Comments on the In Defence of Poetry debate

Should children be protected from controversial literature? Should works be studied because of their literary merit or as springboards to discuss particular issues? Should students be taught to analyse poems in order to understand their meaning or should they be asked to provide a personal response? How important should poetry be in teaching English? Who should determine the content of the school curriculum and according to what criteria? What are the roles of the poet, the critic, the teacher and the reader in upholding the importance of poetry? And what, if any, is the role of government?

Submit your response to the questions raised by the debate

 

"Somebody - please! - read Billy Collins's poem called 'Introduction to Poetry' (found in Bloodaxe's "Being Alive") and then start the debate. I taught (and examined) GCSE English Literature for years and responses to poems such as CAD's 'Education for Leisure' were always a delight to discuss and to read. It is criminal (oh, the irony!) that this poem has been removed from the syllabus."

— Harry Owen

 

"Unfortunately I can not attend what promises to be a lively debate. Nevertheless I do have opinions about the relevant questions. To the first `Should children be protected from controversial literature? Yes, I believe they should. If serious poetry — and the poem under discussion falls into that aria — is to retain the respect for which over millenniums it has rightly enjoyed and been admired by both a literate and a non literate public alike, it must remain within the boundaries of art and not — as appears to be happening — allow itself to be used as a standard bearer by way of exposing young minds prematurely to the idea that unpardonable behavior is excusable if it can inspire a poet of the stature of a laureate to write about it in a way that, unfortunately, in the present day might appear to be a martyrdom to bad behavior. That the poem was written twenty years ago is neither here or there. I personally have no problem with the poem as a poem but feel it should play no part in any GCSE syllabus. Rather than deter it would, in my opinion, give licence to a child in social crisis. Artists and poets could do worse than to leave the choice of material included in class work to those who are at the forefront of our children's education. To the original question my answer is a resounding Yes!

To the question 'How important should poetry be in teaching English?' I would say reasonably important.

In the only education I received — four years in a Secondary Modern School — I can never recall hearing either the name or the work of any poet. It was, on reflection, like the entire history of the world's poetry had never existed. It was my own instinctive reaction in simply wanting to write that empowered my love for poetry and later a desire to create my own world of belonging. Today there exists an increasing number of children who desire to be stars in all kinds of media entertainments, but if their heroes were to suggest in their songs or through their performance it's okay to drowned a goldfish or carry a knife would the overwhelming reaction be that a majority of like minded artists would come out in support of such language? I don't think so.

I hope there will be an opportunity to tap into the various questions and answers that this contentious debate will no doubt provide."

— Derrick Porter

 

"In reply to Derrick Porter:

Derrick,

You say that children should be protected from controversial literature, but – as with what goes in the curriculum in general - who decides what is “controversial”, and by what criteria? This poem was in the GCSE syllabus to be studied by 14-16 years olds; that is, young people approaching adulthood. Isn’t this a period in young people’s intellectual development when they should be introduced to more adult and, depending on your view, possibly “controversial” themes? Hence the continuing importance of Shakespeare to English education, even in our ‘dumbed-down’ times.

You also say that the poetry studied ‘must remain within the boundaries of art’, yet you seem to be judging this particular poem not on artistic merit, but on the ‘unpardonable behaviour’ you imagine it may ‘give licence to’, in particular to ‘a child in social crisis’ (whatever that means). However, wouldn’t that risk exposing young people to only the must undemanding of literature? The effect that any work of art may have on an individual’s mind is ultimately impossible to judge, but I feel confident that the effects of Carol Ann Duffy’s poem on knife crime and animal cruelty are probably negligible.

You also seem to miss the point that by interfering in the curriculum - first to insert a poem and then remove it for non-aesthetic reasons - it is the Government, with its social engineering agenda, and not artists and poets, who is refusing to leave the choice of what is taught to those at the ‘forefront’ of education - the teaching profession.

Lastly, I too received only a comprehensive school education, back in the 1970s. But I can vaguely remember that we did study poetry and were even occasionally encouraged to write the odd poem for homework. I agree it should be an important part of English teaching, as what a shame it would be if it were just left to chance for people to discover it later in life, or maybe never at all. But the criteria for its inclusion shouldn’t be either some extra-educational Government agenda, or vague and existential fears of the behaviour it may induce, but the quality of the verse."

— Paul Thomas, Leeds Salon

 

EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN MICHELE LEDDA (LEEDS SALON ORGANISER) AND ROS BARBER:

This sounds great, Michele, but couldn't you find any women?  Or did it not even occur to you that you're drawing your panel from only one half of the poetry population?  Given that the poem that sparked your campaign was written by a woman, is this not an unfortunate oversight?

There are more issues in poetry that need to be tackled than AQA censorship and the silent exclusion of women from panels and shortlists is one of them.  The fact that we finally, after two centuries, have a female Laureate has not, apparently, made much of a dent in the considerable gender bias present in English poetry.

I personally find it depressing that every person in this list is a "he" when there are so many talented and eloquent female poets you might have included.

— Ros Barber

If Souls not Sexes have, as ‘tis confest, / ‘Tis not the he or she makes Poems best: (Anon., in praise of Katherine Philips)

Thanks Ros,

I get your point,

But he who loveliness within
Hath found, all outward loathes,
For he who gender loves, and skin,
Loves but their oldest clothes.

If, as I have, you also do
Virtue attired in woman see,
And dare love that, and say so too,
And forget the He and She ;

And if this love, though placèd so,
From bureaucrats you hide,
Which will no faith on this bestow,
Or, if they do, deride ;

Then you have done a braver thing
Than all the Worthies did.

This is an event ‘In Defence of Poetry’ not ‘Against the Oppression of Women’, though we are thinking of organising a debate on feminism next year.  Also, the event is not particularly about Carol Ann Duffy, but about what the censoring of Education for Leisure says about the state of contemporary poetry.  It didn’t even occur to us to think about the gender of the panellists.  They have been invited for what they have to say.

Many women have spoken at our events, only because of what they had to say and not because they were women.  Once we organised a debate with only one speaker, Josie Appleton (a 100% women’s panel). I find this kind of gender accountancy mind-numbingly childish and drawing on a contemporary kind of authoritarianism. I would leave it to Equal Opportunities officials in our bureaucratic institutions. Leeds Salon events are for free and grown-up debate.

But the point you make is a very common argument in today’s discussions of poetry and one of the strongest influences in contemporary canon formation, and I would raise it at the debate, either anonymously or attributing it to you, if you have no objections.  You are of course very welcome to attend and make it yourself. I would also like to forward your comment, with your permission, to the Poetry Business website, where there are posts from other poets on the questions we’ll be asking at our debate.

I would be very happy if in the future we could have more events in defence of poetry with other poets, whatever their gender or background.  If you have any suggestions for a topic and speakers or if you want to come up to Leeds to discuss the literary canon, please let me know and we may be able to organise an event here in Leeds and you would be very welcome to speak.  We are always looking for speakers who feel strongly about important issues.

— Michele Ledda

 

Dear Michele,

If the skin in which a soul is housed were immaterial, one would see women and men equally represented on prize shortlists, in reviews, in literary magazines, and on panels like yours.

Naturally it didn’t occur to you to think about the gender of the panellists; the exclusion of women is almost invariably an unconscious decision. That is precisely why I wished to draw your attention to your all-male panel: to make the unconscious conscious, thereby hoping to effect change.

We are absolutely in favour of challenging censorship and my e-mail was adding another dimension to that grown-up debate. Your somewhat patronising response demanded a considered reply, and for that reason I invited Jackie Wills, who has written on this subject, to contribute to this e-mail.

Re: "I find this kind of gender accountancy mind-numbingly childish and drawing on a contemporary kind of authoritarianism." Tillie Olson, in Silences, advocates the simple practice of counting. Olsen writes, “Achievement: as gauged by what supposedly designates it: appearance in twentieth century literature courses, required reading lists, textbooks, quality anthologies, the year’s best, the decade’s best, the fifty years best, consideration by critics or in current reviews – one woman writer for every 12 men…” We put to you Olsen’s argument that counting is essential in a democracy and is the one visible manifestation of inequality at all levels - gender, age, class and race. Actually, it is not authoritarian unless you happen to be one of those who is currently benefiting from inequality, and of course those who have a lot to lose will always fight back vigorously. Witness any human rights struggle anywhere in the world and throughout history.

Re: "I would leave it to Equal Opportunity officials in our bureaucratic institutions. Leeds Salon events are for free and grown-up debate." I wonder if you are suggesting that these kinds of checks and balances in, for example, the workplace, schools, government, and charities, are somehow restricting freedom and debate? If you are putting the case that those checks and balances are indeed doing so, then the Poetry Business should examine how this kind of reactionary view might affect its reputation.

Your response demonstrates ignorance of the very basic principles of equality: that under-representation of particular groups is an indication of a society that is less inclusive, less egalitarian and less democratic. Where women or minority ethnic groups or disabled people are excluded from decision and opinion forming processes (whether statutory or informal), they are also more at risk of repression, poverty and violence. Anyone selecting panellists, spokespeople, delegates etc. must be aware of the impact their decisions have. If they can't find women for a panel, they should question why. It is the same with minority ethnic groups.

You are living in the past if these arguments, played out over centuries in meeting rooms, parliament chambers, in the open air and in public squares, have passed you by. They fall under the heading 'emancipation'. The impact of inequality cannot be glibly dismissed in this way. Women’s voices need to be heard on all subjects, not just on those thought to particularly concern them.

— Ros Barber & Jackie Wills

 

Dear Ros and Jackie,

As I have already said, at Leeds Salon we not really concerned about the gender, skin colour, or any other category of contemporary identity politics when inviting speakers – only about what they have to say.

Your response seems to confuse the issue of equality with the promotion of diversity. For example, your statement that 'If [we] can't find women for a panel, [we] should question why. It is the same with minority ethnic groups', seems to be suggesting that we should actively look to have people on our panels that represent every 'group' in society. Not only would this be exceedingly difficult - if not impossible if every panel debate is expected to tick all the boxes of contemporary diversity monitoring - but it undermines the very notion of human universality on which the principle of equality is based - that is, that our common humanity is more important than our cultural or biological differences.

Traditionally, the fight for social equality has been about fighting for a colour-blind or gender-blind society. Your attitude seems to be the reverse - that we should see people for their differences first and foremost, and invite them to speak on the basis of such differences. That would be both patronising and discriminatory in the old-fashioned sense. At Leeds Salon, we are not interested in 'counting' the diversity of our panellists - and in fact we would want to challenge the notion that anyone should.

— Michele Ledda

 

Dear Michele,

Your answer implies that you know of no women who have anything interesting to say on the issue of censorship. If you were gender-blind, as you claim to be, then by chance I would expect to see at least two or three women on the panel, simply because we make up half the population. But five panellists and not a single woman? You only choose speakers who have something interesting to say?  All of your speakers just happen to be men?  Really, Michele, your choices speak for themselves.

— Ros Barber

 

Dear Ros

I agree, our choices of panellists do speak for themselves. We had a discussion about poetry, literary criticism, the curriculum and censorship, and we had one of Britain's leading poets who has just published a collection entitled The Burning of the Books; an academic who has recently written a highly acclaimed book on literary criticism and the canon; an up and coming young poet and a school teacher (myself) who has written extensively on these issues. The gender of our speakers was irrelevant (as it should be in a democratic society), and we would never choose a panel, unlike yourself obviously, based on gender, race, disability, or ticking any other box of the contemporary diversity industry.

When we have another panel of all women (as we did with Josie Appleton in December) should we expect another complaint from you? I also assume that you will be complaining to the BBC that they had an all women audience last night for Question Time, therefore excluding 49% of the population.

Whether you think I'm sexist or not is irrelevant to me and, I suspect, to anyone else and it would not make for a very interesting debate.  However, if you do want to discuss the broader issues of equality, diversity and discrimination, would you and /or Jackie (or you can suggest another speaker if you want) be willing to speak at Leeds Salon in the next few months?

— Michele Ledda

 

Dear Michele,

If you cannot see the ridiculousness in claiming, yet again, that inviting a single woman to speak constitutes "an all woman panel" then continuing this discussion is pointless.  You have completely failed to grasp, and have misrepresented, the points we were trying to make.  I believe that your all-male panel was pointed out on the night, alongside the observation that censorship has always been a gendered issue.  Clearly the point was lost on you then also. Naturally, Michele, you must continue selecting your speakers without reference to gender, producing your "accidental" all-male panels, and contributing to the sense many women have of being censored and silenced.

I will close by referring you to the final line of my original e-mail: "I personally find it depressing that every person in this list is a "he" when there are so many talented and eloquent female poets you might have included." You can justify it any way you like, and clearly you don't give a monkeys what I, Jackie Wills, or any other woman thinks about the absence of female voices at this event, but do not forget that women are half your audience, this debate is in the public arena at your request, and I am not the only person you have now successfully alienated.

— Ros Barber

 

RESPONSES TO THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN ROS BARBER AND MICHELE LEDDA:

It seem hugely curious and inappropriate that the AQA withdrew a poem by a woman in response to a complaint by a woman (Pat Schofield) but this is being debated by men. The problem with a panel that excludes women is that it tends to encourage the view that women should exclude themselves from the audience too because it sends the message the organisers don't believe women's views are worthwhile (otherwise it would have invited one or two to join the panel.) If you look at some of the questions being debated, "Should children be protected from controversial literature?", "Who should determine the content of the school curriculum and according to what criteria?", "What are the roles of the poet, the critic, the teacher and the reader in upholding the importance of poetry?". Inconvenient for Michele Ledda's panel as it may be, children have a mother and a father, both equally entitled to be involved in their child's education (and generally it's mum that reads to children, not dad); poets critics, teachers and readers tend also to be male or female and in the case of teachers and readers biased towards the female. Therefore excluding women from this panel is a) a glaring omission, b) sending the wrong message that women's views aren't important and don't count and c) effectively telling women not to bother turning up.

— E Lee

 

Michele Ledda's response misses the point: we are not asking him to select speakers on the basis of gender, we are asking him to select poets who can speak on and bring a useful viewpoint to the debate. It's a debate that needs both male and female voices and the lack of female voices suggests he thinks women have nothing to say on this matter. As a poet who goes into schools to run workshops with children and a mother I find that incredible. I also find it incredible that he couldn't find any other poets who work with or teach children and are also parents so could cover all bases on the topic discussion who are also women. This isn't about tick-boxing but about finding poets who can make a valuable contribution to the debate. This debate is about the withdrawal of a woman's poem following a complaint by a woman, so how are women not relevant to this debate?

— E Lee

 

In reply to E Lee's comments:

I think this idea of there being male and female ‘voices’ goes to the heart of much of this online debate, and the confusion between the politics of equality — based on human universality — and contemporary diversity and identity politics. The latter sees irreconcilable and fundamental differences between people based on biology, culture, disability, skin colour, etc. — to the point of an assumption that we view the world from different perspectives based on those differences: which is kind of what old-style racists and sexist politics argued. (See my FIPA article 'The Problem with Diversity Awareness'.)

The idea that having a woman on the panel would have represented the voices of women is as nonsensical as the idea that any of the men on the panel represented the opinions of all men in the audience or beyond. Unless democratically elected by a particular organisation to represent the views of that organisation, no individual can claim to be the voice of anyone but themselves. The idea that having a woman on the panel would have represented women assumes that all or most women think the same — an assumption which, if it had come from a man, would rightly have been seen as sexist.

On your final question: you deliberately twist what Michele says. The views of anyone, whatever their sex, are potentially relevant to the debate, but their actual sex isn’t, and shouldn’t be.

— Paul Thomas

 

LEEDS SALON DEBATE ON FEMINISM

The Leeds Salon will be hosting a debate on feminism some time in the coming months.

See www.leedssalon.org for details, and please do contact them directly if you have anything to add to the debate started above.