ABSTRACT
Michael Griffiths's call for "attentiveness to imaginations of aftermath" contributes to a more meaningful account of the experience and embodiment of decolonization. Critics argue that pre-modern experiences of temporality can be accessed and invoked as forms of resistance, dismissing, in the process, history as a "white mythology" and clocks and calendars as tools of oppression. Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze's essay attempts to put philosophical or theoretical definitions of temporality and modernity into conversation with modern, postcolonial literary efforts "to grasp the meaning of time". Stephen Slemon's challenge to the imperial provenance of post-structuralist articulations of allegorical practice resides in his encapsulation of the agonistic relation between postcolonial allegory and history. His emphasis on the revisionist and transformative dimensions of allegory in the expression of postcolonial resistance does not help us account for the place of "ruin" and fragment in Mark Behr's imagination or of nostalgia and irony in Marguerite Abouet and Clément Oubrerie.
