The ‘Comparative African Literatures’ Project: Challenges and Opportunties

ABSTRACT

This scholarly inquiry critically scrutinizes the “Comparative African Literatures” paradigm, investigating its capabilities and constraints in transforming the understanding of African literatures through a comparative perspective. The research identifies the current stagnation of the paradigm, attributing it to an absence of appropriate comparative instruments and inadequate scholarly engagement. The study traces the genesis of the paradigm at the juncture of postcolonial theory and comparative literature, employing a rigorous critical methodology. It includes a comprehensive review of pertinent literature and suggests novel research trajectories. The study underscores the indispensability of the paradigm and advocates for its judicious progression to sidestep the pitfalls that other paradigms have encountered in their attempts to encapsulate the authentic Africanness of African literature. Aspiring to contribute to the evolution of the paradigm, the research spotlights its potential ripple effect on the expansive terrain of African literary studies.

摘要

本文批判性地审视了“非洲比较文学”范式，通过比较的视角考察了其在转变对非洲文学理解方面的能力和制约因素。此研究确定了当前范式的停滞，将其归因于缺乏适当的比较工具和学术参与不足。本研究采用严谨的批判方法，在后殖民理论与比较文学的结合点上，追溯了这一范式的起源。它涉及相关文献的全面综述，并提出了新颖的研究轨迹。这项研究强调了这一范式的不可或缺性，并倡导其明智的发展，以避开其他范式在试图概括非洲文学的真实非洲性时遇到的陷阱。这项研究致力于为范式的演变做出贡献，突显了其对非洲文学研究广阔领域的潜在连锁反应。

KEYWORDS:

• comparative African literatures
• literary africanness
• postcolonial theory & criticism
• comparative literature
• African literary studies

关键词:

• 比较非洲文学
• 文学非洲性
• 后殖民理论与批评
• 比较文学
• 非洲文学研究

1. Introduction

The latter half of the twentieth century witnessed a significant shift in critical theories, particularly cultural studies, which had a profound impact on literary studies. This intellectual revolution disrupted established disciplines, including Comparative Literature and World Literature. The rise of cultural and postcolonial studies concurrently prompted a thorough reevaluation of methodological foundations, revealing systemic biases that had influenced scholarly perspectives on the study of postcolonial African literatures. Within this intersection of literary studies and cultural critique emerged a unique paradigm: “Comparative African Literatures.” Rooted in the complex interplay of cultural and literary evolution, this paradigm offers a distinctive lens through which to analyze African literature, particularly in its postcolonial manifestations where the written word assumes paramount significance. The nature and scope of comparisons within postcolonial African literatures have become central to this paradigm, necessitating an exploration of whether such comparisons should originate from an inward, continentally-centric perspective or directly outward, engaging with the global literary panorama.

Within the specific context being discussed, the article puts forward a hypothesis concerning the trajectory of Comparative African Literatures. Despite its praiseworthy objectives, this field faces obstacles that arise from a lack of a clearly defined methodological comparison system and insufficient dynamic engagement within the discipline. These challenges impede its effectiveness in transforming into a domain that facilitates meaningful comparisons among African literatures, both at an “inner” level and on the global stage. Given the dearth of substantial studies focusing on Comparative African Literatures, the study redirects its initial focus toward addressing the inherent challenges of this paradigm. It achieves this by delving into the roots of these challenges, exploring their origins in the development of various conceptual frameworks. This exploration is particularly focused on frameworks that have delved into the intricacies of studying postcolonial literatures, especially within the context of comparison. By contextualizing the paradigm within its respective environment, the study proceeds to assess the inherent political and historical aspects of postcolonial African literatures, thereby opening up avenues for a reevaluation of questions pertaining to comparison.

The central argument presented in this paper asserts that the “Comparative African Literatures” paradigm faces a significant obstacle in the form of its inadequate theoretical foundation for comparison and comparative work. Through a critical examination of the paradigm’s current state, this paper offers innovative recommendations aimed at propelling the field beyond its current state of stagnation. Employing a rigorous methodology, the paper thoroughly analyzes existing literature and actively participates in scholarly discussions to contribute to the ongoing discourse. In line with this approach, the paper’s structure unfolds in a systematic manner. The initial section delves into the conceptual complexities that arise from the intersection of postcolonial theory and comparative literature, which is crucial for providing a contextual understanding of the historically critical development that led to the establishment of “Comparative African Literatures.” Subsequently, the paper seamlessly transitions to the practical aspects of the paradigm, proposing conceptual frameworks that have the potential to advance its progress and strengthen its foundation.

1.1. The nexus of postcolonial theory/studies and comparative literature

The emergence of postcolonial theory as an academic discipline is a relatively recent phenomenon when compared to its historical antecedents, coinciding with the progression of postcolonial African literature. The publication of Edward Said’s Orientalism in 1978 marked a significant turning point in this development, as his argument that colonial-era literature and creative works perpetuated an orientalist perspective gained widespread recognition. This perspective distorted depictions of people, cultures, and histories, leading to a renewed focus on comparative and cultural studies. Said’s work prompted increased academic interest in researching and theorizing the postcolonial condition, particularly in response to the need for critical frameworks examining civilizations subjected to Orientalization.

This growing fascination eventually resulted in the formation of postcolonial studies as an independent discipline. A crucial contribution to this field was made by Bill Ashcroft through his influential publication, The Empire Writes Back. In this text, Ashcroft analyzes postcolonial literatures, including African literature, as a form of militant writing that strives to restore the honor and individuality of indigenous cultures that were oppressed during imperial colonization. By acknowledging the transformative potential embedded within these postcolonial literary works, Ashcroft’s critical examination acknowledges their significant role in challenging dominant colonial narratives and revitalizing the voices and histories of marginalized communities.

Ashcroft’s work was first published in 1989, providing a revolutionary perspective on literary writing during the contemporary era of postcolonialism. Four years later, Susan Bassnett’s influential work, Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction, argued that postcolonial studies essentially encompassed the principles of comparative literature, drawing inspiration from Ashcroft’s ideas and incorporating contributions from renowned postcolonial theorists such as Said, Gayatri Spivak, and Homi K. Bhabha (10). In their comprehensive volume, Introducing Comparative Literature: New Trends and Applications, Domínguez, Saussy, and Villanueva emphasize Bassnett’s seminal text as one of the earliest works to assert the shared objectives of postcolonial studies and comparative literature (41).

Comparative literature seeks to challenge the long-standing Euro-centric perspective that has dominated literary studies. It encompasses a wide range of canons, methodologies, and comparative approaches, while also embracing interdisciplinary viewpoints that encourage diverse interpretations. This inclusive approach recognizes the importance of postcolonial studies, which gained high recognition in the 1980s and 1990s, in promoting a greater understanding of cultural diversity and alternative perspectives found in various literary traditions.

Since its inception, the interplay between postcolonial critique and comparative literature has been intricately intertwined. Postcolonial critics have developed a unique and inherently comparative approach to analyzing and interpreting texts, resulting in profound critical assessments. In their work on comparative literature, Domínguez, Saussy, and Villanueva dedicate a chapter that bridges the gap between the discipline and its intersections with de-coloniality, postcolonial studies, and comparative methodologies. They contend that “it is tempting – and surely quite right – to say not only that postcolonial studies transformed comparative literature but that the latter aimed to change postcolonial studies as well” (42). This highlights, once again, the dynamic and mutually influential nature of the relationship between these two fields.

The correlation between the emergence of postcolonial theory and its involvement with comparative literature is apparent in the scholarly endeavors of postcolonial critics. This is evident in the works of critical comparatists within the domain of postcolonial studies. The likes of Spivak, Bhabha, and Said have made significant contributions to the conversation surrounding comparative literature, world literature, translation, and cultural studies. Although there are numerous other scholars who have also contributed to this discourse, these three individuals are recognized as early pioneers in the field due to their academic background as practitioners and lecturers of both postcolonial criticism and comparative literature.

In 1997, John Burt Foster Jr. conducted a compelling inquiry into the interconnections between comparative literature and postcolonial studies. In his analysis and review of the theoretical work of Kostas Myrsiades, Jerry McGuire, and Henry A. Giroux, Foster Jr. posits the following:

The postcolonial essays in this edited volume from College Literature give comparatists an opportunity to reflect on the connections between this burgeoning new field {postcolonial studies} and their own. At times, to be sure, these connections have been simplistically denied. If a postcolonialist could argue that comparative literature emphasizes the imperial nations and is irredeemably Eurocentric, a comparatist might reply that too much postcolonial criticism is limited to the vicissitudes of a single empire, whether British, French, or Spanish. We should realize, however, that turf-protective accusations of this kind violate a basic impulse of both fields, which is as intimated by Henry A. Giroux’ s title for the SUNY series in which Order and Partialities appears - the will to cross culture. (149)

The pivotal roles played by postcolonial studies and comparative literature in advancing cross-cultural criticism within literary analysis are noteworthy. Bassnett, as discussed before, contends that postcolonial studies can be viewed as a contemporary approach to engaging with comparative literature, given its inherent cross-cultural nature. It is crucial to recognize that, despite their similarities, these fields are not interchangeable; each possesses distinct characteristics. Nevertheless, a more in-depth exploration of the areas where these two fields converge, particularly in the examination of postcolonial literatures, is warranted.

1.2. “The postcolonial comparative”

Recent critical discussions have emphasized the central role of postcolonial theory within the context of comparative literature or literary studies. Sangeeta Ray criticizes the tendency of comparative literature scholars to neglect the intersection of comparative studies and postcolonial literature, implying the nonexistence of “comparative postcolonial literary studies” (par. 4). She further contends that postcolonial literatures, including those from Africa, hold a significant position in World Literature, influenced by historical forces such as colonialism, imperialism, nationalism, capitalism, globalization, and transnationalism (par. 4). Emphasizing the inadequately understood impact of the Global South on the global literary market, Ray underscores the necessity for comparatists to broaden their focus to this region. Drawing on Pascale Casanova’s concept of “world literary space,” she advocates for a more profound exploration of the influence of postcolonial literary studies on World and Comparative Literary Studies.

In alignment with Ray’s perspectives, Robert J. C. Young, a prominent postcolonial theorist, echoes similar sentiments in his article titled “The Postcolonial Comparative.” Young distinguishes himself as an articulate scholar, particularly in his exploration of comparison within postcolonial writings. He argues that “postcolonial literature is haunted by its own comparitivism, a literature, as Édouard Glissant puts it, of relation” (688). Young astutely observes the gradual departure of postcolonial literatures from the European universal paradigm, leading to a profound reconfiguration of the means of comparison within a new postcolonial framework. Postcolonial literatures, according to Young, not only represent “the new comparative literature in criticism” but also embody a distinct form of comparative literature, inherently more comparative than other literary traditions due to their essence being defined by comparison (688).

Young further delves into the historical context, asserting that the inclination toward comparison in postcolonial literature is intrinsically linked to the “historical imposition of colonialism, which compelled postcolonial societies and their literature to be subjected to comparison in the first place” (688). He concludes that postcolonial literature “cannot be anything but comparative because it is written from the position of always having been put in comparison with other literatures” (688). The transformative nature of this postcolonial comparitivism lies in its revolutionary character, as Young elaborates on how it domesticates the “foreign, detranslating and retranslating the terms of its own forced comparitivism, comparing where it was uncompared, uncomparing where it was invidiously compared, recomparing on its own terms” (689).

Despite past reservations voiced by comparative literature experts regarding the amalgamation of cultural studies and postcolonial theory and texts into comparative studies, the intrinsic interconnection between these two facets is unmistakable for various reasons. Even in the face of these concerns, Comparative Cultural Studies stands as a well-established field of study today. The lingering question surrounding postcolonial theory pivots on its relationship with African literature and the endeavor to envision a field of comparison. This involves employing comparative methods with a postcolonial theoretical sensitivity, ensuring they navigate the intricacies of diverse literatures without succumbing to homogenization. Analogous to the inevitable fusion of Comparative and Cultural Studies, the emergence of what this study terms “Comparative African Literatures” is an inescapable trajectory, a subject that will be scrutinized in subsequent sections.

In any case, as Alfred J. Lopez illuminates, comparative literature has consistently opened its arms to the “subaltern other” within a European context. The trajectory of comparative literature is on the cusp of a paradoxical dispersion, or at least a mutual dissemination, with literary and cultural others, as underscored by Lopez (13). The imperative, therefore, lies in recognizing and exploring the interconnectedness of postcolonial theory and comparative literature, acknowledging their symbiotic relationship in shaping the discourse of literary studies. This acknowledgment is pivotal for comprehending the nuanced dynamics that arise from their interplay.¹

1.3. The decolonization of literature & literary canons

The necessity of “decolonizing” world literature and literary canons is another prominent area of convergence among postcolonial critics and researchers of comparative literature. Both fields acknowledge the historical injustice of marginalizing certain literatures while elevating others, perpetuating a hierarchical distinction between “high” and “low” art that continues to influence our perceptions and evaluations of literature. To challenge and dismantle this ingrained hierarchy, a vital process of “decolonization” must be undertaken, requiring a reassessment and redefinition of existing and contemporary literary standards.

Walter D. Mignolo, a distinguished scholar in comparative, postcolonial, and literary studies, dedicated a substantial portion of his research in the 1990s to examining the significance of post/de/colonial theories in interpreting literature within the postmodern era. Mignolo’s works, including “Second Thoughts on Canon and Corpus” and On Decoloniality, underscore the pivotal questions he raises regarding the extent to which Westernized comparative literary methodologies hinder a genuine comprehension of colonial and postcolonial texts.

Mignolo contends that the perpetuation of a Western literary standard results in cultural distortion, global societal assimilation, and the homogenization of human diversity. Importantly, Mignolo’s perspective is not solitary in its stance. Numerous postcolonial critics have played influential roles in shaping the contemporary understanding of comparative literature as an inclusive field that seeks to transcend the East/West binary and embrace diversity rather than sacrificing it to dominant theories and methodologies of textual analysis.

An illustrative example is Spivak, whose book Death of a Discipline underscores the contributions made by postcolonial critics to comparative studies. Spivak advocates for a new form of comparative literature with a global scope and a less Eurocentric approach, positing that this transformative approach can only emerge by acknowledging and appreciating the unique specificities of each culture, society, and comparatist.

In an interview with CCCB Lab, Ngugi Wa Thiong’o, a significant African literary and cultural figure, echoes Mignolo’s emphasis on the importance of decolonizing minds and imaginations in both Africa and Europe. Ngugi raises concerns about Eurocentrism and its impact on African literature, advocating for the recognition and valuation of the rich diversity of African cultures and histories. He supports a more inclusive and culturally sensitive approach to literary analysis, aiming to challenge and overcome Eurocentric biases within the field of comparative literature, advocating for the development of an African Literary Theory.

In collective endeavors, postcolonial critics and comparative scholars actively explore the possibilities inherent in a “decolonized” world literary canon. Despite differences in methodological approaches, their shared objective is to unravel the potential contributions and perspectives that a liberated and inclusive understanding of literature could bring to the forefront of scholarly inquiry.

1.4. The call for “world literary knowledges”

The call for “World Literary Knowledges” underscores a collective effort by postcolonial and comparative scholars to scrutinize how postcolonial authors confront historically suppressive institutions. This examination reveals a deliberate attempt to challenge prevailing discourses and cultivate a more inclusive understanding of literary epistemologies. The aim is to avoid oversimplifying literary works based on Western aesthetic standards and, instead, advocate for an appreciation of diverse literary traditions on their individual merits.

In recent decades, comparative literary studies and its scholars have encountered significant challenges due to the rapid influence of postcolonial critics and theories on established principles. This impact has prompted scholars like Spivak to symbolically declare the “death” of the field, emphasizing the pressing need for comparative researchers to grapple with the new critical perspectives introduced by postcolonial theory. Esteemed comparatists have enthusiastically responded to this call to action, as demonstrated by Revathi Krishnaswamy’s passionate advocacy in a prominent Comparative Literature journal. In her work, she highlights the vital importance of embracing and actively engaging with the ever-evolving landscape of comparative literature. Krishnaswamy stresses the need for scholars to adapt and evolve alongside changing times, emphasizing the dynamic nature of the field. She writes

I would like to propose as a new component to global literary studies the category “world literary knowledges,” the purpose of which is to open up the canon of literary theory and criticism to alternative ways of conceptualizing and analyzing literary production. This means that regional, subaltern, and popular traditions, whether latent or emergent, may be studied, analyzed, and evaluated as epistemologies of literature/literariness alongside the traditions of poetics that currently constitute both the canon (Euro-American) and the counter-canon (Arabic, Sanskrit, Chinese, Japanese) of literary theory. This also means that conceptualizations of literature/literariness may be approached as historically and culturally situated knowledges (or ideologies)— but without foreclosing the possibility that an open-ended, cross-cultural study of literary knowledges from around the world might at some point disclose certain literary or aesthetic features that characterize our shared humanity. (408)

Krishnaswamy’s endorsement of recognizing all literatures as “knowledges” and “epistemologies” holds significant implications for the ongoing discussion, but it does not explicitly address African or postcolonial literatures. Nevertheless, its relevance extends to the current debate surrounding postcolonial African literature, as the intrinsic literary qualities of this literature are deeply influenced by its “historically and culturally situated knowledges.” Krishnaswamy’s plea to reconsider the fundamental paradigm informing the epistemologies of World Literature and Comparative Studies seamlessly aligns with the urgent need for a more inclusive recognition of the value that postcolonial African literature can bring to these fields, and vice versa.

The Westernization of African literature, a central concern in both the decolonization discourse and the advocacy for “world literary knowledges,” remains a recurring and pivotal topic in the discussions of postcolonial critics. Renowned Moroccan philologist Abdelfattah Kilito (2008) illustrates this concern in his book, Thou Shalt Not Translate My Language, using the contemporary trend of translating Arabic literature into European languages as an example. Kilito argues that, for African and Arabic writers, the act of comparing oneself and one’s writing to European counterparts has evolved into a matter of political and commercial consideration.² He underscores that any writer aiming to authentically express their cultural identity against Westernized European norms is likely to encounter formidable challenges. The root cause of this predicament lies in the enduring Western influence over discourses dictating how literature should be crafted and discussed. As Kilito points out, a writer is only granted the privilege of comparison when they forsake their national and ethnic identities in favor of a homogenous identity dictated by Western literary publication and readership criteria.³

A constant challenge for African writers is the pressure to conform to established literary standards, potentially impeding the accurate representation of their culture and identity on a global scale. This underscores the crucial importance of promoting “world literary knowledges” to ensure a more balanced and just approach to analyzing and comparing literature from different parts of the world. Embracing diverse perspectives and recognizing the unique contributions of each culture becomes imperative for creating a more inclusive and authentic representation of World Literatures within the realm of comparative studies.

1.5. The perils of transnational comparatism

While championing the acknowledgment of “world literary knowledges,” postcolonial scholars have engaged in a thorough scrutiny of the implementation of transnational comparatism as a method within the domain of comparative literature, particularly in the analysis of postcolonial texts. They adopt a critical stance, questioning the effectiveness of this method, especially in the context of the colonial and early postcolonial periods, and highlighting its intrinsic Eurocentric bias.

Sruthi B. Guptha articulates a concern that the adoption of transnational comparatism perpetuates the dominance of Eurocentric perspectives in shaping the conception of transnationalism. In her words, “transnationalism and transculturalism are something that is applicable only in a space where equality exists” (391). She underscores that this equality pertains to a recognition of literary equality, emphasizing the unique contributions of writing from all nations, rather than accentuating perceived deficiencies in non-Western literatures. The critique of such deficiencies, Guptha argues, is deeply entrenched in past colonial Western epistemologies and interpretive paradigms, as evident also in various critical postcolonial works.

Guptha contends that the classic transnational comparatism method is no longer adequate in the ever-changing area of comparatism, particularly when considering its political implications in postcolonial contexts (395). She underlines the importance of addressing the political components of comparative analysis by moving beyond a transnational framework that perpetuates unequal power relations in world literature studies. She instead recommends a more inclusive and nonhierarchical approach to comparative analysis, one that recognizes the numerous historical and cultural influences that shape literary production. This method necessitates acknowledging and actively interacting with the influence of power dynamics and the inherent political features of postcolonial literary creation.

Simon Gikandi contents that, in areas that have a history of colonization, the contemporary development of postcolonial literature is significantly shaped by the colonial backdrop. This literature mirrors the cultural, social, and historical conditions that have molded present-day postcolonial societies (379–80). Recognizing this, Guptha’s investigation highlights the importance of acknowledging the political dimensions embedded in literary works from various regions around the world. This underscores the potential intersection between comparative and postcolonial studies, aiming to establish a more equitable analytical framework for these texts. Simply concentrating on the aesthetic qualities when comparing literature across nations is insufficient. In fact, the excessive emphasis on the aesthetic and sublime aspects of Western literature has often eclipsed the invaluable contributions made by regions across the globe.⁴ As emphasized by Guptha, this poses a risk to the interpretations that scholars generate from and about postcolonial texts.

These notions prompt us to contemplate the significance of the comparative analyst and their role in comprehending and unveiling the political intricacies ingrained in the language of these texts, all while connecting them to the pivotal aspects under scrutiny. In the realm of postcolonial settings, literary works serve as reflective mirrors, capturing the prevalent cultural, social, and historical conditions of their subject matter. Nevertheless, when presented in a transnational or transcultural context, there is a potential risk of diminishing the authenticity and intended purpose of the postcolonial literary piece, even if it is unintentional. Therefore, it becomes crucial to approach such works with sensitivity and a profound understanding of their cultural significance.

1.6. A brief overview of the political and historical sensitivity in postcolonial African literature

The persistent examination of the political dimensions inherent in postcolonial African literature has been a central and enduring preoccupation since its inception. This scholarly concern can be traced back to the inaugural generation of African writers who, in the words of Ashcroft, deliberately engaged in a literary discourse that stood in opposition to and contemplation of the empire. The subsequent generations of African literary discourse, as explicated by Daniel P. Kunene in “African-Language Literature: Tragedy and Hope,” delineates a transformative epoch symbolizing the advent of a “new identity” and a mode of “self-emancipation,” encompassing both physical and psychological liberation (9).

Kunene asserts that genuine liberation from the constraints imposed upon the African body demands the emancipation of the mind – a nuanced process he aptly terms “decolonization,” in perfect alignment with Ngugi’s discourse outlined in Decolonizing the Mind (9). Within this nuanced exploration, postcolonial African literary production adopts an undeniably political character, as Kunene perceptively acknowledges that African literature is inherently “political, imposed on us by history” (10). Consequently, the comparatist approaching such a body of literature is tasked, first and foremost, with cultivating a profound understanding of the sensitivity intrinsic to this literary corpus, requiring a meticulous examination of the intricate interplay between its artistic expression and the political climate that not only shaped its inception but also propels its inherent purpose.

In Msc Okolo’s seminal work, African Literature as Political Philosophy, there is a comprehensive exploration of the intrinsic political dimensions within African literature. This groundbreaking endeavor involves a meticulous examination through socio-political and literary analyses of specific African literary corpora. Within this scholarly pursuit, Ayi Kwei Armah, positioned at the intersection of both the first and second generations of African literature, emerges as a noteworthy figure. As an active contributor to the African literary scene, Armah adeptly navigates the converging realms of literature and politics within the domain of postcolonial African writing. His sustained scrutiny of the nature and deficiencies of African rulers serves as a testament to his profound concern for this critical subject matter.

Within his novel The Healers, Armah’s narrator expresses a lament for the imperative need for new healers, denoting political leaders who “work with social power, but that power must not be diseased” (111). Employing the metaphor of “diseased” power, Armah poignantly captures the pervasive corruption afflicting political leaders – individuals originally envisioned to serve as healers, facilitating the recovery of African nations from the enduring legacies of colonial trauma and neocolonial economic exploitation. Armah’s literary significance takes on particular prominence when considering that The Healers follows his debut novel, The Beautyful Ones Are Not Yet Born, which was published in 1968— a decade prior. What stands out is the unwavering dedication with which Armah addresses political issues within the postcolonial African context. It is essential to note that Armah is not an isolated voice in this regard. The majority of postcolonial African writers share a comparable militancy and steadfastness in addressing political and historical concerns through their literary works.

Due to the inherently political essence of postcolonial African literature, the prominence of historicity has become a recurrent feature in nearly every scholarly examination of pre-colonial, colonial, and postcolonial African art. In the chapter titled “The African Historical Novel” within The Cambridge Companion to the African Novel, M. Keith Booker acknowledges that, unlike European literature, African literature is “intensively engaged with politics and history” (141). To substantiate this observation, he underscores Thomas Mofolo’s Chaka, widely recognized as one of the earliest African novels, as inherently a “historical novel based on the career of the great Zulu leader” (141).

Booker strengthens his argument by drawing a parallel with the European case, referencing George Lukacs’s work, The Historical Novel. He argues that Lukacs’s work “reminds leftist writers that literature played a central role in the revolutionary victory of European bourgeoisie over their feudal-aristocratic predecessors,” implying that European literature was primarily concerned with political issues (142). Lukacs’s advocacy for the historical novel arises from its profound relevance in countering the apolitical nature of European literary production in the late nineteenth century. Lukacs contends that the historical novel provides a crucial platform for engaging with the intricate web of historical events and their consequential impact. Similarly, Booker suggests that postcolonial African literature, despite often being labeled as postmodern due to its contemporaneous production, is fundamentally concerned with historicity and the significant impact of historical events as the essential foundation for its literary praxis.

Therefore, it becomes clear that postcolonial African literature, regardless of its geographical origin, is intrinsically intertwined with the intricate political fabric of postcolonial African society. This emphasizes the importance of Guptha’s previous perspective on comparatism, which cautions against the dangers of interpreting texts from different cultures and nations on a global platform without considering their unique sensitivities, particularly their historical and political contexts in contemporary African literature. This viewpoint urges us to contemplate the distinct form and content of postcolonial African literature, resisting its assimilation into well-established global literary discourses. This literature requires a distinctive and evolving approach, currently advocated by critics like Ngugi.

African literature is a complex and nuanced field that requires careful consideration of its unique sensitivities. These sensitivities include issues of politics and historicity, among others, which must be taken into account when analyzing and interpreting African literary works. The relationship between comparative literature and postcolonial theory is crucial in providing the necessary analytical tools for understanding African literature, but there is still much work to be done in developing a framework for comparing African literatures with one another in a way that respects their sensitivity. In the subsequent sections of this article, we scrutinize the implications of this pivotal topic, drawing attention to specific questions and regions that, as this study contends, have been overlooked in the examination of “Comparative African Literatures.”

1.7. Constraints: postcolonial African literature and the “gentrification” of ‘comparative African literatures’

The roots of African literature and its scholarly examination can be traced back to the dual objectives set by Africans themselves. Firstly, it aimed to establish a unique canon of literature and criticism that would stand apart from Western literary traditions. Secondly, it sought to utilize artistic practices as a form of resistance, envisioning a future that would bring about transformation and reshape societal consciousness. However, African works constantly grapple with the inherent challenges of essentialism and discordance, which arise from external influences that dictate the boundaries of discourse within African studies and literature. This regulatory influence hinders the realization of the original aspirations of postcolonial African literature. Hence, there arose a need to bridge a comparative methodology in the study of postcolonial African literatures, in order to uncover the true essence of this literature. Yet, this endeavor was not without its setbacks and failures.

Scholars have sought to underscore the connections between comparative literary studies and postcolonial African literature more broadly, diverging from advocating for a distinct category of “Comparative African Literatures,” as the focus of this article. Instead, their endeavors have involved a comprehensive examination of the potential contributions of both fields to the broader framework of literary comparison. One of the pioneering scholarly attempts at such a fusion was conducted by Eileen Julien in her 1995 piece, “African Literatures in Comparative Perspective.” There, Julien draws attention to the challenges associated with applying comparative methods to the study of African literatures within Western universities, particularly in departments of English and French studies.⁵ She emphasizes that the focus of comparatists in these departments and of comparative literature should transcend language, nation, or continent, directing attention to the “ … spaces in between}cultures .{One of comparative literature’s objects of study … }should be knowing{how to contextualize, read, and compare ‘cultures’ one knows and those one does not” (18).

In her analysis, Julien, much like several scholars mentioned earlier, critiques the inclination of the Western academy to homogenize African literatures under the banners of “universal” and “diversity” discourses. She makes a bold conclusion, stating that

Perspectives such as these emanate from African literature’s location in the Western academy, which is not unrelated to Africa’s position in the world system. They express a particular mode of comparativism that limits our understanding of both the text characterised by its supposed alterity and the one perceived as the norm, since the latter’s own “location” remains hidden. To read works under the banner of “diversity,” is to give with one hand what one then takes back with the other. (16)

Julien’s 1995 summons for an examination of the distinctive literariness inherent in African literature marked a pivotal moment. In the aftermath of this clarion call, sporadic endeavors have unfolded in scholarly articles and select graduate monographs, attempting to navigate the intricate terrain of comparisons between African literatures. A notable undertaking predating Julien’s entreaty emerged a year earlier, led by Bernth Lindfors in his seminal work, Comparative Approaches to African Literatures. Rather than presenting or formulating a comparative framework that respects the aforementioned sensitivity inherent in African literature, Lindfors’ collection of essays takes a different approach. Instead, it delves into African literature and its comparative dimensions by primarily examining the echoes of Shakespearean and Brechtian influences in African writing. This offers a unique perspective on postcolonial African literatures. However, it is evident that the key work attempting to unravel and conduct comparative analyses on African literatures, as cautioned by many scholars, has ventured into this body of literature using non-African literary and conceptual frameworks. This method forces readings that, while legitimate in the short term, ultimately do not advance the creation of a “Comparative African Literatures” that genuinely honors the sensitivities inherent in African literary expressions.

Yet another noteworthy example that underscores the inclination to diminish the significance of undertaking uniquely African comparative studies is evident in a recent personal piece authored by János Riesz in 2021, featured in a journal of comparative literature. In his abstract, Riesz articulates a viewpoint that contributes to this trend.

My switch from comparative literature to African literature studies seemed a natural one. The same areas I had a passion for in European literature could be found in African literature as well. From the outset, I understood that there was no such thing as “Africanological” literary criticism or literary history. The two branches of literature abided by the same laws and rules. Searching for African idiosyncrasies that would set it apart from European literature would prove fruitless, as there is only one “world” literature. (1)

Riesz’s assertion that there exists only one “world literature,” and deeming it “fruitless” to study other world literatures separately, even with an acknowledgment of an “Africanological” dimension related to African literature and history, is especially significant in his perspective. This claim prompts inquiries into the fairness with which African literature in its postcolonial manifestation is portrayed. As Julien has pointed out, there are concerns associated with the argument that African literature can only be understood within the framework of World Literature, as this “universal” standpoint may diminish the unique Africanness inherent in African writings.

While I do not specifically criticize Riesz’s transition from a comparative analysis of African literature to an analysis of it within the context of World Literature, I would like to emphasize – as many scholars have done before me – the intrinsic and historical lack of a truly fair comparative framework to the study of such a literature. African literatures have not had the opportunity to be assessed in parallel with World Literatures in a fair manner, a concern that resonates with the challenges highlighted in Haythem Guesmi’s article, “The Gentrification of African Studies.” Guesmi underscores a formidable issue entrenched in contemporary academic research on African literature – the institutionalization of African literary studies through the assimilation of Western ideas and methodologies. Guesmi observes that this assimilation may lead to unfavorable effects, such as diluting the original goals and aspirations of African writers and intellectuals, as well as a disassociation from the social and cultural environments that gave rise to postcolonial African works – a sentiment also echoed by Julien.

The peril associated with the academic homogenization of African literary studies, as highlighted by Guesmi, not only diminishes the potential of African literature to make meaningful contributions to global literary discourse but also jeopardizes the preservation of its unique voice. Significantly, within this framework, it hinders the progress of the project of “Comparative African Literatures.” In the postcolonial era, African critics and writers keenly observe the tendency of Western literary studies to homogenize non-Western literatures. This recognition leads to a resistance against conventional comparative methods and what Guesmi refers to as the “gentrification of African studies,” resulting in two distinct outcomes regarding the act of comparison. On the downside, this resistance distances African literature from comparative analysis, leading to readings characterized by strict nationalism. Conversely, it underscores the necessity to construct a new comparative framework that allows for an examination of this literature “on its own terms,” as advocated by scholars such as Young. Notable examples include the promotion of an African Literary Theory by figures like Ngugi, crucial for establishing critical approaches deeply rooted in African literary traditions and cultures, facilitating nuanced explorations of literature from these regions.

While individual scholars have indeed endeavored to envisage the emergence of a paradigm centered on “Comparative African Literatures,” devoted to methods capable of doing justice to the study of African literature and its unique sensitivities, these initiatives have often fallen short in terms of impact due to several pressing reasons. Nevertheless, hope for the survival of the project persists. Consider, for instance, the discernible interest of the International Comparative Literature Association (ICLA) in advancing the study of “Comparative African Literatures.” In 2019, it was formally incorporated into their online platform, and an invitation to join the team and explore new directions for the project has been extended. Yet, akin to the circumstances faced by Julien in 1995, who expressed a wish in her piece that scholarly investigation would lead to a fairer approach to the comparison of African literatures, the ICLA, despite acknowledging the field, appears to be less engaged with it. Its current status is more of a nominal presence on their platform, notably less active compared to other disciplines within the association.⁶

The failure to address the issues of ideological misuse and the lack of a proper methodology in comparative studies within the study of postcolonial African literatures represents a missed opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the various themes and motifs found in these writings. This significant gap serves as a powerful reminder that there is still a long way to go in achieving a comprehensive understanding of comparative African literature, both in theory and practice. At this juncture in our investigation, the impediments to comparing postcolonial African literature and aligning it with an authentic African comparative perspective have become apparent. As such, the primary aim of the subsequent section is to shift the discourse away from dwelling on these limitations and instead present some original ideas posited by this article regarding the paradigm of “Comparative African Literatures,” with the aspiration of contributing to the ongoing dialogue on such endeavors.

1.8. Potential: a reevaluation of the ‘comparative African literatures’ project

In the endeavor to authentically integrate African literature into the global literary landscape, it is imperative to steer clear of its assimilation into foreign frameworks and to transcend traditional analytical approaches. This study proposes a departure from conventional methods used in World Literature and transcultural perspectives, as well as a shift away from comparative approaches heavily reliant on Western literary analysis when examining postcolonial African texts. Instead, it advocates for an “inward” comparative analytical framework, positing that such an approach enhances the richness of future examinations of African texts, allowing for more nuanced insights. The subsequent exploration of “outward,” “world literature,” and “universal” dimensions naturally follows the foundational inward reading.

To comprehend the complexities of comparing inward and outward works in postcolonial African literatures, the establishment of clear parameters is crucial. Inward comparison entails examining African literatures in relation to one another, delving into the intricacies of societies bound by shared historical, cultural, and continental legacies. This aligns with the perspective of scholars like Young, who contend that postcolonial literature, whether African or not, possesses a unique comparative capacity that surpasses other literary traditions. In contrast, outward comparison takes a trajectory beyond scrutinizing African literatures solely in relation to each other, positioning them as integral components of World Literatures. However, this shift poses challenges, notably the risk of homogenizing African literature within the broader global literary discourse.⁷

The shift toward an inward examination of African literature signifies the initial step before embracing a global perspective. While cultural studies and postcolonial theory have guided the exploration of postcolonial African texts, a distinctive comparative approach that respects local Africanness has been notably absent. Initiating the comparative journey with a focus on the nationalistic aspect of a literary text does not represent the culmination but rather the starting point. Comprehending a literary text within its specific context reveals another comparative dimension: the outward one. With the “inward” stage taking precedence, concerns regarding homogenization wane, allowing an acknowledgment of local uniqueness that facilitates readings beyond theoretical preconceptions.

The trajectory of postcolonial African literatures toward integration into World Literature, while ensuring interaction with other literary traditions and preserving inherent authenticity, necessitates a paradoxical approach rooted in an initial rejection of global discourses and a focus on developing local continental comparative tools. This approach underscores the significance of scrutinizing the inherent nature of the texts under consideration with nuance. Employing a comprehensive comparative methodology that interlaces diverse African literatures assuages concerns about global exposure leading to diminution or subjugation by other world literary traditions.

To delve deeper into the proposed “inward and outward” framework of comparison, it is imperative to examine not only the subject of comparison but also the agents responsible for conducting the comparative analysis. The subject of comparison in a “Comparative African Literatures” project must intricately juxtapose facets of African life, culture, identity, and subtleties. Departing from a simplistic focus on a “universal” or “external” arena for comparison, the emphasis shifts inward, delving into the intricacies of the culture depicted by the African narrative. This approach seeks to unravel African literatures in their authentic historical, societal, political, cultural, and literary dimensions. As emphasized earlier, this “inward” reading serves as the foundational step in the envisioned comparative work for “Comparative African Literatures.” Only by contextualizing these literatures within their nationalistic and societal boundaries and subsequently comparing them within the continent itself can we fully grasp their potential contributions to the global and universal world literary space.

Addressing the question of “what is being compared” also mandates the establishment of concrete points of reference for an authentic “Comparative African Literatures.” In this ideal state, where the project flourishes and Ngugi’s “African Literary Theory” garners support from fellow scholars, African literature can forge its unique mode of comparison and literary analysis with specific and sensitive tools accessible to any comparatist. When referring to “points of reference,” it implies that within this flourishing state of “Comparative African Literatures,” the comparative work on postcolonial African texts would have a rich repository of conceptual and literary analytical work to draw upon. This conceptual work inherently concerns itself with the Africanness of the African text. For this vision to materialize, it is evident that it needs to prioritize local African continental concerns as its primary starting point. Thus, this paper contends that a preferable approach involves an “inward” reading of these texts before an “outward” one.

However, a significant challenge arises in the realm of “Comparative African Literatures.” Despite attempts at “inward” comparisons of African literatures, scholars often find themselves adopting methodological frameworks rooted in external and “outer” perspectives. This paper underscores that borrowing from “outer” frameworks poses a serious impediment to scholars interested in advancing “Comparative African Literatures.” The critical issue lies in transcending stagnant and inadequate methodological frameworks lacking rootedness in African culture, demanding innovative solutions for the field’s progression.

Regarding the inquiry into “who engages in the act of comparison,” the comparatist tasked with advancing the field of “Comparative African Literatures” must, fundamentally, immerse themselves in these literary works using an “inward” method. This method deliberately sidesteps concerns about global readership or the assimilation of African texts onto the world literary stage. Historical endeavors have revealed that endeavors focused on immediate global integration often stumble in authentically projecting the Africanness of African literature. This shortcoming does not inherently stem from a Western mechanism challenging the authenticity of African texts but rather arises from an excessive fixation on fitting African texts into the global stage from the outset of the comparison.

Such an approach contributes minimally to assisting African literatures in formulating a distinctive comparative framework, one that could showcase their ability to stand alongside other world literatures on the global stage. Instead of subjecting itself to Western interpretations, this alternative methodology advocates for an autonomous mode of comparison. This autonomous approach emancipates African literatures from potential pitfalls, enabling them to assert their uniqueness on the global literary scene.

African literature has long been a subject of interest for scholars, but the lack of African experts leading literary projects and initiatives has created a gap between the comparatist and the realm of comparison. As Julien has noted, the comparatist’s duty is not only to compare their own culture, but also to compare cultures with which they have no direct interaction. However, studying another culture without a deep understanding of its nuances can lead to misrepresentation and misinterpretation. Therefore, this paper argues that the most appropriate comparatist for African literature is an African scholar who is intimately familiar with the postcolonial African texts that are often the subject of study. This does not mean that non-Africans cannot conduct research on African literature, but rather emphasizes the importance of bringing together scholars who are sensitive to the specific Africanness of the literature. Unfortunately, attempts to develop a methodology for this type of comparative analysis have been few and far between, and have largely been individual efforts.

It must also be highlighted that postcolonial African literature, specifically the most extensively studied form of African art within comparative domains, must establish its uniqueness by developing its own framework that acknowledges its historical, social, and activist nature. This literature has emerged as a result of a struggle for liberation. Failing to consider this context when analyzing such literature undermines its fundamental purpose, diminishes its existence, hinders its progress, and diverts it toward paths that it inherently cannot traverse. This observation aligns with the concerns expressed by other scholars when comparing non-Western literatures. Therefore, the establishment of a “Comparative African Literatures” paradigm that prioritizes the sensitivity of the literature under study is undeniably imperative.

2. Conclusion

In conclusion, this article reflects on its exploration of the evolving landscape of “Comparative African Literatures,” recognizing its primary aim to critically examine the field’s nascent status and developmental trajectory. The analysis began with an exploration of the reciprocal influence between postcolonial theory and comparative literary studies in the latter half of the 20th century. This interaction led to the emergence of a redefined vision within both disciplines, shaped by the collaborative efforts of scholars from diverse backgrounds. These scholars converged to redirect scholarly attention toward the nuanced parameters essential for the study of World Literatures. These parameters encompassed challenges related to Euro-centrism, cultural and literary hegemony, the application of foreign modes of literary analysis, and the imposition of postcolonial frameworks on texts resistant to their inherent interpretative grasp, facilitated unfortunately by the prevailing global literary discourse.

The concept of “Comparative African Literatures” is significant when viewed through the lens of growing theoretical and analytical approaches aimed at decolonizing the discipline of literature and literary studies. This research paper recognizes the admirable character of this concept because it offers a solid counter-argument against the tendency of literary homogeneity. However, a closer evaluation of its practical application in this article reveals certain flaws in its capacity to attain its ambitious objectives. Doubts regarding “Comparative African Literatures” occur as a result of the paradigm’s limited involvement of African scholars directly connected to the realities of the continent, raising worries about the paradigm’s ability to actually contribute to the study of African literatures.

The prevalence of external viewpoints in the study of African literatures, even within the framework of “Comparative African Literatures,” emphasizes the necessity for a self-reflective approach. The critical reflections in this article suggest that, to avoid the pitfalls of previous endeavors, “Comparative African Literatures” must redirect its focus toward an “inner” comparison within the continent’s rich literary tapestry. Delving into the intrinsic characteristics of African literature is deemed crucial for the paradigm to effectively engage with the global literary stage, bringing forth a distinctive African voice in both literary creation and scholarly inquiry. The paper emphasizes that a comparative Africanness of African literature remains untapped without a deeply rooted literary and comparative mechanism that selectively draws from comparative literature methodologies with the aim of building something akin to Ngugi’s “African Literary Theory.”

As a last statement before closing, the paper must acknowledge that “Comparative African Literatures” has a significant disconnect between its theoretical goals and its real-world execution. The methodology it employs lacks clarity, and the paradigm itself appears passive rather than dynamically engaged in scholarly pursuits. It stands as a potential field eagerly awaiting critical engagement and theoretical advancement. In light of these considerations, it becomes crucial to acknowledge the substantial work that lies ahead. The responsibility rests on those capable of contributing to critically examine the current state of this paradigm, theorize its foundations, and steer it toward a more purposeful trajectory. Today, we must confront the reality that there is a significant amount of work to be accomplished, and it is our duty to drive its progress.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. In Western literary traditions, the African or “subaltern other” has always been of interest. A simple example is how Africans were portrayed as slaves in Shakespeare’s plays, like the character Caliban in “The Tempest.” Although past comparisons were often negative and centered on championing the West, the concept of the African has consistently been present in Western narratives. Lopez argues that today, the West must, in a way, spread itself out and engage with literary and cultural perspectives beyond its own, acknowledging a mutual exchange anew with the “subaltern other.”

2. I bring up Arabic writers because, even though Kilito is African, being Moroccan means his writing is in Arabic and his readership mostly comes from the Arabic world. Nevertheless, his ideas can apply to all postcolonial literary writers.

3. This concept from Kilito is also talked about in the article I mentioned earlier, “The Postcolonial Comparative,” by Young.

4. Because of the criteria they set for art, Western artists and thinkers dismissed all art from their colonies as insufficient and simply depicting a primitive society. Consider David Hume, a well-known Western philosopher who, as John Immerwahr reported him in his article “Hume’s Revised Racism,” declared and considered “Negroes, and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufacturers amongst them, no arts, no sciences … Not to mention our colonies, there NEGROE slaves dispersed all over EUROPE, of whom none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity” (1).

5. This, obviously, has to do with the fact that France and England were the ones to colonize most of Africa and that the literatures produced in the postcolonial era have been categorized within departments of English and French studies as Anglophone and Francophone literatures.

6. You can access the page of “Comparative African Literatures” on the ICLA through this link: https://www.ailc-icla.org/comparative-african-studies/

7. It is crucial to note that this research article introduces the terms “inward” and “outward” modes of comparison as constructs to clarify the methods used in the comparison of postcolonial African literatures. The rationale for introducing these words is expounded upon in the debate that follows.