So the professor has decided to back pedal furiously like no one’s business, eh?
You have shot yourself in the foot once again, dear professor. Why is it that you are unable to differentiate between the literal and the conceptual when it comes to ‘reason’ and ‘progress’?

Foucault ,along with other post-structural/post-modern thinkers, has demystified the essentialist eighteenth-century notion of ‘reason’ and ‘progress’ which perceived everyone outside the white, male normative as defective goods (this includes you, me, animals, minerals, vegetables…etc). Get it?

It wasn’t just the cool guys like Foucault who had problems with this one-sided interpretation of things, but feminists, too, had major problems with the know it all dudes. Feminists argued that the mind/body dualism of the eighteenth century relegated women as bodily creatures incapable of ‘reason’. What is more, women were considered immoral because women were seen as lacking the capacity to distinguish ‘right’ from ‘wrong’.

As for ‘narratives’, whether in literature or philosophy, for Foucault et. al there is no grand narrative/omniscient narrator. There is no one reality, rather reality is provisional.

As for the “grey” area…life is all about grey, prof! Who wants it black and white?
FYI, I am not an academic, but I pick up on what’s going on by keeping an open mind!

I still think your students should get a reimbursement.

Your earlier position was: “Let me get this straight, you still walk around cheering for the idea of “progressive knowledge” in a world that has long evolved from the concepts of “reason” and “progress”?

As I understand it, the above statement claimed that the world has long dropped concepts of reason and progress. But now it seems, we still use it.

Re:
“What I was referring to was the eighteenth century notion of ‘reason’ and ‘progress’ which perceived the world in terms of the ‘Self’ and ‘Other’.”

Please go back to my statement. I spoke of Foucault’s critique of humanism/Englightenment notions of ‘reason’ and ‘progress’. Anyone would know that it is a clear reference to 17th/18th European intellectual developments within the context of colonialism.

You also said:
“Foucault and other post-structural/post-modern thinkers saw reason’ and ‘progress’ as just one narrative among the various other narratives that form our subjectivity. You want democracy? Well there you have it!”

Whatever narratives form our subjectivity, they will be inevitably structured by notions of ‘reason’ and ‘progress’, either implicitly or explicity, although they may vary radically from earlier or dominant notions of these. Stories, including fantasy stories, are constructed from ‘reason’. Narrative is a form of reasoning, of shaping and ordering one’s understanding of reality. And narratives ‘progress’ from a start to a finish, even when these are presented in non-chronological order.

It’s not productive to engage in conversation with someone who changes their position as soon as it comes under attack and pretends s/he hasn’t, who tries to get out of a tight spot by mocking the other person. Your style of expression shows that you have a misplaced high regard for what you think is your “wit”. Some of us can see through the grey area between wit and deceit. I will leave you to your own mental masturbations. I hope it keeps your cash register ringing as my students keep mine going.

I was right. The students should demand their money back! Cashola, cashola, where is our cashola?

Nobody in their right mind will ever question ‘reason’ per se. We need ‘reason’ to function in society, to find some middle ground in the chaos of life. As for ‘progress’, yes, there are means, methods and ideas, which help improve conditions.

What I was referring to was the eighteenth century notion of ‘reason’ and ‘progress’ which perceived the world in terms of the ‘Self’ and ‘Other’. Western knowledge was privileged as ‘progressive’ and scientific while Asian and African knowledge systems were deemed superstitious and backward. Not everyone was brainwashed by colonial racism, but many of us still seem unable to break out of the shackles.

Foucault and other post-structural/post-modern thinkers saw reason’ and ‘progress’ as just one narrative among the various other narratives that form our subjectivity. You want democracy? Well there you have it!

Dear, professor, is the humanities department in which you are teaching still functioning? Your professors probably did not enlighten you beyond the eighteenth century.

Jayawewa to us Gamay Godayas!

If Foucault meant what you think he meant, humanities departments would now be reduced to a deathly silence. Instead, critical knowledges are proliferating.

Howdy! So what do we have here? Let’s see, you’d like us to buy the glaring contradiction that you teach Foucault while arguing on behalf of “progressive knowledges”. Can one do this in the same life-time? This is quite pitiful even for a confused first year PhD student working as a TA. But, if you’d like us to believe that you are a professor, I think the students should demand their money back!

You belong to the sixties generation? Really? Well, then, as my best friend used to say: “there is one in every crowd”!

What can I say? Go back and read my post very carefully.

Why are you talking to me about class barriers when it is you who talks down to non-English speakers. Can you recall labelling them “backward”, and “frogs in the well”? According to your logic, I suppose, everyone in English speaking circles is so enlightened and well informed. Ha! Ha!

No one needs your permission or mine to learn English. Don’t waste your pity on the non-English speakers; they are not going to thank you.

With all due respect, Groundsview is not the end all and be all! There is a life outside the cyber world, remember?

In case you didn’t hear me the first time – I am once again stressing that everyone in Sri-Lanka must have equal access to English classes. Youhoo…did you all hear me back there?

So, please, give that superiority complex of yours a rest. Thank you.

I never suggested blind aping of the West. That was your assumption. I stressed the importance of having access to progressive knowledges because that precisely allows one to learn English with a critical perspective, i.e. without needing to ape the West.

“Why are you so intimidated by Foucault when he has practically become a household name today? Don’t you know that in Sri-Lanka even people who speak only in either Sinhala or Tamil have some idea of Foucault?”

I am not intimidated by Foucault–I teach his work. As for only Sinhala or Tamil speaking people having some idea of Foucault, that would be because some people who are effectively bilingual in one of these languages as well as in English or French had done some translation and thus given them access to Foucault. Just today, a Tamil Language academic was complaining that her and her colleagues’ lack of competence in English restricted their access to international developments in language teaching.

“Indeed, if we use “reason”, there wouldn’t be any world religions. I am okay with that, are you?”

There have always been world religions. Does that mean that the world has been ‘post-reason’ for centuries?

“By the way, the Brits are not the only colonizers. Do you know what the Americans are up to?”

Really, Americans are the new imperialists? Gee, what a novel idea! Guess I’m getting a real education from you, huh?

“Well, you youngster, you couldn’t possibly imagine the type of groundbreaking ideas some of us belonging to sixties generation were rooting for.”

I belong to the 60s generation. But, yes, I acknowledge some ambiguity in what I said that gave you the impression that I was younger. I should have said that you sounded like someone who was “stuck” in the 1950s and 1960s, going on about colonialism.

The President of South Korea Lee Myung-bak is currently pushing for greater use of English according to the Newsweek of 8 February 2010. President Mahinda Rajapakse is trying to do the same in Sri Lanka right now by promoting English and IT. He is trying to educate the rural folk through English and IT. It is calle the e-village concept.
Can you enter the knowledge economy without English? If so please tell me how?

The above are examples of two world leaders who are trying hard to promote English in the countries they govern. That is because they have realised the importance of English in the world that we live in.

I do not believe in limiting English to a few people in Colombo. That is what SWRD did with his “Sinhala only.”
Sinhala and Tamil only is not going to get our country anywhere. I will put the question to you-has Sinhala and Tamil got us anywhere?

Good English has to go beyond class. If the son or daughter of a farmer wants to learn English lets give them the opportunity to learn the language. That is the point I am trying to make. Learning good English will lessen class barriers.

I think it is best that you come down to Sri Lanka and have a look at the standards of English in this country. I live in this country and I feel that the standards are far too low.

I would welcome any foreigner who comes to this country to teach English to our students be they urban or rural. But at the same time we need to draw on our own resources. India has done that succesfully.

To mix up English with class snobbery in this day and age is beyond “reason and progress.” You and I are using English to write comments on Groundviews. Do not forget that the vast majority of the people of this country do not know English to be able to write their comments on Groundviews or anywhere else for that matter. In my opinion we need to change that.
Perhaps you want to limit it to a small circle? Who knows.

I have read books by Martin Wickremasinghe and I have also seen his books made into films on TV. I am sure even he would have encouraged us to learn English. Did he ever say that we need Sinhala or Tamil only? He was not a frog in the well you know.

First of all, I am not glued to academic journals. I am more intrigued by your anachronistic views on society. No journal can beat that!

Why are you so intimidated by Foucault when he has practically become a household name today? Don’t you know that in Sri-Lanka even people who speak only in either Sinhala or Tamil have some idea of Foucault?

Indeed, if we use “reason”, there wouldn’t be any world religions. I am okay with that, are you?

In your earlier post, you said: “You sound like someone from the 1950s and 1960s going on about colonialism. The Brits have been dead for some time now. Stop flogging a dead horse”.

Well, you youngster, you couldn’t possibly imagine the type of groundbreaking ideas some of us belonging to sixties generation were rooting for.

By the way, the Brits are not the only colonizers. Do you know what the Americans are up to?

English learning in Sri-Lanka for all: Yes!

Blind aping of the West: No!