The biggest part of the challenge of a critical scholar in the humanities is having to engage critically with the very realities that define her existence as a social being. She cannot even begin to comment on the focus of her study without creating shock waves that would hit her own self in some form. One could argue that the scholars in the field of the humanities are part of what is being studied in one way or another. Critical scholarship in those fields entails destabilising the ground beneath their own feet.

An essential part of scholarly inquiry is being able to objectify what is being studied and examine it closely but at a distance, that, too, in a manner that scholar’s personal biases do not affect the judgement. Any failure to comply with this requirement immediately brands the study as unscientific. To try to understand this using an example situation, I would assume that a scientist who experiments with sodium and chlorine as chemical elements have the privilege of entering the experiment without any personal and emotional ties to either of the elements, placing one element in contact with the other without having to raise questions about her own existence, and observing and recording the outcome of the experiment without having to simultaneously examine what sort of implications the outcome has had for her as a person. The findings of the experiment may certainly advance her/him in the domain of science, but it is unlikely that the outcome of the study would result in any transformation within her as a social being.

The same privilege is not available for the (critical) scholars in the humanities. What chemical elements are for the scientist, the different social, political, cultural, gender, ethnic, racial, and religious identities are for those in the humanities. What the controlled, and also largely predictable, laboratory environment is for the scientist, the uncontrolled, even erratic, society is for those in the humanities. What the scientific experiments where the composition and behaviour of the individual chemical elements are explored is for the scientist, a close examination of phenomena and topics that cut across the categories of the social, the political, the cultural, and the religious is for those in the humanities.

The relatively clear differentiation or separation that is there between the scientist’s personal space and the laboratory setting where she conducts her research is not there in the case of her counterpart in the humanities. The latter does not have a separate laboratory setting that she can step into from her personal space, as the social space, which is her site of research, has her personal space already embedded in it. The freedom that the scientist has to cut herself off from what shapes her existence as a social and political being, as she enters her laboratory, is not available for her counterpart in the humanities, for the simple reason that the social and the political, which define her life outside her research, is also at the core of what they engage with in their research. Even in a setting where the latter locks herself up in a room and cuts herself off from the rest of society, the social and the political continue to define both her perspective and the object of study. Even the most effective scientist (but may not be the ideal scientist) has the option of taking her life, defined by the social, the political, the cultural and the religious, for granted, as her success is measured purely on the basis of her scholarly output; however, even the most ineffective scholar in the humanities would have to acknowledge the nexus between her personal life and her scholarly life, explicitly or implicitly, and her engagement with the chosen object of study will entail some sort of an engagement with her existence.

To use an example from the field of language studies which my work is primarily in, New Varieties of English, like what is called Sri Lankan English, is a topic that I try to engage with in both my teaching and research. Approached from a critical point of view, Sri Lankan English as a New Variety of English is more a political category than a linguistic one. The claims that you make may be based on linguistic evidence, but the conceptualisation of a separate form of English as Sri Lankan English even on the basis of objective linguistic evidence is primarily a political claim. The creation of such a category invariably results in a reconfiguration of the linguistic terrain of the country. Every claim that is made in favour of Sri Lankan English as a category results in a certain destablilisation of Sinhala and English, which are my first language and second language respectively, and the tense relations between which two languages have shaped my identity in a fundamental way. It is not only the two languages that get shaken; the broader ethnic identities that are associated with the two languages also undergo transformation, and this transformation certainly has an impact on who/what I am.

Even when I find the case for Sri Lankan English to be convincing, I feel compelled to word the arguments carefully. This feeling of compulsion to word the arguments carefully is certainly in recognition of the need to make academically-sound arguments; however, in addition to that, it has also to do with my position outside the social class which has traditionally been seen as having proprietary rights over the language. In that setting, I am less of an academic with an objective mindset than of a strategist who is enmeshed in the ethnic and class relations that define the topic of Sri Lankan English. At the same time, in a context where one’s knowledge of English is a primary determiner of her success in society and what is predominantly valued is the so-called proper forms of English, I have had to ask myself if any claims, including the most convincing, academically-sound ones, in the direction of legitimising Sri Lankan English should not be with caution.

I have also had to reconcile between two seemingly contradictory positions involved in making a case for Sri Lankan English, especially in the context of an English Honours programme, that, too, at a leading university in the country. On the one hand, making a case for Sri Lankan English entails encouraging deviation from the established norm/s of the language; on the other hand, considering the nature of the programme, the need to require the students to make that case using a normative form of English that would be recognised internationally could not be overlooked. At one level, this seeming contradiction could easily be dismissed as hypocrisy, but a closer and more serious reading of the situation would see in it a certain “maneuvering” and “negotiating” that the scholars in the discipline of English Studies stationed in peripheral contexts like ours are constrained to undertake in their engagement with the topic at hand. Although the arguments that get made have the appearance of truth, a close analysis of those arguments would indicate a certain identity politics that is being played. This identity politics has a direct bearing on the identity of the scholar who engages with the topic.

Accordingly, to make a claim in the humanities from a critical point of view is also to question in some form what defines one’s own identity, and this may not be the most comfortable undertaking for many of us in the field. This explains, at least to a certain extent, why some scholarly engagements with history results in mere glorifications of the mainstream historical narratives; why some scholarly engagements with literature and language results in a mere celebration of the mainstream literary traditions and hegemonic languages; how some scholarly engagements with the idea of culture directly subscribe to the position that culture should always be preserved and celebrated. Such approaches leave the status-quo largely untouched, and therefore the amount of unsettling that the scholars have to deal with is minimal. How much value that they are in a position to add to the existing scholarship, of course, is a question.

Any act of critical scholarship in the field of the humanities entails the scholar having to challenge in some form what defines her personal existence. This may not be the most comfortable move to make, but that is the only way the scholar could try to make a contribution of value to the field. It is important that this dilemma that the critical scholars in the humanities have to go through is recognised for what it is.

(Nandaka Maduranga Kalugampitiya is attached to the Department of English, University of Peradeniya.)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

by Nandaka Maduranga
Kalugampitiya

Multi-award winning Melbourne-based blues and soul singer/songwriter Andrea Marr, has been delivering high-energy blues and soul around Australia, for 30 years.

This extremely talented singer, from Sri Lanka, initially gained recognition singing in her dad Elmo Mulholland’s band, in the late ’90s, but a happening, one fateful night, changed her whole musical life.

Says Andrea: “In 1996, my husband, Lindsay, and some friends went along to the Waltzing Matilda hotel in Springvale, Australia, and my husband put my name on the board for the blues jam, and I was instantly taken under the wing of blues man Billy Kavanagh and taught the music of Etta James and Koko Taylor.”

Kavanagh recognised Andrea was a natural blues singer, the minute he heard her, and insisted on nurturing her blues career.

Three weeks later, Andrea was in her first blues band. She released her first album ‘Inheritance,’ the next year, and received airplay and great reviews.

Andrea Marr: Ambassador for Australian Women in Blues

Andrea has now released 10 albums, three of them made the charts – on the Australian blues charts and the US soul/blues and R&B charts – and has won many awards, as well.

She has represented Australian blues at the International Blues Challenge, in Memphis, Tennessee (an iconic cultural hub widely celebrated as the “Home of the Blues”), on three occasions, and, in 2025, sang at the Women in Blues showcase in Memphis.

Andrea was inducted into the Blues Music Victoria Hall of Fame, in 2022, and last year became the Ambassador for Women in Blues; this year she was elected onto the board of the US Women in Blues, becoming the Ambassador for Australian Women in Blues.

Andrea’s mission is to get the world to hear the great Aussie blues women and even the playing field for female blues artistes.

You can hear Andrea’s music on Spotify and all streaming platforms; Search for Andrea Marr or The McNaMarr Project.

Sohan Weerasinghe is not only a drawcard in Colombo, but he also has a solid track record, overseas.

From fronting Sohan & The X-Periments to commanding the stage solo, Sohan has become the entertainer everyone talks about, and he’s ready to do the needful in Toronto, Canada, next month.

In fact, Toronto’s calling him back for a second time this year. When one show isn’t enough, you know he’s doing something right.

On Friday, 31st July, the organisers, in Toronto, say it will be an intimate musical evening with legendary Sohan Weerasinghe.

What’s more, he will have for company a band that is turning out to be extremely popular in Toronto – CEYMPHONY – made up of Sri Lankan musicians, based in Toronto, Canada.

This much-looked-forward-to event will be held at the Angus Glen Golf Club, from 8.00 pm to 12.00 midnight.

As one of our most popular singer/entertainers, his smooth vocals and stage charm have a special hold on audiences, especially the ladies up front.

Sohan also mentioned that while in Canada, he plans to take a short vacation, when he meets up with his family members, and travel to America, and switch on the relax mode for about a week.