Critical focus on the (im)possible relations between the individual and the collective, especially in the context of literary texts, invites and incites attention to other (im)possible relations, such as those between aesthetics and politics, fiction and fact, and literariness and rhetoricity. In cases where it cannot be assumed that these qualities are mutually exclusive, it is conventionally expected that they nevertheless be considered in contrast to each other. Consequently, literary analysis offers “degrees” to which, for instance, an autobiography is factual or fictional and expressive or representative. This paper, however, is an attempt to consider these qualities not in separation, but in their interaction. It is necessary to note that what is being proposed is not a conflation of terms that have been rightfully differentiated for both conceptual and ethical reasons. Rather, the task is to understand how such apparent contradictions can co-constitute a text. The paper argues that, within such dynamics, individual voice and collective consciousness can coexist in productive tension.

In response to the questions raised by the panel, the paper posits that the supposed conflict between literacy expression and political representation can perhaps be reconsidered if it can be emphasised that while existence precedes essence (and therefore cannot be exhaustively determined), essence succeeds existence. In other words, essence remains a construction but one that is imagined, organised and utilised by subjects that exist in existential relations with one another. Such an approach to abstractions seems most relevant to the field of postcolonial studies.

This paper examines the categorization of hyphenated-American literature (e.g., African-American, Asian-American, Native-American) as a reflection of colonial and postcolonial stratification in the United States. By exploring how these identities are constructed and sustained, the paper critiques the linguistic and cultural implications of placing "otherness" before "American." Through close readings of texts classified as African-American, Asian-American, Arab-American, and Native American, this study interrogates the ways in which hyphenation both reflects and resists hierarchies of race, ethnicity, and national belonging.

Drawing on Roland Barthes’ concept of polysemy, the paper considers how the reader’s encounter with hyphenated identities often centers the tension between individual voices and collective categorization. While collective frameworks like "African-American literature" provide agency and recognition, they risk reducing complex narratives into rigid identity-based classifications and the perpetuation of monoliths. This multiplicity of voices resists homogenization, resulting in plurality within their subfield but also plurality in the experience of a singular text when the reader engages.

Situated within the methods of American Pluralism and post-colonial theory, this analysis highlights the hyphen as a site of struggle and negotiation, challenging the exceptionalist myth of a singular American identity. It argues that hyphenated-American literature is not a subset of "American" but central to redefining its boundaries and pluralistic essence. Ultimately, the paper foregrounds the role of literature in disrupting nation-state ideologies and reexamining categories of difference, offering a critical lens to reassess American exceptionalism and its implications for cultural and literary hierarchies.

With the emergence of Identity Studies as an important field in the 21st century owing to phenomena such as globalization, migration, the evolution of gender identities et cetera, literary critics and scholars continue to classify texts and authors into boxed categories such as “anglophone writing”, “francophonie”, “immigrant writing”, “exile literature”, “women’s writing”, “Dalit writing”, “African literature”, “diasporic writing”, “Indian writing in English,” so on and so forth.

This paper critiques the foregrounding of categories pertaining to identity in the reading of literary texts through a reading of select francophone novels. Through my engagement with the texts, I will explore questions such as: What is “Africanness” (if it exists!), Is there an African identity? Should literature be reduced to the mere assertion of one’s identity? If not, what is the purpose of literature? I interrogate these questions through a framework grounded in plurality arguing that the human condition is essentially pluralistic. With it, comes the related question– Can there be a pan-African identity that relates to the singular experiences and cultural practice(s) of an essentially pluralistic Africa? By unravelling the challenges of the 20th century discourse on the French literary system and its categorisation of the francophonie, these novels expose that literary history has been a construction of power. Classification of African writers and literatures into categories such as “exile literature”, “migrant writing”, “Black writing” or even “Francophone literatures” assumes literary texts to be mere representations of the identities ignoring the inherent plurality of human experiences.

Signalling aesthetics and/or “aestheSis” (Mignolo) as the intentionality bolstering the ‘event of literature’, I will undertake a reading of select novels from the francophone contexts to challenge any theoretical approach that looks for “authenticity” in works of fiction.

Mongo Beti, a prominent Cameroonian Francophone writer, presents the mobility of people, objects, and ideas as a tangible and observable reality in his fiction. His novels outline a colonial order of movement dominated by automobility while simultaneously constructing an anti-colonial vision through the movements of local characters returning to their homes. In the concrete and abstract "non-lieux" (non-places) generated by these movements—such as colonial roads, guerrilla, and extramarital affairs—Cameroonian subjects resist sedentary and essentialist modes of thinking to redefine their relationships with others, with places, and with history. The fluid, anonymized and double-negative relations are rooted in Beti's use of black humor, which permeates his narrative techniques. Through the dislocation of detective fiction conventions and narrative digressions, Beti ironically challenges colonial structures and offers a complex view of postcolonial identity. His writing style creates a mobile linguistic approach through the use of "français africain" (African French), evident in the gap between the signifiers of French and their meanings within the Cameroonian context. By playfully manipulating language and genre, Beti critiques colonial impositions while reappropriating French as a tool for subversion. This dynamic use of French in representing Cameroonian reality extends the concept of mobility and defines the Cameroonian Francophone writer as one who transcends both linguistic and cultural boundaries.

What is a ‘postcolonial novel’? Can a novel represent the postcolonial ‘social reality’ when read as literature? The paper contextualises these questions in the ‘postcolonial readings’ of Indulekha (1889), regarded as the first ‘modern novel’ in Malayalam literature. As a species of ‘literary criticism’, the analysis of ‘postcolonial readings’ is broadly a critique of the notion of ‘criticism’ in the domain of literature. As a meta-critical enquiry, the paper juxtaposes and analyses different critical comments on the novel. It is also a critique of the ‘conventions’ of ‘literary criticism’ which consider some readings by ‘professional critics’ as ‘authentic’. This hierarchisation of readings is irreconcilable with the plural nature of the practice of poiesis. Once we acknowledge the plurality of readings, we cannot say that certain readings are more authentic compared to other readings. Plural ‘Texts’ (Barthes) are performed by different readers. The paper evokes Edward Said’s and Statis Gourgouris’ critique of ‘professionalisation’ to examine how ‘postcolonial critic’ becomes a professional designation. Ideas such as ‘informed readers’ and ‘expert readers’ objectify ‘Texts’ and institutionalise particular readings as ‘the readings’. But a Text is not an object but a process. However, ‘critical theory’ considers the work as an ‘object’ of ‘knowledge’ about the author or the context, and an expert who is well versed in the respective field of ‘knowledge’ is deemed as a ‘competent critic’. ‘Postcolonial criticism’ also assumes a correlation between the novel and ‘postcolonial social conditions’. The paper demonstrates how ‘critical comments’ on the ‘colonial condition’ differ and contradict one another. The paper will elaborate on the notion of representation using Syed Sayeed’s critique of ‘literary representation’. The paper compares different critical comments on the novel and frames the comparison as a critique of postcolonial theory.