The American Spectator : Poets and Capitalism

Text Size

Poets and Capitalism

By Micah Mattix on 2.27.12 @ 6:07AM

A mismatch made in democracy heaven.

What is it with poets and capitalism? The two, it seems, are like oil and water.

At the end of last year, Alice Oswald and John Kinsella withdrew their respective books from consideration for the T.S. Eliot Prize because the £15,000 award was being underwritten by Aurum Fund Management. Oswald suggested that it is unethical for a literary prize to be sponsored by an investment firm that manages hedge funds. As an "anti-capitalist," he stated, "Aurum does not sit with my personal politics and ethics."

This is not an isolated instance. From writing against "Reaganomics" to supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests, contemporary poets seem generally predisposed against capitalism. What's going on here?

In The Matter of Capital: Poetry and Crisis in the American Century (Harvard, 2011), Christopher Nealon explains that many 20th century poets -- particularly American -- have spoken out against capitalism because of their fear that capitalism causes cultural homogeneity and political and economic turmoil. Nealon's understanding of changes in the American economy in the second half of the 20th century is overly ideological, but he is right that the poetry of this period was (and continues to be) preoccupied with capitalism.

No doubt many poets believe that capitalism leads to both homogeneity and instability, and the best among them subtly critique the consumerism and excess that one finds in all affluent societies, America in particular. Wendell Berry's agrarianism and Philip Levine's "portraits" of the working class suggest that we have lost something of the relational aspect of work. This critique of capitalism -- or the excesses of industrialization -- is worth hearing, whether or not one agrees that capitalism itself is to blame. It is constructive, free of shrill, and generous.

But there are two further responses to capitalism in contemporary poetry that are less constructive and effective, both of which are rooted in the idea that capitalism has spoiled poetry's audience by encouraging the objectification of all things, including people and works of art.

One of those responses has been for poets to create poems that rail against hierarchy and morality in an effort to free their audience from the shackles of the great capitalistic machine. The form of these poems is usually highly experimental, using repetition and fragmentation, along with taboo subject matter, to supposedly create a poem that both resists commodification and shocks the middle-class into seeing that property ownership, marital fidelity, proper grammar, and so forth are all constructs that restrict personal and, importantly for poets, aesthetic freedom.

Allen Ginsberg's famous long poem, "Howl," is a case in point. In the poem, Ginsberg laments the destruction of the "best minds of our generation" by "Moloch." In his own annotation in the poem, Ginsberg defines Moloch as "the Cannaanite fire god, whose worship was marked by parents' burning their children as proprietary sacrifice." The use of absurd images and obscenity is intended to shock Ginsberg's audience into seeing the oppression all around them. He explained to William F. Buckley in a 1968 interview when he was asked not to use any "dirty words" on the show why such a request presents a "moral problem":

There's a political function to the language of everyday use. The language we actually speak to each other off the air. There's a communication that's involved, and there a classical use of all sorts of what we call "off color" words in art, as well as images. So our problem here, or what I've been proposed with, is having in a sense to censor my thought patterns.

For Ginsberg it is the poet's duty to break such censorship.

If Ginsberg's poetry, while often obscene, is rarely if ever vitriolic, later poets have unfortunately supplied more than enough. Much of Amiri Baraka's later work is one long tirade against Jews, and June Jordan and Haunani-Kay Trask's work is little more than a rant against whatever (and whomever) they think are the tools of a fictional, but nevertheless oppressive, God. These condescendingly mock or berate the middle-class rather than free them. And since few people willingly expose themselves to derision, it is no surprise that these volumes are met with general disinterest, which, for certain poets, is only further proof of the slavery or the simple-minded boorishness of the middle-class.

A second response has been for poets to no longer write for a general audience but for their fellow poets and kindred spirits alone. Paul Goodman was the first to suggest this in his 1951 article "Advance-Guard Writing." The problem for the avant-garde writer, Goodman states, is that he has internalized societal conflict and re-presented it in his work, which is rejected by his audience and sanctioned. The communal aspect of art has been broken, and what Goodman proposes is that poets stop writing for a general audience and reestablish a "plausible" audience of peers.

The so-called "New York School" of poets -- John Ashbery, Frank O'Hara, Kenneth Koch -- followed this advice, at least in part. While O'Hara in particular established a community of readers through his use of names and personal anecdotes that lack sufficient context in the poems for comprehension, later poets have turned to the jargon of critical theory as a shared vocabulary, which, combined with the great number of poetry books published today in order to fuel burgeoning MFA programs, has made contemporary poetry a coterie art.

So we have two responses to what poets perceive to be capitalism's destruction of the poet's relationship to his audience that add to, or in some instances completely accomplish, that destruction. It is an extraordinary example of wish fulfillment.

Is the secret hope of poets that capitalism will fall and a new order will rise in which they are valued? Czeslaw Milosz points out in The Captive Mind, which was first published 59 years ago, that this was the proposal offered to artists in Poland and other (now formerly) Eastern Bloc countries in return for their support of the Kremlin. "The intellectual's eyes twinkle," Milosz writes,

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Micah Mattix is an assistant professor of literature at Houston Baptist University.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (45) | Leave a comment

Hal G. P. Colebatch| 2.27.12 @ 8:19AM

The irony is that T. S. Eliot was a bank-manager and company direcor.

cuban pete| 2.27.12 @ 9:08AM

Wallace Stevens was the vice president of an insurance company.

Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 9:54AM

"The irony is that T. S. Eliot was a bank-manager and company direcor."

All the more reason to refuse the funds.
Amiri Baraka shouldn't tirade against Jews but you can tirade against Islamics?

Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 9:59AM

"All the more reason to refuse the funds."

I mean, refuse consideration.

Peppermint Tea| 2.27.12 @ 9:30AM

The role of the poet should be:

To paint with words such thoughts words cannot speak;
and thus enjoy the spiritual technique.
Their words need not be erudite;
Just give us William Shakespeare Lite.

Joe Gause| 2.27.12 @ 4:38PM

Right on, Peppermint!

Gary B| 2.27.12 @ 8:03PM

I second that.

Sertorius| 2.28.12 @ 2:51PM

Your little verse is marvelous. Did you write it yourself?

Ground Control| 2.27.12 @ 9:37AM

Poets are like songwriters. Just because someone can put words to rhyme and metre, does not mean what he has to say is of any significance, nor is this skill evidence of higher intelligence. The audience generally mistakes the form of poetry (and song) for substance. Poets hate capitalism because they don't understand the alternative, despite over 100 years of its history, much of it on film.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 2.27.12 @ 9:54AM

I can't stand reading poetry, I really can't, and after reading (or should I say attempting to read) this article, I realize that I can't read an article about poetry either (I completely zoned out in the middle of it)!! So if the Government is funding poetry (and they probably are), that's got to stop, and it's got to stop now!! This is just like art, or musicians, or dancing, these are pastimes and don't deserve one dollar of Taxpayer's money!! If you want to try to earn a living this way, good for you, but don't complain when you find yourself amongst the poor, and don't come asking me to pay for you to read a poem while your dancing about and playing your painted guitar!! Get a real job, and do this crap on your weekends!!

Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 10:01AM

Yeah, bad ol' guvmint:
that is why an expensive govt. airport was named after the Gipper.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 2.27.12 @ 10:23AM

Ummm, what? Was that a poem or something Alan? I didn't get it (I zoned out in the middle again)!!

Jacob R| 2.27.12 @ 9:49PM

You're wielding your stupidity against us.

You must realize how ridiculous you sound when you try to ridicule poetry itself. What's next? Physics?

R is for Ridiculous| 2.27.12 @ 10:08PM

Any pansy could be a poet. You must Realize that includes even Ridiculous Retards such as you and Alan and Riff Raff and other commentators here who are effortless objects of Ridicule.

cuban pete| 2.27.12 @ 10:45AM

I flew out of Reagan last week. The statue at the entrance is magnificent.
To paraphrase the Steve Martin character in "Planes, Trains and Automobiles"- it would be great if you posts had a point. That would make them so much more interesting for the reader.

Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 11:07AM

"I flew out of Reagan last week. The statue at the entrance is magnificent."

Was the magnificent (expensive) statue funded by private sources?

Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 11:10AM

"I didn't get it (I zoned out in the middle again)"

Then do not drink this early in the day. You cons and your alcohol!

Ground Control| 2.27.12 @ 12:02PM

You libs and your LSD!

Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 8:10PM

So we are all inebriants, eh?

Ground Control| 2.27.12 @ 12:09PM

You libs worship government like the the Israelites worshipped the Golden Calf in the desert. They turned their backs on God and worshipped the Golden Calf because the calf was the creation of their own hands, in essence the Israelites worshipped their own egos, just like Democrats do through the creation of their own hands: government. And the bigger government is, the more it is to be worshipped. Idolater.

phil| 2.27.12 @ 4:37PM

God is a poet...

Riff Raff| 2.27.12 @ 7:45PM

Non sequitur.

Tom| 2.27.12 @ 11:54AM

When Robert Frost died, so did American poetry.

Ground Control| 2.27.12 @ 12:03PM

Old poets never die, they just walk away on little cat feet.

Franco| 2.27.12 @ 12:19PM

"In The Matter of Capital: Poetry and Crisis in the American Century (Harvard, 2011), Christopher Nealon explains that many 20th century poets -- particularly American -- have spoken out against capitalism because of their fear that capitalism causes cultural homogeneity and political and economic turmoil. "

Horseshit. "Many 20th century poets" have spoken out against capitalism because they resent having to go out and get a day job.

J.C.Eaton| 2.27.12 @ 12:22PM

I thought Mr. Burnsides little remark captured nicely, poetry's reason to have place at the artistic table. Great poetry makes us think deeply; teaches appreciation for wondrous use of language,and communicates in an innovative and provocative way. As exempliied by most of Shakespeare's stuff. Lesser poetry causes the same results to less satisfying degree. Virtually all contemporary poetry is and will remain: tedious and tendentious nonsense.Nonetheless, a capitalistic and reasonably free society facilitates its' production and it's there if ya want it.The squawkers in this column are just vexed because current consuers are are too sensible to want very much of it.

Richard| 2.27.12 @ 12:42PM

"Poetry" is merely stream of consciousness emoting of degenerate individuals--can you think of more disgusting individuals than Allen Ginsburg or Maya Angelou? "Howl" should be renamed "Foul--It is I".

Dave Williams| 2.27.12 @ 1:15PM

Poets are poets because they are defective at linear, logical thinking, and therefore ipso facto leftists. We should be grateful for their works, which can affect us as nothing else can; we should also be grateful that they were, are, and always will be a very small minority, unable to influence politics and policy in any meaningful way.

phil| 2.27.12 @ 1:26PM

I think you over generalize...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLT-1zpWEPU

Petronius| 2.27.12 @ 2:53PM

There are two types of poets aside from advertizing jingle writers. There's the English teacher who tries to find his/her "voice". And there are the Ginsbergs who employ it as a weapon against social conventions and behavioral standards they deplore, (P.J. O'Rourk's poopoo head shouters.) Their #1 gripe is always the same. Reality bites, and that hurts. BTDT. Long passed time to grow up. Coffee house slams won't pay the light bill.

phil| 2.27.12 @ 3:03PM

The fact that the prosaic, linear-thinking, propostion-oriented slice of society feels empowered to dis poetry merely because they are incapable of producing it or, perhaps, understanding it does not reduce it's power or impact. Some of you folks don't get out much.

Ground Control| 2.27.12 @ 3:24PM

This of course misses the point. It is not that some of us "dis" poetry because we can't produce it, it is that poets ascribe to themselves a position of superiority just because they can write poetry.

phil| 2.27.12 @ 4:01PM

This, of course, is the point. And I certainly regret your obvious insecurity. But poets don't write to make you feel insecure any more than you do to make them.

Ground Control| 2.27.12 @ 5:25PM

Attempting (feebly I might add) to psychoanalyze me by calling me "insecure" evades the issue by changing the subject. Saying it is "obvious" adds no support to your vacuous claim.

Avidyananda| 2.27.12 @ 5:40PM

I have long thought that I have seen many of the best minds of my generation (I was born in 1946) influenced by this strange, distorted man. I remember reading of a debate Ginsburg had with a former liberal who later became a major conservative intellectual..."We'll get you through your children!" Can anyone find this quote?

Alan Brooks| 2.27.12 @ 6:49PM

The Chinese got you, not your children!
The Chinese own your keisters- you are renters, not landlords.

Riff Raff| 2.27.12 @ 7:44PM

The Chinese bought Bill Clinton over 25 years ago. The rest just follows.

Slappy Roosevelt| 2.28.12 @ 9:03PM

I thought we were renting from the Japanese.

dcm| 2.27.12 @ 6:53PM

Poetry has very low barriers to entry: pen and paper. If you don't like the poets or poems out there, don't just whine about grab a pen and write odes to the wealth of nations.

POST American| 2.27.12 @ 10:59PM

IMPORTANT to remember,
back in ancient Greece, 'Play-dough'
himself stated poets would have to
be banned from his 'I-D--all'
EUGENIC society.

We are STILL dealing with play dough
and its ID---alls.

Surely, there's NO ONE out there
who would even dare make a ghost
of a case that culture (art, music,
literature, human society) has 'evolved'
since the foundations got into the business
of stealth degradation in the name of
'funk--shun--ality'.

Consider the ordinary middle class
man of a century ago ---he lived in a
literate society, a thriving and
multi-dimensional musical society
--and had a living body of
spiritual culture and poetry to relate to.

Our franchise slum, wampum and porn
society is 'better' than it was
a century ago? ---NO WAY.

You will notice every step of our
capstone contrived 'modernism'
has been about ---subtracting first
the spiritual element ---then the
gender --then the human itself.

We NOW inhabit a franchise slum
Skinner box with lots of sports n' porn
----and NO EXITs.

"Remember, B F Skinner put his OWN daughter
in a cage to study her ----and GOT AWAY WITH IT."

TRUE

The good news is, throughout history,
the ordinary, the good people ALWAYS
wake up to the 'age-enda' ---and then it's
hell to pay for the play dough boys.

-------------HUAC/ NUREMBERG 2012--------------

susan| 2.29.12 @ 2:11PM

love it!!!! this needed yo be said. Thank you.

Richard Baker| 2.28.12 @ 9:43PM

So these "poets" must obviously refuse the proceeds of the capitalist sales of their books of verse, correct?

Hw pellinen| 2.28.12 @ 10:24PM

No comments from poets or followers thereof from the former USSR? "Moloch" and forced conformity, they know a hell of a lot better than Ginsburg and his quasi-intellectual progeny. And they write better poetry.