This lecture should have been titled “Aney, Newton Gunasinghetath giya kala”, or “Dr. Stirrat on Princess Diana”. Dr. Newton Gunasinghe was probably Sri Lanka’s most accomplished sociologist of recent times, a blunt man who brought sociology closer to the mass mind. So, when this year’s Newton Gunasinghe commemorative lecture was to be on the Diana phenomenon, people braved the wet weather and came in their droves navigating inundated roads to commemorate Diana.
Dr. Stirrat, who flew all the way from Sussex to honour Dr. Newton Gunasinghe gave a titillating sociological analysis of the “Diana Phenomenon”, proving that even tubby eccentric sociological types have a partiality for Diana.
Dr. Stirrat made some earthshaking revelations, such as the fact that “the Princess cultivated the press, and moulded her image via the media.”
Though sturdy sociological types, such as Sasanka Perera were shocked by these revelations, girls and boys who had read the rump sections of various local newspapers had somehow heard about these scholarly revelations before. But, of course Dr. Stirrat deserves a pat on his back for putting all these tabloid pop (pap) in impressive sociological gobbledygook.
Certain things that the pedestrian lay minds had already suspected about the Diana Phenomenon, Dr. Stirrat put in words, and thus made a giant step for Dianakind.
He said that there were major feelings of guilt about the Princess, which is why the British people reacted in such maudlin fashion to her death. He cited British newspapers, which just an edition prior to Diana’s death, had said “Princess in sex-feast’’ etc., referring to the good time she was having with Dodi Al Fayed. The readers were lapping up all these derogatory stuff that was being written about the Princess . Then, crash in Paris, and the Princess lay dead.
This gave the British people a major guilt complex, and suddenly she was being treated like she could do no wrong. ( “The beatification of Diana “ said Dr. Stirrat.)
Dr. Newton Gunasinghe, whose memory was being commemorated, had certain things in common with Diana such as a nose, hands and feet etc., but it has to be said all similarities end there. But, you should have seen the Gananath Obeysekera type of otherwise nonchalant scholars at the edge of their seats, with Dr. Stirrat going - on at the lecture commemorating Diana, sorry, Newton under a banner emblazoned in red saying “Newton Gunasinghe Lecture.”
Anyway, back to commemorating Diana. Dr. Stirrat was going into raptures by now saying that the British people beatified the Princess, and only the disclaimer by Diana’s brother stopped her short of canonization.
But folks, one thing is certain. After the sociologists got into the bandwagon as well, you knew Diana was no icon for pretty boys and sentimental ladies. She was being dissected in death by sociologists whose idea of fashion usually is to cultivate mothballs on crumpled shirts. (allright, allright we media types love to stereotype. But if Newton Gunasinghe can be commemorated by a Diana-fest, nothing in this world is now sacrosanct....)
At the end of the lecture, scholars who usually have their nose in the air and prefer small cosy (kindred) crowds were heard marveling at the numbers which had braved the rain to commemorate Newton Gunasinghe. What the hell, if millions can flock to Buckingham Palace to pay homage to Diana, what’s wrong with thirty people turning up on a rainy day in memory of dear departed Diana, I mean Newton..
But, sociologically, the Diana phenomenon has to be placed in a chic sociological niche, and this Dr. Stirrat did with neat abandon. You see, when a paparazzi type or a media-wallah talks about Diana, that’s just garden human stuff. But, when a sociological type talks about Princess Diana, especially with Sasanka Perera listening in like a ramrod, then suddenly Diana receives the academic imprimatur, you know, gets beatified by the scholars.
The scholars of course are always beatified, they could never do a thing like “jump the bandwagon’’, and bask in the reflected glitter of the ephemeral evanescent moment. These media fellows may be fly-by-nights, but scholars, they are chiseled in stone. Ask Luxshman Guna’, who now takes after Newton Guna, twice removed (from the press, that is.)
So, having placed her in the niche, Dr. Stirrat says that Princess Diana was a market driven product, that she marketed the product, and then the market suddenly felt guilty when the product disappeared, and so there. Of course everything the Princess did had to do with the body, including all her charities such as land mines and ballet which all had to do with the body. Body-politic, Stirrat said, finally, tying the rosette on the beautiful package of the day’s offering. Newton would have been reaching for his sixth one.
After stiff homilies by Mr. Practical-wisdom who actually didn’t want to speak, but spoke himself silly (“I don’t want to speak, but I will” kind of reggae sociological disclaimer) the crowd dispersed, incidentally after some books had been launched. So, Diana was capsuled.
Of course, astute sociology scholars won’t buy this, no no, but maybe the perchance isn’t it possible that it was all of it and more?
Sure, people were feeling sad about Diana, kind of quite normally, but they didn’t want to beatify her, but she was like Coke, a worldwide phenomenon. So it was out of proportion, the whole grief-trip. But people go crazy over football, over the Pope the next day, over only half-useful things like Toyotas. So people went bonkers over the Diana Phenomenon, bad woman, good woman, sexy woman, underdog, rich girl, dumb princess, clever woman, the whole diverse but interesting works. Try and capsule that, will you?
Go to Hulftsdorp Hill by Mudliyar
Return to the Editorial/Opinion contents page