Opinion

Pluriversity and subversity, let’s see them?

Published

4 years ago

2022/03/15

Is writing in Spanish, French, English, Arabic, Chinese or Japanese a sign of a colonised mind? Is reading in any of those languages a sign of an infection of colonialism? Is directing Oedipus Rex in English by a Sri Lankan professor, in a Ghana, university a sign of damning colonisation? Was Ludowyk, when he directed Androcles the Lion in the University of Colombo, trying to colonise young minds? Is listening to Schubert or Stravinsky an act of a colonised mind? Is writing in Pali to a Sinhala audience in the 21st century an antidote to colonised minds? What is a colonised university and what is a de-colonised one? What comprises decolonized education and pedagogy? One is grateful to Professor Andi Schubert for permitting even a man outside academia to raise these questions. Oftentimes, the writing on these subjects is so dense and mind-boggling that one dares not touch it but with an extra-long barge pole.

I am still confounded by the use of the terms ‘pluriversity’ and ‘subversity’ attributed to Boaventura (is an n missing?) de Sousa Santos (whom I have not read) in last Wednesday’s The Island. The term university, that we use, is mediaeval Latin in origin. When the Pope issued a Bull addressing ‘universitas vestra’, he was addressing the collective of students and teachers to whom he gave a charter establishing a universitas generale, the progenitor of modern universities. The Pope established a teaching institution with its own privileges and rights and still there are echoes of that autonomy in running universities. The university, in structure, still is a mediaeval institution. There are rectors, vice-chancellors, faculties, departments, professors and lecturers as there were in Bologna, Montpellier, Oxford or Wittenberg. US universities have a system of administration headed by a President but a Provost, Deans, Faculties, Departments and Professors carry on the functions of a university, regardless. Derek Bok, a distinguished President of Harvard, gave currency to the term multiversity to recognise the multiplicity of functions carried on by universities in the US in contrast to the practices common in Europe. The term has not been in use now for almost a half-century. Universities whether in Nsukka, Montevideo, Yokohama, Wollongong or Walla Walla have been able to accommodate changes in university life across the world and centuries. It is now more than 1,000 years since the first universitas generale was founded. Universities have been able to accommodate within their structure the incredible expansion in knowledge from the quadrium to natural and moral philosophy. For someone who mastered a discipline in the humanities 30 years ago, it is impossible now to step into a classroom with confidence. It is not simply that what was taught has drastically changed during those years but that the methods of learning, research and teaching have undergone change. Yet the university has not changed.

Then why pluriversity and subversity? For effect? Silly, isn’t that? By all means, engage in ‘challenging the continued functioning of capitalism and colonialism in pedagogy and intellectual production’ and succeed. But forgetting the origin of the term university is no promising way to do that. Karl Marx challenged the whole caboodle of the superstructure of knowledge in capitalist societies to great effect. Universities teach and research on the lines that he showed us more than 150 years ago. It is true of the great work of Michel Foucault; he worked at one of the oldest universities in the world. We also find that societies that claim to be communist have universities no different in structure from those in capitalist societies. It may be written in Cyrillic but the structure of a university in Moscow is no different from that of Charles X in Prague. In Hanyu, it is Beijing da xue or Tsinghua da xue, but in structure, they are no different from Northwestern University in Chicago.

What’s in a name? If you want to subvert the ‘continued function of capitalism and colonialism in pedagogy and intellectual production’, go ahead and do it. If it comes soon enough, I would enjoy the fun.

Old Fogey

All News Advertisement

Opinion

Those who play at bowls must look out for rubbers

Published

18 hours ago

2026/01/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake should listen at least to the views of the Mothers’ Front on proposed educational reforms.

I was listening to the apolitical views expressed by the mothers’ front criticising the proposed educational reforms of the government and I found that their views were addressing some of the core questionable issues relevant to the schoolchildren, and their parents, too.

They were critical of the way the educational reforms were formulated. The absence of any consultation with the stakeholders or any accredited professional organisation about the terms and the scope of education was one of the key criticisms of the Mothers’ Front and it is critically important to comprehend the validity of their opposition to the proposed reforms. Further, the proposals do include ideas and designs borrowed from some of the foreign countries which they are now re-evaluating in view of the various shortcomings which they themselves have encountered. On the subject, History, it is indeed unfortunate that it has been included as an optional, whereas in many developed countries it is a compulsory subject; further, in the module the subject is practically limited to pre-historic periods whereas Sri Lanka can proudly claim a longer recorded history which is important to be studied for the students to understand what happened in the past and comprehend the present.

Another important criticism of the Mothers’ Front was the attempted promotion of sexuality in place of sex education. Further there is a visible effort to promote trans-gender concepts as an example when considering the module on family unit which is drawn with two males and a child and two females and a child which are nor representative of Sri Lankan family unit.

Ranjith Soysa

Opinion

Seeds of discord

Published

18 hours ago

2026/01/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

When the LTTE massacred people, mostly Sinhalese Buddhists, government leaders never claimed that the Tamil community, which the LTTE claimed to represent, was driven by hatred. That restraint mattered. That is why it was outrageous to hear President Anura Kumara Dissanayake tell Tamils that Buddhists visiting the North to worship were doing so out of spite. If reports are accurate, the President also declared that we needed a prosperous nation free of racism and united in spirit. Yet, in the same breath he sowed seeds of division recklessly.

Had he spoken in Tamil or English, some might have dismissed it as a slip of the tongue. But in Sinhala, the words carried unmistakable intent. Who could have expected such divisive rhetoric to come from the head of a nation now enjoying fragile coexistence, after enduring a 30‑year war and two insurrections that devastated the economy?

A Ratnayake

Opinion

Where are we heading?

Published

18 hours ago

2026/01/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

The Island editorial, dated 22 January, 2026, under the title ‘Conspiracy to subvert constitutional order,’ is an eye-opener to those who supported the so-called Äragalaya in July 2022 and those who voted to bring the current regime into power with various positive expectations, including ‘ a system change’. ( https://island.lk/conspiracy-to-subvert-constitutional-order/ )

The editorial highlighted, with irrefutable evidence, how a foreign diplomat and a group of Sri Lankans, consisting of some religious leaders (a Buddhist monk, some Catholic priests) and a trade unionist, made a blatantly illegal bid to pressure the then Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to take over the executive presidency in violation of the Constitution. The intention of the intimidator tactics was said to be to create in Sri Lanka a situation similar to that in Libya.

The editorial also mentioned how Minister K.D. Lal Kantha and his JVP attempted to lead the Aragalaya protestors to capture Parliament, but without success. Addressing a public rally, under the title ‘Let’s read Lenin’, a few days ago, Minister Lal Kantha has revealed that their planning was to follow what Lenin had said and done during the Russian revolution. Minister Lal Kantha said: “We do not have the power of the State although we managed to obtain the power of the Government. Hence, we are now engaged in the struggle to win the power of the State’’.

In a democratic society, there is a need to ensure maintaining Law and Order without any state interference. It looks like the intention of the Minister is to bring the Police, Armed Forces and the Judiciary, including all the State Services, under direct control of the ruling party, by filling those positions with JVP loyalists to suppress the opponents of the government.

There is also an attempt by the JVP-led forces to remove the Attorney General by making unsubstantiated allegations against him. As per a latest news item in The Island, under the title “Opposition slams sitting HC judge’s appointment as Justice Ministry additional Secretary”, is alleging President Anura Kumara Dissanayake of trying to control the judiciary by appointing a sitting High Court judge as Additional Secretary to the Justice and National Integration Ministry. (https://island.lk/opposition-slams-sitting-hc-judges-appointment-as-justice-ministry-additional-secretary/)

On the other hand, the ruling party is trying to appoint one of their cronies as Auditor General, possibly, to cover up a number of questionable deals made during the year they ruled and to ensure achieving the so-called power of the State.

Unless the people, especially those who naively dreamt of ‘a system change’, have a clear understanding of the ultimate goal and motives of the ongoing changes and take appropriate actions to protect their own democratic rights, they will be left with no other alternative but to live under a repressive government.

Sangadasa Akurugoda