The Anarchy of Thought

Charity begins at home. Perhaps. But then so does the long revolution against the Establishment.

Sunday, February 27, 2005

Why Has Everyone Become A Poet? Posted by Hello



Allow me the ironic licence of putting the matter somewhat provocatively : the reason why we have all become poets today is because we are afraid of negotiating the intractable territories of history, and instead turn to Poetry as our last line of defence from behind which we nervously peer at the estranged world outside us with a bemused and somewhat perplexed curiosity. Now that we have debarred ourselves from using outlawed terms such as 'judgement', 'truth', 'meaning', and 'objectivity', and have forced ourselves to become de-centred and dis-continuous subjects, we are compelled to run away from the realm of history and console ourselves with endlessly playing with our slipping and sliding words that must be perennially deferred. Consequently, Poetry is no longer about the real world 'out there' (for we have declared at the last Party meeting that there can be no such entity) and has degenerated into a sophisticated form of narcissism to amuse ourselves and an anodyne activity to fill in our unbearable moments of ennui.
Poetry intervenes at such a critical moment to redeem us : in the rarified atmosphere of Poetry we find ourselves blessed with a consecrated medium through which we can 'bracket out' the troublesome external world as an unnecessary irritant and discard it to the dustheap of history. Through Poetry, we can give vent to our modish suspicion of all belief-systems or patterns of political praxes that claim to analyse and transform the social structures within which we are all implicated. Instead, Poetry becomes a way of affirming our apotheosis of spontaneity, fluidity, arbitrariness, vacuity, and depthlessness, and of expressing our vitriolic denunciation of any attempt to discover a stable reality that may underlie these playful activities.
In other words, under the hallowed aegis of Poetry, we can retreat into ourselves with consciences free from guilt, and take shelter in a domain from which nothing can dislodge us or ruffle us in our placid equanimity as we ceaselessly pour out word after word after word after word in listless chains of meaninglessness. We have all become poets today but our Poetry is formally empty; it speaks no longer of the blood and the sweat of those who labour under the sun in the heat and the dust so that we, the privileged miniscule few, may have the time and the leisure to pour out our poesies in a never-ending stream; it cannot even say anything meaningful to those who really need it; it has become but an extension of our pastoral tea-party game of dissolving the world and it ultimately dissolves itself in the process; it is our feckless justification of our 'individuality', our final enclave of uniqueness against the anynomous hordes of the uncouth barbarians out there; and yet it flounders helplessly in the face of the chaotic reality of history from which it becomes progressively more and more disengaged every passing day.
Thus with the help of Poetry we run away from the harshness and the savageries of history into the impenetrable citadel of the 'I', and naively pretend that there will be less starvation, hunger, ethnic conflict, patriarchal oppression, and colonialism if only we could make better and more civilised human beings out of ourselves simply by taking a crash-course in how to write Poetry, how to analyse the poems of an eighteenth-century sonnetist, or how to swim along with the logorrhoea of a contemporary Master. In this manner, Poetry has become the supreme anaesthetic for the imperturbable minds and hearts of an entire generation for whom Poetry is merely a stylish mode of celebrating one's originality or one's ingenuity in coining neologisms that will be forgotten, in any case, after two weeks. Consequently, our Poetry has nothing to say about the brute realities of gender discrimination, wage inequalities, multinational capitalism, racism, genocide, and neo-imperialism, for we have allowed ourselves to be comforted by the illusion that Poetry dwells in some timeless ethereal zone above the earth, occasionally landing on it but never quite staying on long enough to suffer with the voiceless, the speechless, and the nameless.
Thus Poetry, having lost the tenacity to challenge the oppressiveness of the socio-political contexts within which we live, has instead become a symptom of our failure of nerve in the midst of the ambiguities, the complexities, and the conflicts of history, and a mute reminder of our obsessive preoccupation with our words, and ultimately with ourselves.

5 Comments:

  • At 27.2.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Agree on most accounts. I see poetry as an attempt to go back to our childhood when words came to us in fits and burts, sometimes staccato, sometimes flowing. So what we cannot capture with the refinement of prose we try with poetry, since it offers us so many licenses.
    I do not see it merely as a form of escapism, but as an expression and it is a medium which we can use for various purposes.
    Lets say poetry is on the same level as a painting, a photograph, a tune. Nothing more, nothing less.
    And yes, we are born poets and cease to be when we start wearing clothes, taking them off in only two most vulnerable periods in our lives- when we bathe and when we make love...

     
  • At 27.2.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    WHY PICK ON POETS?

    I am a bit puzzled by your attack on poets. Whose poetry are you attacking? Your own? Those of all Europeans? Those of all Indians? Those of all Ghanians? Those of all Venezualans? Have you read all the poetry being written these days? Since you don’t mention any particular poem or poetry of any particular region or ethnic group or any
    class, your attack is rather vacuous. Here is your last statement: “Thus Poetry, having lost the tenacity to challenge the oppressiveness of the socio-political contexts within which we live, has instead become a symptom of our failure of nerve in the midst of the ambiguities, the complexities, and the conflicts of history, and a mute reminder or our obsessive preoccupation with our words, and ultimately with ourselves.”

    I want to start with the conclusion of your post, since if you replace the word “our” with “mine”, you simply become the transparent literalist and not the transparent ironist as you are talking about yourself. And the word “Poetry” in your conclusion can be replaced by many others like “Prose”. What you say of poets could well be true of physicists, philosophers, sociologists, biologists, painters, film-makers, and almost anyone else. It is true of all intellectuals who are sitting in the halls of Cambridge, or Oxford, or Harvard, or University of Delhi, or at Legon. So, why pick on the poets? Are the poets the only ones who should have the responsibility of becoming activists? The lack of activism amongst intellectuals is sheer laziness, both mental, physical, and the resistance to give up the comforts whether these comforts are in a cup of coffee in Starbucks in Toronto or in Barista in Mumbai. So, why pick on the poets? If anything, the poets are probably the most likely to make the call for activism, much more likely than physicists and philosophers.

    Here is a statement you make before your conclusion: “Consequently, our Poetry has nothing to say about the brute realities of gender discrimination, wage inequalities, multinational capitalism, racism, genocide, and neo-imperialism, for we have allowed ourselves to be comforted by the illusion that Poetry dwells in some timeless ethereal zone above the earth, occasionally landing on it but never quite staying on long enough to suffer with the voiceless, the speechless, and the nameless.”

    Again, I don’t know who you are referring to with “our”. Do you mean the English? Do you mean the colonizers, the oppressors? Do you mean any poetry written in English or Hindi? I am totally at a loss. In any case here is a poem originally written in the English language, see what you think of it?

    From knowledge gained since,
    One wonders if their
    Boxom wives had ever been
    Guinea pigs to tests
    The pill and other
    Drugs
    As they say
    Happens to
    Miners’ wives to
    Farmers’ wives in
    Remote corners of
    Banana republics and other
    So-called-developing countries?
    Oh.
    Let me wail for
    The man we betrayed
    The man we killed
    For,
    Which other man lives
    Here
    Who dare tell
    These guardians of my peace, and
    Those
    Exploding do-gooders
    To forget
    My problems of
    Ignorance
    Disease
    Poverty
    To stop
    Their mediocre human loans
    To stuff
    Their pills where
    They want them?
    I know of
    A mad geo-political professor
    Whom no one listens to:
    Who says
    The danger has never been
    Over-population.
    For
    The earth has land to hold
    More than twice the exploding millions
    And enough to feed them too.
    But
    We would rather
    Kill
    than
    Think
    or
    Feel.
    My brother,
    The new game is so
    Efficient,
    Less messy –
    A few withered limbs
    Just
    A few withered seeds.
    Ah-h-h
    Lord,
    Only a Black woman
    Can
    ‘Thank
    A suicidal mankind’
    With her
    Death.

    (Ama Ata Aidoo, Our Sister Killjoy, Essex: Longman, 1977, pp. 69-71).

    If you think of “our” in a global sense, isn’t this poetry about our world, the world we lived in not only in 1977 but the world we are living in 2005. This is just one example, but I am sure I could find some recent poems from Ghana like this one, or from Burundi, or from Senegal, or from Togo, or from Tonga, or from El Salvador,….. that would be counterexamples to your perspective in this post. So, again I ask, who are you attacking? This verse is of course explicit, but I don’t even think that poetry has to be explicit to be political and to be even a call for action. Surely, it was the explicit verse of Percy Bysche Shelley in the “Ode to the English Workers” or in the “Revolt of Islam” that perhaps inspired Marx himself, but sine poetry is the home of metaphor and allegory; I think “To a Skylark” though implicit may be just as political. So, again I ask why attack poetry, anyone’s poetry?

     
  • At 27.2.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    Yes, I have intentionally constructed a mythical monolithic entity called Poetry which really exists nowhere. The Poetry which I am talking about here is actually the mode/s of analysing Poetry that is current in Western academia today.

     
  • At 27.2.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    You point out correctly that the problem here is not limited to Poetry as it is practised within Western academia, and these questions can be rephrased in terms of Writing and Writers so as to include both poetry and prose.

     
  • At 1.3.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    On (re-)reading your questions, I can see that my use of the word 'we' can be misleading. In a number of posts in this blog, however, I have been using it not to mean 'We, the People of the World' but simply as a convenient shorthand when referring to some current trends in Western academia, especially related to literary analysis and philosophy of language. Moreover, it would have been better, as I said earlier, to use 'Writer' instead of 'Poet' as a more general term, though I did not use it because it had seemed a bit too abstract to me at that time.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Free FAQ Database from Bravenet Free FAQ Database from Bravenet.com
The WeatherPixie