Thinking about ‘who’ is an interesting question that seems to stir up thoughts of identity. I think about Mullen’s poem, “We Are Not Responsible” and how the context determines the ‘who’. Who is the ‘we’ in the poem?
“We are not responsible..”
“We cannot guarantee…”
“We do not endorse…”
The language is very exclusive – this ‘we’ is not thinking about how to include people in their ‘definition’, rather this ‘we’ is thinking of ways in which to limit and create divisions among others. Thinking historically, this sort of ‘we’ has characteristics that are reminiscent of groups who have marginalized others, who have divided and pushed away others. Mainstream America is a we who describes inclusivity with exclusive terms.
“Your ticket does not…”
“If you cannot understand…”
“Your insurance was cancelled…”
Who is the ‘you’ in this case? This ‘you’ is now being described in demeaning terms. It is amazing how we can take such a simple word like ‘you’ and give it so much character and meaning that it becomes the ‘prime suspect’ in telling a group when they do not belong, or they do not have enough. Something is cancelled because you do you have enough or you made a mistake, you do not understand because you are not part of the group or you are lacking in some way. The ‘you’ becomes anyone who is not enough…again, dominant culture describing inclusivity using exclusive terms.
Thinking about the question of the ‘who’ in texts, I believe there are so many factors that can influence this question. We look at context, purpose, writer’s background, tone, etc.. and make an assumption when we can always assume the who is ourselves at any point in time (it does not have to be the who that is reading the text at that particular moment). The who in a poem could be the me that existed ten years ago or it could be the me that will exist tomorrow….it is such a complicated question that evokes such interesting answers.
Mullen's piece is an intense one and perhaps one of the poems that can carry the strongest conversation on "who."
ReplyDeleteI can hear that annoying airline voice over the speaker, "We are not responsible for your lost or stolen relatives." There is a cruelty in the "we" of indifference, a script, a mindset. Mullen weaves a lot of interconnected histories in this piece, so even though there is a division between the "you" and "we" (which I noted how the "you" comes off as singular and isolating in comparison to the "we") the impact of the poem (for me at least) is that there are more "you"s out there. The more the "we" dismissed and dehumanized and defined the "you" the more people it identified as impacted. The "ticket" and the "reservation" was witty, I'll keep that one in my noggin for a while. Thanks for lifting this badass poem up, Angela!
Both of your interpretations (Angela and Van) of this poem help my rereading of it to get much closer. I initially read it with all the impact, terror and sorrow it delivers while wrapped in the salvation of defiance. (Salvation of defiance. A term for the glossary?) It's no surprise that a poem this powerful comes from a poet so arrived in her voice and ability to bring forth something so visceral while hung on the airy, regularly dismissed voice of an airline announcement. This juxtaposition lays the nonchalance of barely registering that sound against what is the weighted and repeated racial trauma known come to be known as "routine." Thank you for your focus on this poem and your vision of it.
ReplyDeleteyes Mimi, "salvation of defiance"
DeleteWhat is really luminous about this entry Angela is how you interrogated the "you" more than you who.. And it makes sense, particularly in the context of "Mullen's" poem where the You is weak and the We is assertion --not of love, but of intention. This is nailing it down.
e