Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka and US-Sri Lanka Diplomacy: A Discourse Analysis
The Project
Statement for applying for FULBRIGHT Post-doctoral Fellowship SCHOLAR PROGRAM 2011
Jeyaseelan
Gnanaseelan, ELTU, Vavuniya Campus of the University of Sri Lanka
jeya86@hotmail.com; mobile:
0094717477503
Key
Points of the Project Statement
·
It
is a discourse analysis (Applied Linguistics) of the English texts related to
the USA diplomatic and media discourses on Sri Lankan ethnic conflict and the
USA-Sri Lanka Relations- a highly ‘politically and diplomatically’ sensitive
contemporary phenomenon.
·
It
is currently significant as the USA shows a keen interest and involvement in
constructing discourses of human rights, conflict resolution and bilateral
relations globally as well as in Sri Lanka, which has generally become
controversial and is resisted in many countries including Sri Lanka.
·
Analyzing
the discourse on the role of the USA in Sri Lanka will be a meaningful contribution
to the proper understanding and acceptance of its role in Sri Lanka and to the
literature on Sri Lankan political discourse analysis
·
The
researcher has carried out similar studies in his PhD in English and Msc in
Human security programs and consequently published articles and presented
conference papers and he can share his expertise and experience on Sri Lanka
with the USA counterparts
·
There
is no [such] scholar in Sri Lanka specially trained in political and media
discourse analyses in English
·
The
USA is suitable for this research because it has produced highly qualified and
internationally acclaimed analysts and quality analyses.
·
Interacting
with the USA people on the USA
discourse on the research topic will be a first hand, authentic rich
experience
·
This
experience will give confidence and academic power to introduce applied
linguistic tools to English language related interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary studies in Sri Lanka.
Title
Ethnic Conflict in
Sri Lanka and US-Sri Lanka Diplomacy: A Discourse Analysis
Background
In
Sri Lanka, it is generally perceived that the ethnic communities, mainly the
politicians, professionals and media elites practice cultural and linguistic
nationalism (de Silva, 2006; Smith,
1978; Tambiah, 1986; Uyangoda, 1996; Wilson, 2000; Centre for Policy
Alternatives, 2004a; 2004b, Media Monitor, 2006, etc,).
Even after all these incidents of ethnic violence, international interventions,
and peace talks, in this era of globalization and technological and information
revolutions, these ideological positions have not receded. Deshapriya (2004) a
prominent Sinhala moderate and a senior member of the editorial team of the
Centre for Policy Alternatives observes that:
There
is an ethnic bias in the mainstream media in Sri Lanka. Number of studies has
proved this beyond fact. Compounded by protracted ethno-political conflict,
resulting in social-political polarization, exacerbated by ineffective media
reforms, and coupled with the imperatives of market economies, it continues to
perceive ethnicity as immutable and innate, neglecting its responsibility to
demystify stereotypes and buttress institutions and practices, that can
ameliorate ethno-political conflict
(p.11)
“Discourse”
is a concept often used by the social theorists (e.g. Foucault, 1972; Fraser,
1989) and linguists (e.g. Stubbs, 1983; van Dijk, 1985). It refers to the use
of language as a social practice: Canagarajah (2002) defines “discourse
as referring to genres of thinking/communicating/interacting that are
influenced by concomitant forms of sociolinguistic conventions, ideological
complexes, and knowledge paradigms” (p.7). It is simultaneously constitutive of
(1) social identities, (2) social relations and (3) systems of knowledge and
belief (Fairclough, 1995a; 1995b). Fairclough
(1992, pp.63-67) says that discourse represents the world and is being used by
people to act upon it and upon each other.
The
discourse of internationalization of internal conflicts has become the norm of
the era of globalization. The Sri Lankan politicians and media often make a
strong resistance that the peace process in Sri Lanka has become “highly
internationalized”. This has taken the form of external security guarantees,
ceasefire and human rights monitoring, facilitation of peace negotiations, and
humanitarian/development assistance (Goodhand et. al, 2005, p.21). But after
2000, “Aid and conflict resolution discourses have been successively
re-invented to legitimize a variety of external interventionist strategies”
(ibid. p.23). However, the intervention has not had a transformational effect
neither on domestic political processes nor on the strong ideological and
attitudinal positions pursued in Sri Lanka.
There
is the division between Asian and Western actors in terms of their
interventions. The former have been more concerned with geo-strategic and trade
objectives, while the later have concerns including human rights, democratization
and liberalization (Goodhand et. al, 2005, p.24). During the peace talk time
(2003-2007), the Sri Lankan politicians and media appreciated the USA for its
support to ‘the war on terrorism in Sri Lanka’ but in this post-war situation,
they criticize the USA for its support for the human rights violation probing
in Sri Lanka and blame that the USA’s actions and statements have become
“hegemonic interference”.
This
project will analyze the diplomatic and political discourses of the USA
government and the media on the protracted ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka for the
last three decades and its relations with Sri Lanka. On the other hand, it will
identify how the conflict has made an impact on the USA foreign policy on its
international relations with Sri Lanka and how their discourses have been
constructed and reconstructed and how they have influenced, are understood and
are de-constructed by the American academic circle as well as the different
ethnic communities in Sri Lanka.
Objectives
-To investigate the linguistic, metaphorical and
thematic structures and strategies of the diplomatic and media discourses of
the diplomats, politicians and media of the USA on the ethnic conflict,
conflict resolution, peace, bilateral relations and development,
- to arrive at their ideological, attitudinal and national positions and its consequent
contribution to the sustainable peace in Sri Lanka
The Research Question is “How
does the diplomatic and media discourse discursively construct social reality?”
Professionally
as an academic researcher, I have analyzed the political as well as media
discourses on ethnic conflict, human security, national security,
intra-national and international relations in my PhD research using this
methodology on , ethnic conflict and
international relations- a discourse analysis of the editorials of the Sri
Lankan English newspapers and in the Msc program in Human Security with the
research component on the conflict. I have published two articles in university
journals and presented ten conference papers at national and international
forums related to this topic. My knowledge and experience gathered in the past
will help me expand my analysis on this topic.
Methodology
Discourse Analysis is useful in analyzing the ways
of social construction in diplomatic and media discourse using the methods of Social
Constructionist Approach (SCA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of Fairclough (1989) and van Dijk
(1995) or Critical Linguistics (Canagarajah, 1999, p.30). People use language
to construct versions of the social world and the variations of language show
the active process of this construction (Elliott, 1996, p. 65).
The
methodology is qualitative and it is a textual analytical approach under
applied linguistics. It will undertake both DA and CDA on the English texts. My
primary data will be the written discourse as statements or reports taken from
the media and state library archives and ministries and offices of external
affairs and international relations. They will be referred for authentic texts
of diplomatic discourse on the specified issues. However, the oral statements
from the interviews with the relevant media personnel, diplomats, the relevant
scholars of the host institution, and the general public will be used as supplement
for appropriate analysis, that is, for contextualization, contrast and
comparison, understanding and interpretation of diplomatic and media discourses
in writing.
Significance
This research will create the possibility of
challenging the assumptions about the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and the
international relations of the US towards Sri Lanka. It will provide a consistent
presentation of the levels of the US involvement in the conflict resolution
process in this post-war situation, in improving the human rights situation in
Sri Lanka and the consequent implications and improvement in the bilateral
relations. It will clarify many misunderstandings and prejudices of the
citizens of both countries concerning the discourses. The present government of
Sri Lanka perceives USA’s involvement in the national issue ‘uneasily.’ However,
there are differences of opinions on this issue from different political
parties and ethnic groups in Sri Lanka.
Researches by political scientists identified a
vacuum for constitutional nationalism active in practice. This research approach
is new in Sri Lanka. The models to be developed here, the study hopes, may
contribute to the ideational, textual, inter-textual and interpersonal
understanding of the issues under analysis.
It is highly imperative to investigate the discourses
of diplomatic relations especially with the USA which plays a key role in and
constructs the discourse and development of contemporary International
Relations and to relate them to the Sri Lankan politicians and media elites’
preparation of their efforts in the ethnic conflict resolution. Thus, it
contributes to this body of literature. A
serendipitous outcome is a contribution to the growing body of studies using
discourse analysis that has recently emerged in political discourse.
The
creation of academic and research link and dialogue with the USA discourse
analysts and expertise, well-advanced, will fine tune my skills of discourse
analysis (DA), critical discourse analysis (CDA) and linguistic analysis (LA) and
will professionally train me to be a rare resource person in Sri Lanka. Consequently,
in my home institution, being a senior lecturer in English, discourse analyst,
and applied linguist, I will be able to introduce the DA, CDA and LA approaches
to the English language studies, especially in the curriculum, teaching and
learning methodology in the fields of English language and literature, applied
linguistics, English for business communication, English for natural, physical
and social sciences. Media discourse on these disciplines can be incorporated
in the content of English for academic and specific purposes.
Evaluation and Dissemination
The
outcomes of the research will be presented at the national and international
academic research conferences in Sri Lanka, India and other countries. The
feedback and comment obtained from these conference presentations will assess
the efficiency of my research skills and effectiveness of my analyses and the
consequent impact on the local diplomats, academic as well as media elites, and
the politicians to modify their ideological and attitudinal positions
positively towards the conflict resolution process and the USA-Sri Lanka
bilateral relations. The research output
will be published as journal and newspaper articles to reach the Sri Lankan
public. Finally, after the feedbacks, comments, and responses obtained so far
having been accommodated, the research content will be improved with the
editorial assistance from the USA colleagues and published as a book.
Justification
for Residence in the United States for the Proposed Project
Being
nationally as well as internationally sensitive political issues of serious
nature, to undertake a pragmatic analysis of the discourses of the USA
diplomats, politicians and media elites on the issue under study, it is highly
imperative to personally interview and interact with the representatives of
these groups as key informants, as well as the relevant scholars of the host
institution and the interested general public to elicit authentic and
authorized statements and opinions as it is extremely difficult to analyze and identify the factual, ideological and
attitudinal positions of the categories of respondents such as (1) the USA
government, (2) media, (3) academia, and (4) the general public while I am
staying in Sri Lanka. Otherwise it may lead to misunderstanding and
misperception.
Residing
in the USA will facilitate the comparative and contrastive analysis of the
responses and data from the four categories of the USA participants in
isolation as well as in accumulation. The positions of the category can be
cross checked or cross-referenced with those of the other categories.
Through
direct interaction and dialogue, in turn, as a cultural ambassador from Sri
Lanka, I can contribute to the understanding and critical and creative
appraisal and judgment of the key informants, and other interviewees in the USA
on the discourses. As a discourse analyst, I will be able to contribute my
expertise on the Sri Lankan discourse to my counterparts in the USA.
There
will be a practical opportunity for observing, and studying similar experiences
in the USA, especially how the minority communities are accommodated within the
American constitutional nationalism and how the majority and minority
communities look at the US diplomacy with other countries experiencing similar
situations.
The
expertise in discourse analysis has been amply demonstrated meeting the
international standard by the scholars living and working in the USA. A face to
face interaction in physical presence and teaming with some of them will be an
excellent opportunity to standardize the project at an international level and
the consequent professional relationship will sustain my academic spirit even after the completion of the project and
in future projects in my home country.
The
primary as well as secondary data have to be collected in person as it should
be a first hand experience to me as well as the data authentic.
Duration
|
Month and Purpose
|
Activity
|
|
1st month:
orientation
|
· To arrive in
the USA and reach the host institution and fulfill food, accommodation and
travel requirements.
· To orientate
with the official requirements of staying in the USA as a researcher ,
stipulated by the government as well as host institution
· To familiarize
the project detail and the relevant Sri Lankan cultural and political
contexts to the chief officials of the host institution and team members and
establish an amicable relationship and draw an action plan for the joint as
well as individual research activities.
· To develop a
contextualized theoretical as well as application model s of Discourse
Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis Models.
· To identify
the data sources, resource persons and respondents.
· To draw a time
plan of visiting and meeting them on site after confirming their
appointments.
· To finalize
the data collected on-line and in print in Sri Lanka for using them in the
USA and collect more as samples for preliminary analysis.
· To consult
with the discourse analysts of the host institution of the validity and
reliability of the data collected so far
|
|
2nd Month:
Data Collection
|
· To undertake a
preliminary analysis of the data collected so far
· To visit and
meet the sources and persons to collect data
· To check their
relevancy with the discourse analysts in the host institutions
· To synthesize
the data collected so far and commence the analysis
· To determine
the relevancy of the literature collected in Sri Lanka and develop more in
the USA to give a strong theoretical support
|
|
3rd Month:
Data Analysis
|
· To continue to
visit and meet the sources and persons to collect data and check their
relevancy
· To finalize
the data and commence the analysis proper.
|
|
4th Month:
Data Synthesis
|
· To draw the
working draft of the project report
· To present it
to the relevant forums within or outside of the host institutions and obtain
their constructive and critical feed back for comparative and contrastive
purposes
|
|
5th Month: Project
Finalization
|
· To revise and
edit the working draft by adding more analysis and editing irrelevant
analysis in consultation with USA and Sri Lankan scholars.
|
|
6th Month: Completion and
Submission
|
· To identify
the potential points of the project and plan for further expansion by
comparing the USA discourse with those of Sri Lanka and the South Asian
countries.
· To identify
the relevant experts in the USA and establish professional relationship for
partnership for future projects.
· To complete
the final draft and submit to the relevant bodies
· To return to
the native country
|
English
Proficiency
I
am a Senior Lecturer in English at a university in Sri Lanka. I have been
teaching English and Linguistics for the last 16 years and Mass Communication
to the students of the BA in Social sciences of the Open University of Sri
Lanka in the English medium at its Vavuniya Centre for two years. I have done
my entire bachelor’s, Post-graduate Diploma, Master’s (four) and doctorate in
English medium. Apart from one Msc in Human security, the rest of the Degree
qualifications (six) are related to English language and literature,
Linguistics, Teaching English as a second Language (TESL), and English
discourse analysis (politics, international Relations and media).
I
have written all of my dissertations and theses in English. I earned an
international professional accreditation as “Accredited
Teacher in Higher Education” awarded by the Staff & Education Development
Association of the United Kingdom after my participation in a professional
training program and submission of a comprehensive portfolio in English. I have
presented my research findings as conference papers in 16 international and
national conferences in English. I have published 5 academic journal and
magazine articles (two have been accepted to be published in English) and 7 English
newspaper articles in English. The recent IELTS (academic) over all band score
was 7.5. (30/April/2011)
Other
Six
months before I leave for the USA, I will commence collecting the relevant
online and print data from Sri Lanka, the USA and the USA embassy in Sri Lanka
and carry out a preliminary discourse analysis which will be discussed with the
USA counterparts when I reach my host institution. This will save my research
time in the USA. Financially I will be able to manage my research expenses
comfortably within the grant.
Reference
Canagarajah, A.
Suresh. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Canagarajah, A.
Suresh. (2002). The Problem. A Geopolitics of Academic Writing: Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press. p.7.
Centre for Policy
Alternatives, (2004a). Monitoring of Media Coverage: Final Report. Retrieved November 25, 2006,
from <http://www.cpalanka.org/research_papers
/2004_GE_Media_Monitoring_Report.pdf>
Centre for Policy
Alternatives, (2004b). Peace process and intervention. Retrieved December 12,
2006, from < http://www.cpalanka.org/research_papers/Peace_Process.pdf>
Deshapriya, S.
(2004). Contesting hegemonies”: Trilateral (linguistic) media in Sri Lanka.
Media Monitor, August, 2004: Retrieved October 14, 2007, from
de Silva, Chandra
R. (2006). Buddhist monks and peace in Sri Lanka. In Deegalle, ed. Buddhism,
Conflict and Violence in Modern Sri Lanka. London: Routledge.
Elliott, R.
(1996). Discourse analysis: Exploring action, function and conflict in social
texts. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 14 (6), 65-68.
Fairclough, N.
(1989): Language and Power, Longman.
Fairclough N.
(1992) Discourse and Social change. Cambridge, Oxford, Malden: Polity Press
Fairclough, N.
(1995a). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. London:
Longman.
Fairclough, N.
(1995b). Media Discourse, Edward Arnold: London
Foucault, M.
1972: The Archeology of Knowledge, trans. Sheridan-Smith, A.M., Tavistock
Publications.
Fraser, N.
(1989): Unruly Practice: power, discourse and gender in contemporary social
theory, Polity Press.
Goodhand, J.,
Klem, B., Fonseka, D., Keethaponcalan, S.I, and Sardesai, S. (2005) Aid,
Conflict, and Peacebuilding in Sri Lanka 2000 – 2005, Colombo: The Asia
Foundation.
Media Monitor
(2006a) Looking at Ourselves. Report for May-June 2006. Retrieved September 19,
2007, from <http://www.cpalanka.org/publications/May_June_Media_monitor_English.pdf>
Smith, B. L.
(1978). Religion and legitimation of Power in Srilanka. Chambersburg, PA:Anima
Books.
Stubbs, M.
(1983). Discourse analysis, Basil Blackwell.
Tambiah, S. J.
(1986). Srilanka: Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Uyangoda, J.
(1996). Militarization,Violent State, Violent society: Srilanka. In Rupesinghe,
Kumar and Khawar Mamtaz eds.(1996). Internal Conflicts
in South Asia. London: Sage Publications.
van Dijk, T.
(ed.) 1985: Handbook of discourse analysis, 4 vols, Academic Press.
Wilson,A. J. (
2000). Srilankan Tamil Nationalism: Its origins and Developments in the
Nineteenth and the twentieth centuries.
Vancouver: University of British Colombia press.
No comments:
Post a Comment