Aggregating discrete literatures into ‘Indian’ is a qualitative, not additive shift

Evidence

What is often lacking, however, is the sense that a shift from Marathi or Bengali or Urdu to ‘Indian’ is both aggregative and qualitative, and that the shift from quantity to quality, from mass to composition, requires altogether different kinds of conceptual apparatuses and theoretical principles of narrativization. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 1150

Categorization

• XREF: The aggregative-versus-qualitative distinction directly parallels the strategic essentialism bind: a merely strategic/aggregative identity claim cannot substitute for actually grounded composition. — connects to: A grounded Indian literary history must trace material dialectics of unity and difference — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 1164; Indian literature’s unity is an effect of geography and the nation-state — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 512; Enumerative national literature categories derive their unity from geography, not composition — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 1150 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Indian literature’s unity is an effect of geography and the nation-state #corroborates (0.82) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 512
• Enumerative national literature categories derive their unity from geography, not composition #corroborates (0.80) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 1150
• Literature and culture are not coterminous with language and state boundaries #corroborates (0.78) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 487