An atheist, materialist, anticapitalist poetry that trusts no one, not even itself? What kind of cultural capital does poetry have? How is that capital distributed and redistributed? And how does the distribution of that capital relate to the distribution or redistribution of any other kind of capital?
A friend was telling with proper pride that her daughter was long-listed for the National Poetry Prize. The Poetry Society publish the names of the winners, the commended and the ~180 long-listed poets out of about 20,000 entries. So pretty darn good; among the 1%.
But, annoyingly, it triggered me. I have entered several poetry competitions recently (though not that one, it turns out). What I said after”Well done to her,” was, “I hadn’t known the outcome. I didn’t make it.” I forgot that competition wasn’t one I entered. Organisers publish the names of the winners, like an old-school “public” exam. The results are pinned to a board for all to read. What stung was then she said, “Oh, I didn’t know it was a prize just anyone could enter.” So, though I think of myself as big enough and ugly enough, I felt a public humiliation: “just anyone.” No podium finish. I failed to engage fully in her admirable pride in her daughter’s achievement. And I know I am inclined to boast about my kids. So, I say to myself, “Not good enough.”
Which brings me to a point: what does it mean to be “good” at something – maybe particularly artistic things? By what criteria are activities valued? I am beginning to understand the difference between deontological criteria and utilitarian criteria (Thank you Hugh Warwick), and have a sense that there must be third category. Could an act adhere to no rule and be of benefit to no one and yet still be “good” or valued? Is this just the vast slush pond of situation ethics? Or, the prosodic rules of modernist poetry? Am I utilitarian only so far as I can see? Deontic only so far as I have read? I believe that’s where we all are, from the greatest oligarch or artist on up (or down).
- So far as I can see: although the people nearest me are comfortable for now with positive opportunity, not very far away there are many, many more whose lives are truly precarious.
- And, so far as I have read: from each according to their ability and to each according to their need, I know the inequity in the distribution of global wealth in all its forms and the need for it to be redistributed or spread much more widely.
So, what kind of cultural capital – weight, impact, use – does poetry have? How is that capital distributed and redistributed? And how does the distribution of that capital relate to the distribution or redistribution of any other kind of capital:
- economic capital (money, factories, oil, land, mines),
- social capital (family, friends, clubs, networks of influence),
- cultural capital (religion, education, the arts)?
The point of capital is that it can be used: has material impact: more than just symbolic weight. Poetry holds on to a tiny shred of cultural capital through the bardic tradition, wisdom writing, rap and advertising jingles. Poetry has little social or economic capital these days except in so far as it can intrude into song, stand-up or social-media mimes: less big impact than product-placement shots in cinema. It carries and exercises more weight than it should in the secondary English Curriculum, with the wrong poems and the wrong writers for the wrong reasons. Poetry is taught as “creative” and “imaginative” writing, not as the exact opposite: truth-telling. And, in truth telling, poetry competes with or is forced into congress with religion. With religion, poetry may turn to the uncanny, the macabre or the mystical. So what may be the capital in an atheist, materialist poetic that trusts no one, not even itself?
rWorld2 