When reading Charles Bernstein’s “Lives of the Toll Takers,” I found that although the poem is chaotic throughout, streams of thought near the end seem to coalesce around the theme of societal injustice, especially pertaining to the Holocaust.
On page 172, Bernstein connects Jewish culture to passivity: “self-reproach, laden with ambivalence, not this or this either . . . whose only motivation is never offend, criticize only with a discountable barb,” and then makes the bold statement: “Genocide is made of words like these . . .” It seems incredibly harsh to blame language used by the Jews for mass murder clearly inflicted on them by another, dominant culture and government. But Bernstein explains his pronouncement somewhat in his reference to Nietzsche, on whom Hitler based some of his ideas, and Pound, who was anti-Semitic: “Pound laughing (with Nietzsche’s gay laughter) all the way to the cannon’s bank . . .” Here, he portrays dominant Western (literary) culture as one that favors literature made up of language that can ultimately be terribly destructive. (I think that Bernstein intentionally references authors known for their iconic literary/philosophical works more than for Holocaust connections) I think that Bernstein is not blaming any one kind of language, used by any group or author, but rather holding the ways in which our entire society uses language accountable: language is the way in which human beings communicate with one another, and therefore a driving force in every aspect of society. Drastic change in the way that language is used is therefore necessary for creating a culture in which genocide cannot happen.
In “Barbarism, Hejinian also blames language structures for creating a society that could bring about the Holocaust. She says in response to Adorno’s statement that poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric, “Poetry after Auschwitz must indeed be barbarian; it must be foreign to the cultures that produce atrocities.” (326) This statement twists Adorno’s words to assert that language must change in order to change our culture, and claims that the task of poetry should be “not to speak the same language as Auschwitz,” (326).
Hejinian also lists a wider set of cultural goals for Language Poetry as “premises,” (322) of their outlook on language and society. Hejinian includes in her list, “racism, sexism, and classism are repulsive,” (323) and “institutionalized stupidity and entrenched hypocrisy are monstrous and should be attacked” (323). According to Hejinian, these societal issues are within the realm of language because “language is preeminently a social medium” (323). Disturbing the linguistic structures of a culture that allows for “racism, sexism, and classism,” is therefore necessary in order to end those problems.
As Holly explained in a post, a phrase in quotations in Bernstein’s poem, “Daddy, what did you do to stop the war?” (117) recalls a propaganda poster from World War I in which a child asks, “Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?” I think that this phrase in the poem serves two purposes. First, Bernstein uses it as an example of how a statement can (and should) be altered with only a few word changes from a statement promoting and glorifying war to one that encourages peace. Second, by claiming that “Daddy” did not successfully stop “the war,” it also implies that a previous generation could not have prevented war because they were using language from a tradition that historically caused many wars.
How important do you think a social justice/cultural change agenda is to Bernstein? Where else in “Lives of the Toll Takers” is it visible? How “social” is the writing of the other Language Poets that we read over the past few weeks?