american political poetry in the 21st century - STIBA Malang
american political poetry in the 21st century - STIBA Malang
american political poetry in the 21st century - STIBA Malang
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
INTRODUCTION 5<br />
spectacle of man-created suffer<strong>in</strong>g is known, observed with such<br />
constancy that a new shape of know<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>vades <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d” (xiv–xv;<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>al emphasis). From <strong>the</strong> vantage po<strong>in</strong>t of 2006 and <strong>the</strong> almost<br />
immediate access to images of horror that an Internet connection can<br />
provide, Des Pres’s assessment of <strong>the</strong> onslaught of media images <strong>in</strong><br />
1988 seems tame by comparison.<br />
Five years earlier, <strong>in</strong> 1983, Czeslaw Milosz wrote <strong>in</strong> The Witness of<br />
Poetry that poets’ roles have changed, largely because of an exponential<br />
expansion of <strong>the</strong>ir “knowledge of reality”; once limited to perhaps<br />
a s<strong>in</strong>gle village, now subject to <strong>the</strong> catastrophes of <strong>the</strong> globe, poets, he<br />
suggests, bear an <strong>in</strong>creased burden, especially when <strong>the</strong> U.S. role <strong>in</strong><br />
conflicts around <strong>the</strong> world is palpable and often negative. Is it not<br />
surpris<strong>in</strong>g, Milosz asks, that poets are “morally <strong>in</strong>dignant”? He cont<strong>in</strong>ues<br />
with a f<strong>in</strong>al commentary on <strong>the</strong> trajectory of twentieth-<strong>century</strong><br />
<strong>poetry</strong> toward dark visions: poets, he says, have a difficult time imag<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
a future devoid of economic crises and wars (116). Similarly, <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> late 1980s, Chuck D, lead rapper of one of hip-hop’s most<br />
acclaimed groups, Public Enemy, expla<strong>in</strong>ed many rappers’ dark visions<br />
as “<strong>the</strong> Black CNN” (Saddik 110–112), because <strong>the</strong>y described with<br />
gritty realism actual urban liv<strong>in</strong>g conditions that ma<strong>in</strong>stream news<br />
consistently ignored, or when <strong>the</strong>y did report on <strong>the</strong>m, essentialized.<br />
Des Pres, moreover, describes <strong>the</strong> imperative for a “diction” that can<br />
challenge and outlast <strong>the</strong>se dire events and support through “<strong>the</strong><br />
stam<strong>in</strong>a of language” <strong>the</strong> trials of <strong>the</strong> twentieth, and now, by extrapolation,<br />
<strong>the</strong> twenty-first <strong>century</strong> (xv). What, <strong>the</strong>n, is this “diction” that<br />
Des Pres <strong>in</strong>vokes? An analysis of <strong>the</strong> strategies for <strong>in</strong>scrib<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>political</strong> <strong>in</strong> poems moves toward understand<strong>in</strong>g any such diction, or,<br />
I would argue, dictions.<br />
In The Uses of Poetry, Denys Thompson provides a sweep<strong>in</strong>g<br />
description of <strong>the</strong> poet’s role <strong>in</strong> society, one that boldly suggests <strong>the</strong><br />
poet’s superiority and a preexist<strong>in</strong>g societal consensus: “In <strong>the</strong> past<br />
<strong>the</strong> poet has often been <strong>the</strong> spokesman of his society, say<strong>in</strong>g what it<br />
wanted said but could not voice for itself ” (202). Similarly, and often<br />
dangerously, many hip-hop artists are often styled as <strong>the</strong> spokespeople<br />
for <strong>the</strong>ir communities, sometimes to negative effect, whereas poets<br />
are often considered “outsiders.” Although slightly misguided,<br />
Thompson’s broad def<strong>in</strong>ition is helpful as an <strong>in</strong>itial departure po<strong>in</strong>t.<br />
Social <strong>the</strong>orist Anthony Giddens rejects <strong>the</strong> functionalist conception<br />
that social systems have “needs” or “reasons” of <strong>the</strong>ir own, as<br />
Thompson suggests, when he implies that society “wants” to “say”<br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g (109–115). Perhaps Thompson simply chooses some<br />
unfortunate words—“society” <strong>in</strong>stead of “people”—and if he avoided