reached the point where the
experiments in form and style that constituted postmodernism in literature
can be labelled as belonging to the twentieth century, whilst we are said to
be inhabiting the digimodern, the altermodern, the hypermodern, the metamodern, the exomodern, or, most nonsensical of all, the post-postmodern.1
If we add to this the anthropocene, the period of postconsensus, the neoliberal period, late capitalism, the posthuman (with its offshoot, sentimental
posthumanism), and the re-emergence of a pan-humanism, we are present in
an era of truly dizzying
‘Alternatives to periodization’. For particularly insistent defences of conventional periodization, see David James and Urmila Seshagiri, ‘Metamodernism’; Richard Begam and Michael Valdez-Moses (eds), Modernism, Postcolonialism, Globalism .
19. Friedman, Planetary Modernisms , pp. 88–91.
20. Pascale Casanova, World Republic of Letters , p. 4.
21. Ibid. , p. 11.
22. Ibid. , p. 24.
23. Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation , p. 23.
24. Ibid. , p. 24.
25. Ibid. , p. 73.
26. Édouard Glissant, ‘Concusion: Unforeseeable diversity’, p. 290.