poetry's audience by encouraging the objectification of all things, including people andworks of art.One of those responses has been for poets to create poems that rail against hierarchy andmorality in an effort to free their audience from the shackles of the great capitalisticmachine. The form of these poems is usually highly experimental, using repetition andfragmentation, along with taboo subject matter, to supposedly create a poem that bothresists commodification and shocks the middle-class into seeing that property ownership,marital fidelity, proper grammar, and so forth are all constructs that restrict personal and,importantly for poets, aesthetic freedom.Allen Ginsberg's famous long poem, "Howl," is a case in point. In the poem, Ginsberglaments the destruction of the "best minds of our generation" by "Moloch." In his ownannotation in the poem, Ginsberg defines Moloch as "the Cannaanite fire god, whoseworship was marked by parents' burning their children as proprietary sacrifice." The use of absurd images and obscenity is intended to shock Ginsberg's audience into seeing theoppression all around them. He explained to William F. Buckley in a 1968 interview whenhe was asked not to use any "dirty words" on the show why such a request presents a"moral problem":There's a political function to the language of everyday use. The language we actuallyspeak to each other off the air. There's a communication that's involved, and there aclassical use of all sorts of what we call "off color" words in art, as well as images. So our problem here, or what I've been proposed with, is having in a sense to censor my thought patterns.For Ginsberg it is the poet's duty to break such censorship.If Ginsberg's poetry, while often obscene, is rarely if ever vitriolic, later poets haveunfortunately supplied more than enough. Much of Amiri Baraka's later work is one longtirade against Jews, and June Jordan and Haunani-Kay Trask's work is little more than arant against whatever (and whomever) they think are the tools of a fictional, butnevertheless oppressive, God. These condescendingly mock or berate the middle-classrather than free them. And since few people willingly expose themselves to derision, it isno surprise that these volumes are met with general disinterest, which, for certain poets, isonly further proof of the slavery or the simple-minded boorishness of the middle-class.A second response has been for poets to no longer write for a general audience but for their fellow poets and kindred spirits alone. Paul Goodman was the first to suggest this in his1951 article "Advance-Guard Writing." The problem for the avant-garde writer, Goodmanstates, is that he has internalized societal conflict and re-presented it in his work, which isrejected by his audience and sanctioned. The communal aspect of art has been broken, andwhat Goodman proposes is that poets stop writing for a general audience and reestablish a"plausible" audience of peers.