What's poetry's role in protest politics?

Should poets be leading the charge in rousing metres, or reflecting thoughtfully on the sidelines?

Leading poet ... Allen Ginsberg (centre, in stars and stripes hat) at the front of anti-Vietnam demonstration in 1966. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis

Adam O'RiordanWednesday 15 December 201017.02GMTLast modified on Tuesday 3 June 201415.31BST

Last week's images of mounted policemen charging the protesters around Parliament Square evoked multiple memories: the poll tax riots in John Major's 90s; the angry young of Brixton and Toxteth in Thatcher's 80s; even, for the historically minded, the Peterloo massacre in 1819, where magistrates sent in cavalry to disperse a crowd of over 60,000 who had gathered to protest for political reform.

Shortly after the massacre, in which several were killed and several hundred injured, Thomas Love Peacock wrote of it to his friend Percy Bysshe Shelley in Italy. Shelley was so moved by Peacock's description of the events that he responded by penningThe Masque of Anarchy, a poem that advocates both radical social action and non-violent resistance: "Shake your chains to earth like dew / Which in sleep had fallen on you- / Ye are many they are few".

At times of upheaval and unrest, is poetry's role to fan the flames or cool tempers? Down the centuries it has proved remarkably effective at both. Against a background of civil unrest in 1970s America, Gil Scott-Heron told the world "you will not be able to stay home, brother". In his searing, satirical masterpiece "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" on the album Small Talk at 125th and Lennox. Scott-Heron offers a line in tightly-wrought comic surrealism; "The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary." But it is as much his delivery, his voice impassioned but not quite righteous, that electrifies the poem.

Scott-Heron's influence is evident in a generation of young British spoken word poets and performers who have emerged with a political agenda.Scroobius Pip(the name is taken from an Edward Lear poem "The Scroobious Pip went out one day / When the grass was green, and the sky was grey") recently offered a corrective against the commercialism of his peers with "Thou Shalt Always Kill". Coupling Generation Y's fascination with cultural ephemera with a strain of political invective reminiscent of alternative comedy in the 1980s, he demands; "Thou shalt not judge a book by its cover./ Thou shalt not judge Lethal Weapon by Danny Glover. / Thou shalt not buy Coca-Cola products. / Thou shalt not buy Nestl products."

But is protest poetry the preserve of the spoken word poet? In the 1970s, American poetRichard Wilbur, symbol of all things urbane and learned, offered "To the Student Strikers", urging reflection and calm during the Vietnam war. In "A Miltonic Sonnet for Mr Johnson", he suggests that Thomas Jefferson "would have wept to see small nations dread / The imposition of our cattle-brand, / With public truth at home mistold or banned, / And in whose term no army's blood was shed." However, Wilbur cautions that when "poets begin preaching to the choir, it takes the adventure and variety out of the poetry."

So is this poetry's role: to approach unrest and upheaval slant, and not head-on? And has poetry on the page been more effective in documenting the aftermath of great events? Both the lateKen Smithand Sean O'Brien have documented the intellectual legacy of post-industrial and rural communities recovering their identities after decades of decline. Ken Smith, son of a farm labourer, produced a poetry imbued with a melancholy sense of those like his father who,as O'Brien noted in Smith's obituary, had "left / not a mark, not a footprint".

It's a theme Sean O'Brien has taken up in own his work. The title poem of his collection Cousin Coat (which he describes as "an invisible coat I eventually discovered I'd been wearing all my life") invokes the legacy of these ideas. As the poem closes he asks the coat to "Be with me when they cauterize the facts / Be with me at the bottom of the page / Insisting on what history exacts / Be memory, conscience, will and rage."

We can take draw solace from the fact that both our historically strong and newly evolving poetic traditions performance or page, pastoral or post-industrial will be there to remind and inspire us, to offer solace or make us think a little more deeply about what has just taken place. As the dust settles on last week's events it is perhaps time to heed Shelley's advice from almost two centuries ago; "Stand ye calm and resolute, / Like a forest close and mute, / With folded arms and looks which are / Weapons of unvanquished war."

http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2010/dec/15/poetry-protest-politics (assessed may 7 2015)

Poetry and Politics

[In 1929 Marcus Graham compiled and edited An Anthology of Revolutionary Poetry, a collection of modern and earlier verse composed by poets from twenty countries who championed freedom.Ridge served on the book's Publication Committee and contributed "Reveille."Poets and critics Lucia Trent and Ralph Cheyney wrote a lengthy introduction which is actually a version of leftist aesthetics.Careful readers of the following excerpts can extract the features of a poetry and a poet that Trent and Cheyney believe can reshape the modern world.]

Lucia Trent and Ralph CheyneyExcerpts from the Introduction toAn Anthology of Revolutionary PoetryIIThe world is tumbling about our ears.The old order has collapsed."The World War brought to an end the illusionment of bourgeois idealism."We stand among falling dbris.America is becoming or has become industrialized.Individualism of the pioneers has fallen away before standardization.The trust has risen and capitalism expanded.Youth is more aware and articulate. Women are less willing to be dominated by men.Labor is slowly but unmistakably reaching the realization that to it belong all things and the resolve that it shall possess them.No economic, industrial, social and cultural system can endure long which is based on the fact now true of the United States: that two per cent of the population, conservatively speaking, own seventy-one per cent of the wealth, while more than sixty per cent of the people own but twenty per cent of this world's goods.No system can go on long which denies a job to one out of every nine working men.Five million unemployed is a host which may light the spark of revolution.The creation of some valid order of values is the most fascinating and imperative task the intellect faces today.The creation of values in the emotional realm is the primary function of poetry.Chaos gives birth to a dancing star only if we breathe into it that visible, audible fragrance of passion which is poetry.The world will be new-born only with the spread of that consciousness which is creation, and poets are the pioneers of consciousness.They, therefore, are naturally among the leaders in the development of class-consciousness.Life is faith.Without faith there can be no poetry, and without poetry no civilization.But intelligent faith can come only after complete, hard-boiled disillusionment with the supernatural and with bourgeois idealism.Poetry and propaganda are two sides of the same shield.Without passion there can be no poetry, and all who feel strongly burn with a zeal to have others share their feeling.True poets are also propagandists, even though their propaganda may be simply for the love of life and the life of love.A poem is a rune, spell, incantation, evocation.Poetry throws open mental windows and doors, pushes back horizons, reveals a new heaven and leads us back to Mother Earth with a fresh vision of how to regain Eden.What we see often, we do not see at all, a fact which blinds us to the evils of the present industrial and social system.The statement of Simonides, "Literature is spoken painting," should stand beside Madame De Stael's "Architecture is frozen music."Poets clear our eyes and sharpen our ears.Poetry serves civilization and helps usher in a happier world as no other human activity can.For the very essence of poetry isSYMPATHY.[The ancient Greek poet Simonides wrote elegies honoring slain warriors, and the French writer and critic de Stael introduced romanticism to France.]

There is no other art which can emphasize more concretely and more beautifully the spiritual values of human life."We cannot live by bread alone" is a trite phrase, but one which contains a generous measure of truth.Too many today lack bread itself.Savages and civilized men are alike in their blind groping for an explanation of the hidden sources of the universe.Authentic poetry gives utterance to the eternal adventuring in search of spiritual truths and the Promised Land, long prophesied but to be realized only through the uprising of united workers.The poets who rebel against the smug, superficial materialism of the age in this imperialistic nation and contribute thought as well as words are in the main pessimistic.Their poems are question-marks.They face frustration and see the hole in the universe.Not seeing the hope of a new, true civilization that is rising in the East, notably Russia and India, their eyes are fixed on the downfall of the Western World and they despair.Their world is staggering like a drunken man, toppling like a shot deer.For most of them are of the bourgeoisie, and they feel, even if they do not see, that their class is decaying and disappearing.The collapse of a class is foretold in the disruption of its ideals and arts, though their echoes may ring through the ages.Much that is gracious and lovely endures from the times of feudalism, but aristocracy succumbed to plutocracy and the middle class came into power.Now the days of the middle class are numbered--and their end is to be seen by the disillusionment among bourgeois poets and other artists, by the prevalence of spiritless manufactured-by-formulae imitations of art and by the new interest in primitive and folk contributions to the arts.Is there not some fair and fertile virgin soil beyond the wasteland, some faith on which poets may seize?"Yes," the answer must be, if poetry is to survive.For, as Emerson said, "Poetry is faith." Where can the poets of today find a living faith, how can they make their work a force in the life of today?To our mind, there can be but one answer:The poets can find faith only where it is found by the workers:in the movements dedicated to ushering in the Co-operative Commonwealth.Honor to the poet who can find poetry in stunted city trees and the parched flowers in a tenement window, who sings the humdrum life of a factory hand or an office clerk!Honor to the poet who shouts against the infamy of lynchings and prisons and the red-eyed monster of war!Such poets are working with the mortar which will build a more enduring social structure.They are the standard-bearers of a new emancipated humanity.These are the poets whom the present may crucify, but whom the future will honor.IIIIn this book are sung the real modern wonders of the world.What are the modern sevenwonders of the world?We suggest as the seven modern wonders:the increasing recognition that equal, unrestricted opportunity belongs to all individuals of all races and creeds or lack of creed; the labor movement; the rising opposition to violence and murder, whether they be expressed in lynching, capital punishment, or war; the emancipation of women; modern psychology and the extensions of consciousness; birth control; and the development of machinery to lessen labor and increase production.The poet who cannot find inspiration in these wonders is no seer, no humanist, no prophet, no voice of the spirit crying aloud in the wilderness--in short no true poet.In a land where rich men and athletes are adored and poets scorned, a land whose appropriate symbols are the cash register and the time-clock, sensitive souls are crucified.If not on the electric chair like Sacco and Vanzetti, they nevertheless are seared.In the standardization of a machine age there is tragic need but scant room for the nonconformist.Our wings are clipped from birth, our souls mangled by wheels.Most of us, even we poets, are willing to let our souls sicken and succumb or to keep them like canaries trilling monotonously in a small gilt cage.Some few there are, however, who struggle for the integrity of their spirits and mint from the consequent agony dynamic song.The poet has a real task in the work of the world.He is filling a needed rle[sic].There are two main types of poetry--that of escape from the world around us and that of acceptance of it and affirmation of the beauty in it; the first sedative, the second stimulant.If poetry is to be only a soothing syrup for the comfortable classes who have time to kill and are ready to stamp out the springs of all nobler poetry, we are tempted to recommend that both poets and poetry be poisoned.Modern psychologists are maintaining with increasing emphasis that people are influenced not by purely logical and intellectual processes alone, but also by their emotional impulses.A pamphlet giving statistics of a coal strike, stating the issues at stake, the number of evictions, the number of homeless miners and their families, is not as likely to rouse the liberal public to indignation or to generous donations as a stirring poem describing in graphics and harrowing detail the plight of the strikers, telling how mothers are feeding dry cracker crumbs to their babies and how their little children are dying from cold and exposure.If there be any among the radical movement who ignore the poet as a practical factor in the fight for freedom, let such recall the lives of Milton, Byron and Shelley, not to mention the successful influences of Thomas Hood and George Crabbe in mitigating the cruel laws of Great Britain.Although, as the Frenchman said, "All generalizations are false, including this one," it is fairly safe to say that the greatest poets of the past have been the rebel and humanist singers who have shaken the thrones of tyrants with their rebellious music and risen to the defense of the martyred Saccos and Vanzettis of their own generations.Every age has its poets, but this dark age of electricity, this mechanistic era, blackened by the monster shadows of giant machines, is essentially a harrowing age for poets.For the poetic mind lays emphasis on the human values of life rather than on those upheld by a standardized and crudely materialistic civilization.Therefore, the poet is stifled to-day[sic]perhaps more than he has ever been in the past, and if the radicals will not listen to him, will not welcome him, who will?[Excerpt from part]VWhen the workers are free, and only then, can we have real culture and real civilization.In the meantime all cultures are but night-blooming flowers, hidden from most men, women and children by smoke and steam, grime and soot, the fog and poisonous fumes loosed by capitalist-controlled schools and newspapers, churches and theatres--hidden also by the darkness of ignorance and fear.When the red day breaks and reveals the free society, these night-blooming flowers will droop.But in their place will gleam in the sun and dance in the breeze the true flowers of labor and dream.The dark rivers of tears and blood that swell this sea rush chiefly from hearts, bodies and spirits crushed by the mills of the over-lords--which, unlike those of the gods, grind fast but exceedingly sure.Foully feeding every other misery stand overwork and law-protected robbery: underplay and underpay.Wage slavery is little better than chattel slavery.Without industrial and social democracy political democracy is a tragic farce.An unacknowledged caste system which can be broken in a few instances by grasping or lucky individuals is crueler in its hypocrisy and tantalizing, unkept promises than a frank caste system."Plutocracy" is named more aptly than most realize, for Pluto was Lord of Hell.Many poets forget that the Tower of Ivory is built of ivory-white bones and is shadowed by the Tower of Babel!But the wiser and greater poets know that none is safe when pestilence tramples the earth, be it the fever of disease that ravages the body or the fever of Capitalism which ravages bodies and all else human and humane.They know that we are "members one of another" and that it takes the joy of all to make the joy of one.You will find their poems in this book.Some attack war, prostitution, child labor, the deadening effects of too long a workday, unemployment and other evil effects of Capitalism and exploitation.Others attack the present evil system in its entirety.Some voice the protest of the Child.Others sing the Women's Revolt.Most acclaim the Labor Movement, which includes the revolt of women and children.Still others prophesy of the Golden Age they seeAHEADwhen the reign of gold shall be ended.From Lucia Trent and Ralph Cheyney, introduction,An Anthology of Revolutionary Poetry, ed. Marcus Graham (New York: Active Press, 1929) 34-38, 40-41.

Return toLola Ridgehttp://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/m_r/ridge/politics.htmPolitical Poetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Political Poetrybrings togetherPoliticsandPoetry. Politics is the process of resolving conflicts and deciding who gets what, when, and how. Poetry is a written expression on an individuals feelings, ambitions, or views. When both come together you have what we call Political Poetry and it is a creative way to exercise ones right tofreedom of expression, all while expressing yourself in the same process. The writer accomplishes his goal to express his views on the world all while impacting the readers lives teaching them, allowing them to derive their own meaning out of it. The following is a sample of political poems and poets, on the worldly issues today.

Poems/Poets A-Z[edit] A Time of Change: Richard McWilliam - Looks at the possible causes of 9/11. Talks about poverty and alienation being the roots of this unfortunate event

Black Workers:Hughes, Langston Gives an analogy of slaves being bees, and the bees go out and do the work. All the while others take away from the bees and all they have done. Also noting that the horrible treatment would one day cease.

World Peace:AE Ballakisten- describes how the politics of identity influences beliefs and behavior, and can ultimately lead to conflict. Redefining identity can lead to peace.

Chicken Hawk: Macwilliam, Richard Talks about the Chicken Hawk being strong, but when it actually comes to a struggle or war he leads from the back of the pack. More loud in his talk than actual actions.

Democracy: Macwilliam, Richard This talks aboutDemocracybeing gained at the expense of other countries. How taking other countries resources for themselves will make their life better, while they manipulate, and cheat to keep hold of it until their hope eventually dies. Seeking power over them, and promoting their democratic ways because they feel its the best way to govern.

Enemy: Hughes, Langston Being a slave was like a living hell, and this poem shares the expression of the writer of how it would be nice to see the slave owners get what they deserve as the slave emerges from years of torment.

Freedom Dust: Macwilliam, Richard A tricky poem, analyzes the words Freedom Dust and individuals perceptions on it. How one can become content with their lives and not fully comprehend how significant it actually is, taking it for granite.

God Bless America: Macwilliam, Richard Talks about America becoming narrow minded and believing that they are the only ones in the world which matter to God. Believing that their victories are blessings and so forth, guns are a blessing too.

How to Create a Ghetto: Macwilliam, Richard This poem talks about the ingredients so to say on creating a ghetto. Richard gives a recipe with a step by step approach, stating things such as taking away their morals, stirring in low educational goals, and throwing in drugs. The end result what we see in todays society.

Its Somebody Elses Turn: Macwilliam, Richard This poem refers to almost every country having an empire at one point in time; it goes onto naming a handful. Then it talks about the USA corrupting the world with their foreign affairs, and what will they do to help the world, and the legacy they will leave behind.

Jerusalem:Blake, William This poem talks about the holy land Jerusalem and how sacred it is. Also how they will fight to protect such a blessed land.

Katrina: Macwilliam, Richard On this tragic day a devastating hurricane hit the lands of New Orleans. The impact on the people was so brutal killing many, and wiping away the hopes and dreams of the rest all in the same process. On the rescue mission, the smell of racism was in the air, while the fellow white culture was rescued, serving them while the blacks suffered and watched and waited in desperation.

La la la Tanzania: Macwilliam, Richard This one talks about the poverty in Tanzania, also low quality politicians who were later involved in the Iraq war.

Mrs. Conservative: Macwilliam, Richard - This poem talks about the ideal lady, very clean in appearance and thoughts. Living an ideal life until one day somebody gets underneath her skin and her demon as they put it comes out, and her friends worked together to take away her hate and spread it out among races, countries, and neighbors until her smile appears once more.

Next To of Course God America:Cummings, E. E. Commentary on blind patriotism and the glorification of death in battle.

Open Letter to the South: Hughes, Langston A treaty of peace in a sense, promoting unification instead of separation.

Poor Young Men: Macwilliam, Richard A bunch of men sexually deprived that it turns into anger and aggression among women. They join the religious police and demean women to satisfy their own frustration.

Quiet Desperation: Portolano, Charles The speaker of the poem is examining a boy on the train. Talking about his life and how great it was, and at the end he watches his flame slowly diminish.

Reconciliation:Whitman, Walt War taking the ones we love, and their heroic deeds of that day eventually forgotten in time, washed away by death and night.

Suicide Bomber: Macwilliam, Richard This talks about how people do not become suicide bombers because they think it would be fun to do. Rather all the problems and injustices of the world building up that a person can no longer live in the world that harbors it all.

The War: Macwilliam, Richard This poem explains how prominent wars were in the Thatcher years, and how it affected the lives of people.

Updike, John: Born March 18, 1932, and American novelist, poet, and short story writer. Some of his works include: The Carpentered Hen, and Posthumous Endpoint.

Vachel Lindsay: Born December 5, 1931, an American poet thought of to be the father of singing poetry. Some of his works include: Abraham Lincoln Walks at Night, On the Garden Wall, and Why I voted the socialist ticket.

Welcome to Woomera: Macwilliam, Richard A prison camp in Australia for the non whites. Talks about the hate stored in the land and what they have done to immigrants over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_PoetryDean RaderBecome a fanPoet, cultural critic, professor, University of San Francisco EmailPolitics And Poetry: Do They Really Ever Meet In America?

Posted:21/12/2011 00:18 ISTUpdated:19/02/2012 15:42 IST

Share27 Tweet Comment10

When Bay Area poets Robert Hass, Brenda Hillman, and Geoffery G. O'Brien werebeaten by policeduring a peaceful protest at Occupy Berkeley, the answer to the question the headline poses was answered in dramatic fashion.

The news spread quickly in thepoetry community. We were astonished, horrified, and concerned. This is not Chile. This is not Turkey. This is not Russia. We are not a country that imprisons or brutalizes its writers because of their writings; in fact, Americans are not really used to writers -- especially poets -- placing themselves at the forefront of political issues or political protests. When Hass published a smart and measuredop-edabout the incident inThe New York Times, it was a rare moment when American poetry and politics met on a grand stage.

The piece's title, "Beat Poets Not Beat Poets," is a painful reference to the history of the willingness of Bay Area poets to push the political (and poetical) envelope. From the obscenity trial of Allen Ginsberg'sHowlto the fantastic essays and lectures by Jack Spicer onPoetry and Politics, Bay Area poets have rarely shied away from controversy.

At the time of the Berkeley beatings, we just happened to be reading some particularly political poems by Pablo Neruda in my poetry class atthe University of San Francisco, and the students were fascinated by the many ways in which poets turn to poetry as a vehicle for political commentary. One can think of Neruda's"I'm Explaining A Few Things"compared to Wallace Stevens's"The Men That Are Falling," both of which are about the Spanish Civil War. However, the two poems, written only a few years apart, could hardly be more different in terms of tone, style, and directness.

My students were also intrigued by poetry as a viable vehicle for articulating political dissent and political opinion in the United States. We talked about why Hass chose to write an op-ed piece rather than a poem. For Neruda in Chile, India, or Spain in the 1930s, a poem was a more powerful vehicle than a newspaper, but in America in 2011, we all agreed that a prose piece in theTimesgave Hass not only a wider audience but a level of credibility a poem might not.

This begs the question of whether in a democracy poetry can be taken seriously as political discourse by the majority of Americans.

On November 1, just a few days before the Berkeley incident, I launched a new blog entitled99 Poems for the 99 Percentthat I hoped (and still hope) might start a larger conversation about the relationship between poetic and political expression. Here, poems from major literary figures to recent graduates to political activists tell a plurality of stories about how most of America is making sense of political inequity.

As so many of the great poems on the site demonstrate, the aims of poetry are pretty much the same as the aims of most Americans, which means that poetry as a genre might be a particularlyAmericanmode of communication: poetry doesn't need to be vetted. Poetry is about an individual communicating to a plurality. Perhaps sooner, as opposed to later, Americans will start seeing poetry as having pretty much the same street cred as journalism, blogging, and television news for delivering relevant social and political commentary. After all, as the Beat poets showed, poetry is, at its core, about freedom.

Follow Dean Rader on Twitter:www.twitter.com/deanraderMORE:

Geoffery G. O'Brien

HYPERLINK "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/bay-area-politics/" Bay Area Politics

HYPERLINK "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/san-francisco-poetry/" San Francisco Poetry

HYPERLINK "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/poetry-and-politics/" Poetry and Politics

HYPERLINK "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/brenda-hillman/" Brenda Hillman

HYPERLINK "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/robert-hass/" Robert Hass

HYPERLINK "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/bay-area-poetry/" Bay Area Poetry

HYPERLINK "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/redroom/" Redroomhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-rader/politics-and-poetry-do-th_b_1158353.html?ir=India&adsSiteOverride=inWhere Have All The Poets Gone?

SEPTEMBER 05, 20147:03 AM ETJUAN VIDAL

Critic Juan Vidal wonders why so few modern poets pack the punch of Allen Ginsberg, Pablo Neruda or Amiri Baraka.

Michael Stroud/Getty ImagesFor centuries, poets were the mouthpieces railing loudly against injustice. They gave voice to the hardships and evils facing people everywhere. From Langston Hughes to Jack Kerouac and Federico Garca Lorca so many verse once served as a vehicle for expressing social and political dissent. There was fervor, there was anger. And it was embraced: See, there was a time when the poetry of the day carried with it the power of newspapers and radio programs. It was effective, even as it was overtly political. What has happened?

At its root, poetry is the language of protest. Whether centered on love, beauty, or the ills that plague a nation, it's all inherently political, and it all holds up as a force in any conversation. What seems like forever ago, poetry unflinchingly opposed corruption and inequality, civil and national.

Take Pablo Neruda's "I Explain a Few Things," in which he details the atrocities of the Spanish Civil War:

Bandits with planes and Moors,bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,bandits with black friars spattering blessingscame through the sky to kill childrenand the blood of children ran through the streetswithout fuss, like children's blood.

Of course there was Allen Ginsberg's "Howl," a polemic against the traps of conformity and cultural conservatism. Considered dangerous and profane, it went on to spark an obscenity trial in 1957; something that no doubt brought added attention to its overall merit.

The Beat Generation is dead, and literary provocation in America, I submit, is at a low.

Why do I bring this up? Because I'm wondering why the words of today's poets don't pack the same weight and influence as works like "Howl." Sure, people are still writing, but gone are the days of poets having to answer for what they so explicitly set before us. The Beat Generation is dead, and literary provocation in America, I submit, is at a low. The last of them, Amiri Baraka, left us earlier this year, and with him went some much needed heart.

You could argue that, on a whole, people are reading less and less poetry. But why is that? Fact is, although there is more poetry being published than ever before from anthologies to chapbooks and literary magazines it lacks a viable mainstream presence. What was once important has now been confined to a subculture, something primarily read in workshops and universities.

Sure, the age of social media has changed the way we approach the written word. The introduction of tweets and status updates has significantly altered the way we consume literature of all sorts. But it would be misguided to not place some blame on the state of the art form itself. Could it be that modern poetry has lost its vibrancy? I ask: Has poetry ceased to penetrate our national consciousness because we are no longer stirred by what's being said? When was the last time a poet made enough noise to be threatened with censorship?

Right now, at this moment in history, with so much to rally for and against from police brutality in our backyard to the massacring of innocent children across the planet have the poets gone missing? Not exactly, no. There are many poets, beautiful poets. Female poets, poets of every color and creed doing valuable work. Today, in America at least, rappers and slam poets wordsmiths of a different stripe appear to be the ones whose work is consistently tinged with fury and social diatribe. There are examples: spoken-word artists likeSaul WilliamsandSage Francishave consistently put out new and provocative material that tackles difficult issues.

And on a commercial platform, we have rappers like J. Cole, whose song "Be Free," a powerful cry about the police killing of Michael Brown, is the latest to make waves. And then there's Lupe Fiasco. Listen to "Words I Never Said," a heartfelt condemnation of the war on terror.

We need our poets now more than ever. In fact, they should be on the front lines at rallies and marches questioning and rebuking whatever systems they deem poisonous to civil society. They once fed us, our poets; emptying themselves in the process. Generously, courageously, they brought the darkness to light. They said what we felt, and didn't mind taking the heat for it whatever that meant. Did they stop speaking, or have we stopped listening?

Juan Vidal is a writer and critic for NPR Books. He's on Twitter:@itsjuanlove.

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/05/344088108/where-have-all-the-poets-gone Poetry, Propaganda, and Political Standards Literature Poetry PoliticsbyMichael Davis

I recentlyreviewedLeo Yankevichs latest collection, and only just read aninterviewwith Mr. Yankevich given by the publisher,Counter-Currents. I stand by what praise I gave the volume, in spite of Mr. Yankevichs own admission that One of the central themes ofTikkun Olamis the destructiveness of Jewish power. Such connotations never once occurred to me, and without getting too couched in politically correct apologies, I am not an anti-Semite, and I enjoyed the poetry as much as I reject its apparent anti-Semitism.

The point to be made here is that onecanreject the politics of a poeteven of an individual poemand still admire the art.

Mr. Yankevich claims that all art is propaganda whether its creator intends it to be or not. This is not true. Mr. Yankevich is (ironically) buying into on the central tenet of the Marxist theory of literature, aslaid outby Walter Benjamin in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Mr. Benjamin asserts that art has one of two functions: the ritual, or the political. In the modern world, instead of being based on ritual, [art] begins to be based on another practice politics. Communism and Fascism, he supposes, were the first two political movements to embrace the politicization of art: [The] situation of politicsFascism is rendering aesthetic. Communism responds by politicizing art. In other words, Fascism aestheticizes politics; Communism politicizes aesthetics. What Mr. Yankevich posits is, in fact, this supposedFascist theory of art, which is practically indistinguishable from the Marxist.

That is not to say we need to take Marxists exactly at their word. For Walter Benjamin, there was only one religionKabbalahand only one politicsMarxism. While Kabbalistic art is purposefully religious, Western art has long since drifted to and fro the central axis of Christianity, with such devoutly Catholic poets as T.S. Eliot praising and admiring more ambiguous, and perhaps sacrilegious, novelists like James Joyce. But the wider point, perhaps, is this: Art can either serve political ends, or it can servesome other ends.What those ends are is the topic for another conversation. But let us be clear: Poetry very certainly should serve that other purpose, if only because, as a political medium, poetry is useless. I detected no anti-Semitism or Semitophobia whatsoever in Mr. Yankevichs verse, and certainly did not come away from the book feeling privy to a secret Jewish power conspiracy. I would not call myself an anti-Communist so much as a non-Communist: I do not oppose Communism anymore than I oppose other systems I think are erroneous; and yetTikkun Olamis a self-declared piece of anti-Communist propaganda.

In fact, Mr. Yankevichs collection convinced me of nothing but his merits as a poet.

But lest we should think this is more a reflection on Mr. Yankevichs poetic talent, consider the legacy of Rupert Brookes The Soldier. It is afamous little sonnetthat starts,

If I should die, think only this of me:

That theres some corner of a foreign field

That is for ever England.

I quite like the poem, in part because of my supposed Anglophilia and in part because I am fond of World War I poetry in general. But a professor of mine, lecturing on First World War sonnets, read the poem from start to finish; paused; and said, Im Welsh. That was enough. Never mind that the tens of thousands of Australians, Canadians, Indians, or even the hundreds of thousands of Americans who also died in World War I. Welsh nationalism had stuffed the poem up for this acclaimed and brilliant young Shakespeare scholar. The Soldier is a beautiful piece of propaganda, but it is one that can easily be disliked and dismissed if one rejects the politics. Whether that is the fault of the poet or the reader is irrelevant, though I suspect it is not exactly blameworthy at all. The point is this: Someone predisposed toward a certain political, religious, or philosophical position may enjoy or take heart from a poem like The Soldier, but it is not going to change any minds. A convinced pacifist-internationalist isnt going to pick up Brooke and become a hawkish nationalist. Nor, really, should they: We would hope such a tremendous change of heart would be informed by practical and moral considerationseven above aesthetic ones. Without a doubt, any practical point we have to make about politics is better said in prose than poetry. Better to read a logical, well-constructed essay on the pros or cons of entering the First World War than Brooke or Siegfried Sassoon, respectively.

On the other hand, we have profoundly Conservative poets whohave undoubtedly established themselves as canonical. That this continues to occur in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, in notable cases such as Eliots, means their poetry has convinced a predominantly left-wing circle of academics and critics. While Eliot himself wrote a number of famously anti-Semitic poems (notably Gerontion and Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a Cigar), our progressive and Marxistliteratimany of whom would officially support Mr. Benjamins theory of political poetryhave not even tried to blacklist Eliot. This is, of course, because, regardless of his political views, Eliot was a matchless poet. The same is true of Pound, an ardent Fascist and Yeats, an aristocratic elitist. Though this may yet change, as it stands Conservative poets are not persecuted for their political views. (The exception that proves the rule is Roy Campbell, an outspoken South African Francoist.)

Likewise, I think it would be self-evidently ridiculous to reject the poetry of Pablo Neruda and Louis Macniece because they were left-wing. Allen Ginsburgs Howl is a terrible poem. Its a mangled tract for bourgeois degeneracy written in choppy, artless prose. Lord Alfred Douglass Two Loves is also more or less a tract for bourgeois degeneracy, but as a poem it is far better constructed. I admire Lord Douglas, and I do not think his themes would seriously alienate a Conservative reader.

We do not have to feel at all threatened by the political views of a poet, nor do we have any evidence whatsoever to say that, (a) a great poems right-wing politics is alienating to a left-wing reader, orvice versa; or (b) poetry goes very far toward effectively articulating a certain political view. It would be as silly to judge a poem by its politics as it would be to judgeDas Kapitalby the quality of its prose. Their aims are entirely distinct. (Some exceptions being the didactic poetry of Dryden,et al.)

So what, then, is poetrys relationship with politics? That, too, is probably a topic for another conversation. But if we can agree that thepoeticand thepoliticalare at least distinct, we should also acknowledge that they need noy(and perhaps cannot) be entirely divorced. The poet definitely should not rely on how correct he thinks his politics are, as it wont compensate for any shoddy poetics. Rather, a poem dwelling on political themes should be held to the same standard as a poem dwelling on nature, or love, or religion: the poetic standard; that is, the execution of poetics. What this entails is, again, too lengthy to be discussed here. But as readers, academics, and critics, we should be careful not to prejudice ourselves for or against a poem or poet because we agree with their philosophy. Anyone primarily interested in religion should write and critique theology; anyone primarily interested in politics should go directly to politics. Poetry, when not addressing its own medium, will frustrate the reader, the writer, and the poem itself.

Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative ConservativeBookstore.http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/10/poetic-political-standards.htmlAn Argument for Politics in Poetry

AN ARGUMENT FOR POLITICS IN POETRY by Dale Jacobson

Ive listened to the debate on politics in poetry for nearly forty years, but for all the variations of argument, it seems to reduce to two basic issues, the complaint that political dogma or didactic intent (assumed always to be bad for esthetics) spoils the emotional power of poetry, and the notion that poetry in general is incapable of causing change, therefore political poetry presumes a purpose that poetry cannot accomplish. At least one of these arguments was articulated by Joseph Brodsky at a Writers Conference (University of North Dakota) when he advised, as I paraphrase, if you want to change the world you should drop the pen and pick up a machine gun. The other was likely implied when he commented that political news interfered with his freedom to admire the dawn. An obvious counterpoint is that no topic should be excluded from poetry, regardless of these claims. Still, it seems to me that we might do more than simply insist that politics should be equally available to poetry like any other topic. We should say more than merely observe that we dont require poems about other topics to initiate change in our lives (actually, we do). We might do more than merely say political poetry expresses feeling like any other poem. Let us not forget the argument a poem makes. Intellect raises a poem to greater mastery when effectively married to emotion.

To my mind, the best of political poems as well as others are those that do in fact unite emotion and argument, as we find in love poems, in poems of spiritual investigation, or any number of topics. Intellect is particularly important to a political poem, which has as its purpose social or historical analysis, critique, even instruction. What, after all, makes a poem political if not its inherent objection to a social wrong, or on the other hand, its promotion of a social good? The objection carries within it a critique, sometimes explicit, sometimes not. And yet, it is often specifically the intellectual argument that is seen as illegitimate to political poetry, the complaint being that it is ideological, didactic, or dogmatic, though obviously a great amount of literature is exempted from this rule. No one, for example, seems to object to Rilke advising that You must change your life. One could easily argue there is an intent of spiritual instruction in The Divine Comedy. Are we allowed to change as individuals but not as society?

There is perhaps a reason for a different standard being applied to political poetry. We do, or ought to, have different expectations of political poetry because the argument the poem makes does matter. Political poems should take us further into society. They should tell us more fully where we are. They should see further into alternatives. In a word, they should do more than arouse feeling, and certainly more than individual romantic feeling, which seems to me the dominate emotion in American poetry today.

Even Matthew Arnolds existential poem, Dover Beach, argues for more. Political poems should arouse communal feeling, and we might hope, communal consciousness. And while T.S. Eliot is not perceived as a great political poet, he often does this, though sometimes by showing us its absence. When Eliot asks, Shall I at least set my lands in order? we have more than an individual complaint, but an acknowledgment of a shattered communal consciousness, as expressed by the following line: London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down. Thomas McGrath, one of our major political poets, was right to point out a certain revolutionary quality in The Waste Land, which is also true of Arnolds earlier poem. There is an inherent intellectual argument in Eliots juxtaposed lines. And while The Waste Land is not a political poem in the sense that it advocates a corrective social system, it does critique the current one, which Eliot sees as private and bleak. Eliot's poem would generally not be considered political, I think, but it does prove a point and define a social need. Even though the poem imagines no alternative to the situation, it clarifies it. We are left with private land while the public bridge is collapsing. This contrast contains an intellectual argument, though it does not indicate how to alter the status quo.

In discussing the place of politics in poetry, Audens famous line in his poem for Yeats is often invoked, poetry makes nothing happen. The assumption is made that Auden is correct, at least as he is interpreted, and so we must agree that poetry does not create change. As recently as spring of 2010 I read an article questioning if poetry generally, not only political poetry, had a purpose, other than to be a con-game, presumedly for the benefit of its author. Such a cynical view would deprive poetry of any capability of initiating change, even on an individual level.

I would argue that Eliots The Waste Land, for example, did change things. It defined a moment. It pointed to our social bankruptcy. It created response. It helped prompt Hart Crane, for example, to write The Bridge, a different bridge than Eliots.

I also think the next line in Audens poem is important to not overlook: [poetry] survives in the valley of its making. We know that the word poet derives from Greek, meaning maker. If poetry is fundamental making or, lets say, creation, the seat of creation, how can it be destroyed or, more important, ignored? It becomes, for Auden, the only legitimate act that matters, because it is the heart of creation. Its perpetual survival means all else must be measured against it. So while poetry makes nothing happen for Auden, it is the measure of all that happens. This is another way of saying, in my view, Blakes line in Milton (Lucifer, the first Eye of God speaking to Milton): The Imagination is not a State: it is human existence itself. Those who maintain that Auden dismissed poetry as unessential to the determination of human history simply have not understood this line. An equivalent argument would be that human beings are unessential to history.

Poet John Haines makes the following comment about Audens line:

It has been said, and it was Auden who said it, in his elegy on W.B. Yeats, that poetry makes nothing happen. And a reasonable person would agree, though if we were to be honest about it we might find it worthwhile to define that nothing and make clearer that other key word happen. It is true, for example, that Goyas series of etchings, The Disasters of War, did not change the nature of warfare, nor did its terrible images diminish the cruelty in human nature. On the other hand, the moral passion in that work, combined with its unclouded vision and skill of hand, did result in a memorable art. And was that nothing? And did nothing happen?

If a single poem, or a single line of poetry, has become lodged in one individuals memory, to be recalled and repeated at an appropriate moment, and has as a consequence changed or enlarged that individuals understanding of existence, and has in some further way educated or intensified his appreciation of values would that be nothing? (32-33).

In John Haines analysis, we have two issues, immediate or consequential political change, on one hand, and change as enlarging of consciousness, this enlarging of awareness possibly even another way of recognizing Audens survival of poetry, a way of happening, which we should understand in contrast to how the dogs of Europe bark toward war and so on. Why is this enlarging of consciousness not change?

Most discussion of politics in poetry seems to frame the question in terms of the first issue: does poetry cause political change in the material world? And yet, how can we separate consciousness from the material world, even if poets are not politicians who decide its daily (and often reckless) course? Thomas McGrath distinguished between strategic and tactical poetry, the latter being an immediate political poem to a specific event or moment. McGrath certainly must have considered that such poems carried the potential to create change, otherwise why write them, as he also certainly understood that they were not intended to last, unlike strategic poetry. McGrath also thought of his long poem, Letter to an Imaginary Friend, as the expansion of consciousness, which he obviously saw as change. As Haines suggests, the right line on the right occasion might well assert those values that originate, ultimately, as Auden, Blake, Shelley and others have either said or implied, in the creative process itself. Again, lets remember that Audens poem contrasts the survival of this creative way with the destructive power of war.

We cannot know if poetrys influence on individuals necessarily translates into promoting collective action, which is the method for political change, but there is no reason it cant either. The (largely tactical, to use McGraths word) anti-war poetry of the sixties certainly made a contribution.

It should not be a controversial proposition that poetry is involved in passing on throughout the ages of humankind continued belief in the human enterprise. Obviously, there is an aspect of this legacy that involves the imagination. The use of imagination to engender a potential outcome in reality is a central purpose of myth (and again, we see Audens insistence upon poetry as making). Since society is largely unconscious of itself, myth is a way of increasing consciousness, and potentially bringing into reality the fulfillment of social needs. Poetry is the continuation of this ancient method and so functions as a measure of where we are and need to be.

And perhaps here we come to something like an answer to the value of political poetry (which is a categorization that is by necessity somewhat arbitrary). Poetry, political or otherwise, is a continuation of the legacy of the imagination, that is, the creative act of being alive. It allows us to see, and feel, differently, beyond the restrictions of current society. Feeling differently, which holds an inherent buried argument, is change. Obviously, the existing power structures do not want change. Still, they cannot avoid it, largely because technology continues to alter the material world (recall the myth of Prometheus), which then reflexively, though not always positively, causes people to perceive differently and alter the relations between themselves.

Poetry, especially political poetry, measures the value of these changes against its primary purpose, which is to bring everything together, to inclusively expand consciousness, to comprehend. This comprehension is change, in perception and feeling. However, without the true masterworks of the past, this legacy would not be possible. Hence, if there is a future for humanity, it rests on the continuation of this legacy, the creation of new masterworks since history changes the material world and those material changes alter our relationship to each other. We cannot skip or break this process.

Even bad poetry might have a role to play, though I sometimes wonder if more damage isnt done by bad political poetry and art than any good that can be obtained by its existence. Still, as Blake has Los say in Jerusalem: each according his Genius. Ive never been fond of the notion, begun by Carolyn Forch, of poetry of witness, which seems too limited, if not too righteous, too detached, that is, a false choice for poetry. I have no objection to witnessing per se, but it seems to me poetry cannot be an outside observer, rather, it must be a participant. It must be part of the Dionysian dance. The stance of witness seems too moralistic and remote.

More important than witnessing, I think, is the expression of "genius, because genius is more than merely any single voice or poem. It is the collective definition of who we are. Genius allows us to see differently. Of course, sorting out what is genius and what isnt can be a problem because there is a cultural war, one side of which wants to maintain the status quo. Still, I dont know how genius cannot involve discovery, new connections, casting our glance forward at the same time we review the past, unlike a destruction-obsessed "angel of history" that Forch invokes rolling up the past in ruin while unable to see the needs of the future.

Political poems are as necessary as any others, and why would they not be? A society that tries to deny political poetry is essentially trying to avoid confronting what it is and where it needs to go, and a poetry esthetic that wants to deny social criticism, as John Haines has said, denies poetrys ethical voice.

I would suggest poetrys ethical voice has its roots in imagination itself. What else will make known who we are to ourselves except artistic communication, and how can art, including poetry, not be central in that endeavor? Poetry may not touch great numbers of people in a given moment, but poetry is the continuation of all moments of consciousness and so its ultimate impact, translated in numerous ways into other arts and arguments, is incalculable throughout time.

The question of politics in poetry is not whether they belong, but is our poetry one of sufficient imagination to tell ourselves where we need to go? Is an apolitical esthetic one that allows poetry to have the greatest imaginative response to our world? Imagination is always pushing against reality, the limitations that seem to be absolute at any given moment in the material world as defined by history. It is partially, anyway, this pushing that determines the political character of poetry. We can debate whether feeling precedes argument, but at some point a cognitive process is aroused, an intellectual recognition, a disturbance of contrast is asserted, which promotes an argument, however basic or brief. This argument says things should be different and it is from this argument that the critical apparatus of a political poem proceeds.

A powerful poem combines the intellect with emotional content to give the poem life. Consider the argument of The Second Coming. Social order falls apart and we awaken to our savagery (or at least the rough beast of ourselves awakens). But the savagery was always there; we were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle (our infant stage?). This beast awakens, but without the pretense of religion, to what its history has really been. That nightmare sleep is over and a new order will be determined by how humanity confronts this ancient violence, stripped of its sleep and now consciously, nakedly, seeing itself for what it has created. The poem doesnt go further, but without this argument, we would not have the power of history expressed in the poem either.

I would suggest that the greater intensity of a poem develops from its intellectual argument, though its language invokes the poems emotional power. The process is not one of which the poet is always conscious because it can be rapid, but pathos devoid of it is also devoid of complexities and power. In this regard, let us give consideration to the argument a political poem makes, from which its feeling, if the poem is successful as language, flows. And let us also acknowledge that poetry does in fact promote change, even if its route to accomplishing that change is not directly measurable. History, after all, is not necessarily linear.

Haines, John. Fables and Distances. St. Paul: Gray Wolf, 1996. Print.

Dale Jacobson

dalejacobson@earthlink.net

http://dalejacobsonpoet.blogspot.in/p/an-argument-for-politics-in-poetry.htmlPolitical poetry does not ask permission

ANDREA ABI-KARAM2 October 2013

While television, advertisements and other manicured media project a shiny, plastic vision of the world, poetry captures harsh oppressive realities without censorship.

We long for the time when we took to the streets. But now, we take those words from the streets and transform our post-occupy political daze into poetry.

Poetrys evasion of mainstream capitalism gives it a unique, charged voice for political expression in the public sphere. Compared to other art forms, books collect dust on shelves while gallery pieces sell for thousands. Poetrys existence outside of economic desire gives it the power of a voice that doesnt seek to please anyone.

I feel like one thing that makes political poetry so impactful is that it doesnt ask permission, says Bay Area poet and activistMaisha Johnson. She continues: A lot of political poetry says: This is my truth, Im not going to wait for anybody to allow me to speak my truth. This is what I need to say Im going to say it.

In her 2003 collectionWhat is Found There: Notebooks on Poetry and Politics,Adrienne Richputs forward the idea that poetry is not a desirable commodity in the United States and that it therefore occupies a space, however small, of unregulated voice. She writes: Precisely because in this nation, created in the search for wealth, [poetry] eludes capitalist marketing, commoditizing, price-fixing poetry has simply been set aside, depreciated, denied public space.

While television, advertisements and other manicured media project a shiny, plastic vision of the world, poetry captures harsh oppressive realities without censorship. By speaking to the unrest of this world not being a truly equal society, Johnson says, political poets do have a pretty strong voice in terms of honesty and realness and being able to challenge things that are sometimes terrifying to challenge: the big systems.

Jacqueline Frost, also a Bay Area poet, adds that poetry, as a form of realism to dispel the weak satisfaction of the status quo is composed, generically speaking, of all these tiny tragedies that are always happening to everyone because the world is so fucked up.

If we think about all of the misinformation that is produced by corporate-controlled mass media, poetry, as Johnson says, is a permeating, honest voice that explicates peoples tragedies. The political power here lies in the realism, the kind of storytelling poetry that emerges from struggle.

Although one cannot place value on the experiences that often become poetry, the crafts position outside the sales racks leads it to suffer from lack of visibility in public space. Theres a deletion of the word going on in public space the maximization of the image and the minimization of text, says Jacqueline Frost. Television, advertisements, and mass-produced media overwhelmingly dominate public space in the USA, while poetry is limited to bookshelves, readings, and the academy.

Poet and activist Wendy Trevino suggests that this unique position allows poetry to address political subjects openly: I think one of the cool things about poetry is that it doesnt get much attention, so sometimes people can say more in poems than they might be able to quote, say or do in other forms of art.

Poetry may not hold much clout in the capitalist arena, but it is invaluable for creativeness and connectedness within the activist community. On an individual level, says Frost, creative expression has an ameliorative or medicinal purpose for the individual mind; its healing in its own capacity, its an outlet for ones own aggression or resentment. Its also cathartic to imagine a world not bound by oppression, but rather by the strength of community and love. People share their work and realize that they are not alone in their experience, that the personal is political. We pass around things to each other; its a way that we bond with each other. Its nice to know that people think about the same things that you think about. It can be glue, you know, adds Trevino.

Beyond a mode of sharing experience, poetry has taken center stage at certain political actions during Occupy Oakland. Poetry readings became celebrations after direct actions. The community solidarity that developed through risk taking and marching in the streets bridges all sorts of artistic fields: it brings people together.

During the occupations [in Oakland] when there would be a building occupied or a library or some space taken or some squat opened, there would be a poetry reading, Frost explains. Really randomly, it was always something everyone engaged with, it was in the meat of what was possible in those moments. To occupy an abandoned library in East Oakland, and then cheer for the poetry reading is pretty funny, she says. A curated reading would not have created the same sense of solidarity as a spontaneous and often illegal poetry reading.

We know that poetry can be powerful, but how can we keep it accessible? In the era of hyper-individualization, the pressure to sell yourself as having unique expertise has resulted in inaccessibility to the field of poetry, since it is limited to those with educational privilege.

Frost believes that while poetry as an art may not generate significant monetary capital, it certainly thrives on social capital of the kind that accumulates around certain people, meaning white men. She goes on: That kind of radically transformative language is not going to come from specialists, people who presently regard themselves as having a certain property of poetry [] all of the academics, and most of the overeducated white people. The problem with exclusivity in an art form that aims to spread realism and political messages is that both the writers and the audiences are limited. Poetry already has a difficult enough time inhabiting public space; it should not be walled up in the ivory tower.

Once we realize that we can open up poetry beyond academia, more people can use it to share their experiences and ideas on how to transform the world. I think my point is that, as people who identify with poetry, we really need to question whether our relationship is a proprietary one, and if that relationship comes at the exclusion of other people having access to poetry, access to transmitting or receiving transformative communications from each other, says Frost.

How can we resist this specialization that takes people away from political organizing? If we want to create a revolutionary discourse, it should be based on our real experiences. I guess my hope for poetry is to destroy the Poet. I would like for there to be no specialization Trevino said, the Poet is a specialized person, they typically have this particular kind of education, they do this one thing, and there are all these people that write poems and do more than just one thing. Once we move beyond the idea that a Poet must have a particular kind of education, we can realize the entire population of poets who are dismissed for not having this education and expand the scope of our audience.

I think there are a lot of people on the streets writing poetry and those poems are often not paid attention to, because [] the Poet is the one teaching in the university and getting attention in the press or whatever, Trevino says. I wish it was more people writing poems, and not just Poets.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/andrea-abi-karam/political-poetry-does-not-ask-permissionHeidegger and the Politics of Poetry

Heideggers politically motivated use of poetry and its relation to currents of modern thought

This volume collects and translates Philippe Lacoue-Labarthes studies of Heidegger, written and revised between 1990 and 2002. All deal with Heideggers relation to politics, specifically through Heideggers interpretations of the poetry of Hlderlin. Lacoue-Labarthe argues that it is through Hlderlin that Heidegger expresses most explicitly his ideas on politics, his nationalism, and the importance of myth in his thinking, all of which point to substantial affinities with National Socialism.

Lacoue-Labarthe not only examines the intellectual background--including Romanticism and German ideology--of Heideggers uses and abuses of poetry, but he also attempts to reestablish the vexed relationship between poetry and philosophy outside the bounds of the Heideggerian reading. He turns to Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno, as well as Paul Celan, arguing for the necessity of poetry as an engagement with history. While Heideggers readings of Hlderlin attempt to appropriate poetry for mythic and political ends, Lacoue-Labarthe insists that poetry and thought can, and must, converge in another way. Jeff Fort provides a precise translation capturing the spirit and clarity of Lacoue-Labarthes writing, as well as an introduction clearly situating the debates addressed in these essays.

"In this wonderful new English translation, Fort provides some of Lacoue-Labarthe's finest thinking and a clear and memorable account of the entire range of this thinking. . . . This volume will soon be appreciated as a substantial advance over the earlier argument. . . . This tour de force in the history of philosophy and literature is not to be missed. . . . Highly recommended."Choice

Lacoue-Labarthes approach to Heidegger is unique in that he combines devastating criticism with an appreciation of the immense importance Heideggers thought still has for the future of philosophy.--Southern Humanities ReviewPhilippe Lacoue-Labartheis the professor emeritus of philos-ophy and aesthetics at the University of Strasbourg. Five of his books have been previously translated into English, includingTypography and Poetry as Experience.Jeff Forts previous translations include Jacques DerridasFor What Tomorrow . . .and Jean GenetsThe Declared Enemy.