As promised in class, I am opening this topic for discussion since we didn’t get to it today. I think there are many ways that this connects to (but is not the same as) Whitman’s model of selfhood, which some of you may be writing about through the prompt in Response #1. The basic question might be phrased something like this: when Whitman represents, includes, or speaks for others, does he do so ethically and in a way that respects their otherness from him (in identity and experience)? I think we also want to think through what might be our contemporary understanding of that question as well as what it might have meant in his own historical moment.
A few passages in which we might ground discussion. Feel free to add more.
Section 24, page 211, the two stanzas beginning “Through me many long dumb voices”
Section 33 following the long catalog, starting page 224 with “I am a free companion” and continuing through the rest of section on 226.
I have complex thoughts on Whitmans speaking for others. I can see, in a way, the importance of him giving voice to those who otherwise wouldn’t be heard; especially in the context of the time period where many did not have space or platforms for their voices, Whitman is writing this with purpose. However (here comes my complexity) in the same breath, on page 211, he begins to wax poetic about how holy and luscious he is. After oppressed and forbidden voices talked through him, he quickly pivots to make it about himself again. Not only does he bring it back to himself, he talks about himself as if he is otherworldly/Godly. To me, this comes across very wrong, or even insensitive. This gives me the impression that while yes he speaks for others, he is still above them. I know he may not have meant it this way, but the fact that it can be read in this manner pokes holes in his argument (that he can speak for others). The question of if Whitman does this ethically brings me to my answer: not really. Although those of the time period may say different, in my current opinion I think some of Whitmans words here get lost in translation when looking at the whole. Finally, I wont expand too largely on this because I think it speaks for itself, in the same vein I was very, very put off by Whitman calling himself the poet of both the master and slave. Super tone-deaf. That does not help his case.
I’ve been thinking about this. When Whitman bridges the gaps between himself and (marginalized) others, I see a flattening of them or a equating of these people to himself. As much as I have begun to like Whitman’s poetry, sometimes he universalizes everything into “simplistic” terms, experiences, and emotions, which is often the point, but does everyone have the same experience in life? I don’t think so.
But his inclusion of everyone was incredibly radical and important—so I’m conflicted and probably will be for a bit..