Midweek Review

Connectivism and higher education

Published

3 years ago

2023/03/29

By Panduka Karunanayake

Connectivism is the term used to denote a new way of human learning in contemporary digital society that appears to be rapidly replacing older ways of learning. It is an emergent property of the Digital Age. It has emerged on a background of three global trends, viz., the new nature of knowledge, the wide availability of information & communication technology (ICT), and the new nature of employment. These three global trends owe their existence to the digital revolution and globalisation, which are inextricably intertwined. Wherever in the global village these trends may permeate, we can expect connectivism to follow.

While the phenomenon must have gradually emerged in the last several decades, the term itself is still relatively new. It was first used by psychologist George Siemens less than 20 years ago, and it is still not widely used – nor the phenomenon widely appreciated – even in higher education circles. But its importance is enormous, because of its wide reach and the significant changes it engenders. It has affected several fields already, including learning theories, the structure of organisations, and pedagogical practices in higher education – all of which are crucial for universities.

However, it is important to keep in mind that this is only how things are – not necessarily how things should be. The question of whether connectivism is good or bad is a different issue, and that is still quite open.

But whether or not connectivism is desirable, it cannot be ignored. We need to understand and make appropriate responses to it, in accordance with our own societal values and goals – much like with regard to globalisation itself. Just because we ignore connectivism, it will not simply disappear; instead, our own practices would merely become ineffective and irrelevant with time, our own goals would remain unfulfilled in the end, and our own values would be lost. To some extent, this is already happening.

The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to connectivism and explain its importance within higher education, with a view to creating awareness and encouraging appropriate responses in the academia and even among intellectuals in general.

Underlying global trends

The three underlying global trends of the Digital Age that have formed the background for the emergence of connectivism are the new nature of knowledge, the wide availability of ICT, and the new nature of employment in contemporary knowledge society.

Knowledge has always played a pivotal role in all human societies – not just in the so-called knowledge societies. That is because one of the important causative or contributory factors to human social behaviour is that society’s culture, and culture is driven by human knowledge. Knowledge has always had an ephemeral and tentative quality, although the general human tendency has been to deny this and give it an artificial air of permanence – as evident in terms like ‘gospel truth’, ‘truths written in stone’, ‘scientific facts’, ‘proven’ or ‘evidence-based’ practices, and so on.

The new nature of knowledge has unceremoniously kicked out this unconscious denial – not by design but by accident. The ephemeral nature of knowledge is now quite obvious – and intensified and even justified. Today, knowledge doubles approximately every 72 days, and the ‘half-life’ of knowledge (i.e., the time after which it is outdated and incorrect, even if it is not discarded) has shrunk. We are compelled to keep chasing after more knowledge, both because new knowledge emerges and also because pre-existing knowledge quickly loses its currency (i.e., its validity and uptodateness). If we don’t join this ‘chase’, we would quickly because irrelevant and ineffective.

As the Red Queen says in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

This new nature of knowledge is closely entwined with the widespread availability of new ICT – indeed, it is hard to decide which is the cause and which is the effect. We have a plethora of ICT-related methods of acquiring new knowledge, starting with Wikipedia a few decades ago, through to a multitude of online sources of information and platforms of learning, both formal and informal. Crucial to higher education in this regard has been the advent of massive open and online courses (MOOCs), which occurred during the first decade of this century. But of course, not all of these sources are reliable (or more precisely, they are not equally reliable).

Particularly important in this regard is the arrival of Web 2.0: when Internet users became both its consumers (by downloading content) and producers (by uploading content, such as text, images, videos and so on). As a result, both consumption and production of knowledge have become ‘democratised’, enormously diversified, and hugely variable with regard to reliability and usefulness. Standardisation of knowledge, which was once unreservedly given over to ‘experts’, has now become almost unattainable and, in a post-modern world, even questionable.

The new nature of employment of today is the result of the globalisation of capital and production as well as the new nature of knowledge, which has made obtaining knowledge with currency a never-ending chase. In today’s workplace, employees change their jobs frequently. They also seek new types of employment in unpredictable fields (i.e., not strictly in line with their previous training, subject of graduation, etc.) and often go and fit very well into fields that are unrelated to their previous employment or even qualifications. Transferable skills have become the only set of truly necessary skills – because everything else can be readily acquired, has a shrunken half-life, or can be easily hired. The only essential learning one must possess is ‘learning to learn’.

As a result of all this, there is a general tendency to overlook or ignore ‘expertise’ in knowledge and instead value ‘currency’ of knowledge. Whether or not knowledge is considered effective for a specified purpose is given more value than whether or not it is inherently correct in the bigger picture.

What is actually ‘new’ in connectivism?

It is important to understand exactly what is ‘new’ about connectivism. After all, we already do seek new knowledge and use ICT in our work, extend beyond our original disciplinary ‘comfort zone’ through various multi-disciplinary programmes of work (‘combinatorial creativity’), and teach using online platforms such as Zoom. So, isn’t this also ‘connectivism’? What is the qualitative difference between our current practice and connectivism?

The simplest way to understand this difference is by beginning with the participants. The participants (or more precisely, the terms of participation) in the two systems are different. Let me name the participants in our current higher education system as a Group, and those in connectivism as a Network. According to the terms of participation, the same person may belong to different Groups and Networks at the same time.

A Group is made up of members who have fulfilled predetermined criteria for membership and recruitment (such as educational qualifications and admission criteria), are bound by practices of standardisation (such as disciplinary standards, subject benchmarks and professional codes), and are therefore sharing a ‘sameness’. The knowledge they receive or give may be new, but it is controlled by standards, academic practices and so on; in other words, it is standardised and ‘revealed’ to newcomers, who ‘accumulate it’ by transfer, while new knowledge is ‘additive’ in the sense that it is built on exisiting knowledge in a systematic and predictable fashion (except during Kuhn’s paradigm shifts). This is epitomised even in the concept of the curriculum, which is based on the assumption that knowledge is some sort of ‘certain’ entity, that it can be gradually ‘revealed’ to newcomers, that those who fulfill criteria of acquisition can be ‘certified’ as knowledgeable, and that the possession of the degree certificate can ‘vouch’ for this.

On the other hand, a Network is made up of a wide diversity of people: educated as well as uneducated, qualified and unqualified, knowledgeable and not, novice and expert, traditional and iconoclastic, conservative and maverick, and so on. They not only seek knowledge but also add to it. New knowledge is not additive but unpredictable and ‘emergent’ in this complex, chaotic scenario. Those who seek as well as create knowledge are autonomous and not bound by rules of training, recruitment or standardisation. It is this unrestricted, ungovernable ‘openness’ and the resulting diversity that make connectivism qualitatively totally different to what we ourselves are doing with technology at the moment.

This is also the reason why, in recent times, ‘expertise’ has taken a back seat and has been replaced by ‘currency’. Currency in this sense is highly specific to the task at hand and is a neverending chase – what has currency today (or for one task) could easily lose it tomorrow (or be useless in another task).

Implications for learning

What are the implications of connectivism for learning?

First, it highlights the importance of lifelong learning. In the nineteenth century, persons who left school or university could reasonably expect to complete their full working life with the set of knowledge that they possessed at the start of their career – a person who ‘completes’ education back then could have been considered ‘a finished product’. Today, persons leaving schools and universities should expect to keep learning, so much so that what they know would become entirely overhauled in about twenty years.

Secondly, learning and working are inseparable; both are but one process. We can no longer recruit employees because they ‘know things’, but because they can ‘learn and do things’. As a result, the instrumental value of knowledge far outstrips any intrinsic value it may possess. The single most valued quality of knowledge is its currency – which, importantly, also happens to have a short half-life.

Thirdly, the process of learning becomes more important than the content of learning, because we are aware that the currency of the current content of knowledge will soon be lost. The ability to see connections between fields, ideas and concepts becomes a core skill, because it gives us access to new knowledge, including innovating. The capacity to know more is more important than what is known. Maintaining and nurturing connectedness become crucial.

Fourthly, while current technology merely facilitates learning (e.g., databases, online learning), in connectivism it will also shape our learning. It will ‘off-load’ much of the learning – from our minds onto devices, databases, etc. Learning will begin to reside in non-human appliances. An evocative, mundane example is the rise of the calculator (which is now part of even our mobile phones) and the simultaneous redundancy of basic mathematics skills in the general population. Today, not even a cashier in a shop can make a simple addition, even with pen and paper – he too needs a calculator to ‘do the math’! Some people who are used to digital clocks cannot tell the time by looking at the traditional clock face, because the latter requires knowing the multiplication table for 5. In both these examples, learning has shifted from our minds to appliances. With artificial intelligence, machine learning and robotics, this will become even more commonplace and crucial.

Fifthly, the organisation must become a learning organism. It must pay attention to needs such as knowledge management. The need for trust, collaboration and accountability among its employees becomes crucial – without this, not only would the organisation be static and unsuccessful, but even the employees would become outdated, unskilled and unemployable. It is no longer the case that one knowledgeable person ‘knows’, but that an organisation as a whole learns and knows.

Sixthly, new sciences like complexity science, chaos theory, network science and studying uncertainty will become extremely important – they will be the new ‘basic sciences’ of the workplace. A university that does not have these subjects will likely become obsolete or, at best, a repository of ‘old knowledge’.

Seventhly, there are major implications of connectivism to older learning theories (which were mostly derived from Psychology and Anthropology). Knowledge is no longer ‘brain-based’, because it may reside in devices, databases, etc. The human mind may therefore have to leave its basic rules of operation, like simplicity, parsimony and regularity; instead, it will need to learn how to deal with complexity and uncertainty.

Implications for higher education

Higher education must learn about connectivism, for two reasons. First, we must learn and adjust to this, to stay in the knowledge field (i.e., to be effective scholars). We must also carefully study its implications to our teaching practices and take care to impart relevant skills to our students (i.e., to be effective teachers).

Secondly, it is crucial to remember that this is only an account of how things are – not necessarily how things should be. As academics, one of our most crucial roles is in this latter aspect: analysing situations, imagining alternatives, evaluating choices, and justifying judgements. In particular, connectivism is closely entwined with the march of globalisation, the rise of neoliberal economics, the changing nature of industries, the new nature of knowledge, and the evolving demands made on the workforce. It is therefore directly originating from, and serves the agenda of, the power-wielding segments of global industry and has the potential to reproduce and intensify the inequities at the global level. As academics, we have a crucial role to understand and critically evaluate these ‘umbilical cord connections’ of connectivism. What is more, in the wake of climate change that is driven by these global trends, this becomes a huge responsibility that we owe to our future generations.

In short, we must simultaneously understand and adopt connectivism where we must, as well as critique and shape it for the benefit of the wider society and future generations.

Concluding remarks

The purpose of this article was to create an awareness of connectivism, so that we can collectively explore these implications, especially to the field of higher education. We need to be prepared to face a future with connectivism, including connectivist learning theories, and help the wider society to reap the benefits and navigate the minefield thereof, as well as speak up for the future generations. Ignoring connectivism is not an option.

(The writer teaches Medicine in the University of Colombo.)

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Connectivism and higher education

Up Next

Blind security sector reforms:

Don't Miss

Over a decade after the war ended:The threat persists

Click to comment

Midweek Review

22A: Developing constitutional quagmire

Published

7 days ago

2026/08/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

The government’s high profile project to enact the 22nd Amendment failed to secure any tangible support from anyone outside the NPP, in Parliament or outside. In a statement, the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) noted that the proposed amendment concerned the sovereignty of the people and, therefore, required approval through a referendum. The ITAK, a key member of the six-party Political Council of Tamil-Speaking people (PCTSP) and the second largest party in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, other than the NPP, is opposed to President Dissanayake’s move. Tamil Progressive Party (TPA) leader and former Minister Mano Ganeshan, also of the PCTSP, has rejected the 22nd Amendment. The Island learns that all political parties, represented in the PCTSP, are opposed to the proposed Amendment.

The NPP obtained the most seats at the Parliamentary General Election 2024. Other parties that managed to gain seats in Parliament are the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB/40 seats), Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK/8 seats), New Democratic Front (NDF/5 seats), Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP/3 seats), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC/1), Sarvajana Balaya (SB/1), United National Party (UNP/1), Democratic Tamil National Alliance (DTNA/1), All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC/1), All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC/1), Jaffna – Independent Group 17 (IND17-1) and the Sri Lanka Labour Party (SLLP/1).

Timeline

* March 30, 2026, BASL wrote to Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara seeking a meeting to discuss 22A

* May 25, 2026, BASL wrote to President Dissanayake seeking a meeting to discuss the same

* July 16, 2026, BASL wrote again to the Justice Minister underscoring the failure on his part and the President to respond to previous letters

* July 27, 2026, NPP executive committee member advocate Lal Wijenayake declared opposition to the government move

* July 29, 2026, BASL met the Justice Minister, sought a meeting with President Dissanayake

* July 31, 2026, Mahanayakes of four Chapters (Nikayas) wrote a joint letter to President Dissanayake urging him not to go ahead with the 22nd Amendment. But, the Mahanayakes refrained from releasing the letter to the media

* August 3, 2026, BASL disclosed the Mahanayakes’ letter to the President. Justice Minister Nanayakkara, accompanied by Health and Media Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayathissa, visited the Mahanayakes to explain the government stand. But, they denied receiving the crucial letter

* August 7, 2026, UN requested President Dissanayake, in no uncertain terms, to abandon the move.

* August 11, 2026, Government admitted receiving the Mahanayakes letter

* August 18, 2026, 22nd Amendment Bill presented in Parliament. Those opposed to the constitutional amendment began filing petitions. The BASL led the way. By 24 August, 21 petitions were filed.

* August 20, 2026, Catholic Bishops’ Conference urged the government not to proceed without adequate consultations.

* August 24, 2026, BASL, in a motion filed in the Supreme Court, suggested that Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena recuse from hearing the petitions

By Shamindra Ferdinando

In support of the ruling National People’s Power (NPP) government’s highly contentious move to enact the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution despite worldwide condemnation by eminent jurists, meant to extend the retirement ages of superior court judges, NPP leader and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake will address a series of countrywide meetings.

Dissanayake is also the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the main constituent of the governing party.

Justice and National Integration Minister and Attorney-at-Law Harshana Nanayakkara, on 18 August, 2026, tabled the controversial 22nd Amendment Bill in Parliament. Nanayakkara also tabled the Judicature (Amendment) Bill on the same day. That will pave the way for the increase of the retirement ages of High Court judges to 63 years, and District Court and Magistrate Court judges to 62 years. The government wants to increase the retirement ages of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges to 67 and 65, respectively.

However, the government has proposed a six-year term for the Chief Justice but he/she will have to retire at the new mandatory retirement age of 67.

Health and Media Minister, as well as Cabinet spokesman Dr. Nalinda Jayathissa, recently announced the decision to launch the high profile propaganda campaign on 5 September. The NPP and JVP leader has vowed to enact the 22nd Amendment, come what may.

Dissanayake, who took over the party leadership on 2 February, 2014, at the 17th convention of the JVP, and formed the NPP in 2019, has indicated that he wouldn’t, under any circumstances, give up the 22nd Amendment. Dissanayake didn’t mince his words when he received a top level delegation of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) at the Presidential Secretariat, on 12 August, to discuss the burning issue wracking the country. It would be pertinent to mention that the BASL raised the issue with Dissanayake, on 25 May, after Nanayakkara ignored their first request, made on 31 March.

The Supreme Court will hear over 20 petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment Bill. Now that the matter is before the Supreme Court, the main opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) shouldn’t have sought to involve the BASL in a futile attempt to educate the NPP parliamentary group. The BASL, too, should know better. The BASL and SJB are among those who moved the Supreme Court. Against that background it would be unthinkable that the NPP parliamentary group wants to listen to BASL. Government activists, on Monday (24), organised a protest outside BASL Secretariat, NO. 153, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12 demanding the resignation of BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya.

SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa clashed in Parliament with the leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake over his bid to bring in the BASL team to address the whole Parliament. NPP National List lawmaker Najith Indika declared on X that “the Opposition Leader couldn’t call all MPs for meetings. BASL either does not follow parliamentary procedure or knows how to manipulate public perception.”

The Supreme Court will receive petitions during two weeks, after the tabling of the Amendment. The Court should inform the Speaker of its determination within three weeks. Parliament will receive that determination ahead of President Dissanayake completing his second year in Office. The last presidential election was held on 21 September 2024.

Dissanayake won a five-year term and in November, the same year, led the party to a resounding victory at the parliamentary poll. The NPP/JVP position is that both Bills can be enacted with a 2/3 majority. With a mammoth 159 seats in Parliament, the government is confident that its political project can be easily achieved. But, the NPP operation has run into significant opposition with the United Nations, throwing its weight behind the BASL-led campaign.

Tabling of the two Bills on 18 August coincided with the 39th anniversary of the JVP grenade attack on the UNP parliamentary group, in the wake of the signing of the Indo-Lanka peace accord in 1987. Ajith Kumara, at that time a minor parliamentary employee, lobbed a hand grenade at the UNP group meeting, chaired by President J.R. Jayewardena. Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa, too, was present. The then National Security Minister Lalith Athulathmudali narrowly escaped death in the attack that took place in the Committee Room 1 of Parliament. Deniyaya MP and Matara District Minister Keerthi Abeywickrema was killed. The writer covered the funeral, held on 22 August, 1987, at the playground of the Morawaka Maha Vidyalaya. Then the young Minister in charge of Youth Affairs and Employment, Ranil Wickremesinghe, was among those who represented the government at the funeral.

Kumara had been recruited as a sweeper by no less a person than the then Secretary General of Parliament, Nihal Seneviratne. Had Kumara been a member of the proscribed JVP at the time he joined the parliamentary staff or did the JVP approach him later?

The Colombo High Court acquitted Ajith Kumara on 12 October, 1990, and released him from custody on 6 August, 1993. Subsequently, the JVP accommodated Ajith Kumara on the party’s politburo and paved the way for him to contest the Sabaragamuwa Provincial Council poll on the JVP ticket. With fat hopes the JVP named him their chief ministerial candidate.

Key Opp demands

Pointing out that the matter before the Supreme Court judges related to them, the BASL requested that a bench consisting of a full court, comprising all the judges, be constituted to determine the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment Bill. The BASL also requested the Supreme Court to determine that the Bill is inconsistent with Article 3 of the Constitution and required approval by the people at a referendum.

In the alternative, the BASL sought determination that Clause 2 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 3 of the Constitution and required approval by the people at a referendum and Clause 3 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 3 of the Constitution and required approval by the people at a referendum.

Essentially, all petitioners have requested for a full court, comprising all Supreme Court judges and a referendum, if ordered, it’ll be the second instance. The first referendum was held in December 1982. The UNP that won an unbeatable 5/6 majority in a 168-member Parliament, at the 1977 parliamentary election, obtained a mandate of the people to extend the life of Parliament by six years. That utterly undemocratic, unreasonable and treacherous act contributed to the overall deterioration of the country. By the time the 1989 parliamentary poll was held, the police, backed by the armed forces, were fighting the JVP in the South, and the Indian Army, deployed in the Northern and Eastern regions, in terms of the Indo-Lanka Accord.

Former External Affairs Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris, convenor of the Joint Opposition grouping, too, moved the Supreme Court against the 22nd Amendment, and General Secretary of the SJB Ranjith Maddumabandara did the same. Altogether there were nearly two dozen petitioners

Ex-Law Professor Peiris has vigorously campaigned against the government move, and the weekly media briefing. held at former President Wickremesinghe’s Flower Road Office, has become the focal point of the Opposition campaign. Peiris insists that the Supreme Court shouldn’t hear the petitions as justices were direct beneficiaries of the proposed Amendment. Therefore, determination should be made at a referendum. In case the Supreme Court decides to hear the petitions, the full court consisting of all judges should be constituted to determine the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment Bill, the former parliamentarian has asserted.

As repeatedly stressed by Prof. Peiris, two previous determinations by the Supreme Court that the alteration of superior court judges’ retirement ages should be subject to a referendum cannot be disregarded, under any circumstances. One of the determinations is of crucial importance as former Chief Justice Murdhu Fernando (December 2024 to July 2025) served on the three-member bench that made the far reaching announcement in 2022.

But, the BASL made an unexpected move on Monday. Close on the heels of its petition against the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, the BASL filed a motion in the Supreme Court suggesting that Chief Justice Preethi Padman Suresena recuse from hearing petitions.

Petitioners BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya and its Secretary Nalin de Silva cited Attorney General as the respondent in a motion filed in terms of Article 121 read with Article 120 of the Constitution to determine whether the Bill, titled “Twenty Second Amendment to the Constitution,” or any part thereof, is required to be passed by a Referendum in terms of Article 83 of the Constitution.

The BASL pointed out that the first Judge of the Supreme Court, who would benefit if this Bill is enacted into law without the process of a referendum, is the Chief Justice, and further that if a referendum is mandated, then that there is a possibility that the Chief Justice may retire before its completion, and if for those reasons, the Chief Justice wished to recuse from hearing this matter, then the petitioners have requested the Chief Justice to constitute a bench comprising of all other judges in Supreme Court.

The maximum number of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges are 17, including the CJ and 20 judges ,including the President of the Court of Appeal, respectively. The NPP caused controversy by not filling vacancies among the superior court judges with the Opposition alleging there were four vacancies each. There’ll be another vacancy among the Court of Appeal judges in the first week of September.

The warning issued by the UN following a spate of other statements from various local and international bodies has brought tremendous pressure on the government. Having initially denied any knowledge of a joint letter, dated July 31, addressed to President Dissanayake by the Malwatta, Asgiriya, Amarapura and Ramanna chapters, the government, on 11 August, admitted the President received the letter.

However, the Catholic Bishops Conference publicly commented on this issue, only on 20 August, after all other concerned parties censured the government over the move. A section of the civil society that portrayed the 22nd Amendment as the panacea for a mountain of cases held up in courts had no option but to sing a different tune after the UN warned the NPP government over the pet project that seemed to have backfired. The UN’s position rattled the government and its backers.

18A and 20A

War-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa enacted 18th Amendment to the Constitution in early September 2010. That despicable political project did away with a two-term time limit for the executive president and expanded presidential powers over independent commissions. That Bill received 161 votes, two more than the NPP parliamentary group. But, 18A didn’t do any good for President Rajapaksa or his party. Maithripala Sirisena, General Secretary of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s party, betrayed him, won the 2015 presidential election, and created an utterly undesirable political environment that, over a period of 10 years, ruined the country’s major political parties.

The emergence of the NPP as the dominant power should be examined taking into consideration the deterioration of the UNP, SLFP and the SLPP. The UNP and SLFP are no longer represented in Parliament while the SLPP that won a commanding 145 seats at the 2020 parliamentary poll was reduced to just three lawmakers in Parliament. SLPP’s National Organiser Namal Rajapaksa was so concerned about the transformation of the political environment he took refuge in the National List. Had he not taken that precaution, he wouldn’t be in Parliament today. While the SLPP deteriorated from 145 seats to just three, the NPP, whose 2020 parliamentary group consisted of just three, including one National List member (Dr. Harini Amarasuriya) ended up taking 159 seats, the best results achieved under the Proportional Representation system introduced in 1989.

Having handsomely won the 2019 presidential election, Gotabaya Rajapaksa brought in the 20th Amendment aimed at further consolidating his hold on power. Basil Rajapaksa, a dual citizen of Sri Lanka and the US, wanted to enter Parliament through the National List. The Rajapaksas removed a particular clause through the 19th Amendment to enable Basil Rajapaksa to enter Parliament. Subsequently, the SLPP accommodated Basil Rajapaksa in the Cabinet as the all-powerful Finance Minister. He succeeded Mahinda Rajapaksa in July 2021. But by then, the national economy had suffered irreparable damage and the 20th Amendment, meant to consolidate executive power, seemed irrelevant. Public protest campaign that received overt and covert US and Indian backing was launched in March 2022, leading to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s unceremonious ouster in July of same year due to India and Western backed violent protests.

The 18th Amendment and the 20th Amendment were enacted at the expense of particularly the 17th and 19th Amendments, respectively.

The Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) has alleged that the 22nd Amendment would enable the government to implement its neoliberal programme. The breakaway JVP group has asserted that the government’s sinister project is intended to remove whatever obstacles to its neoliberal strategy.

FSP’s Education Secretary Pubudu Jayagoda said: “A new Fisheries Act will divide the ocean into plots, lease the fish-rich areas to multinational corporations, and deprive local fishermen the opportunity to catch fish in the deep sea. The biggest obstacle to this is the fishermen. A Quality Assurance and Accreditation Commission Act is being drafted to grant state recognition and legality to degree mills. Three thousand schools are going to be closed, depriving children of the fundamental right to education. To do that, every pillar of the state must be brought under government control. A long list can be given: privatising hospital laboratory services, selling off state institutions, bringing forward new repressive laws like the PSTA (Protection of the State from Terrorism Act), and a new Cooperatives Act that snatches away people’s funds—many things like that. Taking the arbitrary power required to execute these into the hands of the executive is the true objective of this constitutional amendment.”

Midweek Review

Shakespeare’s female characters

Published

7 days ago

2026/08/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

Ophelia in a scene from Hamlet

Displaying Gender-Based Issues that Resonate with Our Times

by Dr. Siri Galhenage
Psychiatrist [Retd]

In most of William Shakespeare’s plays, the protagonists are male. He created such memorable characters as Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Prospero, Coriolanus, the monarchs of history plays and many others – heroes as well as villains. This was a reflection of the societal values of the time. Women were not permitted to perform on stage, and all female roles were played by young males – a practice that continued for nearly half a century after Shakespeare’s death. This was so even though Elizabeth 1, the learned female monarch of England and Ireland and a humanist, occupied the throne during most of Shakespeare’s writing life [1580–1613], and extended her patronage to his plays.

Nevertheless, compared with his contemporaries Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson, Shakespeare wrote a greater number of plays featuring prominent female characters that drove the narratives, providing insights into intra-psychic, interpersonal, social and moral aspects of life.

I have selected two such female characters from Shakespeare’s plays and another from one of his narrative poems to illustrate this idea, focusing primarily on gender based violence – emotional, physical and sexual – that continues to resonate in our own times. I have also chosen another female character who challenged the gender constraints that imposed by contemporary society.

DESDEMONA in Othello –

A Victim of Morbid Jealousy

A scene from As You Like It

Jealousy, as a human experience, has many nuances of meaning, ranging from the harmless to the morbid, including delusional forms, with many variations in between. The object of concern in jealousy is the suspicion of unfaithfulness or infidelity on the part of a loved one, commonly a female partner in a marital relationship. In its morbid form, accompanied by intense passion, jealousy has the potential to be destructive and even dangerous, placing the spouse at risk. It is not an uncommon presentation in clinical practice attracting the diagnosis of ‘Othello Syndrome’ although there is disagreement among clinicians about the application of the term.

Othello, a valiant soldier of African heritage in the state of Venice, had no difficulty winning the heart of Desdemona, the attractive young daughter of a prosperous senator. He took her away in defiance of her father’s wish for her to marry into the Venetian nobility. At this point, the Turks were preparing to regain Venetian-held territory in Cyprus, and Othello, recognised for his military prowess, was selected to lead the defence of the territory.

Despite the imminent Turkish attack on Cyprus, Desdemona preferred to remain with her husband rather than stay in Venice. The attack did not eventuate, however, because a violent storm dispersed and destroyed the invading Turkish fleet. The Venetian forces rejoiced, and the occasion provided an added opportunity to celebrate the marriage of Othello and Desdemona.

Casio, a close confidant of Othello, who had been recently promoted to lieutenant, was delegated to supervise the festivities. Cassio’s promotion caused great offence to Iago, who strongly believed that he was better suited to the position. He plotted to take revenge on Othello and Cassio by planting the seed of doubt in Othello’s mind through innuendo and trickery, casting suspicion on Desdemona’s fidelity and on her relationship with good-looking Cassio. Desdemona, a woman of exuberance and humour, became the unwitting focus of Iago’s manipulation.

The dissonance that arose in Othello’s mind eventually reached a climax when he accused his wife of infidelity and became convinced that she should die. Despite Desdemona’s plea for compassion, Othello strangled her to death. On finally gaining insight into the whole saga, Othello fell on his sword beside his wife.

OPHELIA in Hamlet – A Case of Manic Defence in response
to emotional abuse

Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, takes centre stage in the play of the same name, and his mental processes have been the focus of scrutiny by successive generations of critics.

Young Prince Hamlet is faced with a complex emotional challenge following the sudden death of his father, King Hamlet, he idolised. The late king’s brother, usurper to the throne, hastily marries the widowed queen, denying the young prince his lawful right to sovereignty. Hamlet’s grief is compounded by his outrage towards his mother and his lingering doubts about the circumstances of his father’s death. He lapses into a state of melancholy.

But the impact of Hamlet’s emotional instability and the displacement of his anger onto Ophelia, to whom the prince had professed his love, receive less attention by critics, despite the significant psychological issues raised by her predicament. The episode in which Hamlet directs his anger towards Ophelia – often referred to as the ‘nunnery scene’ – is considered one of the most vicious in all Shakespeare.

Get thee to a nunnery. Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?”…. “If thou dost marry, I’ll give this plague for thy dowry, be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shall not escape calamity. Get thee to a nunnery; go, farewell. Or if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery go, quickly too. Farewell

Her love for Prince Hamlet was forbidden from the outset by her father, the scheming counsellor, Polonius, and by her brother Laertes; she was obedient to them. With her dignity destroyed by the very person she loved and her father killed, albeit inadvertently by the hand of her lover, she nevertheless reacted with compassion. With her brother away in France, Ophelia is bereft of any meaningful relationships.

With no one left to confide in, her mind had no alternative but to escape reality. She lapsed into a state of mania – a state of ‘fragile happiness’ with underlying deep sorrow; an unconscious defensive operation of the mind known as ‘manic defence’, as described by Melanie Klein [1882-1960], the renowned Austrian Psychoanalyst.

In this state of mind, Ophelia presents herself before the king and queen, singing snatches of song concerning love, death and betrayal. Her behaviour is totally out of character to her formerly demure self. Here are a few excerpts from her verses illustrating what might be described as a ‘flight of ideas’.

How should I your true love know/ From another one? / By his cockle hat and staff/ And his sandal shoon…”

“He is dead and gone, lady/ He is dead and gone/ At his head a grass green turf/ At his heels a stone…

They say the owl was a baker’s daughter. Lord we know what we are, but know not what we may be. God be at your table …

Hey non nonny, nonny, hey nonny/ And in his grave rained many a tear …” “You must sing ’Adown adown’ and you call him adown-a.”

Later, Queen Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother, announced that Ophelia ‘Fell in a weeping brook while making garlands from crow-flowers, nettles, daisies and long purples’, and had made no attempt to save herself. At the graveyard two gravediggers discussed whether she deserves a Christian burial as she appeared to have taken her own life.

LUCRECE – in Shakespeare’s narrative poem The Rape

of Lucrece

Reworked from a story by the Roman historian Livy, Shakespeare’s innovative narrative poem, first published in 1594, gives access to the mind of a victim of sexual assault. Set in ancient Rome, the poem gives expression to the agony of Lucrece, the gracious wife of a nobleman, following a savage attack upon her by Sextus Tarquinius, the son of the brutal king Lucius Tarquinius of Rome.

During a joyous conversation, a group of young noblemen were commenting on the virtues of their wives when Collatinus extolled the incomparable beauty and chastity of his beloved Lucrece. Aroused by the description of her elegance, young Sextus makes a covert exit, ‘borne by the trustless wings of desire’ in pursuit of his prey –the peerless dame’, ‘weakly fortressed from a world of harm.

Lucrece warmly welcomes her royal guest, who shows no inward ill or outward harm. He praises her husband’s military prowess, ‘pawning his honour to obtain his lust. During the conversation he scans her beauty and burns with sexual desire, yet ‘is madly toss’d between desire and dread. His ambivalence finally gives way to desire. ‘Desire my pilot, beauty my prize/ ‘Then who fears sinking where such treasure lies?’ This said, he advances upon her, ‘like a falcon towering in the skies, that ‘Coutcheth the fowl with his wings’ ‘So under his insulting falcon lies/ Harmless Lucretia’ shade’, trembling with fear, ‘as fowl hear falcon’s bells’. She ‘lies at the mercy of his moral sting’ and finally succumbs ‘To the rough beast that knows no gentle right/ Nor aught obey but his foul appetite’.

Lucrece is shattered, perplexed and grief-stricken by the unexpected assault on her by her honoured guest. ‘I alone must sit and pine/ Seasoning the earth with showers of silver brine’. She weeps, ‘O unseen shame, invisible disgrace/ O unfelt sore, crest wounding private scar’. Her anguish is further expressed through the image of the violated hive. ’My honey lost, and I, a drone – like bee, have no perfection of my summer left/ But robb’d and ransack’d by injurious theft./ In thy weak hive a wand’ring wasp hath kept/ And suck’d the honey which thy chaste bee kept’.

In this state of mourning, Lucrece despatches two messengers: one to her father in Rome and the other to her husband on the battlefield. On their arrival, she reveals the circumstances of her agony and names the individual responsible. She then stabs herself to death.

Their entourage carry her body through Rome and vow to avenge the death of this ‘incomparable woman of chaste’. By public acclaim the reign of Tarquins is overthrown, and the rule of Rome handed over to the consuls.

A scene from Othello

ROSALIND in ‘As You Like It’ – Challenging the Gender Constraints

One of the few female characters to play a leading role is Rosalind in ‘As You Like It’. She remains much to the liking of many a theatre goer because of her wit, wisdom and inner strength. Rosalind transcends the constraints imposed on women during the Shakespearean era – constraints that continue to resonate in certain cultures even today.

Two young women of noble birth flee the oppressive court in disguise and seek refuge in the Forest of Arden. Rosalind disguised as a young man, Ganymede, while her devoted cousin Celia adopts the name Aliena. As they depart Celia declares, “Now go we in content/ To liberty, and not to banishment.” Orlando, the object of Rosalind’s affection, also escapes to the forest to evade the hostility of his brother. Unaware of Rosalind’s disguise, he expresses his love by hanging verses in her praise upon the trees. Although Rosalind discovers these poems, she chooses to maintain her disguise, using it as an opportunity to test Orlando’s devotion and explore the nature of love, courtship, and the differing gender expectations. The play reaches a conclusion by Rosalind dropping her disguise, and the two uniting in love.

*****

Gender-based violence is recognised globally as a pervasive violation of human rights and a significant social, cultural and public health concern. Violence against women, including emotional, physical and sexual, varies across societies in form and prevalence, and is often rooted in unequal power relations and social structures that perpetuate male dominance. Gender-based violence requires collective action through education, legal protection, economic empowerment, accessible support services and changes in attitudes and cultural practices. Power and influence should not be allowed to shield the perpetrators.

Art, including dramatic and literary art, serves to illuminate human experience. It allows us to explore emotions, ideas and moral dilemmas that may otherwise remain beyond ordinary expression. Art can entertain and inspire, but it can also challenge our assumptions, evoke empathy, and offer new ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us. In this sense, art is not merely a form of aesthetic pleasure; it is a means of understanding what it means to be human.

Desdemona, Ophelia, Lucrece and Rosalind are among Shakespeare’s more prominent female characters. The first three are innocent victims of male violence in different forms, evoking our empathy and compassion; the fourth challenges the gender assumptions and constraints of the time. Together, they illuminate gender-based issues that are both universal and timeless. In this sense, Shakespeare remains ‘our contemporary’, as Jan Kott, Polish-American literary critic, famously observed.