By H. L. Seneviratne –
Prof. H.L. Seneviratne
Gananath Obeyesekere’s contribution to anthropology is vast and varied, and few have combined theory and empirical fact so skillfully as he has done. At the time he graduated from the University of Ceylon, the dominant variety of anthropology was British Social Anthropology, and talented young students seeking further study went to England, in particular to the prestigious universities like Oxford, Cambridge and London. Gananath defied this custom by seeking higher education in the United States. He joined the graduate program at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, where the anthropology programme included the study of psychology. His primary teacher at Washington was Melford Spiro, perhaps the country’s best known psychological anthropologist. Thus, exposed to both British Social Anthropology and American Anthropology with its strong psychological content, Gananath had forged for himself an anthropology that has expressed itself in 20 or so books, and numerous articles in learned journals.
Nathan / March 26, 2025
… students seeking further study went to England.
… Gananath defied this custom by seeking higher education in the United States.
Having read both the above,
… Thus, exposed to both British Social Anthropology and American Anthropology ,
is confusing to read!
(That I have a great admiration of Gananath Obeyesekere’s contribution to anthropology is beside the point.)
/
SJ / March 27, 2025
The note of appreciation perhaps in the interest of brevity misses out much.
An excellent appreciation appeared in the SL Guardian:
https://slguardian.org/obeyesekere-the-relentless-iconoclast/
/
Agnos / March 28, 2025
Nathan,
I think HL implies that the SL education that GO got gave him exposure to British Social Anthropology. One doesn’t need to study in Britain for that claim to hold.
/
SJ / March 28, 2025
Agnos
Agree
The university scholarly tradition in SL was up to the 1970s much conditioned by the British system. Also the colonial bond was pretty strong.
It was lack of opportunity in the UK that persuaded many to seek places elsewhere.
GO made an educated choice I would say.
/
Agnos / March 29, 2025
SJ,
When GO and Stanley Tambiah were honored at a convocation in the early 1990s at Peradeniya, the lengthy speech by the VC (Arjuna Aluwihara ?) said that GO’s undergrad major was English and his choice of Anthropology for postgraduate studies was, I am quoting from memory, “a crossing of disciplinary boundaries at a time when such boundaries were sacrosanct.” So it seems to me that in laudatory speeches and writings, people simply look for something good to say, whether factual or not.
/
SJ / March 30, 2025
A
in GO’s case the crossing was a big breach of disciplinary boundary. There are others who have done such things in the sciences and technology.
Also given the conservative attitudes of GO’s time, it was an honest appreciation.
It was a bold move nevertheless.
BTW
Prof Mahalingam qualified as a civil engineer and switched discipline on request by the Dean I think.
/
Jit / March 27, 2025
Gananath emerged from an era that nurtured young academics, encouraging them to question, debate, and explore topics of interest freely. It was a time when seamless academic careers flourished, fostering the creation of new knowledge. This period saw a vibrant culture of critical thinking and intellectual rigor, where many young scholars had the opportunity to engage with world-class research and publications. Needless to mention proficiency in a universal language was the lead factor, which expanded their access to world-class research and publications.
–
And the political climate of that time was undeniably more tolerant, cultivating an environment where spirited debates could flourish, and differing perspectives were genuinely valued. This openness created a thriving academic culture that prioritized intellectual growth and innovation. However, the academic landscape today has strayed far from these ideals. The rise of a “henchmen academia” culture, shaped by rotten politicians for decades, has dismantled the once-vibrant intellectual spaces in our universities. The golden era of academia, which thrived until the 1970s, is all dead and gone already.
/
SJ / March 27, 2025
J
It is true he belonged to a different generation of academics.
But even by the norms of that period, Gananath was exceptional for his quality and courage.
I do not want to name names, but we knew academics who went on hunger strike demanding a chair. When the Universities Act of 1974 was introduced very senior academics (much older than GO) were up in arms. When the Act was amended to raise the age of retirement from 62 to 65, they went silent.
There were envy and manipulation even then, but not in the crude way we see now.
*
I will not be so sentimental about a glorious past.
/
Jit / March 28, 2025
SJ, of course, there were always a few ‘bad eggs,’ as there are in any field. But what made this time special was the prevailing spirit of open debate and the genuine appreciation of diverse viewpoints. It was a space where tolerance, individual respect, and constructive criticism flourished, relatively free from external political interference. This is what I learnt from one of my uncles who was at Pera 58-62.
/
SJ / March 28, 2025
J
“the genuine appreciation of diverse viewpoints.”
I would rather say greater tolerance than appreciation.
What we have got used to later is transparent intolerance.
But there have been exceptions even among rather dogmatic persons. A very influential don fought to appoint as lecturer a person who was of a very different political persuasion.
This was in the late 1970s, and frankly I was surprised.
/
Native Vedda / March 29, 2025
“I will not be so sentimental about a glorious past.”
–
Except Mao’s, Siri Maos…..
/
Sinhala_Man / March 27, 2025
A truly great man; I’m sure that there has never been a criticism of him. The only member of his family whom I know is daughter Nalinika, the veterinary surgeon.
.
He has lived ninety five years, what more can one wish for a human being. My sympathies to Nalinika and wife, Ranjini.
.
Panini Edirisinhe
/
SJ / March 28, 2025
A man who was never criticized cannot be great.
/
Native Vedda / March 29, 2025
“A man who was never criticized cannot be great.”
–
Does it mean both Mao and Siri Mao were great because they were criticized severely?
/
SJ / March 31, 2025
The logic of stupidity knows no bounds
/