine the role of Sarchchandra as a pioneering Sinhala literary critic, we realise that he dew significantly on two areas of intellectual and artistic activity – analytical philosophy and aesthetics. He was deeply interested in philosophy and the influence of analytical philosophy and aesthetics is evident in his model of fictional criticism. In comparison with the other two models, he paid less attention to matters of social formation and cultural discourse, although these were not entirely absent from his interpretations. This, then, is the first model.

Martin Wickremasinghe

The second model of Sinhala fictional criticism was put in place by Martin Wickremasinghe. Just like the model promoted by Sarachchandra, that of Wickremasinghe has had a decisive influence in shaping the critical sensibility of informed readers. Broadly, speaking the model proposed by Wickremasinghe can be usefully described as a culturalist model. For him, the idea of cultural consciousness was of paramount importance.

He went to great lengths to clarify the fact that the cultural consciousness played a formative role in shaping the plot, characters, social vision and the registers of language associated with novels. It was his belief that a sound knowledge of the culture that the novelist is dealing with is a pre-condition for the creation of a successful novel. And this cultural consciousness was inextricably linked with the creative use of language. On numerous occasions, he made the point that it is only a writer with a deep cultural consciousness who is able to fashion a flexible and emotionally-charged language medium for fictional narration.

In his later years, Martin Wickremasinghe criticised the Peradeniya school of criticism and the novelists associated with it. His point of contention was that the works associated with the Peradeniya School were defective in terms of language because the novelists did not possess a deep cultural consciousness or they were unable to recognise its centrality. In addition, he went on to point out that many of these novelists created fictional characters that were less than convincing because they turned their backs on the culture they inhabited and went in search of alien influences in Western literature. So the first important idea that guided and shaped Martin Wickremasinghe’s model was that if cultural consciousness.

Humanism

The second important concept that guided his critical thinking when it came to analysis of fiction was humanism. He placed great emphasis on the concept. Wickremasinghe believed that a work of literature, if it is to be meaningful and have enduring significance, it should radiate a humanism. The emphasis on human effort, the capacity for imaginative sympathy, independent and critical thinking, identification with the plight of less fortunate people – all of these which are aspects of humanism, carried freight of moral significance for him.

When he analysed novels, he was always keen to see the humanistic vision that emanated from them. It is important to remind ourselves that humanism is not one thing – it wears many faces. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency among Western scholars, and even among some Asian scholars, to universalize the Western humanism, to turn it into a universal norm.

This is indeed counter-productive. There are many forms of humanism in the world that have been inflected by varying cultural geographies. The kind of humanism that Martin Wickremasinghr favoured can best be described as Buddhist humanism. He saw how that Buddhist humanism has penetrated certain aspects of peasant culture, and he was keen to draw on it. It is important to point out that, largely due to the influence of newer creeds such as structuralism, post-structuralism and post-modernism, humanism has been subjected to an intense de-valuation; it has become almost a smear-word. Hence, the efforts of Martin Wickremasinghe and others to demonstrate the vitality and contemporary relevance of humanism is indeed a salutary move.

Martin Wickremasinghe, to be sure, is a supremely insightful literary critic. This becomes evident not only in his writings on Sinhala literature but also on world literature. Fir example, he was one of the earliest writers to explore the affinities between the thinking of D.H. Lawrence and those of Tantrists. Similarly, he was one of the earliest critics to display the similarities between the Jataka stories and the Russian novels primarily in terms of the understanding of the depths of character, complexities of human motivation and the valorization of humanistic values. Hence, the kind of strictures that he made on contemporary Sinhala fiction observes careful consideration. One might not agree with all his evaluations; but they certainly invite close study.

Cultural conscience

The kind of model that Wickremasinghe proposed had many elements. He was working towards a form of literary expression that could be regarded as an outgrowth of the indigenous culture. He played great emphasis on cultural consciousness and cultural sensibility, as I explained earlier. He was also deeply attached to the idea of humanism. A close examination of a work such as ‘Sinhala Vichara Maga’, which deans with criticism in general, would convince one of this important fact.

There is a very important connection between his critical writings and creative writings. Some of his most perceptive commentaries emerged from his desire to explain his intentions in writing some of his novels such asViragaya and clearing away the reader's conclusions that had accumulated over the years. These ideas of cultural consciousness and cultural sensibility, Buddhist humanism are central to his body of critical as well as creative writings. In other words, the model of fictional analysis proposed by Martin Wickremasinghe can also be regarded as a frame of intelligibility that would allow us to approach his novels more productively.

Gunadasa Amarasekera

The third model of Sinhala fictional criticism is associated with the work of Gunadasa Amarasekera. Here works such as Abuddassa Yugayak and Nosevuna Kadapatha;‘ assume a great importance. He was, early in his career, linked to the Peradeniya School; however, as he matured as a writer, he sought to distance himself from the Peradeniya School. As he did so, he began to emphasise the need for literature to a vital part of the social experience. Instead of writing about the perplexities of solitary individuals living in ivory towers, he wanted the novel to be reflective of the larger social and cultural forces influencing the forward movement of society. It was Amarasekera’s contention that the Sinhala novel can flourish as a vigorous mode of creative expression only if it is able to become a part of wider social discourse, a part of a higher national conversation.

When discussing the critical model suggested by Amarasekera, three concepts deserve careful exploration. The first is that of realism. Sarachchadra, too, focused attention on this concept. It seems to me that Amarasekera has sought to offer a more complex understanding of the idea of realism. His book, Nosevuna Kadapatha; contains some insightful comments on this concept.. He is more sensitive to the philosophical foundations of it as well as to the ways in which it has developed in the hands of theorists such as George Lukacs. Realism signals something more than the mere reflection of society; it is an active creation of society. It entails complex problems of representation and ideology.

Importance of history

The second important concept that informs Amarasekera’s model is that of history. He has repeatedly emphasized the importance of history both in his critical and creative writings. He has given considerable thought to the ways in which history influences human life and human beings struggle against the dictates of history. How history shapes human beings and how human beings, in turn, shape history is an issue that is central to his thinking.

The third concept that is at the heart of Amarasekera’s model is that of ideology. Although he does not actually use the term, it permeates his thinking in important ways. Ideology is often, taking the cue from Marx, described as false consciousness; it is, as contemporary theorists would argue, more complex than this. Louis Althusser said that, ‘ideology, then, is the expression of the relation between men and their world, that is, the (over-determined) unity of the real relation and the imaginary relation between them and their real conditions of existence.’ It can be agued that one of the objectives of socially-informed literary criticism is to bring out the concealed, and often repressed, layers of social reality from the pages of a literary text.

Decline of modern Sinhala novel

In proposing his model of fictional criticism, Amarasekera advances the view that the modern Sinhala novel is displaying clear signs of weariness and decline. He advances two primary factors as being responsible for this unfortunate situation. The first is that the creatively nurturing relationship that should exist between the novel and the society at large seems to have been broken. The second is the insatiable desire to imitate blindly the fashions current in the west with scant regard for their relevance. Both these trends, according to Gunadasa Amarasekera, have contributed to the decline of the modern Sinhala novel. Therefore, the model that Amarasekera proposes can be regarded as a curative model.

To examine the true importance of Gunadasa Amarasekera’s model, it would be useful to consider briefly George Lukcas’ approach to the novel. He focused on such concepts as reflection – reality – totality – and typicality. He glossed these in accordance with his deep-seated principles regarding literature and society and the function of the writer in society. Let us, for example consider the notion of reflection.

For Lukacs it is more than the passive mirroring of society; it should not be confined to the externals of society. He held the efforts of naturalists such as Emile Zola in low esteem precisely because of this. According to Lukacs, a work of literature is capable of reflecting society when it is successful in dissecting the deeper social realities. Amarasekara agrees with this assessment; he believes that in the act of reflection, the writer should depict the deeper forces that impinge upon social life.

The concept of realism, in Lukacs’ mind, is closely linked to that of realism. He places great weight on this concept of realism; for him, it constitutes the foundation of thought which makes possible the comprehension of the various forces that are active at a given historical conjuncture. Amarasekera, too, places great emphasis on the constitutive role of realism. The concept of totality is one that is heavily emphasised by Lukacs in his critical writings on the novel.

It was his strongly held belief that novelists should aim to re-contextualise the social totality through their novelistic discourses. He has stated categorically that the concept which enables us to understand reality is totality. By this term he meant the complex of forces that are constantly interacting in society. Gunadasa Amarasekera, in his writings on the Sinhala novel, has underlined the importance of totality.

Totality and typicality

Another concept to which Lukacs attached great significance was that of typicality’. Indeed, there is a visible intimacy between the two concepts of totality and typicality. He once observed that, ‘the central category and criterion of realist literature is the type, a peculiar synthesis which organically binds together the general and particular both in character and situation.’

Ordinarily we deploy the term type in fictional criticism in a disparaging tone, to signify characters that have failed to achieve convincing psychological complexity. Lukacs employs the term in a different sense; he uses this term to reference the way in which a complex character in a novel displays through his or her actions, motivations, relationships the distinctive features endemic to that social class from which he springs. Typicality for him is a way of signaling the uniqueness of a character as well as its representativeness. Gunadasa Amarasekera, in the model of fictional criticism that he pursues recognises the importance of this.

These ideas of reflection, realism, totality and typicality inform Amarasekera’s model as well. In discussing Ediriweera Sarchchandra’s model, I alluded to the fact that he was influenced by analytical philosophy and aesthetics. In the case of Wickemasinghe, he drew upon anthropology and Buddhist thought. Similarly, Amarasekera, in the formulation of his approach to the novel was indebted to the writings of thinkers such as George Lukacs as well as Eric Fromm. However, it is also important to point out that Amarasekera was deeply aware of the limitations of the thinking of Lukacs and Fromm and sought to overcome them in his formulations.

As I stated earlier, Gunadasa Amarasekera’s implicit model of fictional criticism succeeded in advancing the critical positions lines staked out by Sarachchandra and Wickremasinghe. In his model, some of the ideas similar to those of Williams move in the penumbra of the implicit. In my book Sinhala Novel and the Public Sphere and other writings, I have made an attempt to extend the pathways of inquiry suggested by Amarasekera’s model.

In this book, I argued the importance of recognising the vital connection that exists between the novel and the public sphere in Sri Lanka as a way of giving sharper focus and directionality to some of the ideas incipient in the third model. For example, in the Introduction to Sinhala Novel and the Public Sphere I made the following claim. I stated that my intention was to ‘discuss the way I see literature and sociality interface; literature becomes an important facet of the public sphere because of its pronounced and undeniable sociality. Second, in my interpretations of the three novelists I have drawn significantly on the approaches and protocols advanced by modern scholars of cultural studies and therefore, I decided to discuss my understanding of cultural studies and how it connects with the project I have undertaken in this book.’ In other words, I was seeking to draw on the writing of Raymond Williams who was a pioneer of cultural studies.

The three models that I have sketched have had a profound influence on the thought patterns of Sinhala critics and avid readers of literature. The three models show a progressive expansion of discursive boundaries as they labour to incorporate modern thinking on culture and society. This is where Raymond Williams’ writings come in. Admittedly, none of the three models explicitly reference the important critical work of Williams in exploring the possibilities of the novel. However, one discerns certain affinities of interest between Amarasekara and Williams especially in their emphasis in a socially conscious national conversation. In my own work, which in many ways is an extension of the Amarasekera model, I have made a conscious attempt to draw on the work of my teacher Raymond Williams.

Let us briefly re-examine the three models in term of the all important concept of culture’ it figures prominently in the conceptual geography of all three models. However, as we move from Sarachchandra’s model to Wickremasinghe’s, and from Wickremasinghe’s to Amarasekera’s, we discern a gradual and systemic expansion of the concept of culture. In the last model as with Raymond Williams, culture becomes a reflection and construction of a whole way of life, it becomes a site where meanings are constantly made, unmade and re-made; it focuses attention on shared experiences and commonalities as well as antagonisms and negotiations of meaning. This line of thinking is perfectly in keeping with Raymond Williams’ approach to culture.

Shaping reality

It is against this background that I wish to return to Raymond Williams and see how he could be a vital and guiding force as we grapple with issues of evaluating modern Sinhala fiction. Here I wish to emphasise two central concepts that are integral to Williams’ understanding of the art of the novel. They are realism and the knowable community that I have commented in earlier. It is important to bear in mind that fact that Williams was against the moves made by certain theorists, including Lukacs in my judgment, who wished to make privilege realism over other creeds.

At the same time, he was opposed to those who made an attempt to reduce it to a kind of naïve reflectionism, passive mirroring of society. What Williams did was to underscore the fact that while realism made a concerted effort to engage reality, it also, in the hands of its able adherents and imaginative practitioners, pointed to the constitutive role of language. In other words, realism seeks to focus on the toil of language and the processes that facilitate its explorations. The active role played by the novelist in shaping reality has to be constantly borne in mind. As I read Williams’ critical writings, this indeed is a feature that is highlighted effectively. Here we as Sri Lankan readers and critics of the novel cam learn a great deal.

Concept of realism

The second concept is that of the knowable community which is joined at the hip with the notion of realism. If his book the English Novel from Dickens to Lawrence demonstrates anything, it is that the knowable community makes sense, and could be profitably understood, only in terms of realism. In discussing the nineteenth century realist fiction he points out that their strengths lie in their ability to create a knowable community that illuminates a range of social relations that are vital to the narrative discourse of the novels. This might lead to the false conclusion that Williams is seeking to valorize the nineteenth century novel at the expense of later developments. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is equally and ardently interested in twentieth century fiction. He sees the dislocations, disruptions and discontinuities ushered in by modernism. At the same time he sees the importance of the knowable community as a way of underscoring the fact that it is the duty of novelists to re- illuminate and re-imagine these broken social relations to repair them.

It is evident that what Williams is attempting to do is to examine diverse causes which led to the crisis of the knowable community in modern times; among them are urban expansion, the industrial revolution, the spread of urban culture, legislation regarding working classes. What he is keen to point out is that it is not only the social and economic transformations that precipitated this crisis; the changes in the consciousness are equally responsible for this state of affairs.

As he claimed the problem ‘interlocks with the method derived from the new historical consciousness; the new sense of society as not only the bearer but the active creator, the active destroyer, of the values and relationships.’ It is indeed from this vantage point that he seeks to examine the modern novel, and we should, it seems to me, do the same.

Here, we as Sri Lankan readers and writers can learn a great deal from the pathways of inquiry plotted by Raymond Williams. Admittedly, he is talking about the English novel. However, we can make the adjustments and draw out the relevant lessons. How Raymond Williams goes about diagnosing the situation and offering curative measures should ignite our thinking and imagination. Williams’ approach to the novel has much to offer us by way of prodding us to re-map the social function of the Sinhala novel.

The energy that emanates from Williams’ convictions should activate our own thinking, directing it to more exciting destinations. Ideally, our interpretations of Raymond Williams should become vital parts of our own self-understanding.

To be continued