(Ginsberg, a Whitmanian poet to be sure, as Uncle Sam: He too understood something about America "I've seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked")Whitman's America is not our America, or maybe, maybe she is ours too. Whitman has in "A Song For Occupations" these lines, that perhaps show us what he believes of his America:
The President is up there in the White House for you....it is not you who are here for him
The Secretaries act in their bureaus for you....not you here for them
The Congress convenes every December for you,
Laws, courts, the forming of states, the charters of cities, the going and coming of commerce and mails are all for you.(48)
In short, i cannot, and do not believe in Whitman's America, and that makes me sad. I can no longer believe that the President is up there in the White House for me, or that any mechanism of our confounded bureaucracy meets for my benefit.
Before i get on a soap box too much i have to say that, i think, in some ways, Whitman stopped believing in his America too. Three entries from Specimen Days show light onto Whitman's thoughts on politics. First is the Inauguration Ball. In this entry Whitman compares the opposite scenes of the setting for the Ball and the wounded brought in from the second Bull Run. He gives us only a brief look at the ball, talking about pretty women and perfumes, but goes into detail on the sights and smells and sounds of those wounded in battle. This brief passage certainly shows us that Whitman is an ardent observer and has ease at description. But there is not much opinion in this section. However the juxtaposition of the images of leisure with the gruesome realities of war give enough of a statement. Whitman's connection that there is so much for surgeon and nurse to do that while they are busy helping people that some mother's sons pass away unintended, give us a thought of liesure with disgust. How can people be waltzing and drinking while men are dying and screaming, marred by a war for thier respective countries? Perhaps this is a first look at Whitman's realizing of the truth about America.
Second comes the entry "President Hayes's Speeches" . It is actually a line from about the middle of this passage that gets me thinking about how Whitman may feel:
"I hear [the speeches] criticised as wanting in dignity, but to me they are just what they should be, considering all the circumstances, who they come from, and who they are address'd to. Underneath, his objects are to compact and fraternize the States, encourage their materialistic and industrial development, soothe and expand their self-poise, and tie all and each with resistless double ties not only of inter-trade barter, but human comradeship."
Whitman also states that the speeches are "on easy topics not too deep" and that some would call the speeches "ephemeral". So it comes to me that, if they are very surface level speeches that some would say lack dignity and the ability to last what is the point? Why would Walt think they were exactly what they should be? What is the import of thier style and substance. Clearly Walt wants these speeches to connect America again. to soothe an America that had just gone through a civil war. But thinking that these, perhaps superficial, speeches are what America needs? It seems to me that that is not the same Whitman who seemed to have unlimited faith in people, in the American people. Certainly the Civil War would have changed anyone's ideas, but there is an echo of a loss of faith in the average American. It also seems that Whitman doesn't care much for Hayes, but with his emotion toward Lincoln well known, it is no wonder he would not care for Hayes.
For me the last nail in the coffin is one of the last entries of Specimen Days: "Nature and Democracy - Morality". Walt talks about how Democracy needs nature, or as Marcus Aurelius put it, the morality of nature. Walt states that he "conceive[s] of no flourishing and heroic elements of Democracy in the United States, or of Democracy maintaining itself at all, without the Nature-element forming a main part". Though this is very abstract it seems to me that Walt is calling for Democracy to maintain elements of nature that are beautiful and elegant. Peace, compassion and perhaps humanity. Nature can be violent and brutal but Walt's nature, as expressed through much of his poetry, is always one of beauty, always a nature of the loafer and leaner, the grass connects us all; connects every person. Walt does not see that Democracy will be successful unless it understands these concepts, and embraces them, and he is right.
Most of me wants to delete this post and start over. But this is an informal space to make these posts right? We can understand that Whitman knows of all the ugly aspects of America as well as the good. But he also seemed to know the difference in what was good about America and what wasn't. He did not drastically change the lines from "A Song for Occupations" which goes to show how much faith Whitman had in this land, even after the loss of Lincoln, even after the Civil War. These lines show faith in politicians before "politician" became a bad word. It shows faith that we as a country were building towards something.
I can only hope that one day i can see America as it was through Whitman's eyes. With hope and understanding.
P.S.
If your wondering why i am disillusioned here are some links: Our 1st Amendment rights down the drain, Legislation relying on the denial of basic human rights, and Homeland Security spying on peaceful protesters. But you are probably not wondering. Whitman tried to change this country with his poetry, and, as we will see, he did make change in places. But this needs to happen more often. We, as students of the word, are not powerless.
It is our solemn duty to ensure that the future of this country will not be brutal, unfair, and destructive of her people. We should turn our skills of analysis upon those who govern us, and our skills of rhetoric and compassion to battle their brutalities. A quote of Edward Said inspires me constantly. When people ask me what my B.A. in English Lit will be worth i think of this. When people underestimate the importance of what we do i think of this. And when i wonder what is neccesary for us to change this world we live in i think of this:
"Very well: if what i have been saying has any validity, then the politics of interpretation demands a dialectical response from a critical consciousness worthy of its name. Instead of noninterference and specialization, there must be interference, a crossing of borders and obstacles, a determined attempt to generalize exactly at those points where generalizations seem impossible to make. One of the first interferences to be ventured, then, is a crossing from literature, which is supposed to be subjective and powerless, into those realms, now covered by journalism and the production of information, that employ representation but are supposed to be objective and powerful." -Edward Said
The Secretaries act in their bureaus for you....not you here for them
The Congress convenes every December for you,
Laws, courts, the forming of states, the charters of cities, the going and coming of commerce and mails are all for you.(48)
In short, i cannot, and do not believe in Whitman's America, and that makes me sad. I can no longer believe that the President is up there in the White House for me, or that any mechanism of our confounded bureaucracy meets for my benefit.
Before i get on a soap box too much i have to say that, i think, in some ways, Whitman stopped believing in his America too. Three entries from Specimen Days show light onto Whitman's thoughts on politics. First is the Inauguration Ball. In this entry Whitman compares the opposite scenes of the setting for the Ball and the wounded brought in from the second Bull Run. He gives us only a brief look at the ball, talking about pretty women and perfumes, but goes into detail on the sights and smells and sounds of those wounded in battle. This brief passage certainly shows us that Whitman is an ardent observer and has ease at description. But there is not much opinion in this section. However the juxtaposition of the images of leisure with the gruesome realities of war give enough of a statement. Whitman's connection that there is so much for surgeon and nurse to do that while they are busy helping people that some mother's sons pass away unintended, give us a thought of liesure with disgust. How can people be waltzing and drinking while men are dying and screaming, marred by a war for thier respective countries? Perhaps this is a first look at Whitman's realizing of the truth about America.
Second comes the entry "President Hayes's Speeches" . It is actually a line from about the middle of this passage that gets me thinking about how Whitman may feel:
"I hear [the speeches] criticised as wanting in dignity, but to me they are just what they should be, considering all the circumstances, who they come from, and who they are address'd to. Underneath, his objects are to compact and fraternize the States, encourage their materialistic and industrial development, soothe and expand their self-poise, and tie all and each with resistless double ties not only of inter-trade barter, but human comradeship."
Whitman also states that the speeches are "on easy topics not too deep" and that some would call the speeches "ephemeral". So it comes to me that, if they are very surface level speeches that some would say lack dignity and the ability to last what is the point? Why would Walt think they were exactly what they should be? What is the import of thier style and substance. Clearly Walt wants these speeches to connect America again. to soothe an America that had just gone through a civil war. But thinking that these, perhaps superficial, speeches are what America needs? It seems to me that that is not the same Whitman who seemed to have unlimited faith in people, in the American people. Certainly the Civil War would have changed anyone's ideas, but there is an echo of a loss of faith in the average American. It also seems that Whitman doesn't care much for Hayes, but with his emotion toward Lincoln well known, it is no wonder he would not care for Hayes.
For me the last nail in the coffin is one of the last entries of Specimen Days: "Nature and Democracy - Morality". Walt talks about how Democracy needs nature, or as Marcus Aurelius put it, the morality of nature. Walt states that he "conceive[s] of no flourishing and heroic elements of Democracy in the United States, or of Democracy maintaining itself at all, without the Nature-element forming a main part". Though this is very abstract it seems to me that Walt is calling for Democracy to maintain elements of nature that are beautiful and elegant. Peace, compassion and perhaps humanity. Nature can be violent and brutal but Walt's nature, as expressed through much of his poetry, is always one of beauty, always a nature of the loafer and leaner, the grass connects us all; connects every person. Walt does not see that Democracy will be successful unless it understands these concepts, and embraces them, and he is right.
Most of me wants to delete this post and start over. But this is an informal space to make these posts right? We can understand that Whitman knows of all the ugly aspects of America as well as the good. But he also seemed to know the difference in what was good about America and what wasn't. He did not drastically change the lines from "A Song for Occupations" which goes to show how much faith Whitman had in this land, even after the loss of Lincoln, even after the Civil War. These lines show faith in politicians before "politician" became a bad word. It shows faith that we as a country were building towards something.
I can only hope that one day i can see America as it was through Whitman's eyes. With hope and understanding.
P.S.
If your wondering why i am disillusioned here are some links: Our 1st Amendment rights down the drain, Legislation relying on the denial of basic human rights, and Homeland Security spying on peaceful protesters. But you are probably not wondering. Whitman tried to change this country with his poetry, and, as we will see, he did make change in places. But this needs to happen more often. We, as students of the word, are not powerless.
It is our solemn duty to ensure that the future of this country will not be brutal, unfair, and destructive of her people. We should turn our skills of analysis upon those who govern us, and our skills of rhetoric and compassion to battle their brutalities. A quote of Edward Said inspires me constantly. When people ask me what my B.A. in English Lit will be worth i think of this. When people underestimate the importance of what we do i think of this. And when i wonder what is neccesary for us to change this world we live in i think of this:
"Very well: if what i have been saying has any validity, then the politics of interpretation demands a dialectical response from a critical consciousness worthy of its name. Instead of noninterference and specialization, there must be interference, a crossing of borders and obstacles, a determined attempt to generalize exactly at those points where generalizations seem impossible to make. One of the first interferences to be ventured, then, is a crossing from literature, which is supposed to be subjective and powerless, into those realms, now covered by journalism and the production of information, that employ representation but are supposed to be objective and powerful." -Edward Said
(I had to put this comment in multiple parts because I got a warning that said "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters". Up yours, Blogger!)
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I'm glad that you resisted the impulse to delete this post because I think it's important to be able to see the evolution of one's thoughts (I also certainly appreciated seeing how you think!). Moreover, a blog entry that includes questions or moments of confusion is authentic and real (maybe it's just me, but I really value that raw honesty).
Next, I, too, don't believe in the America of Whitman's "A Song for Occupations" because of the things discussed in the articles you provided links for. The things that have happened, the things that are happening, and the things that have been happening, are so discouraging.
You pointed to Whitman's own simmering awareness of a dysfunctional America in 3 of his SD entries. (He clearly smelled the bullshit, too.) At this point, I question why he kept those lines when they didn't, and don't, accurately reflect the way America 'is'. Hm...
Well, it's not as if you needed any more reasons to be disillusioned, but I'd like to point to a recent article on partisan politics and how it is driving out people who refuse to follow narrow party ideologies: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/opinion/avlon-snowe-partisanship/.
After reading that article I couldn't help but despair. Politicians willing to open up lines of communication, politicians who try and maintain the "peace, compassion and humanity" that you blogged about are being singled out and pushed out. Worse yet, some are just leaving of their own volition.
And now I think I can understand exactly why the words of people like Whitman are so important. On the one hand, I could choose to say that Whitman had some serious vision problems and put out those lines you referenced in some blind act of post-9/11-esque 'patriotism'. I could accuse him of being some idealist who imagined everyone running in a field, holding hands, and singing 'Kumbaya' when the world was, in reality, burning. But that wouldn't be right (as his awareness of the juxtaposed images of the ball and the wounded soldiers reveals). He wasn't trying to paint some clean and simple images over festering wounds.
ReplyDeleteIn a way I think he was, as we are now, somewhat tormented by the ability to envision a robust America in full health, and yet at the same time, see only the reality of an emaciated America, starved and desolate. But instead of trying to bring about change by listing out all of the horrors or angrily denouncing politicians and bystanders, he chose to keep those lines so that they would serve as a beacon, probing into the hearts and minds of readers and reminding them that while there is a place for disappointment and anger, there is also a greater place for hopes and dreams. We shouldn't ever be afraid to/too disillusioned to stop demanding that people in office remember who they are there for, and perhaps more importantly, who they themselves are. In my mind, the brilliance of "A Song for Occupations" is that Whitman holds up people, the individual, and shows that they are not their 'position', their 'title', their 'job', the 'tools of their trade'. I'd argue that he saw that the source of injustices lies in our forgetting who we ourselves are, and who others around us are. We forget who we are to one another, what we owe to one another. Bureaucracy encourages distance and disconnection, encourages us to see ourselves as tiny constituents and those in office as separate, higher entities. But that, according to Whitman, is not actually so. And as long as there are people who keep forgetting, or deliberately refusing to remember, those who are willing to be aware cannot drop out of office, cannot refuse to get involved; instead, we must continue to be the people who use machetes to cut through red tape. (Yes, I stole that line straight from Cake... the band, not the dessert, haha).
What does this all mean? Um... that I shouldn't try discussing politics and Whitman before I've had breakfast! =)
Again, another GREAT post. It has given me a lot to think about!
Lastly, are you in the Ginsberg teaching group? If so, I'm definitely looking forward to learning more about his understanding of America and what he hoped for this country and its people.
I really enjoyed you're comments. It was a wierd hard post to make because it's hard to remain objective when you are upset about something.
DeleteI think you are definitely right about Whitman. I almost used the line "he's not the poet America deserves but the poet America needs" (taken from the dark knight lol). But really it is kind of true. Whitman's poetry has that edge of positivity and in his goal to encompass everything he shows un-ending compassion. Perhaps as you were saying those lines weren't meant to show hope about Politicians but instead show how they should be and how they should remember they are here for us.
Thank you very much for the feedback and feel free to comment on politics before breakfast at any time. I like you're article and it makes a lot of sense. Politicians in this country are very bi-partisan but i think that the issue is maybe a larger one that our economy is tied to much into the economy and legislation that promotes the oligarchy.
Very cool that we could have this dialogue and i look forward to your next post!