Sri Lankan English: another snooty English speakers' project?

Supplanting a dominant anything by a 'time-contexted' and 'space-contexted' subordinate something rarely if ever involves taking a route that completely ignores or skirts that which is sought to be replaced. There is always conversation. It could be sharp, this encounter, and violent or even subdued, subtle and so nuanced that transformation happens unnoticed, but there is engagement.

It does not matter if that which dominates is alien-born or if it organically arose from a home-soil in the manner of a liberator or emancipatory thrust. The point is that an underclass, whether it is made of people, ideas, genres or schools of creativity, will necessarily engage the dominant other.

This is why all attempts to dislodge the powerful (whatever form it/they can take) involves the requirement of understanding; you have to know your enemy, you have to acquire any weapons that your enemy might have at his/its disposal. Of course not everyone chooses this path. We have always had the bash-head-against-wall school of revolution, but that 'dialectic' does not resolve. It just postpones.

The more serious, reflective and eventually successful will not spit on enemy, but cultivate him, humour him, learn from him, steal his thunder, pity him, and befriend him when he's down and all but out. That's what Mao did, quite in contradiction of the dialectic mode of operation prescribed by text. That's what Mahinda Rajapaksa did. And that, interestingly, was what Jesus Christ advocated when he said 'turn the other cheek', before he was made pin-up boy of the self-limiting Cartesian logicians in Europe over the last two-three centuries.

This is why those who believe that there's 'incompleteness' and therefore intellectual sloth in deferring (by default) to the Euro-centric canon of social theory will study carefully Karl Marx, Emil Durkheim and Max Weber and their extrapolators. And this is why those who want to subvert the tyranny that is/are English(es), should explore that which is referred to (erroneously of course) as 'standard' English, instead of taking one of the two short-cuts available: abandoning all Englishes or celebrating nonsensical dabbling in that language in the mistaken belief that the untenable character of the notion 'standard' means 'any old thing' would do and that this constitutes subversion of 'standard' and associated tyrannies.

Almost twenty years ago, when Arjuna Parakrama did his doctoral work in the University of Pittsburgh on de-hegenomizing language standards, there was very little talk in English-teaching circles about the politics of legitimating non-standard, sorry, 'Sri Lankan' English(es). Today it is 'English Our Way' and that's supposed to be a celebration of the varied character of English and some kind of anti-colonial and even nationalist thrust. Michael Meyler, author of 'A Dictionary of Sri Lankan English' who seems to be on a crusade to give 'Sri Lankan English' parity of status with 'more established varieties' of that language argues against the notion of language standards:

'Sri Lankan writers should be free to write in whichever style and idiom they choose. But I would encourage them not to be stifled by the traditionalists who try to tell them that Sri Lankan English is somehow inferior and does not have a place in serious literature. Just because we admire Jane Austen, doesn't mean we have to write like her in 21st century Sri Lanka. British and American literature abound in examples of writers who have written in a fiercely original, colloquial and non-standard style, many of whom have subsequently been seen as among the greatest writers of their times.' (Sri Lanka English: the state of the debate, in www.groundviews.org, April 27, 2010).

All nice and comfy of course and we can talk about this over a cup of tea at 2.34 pm in some living room in a non-Sri Lankan English that the people of this country are now being told they don't have to learn. The politics of language is not simple and should not be treated simplistically. On the ground, we have to recognize that language 'standards' do exist; they cut and chop, ridicule, single out for exclusion etc. Meyler seems to believe that codifying non-standard English, especially the Sri Lankan variety/varieties is the foundation on which the non-standard will cross swords with the 'standard' (shall I call it 'Snooty English'?). I am not so sure.

There are other pathways to subverting Snooty English or more logically the 'Snooty English speakers' or 'snooty English speakers' (the latter, more than the former, is what 'revolution' might require). There are some very apparent dangers in promoting 'English Our Way' to begin with. It can quickly send the enterprise sliding down the anything-goes road to Incoherent English or mumbo-jumbo. It can give the Sri Lankan English speaker a false sense of security and achievement while leaving intact the relevant class distinctions and tyrannies pertaining to and flowing from language. It can all end up in a massive Orientalist party with halfwits praising one another for raising the banner of mediocrity.

It is fashionable for Snooty English-speakers to use Sri Lankan English. Meyers has mentioned Jehan Aloysius' 'The Ritual' and finds it hard to think of any other way to evoke the 'Sinhala atmosphere'. I don't know if there is any other way and I am not sure if any such rendering is necessary either. I haven't seen Jehan's play but a lot of Sri Lanka Englishing that happens in our theatre smacks of unadulterated snootiness, elitism and insufferable Orientalism and only someone who is oblivious to language politics in the larger polity can take it all as 'step forward' and even advocate 'more of the same'.

There are other ways. Necessary steps. They involve acquiring the enemy's weapons. This is why someone like Gamini Haththotuwegama was never celebrated by the Snooty English Speakers. There are no short cuts to revolution. Well, we may fool ourselves into believing that a coup d'etat is revolution but reality has way of making bottom hit rough patch. Haththotuwegama didn't end up turning things on their head, but he certainly made the 'establishment' wobble and I doubt if it will recover steady-feet any time soon.

There are situations where Sri Lankan Englishing is empowering and emancipatory of course. When someone who knows Snooty English engages in that kind of Englishing, it is essentially a turning of the sword against oppressor. And yet, if that sword-turner has only a smattering-understanding of the vernacular, its nuance, standard and non-standard variants and of course the relevant and larger politics, it will remain a self-indulgent and ultimately self-defeating dabbling. The status quo will remain 'standard' and the tyrannies will be intact.

Let me return to the business of tyranny, the weapons of tyranny and subverting the status quo. The powerful have a weapon. Let's say a sharp sword. The weak will not be allowed to touch it. Neither will the weak be encouraged to manufacture their own sword. Let's assume that some good-hearted member of the elite wants to correct historical wrongs. Such an individual would realize soon enough that some swords cannot be stolen and might not think it's a good idea to steal them anyway because it would just reverse the violence. Therefore, in the interest of a 'level playing field' (!) the 'underclass' could be offered a sword of similar make and edge.

I think the true test of 'generosity' when it comes from the privileged lies in the readiness to give without reservation. Why not offer the full range of weapons, 'standard', non-standard, snooty, vulgar, classical etc etc? Why throw a play-sword made of plastic and say 'ok, brother, you've got the tools now; go ahead and fight!'? Have the 'weak' been asked what they want, I wonder. Or are they being told, 'this far and no further' without putting it like that or worse, making them believe that they are getting Shakespeare for the price of, say, Michael Meyler?

Here's a reality check: are there any standard-bearers for 'Sri Lankan English' who are neither Snooty English Speakers nor loath to speak or 'work' Sri Lankan English in non-Orientalist and snooty ways?

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at [email protected]