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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
60 AMERICAN POLITICAL POETRY<br />
action <strong>in</strong> opposition to rapists who do not allow <strong>the</strong> “trees [to]<br />
brea<strong>the</strong>.” This rhetorical voice foregrounds collective action, and, <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> words of Scigaj, it works “to revise perceptions and coax susta<strong>in</strong>able<br />
actions <strong>in</strong> readers” (277). If <strong>the</strong> poem is successful <strong>in</strong> equat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
those who harm <strong>the</strong> environment with rapists, <strong>the</strong>n it suggests a<br />
potential shift <strong>in</strong> how we th<strong>in</strong>k about humans’ relationships with <strong>the</strong><br />
environment. Snyder’s collective “we,” moreover, and <strong>the</strong> presumptions<br />
he makes <strong>in</strong> speak<strong>in</strong>g for his constituents, as it were, engages <strong>the</strong><br />
sensibilities of <strong>the</strong> Whitmanian tradition <strong>in</strong> a l<strong>in</strong>e extend<strong>in</strong>g through<br />
Neruda and G<strong>in</strong>sberg.<br />
Like “Front L<strong>in</strong>es,” Adrienne Rich’s “For <strong>the</strong> Record” (Your<br />
Native Land, Your Life) employs an authoritative, confrontational<br />
voice. Rich, unlike Snyder, is well-known for <strong>political</strong>ly and ideologically<br />
charged poems that have displeased a variety of critics and<br />
reviewers, some of whom Anne Herzog discusses <strong>in</strong> her article on<br />
Rich (258–261) and to whom I refer readers <strong>in</strong> search of sources critical<br />
of her work. Whereas “Front L<strong>in</strong>es” implicitly challenges readers<br />
to act as a collective to protect <strong>the</strong> environment and to revise <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
perceptions of its destruction, “For <strong>the</strong> Record” challenges readers to<br />
account for <strong>the</strong>ir actions and to revise perceptions of <strong>in</strong>action. In both<br />
poems, an authoritative tone not directly derived from experience<br />
shows that readers cannot blame <strong>the</strong> environment <strong>the</strong>y live <strong>in</strong> for <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
problems. Instead, both poems challenge readers to see <strong>the</strong>mselves as<br />
sources of <strong>the</strong> world’s problems.<br />
The authoritative voice of “For <strong>the</strong> Record” is generative of Rich’s<br />
<strong>in</strong>sistence on “her power to know <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r’s pa<strong>in</strong> and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>justices<br />
that produced it” (Gilbert 155), a hallmark of poems of authoritative<br />
agency and, most famously, of Whitman’s “Song of Myself.” The<br />
poem’s speaker, <strong>the</strong>refore, does not hesitate to call forth those <strong>in</strong>justices<br />
and blame readers for <strong>the</strong>m, nor does she fl<strong>in</strong>ch <strong>in</strong> spann<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> globe to catalog horrors, <strong>in</strong>justices, and apocalyptic upheavals.<br />
The first five stanzas <strong>in</strong>terrogate <strong>the</strong> human tendency to project anger<br />
upon <strong>the</strong> visible manifestations of problems ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> ultimate<br />
source of <strong>in</strong>justice: ourselves. In do<strong>in</strong>g so, <strong>the</strong> poem gives no h<strong>in</strong>t of<br />
qualification or excuse. Rich shows that attribut<strong>in</strong>g poverty, war, riots,<br />
environmental devastation, suffer<strong>in</strong>g, and oppression to neutral<br />
th<strong>in</strong>gs, such as clouds, stars, mounta<strong>in</strong>s, trees, houses, build<strong>in</strong>gs, and<br />
barbed wire, is absurd. The poem fur<strong>the</strong>r suggests that <strong>the</strong> natural<br />
environment is subject to and secondary to human agency: “if <strong>the</strong><br />
mounta<strong>in</strong>s spewed stones of fire <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> river / it was not tak<strong>in</strong>g sides /<br />
<strong>the</strong> ra<strong>in</strong>drop fa<strong>in</strong>tly sway<strong>in</strong>g under <strong>the</strong> leaf / had no <strong>political</strong><br />
op<strong>in</strong>ions” (31–32). Natural resources are also <strong>in</strong>nocent, but not <strong>the</strong>