Poetry has never been a profitable art form in any straightforward sense, and yet poems outlast empires, economic systems, and fashion trends. Poetry resurfaces most forcefully in moments of social fracture—when language itself is under strain—when ordinary speech proves insufficient for the complexity of lived experience. In this way, poetry has long functioned as a quiet but persistent form of activism.
Activist poetry is often misunderstood as sloganized verse. This misunderstanding rests on a narrow definition of both poetry and activism. If activism is imagined only as direct political persuasion, and poetry only as lyrical self-expression, then the two appear mismatched. But if activism is understood more broadly—as an effort to reshape perception, expand empathy, challenge dominant frameworks, or preserve threatened ways of knowing—then poetry emerges not as an outlier, but as one of the most durable activist forms we have.
The past year has reminded us how contested language has become. Public discourse increasingly rewards speed and noise. Poetry operates in deliberate opposition to these pressures. It slows language down. It demands attention to rhythm, silence, ambiguity, and the emotional residue words leave behind. In a culture that treats language as a tool for dominance or branding, poetry insists on language as a place of care. That itself, is political.
The poets of the nineteenth century—writers like Percy Bysshe Shelley, whose assertion that poets are “the unacknowledged legislators of the world” was already grappling with the relationship between art and power. Shelley’s claim was not that poets draft laws, but that they shape the imaginative conditions under which laws become possible. It influences how people understand justice, freedom, and responsibility before those concepts ever enter the big debate.
Poets have acted as historians. Epic poetry preserved cultural memory long before literacy was widespread; lyric poetry recorded grief, love, exile, and resistance that never entered official archives. When we read poems from past centuries, we are often struck not by how distant they feel, but by how familiar their concerns remain. This familiarity suggests that poetry’s activist potential lies not in its novelty, but in its capacity to hold human experience across time—especially experiences that dominant systems prefer to forget.
The Beat poets of the 1950s and 1960s provide a particularly clear case study in poetic activism that is neither tidy nor unproblematic. Figures like Allen Ginsberg, Amiri Baraka, Diane di Prima, and Lawrence Ferlinghetti wrote in direct opposition to postwar American conformity, consumerism, militarism, and sexual repression. Their work rejected not only mainstream politics but mainstream poetics: fixed meters, polite subjects, and the idea that poetry should remain safely insulated from the messiness of public life. Obscenity trials, public readings, and collective communities were not side effects of the movement but were central to its politics.
What is often overlooked in casual discussions of the Beats is how seriously they took poetry as a mode of witness. Ginsberg’s Howl is frequently remembered for its shock value, but its deeper intervention lies in its refusal to abandon people deemed disposable by American culture—queer bodies, addicts, the mentally ill, the politically disillusioned. The poem does not argue for their worth; it enacts it by giving them language expansive enough to contain their lives. This is a recurring feature of activist poetry = permission to testify.
At the same time, the limitations of the Beat movement—its gender politics, its uneven engagement with race, its mythologizing of male genius—offer important lessons for contemporary writers. Poetry as activism is not immune to the blind spots of its practitioners. In fact, because poetry trades so heavily in voice and authority, it demands continual self-examination. Who is speaking? Who is being spoken for? Who is excluded, even unintentionally, by aesthetic choices? These questions are not obstacles to activist poetry; they are part of its terrain.
Beyond the Beats, twentieth-century poetry offers countless examples of activism embedded in form as much as content. The Harlem Renaissance positioned poetry as a site of cultural self-definition in the face of systemic erasure. Anti-colonial poets across Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean used verse to preserve language, memory, and identity under conditions of imposed rule. Feminist poets reimagined the lyric as a space for bodies, labor, and anger previously dismissed as inappropriate subjects. None of these movements relied on poetry’s profitability to justify their existence. They relied on poetry’s capacity to circulate ideas in ways that bypass institutional gatekeepers.
This brings us to the often uncomfortable truth about poetry: it does not generate significant financial capital. Most poets know this early on, and many continue anyway. From a market perspective, poetry’s marginality is framed as failure. From an activist perspective, it is a feature. Because poetry is not primarily driven by commercial demand, it remains one of the few literary spaces where risk is still possible—where experimental forms and unresolved questions can survive without immediate justification.
Over the last year, as economic pressures on artists have intensified, poetry has continued to function as a low-resource, high-impact mode of response. Poems circulate through readings, social media, classrooms, and community spaces with a speed and intimacy that longer forms often cannot achieve. This portability has always been part of poetry’s activist power.
Importantly, activist poetry does not require that every poem announce its politics overtly. Some of the most politically charged poems appear, on the surface, to be about nothing more than weather, family, or memory. What makes them activist is not subject matter alone, but orientation. They refuse dominant narratives about what is worth noticing. They insist that attention itself is a moral act. In a world that encourages numbness as a survival strategy, poetry asks readers to feel without promising resolution.
If you are, like me, in a teaching space, teaching poetry as activism carries a goal that is not about persuading writers that their work will topple regimes. It is to help them understand that poetry participates in a long tradition of resistance through attention, through witness, through the refusal to let experience go unnamed.
Poetry has survived precisely because it does not chase power as power defines itself. It works sideways. It works slowly. And in moments like the one we are living through—when language is cheapened—this sideways, slow, unprofitable art form may be doing some of the most necessary work there is.
You can see a list of activist poets here.
If you are interested in learning more about art activism, I teach a course on it.
If this letter mattered to you, you may want to subscribe to The Private Drafts, where I send private letters like this and speak about work and questions I keep off the public page.
If you think these letters may intrigue or inspire someone you know, please forward this to them so that they may subscribe. |
