“Howl”
According to Fix (2016), obscene can be regarded as materials that suppose unfit content in regards to moral principles. Obscene refers to any presentation that violates moral guidelines of a social setting and for that reason, such materials or practices receives many criticisms on the basis that they arouse unusual enthusiasm in the society. Obscene commonly define social practices that act in ways that differ from the prominent ways in the society. Therefore, Allen Ginsberg’s “Howl” is uncommonly regarded as obscene on notions that Ginsberg uses unsuitable raw material to challenge social leadership and particularly social conformity. “Howl” is arguably obscene in regards to social norms but in actuality its rough content does not deter its basic purpose to the society. For instance, it is logical to state that Ginsberg’s primary intentions are included in his desire to challenge some practices in the society using the most immediate method possible. “Howl” is therefore intended to communicate Ginsberg’s hostility and sadness to the culture that he ascertains to have facilitated uncommon deviances to his friends. In spite of its obscenity, Ginsberg’s work is coherently linked to his intentions to cause real change in the community with efficiency in order to arouse cultural change (Mead-Brewer 2013, 46)
The appropriateness of Ginsberg’s raw material is in particular alleviated by the fact that rude content entertains much reaction from most in our society in contrast to morally acceptable contents. The content as well reflects unresponsive attributes of some traditional beliefs that bring about social uncertainty which in due course interpret absurd behaviors in the community. Ginsberg’s main disapproval revolves around some moral principles of the ordinary community such as “Moloch” which according to his story, encompass deplorable attributes towards moral behaviors (Ginsberg 3). Importantly, Ginsberg’s content aroused success of significant themes such as the theme of freedom, rules and social order defined by conformity in different setting. “Howl” enriched Ginsberg’s mission to element sensibleness in people as a mechanism of redeeming the society for a better living. For instance, Ginsberg (2006) illustrates that it “changed the potential and vision of the lives and work of its readers” (3).
The “Howl” illustrates uncommon perspectives that frustrate and cause uneasiness to the common outlines of working things out in various social settings. Ginsberg’s story is presented in a new poetic form and at the same time, the story introduces new perspectives of social movements (Gargan 2004, 86). The nature of presentation and the story’s intentions illustrate significant difference in relation to usual poetry. For instance, Ginsberg openly unveils his social concerns such as his sexual understanding an approach that differs from commonly used forms of poetry that emphasizes on hidden imagery on such discussions (Van Durme 2014, 6). Ginsberg’s approaches of imagery diverge from acceptable principles of past poetry and so, the significant distinction between his work and previous poetic work classifies “Howl” as obscene. This obscenity enabled Ginsberg to speak out the content that was formerly unspeakable such as sexual matters due to strict rules of ordinary beliefs (Wintle 2008, 293).
Ginsberg purposely uses rough words in order to effectively deliver notions of his weird movement. “Howl’s” obscenity enables Ginsberg to easily speak out about homosexuality and extensively release his outrage towards traditional values that overruled America. Ginsberg’s sentiments were a threat to cultural beliefs considering that it incited youths to engage in newly introduced movements for example which was seriously disconnected from traditionalism. Van Durme et al (2014) describes that “Howl” represented a set of protesters who aim at transforming the community from ordinary relations to a contemporary, more successful and lifeless society (8). “Howl” is an obscene story on the basis that it is composed of new perspectives that highly confused the society and consequently impacting determination of ethical issues in the community (Van Durme et al 2014, 9). Nevertheless, vulgar material enhanced the story’s performance in various social backgrounds. The vulgar language for instance enabled youths to openly disclose their individualities to the society unapologetically to reflect contentment. The author’s material enhanced the need to gain social freedom since many were able to engage into their desirable groups other than specific groups which were approved by traditional norms.
Obscenity of “Howl” was viably applicable in the processes of protesting against social severity. Obscenity enhanced Ginsberg’s intentions to disregard some of the traditional rules and social order which acted as hindrances to social diversity (Rehlaender 2015, 3). “Howl” consequently demonstrated the irrelevancy of cultural severity and founding social acceptance considering that people in the society define unrelated desires. The raw material did not limit Ginsberg’s intentions to demonstrate the need to build up a community whereby any individual engages in practices that suits his or her desires. For instance, the “howl” facilitated notions of free lifestyles which is commonly evidenced in the contemporary world.
“Howl” can be based as one of the major reasons why the freedom of expression was guaranteed in our community (Rehlaender 8). For instance, the story exemplifies the importance of defying from oppressive norms in the society since they limit social dignity. It is worth noting that inappropriate materials in “Howl” enabled Ginsberg to speak out cultural norms that unconditionally challenged his rights in the society. Ginsberg’s intentions included ideologies that cultural beliefs should not limit ones rights in various social backgrounds. “Howl” obscenity successively enabled Ginsberg’s intentions to terminate traditional conformity that oppressively limited opportunities in the society by preventing social expression due to unworthy censorship. For instance, it induced controversial motions in courts and later the Supreme Court approved publication of any book so long as it includes affluent factors of social value (Moramarco 42).
“Howl” disregards ideologies of prior poems commonly insisted on the need to adhere to the hierarchy rule especially from the privileged to the less privileged in the society which facilitated social censorship. Ginsberg acted as a political and extensively as a social protester against hierarchal classes which disapprove modern social activities such as homosexuality (Oakes 2004, 139). “Howl” specifically fights for the rights of the undermined in the society unlike other publications that usually underline issues of respectable people. Through the obscenities presented in the “Howl” people were able to defy some of the cultural myths and settled for respectable hierarchies represented in the contemporary world.
In conclusion, Allen Ginsberg’s “Howl” represents social experiences that every individual come across in different presentations. Importantly, Ginsberg uses unusual imagery to generate sensibleness among the society as demonstrated by the Beat who believes in real change. It is worth noting that “Howl” gathers much attention due to its obscenity. For instance, Ginsberg’s story is purposely objected to challenge social leadership in order to gradually modify the society to optimize social performance. As a result, his concerns are easily critiqued in the society since they impose ideas which deviate from the acting guidelines. Nevertheless, “Howl” covers a controversial topic which has and continues to be evidenced in the contemporary world. This thus illustrates that its obscenity will remain relevant in the society as far as the needs to cause valuable transformations are concerned.
Work cited
Fix, Michael P. "A Universal Standard for Obscenity? The Importance of Context and Other Considerations." Justice System Journal 37.1 (2016): 72-88.
Gargan, William. "American Scream: Allen Ginsberg's Howl and the Making of the Beat Generation (Book)." Library Journal, vol. 129, no. 7, 15 Apr. 2004, p. 86. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=12880557&site=ehost-live.
Ginsberg, Allen. "From "The Poem That Changed America: 'Howl' Fifty Years Later.." American Poetry Review, vol. 35, no. 2, Mar/Apr2006, pp. 3-10. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19925932&site=ehost-live.
Mead-Brewer, Katherine C. The Trickster in Ginsberg: A Critical Reading. , 2013. Print.
Moramarco, Fred. "Echoes of "Howl.." Humanist, vol. 66, no. 6, Nov/Dec2006, pp. 42-43. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22902982&site=ehost-live.
Oakes, Elizabeth H. American Writers. New York: Facts on File, 2004. Internet resource
Rehlaender, Jamie L. "A Howl of Free Expression: the 1957 Howl Obscenity Trial and Sexual Liberation." (2015).
Van Durme, Debora, and Julie Aelbrecht. "Classical myth in Allen Ginsberg’s Howl." (2014).
Wintle, Justin. The Concise New Makers of Modern Culture, 2008. Print
