Dimitar Anakiev
IS HAIKU FREE OR COLONIAL LITERATURE?
(Text written on the occasion of 25 years of Haiku Newspaper)
When we started Haiku Newpaper in 1993, our intention was to establish a direct bridge between local and Japanese culture. Twenty-five years later, we see the predominant presence of American authors in Haiku Newspaper and, in the field of theory, almost exclusively those authors from other countries who are advocates of the "American-Japanese" cultural stance.
However, the absence of nationally important poets in today’s American haiku poetry (unlike previous ones) raises the question of whether its protagonists today can be considered exemplary, despite the prevalence of the English language? Still, are the postulates on which today’s American haiku literature rests the postulates of free or colonial literature? To answer this question we must first know what is free literature? The answer is simple: it is culturally autonomous literature that respects the right to individual freedom of expression (poetic license) and participates in the process of cultural exchange based on the principles of the International PEN: "All forms are universal, all cultures are equal." This fundamental slogan, in the case of haiku, means that the basic form of haiku poetry in all countries and all cultures is 5,7,5 and that thanks to the "poetic license" it depends on the individual poetic style how much and what way the poets will respect the form. This is evidenced by the Matsuyama Declaration , published in 2000 as a Japanese and international position to defend universal values in haiku poetry around the world. However, this declaration was miraculously covered up in circles of power and remained unnoticed.
Cultural equality means that poets in Bulgaria or Serbia or Sweden or the United States, for example, do not have to learn Japanese culture to write haiku, this is guaranteed by their cultural autonomy. The universality of the form implies the engagement of local culture as the basis for haiku creation in each country individually. This means that Dimitar Stefanov, Desanka Maksimović or Tomas Transtroemer do not have to know what kigo or senryu is, simply because they are culturally conditioned terms that are not universal. Form is universal, kigo is not, senryu is not. In countries that respect the rules that apply to free literature - in the past it was Bulgaria, Serbia, Sweden... and the USA - we have the participation of nationally important poets in local haiku literature. Raising culture above poetry, imposing sa called "Japanese culture" on poets, means driving important poets out of haiku. It is clear that the Japanese culture that is imposed on other people's poets cannot be a real Japanese culture, but it is a colonial surrogate, which has goals different from poetic ones. Of course, many famous poets used their poetic license to study Japanese culture (real one), one of the best examples being the American poet Allen Ginsberg. However, foreign culture can never be a domestic literary standard, it is always left to the right of choice.
What is the situation in America today? Today's generation of American editors is obviously committed to the policy of colonialism in literature, and such a situation has a tradition. This primarily means that the rules of the International P.E.N. (the result of political multilateralism) and individual freedom overlaps with the politics of liberalism; the universality of form is denied and elements of Japanese culture, such as kigo and senryu, are turned into labels and used as sophisticated means of censorship. This whole set of colonial measures really comes into play with William Higginson, whom we can consider the father of the colonial approach to the haiku literature, although we have seen this approach from the very beginning, since Harold Gold Henderson. What are the features of colonial literature? They are clearly visible:
1. Denial of the historical development of haiku in Japan and the development of various genres of haiku.
2. Cultivation of the cult of Matsuo Basho and Zen Buddhism as the only ideologies of haiku.
3. The use of Japanese cultural labels as a means of censorship (kigo, senryu ...)
4. Denial of the universality of form and consequent destruction of form.
5. Challenging multiculturalism in haiku and covertly returning to the authoritarian principles of Takahama Kyoshi.
Haiku began its life in the Balkans independently of American politics and culture. For many years, our haiku had an independent cultural development. Haiku was equally popular in the Balkans with the people and with famous poets: Dekleva, Maksimović, Paljetak, Dimitar Stefanov, to name just a few. Poets and editors from the Balkans today have only two possible paths: to retain cultural autonomy and continue to nurture haiku as free literature, or to voluntarily accept the colonial yoke. For the first time, which is certainly more difficult, it means relying mainly on domestic forces. As that Bosnian joke says: "Come to yourself if you have one."
Comments
Post a Comment