"We as Sinhalas or more specifically Sinhala Buddhists do not have to confine ourselves to one particular discipline as such. We belong to the tradition of Mahavansa where history is not separated from Dhamma and "other disciplines", and in the final analysis welfare of the people is considered from a Sinhala Buddhist perspective." ______________________________________
by Prof. Nalin de Silva
(The views expressed are his own)
(February 09, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Modernity is a western phenomenon and it has been explained by the westerners using their own theories. However these theories are culture biased as all theories are, and the westerners try to present a picture where modernity is given a privileged status. How does modernity appear to a Sinhala Buddhist who is not corrupted by a western education?
It has to stated, at the outset, that the statement how does modernity appears to somebody other than a westerner or who has been influenced by western education is not quite correct. That statement assumes that there is a phenomenon called modernity and it could appear or manifest differently to different observers. It is not the case, and modernity is a phenomenon as seen and understood by the westerners. The Sinhala Buddhists or any other non western group do not see a phenomenon called modernity, though different from the way the west understand it. We observe an entirely different phenomenon that changed our lives and also our cultures, which has a history of about five hundred years. we could name it differently and call it Europeanisation of the world. However we would use the term modernity to refer to this phenomenon, emphasing again that it is not the way western modernity appears to us, and by modernity we imply Europeanisation of the world.
In fact we could have said by modernity we mean the Anglicisation of the world, as what has been happening during the last five hundred years is essentially a Christianisation of the world with respect to culture, economics and politics. The knowledge created by the west sees the world through the eyes of the westerners, in particular very often through the eyes of the Anglo Saxons. This is not only a problem in sociology of knowledge as some third rate sociologists who claim that they are sociologists of knowledge seem to think. In fact compartmentalisation of knowledge into sociology, sociology of knowledge etc., is also a western phenomenon that has been influenced by modernity. The way knowledge is created belongs to what could be termed as philosophy and other disciplines according to the western scheme, and those sociologists who are at see with respect to philosophy may want to limit construction of knowledge to sociology.
These sociologists who claim to be sociologists of knowledge could talk of postcolonialism etc. but essentially they talk in the same idiom as the colonialists themselves. They would say that their methodology and writings are sophisticated and that they use an academic jargon. However, if questioned as to who decides if a piece of writing is sophisticated the answer is obviously the westerners. The jargon that they boast of is that of the westerners again, and they for all purposes work in the company of those "intellectuals" produced by the west.
We as Sinhalas or more specifically Sinhala Buddhists do not have to confine ourselves to one particular discipline as such. We belong to the tradition of Mahavansa where history is not separated from Dhamma and "other disciplines", and in the final analysis welfare of the people is considered from a Sinhala Buddhist perspective. Our jargon is not that of the western academics, and we do not have to bothered by the recognition given to our work by those of the west and also by their imitators in Sri Lanka, whether they claim that they speak for the Sinhalas or not.
We have already said that modernity is distinguished from the other modes of existence of society mainly due to its emphasis on the individual as against the society. However, one should be careful not to reduce modernity to freedom of individuals. The freedom of the individual is essentially a Christian attitude different from the Jewish and the Catholic traditions. The freedom of the individual has been made sacrosanct and each individual is supposed to have his/her own car, house, attitude, opinion, and even God. Capitalism which is the economic mode of modernity is only a creation of the latter, and the society is sacrificed for the development of the individual.
The freedom of an individual is limited only by the freedom of the other individuals without any appeal to the society. The society is not the important unit so to speak of and it is assumed that if the individual is freed then the society would look after itself. However, even in the most modern country in the world, namely United States of America, it does not work that way as revealed also by the presidential elections scheduled for 2nd November. As has been noted by others, why should the citizens of USA refer to them as Americans when America is not a country but a continent. Anyhow, the most important factor at the Presidential elections, that takes the form of general elections, is the personal safety or the individual protection. However, the individual protection cannot be achieved without protecting the society and the whole election has been reduced to one particular issue.. Who is the better defender of the America and the American society. Is it Bush or Kerry? It appears that the majority, even if the difference between the majority and the minority is going to be not very large, has decided that Bush is the better candidate to defend America.
What I am trying to say is that even the most modern country in the world is not that modern. Modernity has been evolving and the west at present is at a particular epoch of modernity. It will evolve further but the individual cannot, however it may be tried, escape from the society. In that sense no country could be ultra modern. The people could be ultra modern, not posrmodern, only if the concept of a country could be erased, and if there is no state. The individuals may try to be free from the state, and the modernist western political scientists and other social scientists may canvass for less government in the affairs of the individual, true to the spirit of modernity, but the state will not wither away in any sense of the word whether Marxian or otherwise. As a result neither the discussions on the freedom of the individual from the state will fade away.
Modernity is full of contradictions, the biggest of them being that between the individual and the society. The individual wants to be free from the state and the society, but the individual does not want to live as recluse. The individual needs the society, the human beings been social animals. The social character cannot be entirely eliminated and the individual has to live in a society. Then one could question as to the "character" of the individual.
The western modernity encourages abstract conceptualisation, and that calls for generalisations. The modernity that emphasises the individual has to think about the individual not as a concrete being but as an abstract being. Though modernity would want to campaign for the freedom of each and every individual, it has no "methodology" to do so. The only methodology the western modernity knows is that of abstraction. Thus the individual becomes an abstract entity and it is the freedom of this abstract individual that is finally canvassed. The abstract individual as everyone knows is not Tom, Dick, Harry, Jane or Elizabeth not to mention Ranjith, Swarna or Sivaram or Akesh or even Oshin, but the abstract western Christian. Thus the concrete individual is sacrificed at the altar of abstractness, and finally the concrete individual as such does not enjoy the freedom that modernity wanted to give to this poor creature. The concept of the abstract man is evolved and the freedom, the rights etc., of this abstract man are discussed in the so-called academic literature. As this abstract individual has nothing to say of the millions of Africans and Asians, the freedom of the individual that is forced on those living in these continents are that of an alien culture.
As soon as the concrete individuals are removed, it is easy for theoreticians to work out the freedom of the individual to mean that of a particular class, race or nation and not that of each and every individual. In theory the individual has the freedom, but in practice only the abstract individual has the freedom. We conclude this section on modernity by emphasing that the concepts race, nation etc., should not be understood the way that the western political scientists and the sociologists understand them. We shall return to a discussion of race and nation from a non western perspective, which is important when we consider Tamil racism and history as distorted by Tamil racism.
(Professor Nalin de Silva is a Sri Lankan theoretical physicist, philosopher and a political analyst. He is a Professor in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.)
(The views expressed are his own)
(February 09, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Modernity is a western phenomenon and it has been explained by the westerners using their own theories. However these theories are culture biased as all theories are, and the westerners try to present a picture where modernity is given a privileged status. How does modernity appear to a Sinhala Buddhist who is not corrupted by a western education?
It has to stated, at the outset, that the statement how does modernity appears to somebody other than a westerner or who has been influenced by western education is not quite correct. That statement assumes that there is a phenomenon called modernity and it could appear or manifest differently to different observers. It is not the case, and modernity is a phenomenon as seen and understood by the westerners. The Sinhala Buddhists or any other non western group do not see a phenomenon called modernity, though different from the way the west understand it. We observe an entirely different phenomenon that changed our lives and also our cultures, which has a history of about five hundred years. we could name it differently and call it Europeanisation of the world. However we would use the term modernity to refer to this phenomenon, emphasing again that it is not the way western modernity appears to us, and by modernity we imply Europeanisation of the world.
In fact we could have said by modernity we mean the Anglicisation of the world, as what has been happening during the last five hundred years is essentially a Christianisation of the world with respect to culture, economics and politics. The knowledge created by the west sees the world through the eyes of the westerners, in particular very often through the eyes of the Anglo Saxons. This is not only a problem in sociology of knowledge as some third rate sociologists who claim that they are sociologists of knowledge seem to think. In fact compartmentalisation of knowledge into sociology, sociology of knowledge etc., is also a western phenomenon that has been influenced by modernity. The way knowledge is created belongs to what could be termed as philosophy and other disciplines according to the western scheme, and those sociologists who are at see with respect to philosophy may want to limit construction of knowledge to sociology.
These sociologists who claim to be sociologists of knowledge could talk of postcolonialism etc. but essentially they talk in the same idiom as the colonialists themselves. They would say that their methodology and writings are sophisticated and that they use an academic jargon. However, if questioned as to who decides if a piece of writing is sophisticated the answer is obviously the westerners. The jargon that they boast of is that of the westerners again, and they for all purposes work in the company of those "intellectuals" produced by the west.
We as Sinhalas or more specifically Sinhala Buddhists do not have to confine ourselves to one particular discipline as such. We belong to the tradition of Mahavansa where history is not separated from Dhamma and "other disciplines", and in the final analysis welfare of the people is considered from a Sinhala Buddhist perspective. Our jargon is not that of the western academics, and we do not have to bothered by the recognition given to our work by those of the west and also by their imitators in Sri Lanka, whether they claim that they speak for the Sinhalas or not.
We have already said that modernity is distinguished from the other modes of existence of society mainly due to its emphasis on the individual as against the society. However, one should be careful not to reduce modernity to freedom of individuals. The freedom of the individual is essentially a Christian attitude different from the Jewish and the Catholic traditions. The freedom of the individual has been made sacrosanct and each individual is supposed to have his/her own car, house, attitude, opinion, and even God. Capitalism which is the economic mode of modernity is only a creation of the latter, and the society is sacrificed for the development of the individual.
The freedom of an individual is limited only by the freedom of the other individuals without any appeal to the society. The society is not the important unit so to speak of and it is assumed that if the individual is freed then the society would look after itself. However, even in the most modern country in the world, namely United States of America, it does not work that way as revealed also by the presidential elections scheduled for 2nd November. As has been noted by others, why should the citizens of USA refer to them as Americans when America is not a country but a continent. Anyhow, the most important factor at the Presidential elections, that takes the form of general elections, is the personal safety or the individual protection. However, the individual protection cannot be achieved without protecting the society and the whole election has been reduced to one particular issue.. Who is the better defender of the America and the American society. Is it Bush or Kerry? It appears that the majority, even if the difference between the majority and the minority is going to be not very large, has decided that Bush is the better candidate to defend America.
What I am trying to say is that even the most modern country in the world is not that modern. Modernity has been evolving and the west at present is at a particular epoch of modernity. It will evolve further but the individual cannot, however it may be tried, escape from the society. In that sense no country could be ultra modern. The people could be ultra modern, not posrmodern, only if the concept of a country could be erased, and if there is no state. The individuals may try to be free from the state, and the modernist western political scientists and other social scientists may canvass for less government in the affairs of the individual, true to the spirit of modernity, but the state will not wither away in any sense of the word whether Marxian or otherwise. As a result neither the discussions on the freedom of the individual from the state will fade away.
Modernity is full of contradictions, the biggest of them being that between the individual and the society. The individual wants to be free from the state and the society, but the individual does not want to live as recluse. The individual needs the society, the human beings been social animals. The social character cannot be entirely eliminated and the individual has to live in a society. Then one could question as to the "character" of the individual.
The western modernity encourages abstract conceptualisation, and that calls for generalisations. The modernity that emphasises the individual has to think about the individual not as a concrete being but as an abstract being. Though modernity would want to campaign for the freedom of each and every individual, it has no "methodology" to do so. The only methodology the western modernity knows is that of abstraction. Thus the individual becomes an abstract entity and it is the freedom of this abstract individual that is finally canvassed. The abstract individual as everyone knows is not Tom, Dick, Harry, Jane or Elizabeth not to mention Ranjith, Swarna or Sivaram or Akesh or even Oshin, but the abstract western Christian. Thus the concrete individual is sacrificed at the altar of abstractness, and finally the concrete individual as such does not enjoy the freedom that modernity wanted to give to this poor creature. The concept of the abstract man is evolved and the freedom, the rights etc., of this abstract man are discussed in the so-called academic literature. As this abstract individual has nothing to say of the millions of Africans and Asians, the freedom of the individual that is forced on those living in these continents are that of an alien culture.
As soon as the concrete individuals are removed, it is easy for theoreticians to work out the freedom of the individual to mean that of a particular class, race or nation and not that of each and every individual. In theory the individual has the freedom, but in practice only the abstract individual has the freedom. We conclude this section on modernity by emphasing that the concepts race, nation etc., should not be understood the way that the western political scientists and the sociologists understand them. We shall return to a discussion of race and nation from a non western perspective, which is important when we consider Tamil racism and history as distorted by Tamil racism.
(Professor Nalin de Silva is a Sri Lankan theoretical physicist, philosopher and a political analyst. He is a Professor in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.)
![](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2008/02/what-is-modernity.html&media=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otWn2PlEOdY/R6yOAkS7W1I/AAAAAAAAFfI/ehP9OrsdPqY/s72-c/Nalin.jpg&description="We as Sinhalas or more specifically Sinhala Buddhists do not have to confine ourselves to one particular discipline as such. We belong...){kind=link}
Post a Comment