Midweek Review

IN JULIUS CAESAR,THE SHAKESPEAREAN PLAY

Published

5 years ago

2021/09/29

Sahan Weerasooriya

Moral Depravity in Politics on Display

By DR. SIRI GALHENAGE
PSYCHIATRIST [Retired]
[sirigalhenage@gmail.com]

It is a measure of Shakespeare’s stature that he explores the complexities in human nature, so skilfully. For him, the ‘political theatre’, where humans compete with each other for power, provides a fertile ground for such exploration.

Vying for power in affairs of the state, exercised inappropriately, is a favourite theme of Shakespeare. Drawing from history, he gives dramatic expression to such a scenario in his popular play, ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caesar’, in which the nature of politics and those who participate in it, and their motivations, seep into every aspect of the drama.

The plot depicts the assassination of Julius Caesar as the pivotal event of the play, preceded by the rationalization of the action by the conspirators, and the political consequences thereof. The propensity to manipulate the truth in political machinations is the prominent mode of the play – one of the most rhetorical in all Shakespeare. “Men may construe things after their fashion/ Clean from the purpose of things themselves” [Cicero: Act1- 1.3.34 – 5]. It brings forth the moral depravity in politics, making the main characters and their patterns of behaviour, the focus for interpretation – the purpose of this essay.

HISTORICAL BACKDROP

The Republicans had governed the city of Rome and its territories for over four centuries. The Roman Republic was founded by the inhabitants of the city who drove away the hereditary kings and took over power by electing their own to the Senate. The Senate was initially controlled by the patricians, the city’s aristocratic class, but in time, the plebeians, the common folk, campaigned for and achieved a greater say in the assembly by appointing their own representatives [tribunes] to safeguard their interests. Yet, the common folk remained a hapless lot, poor and disgruntled, and averse to any ruler gaining too much power.

The aristocrats continued to dominate the Senate, but with time their quality and integrity declined due to their extravagant life style and corrupt practices. Two of the generals who prevailed and formed the First Triumvirate – a cabal of three rulers – were Pompey and Julius Caesar, along with Crassus. Pompey was a defender of the Republic and statesman, and Caesar, a military expansionist. The alliance was put to the test as Caesar gained power following his successful campaigns in Europe, expanding the Territories of the Roman Republic. He became Governor of the vast region of Gaul [north-central Europe] where he commanded a large army. The contention for leadership of the Roman state, in its entirety, between Caesar and Pompey led to a bitter civil war. Following the defeat of Pompey and his progeny, Caesar emerged as the formidable leader of the Roman territories.

THE PLAY

Shakespeare’s play begins at this point with Caesar’s triumphal return to Rome accompanied by his followers, including the military and political figures – Brutus, Cassius and Antony – to be welcomed by scores of cheering Romans.

CAESAR

Caesar dominates the drama from the start and his spirit lives on even after his departure in Act 3, justifying the title of the play. He was a man with a paradoxical mixture of characteristics: arrogance and towering authority on the one hand and a blemished physique on the other, with partial deafness and prone to attacks of epilepsy. ‘He fell down in the market-place, and foamed at mouth, and was speechless’. [Casca: Act 1. Scene 2.]

While the plebeians celebrate the arrival of their new leader from his military expeditions, bringing ‘many captives home to Rome….whose ransoms, did the general coffers fill’, there is growing concern among some of Caesar’s close associates that their leader may use his supreme power to override the Republican form of governance to establish a new monarchy. The two senior Generals – Cassius and Brutus – who too had leadership ambitions, were particularly concerned about Caesar’s rise to power: whether he will ‘soar above the view of men’, as the tribunes grudgingly described.

Cassius and Brutus fought with Pompey against Caesar in the civil war. Caesar, in his magnanimity, was merciful towards his defeated opponents, but was insightful about Cassius. Astute in his judgement of character, Caesar once remarked: ‘Cassius has a lean and hungry look/ He thinks too much: such men are dangerous’.

CASSIUS

Cassius harbours a personal resentment towards Caesar: ‘So vile a thing as Caesar…he doth bear me hard’, at the same time being envious of his might: ‘Bestride the narrow world’ like a ‘Colossus’. He instigates a plan to remove Caesar from power and hatches a plot to draw Brutus and others into the conspiracy. He believes that his liaison with Brutus is beneficial, in order to avoid any accusations of self-interest and to lend respectability to the project, as Brutus is held in high regard by the populace.

Cassius is malcontent and conniving, reminiscent of Iago in Othello. Alerting his fellow conspirators to the danger of Caesar returning Rome to monarchical rule, also questions his fitness to govern in view of his infirmities. He tries to win over an ambivalent Brutus by planting forged letters of public discontent about Caesar in his house knowing that Brutus is receptive to the voice of the populace.

BRUTUS

Brutus is faced with having to balance his personal friendship with Caesar against the general good of the Republic. Mark Antony, a strong ally of Caesar, wishes the new leader to be crowned. But, if crowned, broods Brutus, will he change his current nature and turn dangerous? How could it be stopped?

‘It must be by his death’. And for my part/ I know no personal cause to spurn at him,/ But for the general. He would be crowned./ How that might change his nature, there’s the question./ It is the bright day that brings forth the adder,/ And that craves vary walking, Crown him: that!’ [Brutus: Act 2. Scene 1]

Brutus’s dissonance of thought crystallises into a sense of resolve. At a meeting of the conspirators, a decision is made to assassinate Caesar. Brutus takes control of the plot. ‘Let not our looks put on our purposes/ But bear it as our Roman actors do/ With untir’d spirits and formal constancy’.

‘Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully/ Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods’ [Brutus: Act 2. Scene 1]

THE IDES of MARCH

Caesar, on his arrival at the Senate on ‘the ides [or 15th] of March’, which celebrated the first full moon of the New Year with festivities and sacrifice, is stabbed to death by the conspirators, one after the other. Before his last gasp, Caesar turns to Brutus, the last to attack, and utters his last words: ‘et tu Brute?’, [even you Brutus?], in bewilderment of his friend’s act of betrayal. The assassins bathe their hands with the blood of Caesar, an act suggestive of taking responsibility for bringing down a potential dictator, which they anticipate would be perceived by the masses as a deed of heroism.

JUSTIFICATION

In a funeral oration at the Forum that followed, Brutus explains to the masses his reasoning behind Caesar’s assassination: that despite his love for Caesar, he loves Rome more, and that Caesar’s ambition posed a danger to the Liberty of the nation. The speech pacifies the agitated crowd.

MARK ANTONY

Mark Antony grieves the death of Caesar. A loyalist of Caesar, Antony, while harbouring the thought of avenging Caesar’s death, skilfully negotiates an opportunity for a funeral oration by engaging with Brutus by shaking his bloodied hands in a gesture of amity. Brutus grants him permission to speak despite the reservations of Cassius. Antony outdoes Brutus in a rhetorical speech with an energising opening triad: ‘Friends, Romans, Countrymen’ [Act 3. Scene 2], the memory of which lives on as captivating lines. In his speech replete with irony, Antony repeatedly referring to Brutus as ‘an honourable man’ refutes the latter’s claim that Caesar acted out of ambition and self-interest. He declares that Caesar brought much wealth and glory to Rome and that he, on three occasions, turned down the offer of the crown [perhaps a theatrical demonstration of humility!]. Coming down from the pulpit, Antony exposes Caesar’s wounded body to the public and reads [after an initial reluctance] the dead leader’s deed bequeathing his [plundered!] wealth to the masses.

Following the stirring funeral oration by Antony, Cassius and Brutus are driven away by an enraged crowd, calling them traitors.

In exile, the two assassins raise an army to combat a newly formed alliance of Antony, Lepidus and Octavius, the latter, the adopted son and appointed successor to Caesar. Cassius and Brutus regroup after an initial dispute over funding, and Brutus is grief-stricken by the news that his wife, Portia, has committed suicide in his absence. Undeterred, Brutus is ready to march on to combat the enemy at Philippi:

‘There is a tide in the affairs of men,/ Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;/ Omitted all the voyage of their life,/ Is bound in shallows, and in miseries…’ [Act4. Scene2]

But the tide did not lead to plain sailing. Cassius and Brutus witness the poor performance of their men at the Battle of Philippi. Cassius misconstrues an event in the battlefield as signalling defeat and falling into the shallows of despair gets one of his men to kill him with his own sword.

‘Alas, thou hast misconstrued everything’ [Titinius: Act 5 – Scene 5]

Brutus, learning about the death of Cassius, and facing defeat, commits suicide by running through a sword held by a colleague. He ended his life to avoid further dishonour.

ANTONY and OCTAVIUS

Antony and Octavius celebrate their victory. Antony speaks over Brutus’s body in a powerful closing speech eulogising the defeated Brutus as ‘the noblest Roman of them all’ [5.5.68], who acted ‘not in envy of great Caesar’ but ‘in honest thought/ And common good to all’. ‘This was a man!’. Octavius orders an honourable burial for Brutus.

The power sharing alliance by the three victors – Octavius, Antony and Lepidus, appear shaky. Octavius and Antony discuss how to eliminate Lepidus, and the struggle for supremacy between the first two continues. At the end, Octavius, exercises his authority by calling it a day: ‘So call the field to rest, and let’s away/ To part the glories of this happy day’ [5.5.80 -1].

CONCLUSION

‘The play’s thing’ in Shakespeare, as Prince Hamlet showed us in his play within the play. Through the portrayal of characters, and the situations they create, the playwright endeavours to alert our senses and raise our conscience about humanity, with all its strengths and weaknesses. He does not take sides, but prompts us to look into the patterns of behaviour that lie beneath the ebb and flow of history and politics that are deeply rooted in our collective psyche.

In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare goes back to ancient Rome to discover a story with underlying themes that capture the imagination of his contemporary audiences at the end of the sixteenth century. He brings to life the so called heroes, the traitors, the conspirators, the betrayers, the assailants and the opportunists, who appear to cluster on the political stage; not to mention the gullible masses that constantly get carried away with the tide of rhetoric. The themes that emerge include: anticipatory anxiety about authoritarianism and militarism; fact and fiction in political rhetoric; personal interest against common good in the quest for power; war as a continuation of politics, as Clausewitz aphorises; and the lack of permanent friends or enemies in the affairs of the state. Shakespeare is, as always, our contemporary! Isn’t he?

And also, in Julius Caesar, the play, he conveys a few eternal truths about humanity: that beneath the bravado of a hero is a flawed man; that men of intellect who ought to show the way may be lacking in wisdom; that passion to save a nation may turn to hatred; and the so called honourables are prone to fall from grace. And, as the curtain comes down, one may recall [with apologies to Prospero in Tempest], ‘These our actors‘… ‘are such stuff as dreams are made on, and their little life is rounded with a sleep’.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

NPP drowning in sea of scams

Published

10 hours ago

2026/04/29

Sahan Weerasooriya

Outgoing Treasury Chief Mahinda Siriwardena congratulates his successor Harshana Suriyapperuma in late June 2025 at the Finance Ministry

The Opposition is pressing for a one-day debate on USD 2.5 mn Treasury theft, which is more like a daylight robbery that had been kept under wraps by Treasury mandarins till ‘Free Lawyers’ made it public. However, the government is strongly opposed to the Opposition proposal. The Opposition is seeking consensus among

different parties to intensify the campaign against the government, struggling to cope up with a spate of controversies. Against the backdrop of the devastating debate on the coal scam, the NPP seems reluctant to face another over the theft of Treasury funds.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

USD 2.5 mn brazen heist at the Treasury several months ago and the bigwigs there obviously dragging their feet over the matter till it was brought to light recently, thanks to the Free Lawyers movement, which has dampened the NPP’s enthusiasm for May Day. The Treasury fiasco humiliated the cocky NPP leadership against the backdrop of damning report issued by the National Audit Office (NAO) that found fault with the government for awarding the coal tender for 2025/2026 period to Trident Champhar Limited of India in violation of tender procedures. The NAO emphasised that the Indian company shouldn’t have even been considered for the tender.

Even after the exposure of the scandalous handling of the coal tender, the NPP, in spite of some rumblings within the party, remained confident of overcoming the growing accusations regarding governance issues. But, the sudden revelation of the loss suffered by the Treasury, and pathetic efforts made by the NPP to suppress the truth, has caused irreparable harm to the ruling party. The arrogant NPP will have to use May Day to defend the government. Instead of preaching to the masses ad nauseum the corruption allegations against previous administrations, the NPP would have to explain such massive failures/corruption, particularly the loss of USD 2.5 mn.

There hadn’t been a previous instance of such an incident at the Treasury. The NPP will have to answer questions posed by ‘Free Lawyers,’ a civil society group that first raised the Treasury issue. On behalf of ‘Free Lawyers,’ its President Maithri Gunaratne, PC, former Governor of several provinces Rajith Keerthi Tennakoon, and Attorney-at-Law Shiral Lakthikala, targeted the government over the unprecedented Treasury heist. The Opposition, too, censured the NPP, with SJB leader Sajith Premadasa, MP, Chairman of Public Finance Committee (CoPF) Dr. Harsha de Silva, MP, and United Republican Front (URF) taking the lead.

The NPP’s excuses, based on claimed raids carried out by hacker/hackers targeting the Treasury, are untenable. The NPP’s position cannot be defended or supported against growing criticism. The coal scam and Treasury fiasco dominated social media, with the Opposition, as well as ordinary citizens, having a field day at the expense of the NPP, a political party that accused its opponents of waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement. Its successful propaganda campaigns, at the presidential and parliamentary polls, in September and November, 2024, respectively, were centered on fighting corruption.

Their anti-corruption platform appealed to the people for obvious reasons. Against the backdrop of bankruptcy, declared in May, 2022, after failing to meet debt commitments, the electorate rallied around the NPP that thrived on waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement, perpetrated by previous governments. Having bagged the executive presidency in September, 2024, the NPP assured the electorate that the Parliament would be cleansed of evils at the general election. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake declared that the people have been vested with the responsibility of cleansing the Parliament. Dissanayake went a step further when he addressed a public gathering at the 18th mile post on the Negombo-Colombo road. The NPP leader, who also leads the JVP, asserted that there was no need for an Opposition in Parliament and the House should be filled with NPPers.

Dissanayake based his assertion essentially on two failed No-Confidence Motions (NCMs) moved against Ravi Karunanayake and Keheliya Rambukwella in 2016 and 2023, respectively. The NPP/JVP leader found fault with Yahapalanaya and the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government for protecting the two wrongdoers, hence the call to cleanse Parliament.

The results of the parliamentary election proved that the electorate responded very favourably to Dissanayake’s call. Of the 225-seat Parliament, the NPP secured 159 seats, including 18 National List slots. Having accused previous governments of shielding wrongdoers, Dissanayake easily directed the NPP’s steamroller parliamentary group to defeat the NCM moved against Energy Minister Punyakumara Dissanayake (National List) on 10 April, just a few days after the NAO report exposed the coal scam.

First ex-MP as Treasury Secy.

If its own hands are clean, there is no doubt that the NPP now deeply regrets the appointment of ex-NPP National List MP Harshana Suriyapperuma as the Secretary to the Treasury and the Finance Ministry. That appointment was made in June 2025 to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Mahinda Siriwardana who, along with Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, played a significant role in the country’s post-Aragalaya recovery programme.

Suriyapperuma, who had served as Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning for just seven months, before being appointed the Treasury Secretary/Finance Ministry Secretary, is under heavy fire for suppressing the truth. No less a person than CoPF Chairman Dr. de Silva publicly accused Suriyapperuma of trying to undermine his committee. The SJB has demanded Suriyapperuma’s immediate resignation. Dr. Anil Jayantha succeeded as Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning.

Those who inquired into the crisis-hit Treasury are of the belief that 53-year-old Suriyapperuma lacked the much required experience to fill the shoes of Mahinda Siriwardana. Perhaps, the breach at the Treasury could have been averted if an outsider was not brought in place of Siriwardena. The recent reportage of the incident revealed that Suriyapperuma had been aware of the breach and sought to avoid appearing before the CoPF. The NPP could have responded to the developing situation differently if an ex-MP hadn’t been entrusted with the task of steering the Treasury/Finance Ministry. To make matters worse, President Dissanayake holds the Finance portfolio.

Although the government declared that the theft of USD 2.5 mn had been reported to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) after initial detection made in January this year, controversy surrounds the failure on the part of law enforcement authorities to bring it to the notice of the courts. Maithri Gunaratne, appearing in Hiru last Saturday (25), questioned why the police failed to inform the relevant Magistrate if the government lodged a complaint in that regard.

Australia has confirmed irregularities in payments owed to their government. Regardless of NPP efforts to blame it on hacker/hackers, the truth is clear. Payments have been made to an account that hadn’t been in the original agreement between the governments of Sri Lanka and Australia. That is the undeniable truth that the NPP cannot suppress by propaganda.

The NPP should be ashamed that such a fraud had been perpetrated on a country still struggling to cope up with the economic destruction caused by the UNP- and the SLFP-led governments with the help of “mission impossible” type roles played by outside interests, especially during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s tenure using the JVP/Aragalaya.

The world knows how the UNP perpetrated the Treasury bond scams with the direct involvement of the then Governor of the Central Bank Arjuna Mahendran, in February 2015 and March 2016. Regardless of that intolerable scam, the UNP made a desperate attempt to retain the services of the Singaporean as the Governor of the Central Bank. Party leader and the then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe demanded the re-appointment of Mahendran. That despicable move had to be dropped due to massive Opposition protests and growing public discontent over the Treasury bond scams.

The first Treasury bond scam carried out on 27 February, 2015 caused a direct loss of approximately Rs. 2 billion. On the instructions of Mahendran, the Treasury suddenly and arbitrarily changed the process of issuing Treasury Bonds. According to media reports at that time, higher interest payments, over the next 30 years, caused a further loss of around Rs. 145 billion.

Then Mahendran struck again. Caused further direct losses of more than Rs. 4 billion to the government through the fraudulent increase in interest rates as a result of the Treasury Bond issues on 27th March, 2016 ,and 29th March, 2016, in order to provide an undue advantage to connected primary dealers by indulging in further pre-meditated bond scams.

NPP on back foot

The ruling party put on a brave face with lawmakers and various others trying to play down the incident at the Treasury. Some pathetically tried to compare various accusations directed at the Rajapaksas with the incident at the Treasury which they conveniently blamed on hacker/hackers.

The NPP is facing an explosive mixture of issues. Both the coal and Treasury scams have brought immense pressure on the national economy and caused automatic deterioration. The resignation of Punyakumara aka Kumara Jayakody over the coal scam indicated that defeating the NCM moved against him was a strategic political blunder. Had the NPP asked the tainted first time Minister to step down and appoint a Presidential Commission to go into the coal scam, the NPP could have averted a major disaster. However, the Energy Minister and the Energy Secretary Udayanga Hemapala had to resign before the Parliament took up the NCM. Had the top NPP leadership bothered to peruse the executive summary of the NAO presented to Parliament on 7 April, the Party wouldn’t have tried to defend the minister.

Having championed a corruption-free political party system and then won both the presidential and parliamentary polls on that platform, the NPP executed the shocking move to move 323 containers out of the Colombo Port, in January 2025, without even any cursory checks. Those who perpetrated that operation used continuing port congestion as an excuse to clear red-flagged containers without mandatory physical checking. The NPP recently thwarted a bid by Opposition lawmakers, representing a parliamentary committee inquiring into the illegal release of containers, to summon President Dissanayake.

That committee, headed by Justice Minister Attorney-at-Law Harshana Nanayakkara, owed an explanation as to why President Dissanayake, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, shouldn’t appear before a House committee. President Dissanayake very often addresses Parliament on crucial issues. As the Minister in charge of Finance, the President should offer an explanation regarding the high profile container issue that tarnished the NPP’s image.

Three major issues in hand, namely the release of 323 containers, coal scam and theft at the Treasury, regardless of what various apologists say on mainstream and social media, have caused irrevocable damage to the party, let alone escapades involving the likes of Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne, Minister Lal Kantha, etc. The impact on the NPP can be ascertained only at an election. With the public increasingly aware of the growing accusations against it, the ruling party will do whatever possible to put off long delayed Provincial Council elections. Facing the electorate against deepening discontent among the public seems to be a frightening situation. It would be interesting to observe how a House committee, headed by Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath, appointed to explore ways and means to conduct Provincial Council polls, address the issue at hand.

When compared with the three major issues, the resignation of Asoka Ranwala, as the Speaker, in December, 2024, over his failure to produce the much-touted educational qualifications, seems unnecessary. Of course, Ranwala’s case attracted tremendous public attention at that time as the public really believed the NPP wouldn’t deceive them. Ranwala’s lie shocked the public. NPP theoretician Prof. Ranjith Nirmal Dewasiri had no qualms in publicly attacking Ranwala in the wake of the NPP defending the Speaker. But, subsequent NPP actions revealed massive manipulations that shamed the first post-Aragalaya government.

Having accused Ranil Wickremesinghe of squandering as much as Rs 16 mn to join his wife Prof. Maithree in the UK in September, 2023, the NPP has ended up facing far more serious accusations. The incident at the Treasury should be sufficient for the Opposition to move NCM against the government. Of course, the NPP got the numbers in Parliament to easily defeat the NCM but the consequences would be devastating. Those who still talk of recovering the missing USD 2.5 mn must be living in a dreamland. The UNP is labelled with Treasury bond scams (2015 and 2016) and the SLPP faulted with tax cuts (2019) and sugar tax scam (2020). The NPP will have to live with the coal scam and Treasury theft. The NPP will no longer be able to parade on political platforms as paragons of virtue. It would be pertinent to mention that the Presidential Commission appointed to probe the procurement of coal, since 2009, would be able to produce a report to meet the NPP’s expectations. All indications point to that and 2026 is going to be far more challenging, both in and outside Parliament, than the previous year.

NDB fraud

Examined together, the massive fraud at the National Development Bank (NDB), perpetrated during the 2024-2026 period, and the Treasury incident, they underscore the vulnerability of the entire banking system. The 13.2 bn NDB fraud and theft of USD 2.5 mn from the Treasury exposed the regulator, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, in respect of the NDB. The situation at the NDB cannot be examined without taking into consideration that Ernst & Young is the external auditors of the NDB and its Managing Partner Duminda Hulangamuwa functions as Senior Economic Adviser to President Dissanayake. People haven’t forgotten that Hulangamuwa had been mentioned as the possible successor of Mahinda Siriwardena before the NPP brought in Suriyapperuma. The Central Bank and Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) come under the purview of the Finance Ministry now embroiled in the expanding Treasury fiasco.

The Board of Directors at the NDB consists of Sriyan Cooray (Chairman), Kelum Edirisinghe (Director / Chief Executive Officer (Executive), Bernard Sinniah (Director /Non-Independent), Sujeewa Mudalige (Director /Independent), Kushan D’Alwis (Director/Independent), Kasturi Chellaraja (Director/Independent), Shweta Pandey (Director /Independent), Hasitha Premaratne (Director/Independent), Sanjaya Mohottala (Director (Non-Independent) and Shanil Fernando Director (Independent).

The issue at hand is how such a fraud went unnoticed for a considerable period of time and whether the top management simply ignored warning signs and the failure on the part of the regulator to intervene. Those who have read Mahinda Siriwardana’s ‘Sri Lanka’s Economic Revival: Reflections on the Journey from Crisis to Recovery’ would know the circumstances leading to the 2022 economic collapse. Soft spoken Siriwardana meticulously discussed how the then Central Bank leadership as well as the so-called economic leadership of the Pohottuwa party deliberately deceived President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Siriwardena’s narrative is explosive. The book, launched before his retirement, with the participation of President Dissanayake, underscored the responsibility on the part of the political leadership and those running the banking system. Obviously Siriwardena’s work had no impact on the current dispensation as well as the top banking management.

The Opposition sees an apparent opportunity to heap pressure on the NPP as it contemplates counter measures. Their challenge is how to take remedial measures without jeopardizing the government. The IMF declaration that it is closely watching the theft of USD 2.5 mn from the Treasury must have added pressure on the government, ripped apart by the situation at the Treasury. Let us hope the government and the Opposition reach consensus on ways and means to improve financial discipline. Overall, the Parliament cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for enactment of laws and ensuring financial discipline and the fact that Sri Lanka needs to start repayment of debt in 2028.

Midweek Review

Is language social or psychological phenomenon?

Published

10 hours ago

2026/04/29

Sahan Weerasooriya

This essay was presented at The Philosophy Group of the University of London about 20 years ago. The thought provoking essay published in The Island on 22 April by Usvwatte-aratchi- Some languages confine you; some languages free you prompted me to try to get this essay published if possible. It may help the readers to further their ideas about the importance of usage of language.

Personally, I have firsthand experience in this subject. I was exposed to two different cultures and two languages. In my formative years I was brought up in a certain culture and spoke the language pertaining to that culture/language (Sinhalese -Sri Lanka). I spent all my studying and working life (55 years) using a different language in a different culture (English -England). I must mention that this was not recently. It was the early 1960’s. I can claim that I have enough knowledge and experience to justify this essay topic. In this essay I shall be investigating some of the social aspects of language with the aid of some opinions put forward by some philosophers. Then I shall be making an attempt to see what psychology has to offer before I draw my own conclusions. I am treating social aspects as part and parcel of the culture. In my view these are inseparable entities, unless one chooses to forget his or her cultural upbringing to suit a particular society.

Adoption of different culture

Socially, learning a different language and adopting a different culture is quite possible. In this case what dominates is one’s attitude or the circumstances. Attitude is psychological. I am convinced that circumstances may lead to a change of attitudes. Having said that, we must not forget that there are individuals who have not taken the trouble to learn the language of the culture in which they live. This has created a lot of socio-psychological problems in the community in which they live. It is obvious that the problem is one of communication. The main tool of communication is language. Philosophers and psychologists have spent many years investigating how language helps us to communicate and also how it may lead us to misunderstand our own fellow human beings. Understanding others (family members, members of the community in which we live, and the strangers we meet) is one of the most important aspects of living.

An awareness of the problem of language goes back to the early Greek philosophers. Parmenides gave us the first example of an argument from language to the world, saying that if we speak of a thing it must exist, since we speak of a thing at various times, it must continue to exist in a particular form. It is recently that language itself has come to be studied in a systematic way. The two landmarks in this respect were the development of Linguistics and the philosophy of language in the 20th century. The great philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) has admitted that until he became a middle-aged man, he did not think about language per se, but regarded it as ‘transparent’. I am sure this is true with most of us although we are not of Russell’s caliber when it comes to philosophy. And one may not have to wait until one reaches one’s middle age.

Linguistics and philosophy of language

It will help us if we understand the difference between Linguistics and philosophy of Language. What linguists discover may be applied to philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology or physiology. But as a discipline of study, it remains independent of them. The philosophy of language is different. One of the modern philosophers John Searle (1932-2025) thought, by contrast to linguistics, philosophy tries to solve philosophical problems by analyzing the ordinary use, meaning and relations of words in a particular language. Searle goes on to say that language is crucial to understand human experience. In my opinion this is a very valid comment. At a very practical level we spend a lot of time sharing our experiences. Verbal communication is vital in this area. According to Canadian philosopher Ian Hacking(1936-2023) the influence of language on philosophy has been profound and almost unrecognized. He indicates, if we are not to be misled by this influence, it is necessary to become conscious of it, and to ask ourselves deliberately how far it is legitimate.

It is appropriate to bring in Ludwig Wittgenstein(1889-1951) at this point. He brought in the subject predicate theory of language. For example, if we say “John is king”. Where John is the subject and king is the predicate. Here existence requires substance. For Aristotle, forms do not exist independently of things—every form is the form of something. A “substantial” form is a kind that is attributed to a thing, without which that thing would be of a different kind or would cease to exist altogether. Wittgenstein supports Saint Augustine’s view that words are names of objects and that combinations of words have the sole function of describing reality. For example, if we point at a certain object, say a table and try to say to a child “this is a table”, the child will be confused as to what we are pointing at. Is it the colour, the tabletop or one or more of its legs This is called the ostensive definition method of teaching. Ostensive definitions lead to a variety of interpretations. The child may understand a particular case of this definition but there is no guarantee that she will be able to make a transition from one case to others like it.

Plato’s theory

J G Herder (1744-1803) pointed out the object to which we make reference may be defined by numerous different terms. How then can we justify direct, one to one correspondence-either of so many to one, or of one to so many? How are we going to deal with situations where a term describes something non-existent or only possible? Plato’s “Forms” theory cannot be applied here as anything that we can speak of already exists as a Form. Critics of this theory ask the question: “how can the world be crowded with so many imaginary objects?” We use words to describe and define. Is there any room for slang language? This comes in handy in our day to day social communication. Ostensive definition raises the questions that require a constant selection of what counts as relevant. In Aldous Huxley’s novel Chrome Yellow, the character Old Rowley is confused as to: Does ‘pig’ refer to the quality of having a curly tail? Or standing in rows to eat? Or being pink skinned and fat? Or wearing no clothes? When we use the word “piggishness” is it something inherent to pigs, or simply, a matter of how we choose to describe them?

How can we relate the above ideas and theories of language to our daily living? Daily living is a psychosocial activity.

Perceptions

The nature of language reflects the nature of our perceptions, and these are far from straight forward. Franz Brentano (1838-1917) developed his theory of intentionality: that every mental phenomenon has a relation of direction to its object, i.e. perceptions, desires, imagination etc. are related to what is perceived, desired or imagined. I presume this can be applied to any language irrespective of the culture (our social conditioning). Say for instance the images of art and the writings are given the ability to represent objects by imposing the intentionality on the object. Thus, when we assert that we see or believe something, we impose, by convention and intention, (that is true if and only if it is the case) on the statement, and these conditions are not contained intrinsically in the sounds that make it up, but in our perception of belief about the fact. I begin to wonder how this can be applied to non-physical and unseen situations. Sometimes our feelings and attitudes are unknown to the observer. A person may shout because he is angry but you cannot see the anger, only its physical expression. We will not be able to see the prior event that has led to the anger and the utterance. This shows that there is a limit to how much is revealed simply by observing a word and its context; there is often more than that can be said.

How can we account for unexpected linguistic behaviour? This has both social and psychological implications.

For a long time behavioural theorists believed that every development of the human being was controlled by environmental and social factors. This is similar to an ostensive explanation of meaning. It implied that everything was learnt through training and association. But Noam Chomsky (b.1928) was not happy with this idea. He thought language is a complex phenomenon and which is not taught bit by bit or systematically to infants. It is successfully acquired by (almost) everybody. From my own experience it is true to say that the difficulty in learning a second language is a very different process from that experienced with the first language. Chomsky argued that the first language is not in fact learned, but rather acquired through exposure to a particular language. According to him all languages share the same basic structure, and he called this “deep structure”, which may be expressed as surface structures through a process called ‘transformation’. Chomsky’s theory helps us to assume a universal system of grammar, which may generate an infinite number of particular sentences within a language. This explains how we may create sentences within a language we have never encountered before from a limited set of grammatical rules and this appears to be a rational scientific approach.

Social or psychological phenomenon

The argument/discussion whether language is a social or a psychological phenomenon requires much more investigation than this essay warrants. I have briefly brought in various philosophers’ work, which are invaluable to this topic in terms of philosophy of language. In conclusion I am tempted to state my own experiences as a bi-lingual person. When it comes to my first language, which is Sinhalese I don’t think I learned it. I heard my parents speaking it and I picked up a few words and I constructed my own sentences and gradually became proficient by accumulating more words. Of course, the proper grammatical use of even my own language was taught in school and not by my parents. Learning my second language i.e. English took a different form. I was taught to speak, read, and write English at school and I had to work harder at this than my first language, because my English was confined to the classroom situation only, i. e. I learnt English in a non- English environment. First language came naturally and the second one I had to learn to fit into the social and the education structure that prevailed at that time. Compulsion can motivate us to learn!I had no choice but to adopt myself culturally and linguistically as a university student in England and then as a university teacher in England. Apart from the native English students, I have taught students from different countries. European, African and Asian. I had the opportunity to intermingle with them and learned various different cultural and linguistic aspects. After almost a half a century in England, I am back to my own culture (language, customs, food etc) where I was born and started my life. I am still proficient in my own language Sinhalese. No conscious effort needed.

After all the foregoing arguments and philosophy that I have put forward, my own conclusion is Chomsky’s theories are more plausible to me than other theories on this issue. It is difficult to be exact and say whether language is a social or psychological phenomenon. From the above arguments, we can see that culture and language of a given society are tightly bound. This leads us to psychological adjustments in order to fit into a society. Who can deny that even the philosophers mentioned above have not been subjected to their own cultural environment?

by Prof. Sampath
Anson Fernando
Formerly University of
The Arts London