RICH FOR THE RICH'

To the Editors of The Crimson

In regard to the recent problems in maintaining the time-honored distinction between poetry and politics at the sexist Signet Society Adrienne Rich. "feminists poet" according to The Crimson, refused to read her poems when it becomes clear that her audience is male chauvinist. Unfortunately, it appears that Rich draws her fine lines in odd places.

One implication of her act of protest is that she would gladly have read her poetry a before "a non-sexist" Signet Society: the chances, however, of finding such a society within the bastion of bourgeois aesthetics are slum. The capitalist literary elite is about as receptive to ideological liberation (or even struggle) as the Harvard Board of Overseers. It should be clear that the Signet Society is only slightly more qualified to judge radical poetry than is Dean Dunlop to judge the "competence" of Professor Guinier, yet apparently Rich expected something more advanced, more avant-grade--or, at least, more subtle--from the guardians of upper-class culture, Well, even angles fart, and so must the sweet Signet subtlety occasionally sour. The elegant left (left of Eliot and Pound, that is) revealed its imperial purple this time, exposing itself as actually being scarred by the workshops of history. Yes, the Signet Society is "male-dominated": this sexism is one species of flora which flourishes in the literary salons of the bourgeoisie. And proliferous Harvard is where capitalism picks its flowers.

Another implications of Rich's protest is that, if Timothy S. Mayer '66 (who doesn't "think this sort of thing belongs in your newspaper") had been blessed with the foresight to omit the burlesque anecdotes from his repertoire--if he had been polite enough to discuss, say, his investments--Rich would have read her poems to the cager Signets, culture would have been disseminated, and poetry would have maintained its historical autonomy, its political immunity, its holy sanctity. In short, all would be well.

Rich's recent letter of clarification only intensifies the contradictions implicit in her protest: "I accepted the Signet's invitation well aware that it was 'male dominated'...I left the dinner because a crudely sexist toast was given..." (my emphasis). She explains her exit, but obscures her entrance. The question is, why was Rich there in the first place? Would it be enough for Signet members to be "non-sexist" while remaining ideological servants of capitalism and sexism go so well together?) Haven't we seen enough bourgeois poets chasing their souls like butterflies? Haven't we seen enough backs branded with "I'art pour I'art"? Can't we begin to get a feel for the class-nature of Signet aesthetic ideology? From what sort of myopia does Rich suffer that she will read to this literary elite as long as its sexism is kept politely underground?

In a recent conversation at the atavistic Grolier Bookshop, a Signet initiate explained to me that "poems are like jewels." Is Rich a lapidary? Jewels fall in the pockets of the wealthy. Does Rich write for the ruling class? Thomas Goodkind '72-2