Can poetry be political?

18 januari 2006 A major portion of the discussion at the Goethe Institut revolved around the question of poetry as a weapon in some struggle, violent or otherwise. As I noted before, this question marks a major divide between opinions on poetry and art in general held in the Western world and in other parts of the world loosely coinciding with what has come to be know as the “Third World”. Maarten Asscher, our moderator, observes that any use of language, including a poem, by virtue of having some objective, is of necessity political. It appears from the ensuing discussion that most participants agree on poetry being in some sense political, or at least having some intention to move or persuade, but that which makes it poetry is always some intrinsic poetic quality which has no relation to any purpose or goal. Yeats’s September 13 is a great poem quite apart from its ability to stir nationalistic sentiment. Joseph Woods argues that all poetry is sexual, religious, political, or anything that moves people or societies, whereas K. Michel points out that poetry is always something more than any of these things, and that “something more” happens to be poetry.
By and large, despite a fair amount of official effort in the Western world to support and foster the art of poetry, its social status seems to be declining, as opposed to that of prose. Is it because the almost universal use of free verse has eroded the distinction between poetry, as a partly musical art, and prose? Lars Hermansson speaks about the need for constant renewal in artistic expression. Many people dismiss modern poetry as they do modern art, as irregular rubbish. There is a serious danger in taking International Free Verse for granted as the language of poetry. Festivals look for poets that are “invitable”, that is, translatable and accessible, but these are not necessarily criteria for quality.
The question arises whether there are any do’s and don’ts in poetry. Maarten Asscher says he wouldn’t trust any hard and fast rule. Lars Hermansson suggests: don’t write pamphlets. And a general Western poetic do would be: Do write free verse about some casual experience.
Providing the starkest possible contrast to this laid-back, art-for-art’s-sake Western concept of poetry, the Indonesian poet Taufiq Ismail joins the argument by quoting the case of the mid-19th century Achinese poet Chik Pantee Kulu, who wrote a 2000-line epic entitled Hikayat Prang Sabi, which became hugely popular and inspired the Achinese struggle against Dutch colonial rule. Parts of it were actually read to Achinese fighters before they went into battle. Forty years on, the poem’s appeal was still strong enough to hearten the Achinese in their next struggle, against the Japanese invaders.
At this point, Arnolda Jagersma voices a moral dilemma often perplexing our aesthetic judgement of a work of art. Can a poem which inspires the shedding of blood be a good poem? Is the poem good if the blood is shed in a good cause? Is there something intrinsically wrong with writing exhortative verse? Taufiq Ismail has no such qualms. “If you do it right, it’s O.K.,” he says. However, he adds, Chik Pantee Kulu did not write his epic for the express purpose of stirring up anticolonial sentiment. He finished it many years before it came to serve that purpose.
Taufiq Ismail speaks about his involvement in Indonesia’s Communist Party. He regrets the “sloganism”, which did much to destroy the beauty of the Indonesian language. The Communists turned against poets and writers and, at the height of their power, even pressured the government into banning books. For a further account of the round-table discussion, click on the subjects below:

What is good poetry?
Poetry: a bad influence?
Is popularity the mark of bad poetry?
Poetry and the internet

Participants