Despite this universalizing tendency, Perloff exemplified the importance of geographical locality over psychological archetype, citing her childhood in Vienna and identification as European and not American. Nevertheless, in discussing Language poetry, she drew a comparison that reverted to the traditional Jewish stereotypes of “self-deprecation” and “self-irony.” While self-irony is certainly a common feature of both Language poetry and Jewish writing/culture, I was surprised that none of the panelists drew the connection between Kabbalah’s innovative approach to language and its parallels in the Language movement. Why continue to employ the overused stereotypes of exile as a comparison to radical poetic praxis, when there are many more radical historical-literary elements of Judaism (Kabbalah, Hasidism, Messianism) to choose from?

Hallerstein, a prominent Yiddishist, may have tried to redeem the conversation when she mentioned that the word “radical” comes from the Latin word for “root”—i.e., radicalism is really a return to ones roots. I would ask—which roots? Judaism consists of too many different traditions to make such a simplistic assertion. She may have been referring to religious roots, however defined. Indeed, Hallerstein highlighted the fact that the other panelists seemed to polarize religious and secular culture, instead of recognizing the immense pluralism that exists within religious Judaism.

So, why exclude religious Jewish writing from the title of the discussion? If Rothenberg’s concept of being-outside-language is parallel to the historical Jewish experience of exile, then perhaps Bernstein’s choice to limit the subject to secular Judaism might make sense. (Then again, Rothenberg himself has anthologized and created ecstatic Jewish ritual, and written on the false messiah Jacob Frank.) The secular Jew is a special subcategory of exiled persons—not only are they exiled, by default, from the Jewish homeland, but are doubly exiled (though voluntarily) from the strictures of Jewish religion. This chosen exile from traditional religious culture mirrors the experimental poet’s exile from fixed poetics. Writers who work outside of traditional forms, like Jews who identify beyond traditional forms of Judaism, must practice the art of constant self-re-evaluation, rejecting the comfort of accepted meaning, usage, and form; overturning language; pushing its boundaries.

[1]       2       [3]       [next->] Smadar Eliaf, What Van Liked (1981)