Logoclastic Reconstruction of Social Critique in the Poetry of Tunde Olusunle

By

Clement Eloghosa Odia, Ph.D

Department of English and Literature, University of Benin, Benin City. Nigeria

Corresponding Author’s email & phone No: clement.odia@uniben.edu.ng / 07034571337

Abstract

This study examines Tunde Olusunle’s deployment of logoclasm as a reconstructive poetic strategy in A Medley of Echoes and Fingermarks. Moving beyond the conventional understanding of logoclasm as mere linguistic fragmentation or stylistic disruption, the study argues that Olusunle’s poetry mobilises logoclastic techniques–neologism, typographical fragmentation, semantic inversion, irony, oral-traditional forms, and metaphorical reconstruction–as instruments for dismantling false consciousness and rebuilding ethical, political, and social awareness. Drawing on a close textual reading of selected poems, the paper develops a tripartite framework of reconstruction: ideological reconstruction, political reconstruction, and social reconstruction. The analysis demonstrates that Olusunle’s poetry first exposes the ideological structures that naturalise religious deception, political fatalism, and institutional dysfunction; second, it delegitimises the symbolic and linguistic apparatus of state power while reconstituting a vocabulary of accountability; and third, it restores communal memory, dignity, and collective agency in the face of violence, economic decline, and social betrayal. The study concludes that Olusunle’s logoclasm is not an aesthetic of destruction but an ethics of renewal: a poetics of rupture that clears discursive space for critical consciousness, moral reckoning, and national regeneration. By foregrounding language as both a site of domination and a medium of resistance, this paper contributes to contemporary African literary scholarship on the relationship between poetic form, public ethics, and postcolonial reconstruction.

Keywords: Accountability, Ideology, Logoclastic Reconstruction, Neologism, Reconstruction, and Social Critique.

 

Introduction

African literature has historically functioned not merely as an aesthetic enterprise but as a mode of social intervention–an imaginative practice through which the conditions of collective existence are named, interrogated, and reimagined. From the performative resources of oral traditions to the written poetics of the postcolonial era, the African literary text has sustained an enduring commitment to exposing structures of power and articulating alternative visions of social reality. Within this tradition, contemporary Nigerian poetry continues to engage vigorously with the crises of governance, religion, economy, and social cohesion that define the post–military democratic experience.

It is within this socio-literary context that the poetry of Tunde Olusunle assumes critical relevance. Across collections such as Fingermarks and A Medley of Echoes, Olusunle confronts the full spectrum of Nigerian institutional dysfunction–political predation, religious commodification, economic decline, infrastructural collapse, and state violence. However, what distinguishes his work is not merely the thematic range of its social critique but the distinctive linguistic and formal strategies through which that critique is enacted. His poetry does not simply describe social realities; it disrupts the very language through which those realities are constructed, legitimised, and normalised.

Despite the growing body of scholarship on contemporary Nigerian poetry, for example, Luke Ndudi Okolo and Chioma Emelone (2022), Christopher Anyokwu (2025) and Abubakar Bappa (2025) to list a few, critical attention has largely focused on thematic concerns–corruption, insurgency, religious exploitation–often at the expense of sustained engagement with the linguistic and formal mechanisms that produce these critiques. While scholars, such as Bartholomew Chizoba Akpah (2018), Samuel Edung Ukeme and Mathias Iroro Orhero (2021) and Sunday Jijiya Bwala and Agbonifoh Rosemary (2022) and several others, have acknowledged the use of satire, oral-traditional resources, and ideological commitment in recent Nigerian verse, there remains a gap in theorising how language itself functions as a site of simultaneous demolition and reconstruction in the articulation of social critique. In particular, Olusunle’s dense deployment of compound neologisms, semantic disruptions, typographical experimentation, and performative oral registers has not been sufficiently examined within a unified conceptual framework.

This study addresses that gap by proposing the concept of logoclastic reconstruction as a critical lens for analysing Olusunle’s poetry. The term designates a poetic methodology in which the deliberate breaking of official, institutional, and sacralised language operates as both an act of critique and a generative process of rebuilding. Unlike satire, which primarily exposes, or deconstruction, which may remain at the level of dismantling meaning, logoclastic reconstruction transforms linguistic rupture into a constructive force: the disintegration of power–laden discourse becomes the basis for rearticulating more truthful, humanising, and politically accountable modes of expression.

The aim of this study, therefore, is to examine how logoclastic reconstruction functions as the dominant poetic strategy in Olusunle’s selected works. To achieve this aim, the study pursues three specific objectives: first, to analyse how Olusunle dismantles ideological formations that sustain false consciousness; second, to investigate how his poetry delegitimises political structures and reconstructs the language of accountability; and third, to explore how his work restores communal identity, memory, and dignity within contexts of social fragmentation. These objectives are organised into three corresponding analytical categories: ideological reconstruction, political reconstruction, and social reconstruction. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative textual analysis of nine selected poems drawn from Fingermarks and A Medley of Echoes. It combines close reading with interdisciplinary theoretical engagement, drawing on the philosophy of language, theories of social critique, and African oral-traditional performance aesthetics. Particular attention is paid to Olusunle’s formal strategies–compound neologism, semantic collision, typographical fragmentation, and performative speech forms–as sites where linguistic innovation intersects with ideological and social transformation. The significance of this study lies in its contribution to both African literary criticism and the broader study of political poetics. By theorising logoclastic reconstruction, the paper provides a conceptual vocabulary for understanding how contemporary African poets move beyond representation to active intervention in the linguistic conditions of social reality. It also re-centres language as a dynamic site of power and resistance, demonstrating that the struggle for social transformation is inseparable from the struggle over the meanings through which that transformation is imagined.

This study argues that Olusunle’s poetry enacts a systematic logoclastic assault on the dominant languages of Nigerian public life and, in doing so, reconstructs the cognitive, moral, and social frameworks necessary for meaningful critique and transformation. His work reveals that in contexts where institutional discourse has become complicit in the reproduction of injustice, poetic language must first dismantle before it can rebuild–must break in order to speak truthfully again. This study adopts a logoclastic theoretical orientation, grounded in poststructuralist deconstruction, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and postcolonial theory, to interrogate the reconstruction of social critique in the poetry of Tunde Olasunle. At the core of this framework is Jacques Derrida’s critique of logocentrism. In Of Grammatology, Derrida asserts that “the order of the signified is never contemporary” (19), foregrounding the instability of meaning and the perpetual deferral inherent in language. This insight is crucial to the concept of logoclasm, which challenges the assumption that language transparently reflects reality. Rather, meaning is produced through difference, slippage, and contextual negotiation. Contemporary scholarship continues to affirm the relevance of deconstruction in literary studies. For instance, Christopher Norris argues that deconstruction remains vital for exposing “the rhetorical and ideological instabilities within texts” (Norris 42). Similarly, Claire Colebrook notes that Derridean thought enables critics to interrogate “the limits of meaning and the politics embedded in representation” (Colebrook 67).

Complementing this is Critical Discourse Analysis, particularly as developed by Norman Fairclough, who posits that language is both shaped by and constitutive of power relations. Fairclough emphasises that discourse is “a form of social practice” (Language and Power 94), thereby linking textual production to ideological structures. Recent developments in CDA reinforce its applicability to literary texts. According to Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, discourse analysis remains central to understanding how “power is enacted, reproduced, and resisted through language” (Wodak and Meyer 14). This perspective enables a reading of Olasunle’s poetry as a counter–discursive practice, where linguistic innovation becomes a tool for challenging political authority and social injustice.

Furthermore, this study engages postcolonial theory, particularly the linguistic and cultural insights of Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o. In Decolonising the Mind, Ngũgĩ describes language as “a carrier of culture” (13), emphasising its role in shaping identity and consciousness. This aligns with the logoclastic impulse to dismantle colonial linguistic hierarchies. Recent African literary scholarship has expanded on this position. Ato Quayson argues that African literature continues to negotiate “the tension between inherited colonial languages and indigenous expressive forms” (Quayson 118). Likewise, Cajetan Iheka highlights how contemporary African writers deploy language as “an ecological and political instrument of resistance” (Iheka 52), reinforcing the transformative potential of literary expression. Additionally, the integration of African oral aesthetics strengthens this framework. Scholars such as Tanure Ojaide emphasise that African poetry draws heavily on oral traditions, including proverbs, repetition, and performative elements, which function as modes of cultural resistance (Ojaide 23). These oral strategies can be read as logoclastic insofar as they disrupt Western linearity and introduce alternative epistemologies rooted in communal knowledge systems.

The convergence of these frameworks allows for a multidimensional reading of Olasunle’s poetry. Deconstruction dismantles logocentric authority; CDA situates language within power structures; postcolonial theory foregrounds linguistic and cultural resistance; and oral aesthetics provide indigenous modes of expression. Together, they illuminate how Olasunle’s poetry enacts a logoclastic reconstruction of social critique, transforming language into a dynamic site of ideological contestation and socio-political engagement.

In recent years, contemporary Nigerian poetry has increasingly embraced what may be described as a logoclastic impulse–an aesthetic and ideological strategy that interrogates, dismantles, and reconstructs dominant socio-political narratives. Within this evolving tradition, the poetry of Olusunle occupies a significant place, particularly for its sustained engagement with social critique, historical memory, and the contradictions of postcolonial modernity. This paper explores how Olusunle deploys language as both a disruptive and reconstructive tool in reimagining Nigerian realities.

Critical discourse on Olusunle’s poetry, though relatively limited, has been meaningfully shaped by insights from leading Nigerian literary scholars and critics. In the foreword to A Medley of Echoes, Femi Osofisan interprets the metaphor of “echoes” as indicative of “the tiresome, ritual mimicry of past dolour” and the persistence of “rehashed plots and threnodies about diminished beauties and fallen heroes” (9). This reading foregrounds a central concern in Olusunle’s work: the cyclical repetition of socio-political crises in Nigeria. The idea of the “worn palimpsest” suggests that Olusunle’s poetry revisits familiar historical and cultural scripts, not merely to reproduce them, but to interrogate and reinscribe them. Such a perspective aligns closely with the logoclastic framework of this study, wherein inherited discourses are critically dismantled to expose their inadequacies. Similarly, in his preface to Fingermarks, Wumi Raji situates Olusunle’s poetry within the lived realities of the modern Nigerian city, noting that the collection “grapples with the tone, texture and pace” of urban life (7–8). Raji emphasises the “intractable chaos and violence” that define this space, thereby underscoring the poet’s commitment to representing the fractured condition of contemporary society. Importantly, however, he also points to the presence of “means of alternative transformation” (8), suggesting that Olusunle’s poetry does not remain trapped in mere documentation of decay but gestures toward possibilities of renewal. This dialectic of destruction and reconstruction resonates strongly with the concept of logoclasm as deployed in this paper.

Further illuminating Olusunle’s poetic method, Olu Obafemi, in his preface to Rhythm of the Mortar, highlights the poet’s “lucidity and simplicity of language” alongside the “evocativeness of the images which have open and deep meaning” (11). Obafemi’s observation draws attention to the stylistic dimension of Olusunle’s logoclastic practice: the use of accessible yet symbolically rich language to destabilise entrenched meanings and invite reinterpretation. Through this interplay of clarity and depth, Olusunle is able to communicate complex socio-political critiques while maintaining aesthetic appeal.

Taken together, these critical interventions provide a foundational lens for understanding Olusunle’s poetry as a site of both resistance and renewal. They reveal a poet deeply engaged with the repetitive crises of Nigerian history, the dissonance of urban existence, and the transformative potential of language and imagery. However, while these studies gesture toward themes of critique and transformation, they do not explicitly theorise the mechanisms through which Olusunle’s poetry dismantles and reconstructs dominant discourses. This gap necessitates a focused exploration of his work through the prism of logoclastic reconstruction. It is within this critical gap that this study is situated. By examining the ways in which Olusunle’s poetry disrupts hegemonic narratives and reconstitutes alternative modes of social meaning, this paper seeks to contribute to ongoing conversations in contemporary African literary studies, particularly in the areas of ideological, political, and social reconstruction.

 

Ideological Reconstruction: Dismantling False Consciousness

Ideological reconstruction is central to the dismantling of false consciousness because ideology is most effective when it appears natural, invisible, and beyond question. For this reason, ideological reconstruction becomes the necessary foundation for broader social and political transformation: it first clears the terrain of consciousness upon which meaningful change can occur. In Tunde Olusunle’s poetry, this reconstructive impulse is especially evident in “Penteconmen”, “NEPA”, and “Message”, where dominant belief systems are exposed, destabilised, and reconfigured.

In “Penteconmen”, Olusunle interrogates Pentecostal religious ideology as a potent apparatus of false consciousness in contemporary Nigeria. The title itself is a logoclastic intervention: by fusing Pentecostal and conmen, the poet linguistically reconstitutes religious authority as organised deception. Through this neologism, Olusunle immediately unsettles the reverential assumptions typically associated with Pentecostalism and redirects the reader toward scepticism.

The opening stanza introduces another important logoclastic strategy: binary opposition, a structural principle often associated with Vladimir Propp’s attention to oppositional narrative functions:

Another sabbath day

And gospel tunes

In dancehall rhythms

Tear through the wind

Luring adherents in multi-millions

Into shacks and bachas

beaches

And derelict storehouses

Dutifully remodelled sanctuaries

(A Medley of Echoes, 44)

The force of this stanza lies in its strategic juxtaposition of sacred and secular registers to dismantle false religious consciousness. The opening phrase, “Another sabbath day,” initially invokes an atmosphere of holiness, ritual solemnity, and spiritual expectation. However, this sacred ambience is quickly disrupted by the phrase “gospel tunes / in dancehall rhythms,” where devotional music is fused with a secular sonic form associated with entertainment and sensuality. This collision of registers symbolically suggests the commodification and dilution of spiritual experience. What should signify transcendence is instead reconfigured as spectacle.

Olusunle’s logoclastic method is especially evident in his lexical choices. The verb “luring” is particularly significant: rather than suggesting pastoral guidance or spiritual leadership, it evokes entrapment, seduction, and predation. In this way, the poet recasts church leaders not as shepherds of souls but as manipulators who exploit faith for personal gain. The diction destabilises the moral legitimacy of religious authority and reveals the ideological machinery beneath its sacred façade.

A second binary opposition emerges in the contrast between profane spaces and consecrated places of worship. The “multi-millions” of adherents are drawn into “shacks,” “bachas,” “beaches,” and “derelict storehouses”–spaces ordinarily associated with poverty, informality, and abandonment. Yet these same spaces are “dutifully remodelled” into “sanctuaries.” This transformation is deeply ironic. Rather than signifying spiritual renewal, the remodelling exposes the theatricality and opportunism of Pentecostal performance culture. The sacred is shown to be a cosmetic overlay masking material squalor and institutional desperation.

Through these binary oppositions, Olusunle deconstructs the ideological illusion that equates religious display with spiritual truth. His poetry reconstructs consciousness by compelling readers to see beyond the spectacle of performance, prosperity rhetoric, and charismatic authority. In doing so, “Penteconmen” functions as a poetic act of ideological demystification, exposing how religious institutions can become instruments for sustaining false consciousness rather than sites of liberation.

The poem’s second movement intensifies this critique through a more direct exposure of the psychological and material mechanisms of religious exploitation:

Psyche-manipulators, emotion-fiddlers

Penteconmen garbed in pradas

Guccis and Kleins

Prance about the face

Of marbled pulpits

Spewing alien tongues

Hypnotising gullible followers

(A Medley of Echoes, 44)

Here, Olusunle deepens his ideological reconstruction through compound coinages and complementary lexical pairings that strip religious authority of its assumed sanctity. The expressions “psyche–manipulators” and “emotion–fiddlers” are striking examples of his logoclastic strategy. By fusing psychological and performative vocabularies, the poet reconceptualises Pentecostal pastors not as spiritual guides but as calculated engineers of emotional control. The compounds foreground deliberate mental intrusion and affective exploitation, thereby exposing the mechanics of religious fraud.

The lexical force of “manipulators” and “fiddlers” is particularly significant. While “manipulators” suggests calculated control and coercion, “fiddlers” connotes frivolous interference, distortion, and playful deceit. Together, the terms create a layered image of clerics who both orchestrate and trivialise the emotional lives of their congregants. Olusunle’s diction therefore dismantles the myth of pastoral sincerity and recasts the church as a theatre of psychological capture. This atmosphere of deception is further reinforced through the poet’s emphasis on material display and performative excess. The Penteconmen are “garbed in pradas / Guccis and Kleins,” a catalogue of luxury brands that foregrounds conspicuous consumption. Rather than embodying the humility traditionally associated with spiritual leadership, these pastors are presented as embodiments of capitalist excess and self–fashioning. The verb “garbed” is especially telling: it implies costuming, disguise, and deliberate presentation, suggesting that clerical authority itself has become a carefully staged performance.

The phrase “prance about the face / of marbled pulpits” extends this theatrical imagery. “Prance” evokes vanity, flamboyance, and exaggerated self-display, reducing the sacred pulpit to a performance stage. Likewise, “marbled pulpits” symbolise institutional opulence and aesthetic grandeur, revealing how material splendour is deployed to produce awe and sustain ideological submission. In this context, the church becomes less a site of spiritual refuge than a spectacle designed to legitimise wealth and hierarchy.

Olusunle’s dismantling of false consciousness reaches its sharpest point in the lines “Spewing alien tongues / Hypnotising gullible followers.” Traditionally, glossolalia in Pentecostal practice signifies divine inspiration and spiritual authenticity. However, Olusunle radically re-signifies this religious register. The verb “spewing” is deliberately pejorative: rather than suggesting inspired utterance, it connotes uncontrolled discharge, emptiness, and even contamination. What should function as sacred speech is reconfigured as manipulative performance. Similarly, the participle “hypnotising” shifts the act of worship from spiritual encounter to psychological domination. The congregants are not enlightened but mesmerised; not liberated but entrapped. By describing the followers as “gullible,” the poet underscores the vulnerability of those ensnared by religious spectacle while simultaneously critiquing the social conditions that enable such deception.

Thus, this second movement reinforces Olusunle’s broader project of ideological reconstruction. Through compound coinages, ironic diction, and the exposure of material excess, he dismantles the structures of false consciousness that sustain exploitative religious power. The poem compels readers to interrogate the spectacle of charisma, wealth, and ritual performance, revealing how faith can be commodified into an instrument of domination rather than liberation.

The poem’s closing movement delivers its most devastating ideological intervention by shifting from exposure to urgent prophetic reflection:

Alas

Will the scales of mass narcosis

One day fall off the visage

Of our credulous folks?

(44)

In this final stanza, Olusunle moves beyond satirical indictment to a deeper reconstructive gesture: the articulation of a desire for emancipatory awakening. The poet’s concern is no longer merely with exposing religious deception, but with imagining the possibility of collective consciousness freed from manipulation. This transition is significant because it marks the culmination of the poem’s ideological project: the dismantling of false consciousness as a prerequisite for liberation. The stanza’s rhetorical force is anchored in the opening exclamation, “Alas”, which conveys both lamentation and urgency. It signals the poet’s sorrow over the depth of popular delusion while simultaneously expressing frustration at the persistence of mass vulnerability. This lament prepares the ground for the central rhetorical question: “Will the scales of mass narcosis / One day fall off the visage / Of our credulous folks?” Though framed as a question, the utterance functions as a declarative yearning for transformation. It is less an inquiry than an anxious hope that ideological blindness will eventually give way to critical awareness.

A key logoclastic strategy in this passage is Olusunle’s metaphorical reconstruction of consciousness through the phrase “mass narcosis.” By invoking the language of sedation, intoxication, and induced unconsciousness, the poet reimagines religious gullibility as a condition of collective psychological drugging. This metaphor subtly recalls Karl Marx’s famous formulation of religion as the “opium of the people,” while adapting it to the Nigerian Pentecostal context. Here, religion is not presented as spiritual refuge but as an anaesthetic that dulls social awareness, suppresses dissent, and prolongs exploitation.

The metaphor of “scales” further enriches this reconstructive vision. Traditionally associated with blindness and sudden revelation, “scales” signify the impediments that obstruct true perception. Their anticipated “fall” symbolises the long-awaited removal of illusion, deception, and ideological fog. Similarly, the use of “visage” instead of the simpler “face” elevates the image, suggesting that false consciousness has become deeply inscribed upon the very identity and social expression of the people. By describing the victims as “our credulous folks,” Olusunle avoids detached condemnation and instead implicates himself within the same social collective. The possessive pronoun “our” is important: it transforms the poem from mere satire into communal critique. The poet is not mocking the victims from a position of superiority; rather, he mourns a shared condition of vulnerability and ideological captivity.

Thus, the closing stanza completes the poem’s project of ideological reconstruction. Having exposed the structures of deception, performative spirituality, and material spectacle that sustain Pentecostal fraud, Olusunle concludes by imagining the possibility of awakening. The final note is therefore not one of despair, but cautious hope: that the people, long sedated by spectacle and manipulation, may one day recover their critical agency and cease to be willing subjects of exploitation.

In “NEPA”, Olusunle turns his satirical gaze toward the ideology of normalised failure–the deeply entrenched belief that chronic institutional dysfunction is an inevitable feature of life in Nigeria. The poem dismantles this false consciousness by refusing to treat inefficiency as routine inconvenience; instead, it exposes systemic failure as a condition that has been culturally absorbed and dangerously normalised. Olusunle’s most radical logoclastic strategy in the poem is typographical fragmentation, through which form itself becomes a critique of infrastructural collapse:

You are a chr

onic

sic

kler

waxing now

waning soon

inconsistent like sea waves

You

delight in

perpetual pr– anks

And your oriki

is

Nigeria’s

Epileptic

Power

Agency

(Fingermarks, 34)

The fractured typography visually enacts the very instability the poem condemns. Each broken lexical unit–“chr / onic,” “sic / kler,” “inc / consistent,” and “pr– anks”–functions like a textual blackout, reproducing on the page the interruptions and ruptures associated with epileptic power supply. In this sense, Olusunle transforms typography into ideological resistance: the breakdown of language mirrors the breakdown of public infrastructure, forcing readers to experience, rather than merely observe, the violence of systemic dysfunction.

The phrase “chronic sickler” is especially significant in the poem’s reconstructive logic. Through this medical metaphor, Olusunle reimagines institutional failure not as accidental inefficiency but as pathological disorder. The descriptor “chronic” suggests permanence, recurrence, and long–term suffering, while “sickler” evokes a body trapped in cycles of pain and debility. By medicalising NEPA’s failures, the poet strips away bureaucratic excuses and demands that the institution be understood as a diseased structure requiring urgent intervention rather than passive endurance.

This medical register reaches its sharpest articulation in the acronymic reconstruction of NEPA as “Nigeria’s Epileptic Power Agency.” Here, Olusunle performs one of his most incisive logoclastic acts: the dismantling and semantic reconstitution of institutional nomenclature. The official name, which ordinarily carries the aura of state legitimacy and bureaucratic authority, is stripped of its symbolic power and replaced with a brutally honest alternative. The adjective “epileptic” is especially potent because it evokes unpredictability, instability, and disruptive seizure–precisely the qualities associated with erratic electricity supply. Through this redefinition, the poet reconstructs the ideological terms through which the institution is understood, compelling readers to confront its failures without euphemism.

Olusunle also deploys binary opposition to underscore the unstable logic of institutional incompetence. The juxtaposition of “waxing now” and “wan ing soon” creates a sharp contrast between temporary functionality and imminent collapse. This opposition captures the fleeting and unreliable nature of power supply, suggesting that any moment of relief is always shadowed by the certainty of breakdown. The fragmentation of “wan ing” further visually extends the sense of depletion and disappearance, reinforcing the instability embedded in the institution’s operations. Similarly, the split form “pr– anks” is both playful and devastating. On one level, it typographically mimics interruption; on another, it implies deliberate mockery. By suggesting that NEPA “delight[s] in / perpetual pr–anks,” Olusunle personifies the institution as a mischievous and indifferent force that toys with the lives of its citizens. This choice of diction is crucial because it shifts the discourse from mere inefficiency to structured irresponsibility. The state is no longer merely failing; it is complicit in sustaining hardship.

The reference to “oriki” further deepens the poem’s satirical force. Traditionally, oríkì in Nigeria, especially within Yoruba culture, functions as praise poetry that celebrates identity, lineage, and honour. Olusunle subverts this cultural register by assigning NEPA a mock–praise name that is in fact an indictment. This ironic appropriation of a traditionally celebratory form intensifies the poem’s ideological reconstruction: what should be a source of pride becomes an emblem of collective frustration.

Ultimately, “NEPA” dismantles the false consciousness that treats institutional failure as natural or unavoidable. Through typographical disruption, medical metaphor, ironic renaming, and binary opposition, Olusunle reconstructs public understanding of state failure as systemic, deliberate, and politically consequential. The poem thus refuses resignation and instead reawakens critical consciousness, insisting that dysfunction must be named, confronted, and resisted rather than endured as fate.

In “Message”, Olusunle confronts the ideology of political fatalism–the pervasive belief that predatory governance is permanent, unassailable, and beyond consequence. Against this culture of resignation, the poet mobilises oral wisdom, proverbial logic, and apocalyptic imagery to reconstruct political consciousness around the certainty of accountability. The poem’s ideological force lies in its insistence that oppression, no matter how entrenched, is neither eternal nor immune from reckoning.

This reconstructive vision is most powerfully articulated in the poem’s proverbial core:

The wise cripple forewarned

Never tarries to the crackle of cannons

Never waits to see the bruises of battle.

The rattle of the gong

The sound of the trumpet

The voice of the town crier

Shall not be heard

When a brutal thunder

Swoops on the mirth-spoilers

(Fingermarks, 75–76)

In this passage, Olusunle deploys oral-traditional wisdom as a counter–ideological resource. The proverb “The wise cripple forewarned / Never tarries to the crackle of cannons” foregrounds prudence, foresight, and responsiveness to signs of danger. Within the poem’s political context, this wisdom becomes an instrument of ideological reconstruction: it warns both rulers and the ruled against complacency. The poet suggests that history always offers warning signals before catastrophe, but only the discerning heed them.

The cumulative soundscape of “the rattle of the gong,” “the sound of the trumpet,” and “the voice of the town crier” evokes traditional African systems of communal communication, alert, and collective memory. These sonic images symbolise society’s mechanisms of warning and moral regulation. Yet Olusunle’s assertion that these signals “shall not be heard” when “a brutal thunder / swoops on the mirth-spoilers” introduces a chilling reversal: when injustice reaches its breaking point, retribution may arrive with such force and suddenness that no further warning becomes necessary.

The image of “brutal thunder” is especially significant in the poem’s logoclastic framework. Thunder here functions as a metaphor for historical reckoning, popular uprising, or divine justice. Within the broader context of Yoruba religion cosmology, the image also resonates with Ṣàngó, the deity of thunder, lightning, and retributive force. This cultural resonance deepens the poem’s ideological intervention: accountability is reconstructed not as a distant abstraction but as an inevitable force inscribed into both moral order and collective memory. No political office, wealth, or immunity can permanently shield the oppressor from consequence.

Olusunle sharpens this warning through his direct indictment of exploitative leadership:

Let those ogres

Rethink

Who boisterously gulp the juice

Of our people’s sweat

(Fingermarks, 75)

The poet’s use of beastly imagery in “ogres” exemplifies his logoclastic dismantling of false political reverence. By stripping leaders of the language of dignity, office, and institutional respectability, Olusunle reconstitutes them in their true ethical form: monstrous consumers of collective labour. The noun “ogres” is deliberately dehumanising, suggesting rapacity, cruelty, and parasitic excess. It breaks the aura of legitimacy that often surrounds political elites and exposes the predatory core of their rule.

The phrase “gulp the juice / Of our people’s sweat” further intensifies this critique through visceral metaphor. Sweat conventionally symbolises labour, sacrifice, and productive effort; its “juice” suggests the distilled essence of collective toil. By depicting leaders as those who greedily consume this essence, Olusunle lays bare the exploitative structure of postcolonial governance in which the labour of the masses sustains the luxury of a corrupt few. The adverb “boisterously” compounds the insult, implying that this exploitation is not hidden but performed with arrogance, impunity, and contempt.

Thus, “Message” completes Olusunle’s broader project of ideological reconstruction by dismantling the fatalistic belief that oppression is permanent. Through proverb, oral memory, cultural symbolism, and satirical dehumanisation, the poet reconstructs political consciousness around vigilance, consequence, and resistance. His warning transcends the Nigerian context to speak to postcolonial societies and indeed all nations where power feeds on public vulnerability: injustice may delay accountability, but it cannot abolish it. Olusunle’s poetry therefore affirms a transnational ethical truth–that wherever systems of domination thrive, the collective will of the people, history, and moral order retains the capacity to summon its own thunder.

 

Political Reconstruction: Delegitimising Power, Rebuilding Accountability

Political reconstruction in Olusunle’s poetry extends the work of ideological reconstruction by targeting the linguistic, symbolic, and institutional structures through which political power legitimises itself. If ideological reconstruction dismantles false consciousness, political reconstruction proceeds to expose the performative machinery of governance and to rebuild a moral vocabulary of public accountability. In this sense, Olusunle’s poetry does not merely condemn corruption; it reconstitutes the terms through which state power is understood. This reconstructive impulse is most fully realised in “Ritual,” “For the Servant-Looters,” “Epitaph for the Naira,” “Half Mast,” and “Template,” where political authority is stripped of its constitutional sanctity and reimagined as predation, spectacle, and systemic betrayal.

In “Ritual,” Olusunle dismantles the aura of executive power by exposing governance as ceremonial excess devoid of ethical substance:

Midweek again

And the cavernous bowels

Of that Aso coven,

Wood-panelled, marbled-floored

Roars to life with

Laughter and loud guffaw

As acolytes of the execu-thief cultural

Banter and backslap

To our communal woes

(A Medley of Echoes, 58)

The title “Ritual” is itself a powerful logoclastic intervention. By naming governance as ritual, Olusunle strips away the democratic veneer of institutional order and recasts political administration as repetitive ceremonial deception. The renaming of Aso Rock as “Aso coven” intensifies this critique. The metaphor of the “coven” invokes secrecy, occult collusion, and esoteric power, suggesting that the state operates not as a transparent democratic institution but as a closed circle of initiates united by predatory interests.

This semantic reconstruction is sharpened by the neologism “execu-thief,” one of Olusunle’s most incisive acts of linguistic sabotage. By collapsing “executive” and “thief,” the poet abolishes the distinction between governance and looting. Corruption is not represented as aberration or moral deviation; rather, it is reconstructed as the defining logic of executive office itself. The satirical force of the term lies in its refusal to allow political office to retain its symbolic legitimacy.

Olusunle further deepens this delegitimisation through spatial contrast. The descriptors “wood-panelled” and “marbled-floored” foreground the opulence of state power, creating an atmosphere of elite comfort and aesthetic excess. However, this architectural grandeur is deeply ironic: it exists in stark contrast to the deprivation of the millions whom these leaders ostensibly represent. The “laughter and loud guffaw” that animate this space are particularly devastating. Rather than signalling joy, they become acoustic markers of political insensitivity. Governance is represented as a site where suffering is trivialised and public misery becomes the backdrop for elite conviviality. The image of “banter and backslap / To our communal woes” reveals power as callous performance–an intimate fraternity sustained by shared indifference to collective pain.

The poem extends this critique through the fusion of scientific and economic vocabularies:

Executioners brandish shimmering

Daggers, scythes and axes,

Titrating billions of barrels

And mega–litres of our lifeblood

With phoney–figures and bloated budgets,

Like their kith

In the twin parliament

Lacquered green and red

(A Medley of Echoes, 58)

Here, Olusunle intensifies his political reconstruction by exposing state looting as a calibrated technology of extraction. The lexical choice “Executioners” is crucial: it strips officeholders of any residual aura of service and reconstitutes them as agents of death. The metaphor extends beyond economic theft to suggest that corruption is materially lethal, draining the nation’s “lifeblood.”

The scientific register in “titrating” is especially significant. In chemistry, titration implies precision, control, and measurement. Olusunle appropriates this technical vocabulary to expose the cold, calculated nature of state predation. The theft of “billions of barrels / And mega–litres” is not accidental leakage but measured extraction, disguised under the bureaucratic façade of “phoney–figures and bloated budgets.” This fusion of scientific and fiscal language is a brilliant logoclastic strategy: it reveals how technocratic discourse can function as a mask for systemic plunder.

The phrase “twin parliament / Lacquered green and red” broadens the indictment to the legislature. The colour symbolism invokes the official chambers of parliamentary authority, yet “lacquered” suggests superficial polish and cosmetic legitimacy. The legislature is therefore exposed not as a site of democratic oversight but as an accomplice in elite predation.

In “For the Servant-Looters,” Olusunle attacks the political class through the formal resources of oral-traditional invective and communal curse:

May these execu-thieves

And their legisla-thief kith,

Those lawless lordships

And Servant Looters,

Whose wardrobes and manholes

Sewers and attics,

In those architectural monstrosities,

Mutated into mega repositories,

Eternally be hounded, hunted, haunted

By the chorus of our cries and

Causticity of our collective curses

(A Medley of Echoes, 60–61)

The title “For the Servant-Looters” performs an immediate semantic reversal. By subverting the democratic ideal of “public servants,” Olusunle reconstructs political identity through the logic of predation. The phrase “Servant Looters” exposes the hypocrisy embedded in official rhetoric of service and reveals governance as institutionalised theft.

The curse structure is especially significant because it restores moral consequence in a context where legal accountability has collapsed. The cascading triplet “hounded, hunted, haunted” operates across physical, psychological, and metaphysical registers. Politicians are not merely condemned in the present; they are pursued across space, conscience, and memory. This multi–layered curse functions as poetic justice, reclaiming a moral order absent in the state.

Olusunle’s spatial imagery further intensifies the indictment. “Wardrobes,” “manholes,” “sewers,” and “attics” map the hidden geographies of corruption, revealing how stolen wealth permeates both domestic and infrastructural spaces. The phrase “architectural monstrosities” is especially potent: it transforms elite mansions from symbols of status into monuments of theft. Through this spatial exposure, the poet dismantles the illusion that corruption is abstract; instead, he locates it materially within the built environment.

In “Epitaph for the Naira,” Olusunle extends political reconstruction into the economic sphere through the elegiac mode. By personifying the Nigerian naira and narrating its symbolic death, the poet transforms elegy into political forensics:

But suddenly,

Lice and ticks spotting agbada.

Mosquitoes and fleas donning caftans.

Swooped on your flesh, singing

Nunc dimittis for you at dawn

(Fingermarks, 48–49)

The parasitic imagery–“lice,” “ticks,” “mosquitoes,” and “fleas”–constitutes a devastating taxonomy of political exploitation. These parasites signify opportunistic elites who survive by feeding on the body of the nation. The sartorial imagery–“agbada” and “caftans”–is deeply ironic: the parasites are metaphorically dressed in elite political attire, suggesting that those entrusted with stewardship have become the very agents of economic decay.

The liturgical phrase Nunc Dimittis, traditionally associated with peaceful departure and spiritual release, is radically inverted. Here, sacred release is transformed into celebratory violence. The death of the currency is not natural decline but orchestrated sacrifice. Olusunle thereby reconstructs economic collapse as the consequence of sustained political predation rather than impersonal market forces.

In “Half Mast,” Olusunle exposes the bureaucratic rituals through which the state performs concern while evading accountability:

Probes and inquests

Soothe the national lachrymose

While Paper Committees

Spawn mountainous panaceas

Soon, so soon to be buried

In dust–filled, cobwebbed closets,

Graveyards of former submissions

(A Medley of Echoes, 53–54)

The poem’s central logoclastic move lies in its transformation of bureaucratic archives into metaphors of death. The phrase “graveyards of former submissions” is particularly powerful: reports, recommendations, and policy solutions are represented not as living instruments of reform but as dead texts interred in institutional oblivion. The archive becomes a cemetery of deferred justice.

Olusunle’s critique is sharpened by the irony of “Paper Committees” that “spawn mountainous panaceas.” The metaphor of “spawn” suggests unchecked reproduction without meaningful outcome, while “mountainous” satirises the excess of bureaucratic paperwork. These processes, ostensibly designed to heal national trauma, merely prolong it through procedural repetition. Thus, the poem dismantles the false legitimacy of bureaucratic response and reconstructs public understanding of state inquiry as ritualised postponement.

This critique culminates in “Template,” where Olusunle appropriates the syntax of official press statements to enact immanent critique:

The State Condemns

In unequivocal terms this

New wave of barbarism

The State Commiserates

With the innocent victims

Of the latest wave of incendiary madness

The State Restates

Its resolve to hunt the perpetrators...

Then another blast–quake,

Craters the earth in Rigachikun

Another blast ricochet in Sabo

Only You rehash and re–echo

This self–same tepid template

To no end

(A Medley of Echoes, 63–64)

In this poem, Olusunle’s formal innovation becomes political intervention. By mimicking the structure of official state communication, he exposes the emptiness of institutional rhetoric from within. The repetitive sequence–“Condemns,” “Commiserates,” “Restates”–reveals governance as a closed loop of performative empathy and recycled assurances.

The repeated prefix “re–” is especially revealing. It becomes a linguistic confession of failure: each statement is already an admission that nothing has changed. The state’s response is not action but repetition; not justice but discursive management of crisis. The phrase “self–same tepid template / To no end” delivers the poem’s final judgment: political language itself has become exhausted, formulaic, and ethically bankrupt.

Taken together, these poems constitute Olusunle’s sustained project of political reconstruction. Through neologism, satirical renaming, oral invective, elegiac inversion, bureaucratic irony, and formal mimicry, he dismantles the symbolic apparatus through which power disguises its violence. More importantly, he rebuilds a counter–language of accountability rooted in public memory, moral consequence, and civic vigilance. In Olusunle’s poetic universe, political power is not beyond scrutiny: it is a text to be broken open, renamed, and ethically reimagined in the service of collective justice.

 

Social Reconstruction: Restoring Community, Memory, and Dignity

Social reconstruction in Olusunle’s poetry is the humanistic culmination of his broader reconstructive project. If ideological reconstruction dismantles false consciousness and political reconstruction delegitimises structures of power, social reconstruction restores the lived human world damaged by deception, corruption, violence, and systemic neglect. It is at this level–ordinary life, communal identity, shared grief, and collective dignity–that the consequences of ideological and political failure are most intimately felt. Olusunle’s poetry therefore performs not only critique but repair: it reconstitutes a suffering community’s sense of itself, its memory, and its capacity for solidarity.

This reconstructive impulse is most fully realised in “Penteconmen,” “Epitaph for the Naira,” “Again to Karamajiji,” and “Message.” A unifying grammatical thread across these poems is Olusunle’s recurrent use of the first-person plural–“our communal woes,” “our credulous folks,” “our people’s sweat,” “our collective curses,” “our lifeblood.” This collective pronoun is far more than a stylistic choice; it is a crucial social strategy. With each utterance, the poet reconstructs a community of the exploited, transforming dispersed suffering into shared consciousness. Through this grammar of inclusion, pain becomes social memory, and social memory becomes the basis of collective agency.

In “Penteconmen,” Olusunle reconstructs violated spiritual community through compassion rather than ridicule. His portrayal of the deceived congregation as “our credulous folks” is especially significant. Rather than dismissing believers as foolish or complicit, the poet restores them as victims of betrayed trust and violated social virtue. The adjective “credulous” is carefully chosen: it denotes openness, faith, and the human capacity to believe. In this sense, Olusunle reframes gullibility not as personal weakness but as an ethical vulnerability cynically exploited by predatory religious actors.

This compassionate social reconstruction is reinforced by the exclamation “Alas,” which punctuates both “Penteconmen” and “Epitaph for the Naira.” The recurrence of this lament is significant across the corpus. It reveals that beneath Olusunle’s logoclastic fury lies a profound ethic of care. His satirical demolition is not driven by abstract intellectual hostility but by grief over communal betrayal. “Alas” thus becomes a social affective marker: it registers mourning, empathy, and the emotional cost of national decline. Through this emotional register, Olusunle restores suffering subjects to dignity rather than abandoning them to mockery.

In “Epitaph for the Naira,” Olusunle reconstructs the memory of economic community through the elegiac mode. By personifying the Nigerian naira and mourning its decline, the poet transforms economic collapse into a shared social bereavement. Crucially, he positions himself as a custodian of historical memory: “I recount vividly, / You walked tall once.” This act of recollection is deeply reconstructive because it restores historical perspective against the ideology of inevitability.

By reminding readers of the Naira’s former strength, Olusunle dismantles the fatalistic assumption that economic decay is natural or unavoidable. The currency’s decline is not represented as an abstract market fluctuation but as the consequence of identifiable political choices and systemic betrayal. Memory here becomes a mode of resistance: to remember that things were once otherwise is to refuse resignation to present dysfunction.

The poem’s closing image of the Naira as “a cadaver for jobless flies” is especially devastating in its social implications. This metaphor functions as a forensic anatomy of class predation. The cadaver signifies the national economy already fatally violated by elite parasites, while the “jobless flies” represent the dispossessed masses forced to scavenge from the remains of what has already been plundered. Olusunle’s image thus maps the hierarchy of exploitation with brutal clarity: the political class feeds first and fatally, while the socially abandoned survive on decay. Yet by rendering this violence visible, the poet also restores social truth to public consciousness.

“Again to Karamajiji” is perhaps the corpus’s most unambiguously social poem, for here Olusunle’s logoclastic anger yields most fully to communal mourning and memorialisation:

Today

Karamajiji again

Will receive

In its alluvial bowels

A harvest of cadavers

Of beheaded dreams

And incinerated visions

(A Medley of Echoes, 55–56)

In this poem, Olusunle reconstructs social memory through burial imagery, geological metaphor, and the refusal of abstraction. The phrase “alluvial bowels” is especially striking. In geological terms, alluvium refers to sediment deposited over time by repeated flooding. By invoking this metaphor, Olusunle suggests that communal grief is not episodic but cumulative: each death adds another layer to the sedimented burden of national trauma. Karamajiji becomes more than a physical place; it is transformed into a repository of collective sorrow and historical witness.

The image of “a harvest of cadavers” is equally powerful in its inversion of agrarian expectation. Harvest ordinarily signifies abundance, fertility, and communal sustenance. Here, however, it is grotesquely reconfigured into a yield of death. This logoclastic reversal exposes the violence of a nation in which the expected fruits of life–dreams, futures, aspirations–have been replaced by corpses. The dead are not depersonalised casualties but bearers of “beheaded dreams” and “incinerated visions.” Olusunle restores to them their lost futurity, refusing the statistical abstraction that often accompanies public violence.

This refusal of abstraction becomes even more explicit in the poem’s naming of sites of terror:

After Sambisa Forest

Konduga

Mallam Fatori

And other

Saharan abbatoirs

In this indeterminate

Engagement with

Manic agents

And principalities

From the pit of Hades

(A Medley of Echoes, 55–56)

By naming sites such as Sambisa, Konduga, and Mallam Fatori, Olusunle resists the dehumanising logic of anonymous casualty figures. Place-naming here functions as social memorial practice: it anchors suffering in real geographies and restores the dead to communal remembrance. The phrase “Saharan abattoirs” is a devastating logoclastic compound. By applying the industrial vocabulary of slaughterhouses to conflict zones, Olusunle strips war rhetoric of its patriotic abstraction and exposes its brutal materiality. Violence is not noble sacrifice but mechanised destruction.

The references to “manic agents / And principalities / From the pit of Hades” further expand the social dimension of loss by situating violence within a moral and spiritual register. Yet even here, Olusunle’s emphasis remains human: what matters most is not metaphysical evil in the abstract, but the social devastation it leaves behind.

“Message” completes Olusunle’s project of social reconstruction by reconstituting collective agency through shared warning and communal moral consciousness. The poem’s repeated invocation of “our people’s sweat” and “our collective curses” transforms suffering from isolated pain into collective ethical force. Here, community is no longer merely the site of victimhood; it becomes the ground of resistance. The communal voice that mourns exploitation is also the voice that summons accountability.

Taken together, these poems reveal that Olusunle’s social reconstruction is fundamentally an ethics of restoration. Through elegy, lament, memory, communal address, and spatial witness, he restores to the exploited their dignity, to the dead their names, and to the living their capacity for shared feeling. His poetry insists that reconstruction is not only about dismantling falsehood and exposing power; it is also about recovering the human bonds without which no genuine national renewal is possible. In this sense, Olusunle’s work speaks beyond Nigeria to all societies fractured by violence, betrayal, and systemic neglect: no enduring reconstruction can succeed unless it first restores memory, dignity, and the communal imagination of justice.

 

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated that logoclasm in Tunde Olusunle’s poetry functions not merely as a stylistic experiment but as a sustained reconstructive practice. Through a close reading of selected poems in A Medley of Echoes and Fingermarks, the study has shown that Olusunle deploys linguistic disruption, semantic reinvention, typographical fragmentation, oral-traditional resources, irony, and metaphorical inversion as deliberate strategies for dismantling entrenched systems of deception and domination. His poetry reveals that language is never neutral: it is implicated in the production of false consciousness, the legitimisation of corrupt power, and the normalisation of social suffering.

At the ideological level, Olusunle’s poetry exposes the discursive mechanisms through which exploitative religion, institutional dysfunction, and political fatalism are naturalised. In dismantling these myths, he reconstructs critical consciousness and restores the possibility of emancipatory awareness. At the political level, his poems strip state institutions and political actors of their symbolic legitimacy, revealing governance as performance, predation, and ritualised evasion. Through this delegitimisation, he rebuilds a moral vocabulary of accountability rooted in public scrutiny and civic responsibility. At the social level, his poetry restores communal memory, collective grief, and human dignity, ensuring that the exploited, the economically dispossessed, and the victims of violence are neither anonymised nor forgotten.

On the whole, Olusunle’s logoclasm is a poetics of ethical renewal. His work demonstrates that genuine reconstruction must begin with language because language is the primary site where power conceals itself and where resistance first becomes thinkable. By breaking inherited words, official scripts, and deceptive symbols, Olusunle creates discursive openings through which truth, memory, and justice may re–emerge. His poetry therefore stands as both artistic intervention and civic testimony: a reminder that in postcolonial societies fractured by corruption, inequality, and violence, the reconstruction of the nation must first pass through the reconstruction of consciousness, accountability, and shared humanity. In this sense, Olusunle’s work transcends the Nigerian context to speak to broader global struggles over truth, power, and the ethical possibilities of language.

 

Works Cited

Akpah, Bartholomew Chizoba. “Satire, Humour, and Parody.” European Journal of Humour Research, vol. 6, no. 4, 2018, pp. 133–144.

Anyokwu, Christopher. “Poetry and the Poet in Contemporary Nigeria.” Faculty of Arts Monograph Series, no. 30, 2025, pp. 1–37.

Bappa, Abubakar. “Prospects of Contemporary Nigerian Poetry in Promoting Environmental Sustainability.” KIU Interdisciplinary Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 1, 2025, pp. 23–38.

Bwala, Sunday Jijiya, and Agbonifoh Rosemary. “Satirical Oeuvres in the Poetry of Remi Raji: A Deconstructive Perspective.” ANSU Journal of Language and Literary Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, 2022, pp. 144–153.

Colebrook, Claire. Jacques Derrida. Routledge, 2021.

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Johns Hopkins UP, 1976.

Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2015.

Iheka, Cajetan. African Ecomedia: Network Forms, Planetary Politics. Duke UP, 2021.

Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. James Currey, 1986.

Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. Revised ed., Routledge, 2022.

Obafemi, Olu. “Preface: Of Reminiscence and Nostalgia.” Rhythms of the Mortar, by Tunde Olusunle, Kraft Books, 2001, pp. 9–11. Reissued 2023.

Ojaide, Tanure. Indigeneity, Globalisation, and African Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Okolo, Luke Ndudi, and Chioma Emelone. “Contemporary Nigerian Poetry: Of Poetic Subject and Style: A Critical Analysis of Davidson Iwunze’s A Spring of Longings.” Veritas Journal of Humanities, vol. 4, nos. 1–2, 2022, pp. 36–47.

Olusunle, Tunde. A Medley of Echoes. Kraft Books, 2022.

———. Fingermarks. Kraft Books, 1996. Reissued 2022.

Osofisan, Femi. “Foreword.” A Medley of Echoes, by Tunde Olusunle, Kraft Books, 2022, pp. 8–11.

Quayson, Ato. Tragedy and Postcolonial Literature. Cambridge UP, 2021.

Raji, Wumi. “Preface: A Poet for the City.” Fingermarks, by Tunde Olusunle, Kraft Books, 2022, pp. 7–10.

Ukeme, Samuel Edung, and Mathias Iroro Orhero. “Satirical Forms and Strategies in Joe Ushie’s Popular Stand and Rome Aboh’s A Torrent of Terror.” Abraka Humanities Review, vol. 9, no. 1, 2021, pp. 137–152.

Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer, editors. Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. 4th ed., Sage, 2023.

This article is published in ALQALAM: A Journal of Language and Literary Studies, FUGUS, Volume 1, Issue 2 - June 2026