Poetry and public speech: three traces

Poetry is routinely seen as ‘marginal’ to public culture, especially in terms of it having lost its status as a form of public speech. Such a condition is often noted in nostalgic terms, in which a golden era—bardic or journalistic—is evoked to illustrate contemporary poetry’s lack. But traces of poetry’s instrumentality, especially as a form of public speech, can be found in various extra-poetic contexts.

In this article, three examples of poetry operating in ‘extra-poetic contexts’ will illustrate the different, sometimes troubling, ways in which traces of poetry as a mode of public speech can be observed in contemporary culture: the poem-cartoons of Michael Leunig; the role of the poet Les Murray in the drafting of a proposed preamble to the Constitution of Australia; and the quotation of William Ernest Henley’s ‘Invictus’ as the final statement of Timothy McVeigh (the ‘Ohio Bomber’) prior to his execution.

These examples illustrate that poetry-as-public-speech engages with political discourse in diverse, incommensurate ways. Leunig’s occasional cartoon-poems, appearing in the metropolitan press, are examples of poetry at its most public and politically engaged state. And yet, even Leunig’s most ‘political’ work gestures towards a realm beyond politics, where the poetic, the comic, and the existential coexist as a way of making life in the political realm more bearable. Les Murray’s role as a ‘national’ poet in the failed attempt to introduce a preamble to the Australian Constitution illustrates the vestigial role that poets can play in nation building. Lastly, McVeigh’s quotation of Henley, made without any explanation, shows the unpredictable and potentially volatile condition of poetry-as-public-speech. In addition, the examples variously engage in arguments about the relationship between the individual and the state, private identity and national history.

Literature as activism: interrogating the 21st century demise of the Arendtian political public sphere

This article explores Don DeLillo's literary activism through Arendtian perspectives to investigate what the demise of literature's relevance, specifically in a political context, may mean in the current era of an increasingly complex and conflicting 'web of human relationships'.  In that it is accepted that narrative has a particular ability to reveal insights as prelinguistic elements that are distinct from all we are able to access through our limited human perceptions, it remarks the Lacanian paradox that if being is in excess of language, then language is the medium by which this is accessed in the world. For DeLillo, writers may be under threat in a dynamic but destabilizing era, their art superceded by technology and fundamentalist terrorism, however, as suggested in Mao II, this renders the writer all the more necessary.  It is at the point at which the writer has nothing to say or is under duress to say noting, that a human crisis is reached. I ask, do current forms of political pressure to censure literature constitute a further diminishing of the Arendtian political public domain in which speech as action has primacy?