Even counter-canons assert dominance and define their own selections as the essential

Evidence

The axiomatic fact about any canon formation, even when it initially takes shape as a counter-canon, is that when a period is defined and homogenized, or the desired literary typology is constructed, the canonizing agency selects certain kinds of authors, texts, styles, and criteria of classification and judgement, privileging them over others which may also belong in the same period, arising out of the same space of production, but which manifestly fall outside the principles of inclusion enunciated by that selfsame agency; in other words, a certain kind of dominance is asserted and fought for, and is in turn defined as the essential and the dominant. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 482

Categorization

• XREF: This mirrors the reader’s central bind: a canon or identity held ‘strategically’ still functions as a homogenizing, exclusionary agency — strategic essentialism exercising canon-like dominance. — connects to: A counter-canon arises only from an ideological cement, not aggregation — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 143; An aggregation of texts requires binding ideology to become a counter-canon. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 360

Broader Connections

• A counter-canon arises only from an ideological cement, not aggregation #expands (0.85) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 143
• An aggregation of texts requires binding ideology to become a counter-canon. #expands (0.80) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 360