EPOUND-L Archives

- Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine

EPOUND-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
En Lin Wei <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
- Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 5 Aug 2000 06:12:32 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (81 lines)
Thanks to Richard Edwards for providing the fascinating quote on elitism and
democracy, and for giving us his reflections on that quotation.

<<
. . .tyranny requires simplification.
This thought does not originate with me, it's been far better expressed by
others. I think immediately of the German classicist and Kierkegaardian
scholar Theodor Haecker, who went into what was called 'inner exile' in the
Nazi period, and kept a very fine notebook throughout that period, which
miraculously survived, though his house was destroyed by Allied bombing.
Heacker argues, with specific reference to the Nazis, that one of the things
the tyrant most cunningly engineers is the gross oversimplification of
language, because propaganda requires that the minds of the collective
respond primitively to slogans of incitement. And any complexity of
language, any ambiguity, any ambivalence implies intelligence. Mayby an
intelligence under threat, maybe an intelligence that is afraid of
consequences, but nonetheless an intelligence working in qualifications and
revelations ... resisting, therefore, tyrannical oversimplification".  >>

At first glance, it may seem correct to say that the thinking behind
tyrannical propaganda involves simplification, and that the thinking behind
democracy is more complex. However, I do not think the thesis can be borne
out.   Lenin and Trotsky were essentially tyrants, and their thinking, as
reflected in their writings, is most complex.  The philosopher of Italian
fascism, Gentile, wrote very complex and elegant works, which demonstrate
intelligence.   "Grossly simplified language" is no more essentially related
to 'totalitarian' thinking than "complexity of language" is in any necessary
way linked to "democratic thinking",   Those who were treated to George Bush
Junior's recent speech at the Republican convention will find sufficient
evidence there to prove that in a Democracy the "slogans of incitement" are
just as palpably connected with activity in this democracy as they would be
in any totalitarian state (and those who recall Reagan's speeches, will find
even better evidence).  Those who know Spanish, and who have heard Castro
speak, will know that extremely complex and sophisticated analyses are
possible, even when delivered by a tyrannt in a communist dictatorship.
There is no necessary connection between the particular content of an
ideology, and its level of sophistication, such that the level of acceptable
ambiguity in a proponents' mode of presentation is proportional the amount
of democratic freedom inherent in the ideological conception.  One of the
most sophisticated doctrines ever devised, Confucianism, has been a
thoroughly authoritarian dogma.  James Polk was thought by some to be one
America's stupidest Presidents, though by most accounts, his speeches showed
that he had a good grasp of the essentials of democracy, perhaps an even
admirable commitment, compared to most US leaders.

It should not puzzle us, therefore, that Pound's thought, despite his
sophisticated language, his dedication to the art of poetry, and his
successes in that field, is fully compatible with with fascist thinking.

Nor will it do, to separate his prose from his poetry, or his art from his
broadcasts.  Those who have read the broadcasts all the way through will
agree that his thought was just as sophisticated and just as complex as the
thought contained in virtually all his prose, and in most of the poetry.
The radio broadcasts were carefully written, and extremely complex in their
conception, making use of all sorts of subtle allusions to historical
minutiae, aesthetic theories, diverse cultural analytic tools, etc.  They
are only slightly easier to read than the poetry, because they are prose.

Richard Edwards goes on to observe:

<<There seems to me to be a great deal of truth in this, although it doesn't
address the question why so many "difficult" poets in the modernist
tradition were drawn to authoritarian, antidemocratic political regimes.>>


I think the question has to be dealt with on a case by case basis.  Pound's
decision to embrace fascism was his own unique, self-willed choice.  Even
though T.S. Eliot's own elitism has similarites with Pound's, his choices
were different.  That is because they were HIS choices.  The attempt to
reduce a poet's political choices to some phenomenon of the era, some
"tendency" residing in poets, or in the poets of our age is, I think,
misguided.  The only answer for us must lie in the reasons which Pound
himself gave for his support for authoritarian, anti-democratic political
regimes.

Regards,

Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2