In all our sanctuaries we sit at risk
  • Where in the World does Poetry Belong ?

    I run a project called “Poems for…” It  offers poem-posters free of charge for public display. Many of the poems are bilingual, with over fifty different languages represented so far. The poems go to schools and libraries and healthcare waiting rooms across the UK and in fact all over the world.

    Here below is a piece I wrote as the introduction to my very first report on “Poems for…”. It offers some general thoughts on the role of poetry in a culture where, once their schooldays are past, most people barely ever read a poem – except for times when the walls of the ordinary seems to collapse and there’s a funeral to be organised, for instance, or a love affair to navigate. I think the piece still holds good, even though it was written ages ago.

    For the project has been running since before the Millenium. During that time, it has had many funders. The UK Poetry Society was the first of these, securing some initial Lottery funding for it and providing supervision. Chris Meade was Director at the time.

    So it was the Poetry Society who received my first report, written in 1999. Its introduction reproduced here has been very slightly revised :

    “This project [initially called “Poems for the Waiting Room”] takes place against a background in which poetry as an art form appears to have regained a popularity and acceptance it has lacked since Edwardian times.

    Obviously this cannot be said without qualification. Publishers continue to find poetry books hard to sell. The Oxford University Press caused a stir a few years ago by closing down its poetry list.

    And yet some poetry sells enormously. Ted Hughes’s poetry is neither easy nor comfortable. But his last publications before he died were bestsellers.

    Here are some other random indicators for poetry’s renewed place in people’s lives : the evident popularity of the BBC programme “Poetry Please” ; the success and huge influence of “Poems on the Underground,” which has spread to bus services and even to telephone booths, and in different versions has been developed in cities across the world ; that astonishing issue of ‘The Guardian’ in the the middle of the First Gulf War, when a photograph of a lorry driver burnt to death in the desert appeared in the news pages, with a long new poem by Tony Harrison underneath ;  the research industry which recently seemed to gather round poetry in more than one university, evaluating its “therapeutic” benefits, and from time to time attracting a flood of correspondence from social workers, counsellors and similar care workers, many of them already using poetry extensively in their work, unsung and on their own account ; the wide range of organisations that now take people on as Poet in Residence and – more subjectively – the impression one has that an interest in reading and writing poetry no longer requires one to take cover in some “arty” coterie or secret isolated self, so that in more and more places and situations, there seems a new openness to poetry, perhaps even a hunger for what it can offer. Only a few years ago, the very subject caused embarrassment almost everywhere outside the class-room. Not now. No longer does poetry need be mumbled. For some reason it has re-joined the language of the main-street.

    It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that even though the public appears largely unwilling to buy it in book form, in other media poetry has begun to live and flourish again. Perhaps it is looking for a new home, a new form of delivery.

    The reasons for this resurgence of poetry as an art of the mainstream can only be guessed at.

    I should like to present some of my own ideas here, since I think they are relevant to the “Poems for the Waiting Room” project. Inevitably the ideas overlap, but I shall try to set them out as distinct items.

    First, poetry is a way of making sense of our surroundings, our emotions and how we live. Not from the detached point of view of the laboratory technician. But from the perspective of the ordinary person in the human feeling middle of it all, struggling through. Our ability to comprehend and find sufficiently meaningful our lives and environment is essential for health and well-being. But this has surely never been harder to achieve. For human beings everywhere the familiar is dissolving around us at faster and faster rate, and traditional frameworks and explanations no longer satisfy the vast majority. So, at some level, all of us are left detached and groping. And perhaps as a symptom of that lostness, people have turned again to poetry.

    But this puts poetry in an impossible position. It cannot offer explanations as such. It cannot be a philosophy or religion. Nor, in my opinion, can it “heal” in the way a treatment heals a particular condition.

    But what it can do is offer words from an ordinary human place that give shape and meaning to a common human experience. In this way it can make sense of things, serving both to validate and to bridge, both to affirm and articulate a private emotional human experience and to create a link between people who can identify with that experience. Thus, not a cure as such, but an antidote. Not a prescription, but a tapping into an essential human process, holding us together in the human community.

    Secondly, at the end of the second millennium, the average individual’s experience of self is radically different from that of any previous time. In our age as never before, we have to be continuously conscious of ourselves as members of the limitless multitude, the whole of fragile Earth’s population, the vast TV audience, the rush-hour hordes, the “Market,” the Electorate. Even while the adverts cajole us to “get away”, treat ourselves, celebrate and pamper our particularity and uniqueness, we live much of our lives and are addressed on all sides as objects en masse, recipients of one manipulative “spin” after another, customers, passengers, blank figures in the crowd. The human race has never loomed larger or more potent ; at the same time and even despite the Internet, the human individual has perhaps never felt smaller or more meaningless.

    Again, this is surely relevant to poetry and its resurgence. For, of all the arts, poetry is perhaps the most purely individual, and in finding and marshalling public words and resonant meaning for inner and private experience, it reminds us of, and can sometimes perhaps restore us to, the largeness and centrality of the individual human self. Furthermore, if the poem’s any good, it talks direct and open-hearted, whole person to whole person, I to Thou. It’s not a slick sales-patter, some overhanging cloud you have to peer behind or defend yourself against. It talks a true language. It is naked and searching for you.

    Which leads to the third and final suggestion. For the last few years politicians and philosophers have been talking much about Community, the need for mutual belonging, for the feeling and experience that there is a circle you belong to wider than your own. It can perhaps be said that the present Labour Government owes some of the strength of its position to the widespread yearning for a greater sense of social cohesiveness, in contrast to the furious materialism and anarchic self-interest of the previous two decades.

    In some strange way I believe that here too poetry has found a role. For not only does a good poem add to a sense of individual significance, it adds to a sense of connection between people, and not just between writer and reader but between everyone ; in the very act of getting through and speaking to people, it affirms our commonality at the deepest emotional level. In this sense poetry renews community every time it is recited, breaking down our separateness and desolation. So here too the present renewed interest in poetry perhaps reflects a wider yearning, in this case for connectedness.

    Other suggestions and explanations can be made and have been. What is common to the three offered here is that, assuming we are right that poetry is experiencing a renewed importance in our cultural and social life, it is doing so as a symptom of human neediness in times of enormous change and strain. It is tempting to think of poetry as some sort of cure. But this I think would be presumptuous. While I personally believe poetry actually can make things happen (pace WH Auden), at least in the sphere of the inner person, and certainly I think it can act helpfully and healingly, I hesitate to lay claims for poetry it cannot meet. Poetry can make waiting rooms more human. But it won’t turn them into treatment rooms or rescue us from the predicaments of our time.

    I would like to pass on and offer a few brief reflections on the waiting room.

    It is a truism that the pace of modern life is frantic. The waiting room is one place in the world where all of us at some point are going to have to pause for a while, like it or not. Whatever use we find for our normal franticness, it will not help us here.

    Another feature of the waiting room is that for many of us it is a place which reinforces our sense of essential powerlessness. It is the antechamber of a system we have resorted to, in whose hands we will be helpless, but whose powers we need. Our normal routines and defences have proved insufficient. We are here to some degree as supplicants.

    Furthermore, it is an impersonal place. Not just a room full of strangers, it is a room representing an organisation and a discipline whose approach to the individual is likely to take little account of him/her as a whole person, with  a familiar name and a unique history. The average health waiting room leads to a surgery where you are likely to be addressed and treated in terms of immediate presenting symptoms, of groupings, of categories.

    So the waiting room is a profoundly democratic place. Like aging and death, it levels us. It is a place of tension and anxiety but also of human potential, in which people have a chance to reflect and be enriched. And it’s a place that could do with the human touch.

    I would now like to make a point or two about the Health services I work with and where this project has been piloted and where it mostly belongs. (On the other hand, what about railway and airport waiting rooms ? What about sitting rooms in old people’s homes ? What about private sitting rooms ?). In my experience health services of all kinds are profoundly under stress, as a result not just of the demands on them – the quantity of those demands and often the intractable and scarcely bearable quality of those demands ; not just the inadequate resources, low pay, low morale, the “culture of blame” increasingly referred to by cautious politicians ; not just the unsure ethic of care which has not yet recovered from Thatcherism and remains shaky and uncertain ground from which to work. All of these things and maybe more combine to make centres of social and health care often rather difficult to approach and difficult to work with on a new idea. This is not in any way an accusatory statement, not is it an attempt to create an alibi to explain the delays there have unquestionably been in this project. It is simply to record the fact that workers of all kinds dealing on a day to day basis with much distress, inundated at the same time with continuous changes of policy in a climate of top-down management directives, waiting for disaster and to be pounced on by disaster-hungry reporters, tend increasingly to look out on the world outside their walls with dread and suspicion. Defences are up and responses are slow. A project to do with putting poetry up and about may well come as a delightful relief and opportunity for generous action and a human touch, but it is unlikely to be put on the top of an overcrowded action priority list. And, just possibly, in touching on emotions that people – to get by – cannot allow themselves to feel, it may actually be unwelcome.

    I would conclude this piece with a brief personal statement. I believe my enthusiasm for the “Poems for the Waiting Room” project is two-fold – that it truly democratises poetry, bringing it to a place where at some point every man, woman and child has to pause ; and that it can help to humanise an impersonal space in which people can feel particularly lost and at sea.

    My chief concern for the project is that there’s a danger we shall expect too much of it, that the yearning its initial success surely represents is for something greater than poetry can possibly satisfy. It is essential that we continue to choose the poems with great care for their accessibility and applicability. But even if we do, and manage to resist the temptation to put poetry up on every blank public wall, or use it to fill every possible moment of communal quiet, it is possible that the spiritual yearning from which poetry is presently benefiting, will soon move on. There is an opportunity here to make warm and honest human language count, perhaps as never before. But it is an opportunity not to be grabbed. We must grasp it, yes – but carefully, feelingly, sparingly.”

    Posted:


  • The Cleaning of Our Streets

    I have just signed the Hacked Off Declaration of Support for the Royal Charter for Press Self-Regulation. All three political parties are committed to this interpretation of Leveson’s recommendations. The rival version is known as “Ipso” and is favoured by most of the Press, all of whose previous systems of self-regulation have been a hollow and meaningless charade. I strongly recommend to everyone who reads this piece that they should do as I have done.

    You can place your “signature” on the Hacked Off website, where you can also get more background and read other people’s views. I myself have absolutely no doubt on this subject and do not accept in any way that the issue here is one of free speech vs political control. Nothing so grand. It is a matter simply of requiring the Press to behave responsibly as citizens and not as arrogant and predatory warlords.

    But I think there are some issues of principle here that go beyond the important matter on which Hacked Off is campaigning. Perhaps it is worth trying to highlight them. Will Hutton, a journalist himself, ex-editor of “The Observer,” has helped to get me off the ground by making the following distinction in a recent article : “[In resisting the Royal Charter] the British Press does not want to be the provider of trusted information for citizens … it wants to be free to shape the square and the character of the information it supplies, with as little redress and accountability as possible. That’s not Press freedom: that is arbitrary Press power.”

    But once the essentials are set out in this way, we can see that the issue before us is not just our largely still feral and vicious Press, putting persuasion ahead of truth-telling, sales ahead of social responsibility ; more generally, it is the use and abuse of power  ; and it concerns the nature of language itself, how tangibly powerful language can be in creating or destroying trust, and hence our Society and civilisation ; and whether and with what precision our use of language – this potent element – can be made more accountable.

    When the hoodlums down at The Mail decide to do someone over, they drag the person into an alley and lay in without fear, knowing the law can’t get them because their hooliganism is “merely” verbal. Yet language can be as powerful and destructive as boot and knife. Used by hooligans, it can abuse, bruise and infect. Public discourse can becomes Roman Circus, hunting ground, blood-sport, nightmare land, shadowy figures roaming to and fro. And everywhere the honest soul shrinks, deprived of trust and hope and inspiration. Our children despair of the future and will not vote. The grey vote turns in bewilderment and outrage to false echoes of the past.

    For we are talking unrestrained hooliganism here, not “freedom of expression”. We are talking gang rule, not Press or News. Language is a main street we need to keep clean and clear and subject to civilised standards, so that truth-tellers can be heard, words properly democratic. The rule of the gang, using language to beat up, break into, intimidate, ensnare, manipulate, deceive, points to disaster for all of us. The hooligans of language need to be brought to book.

    And there are many hooligans of language. Our present problems with the Press are just one example. Our real problem is with ourselves and those we allow to represent us and hold sway. For instance, if the advertising industry must abide by an enforceable code of truth-telling, should not politicians as well ? The latter are selling a product no less than the former, with a temptation and capacity to deceive just as great, and a social responsibility even greater. The blatant and puerile Coalition lie that the international financial crash of 2008 was “all Gordon’s fault,” “all Labour’s fault,” has been astonishingly and outrageously effective ; yet it is well said that Democracy means and is measured by access to truth. Senior Coalition politicians, holders of high and ancient offices, keep repeating this lie, but every time they do so, our democracy, their standing and their right to stand as democrats or occupy those offices, is weakened and reduced. The lie matters. It is material. The unscrupulous and unworthy politician goes home at night, after his latest lie, saying, “Aha, I sold another rotten cabbage today. Aren’t I a clever and enterprising shopkeeper, deceiving my customers to my short-term advantage ? And my party stands to gain, as well.” It’s not  plaudits he should receive from his children at home, however, but their contempt and rejection. On the face of it, he and his party might seem to gain, for now. But his children are certain to lose, because in whittling yet more shavings from public trust, their father is helping to destroy his children’s inheritance and for that alone he should be arrested.

    I am not sure what is the opposite of “poison.” Let’s go with “cleanse.”  I experience language as something as vital as earth and air, as central to human being as those two elements. Therefore it matters pressingly and tangibly how language is used. It is a matter of survival. It is a matter of survival that we demand and ensure that the language of our public discourse and public servants is cleansing, not poisonous, that our streets are kept clean. Presently our streets are running over with poison.

    Posted:


  • Fable 13 – Jason’s Sermon from a Ledge

    This short piece examines the topic of ever-accelerating change which we as a race have brought upon ourselves with our science and ingenuity, creating whole new worlds in ever quicker succession. It questions whether this acceleration we have released is manageable, even survivable. A character called Jason is the speaker. He has appeared in some of the earlier Fables, wandering a hot, prickly and glamorous landscape. Now, after a prodigious feat of strength, he makes tumultuous change the subject of his farewell address. Here is a link to the piece.

    This is the thirteenth of sixteen essays called “Fables and Reflections.” The series has been commended by Iain McGilchrist, a psychiatrist who is also author of an important book called “The Master and His Emissary—The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World”. Here is what he has to say about the Fables : “When I wrote a book about the structure of  the brain and its influence on culture, I did not expect for one minute that it would inspire artists, poets and musicians in the way that it has. I find it deeply touching to be asked by Rogan Wolf to write a brief forward for these clever and  insightful  prose poems – for that is what they are. He feels my book provides a fitting context for them. But their beauty and the imagination that created them are all his. They are full of wisdom that we need very badly to hear. I hope you enjoy them as much as I do..”

    Each Fable takes just a few minutes to read. I am uploading them one at a time, every month or so. The idea behind this approach is that people running all day just to keep up, are more likely to read them in short doses and at intervals.

    But for those who prefer them all at once, here is a link to the sixteen together.

    The series was written in a time of pause after a working life in mental health care. But it is not specifically about mental health. In some ways it tries to offer a few sign-posts for times in which it seems particularly easy to get lost. Above all, perhaps, it explores the issue of what makes community healthy, what secures connection, how are we to live in the world in such a way that neither our neighbour nor our world suffer that we may briefly thrive ? In a sense you can say that, in exploring the constituents of community here, and at this time of strain and fragmentation, frantic materialism and crude zealotry, the series asks and discusses what are the binding and redemptive skills of true human connection, the skills of being human, the skills of love.

    The series is soon to be published in book form.

    If you find value in “Fables and Reflections”, please send word of them to people you know who you think might want to read them. You could simply pass on this blog address, or, alternatively,  I am happy to e-mail them individually as attachments to people who would find that easier. I am already doing that for some people.  I would also be happy to send hard copy versions by surface mail.  If that is your preference, just send me your address.

    Posted:


  • Dawn by Lampshade

    It’s good to be up in the mornings just before the sky begins to turn. It’s a bit like a huge lampshade, stretched very tight all round. The lamp-switch is one of those fade-on fade-off ones, and the bulb has come on very dim and lovely, no obvious colour yet, no reds or greens, still just darkness edging on deep purple, but the lamp shade glowing slightly almost everywhere, or thinning, or stretching tighter, so it is a kind of slightly glowing purple now, second by second becoming deep blue-grey. The birds like these moments too. The blackbird has just said so. Always like this bit, it said. Here I am again, astonished, and just look what’s around.

    Posted:


  • Thank God for the Bishops

    I am writing this piece soon after Vincent Nichols declared that the UK Government’s changes to the benefit system are “punitive” and a “disgrace.” Two strong words quietly spoken by a man about to be appointed Cardinal by the Pope.  Since then, twenty-seven Anglican bishops and sixteen other clergy have followed suit, accusing the Tory-led coalition Government of creating, through its policies, hardship and hunger among very large numbers of people living here on these Islands. The sixteen non-Anglicans include Quakers and Methodists.

    But the Government’s answer has been remarkably blithe. The Roman Catholic Vincent Nichols and his Anglican, Methodist and Quaker colleagues are simply wrong or are exaggerating, say its two front men, Cameron the Tory and Clegg the Liberal Democrat. On the contrary, in deliberately allowing Want to wash back over the weakened flood-defences of the Welfare State, our welly-shod, deer-hunting, ex-Etonian Prime Minister claims to be restoring “Hope.”

    There is no question in my mind that Nichols and his colleagues are right in what they say. Unlike the Government apologists, they are speaking from a place of reality and integrity. Their information is accurate and they are drawing correct conclusions from it. And they are right and dutiful in urging the Government against continuing down this path. Further, they are not talking here as politicians toeing some prescribed party line in well-drilled chorus, party functionaries and creatures. Each has separately and independently come to the same conclusion, based on a common reality each has been faced with, and so they have chosen to speak out as a group. It underlines the urgency and authority of their truth as expert witnesses who have integrity. They speak the truth for us all. They are “whistle-blowers”. They describe not just uncivilised behaviour by instruments of the State, leading to degrading living conditions for many of our fellow-citizens, our neighbours ; they describe a situation which disgraces all of us, since all of us are party to it. Our nation is being de-civilised by privileged hooligans whom we have allowed to act for us as our leaders.

    For, just as I am sure that Nichols and his colleagues are truth-tellers, so I am sure that Cameron and his are not. And as the former are acting here as true leaders of a whole nation, speaking for its and our integrity as a people, Cameron and Clegg et al are just propagandists for a clan and a dogma, speaking only for an elite and self-serving minority group, for whom these truths and this truth-telling are simply irrelevant. Let’s just bat the Truth away and put our gloss in its place. The unregulated and disreputable right-wing Press will support our lie. The gloss suits all of us better.

    It matters not a jot to these politicians and their supporters that in their spinning they deny the integrity of the Bishops and the lived experience of the thousands of fellow-citizens for whom the Bishops speak. Like dishonest grocers, they measure success not by clean sale but achieved deceit.

    For this is not just disagreement. It is a lack of interest in truth and fact on the part of those in power. It involves a slick yet brutish dismissal of the expertise and integrity of the truth-teller.

    And this confuses me to the core. All of us, surely, were brought up to believe that telling the truth is somehow the right thing to do, an end in itself. An interest in language – I am still naïve enough to believe – assumes an interest in words as a means of bearing and telling the truth. What else are words for ? When I get really excited, I say that truth-telling is worth dying for. Democracy, Community and Civilisation would die without it.

    But look at what has happened here. The truth-tellers have been told simply to run along and play.

    Granted, no cross or stake for them, no death in flames, no firing squad. But no notice taken, either, no listening, no apparent embarrassment or human concern. The conditions they complain of will continue. The spin to justify those conditions will carry on spinning. Should we give up truth-telling then ? Shall we stop bovvering ?  Shall we revert to grunting ?

    Should elections in future be just grunt contests ?

    Prime Minister, in the interests of journalistic balance, could you give us your grunt on the government’s latest attack on the poor and disabled of this country, your country ? Your re-election will depend on the slickness and smoothness of your grunt, how briefly warmed it makes your listeners feel.

    At present there is no discernible difference between the talk of dishonest grocers aimed at making a crooked sale through the spinning of illusion, and the talk of this nation’s elected political leaders.

    I finish with this imaginary picture. It is evening. People subdued after a very long and hard day’s work, after a fraught journey home, are converging on the supermarket, forming a weary queue. Suddenly, they see someone gaunt and fragile being dragged round the corner by a bunch of roughs and rude-boys, very expensively dressed. The shoppers quickly turn back to compiling their shopping lists. They know what’s going to happen next, round the corner and in the shadows, and they don’t want to think about it. “I bet that person deserves all that’s coming,” say one or two to themselves, uneasily.

    Is that imaginary picture a just description of our present society ? I believe it is and I am ashamed.

    Thank God for the Bishops.

    Posted:


  • The Raging Hawk

    I run a creative writing workshop each fortnight in a psychiatric in-patient unit in Brent and always cycle there and back. One part of the route runs alongside the Grand Union canal, another part the Thames between Hammersmith and Wandsworth.

    On my way home one evening, just below Hammersmith Bridge, still in day-light, tide very low, a whole community of different birds at their evening work along the mud banks, I saw two largish birds flying fast towards me from across the river, one behind the other.

    The first was a pigeon, quite clear. Then I saw the second, close behind. And heard the sound it made, a fierce, harsh shriek, repetitive. It was a large hawk, its breast flecked, a sparrow hawk perhaps.

    London life carried on around me, quiet here. The odd cyclist sharing the path with me. A photographer mooning around, checking riverside compositions.

    The pigeon, quite close now, wheeled sharply and flew very fast away downstream along the near bank, the hawk still after it, shrieking. I was astonished this was happening – and here. I was astonished to be here too, to witness this, and I followed on my bike.

    They were further away now, about 100 yards eastward and suddenly the pigeon was down and the hawk too, both on the mud on the water’s edge. “A hawk has just killed a pigeon over there !” I exclaimed to a woman cyclist riding the other way. I pointed downriver.  “A what ?” she answered, but didn’t stop or turn to look.

    Then I saw some crows hopping over for a piece of the hawk’s kill. It lunged at them to drive them off. They cringed away. Then came hopping back and it lunged again. Suddenly the pigeon was up and flying on, desperately, back across the river. Not a kill after all. Perhaps it recovered.

    And now the hawk really seemed just to lose its rag. Can that happen ? Can hawks be angry ?  It didn’t follow the pigeon. It went for the crows.  Then menaced a small group of ducks. And then was up in the air again pursuing a startled sea-gull.

    I was closer now. The photographer was quite close too, but looking outward, not in at the river and he was missing everything of this. “There’s a large hawk over the river .” I said to him. “It’s hunting. I think it’s a sparrow hawk”.

    “Really ?” he said, but just politely, not energised. “I’ll look out for it.” But he walked off towards Hammersmith, away from the raging hawk.

    I stopped at a pub a short distance downriver. The hawk was still raging, still visible, throwing itself around the sky, lunging at one creature after another. But then at last it disappeared over a roof-top.

    I tried to tell my story to an attractive young woman serving behind the bar. But my words went nowhere. She smiled kindly at me. “You must have had a lovely afternoon,” she said.

     

     

    Posted:


  • Fable 12 – Jason Compares Place A with Place B

    This short piece is an allegory. Here is a link to it. It compares opposing ways of life, or mind-sets, or brain hemispheres. Place A is a fortress defending its inhabitants from reality and truth. Place B is wide open to these things and paralysed in consequence. While Place B seems more human than Place A, neither can be looked to for rescue. A Lear-like ordeal in the storm is our only hope for renewal and survival.

    This is the twelfth of sixteen essays called “Fables and Reflections.” Each Fable takes just a few minutes to read. I am uploading them one at a time, every month or so. The idea behind this approach is that people running all day just to keep up, are more likely to read them in short doses and at intervals.

    But for those who prefer them all at once, here is a link to the sixteen together.

    The series was written in a time of pause after a working life in mental health care. But it is not specifically about mental health. In some ways it tries to offer a few sign-posts for times in which it seems particularly easy to get lost. Above all, perhaps, it explores the issue of what makes community healthy, what secures connection, how are we to live in the world in such a way that neither our neighbour nor our world suffer that we may briefly thrive ? In a sense you can say that, in exploring the constituents of community here, and at this time of strain and fragmentation, frantic materialism and crude zealotry, the series asks and discusses what are the binding and redemptive skills of true human connection, the skills of being human, the skills of love.

    The series is soon to be published in book form.

    If you find value in “Fables and Reflections”, please send word of them to people you know who you think might want to read them. You could simply pass on this blog address, or, alternatively,  I am happy to e-mail them individually as attachments to people who would find that easier. I am already doing that for some people.  I would also be happy to send hard copy versions by surface mail.  If that is your preference, just send me your address.

    Posted:


  • Lout Language as an Abuse of Power

    This piece was mostly written in the second half of October 2013. The UK Privy Council (quaint relic of a powerful medieval institution, suddenly back on stage) had just turned down a recommendation for a new form of self-regulation put to them by various representatives of the Press, the vast majority of these of a Right or Far Right political perspective. Paul Dacre, Editor of the Mail, recent slanderer of Ed Miliband’s dead father, was one of them. Dacre had featured large in previous press self-regulatory arrangements and appeared to like them – perhaps for their utter ineffectiveness, perhaps for his prominence in them. Perhaps for both reasons.

    So the Privy Council’s dismissal of this latest recommendation for Press self-regulation was a necessary act and good news. But it was disturbing to learn that a decision on the alternative version had been delayed and we are still waiting for it. This version is more in tune with the Leveson Report, allows for regulation by an independent body and is supported in parliament by all the political parties, democratically elected and accountable. Trust is in short supply these days, for very good reason, and I do not trust this delay. I fear chicanery is at work, with perhaps a dash of Oxfordshire LOL and a solid dollop of self-serving calculation. The 2015 election is hoveing into view, after all, and as things stand, most of the Press are Tory blue in tooth and claw. The less regulated the better, yeah ?

    In the meantime, the resistance put up by so much of the Press to the recent moves to make it behave properly is quite extraordinary, considering the extent and seriousness of the misconduct of so many of its representatives in recent times. (We are presently being reminded of these by the simultaneous trials of Andy Coulson, once advisor to our Prime Minister, and of Rebekah Brooks, once our Prime Minister’s riding companion).

    Or perhaps the resistance is not so very extraordinary. Louts dislike being called to order.

    One way that Press regulation is being painted by those who oppose it is that Leveson et al represent an attack on Free Speech, one of the foundation stones, or key-stones, of Democracy. Therefore, in resisting regulation, Dacre and his like are defending a crucial principle, the power and freedom to hold the “sticky-fingered” politicians to account, albeit sometimes “raucously.”  Democracy itself, their argument seems to go, relies on their ability to obtain stories exactly and only as they themselves see fit, however illegally and outrageously they do so, and however inaccurate, misleading, biased or abusive the end-result. A further justification or fall-back argument seems to be that in a tough old world, we poor chaps have to make a profit somehow. You should pity us.

    One wonders how they dare.

    In the meantime, voices keep being raised in favour of regulation : Alistair Cambell in his two Cambridge lectures on journalism, published in the Guardian ; Steve Richards in a good piece for The Independent ; a few days’ later, a petition organised by “Hacked Off,” and signed by a long list of people, ranging from Polly Toynbee to Gary Linekar, urging the Press to sign up to the Royal Charter proposals ; then at the end of November, David Yelland’s lecture at the Media Standards’ Trust.  But still no clear developments or decisions, at least out here in the park, where we wait. In the meantime, sharing the wait in my small  corner, I have decided to go ahead and upload this piece. For I believe that in the final analysis, the issue is wider than journalism and regulation. It concerns our use of language and how we need to address each other if our society is to hold together and work not just for the few, short-term, but for the many, all of us, long-term. It concerns social responsibility and the use and abuse of power in this Society which we like to think is Free. I think my piece has something to say on all these things.

    Here are three illustrations, based on recent history, which I think might be helpful in throwing some light on what is really going on here (as compared to what some people claim is going on).

    1.

    The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Russian novelist and dissident, was deported to the West by the Soviet State in 1974.  Leonid Brezhnev was the Soviet Head of State at the time and presumably decided that the novelist would be less trouble flown out than held in. For a while, Solzhenitsyn stayed in Germany in the house of a friend, then moved to Switzerland and then to the United States.

    At that time, the Cold War between East and West was still in full swing. Germany was still split between Soviet East and Democratic West. A whole string of East European countries such as Poland and Rumania were still part of the Soviet Union. Censorship in that totalitarian empire was strict. Until his expulsion, Solzhenitsyn’s writings had either been smuggled out to the West for publication or been read clandestinely in his own country, the manuscripts passed from hand to hand.

    His arrival in the West was therefore big news. The free press pounced and crowded in. Eager to obtain sight or sound of him, they swarmed about his friend’s house, where he had taken refuge after all these lonely years of being hounded by the functionaries of a repressive state.

    The free press of the West clamoured for a juicy morsel. They pushed and shoved, elbowing each other for the best take, the best view, the most profitable angle. They flattened parts of the garden hedge to give themselves a better shot. They trod on the daffodils.

    Solzhenitsyn’s friend eventually protested. Quite true, these raucous abusers of his privacy and peace, casually flattening his carefully cultivated garden, did not carry guns. They were not a threat to his life and could not deprive him of his tongue. But they were nevertheless acting with a similar contempt for individual rights and dignity as that shown by the bought creatures of a tyrant state. Enjoying a freedom from tyranny Solzhenitsyn had never experienced, they were now imposing on him a tyranny of their own. The friend pleaded with them to treat Solzhenitsyn and himself with more respect. Freedom cannot be just a licence to abuse. A Society whose people are allowed to live free from enforced and excessive, de-humanising regulation, will not flourish if those people simply use their freedom to encroach on the freedom of others, acting not according to a standard of sound principle, but whatever they can get away with. He begged them, a Press largely unregulated, to show an adult capacity to regulate themselves. He pleaded with them, in other words, to grow up.

    Did they ?

    2.

    Once upon a time, UK citizens out walking their dogs were left free to allow their pets to shit freely in the park, without regard for their fellow-citizens whose children might wish to roll around on the self-same sward soon afterwards. In consequence, dog shit piled up over all our parks, in steaming, stinking celebration of free enterprise without responsibility. And our children’s health suffered. Perhaps some dog-owners recognised that leaving dog-shit all over the park was anti-social ; but was that recognition enough for them to get out those little black plastic bags on a self-regulatory basis ? If any did, they had small influence. The majority needed a law that would make them. Now that the law has been passed, self-evidently sensible, most dog-owners seem to respect it. But without the law, I think we should be realistic and accept that the nation’s dog-owners would have carried on with their careless and anti-social behaviour and the shit of their dogs would have continued to pile up in parks and on pavements.

    I find the image and principle of dogs shitting in the parks of our community quite a useful way of evaluating human behaviour, and distinguishing between the real nature of an action, and what the doer of that deed claims is its nature. In this case, when is conduct the expression of an essential freedom, a fundamental and necessary right, product and sign of a healthy community ; and when instead is it just anti-social, a walk in the park with your dog, which leaves shit there when you go home ? When Dacre and his colleagues at the Mail recently cast malevolent aspersions on the character of Ed Miliband and his father, were they acting as responsible members of the Free Press, the Fourth Estate, holding a politician to account, as they claimed ? Or were they not rather acting just from personal spite, using language inaccurately, improperly and with malign intent, in other words abusing their position, their public role, their licence, the power of public words, and just allowing their dog to shit in the park ? And, further, is the Mail’s owner Lord Rothemere meeting his social responsibilities as a “wealth creator,” when he arranges for the income he passively earns from his newspaper and its doings, to reach him via more than one tax-haven (as reported in the Guardian) ? While he allows his attack dogs to shit in the park, should he not at least be paying the tax that is due from him as a citizen ?

    Who are the real skivers here, the real spongers, the real enemies of the community ?

    Can these people really claim to be representatives of the Free Press, the Fourth Estate, “holding the Executive to account” ? I suggest that, on the contrary, they are just a bunch of hooligans gleefully making mayhem in the Forum for as long as we let them get away with it, their activities an unhygienic and anti-social dog-mess that needs cleaning up.

    3.

    Trade Unions have been a necessary force for good in democratic industrial Societies. Formed in the UK some time after the Industrial Revolution had taken hold, they helped protect and defend the working population from the worst depredations of a governing class drunk with the power and opportunities which the new manufacturing industries offered, many of that class quite unscrupulous in treating their employees as mere means to the end of their own personal gain. Hence the conditions described so vividly by the novelist Charles Dickens – the child labour, the inhuman working hours, and so on. And the mind-set of Gradgrind, the industrialist featured in Dickens’ “Hard Times,” is worth a second look ; in the globalised world of the twenty-first century, Gradgrind speaks in many languages and flies rapaciously from capital to capital.

    During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, appeals to conscience or morality were insufficient to stop many captains and managers of industry from acting towards their employees, not as fellow citizens, but mere numbers of hands, less than human. And if they lived wretched lives, it was said, they had only themselves to blame. They were merely “feckless”. (“Fecklessness” is a nineteenth century version of “skiving”).

    It was the Trade Unions whose campaigns and collective action ensured that proper and humane standards emerged over time, sometimes using industrial action to force the issue. In a sense it was the Trade Unions who reminded the UK, the first industrialised economy in the world, how to sustain community and remain civilised in this new urbanised society so tumultuously taking shape.

    But by the late twentieth century, the Trade Unions by and large were no longer defenders of the disenfranchised poor, standing for fairness and equity and proper standards. In too many cases they had become just another power-base, less correcting injustice and defending communities than merely exerting and often abusing their power in self-serving fashion.  Their old rallying cries still rang out, but too often no longer applying to present reality. Those cries, those claims, became a cover for motives altogether less noble, just pushing for whatever they could get, at whatever expense to the wider community of which they were part. When Thatcher moved against them in the 1980s, limiting their powers, with whatever questionable mix of  intentions, she was confronting a force that had drifted away from its own true nature and origins, like a suit of clothes adrift from the body that had once lived in it. In her own mind, Thatcher was perhaps taking on what they truly stood for. But in reality, they no longer stood for that thing. Robin Hood had settled down. He had taken out a mortgage. He had invested in shares.

    It begins to look as if new champions of the Have-nots are needed now, to challenge the new anti-social abuses by the Haves and their representatives. But these champions will need to take a different shape and the muscle at their disposal will have to be different too. The unions used strike action, the withdrawal of labour, as their bargaining tool of last resort. But this is not now the simple powerful thing that it was when the national economy relied on its own manufacturing base, and hence on the workers employed in its own factories.

    But the main point I am making here, is that no Society stays still. No element or component of Society ever stays still. The old names hang on, but almost always soon describe new and different realities behind those names, often (though not always) pale shadows, or corruptions, of the originals. But how do you know when the outer form or title is no longer a true expression of the spirit within, merely a mask, even a form of lie ?

    Or, just as hard, how do you unmask an individual or body claiming a role or purpose accepted as Good, Virtuous, Socially Beneficial, when their true purpose and activity is absolutely different, absolutely opposed to the Good they claim ?
    Still these masked apologists lay claim to the old names, the flags of the Good,  even though the body inside the suit can be an absolutely different entity from the body the suit was made for, even though the name has actually become a lie.

    I suggest that, as the Trade Unions became at length something of a lie as far as their original and true spirit were concerned, so it is most certainly a lie for newspapers such as the Daily Mail or the Sun to lay claim to the title “Free Press.” Whether or not they once acted as true members of this body, this necessary element of British life, they do so no longer. They are something else instead, a mere power-base and vested interest, war-lord citadels full of creatures and mouth-pieces serving at table, suppressors of fact and real democratic argument, at odds with real free speech, at odds with a healthy community. They are dogs running loose and feral in the park.

    Now some conclusions :

    We live by language. As a carrier and currency of truth and the shared recognition of truth, language connects people in a way that makes community life-enhancing and a healthy democracy possible. But this will be true only of language which we can trust to carry and exchange the truth. A society without sufficient trust or sharing of truth is simply not a society. It’s a bear-garden, a collection of caves, each armed against all others, on watch. Before we can lay down our arms and form a society, it is not enough just to speak to each other ; to a sufficient extent we have to trust each other’s words.

    But language is just as prone to be a carrier of deceit, propaganda, lies and manipulation as it is of truth. In that case, it becomes the tool of the enemies of a healthy community – dictators, oligarchs, worshippers of self and acquisition and power, irresponsible or dishonest politicians, time-servers, self-servers, dishonest salesmen, bought creatures, parrots. Language becomes not the expression and life-blood of democracy, but its enemy, clogging the roads and fouling the rivers which connect people.

    Human nature is flawed, we know that all too well ; we see the evidence and consequences behind, before, around and within us. As we are flawed, so is our use of language flawed, no escape.

    And not only flawed, but in our market economy, consciously and overtly manipulative – on screens, on walls, everywhere we look and hear, language deployed not to share truth but to sell a product, a mere selling technique, some catchy jingle that will lodge and settle in the mind whether or not it is true or valid. Politicians use the same technique, deploying words less to communicate than to sell and win over, ever more skillfully and unscrupulously, perhaps even unconsciously, as if some of them have lost all sense of the difference between saying what they really mean and believe is true and saying what they think will lodge in people’s minds to their own narrow advantage, however wrong, untruthful and ultimately poisonous to the body politic.

    But I have three sons, I hope with a liveable human adult life still before them. I hope that life is not in doubt for them. I hope that a reasonable set of possibilities awaits them, despite the threats and dangers we all see, the vast majority of those brought upon them by the flaws of previous human generations, including my own.

    And for the sake of my three sons, and all their peers everywhere, we have to seek at all times to review, redeem, renew the ways we address one another, the ways we speak, how we use words, how we sustain the connections of community. So that the next generation is equipped with a society that works and provides a liveable human world to live in.

    And to help us, we need a genuinely free Press, in whatever form, a politically independent and responsible way of gathering and publishing news and information and intelligent analysis which we can trust, to help us understand as best possible the tumultuous world we live in, so that we can act responsibly in it. Yes, we do need a Press that will hold politicians to account, yes, we do need a Press that will be fearless in casting light into murky corners, where activity is taking place which threatens the well-being of all of us.

    But the newspapers which most of us seem to read, and which still appear to be a force and influence in Society, strong enough at any rate to frighten politicians, do not constitute a free Press in that sense at all. They are not even newspapers. At best they are noisy hooligan soapboxes. At worst they are themselves murky corners, pirate strongholds, platforms for insidious propaganda and news manipulation which either reflect the hates and prejudices of a few individuals of extreme views and often extremely questionable behaviour, or else deliberately play up to and encourage the fears and prejudices of their readership for their own immediate gain. Or both. The owners have a lot of money and want to use their wealth and their possession of these organs for the purpose and pleasure of using and abusing power. They work through their creatures, bought functionaries who misname themselves journalists. In selecting and recounting what “news” to publish, the criterion these creatures use is less the need to feature topics and events of real public moment than those which reflect their owner’s particular prejudices and obsessions and the paper’s need to sell. When a representative of the Mail newspapers, seeking to defend Dacre’s loutish and indefensible doing-over of Miliband’s late father, gave an inch of ground by saying they perhaps should have categorised the piece as “Opinion,” he was presumably seeking to imply that at least some of the Mail is given over to News. The implication was of course misleading. The way the Mail and similar hooligan operations write News is always to colour and cover it thickly with opinion, always with the intention to win over, manipulate and direct the opinions of others to their own self-serving ends. The Mail and its fellows are daily acts of language pollution purporting to be newspapers. They feed on prejudice and fears in the body politic, cultivate and grow fat on them. No wonder they are so keen on maintaining the present status quo. While Miliband senior was a credit to this nation, respected across the political spectrum by students and peers, these street roughs are a disgrace to us all and do great harm to our nation’s standing and social health.

    Earlier, I referred to the world of advertising and to the fact that it too uses words in exploitative and manipulative fashion. But it is worth noting that, in that world, there is at least a code of conduct which seems reasonably effective, so that when excessive misuse of language is deployed in the market-place, real action is taken to rectify the fault.

    There is no justification whatsoever for absolving the Press from similar rules of behaviour. Such rules need to be stringent and effectively enforced.

    (And politicians ? Is not the language of politics dripping with lies, distortions, sales-tricks and falsities of all kinds ? Should there not be a strict code of conduct for the way politicians use language ? Should not those politicians who tell and keep telling lies in order to gain advantage in the political race, be as liable to penalty as dog-owners are, who allow their dogs to shit in the park ?).

    The hooligan press, as presently constituted, are not defenders of democracy or of free expression or of truth.  On the contrary, they are enemies of all these things. They seek, through often disgraceful means, to foster in the Many lies and prejudices that suit the interests of a very Few. In that sense they are also the enemies of a truly free press and they drag both it and all of us into their dirt. In the final analysis they are enemies of language itself, highjacking and perverting it as a way of winning and wielding power and influence which they then grossly abuse to the cost of all of us, present and future. The park and our children need defending from them.

    Let’s finish this long piece with a short poem :

    Word Play

    May words work.
    May mine
    look you in the eye
    and having found you out
    work on you right there.
    Fraud and mobster play
    with words, seeking
    only to deceive and buy
    and sway you to their will.
    I must work a cleaner way
    my words releasing you
    to where you belong.
    Words must truth-tell
    sound the soul
    make us well.

    Rogan Wolf
    September 2013

    Posted: