Is South African Literature Stuck In Polemic?

In Beyond Belief, VS Naipaul's account of his travels through four Islamic lands, he casually suggests that a nation without aspiration is reduced to producing literature that is all polemic. Is this true of South African literature?
It might be helpful to define what polemic is. According to Wikipaedia, it is "when an argument, debate, or opinion leans toward attacking the other person as opposed to the discussion at hand. That is, an argument or rhetoric becomes polemic when they have pejorative implications of the dignity of opposition."
Now offhand I'd say this is true of the national dialogue, but is this also true of our literature?
A related question, going back to Naipaul would be: are we as a national without aspiration?
Again, let's define aspiration. The easiest definition I can find puts it this way: "strong desire, longing, or aim; ambition." In other words, as a nation, do we have a strong desire for something - peace, harmony, or some such concept. And if we do, is that desire 'strong?' Do we have similar ambitions? Or are our ambitions negative, that is to say, the longing to be safe, protected, have a job or reach Kim Kardashian-like heights of celebrity?
Naipaul seems to suggest our literature will show us our mind and the state of our ambition. What is that state of mind; what are our ambitions as they are reflected in our literature?
Perhaps the great postmodernist thinker Michel Foucault can help us think this through.

Better Or Worse?

Pretty much all the media accounts I have read of the New Year celebrations mention how, with relief, we bade farewell to the horrors of 2011. So, are we expecting better in 2012? The cynic in me suggests it'll be much of the same, for the following reasons:

1. Very little was resolved in 2011. Many of its problems are still with us. There is still instability in world markets; there are still vast inequalities everywhere and no visible plans to eradicate them; we have no coherent plans to deal with climate change; and there is still a vacuum of leadership around the world.
2. This last named is of great concern to me. Obama simply hasn't made the mark we wanted - whether he was denied through his own ineptitude or slick Republican manoeuvring is moot. But we are about to see Putin return to the world stage in search of a glorious, military-led, past; a weak Obama is likely to be replaced by someone who appears to have absolutely no deeply-held values at all; and Korea's Kim is about to be reborn in a son who needs to make a mark and has the ability to threaten from a position of nuclear strength. The rest of the global political leadership is as weak today as it was in 2011.
3. Despite all the uprisings around the world, very little change has actually been accomplished -except to remind powers that people can make things awkward - and I hazard a guess that hegemony has drawn in a second wind and will hit back at citizenry everywhere. In other words, we are primed for intensified battles, as long as ordinary folks are prepared to stand their ground.

On the positive side for 2012? I'll have to think about that and get back to you....