Emily Dickinson, "I fear a Man of frugal Speech"

Hi all –

I was with my family watching broadcast news and wondering how anyone knows anything. It wasn't that the news was technically wrong. PBS and NBC did cover Trump and China, as well as the leadership of the Federal Reserve.

But the overwhelming impression I got was that everyone can take it easy. I didn't hear an explanation that the U.S. is probably done as a hegemon because of the Iran War. The invocation of the "Thucydides Trap" by Xi Jinping is not a small deal. It is a statement which can be rendered thus: "if this is not handled the way we like, we will force the issue." I cannot remember the last time the U.S. heard anything like this, aimed at it directly, from a superpower.

I also didn't hear much about the importance of the independence of the Federal Reserve. There was talk about how former chairman Powell handled attacks by the executive, but nothing indicating that the executive presides over an apparatus which has detained thousands of children. Nothing which might prompt one to ask whether the executive wants to juice the economy in order gain political capital lost from other endeavors. I'm not saying the news has to validate my suspicions. But why are we not led to any essential questions about power? Why are we being put to sleep with unnecessarily neutral language, as if things are normal? At the very least, being at war with Iran (for what, again?) and soaring oil prices are anything but normal.

Again, I'm not saying the news has to say exactly what I want it to say. What I want is for people to be able to ask good questions and understand the stakes. They can draw their own conclusions, but they have to see that the things happening in the world are not trivial.

I should say that a number of prominent writers hold the news will always be there. It need not be a source of agitation or concern; a good life can be lived without attention to the constant barrage of events. I think of this in the same way as the usage of "the poor will always be there," an excuse to do nothing in the face of resolvable injustice. No one's asking for utopia. We just want people to stop abusing, imprisoning, and bombing others. It is not only possible, but the only just thing, to ask for improvement.

Emily Dickinson, "I fear a Man of frugal Speech"

Dickinson panics about "a Man of frugal Speech." He cannot be bested like a "Haranguer" or "Babbler;" he has a grandeur not unlike someone whose every word is Truth. It makes sense to talk about this poem's indirect illustration of divinity, but we are living through a crisis centered on anything but "frugal Speech." Babblers and haranguers are omnipresent, giving us far worse than toxic demagogues. Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, in "How Can We Live Together?", points to the essential shamelessness of this moment, where a magic belief in more speech supposedly makes those operating in bad faith drivers of a more rational species. Instead of defending norms which protect people, we disguise our cowardice as principle. So not only do we have toxic demagogues, but we have no ability to tell them to stop. It would seem we have to reconcile how we conceive the current spirit of the First Amendment with "frugal Speech."

I fear a Man of frugal Speech (543)
Emily Dickinson
  
I fear a Man of frugal Speech –
I fear a Silent Man –
Haranguer – I can overtake –
Or Babbler – entertain –

But He who weigheth – While the Rest –
Expend their furthest pound –
Of this Man – I am wary –
I fear that He is Grand –

The primary puzzle of "a Man of frugal Speech," for me, occurs at the opening. Dickinson says she also fears "a Silent Man." These are not the same thing! I distinctly remember a moment reading Xenophon where his Socrates mocked an ambitious youth pretending to be modest through silence. Sure, you can be quiet when you don't know anything, looking briefly better than someone who does know something but appears crude or wrong. Still, what we imagine most effective is silence resonating throughout a room as considered judgment. Does Dickinson fear every "Silent Man," or those who appear to have a certain gravity? Would Dickinson fear Ben Shapiro or Joe Rogan if they were quiet for an hour?

When I first read this poem, 17 years ago, these sorts of thoughts pushed me to think that this was not simply "a Man" but Christ Himself. The notion driving the fear is that the Man has to know something more than the rest of us. A "Haranguer," not so much. All of us who are chronically online know most of those throwing insults can't handle a second's worth of their own abuse. A "Babbler?" Sure, they build audiences among cranks, spreading conspiracy theories. But they can't possibly engage anyone serious. The knowledge "a Silent Man" has must be divine, especially when you consider even the best of us collapse into putting down others or talking far too much.

The poem's logic, at this point, is a temptation. I have to remind myself that haranguers, babblers, and their enablers rule the world. Dickinson has both a credible portrait of who God is, one whose judgment sits upon you without a single utterance, and also raised the question of whether this is relevant to anything. Haranguers and babblers do not exhaust themselves, leaving only Truth standing. The Man she is "wary" of, the one she believes "Grand," has all but disappeared.

At this juncture we probably want "frugal Speech" back. This may be possible for our world, but we need to probe more deeply into what it means. Of course those who shamelessly defend the shameless have to be exposed for sham reasoning and fraudulent arguments. You can't let pundits proclaim that free speech is cursing out powerless, vulnerable people or simply lying all the time. But that's only half the solution–it may bring you back to a simple notion of "frugal Speech"–as it doesn't give us the defense of genuine speech and judgment needed.

The defense of genuine speech, speech with weight, entails bringing unheard voices to the table. Creating a welcoming table that wants to hear hard truths, communicated and heard with respect. And this is something our current interpretation of the First Amendment does not appreciate. People really do think they're being heard when they rant on X, a website bought and controlled by a man worth $800 billion. They think X is about free expression, especially when they think it distasteful. We're dealing with the most childish ideas about what freedom and responsibility actually mean, ideas from those still angry their mom took their Xbox controller away or who truly believe they know better because they watch lots of YouTube.

The childishness will continue until those bearing the consequences of the way we live are heard. We don't hear from those in prison, those losing proper medical care, those struggling to find a home, those in our detention centers. Their stories are out there, but they are not invited to the table. Only when we make the decision to live together do we realize the true importance of frugal speech. How necessary is it to use your words to give others a space to talk?