In a hundred years of literary studies, scholars’ attitudes toward human individuals have evolved extraordinarily. Whether applied to authors, readers, or literary characters, understandings of human selfhood have shaped interpretations of literature, from claims that stories depict “the human condition” of autonomous individuals to arguments that literary works show the folly of imagining intact selves. The many self-proclaimed “turns” (affective, material, ethical, etc.) in literary studies since the heyday of poststructuralism in the 1980s have accelerated changes in attitudes toward human selfhood. While some scholars have seen individuality as an obstacle to their thinking, others have felt it retains promise. Rejection of individual uniqueness isn’t necessarily a boon to people whose humanity has been unrecognized.

This panel aims to spark discussion by asking whether, in 2025, the concept of the unique human individual can still offer anything to literary scholars, or whether its political associations have rendered it toxic. Individuality is a matter of visibility. Culturally, many scholars have been raised to see unique, enduring individuals rather than open, ever-changing human minds and bodies shaped by cultural forces. What would be gained and what would be lost if writers, readers, and scholars learned to un-see individuals? What is rendered invisible if one perceives discrete individuals, and what is hidden if one perceives dynamic, porous selves? Literary analysis focused on cognition and affect invites reassessment of individuality by combining scientific and medical perspectives with diverse critical approaches.

This session brings together scholars of ecocriticism, visual studies, narrative, and global health whose literary expertise spans African, Caribbean, and North American literature. The views presented are diverse not just in terms of the speakers’ literary and scientific interests but in terms of their generational outlooks, with presentations of two PhD candidates engaging those of two senior scholars. Nancy Easterlin will use the psychological concept of attachment and studies of Caribbean literature to examine how colonialism has disrupted environmental bonds. Ellen Stenstrom will discuss how fictional individuals make it possible to describe traumatic events through metanarrative. Joseph Glinbizzi, in contrast, will point out the disadvantages of understanding readers as discrete individuals who engage texts. Deborah Jenson will compare Jamaican philosopher Sylvia Wynter’s notions of cognition and individuality with Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana’s concept of autopoiesis to analyze the possibilities of self-making. With significantly different training, critical outlooks, and literary specialties, these speakers promise to stir a great deal of thought on whether individuality is a useful or misleading concept in 2025.

To achieve this panel’s goal of inspiring a genuine rethinking of individuality, speakers will be asked to engage each other and the audience in every possible way. The panel will be held live, and talks will be limited to 10-12 minutes to ensure up to 20-30 minutes of unstructured discussion. Speakers will share their abstracts in advance and will participate in a Zoom session a few weeks before the convention to discuss how their presentations relate to those of the other panelists. The aim is to bring together speakers and audience members from vastly different fields of literary study to discuss frankly whether thinking in terms of individuals enables, disables, or both helps and hinders analyses of literature and culture.