09/10/2025
The English Monopoly: Critical Feminist Cultural Discourses and the Marginalization of Vernacular Masculinities
Language, Elitism, and the Colonially Inflected Feminist Divide: A Global South Critique of Hegemonic English Academia in Sri Lanka
In Sri Lanka, English functions as a tool of social stratification, a symbolic marker of elite education and cultural authority. English Departments, presenting themselves as the arbiters of linguistic and intellectual legitimacy, frequently reproduce colonial hierarchies, positioning vernacular-educated individuals as deficient, subordinate, or socially irrelevant. Within these spaces, Western-inflected feminist discourses often operate as instruments of cultural gatekeeping, privileging certain voices while marginalizing others—including underrepresented men, rural learners, and non-English-speaking communities.
This paper critically examines how hegemonic English academia enforces structural and symbolic inequalities through language, pedagogy, and intellectual practice. By interrogating the intersections of colonial residue, feminist ideology, and linguistic elitism, I argue that dominant “womanized” feminist frameworks can paradoxically replicate the very hierarchies they claim to resist. This Global South critique exposes how postcolonial English education and academic feminism in Sri Lanka both reflect and reinforce historical power structures, raising urgent questions about inclusivity, intellectual authority, and the politics of language.
1. Introduction: The Language of Power and the Custodians of Englishness
This paper explores how and why English Departments in Sri Lanka often assume exclusive ownership of linguistic fluency and legitimacy, positioning themselves as the ultimate custodians of the English language. Those educated in vernacular mediums are frequently perceived as subordinate, linguistically inadequate, or socially irrelevant—excluded from elite circles that symbolically mirror the “Colombo 7” class culture of refined Englishness.
My observations reveal how certain English academics perpetuate a hegemonic elitism rooted in colonial residues, positioning themselves as the sole representatives of English cultural civility. This intellectual elitism constructs vernacular speakers as rude, uncultured, and incapable of mastering English, thus reinforcing the colonial hierarchy of language and class. Such attitudes, I argue, have deeply influenced Sri Lankan educational structures, making it increasingly difficult for rural and urban students alike to grasp English as a living, inclusive language.
Moreover, these English departments, enclosed within their own academic and social “rooms,” often resist engaging with local cultures and vernacular epistemologies. Their reluctance to internalize the cognitive and linguistic richness of vernacular communities reflects not merely academic detachment but a philosophical disconnection from the lived realities of postcolonial Sri Lanka.
2. Theoretical Context: Language, Power, and Postcolonial Feminist Critique
To situate the discussion of English, elitism, and gendered hierarchies in Sri Lankan academia, this paper draws upon multiple theoretical frameworks that intersect linguistics, postcolonial studies, and feminist critique.
Postcolonial Linguistic Theory
Postcolonial theorists such as Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (1986) and Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin (2002) emphasize how colonial languages, such as English, become instruments of social stratification. In postcolonial contexts, English often functions as a gatekeeping tool—marking access to social, cultural, and intellectual capital. Sri Lankan English Departments, as observed, reproduce this linguistic hierarchy by positioning vernacular-educated students as inherently inferior. This aligns with Bourdieu’s (1991) concept of linguistic capital, wherein mastery of a dominant language confers symbolic power, status, and authority.
Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Language and Elitism
Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalytic theory provides insight into how language shapes ego formation, self-perception, and social anxieties. The insistence on English fluency as a marker of intellectual legitimacy reflects what Lacan (1977) would describe as the Symbolic Order, where language structures societal hierarchies and determines who is “heard” and who is marginalized. The reactions of academics to critiques—such as dismissing opponents for using AI to refine English—can be understood as defenses against symbolic threat, revealing both individual and institutional insecurities.
Feminist and Gender Theory
This analysis intersects with Global South feminist critique, particularly scholarship that interrogates hegemonic, womanized forms of feminism (Mohanty, 1988; Narayan, 1997). These forms often inadvertently reproduce colonial, patriarchal, and classed hierarchies under the guise of inclusivity and gender justice. In Sri Lankan academia, the performative criticality of English Departments—claiming commitment to feminism, gender justice, and human rights—frequently masks continued elitism and exclusion of vernacular-educated or rural voices. This reflects what Spivak (1988) terms the subaltern’s silencing, whereby marginalized groups are structurally unable to influence or fully participate in knowledge production.
Critical Sociolinguistics and Cultural Studies
The division between “inside” and “outside” English Departments resonates with Fairclough’s (1992) critical discourse analysis, highlighting how institutionalized language practices sustain social power structures. These departments’ reluctance to engage with vernacular epistemologies exemplifies a form of academic gatekeeping, wherein linguistic fluency in English becomes synonymous with intellectual legitimacy, while vernacular knowledge and lived experience are undervalued.
Intersectionality and Classed Knowledge Production
Finally, intersectional theory (Crenshaw, 1989) is crucial for understanding how gender, class, and language intersect in Sri Lankan higher education. Vernacular-educated males and rural students are doubly marginalized: linguistically by the dominance of English and socially by entrenched class hierarchies. These compounded exclusions illustrate the colonially remified structures that perpetuate inequities within academic and feminist spaces.
Synthesis:
Collectively, these theoretical lenses illuminate the dynamics of language, power, and exclusion in Sri Lankan academia. English functions as both a medium of global communication and a site of elite consolidation. The rhetoric of inclusivity and feminist critique, while performative, reveals deep-seated colonial residues, class anxieties, and psychoanalytic tensions. By engaging with these frameworks, this paper situates its critique of hegemonic English academia within a broader understanding of postcolonial, feminist, and sociolinguistic power structures.
________________________________________
3. Inside and Outside the English Department: Institutional Boundaries
During my time as a temporary assistant lecturer in Mass Communication, I once visited a Professor in the English Department. Some of the faculty members there were welcoming and supportive, assisting me generously during my studies. Yet, I could not help but notice the subtle division between those “inside” the English Department and those “outside” it.
This distinction—between insiders and outsiders—functions as a naturalized social and institutional boundary. The interactions are polite and cordial, yet carefully contained so that the two spheres never truly mingle or blend. Such divisions sustain the existing hierarchy between those proficient in English and those who are not, reinforcing linguistic and cultural separation. It is as if the institutional structure ensures that the “inside” remains uncontaminated by the presence of the “outside,” thereby maintaining the symbolic purity of English academic elitism.
________________________________________
4. English Education and the Copycat Pedagogy
In Sri Lankan popular and educational discourse—especially within rural and urban state schools—it becomes evident that many children struggle to learn English effectively. Based on lifelong observation, one primary reason for this is the design and philosophy of English textbooks and curricula, which have long reflected a copycat theoretical framework. These materials often mirror foreign models without meaningful engagement with local linguistic ecologies or the cognitive psychology of Sri Lankan learners.
This disconnect becomes clearer when compared with other postcolonial contexts, such as India, where English teaching has adapted more successfully to local realities. Before the 1990s, Sri Lankan school textbooks like An English Course encouraged learning through story-based and anecdotal methods, grounded in familiar cultural experiences and social identities. Lessons reflected the learner’s world, using relatable symbols and local cognitive cues that fostered creativity and comprehension.
However, since the 1990s, English textbooks, teacher training programs, and curricula have become increasingly detached from the cognitive and cultural psychology of local learners. The National Institute of Education, English education consultants, and many university academics—though physically situated in Sri Lanka—remain intellectually aligned with Western pedagogical paradigms. Their frameworks replicate the models of the UK, USA, Australia, or Canada, reproducing a Westernized, hegemonic, and elite mentality within a postcolonial educational system.
This alienation has widened the divide between English and the vernacular. For many teachers and students in rural schools, English has become a symbol of elitism rather than a tool of communication. While a few educators have adapted successfully to local contexts, most remain trapped within imported methodologies that ignore the socio-cultural realities of learners. Consequently, Sri Lankan English education continues to carry colonial residues. English literature, which could have bridged global and local experience, remains alien to the everyday world of students. Reading in English becomes an exercise in alienation rather than empowerment—cementing English as a language of class, power, and elitism, rather than shared cultural expression.
________________________________________
5. The Enclosed Room: Academic Elitism and the Politics of Exclusion
In the Sri Lankan academic landscape, critical cultural practices such as discourse analysis, linguistic textual reading, gender and feminist theory, masculinity studies, and classical literary appreciation have largely remained confined within the ideological walls of English Departments. These intellectual engagements, rather than functioning as inclusive or dialogic practices, are often restricted to an exclusive academic “room”—a metaphorical and literal space of elitism.
Practitioners within these circles rarely extend their intellectual or pedagogical contributions beyond departmental or linguistic boundaries. This dynamic has produced a marked demarcation between those inside and outside the pedagogical world—between inclusion and exclusion, cultural legitimacy and marginalization. The pedagogy of critical theory, while claiming to promote feminism, gender justice, and human rights, paradoxically reproduces the same hierarchies it critiques.
In recent years, the professionalization of citizenship discourses—especially around gender and sexual rights—has exposed this contradiction. Many of these discussions emerge from English or cultural studies departments, yet their ideological orientations remain deeply fantasized around colonial and classist imaginaries. The performative criticality of these spaces often mirrors a “white English class” identity, sustained through linguistic privilege and academic elitism. Those outside this linguistic order are perceived as uncivilized, immature, or culturally unrefined.
This symbolic remification of whiteness within Sri Lankan English academia sustains a form of intellectual coloniality, where English becomes not a bridge for communication but a gatekeeping tool of distinction. Those excluded from this privilege are seen as rude or intellectually inferior—a lingering echo of colonial residue within postcolonial education.
________________________________________
6. Linguistic Gatekeeping and the Myth of Inclusivity
Even within these circles of critical cultural studies, many academics display personal and institutional intolerance toward alternative voices. Their reactions to critique—whether in person or online—reveal deep insecurity and defensiveness. For instance, when a critic outside their circle presents a refined argument, they often respond with dismissive remarks such as, “He uses AI to polish his English.”
This seemingly casual comment carries profound ideological implications. It implies that those who challenge the English-speaking elite are linguistically and intellectually inferior, incapable of producing authentic academic thought. Such remarks expose how the discourse of inclusivity, gender equality, and liberal criticality often masks a performative façade. These scholars, while professing pluralism, continue to operate within closed linguistic and social boundaries. Their feminism and gender studies remain elite, self-contained rituals—shielded from the vernacular, the rural, and the socially diverse realities of Sri Lanka.
Their critical practice becomes an in-house performance of liberal modernity—an avant-garde utopianism sustained within small, enclosed spaces. The exclusion of “others” from these zones mirrors Sri Lanka’s political elitism, where rural movements such as the JVP are dismissed as “baiyo,” “godayo,” or “modayo.” In both cases, the elite reproduce symbolic violence through language, positioning themselves as the only legitimate bearers of moral and intellectual authority.
________________________________________
7. The Psychoanalytic Mirror: Language, Ego, and Suppressed Thought
The showcased responses to critiques of hegemonic feminism—particularly when voiced by underrepresented male academics—reveal deep linguistic and class divisions. The English professor’s remark that her opponent “uses AI to refine his English” operates metaphorically and psychoanalytically: it exposes how linguistic fluency is conflated with intellectual authenticity.
Her verbose dichotomy—framing the critic as reliant on “media-mediocre AI”—symbolically reinforces elitism. Indeed, it is true that many of us do not command English fluently; yet, to polish our writing, we use digital tools. This is not weakness, but a reflection of a broader, class-stratified struggle within postcolonial academia. The contradiction thus becomes clear: those who champion inclusivity often replicate the colonial and class hierarchies they claim to resist.
________________________________________
8. Conclusion: Dialogue as Healing
Though we live in one country, we inhabit many halls, many voices, and many tones—each marked by tension and exclusion. As one of my younger colleagues remarked after an online debate:
“What you said was not properly responded to. She spoke from a position of toxic extremism, while you too were caught in your own fantasy. Neither side truly listened.”
This comment captures the essence of our intellectual condition. Perhaps, as a society long shaped by colonial influence, we remain personally, collectively, and culturally suppressed—our thoughts confined within deep closets of inherited fear and pride. We struggle to see who we are, what we do, and why we live in such a fractured cultural space.
Our dialogues—academic, political, or social—mirror this internalized oppression. They are reflections of an ego-centric and insecure psyche, often unable to tolerate difference. Even our most sophisticated debates reveal traces of what might be called a psychoanalytic divisionalized academic lunacy—a collective anxiety that exposes our wounds more than our wisdom.
Yet, despite these fractures, hope remains. The purpose of dialogue and critical inquiry should not be to dominate or divide, but to listen, include, and reconcile. True inclusivity—linguistic, cultural, intellectual, and emotional—must embrace all voices into a coherent whole where plurality is not a threat but a strength. Only then can we move toward a more tolerant, self-aware, and genuinely humane society.
……………………………..
https://www.dreamstime.com/illustration/women-rights-symbol.html
