No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 July 2017
“Yes, but . . .” subscribes fully to the arguments on the basis of which Tejumola Olaniyan refutes the often unspoken axioms such as the “corporeal” test by which what counts as genuinely “African” in African literary scholarship is determined. In those arguments, which appear in “African Literature in the Post-Global Age: Provocations on Field Commonsense” (PLI 3.3 [2016]: 387–96), he outlines very explicitly the views about the objects of study, methodologies, and critical theories that have implicitly guided the most powerful scholarship on African literature at least since the 1990s. It expresses some concern, however, that, in calling for a reformation of the “ideological test” that appears to tether African Marxist criticism to the critic’s identity, Olaniyan may have inadvertently left open a back door through which the corporeal axiom could sneak back into African literary criticism. To preempt this, it questions the narrative of globalization on the basis of which he posits the category of the “Post-Global Age.” More specifically, it argues that the temporal scheme represented in the “post” in the “post-global” on which his understanding of globalization rests is flawed. Finally, substituting “late capitalism” for globalization, it argues that “If what late capitalism/globalization longs for is to render capitalism as ineluctable ‘as fate,’ then African literary criticism is obliged ‘to consider the possibility that, to the question, “Are “post,” “trans,” and globalist/neo-universalist propositions now (more than ever) definitionally viable for African literature’ ” that Olaniyan poses, “the answer could be a qualified interrogative rather than a simple affirmative: ‘Yes, but . . . ?’ not ‘Yes.’ ”
Editor’s note: This Forum is a collection of responses to Tejumola Olaniyan’s essay “African Literature in the Post-Global Age: Provocations on Field Commonsense”, published in Volume 3, Issue 3. Olaniyan has been given the opportunity of providing a brief reaction to his interlocutors.
1 See Fanon, Frantz, “The Pitfalls of National Consciousness,” The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Constance Farrington (New York: Grove Press, 1967), 119–165 Google Scholar.
2 As a noun, to designate peoples who belong to the continent or to specific regions of the continent; as a modifier, to describe a consciousness of collective, racially distinctive, historical legacies, cultural norms and values, and metaphysical beliefs.
3 Olaniyan, Tejumola, “African Literature in the Post-Global Age: Provocations on Field Commonsense,” Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry 3.3 (2016): 387 Google Scholar.
4 Echeruo, Michael J. C., “The Alpha Discourse: Theorizing ‘We’ in Michel Foucault and Edward Said,” The Savannah Review 1 (November 2012): 51–80 Google Scholar.
5 Achebe, Chinua, Things Fall Apart, ed. Francis Abiola Irele (New York: W.W. Norton, 2009)Google Scholar.
6 Brown, Nicholas, Utopian Generations: The Political Horizon of Twentieth-Century Literature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.
7 Nordtveit, Bjorn Harald, “Towards Post-Globalisation? On the Hegemony of Western Education and Development Discourses,” Globalisation, Societies and Education 8.3 (September 2010): 321–337 Google Scholar. Nordtveit uses the post-global to designate “a characteristic of a state of the world that will occur when and where the movement of integration of economies has been completed, and when the world is more or less unified in one capitalist discourse” and “to signify a critical engagement with such hypothetical state of the world, questioning the legacies of the globalization movement and policies . . . I refer to post-globalisation as the state of completed globalization, and of the critical engagement with such state of affairs” (323).
8 Roy, Arundhati, Public Power in the Age of Empire (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2004)Google Scholar.
9 Jameson, Fredric, Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.
10 Cazdyn, Eric and Szeman, Imre, After Globalization (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011)Google Scholar.
11 Amuta, Chidi, The Theory of African Literature: Implications for Practical Criticism (London: Zed Books, 1989)Google Scholar.
12 Kalliney, Peter J., “East African Literature and the Politics of Global Reading,” Literature and Globalization, eds. Liam Connell and Nicky Marshs (London and New York: Routledge, 2011), 298–314 Google Scholar.
13 Amer, Sahar and Doyle, Laura, “Introduction: Reframing Postcolonial and Global Studies in the Longer Durée ,” PMLA 130.2 (March 2015): 331–335 Google Scholar.
14 Doyle, Laura, “Inter-Imperiality and Literature in the Longer Durée ,” PMLA 130.2 (March 2015): 336–347 Google Scholar.
15 Lienau, Annette Damayanti, “Reframing Vernacular Culture on Arabic Fault Lines: Bamba, Senghor, and Sembene’s Translingual Legacies in French West Africa,” PMLA 130.2 (March 2015): 419–429 Google Scholar.
16 In addition to reconciling “postcolonial literature” with “world literature,” Ngũgĩ envisages an emergent “world literature” that would “preserve the particularity of a national culture and the intimate relationship between language and literature, while also catering to the global reach and appeal” (57). Against this proposition, it is worth asking if anything like “a national culture” currently exists as anything but a heuristic device for recuperating a concept now rendered threadbare by globalization, the very system that also deploys nationalism as an ideological instrument for encouraging us to reconcile ourselves to the uneven distribution of benefits accruing from capitalism (Cazdyn and Szeman 228).
17 Vuković, Katarina Peović, “Electronic Literature and Modes of Production: Art in the Era of Digital and Digital-Network Paradigm,” New Literary Hybrids in the Age of Multimedia Expression: Crossing Borders, Crossing Genres, ed. Marcel Cornis-Pope (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2014), 27–41 Google Scholar.