Interrogating the Contentious Representation of Urban
Spatiality in Romesh Gunesekera’s Noon Tide Toll
Abhisek Ghosal has completed
Master of Arts in English from The University of Burdwan and is currently
pursuing M.Phil. in the same university. His areas of research incorporate
South Asian Literature, Diaspora Studies, Globalization Studies, Criminology,
Victimology, Transnational Justice Studies, among others. He has published
scholarly articles in different peer-reviewed and UGC-approved journals.
Abstract
Following the
advent of economic expansionism in 1990s across South Asia, the long-standing
perceptions regarding urban spatiality began to alter in that the potent forces
of World Economy started to leave indelible impinges upon humanity at large and
particularly, on urban spatiality. The contour of urban spatiality is supposed
to be shaped up by a number of polyvalent factors including culture, economy,
ethics, justice, politics, among others. The opening up of global market
coupled with Post-civil war scenario attempt to redefine urban spatiality in
Sri Lankan context in 1990s and consequently, it leads to camouflage spatial
specificities that had been forged over the decades. The irresistible intrusion
of urban spatiality into non-urban spaces is facilitated by fluidity of World
Economy problematizes urban and non-urban duality. Romesh Gunesekera’s Noon
Tide Toll examines the varied and variegated interactions among spaces. The
representation of the conflicts and convergences within the paradigm of urban
spatiality in the novel seems to me highly problematic. This article is
therefore devised to interrogate Gunesekera’s representations of urban
spatiality in the novel, taking some relevant theoretical insights into
account.
Key Words: Urban Space; Territoralization; Globalization; Civil War.
I
The insidious intrusion of urban
space into non-urban spaces, after the liberalization of World Economy in
1990s, is being questioned nowadays inasmuch as urban space is supposed to ruin
the spatial specificities of non-urban spaces. The opening up of global market
triggers the definition and redefinition of the contour of urban spatiality so
that World Economy can find ways through non-urban spaces. World Economic
forces persuade local people to disseminate objectives of global market among
others and to make the passage ready for global market to traverse through it.
The persuading forces of World Economy attempt to alter the long-standing
perception of urban spatiality and it are through employing urban space World
Economy gets disseminated. The varied and variegated interactions among spaces
within urban spatiality problematizes Romesh Gunesekera’s the representation of
urban spatiality against the backdrop of Post-civil war scenario. This article
is intended to lay bare the politics of representation concerning urban
spatiality and to question Romesh Gunesekera’s problematic representation of it
beset by Globalization, taking recourse to theoretical insights.
II
The liberalization of World Economy is
supposed to have been intended to trigger delimitation of urban spatiality so
as to make inroads into non-urban spaces thereby making an attempt to bring
non-urban spaces under economic subjugation. The urban space unethically and
subtly occupies non-urban spaces by positing itself to be superior to other
spaces in terms of world class facilities and challenge the territorial
authority of non-urban spaces. Human beings are responsible forging social
spaces which are, in actuality, shaped up by urbanity, economy, among others.
In the Production of Space, Henri Lefebvre has pertinently postulated: “Social
spaces interpenetrate one another and/or superimpose themselves upon one
another. They are not things, which have mutually limiting boundaries and which
collide because of their contours or as a result of inertia” (86-87). What
Lefebvre has meant to say is that social spaces which are constitutive of urban
spatiality are always in dialogue with each other and consequently, the nuances
among spaces are bound to overlap. The ceaseless interactions among spaces
often stretch the limit of urban spatiality and at times, reduce the
circumference of it. The porosity of spatial boundary incurs complications in
that when human beings traverse across the spaces, they encounter a number of
spatial congruities and incongruities among them thereby getting it difficult
to come to terms with various spaces. Michel Foucault has offered some valuable
insights for better comprehension of urban spatiality. In an influential
article entitled “Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias”, Foucault has made
a series of arguments to substantiate the verifiability of the notion
“heterotopias” and has exhorted social thinkers to take it into account. Edward
W. Soja turns out to be one of the critics, who points out how politics and
ideological trajectories mark out urban spatiality. In Urban Space and
Representation, Maria Balshaw and Liam Kennedy corroborate Soja’s
perspective in the following terms: “Soja has built on the ideas of
these French theorists in Anglo-American contexts through his analysis of how
space becomes ‘filled with politics and ideology’, both inscribing and
concealing the contradictions of global capitalism” (2). Arjun Appadurai in the
article “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy” has
pertinently observed: “The New global cultural economy has to be seen as a
complex, overlapping, disjunctive order that cannot any longer be understood in
terms of existing centre-periphery models” (32) and subsequently propounded:
I propose that an elementary framework for
exploring such disjunctures is to look at the relationship among five
dimensions of global cultural flows that can be termed (a) ethnoscapes, (b)
mediascapes, (c) technoscapes, (d) financescapes, and (e) ideoscapes . . . . By
ethnoscape, I mean the landscape of persons who constitute the shifting world
in which we live: tourists, immigrants, refugees, exiles, guest workers, and
other moving groups and individuals constitute an essential feature of the
world and appear to affect the politics of nations to a hitherto unprecedented
degree. (33)
What Appadurai has
meant to say is that global capitalism charged up by liberalization of World
Economy gets diffused through the five –scapes and frequent visits of tourists
in various locations in the world expedite the expansion of World Economy. Following
Appadurai’s insights, one may argue that the rising concentration of tourists
in different tourist locations leads to the expansion of urban spatiality in
that local people give in the project of urban expansion so as to attract
tourists there in order to boost local economy. Consequently, urban spatiality
is further stretched in order to accommodate top class facilities in it. One
may oppose the previous contention and argue that expansion of urban spatiality
ultimately turns out to be beneficial for tourists and consequently local
economy has to get dissolved in the liberalization of World Economy thereby
hinting at porosity of spatial boundary. He may draw the following observation
by Edward Soja who posits argumentatively in The Political Organization of
Space:
First of all, human activity in space is localized
in the sense that it occupies unique and specific places on the earth’s
surface, each of its own complex attributes or characteristics . . . . The
differences from place to place, in relative as well as in absolute location,
and in terms of other features such as climate, economy, language, wealth, and
culture shape the nature and intensity of the relationships between people and
between locations they occupy. (3)
On the contrary,
one may contend that stability and mobility of urban spatiality are contingent
upon the interactions among spaces that individual forges, among spaces that
institutions occupy and among spaces that individuals and institutions share. He
may work out this contention by arguing that expansion of urban spatiality for
the alleviation of human misery by powerful men in the society is quite
legitimate. Here, one may be reminded of “Globalization, spatial allocation of
resources and spatial impacts: A conceptual framework” where Gill-Chin Lim
opines:
Under economic globalization, new factories
are set up abroad, and cheaper imported goods and services threaten domestic
producers. Proponents of economic globalization argue that, in the long run, free
trade will increase the overall output of the world and that of the poor
nations, eventually making all nations and people better off. (3)
This proposition
could be turned down on the ground that the intrusion of urban spatiality into
non-urban spatiality is unethical in the sense that it might lead to decimate
spatial specificities. Moreover, human misery existing within urban spatiality
could be deteriorated because of its expansion out of the pressure of the
global market. Gill-Chin Lim again points out: “. . . the persistent poverty
that sometimes concentrates in urban areas may further expand the area of
decay” (21). Gill-Chin Lim has been upheld in away by Prof. Sanjay Chakraborty
who in “Urban development in the global periphery: The consequences of economic
and ideological globalization” said:
Ideas about the value of markets and trade,
the need for political reform through democracy and decentralization, and good
governance based on social justice and inclusion, have far greater policy
significance and social impact. These ideas, when translated into policies, have
effects at urban, regional and national scales . . . these ideas can lead to
further relative declines in already lagging places. (38)
What comes out of
it is that economic liberalization leave adverse impact on urban spatiality in
that it uses urban space to spread its autonomy. In other words, it leads urban
space to get at loggerheads with other spaces in that the business activity
within urban space implicitly affects local economies of non-urban spaces. It
seems that varied spatial dispositions come into conflict with each other
thereby making it difficult to represent. Representation of urban spatiality is
problematic in the sense that urban spatiality is a polyvalent entity and
therefore it has always been in a flux.
III
Romesh Gunesekera’s Noon Tide Toll turns
out to be an intriguing tour de force in that the novel has not only
encapsulated Post-civil war scenario in Sri Lanka succinctly but also explored
the interface between urban spatiality and economic globalization. This novel
is a moving tale about the protagonist of the novel, i.e., Vasanta who is a
retired cab driver and even after his retirement from the job, he takes
tourists to different tourist destinations. Being a cab driver, he earns
livelihood and more importantly, gets brilliant opportunities to interact with
various persons. Against the backdrop of Post-civil war scenario, Vasanta moves
across various spatial territories and in course of it, he reveals how the
irresistible forces of economic globalization make way through this island and
trigger the expansion of urban spatiality for getting substantial room to
operate. Gunesekera intends to represent the gradual expansion of urban
spatiality across the island following the advent of economic globalization. Here,
one may contend that Gunesekera upholds the economic globalization might be
beneficial for local people in that local economy could be boosted: “In 1945,
Japan was a dump. Nobody thought that Japanese could make even a cup of tea any
more, but now Toyota is the biggest car company in the world . . . . No one
knows who will have the last laugh” (1) It is through conversations between
Vasanta and tourists, Gunesekera shows how tourism culture spreads rapidly in
Sri Lanka and local people give in it so as to get rid of financial
constraints. Vasanta, on the contrary, says: “They might have been diplomats,
or from some funding agency but they did not talk much” (11). What it implies
is that the agents of global market tour Sri Lanka in order to find out whether
Post-civil war situation is worthy for making hefty investment. The
concentration of tourists in Sri Lanka gradually intensifies in the late 1990s
because the liberation of World Economy makes the conventional notion of urban
spatiality subject to alterations.
The
spaces that were once restricted for military activities during Civil war are
now being opened up for tourists to visit. In a way, it is through tourism
economic forces safely step in once restricted spaces. It is because of the
mushrooming growth of tourism culture the contour of urban spatiality is being
stretched out: “‘The war is not the heritage, Paul. The priority is tourism.
What will attract the foreign tourist? We know what the Chinese and Indian
tourist wants. Bargains, no? But what about the modern European tourist? They
say the beach is not enough these days’” (23).
What it implicates is that Sri Lanka local people living on the margin
have to usher urbanity in their vicinity, hoping that it might create jobs for
them. In order to substantiate this standpoint, one may draw the following
excerpt from the text, which is indicative how urbanity gradually gets
dispensed with the growth of tourism: “The road was narrower but smooth. A few
minutes later, we were in another world. It is hard to believe this was once
fighting territory” (75). It shows that Gunesekera has represented the flourish
of urban spatiality in positive terms and has treated it as a boon for local
people. One may be critical of Gunesekera’s representation of urban spatiality and
may argue that expanding horizon of urban spatiality conditioned by the
diffusion of World Economy has taken away the honesty and integrity of local
men living on the margin in Sri Lanka where locals have to put up masks of
hospitality to come to terms with the present scenario: “Hospitality training,
I imagine, helps you to mask your feelings with a smile and to polish that
façade of pleasant well-being that Sri Lankans, our foreign visitors tell me,
are so good at putting on” (103). One may draw another except from the novel to
critique Gunesekera’s representation: “That is the way we live nowadays:
driving along a road between hallucination and amnesia. As long as you are
moving, you are OK . . .” (105). Vasanta drives his cab through the newly
constructed expressway to take his Russian tourists to Southern parts of Sri
Lanka. The reference to road that connects spaces is intently made in the novel
to show how urban spatiality gets distended towards periphery. The impact of
urbanization project is encapsulated by Gunesekera in the following terms.
Vasanta utters: “My trips to Galle are the easiest, especially now with the new
highway that nobody knows how to use. I love it. Where else in this country can
you stay at sixty for more than two minutes?” (128). But one can be critical of
Gunesekera’s representation in that the promotion of tourist culture in Sri
Lanka might expose the breath-taking beauty spots thereby inviting business
tycoons from all over the world to make business out of Sri Lanka’s asserts.
Apart
from it, tourism culture cannot provide economic independence to Sri Lanka and
rather it might rule over Sri Lankan economy by using local strength. One may
critically argue that in the long run, the exposure of Sri Lankan economy and
its beauties to the global market might be vicious to the overall development
of Sri Lankan culture and economy. He may add up to it that letting global
market to make business in Sri Lanka is tantamount to the exploitation of the
living and non-living resources in Sri Lanka in a cunning way and therefore it
cannot bring out radical alterations in the standard of living of the local
people living on the margin. Gunesekera has propounded the idea of “collective
amnesia” in that locals need to be oblivious of what had happed to them during
civil war and has urged them to welcome the growth of tourism. There are plenty
of references of the renovation of existing roads, which are done in tune with
expansion of the urban spatiality. The following excerpt could be cited as an
example of how urban spatiality engulfs non-urban spaces thereby putting
economic independence of Sri Lanka at jeopardy:
The road to Hambantora is very good. The best
in the country now. The surface is first-class. It was not so. There was a time
when it was part of the wild country. But then it found political favour.
Flavour of the month, year, decade, perhaps century. Now the talk is of
highways, ports and airports, but all that is new. Ten years ago, people knew
of the nicely situated rest house but not much more . . .in the last two or
three, everything has changed. It is now the hub. (201-211)
Here, one may
contend that neither the idea of “collective amnesia” nor the culture of tourism
can be tenably endorsed in that the forgetting of the inevitable consequences
of civil war is equal to bury historical past, and the free and fluid run of
tourism backed up by the expansion of urban spatiality, across Sri Lanka, has
to be resisted so as to safeguard the rich resources in Sri Lanka from the onslaughts
of global market and therefore Gunesekera’s standpoints seem to me highly
contentious.
IV
Thus, this discussion can be brought
to an end with the following argument that although Gunesekera deserves
applause for making attempts to represent the transformation of urban
spatiality conditioned by the expansion of global tourism industry, his representation
of urban spatiality is fraught with flaws and therefore cannot be upheld. For instance,
Gunesekera has espoused the growth and flourish of tourism industry across Sri
Lanka, which seems to be beneficial for the locals of Sri Lanka. But, this
contention does not stand to reason because Gunesekera’s espousal does not bear
correspondence to the requirements of locals and it actually puts Sri Lankan
locals at jeopardy. Along with it, being a member of an elite society,
Gunesekera has either failed to comprehend the real problems of locals or has
chosen to be silent on it to safeguard his reputation in the society.
Works Cited
Appadurai, Arjun.
“Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.” Modernity
at Large: Cultural Dimensions of
Globalization.
Ed. Arjun Appadurai. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997. 27-47. Print.
Balshaw, Maria, and
Liam Kennedy, eds. Urban Space and Representation. London: Pluto
Press,
2000. Print.
Chakravorty,
Sanjay. “Urban development in the global periphery: The consequences of
economic and ideological globalization.” Globalization
and Urban Development. Ed. H.W. Richardson and C.H.C. Bae. New York:
Springer, 2005. 29-39. Print.
Gunesekera, Romesh.
Noon Tide Toll. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2014. Print.
Lim, Gill-Chin.
“Globalization, spatial allocation of resources and spatial impacts: A
conceptual framework.” Globalization and
Urban Development. Ed. H.W. Richardson and C.H.C. Bae. New York: Springer,
2005. 13-27. Print.
Nicholson-Smith,
Donald. Trans. The Production of Space. By Henry Lefebvre, Cambridge:
Blackwell,
1991. Print.
Soja, Edward W. The
Political Organization of Space. New York: Association of American
Geographers Washington, D.C., 1971. Print.