Consciousness, Literature and the Arts
Archive
Volume 12 Number 3, December 2011
___________________________________________________________________
No Poem is Neutral: Activist Writing in the Poetry of Dionne Brand and Jeannette Armstrong
By
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil
Introduction
When one leaves his/her birthplace and migrates to a foreign culture and land, this person may be displaced, that is, in-between cultures: even if he/she later returns to the home land, the changes brought to the person through the experience of migrating will interfere in his/her relationship with the land left behind, and in this way the home place can never be the same again to the one who migrated and returned. Also, the person who migrates needs to establish him/herself in the new place, and such task is difficult to be accomplished. So, the person is in-between cultures and in-between a land left behind that will not be again as it was, and a land that still is not this person’s new home, for he/she is considered an outsider for being an immigrant. This experience of “in-betweeness” has enabled writers to transform their work and engage politically through their art, through their poetic personas, by producing literary works that raise awareness concerning the topics of immigration and colonization, and the implications and forms of prejudice and violence that can surround these events. Two cases in point are those of the poets Dionne Brand (Caribbean-Canadian) and Jeannette Armstrong (Okanagan-Canadian). In what follows I shall demonstrate how each of them theorizes and develops in-betweeness in their poems with purposes not only related to the kind of literature produced, but especially connected to a specific political agenda of activism defended by the poets.
To put it in a few words, “in-betweeness” is marked by the hyphen, postulated by Homi K. Bhabha and put forth by Fred Wah as what “both binds and divides… both compounds difference and underlines sameness” (Wah, 2001, 72-73). Wah expands on Bhabha’s proposal, and indicates that the hyphen of the in-betweeness signals plurality of meanings and identities, and therefore allows a variety of crossings (and in-betweeness itself) for a subject. The hyphen does not need to be shown all the time, that is, it can be like a “magic carpet” (Wah, 2001, 73), sometimes apparent and at other times hid, for strategic purposes of survival and adaptation in a different land and culture. So, for those who live in-between, the hyphen is a possibility of articulating their floating identities and resisting being marginalized by a dominant culture. In fact, the hyphen can be not only a strong tool for survival in the experience of being an immigrant or a colonized subject, but it can also be a means to articulate one’s political activism related to forms of oppression that can happen in those processes of migration and colonization. Thus, the articulation of the hyphen and the in-betweeness that it represents in literature works for raising one’s consciousness and as a form of political activism concerning issues that are at stake in today’s world. Bearing these facts in mind, let us now analyze the political articulation of in-betweeness in the poetry of Dionne Brand and Jeannette Armstrong, starting with Brand.
No Poem is Neutral: Dionne Brand
In “Whose Gaze, and Who Speaks for Whom” Brand discusses the notions of imperialism, repression and cultural appropriation that are experienced by immigrants and other groups of people that often suffer forms of marginalization. Brand argues that in-betweeness should be used to fight against such things, through activist writing in which those who are marginalized speak for themselves (instead of being spoken about by others who are in privileged dominant positions). Brand claims that culture is “organized around ‘whiteness’” (Brand, 1995, 124) and that the ones who speak in the name of dominated peoples are actually “not ‘innocent’ of the relations of race, gender, sexuality and class” that exist behind what is spoken (Brand, 1995, 127). In other words, Brand criticizes appropriation/assimilation and supremacy, and these critiques may be found in her poems (as we shall see soon), through Brand’s articulations of in-betweeness to show that one can cross cultures and be an activist for one’s people, instead of accepting the domination of others. Additionally, the articulation of in-betweeness in her poems denounces how hard the reality of an immigrant is due to prejudices and struggles faced by those who are in a position of being erased by a dominant culture.
An interesting articulation of in-betweeness in Brand’s poems is through the use of the demotic, that is, through a written form that is similar to the ordinary and current oral usage of a language, not following grammatical rules strictly, and blending so-called standard English grammar with Caribbean languages. In an interview to Pauline Butling, Brand says she uses a demotic “to convey everything, the depth of feelings, the depth of tragedy or terror” (Butlin & Rudin, 2005, 73), in her own way of speaking. Further, by using a demotic that unashamedly blends different languages, Brand gives visibility to the crossing of cultures, and is able to demonstrate that Canada “is not (and cannot ever claim to be) a homogeneous culture. It has never been such (not even before recent immigrants, who are accused from time to time of messing up the works),” as stated in “Imagination, Representation and Culture” (Brand, 1995, 137). For Brand, the only homogeneous thing is the agreement on the inexistence of “a” Canadian identity. So, Brand uses a demotic to promote an encounter between the diversity of Caribbean identities with the diversity of Canadian identities, instead of perpetuating a false homogeneity. In other words, in-betweeness is articulated by Brand, through the demotic (and other “tools” like the content of her poems), to struggle for space and visibility.
Let us now observe specific passages and instances from her poems to see these positioning and tools for articulation. In “No Language is Neutral” Brand’s poetic persona signals anxiety of leaving the Caribbean, by saying that “the taste of leaving was already on my tongue,” followed by: “Here was beauty and here was nowhere.” The first verse indicates that an immigrant carries expectations and desires with him/her, and the passage about the Caribbean being beautiful but at the same time being simply “nowhere” goes on a similar direction of indicating the wish to go to a different place. Taking these facts into consideration, it could be said that in-betweeness is developed here to show the desires and expectations about the possibility of floating between places.
As the experience in Canada happens, Brand’s poetic persona develops further her theorization of in-betweeness. The passage on page 26, in “No Language is Neutral” starts like this: “Is steady trembling I trembling when they ask me my name and say I too black for it (…) nobody wouldn’t vex if you miss the train, calling Spadina Spadeena until I listen good for what white people call it (…), returning to your worse self, you the thin mixture of just come and don’t exist.” In this passage Brand clearly signals the difficulties to survive and the prejudices faced by an immigrant. The crossing is hard, and Brand exemplifies this with the prejudices against race (“say I too black for it”), language (“calling Spadina Spadeena”), and nation (“just come and don’t exist”). Thus, her articulation of in-betweeness as floatation is used to denounce such hard situations faced by immigrants. Also, the presence of a demotic in “Is steady trembling I trembling,” as well as in “I too black,” shows Brand’s attempt at keeping visible in a place that is not hers, by using the local language in her own way.
In Thirsty we find more of Brand’s articulation of the in-betweeness as a tool to criticize the appropriation of cultures and the attempt at marginalizing cultures to forge a unified identity of Canada that simply cannot exist. For instance, she writes: “A city is all interpolation,” (poem XX), which means any given place cannot and should not resist interferences and the blending of cultures that arrive and exist there – in other words, immigrants should not be assimilated and have their cultures erased, but on the contrary, the city, being all interpolation, should host all varieties of race, language, and nations that come to it. Hence, in-betweeness is here developed to be voiced and to raise the readers’ consciousness towards preventing cultures and peoples from being appropriated and consequently erased.
Another example comes from Inventory, as Brand writes the following revealing passage: “the militant consumption of everything, the encampment of the airport, the eagerness to be all the same, to mince biographies to some exact phrases, some exact and toxic genealogy” (Brand, 2006, 17). While the reference to a “toxic genealogy” indicates that everything is contaminated by an imperialist supremacy that attempts at dominating the culture and making people eager “to be all the same,” the passage also reveals the rules by which everybody must live – that is, those of consumption and capitalism. Again, there is a reference to the existent assimilationist practices that Brand fights against. In short, then, there is the danger or erasure again, and Brand’s articulation of in-betweeness attempts at disrupting such danger.
Finally, in Land to Light On, in poem IV viii, Brand writes about world political issues that lead to the desire of immigrating, showing that there is displacement everywhere in the world. Yet, at the same time that Brand writes that immigration is something people want to do, still these people are not free from facing some prejudice by those who may feel their land “invaded” by immigrants. Brand writes: “all of us want to fly to America right now, right away please and Americans wonder why, feel we must love them that’s why, we’re just jealous, that’s why, we just want to steal what they have” (Brand, 1997, 32). In this passage, since immigrants are seen as being jealous and as if they want to possess what supposedly is not theirs, Brand’s in-betweeness denounces an attitude of prejudice against immigrants, once more. To put it differently, the poet once again awakes the readers’ consciousness that immigrants are not necessarily welcome and may suffer from unjustifiable forms of oppression and discrimination – after all, the immigrants allegedly want to “steal” what others have, as seen by the eyes of the non-immigrants.
In short, bearing in mind these several instances articulated in Brand’s poems of how immigrants can face prejudice and violence, Brand demonstrates that no poem, no language is neutral: her writings clearly indicate a political activism that endorses the crossing of cultures and in-betweeness of subjects, defending crossing without suffering and prejudice.
Valuing All Cultures: Jeannette Armstrong
In “The Disempowerment of First North American Native Peoples and Empowerment Through Their Writing” Armstrong discusses the relations between colonized natives and colonizers. She claims that the purpose of colonization has been “to hack out the spirit of all the beautiful cultures encountered (…). This is what happened and what continues to happen” (Armstrong, 1990, 239). In this sense, the poet clearly criticizes the assimilationist processes that erase the specificities of different cultures that are in contact with one another. In fact, Armstrong explicitly says that “assimilationist measures are not meant to include you but to destroy all remnant of your culture” (Armstrong, 1990, 240). Armstrong, then, manifests her positioning and political engagement against homogenization of cultures, which aligns with Brand’s positioning discussed before (concerning the impossibility of a single Canadian identity). Finally, Armstrong dreams of a world in which “domination is not possible because all cultures are valued” (Armstrong, 1990, 241). Considering the articulations just exposed, one may say that Armstrong, too, develops the in-betweeness as a strategy to fight discrimination (against natives), homogenization and erasure of peoples and cultures.
Armstrong also discusses racism, considered a form to achieve domination and totalitarianism. While Brand discusses racism against immigrants, Armstrong denounces racism against and victimization of native peoples as they are subjected to groups of colonizers. Armstrong’s articulation of in-betweeness in this respect works as a tool to struggle for the survival and dignity of marginal(ized) groups. Another point made by Armstrong refers to the issue of appropriation, as colonizers speak in the name of others (which Brand discusses too). Armstrong criticizes the supposed “freedom of speech” that actually maintains the natives silenced, as they have no voice, and have non-natives speaking for and about the natives, obviously in ways that benefit the interests of the colonizers who in their turn are never silenced. In what follows, textual evidence from Armstrong’s poems will be shown to exemplify her articulation of the arguments just stated. In a nutshell, the textual evidences shall point to her political activism to raise awareness as regards the difficult situations faced by native groups under processes of colonization.
In the poem “First People” Armstrong writes the following verses: “I draw together with my hand parts of the finished world,” followed by “I celebrate Creation.” It could be said that such verses subtly indicate Armstrong’s articulation of the in-betweeness of subjects to value the crossing between cultures, and also to protest against the erasure of cultures. It is so because all parts of the world (all cultures) are important and visible in her drawing, and the Creation (of such a heterogeneous world) should be celebrated, as she says, instead of transformed and affected by the eradication of certain cultures. This point demonstrates Armstrong’s engagement to make crossings possible and to resist assimilationist processes, as mentioned before.
Next, Armstrong manifests the damages of civilization and again develops in-betweeness as a way to denounce appropriation, specifically in the poem “History Lesson.” I quote two passages that denounce violence, which are: “Shooting each other left and right,” and “waiting to mutilate whole civilizations ten generations at a bow.” These manifestations of violence lead Armstrong to develop in-betweeness by criticizing barbarian acts that take place in processes of colonization in a so-called civilization. The damages of appropriation, as well as the issue of violence, are again expressed in the passages “farmers sowing skulls and bones,” and “Somewhere among the remains of skinless animals is the termination to a long journey and unholy search for the power.” In this latter verse, it can be seen the supremacy of a dominant culture that forcefully settles after a series of wars and violences. In addition, the word “unholy” gives another hint to Armstrong’s critique of violent colonization processes. In short, then, her positioning is quite clear as one that defends safe and non-violent crossings and the possibility of pacific in-betweeness when two or more peoples and cultures are in contact.
At last, in “Death Mummer” Armstrong writes about appropriation and the mummification of the culture of the Indians: the verse “With blood-stained fingers I remove my mask” refers to dealing with a history of killing of Indians, and therefore it manifests Armstrong’s criticism of erasure of cultures again. Subsequently, the passage “the million dollar museum that so carefully preserves their clothing, their cooking utensils, their food” clearly suggests appropriation and supremacy of a people over another one, which was not only dominated (and annihilated) but also exposed as a possession and even a commodity. Finally, the last verse, “my brothers and sisters scooped from old battle streets near hotels,” shows Armstrong including and identifying herself as one of the marginalized ones under a process of violence in the “old battle streets.” This passage also denounces that violence continues still nowadays, through an ongoing and gradual killing. In this way, then, Armstrong not only articulates in-betweeness in her poems to stand for pacific contacts between cultures, as she also raises consciousness of the readers to the fact that such pacific contacts not always take place and even nowadays the clash of cultures is an issue for debate, as it often includes violence and domination.
Final Remarks
I hope to have made clear with the discussion conducted that Dionne Brand and Jeannette Armstrong articulate in-betweeness in their writings in similar ways, namely, as political activism against subordination and appropriation, forms of violence and oppression, the erasure of cultures by homogenization, and assimilationist processes that cause such erasures. While Brand addresses mostly the situation of immigrants found in-between two cultures and lands, Armstrong writes about Indians and Native Americans who suffered colonization, addressing also cases that still take place with other marginal groups to the present day. Hence, the analysis conducted on the developments of in-betweeness made by the two poets should indicate that the struggles they engage in in their activist writings do not differ, and both Brand and Armstrong voice the silent dash of the in-betweeness’ hyphen specifically in order to reach a world in which crossings are not only possible, but also harmless. Finally, it is undeniably expected that the readers of Brand’s and Armstrong’s poems have their consciousness raised concerning these problematic issues, and take a stand about them in the real world, by joining an agenda that pacifically struggles for having all cultures and peoples to be valued and respected.
References
Armstrong, Jeannette, 1990, “The Disempowerment of First North American Native Peoples
and Empowerment Through Their Writing” in Gatherings of the En'Owkin Journal of First North American Peoples, 1(1), 141.
Armstrong, Jeannette and Lally Grauer (eds.), 2001, Native Poetry in Canada: A
Contemporary Anthology. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Brand, Dionne, 1997, Land to Light On. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.
Brand, Dionne, 1995, “No Language is Neutral” in Grammar of Dissent: Poetry and Prose of
Claire Harris, M. Nourbese Philip and Dionne Brand. Carol Morrell (ed.).
Fredericton: Goose Lane Editions.
Brand, Dionne, 1995, “Whose Gaze and Who Speaks for Whom” in Bread Out of Stone:
Recollections, Sex, Recognitions, Race, Dreamings, Politics. Toronto: Coach House
Press.
Brand, Dionne, 1995, “Imagination, Representation and Culture” in Bread Out of Stone
Recollections, Sex, Recognitions, Race, Dreamings, Politics. Toronto: Coach House
Press.
Brand, Dionne, 2002, Thirsty. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.
Brand, Dionne, 2006, Inventory. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.
Butling, Pauline and Susan Rudy, 2005, “Dionne Brand on Struggle and Community,
Possibility and Poetry” in Poets Talk: Conversations with Robert Kroetsch, Daphne
Marlatt, Erin Mouré, Dionne Brand, Marie Annharte Baker, Jeff Derksen, and Fred
Wah. Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press.
Isernhagen, Hartwig, 1999, “Jeannette Armstrong” in Momaday, Vizenor, Armstrong:
Conversations on American Indian Writing (American Indian Literature and Critical
Studies Series), vol. 32. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Wah, Fred, 2001, “A Poetic of Ethnicity” in Faking It: Poetics and Hybridity. The Writer As
Critic Series, 7. Edmonton: NeWest Press.