Was Oral Expression Better?

During a 1978 interview with Kimberly W. Benston, Amiri Baraka discusses his development as a writer:

"I condemned black writing because black writers all wanted to style

themselves after the white bourgeoisie. I felt that what they wrote wasn't

actually black literature in the first place; it was an imitation. 

Which was true, to a certain extent.What I, of course, did not look at 

was the class structure operating behind black writing. So 

then I said that the reason that black music is strong is because it was 

directly black, it was coming from black people, there wasn't a whole lot 

of fakery or trying to make believe they were really white middle-class 

folks playing an instrument... So at times it looks as 

though I'm just putting down black literature, when in reality I was trying 

to make a very exact class analysis of why this middle-class black literature 

was weak, why black music was strong"

I find this statement in his interview extremely interesting.  He is correcting a past error in which he criticized black literature while supporting certain types of white literature. His main mistake was the he did not clarify that he was acknowledging class structures more than anything.  Black literature is imitating the white-middle class traditions of writing, whereas black music was uniquely black and did not involve any sort of imitation. 

I am interested in this topic because it loosely coincides with a class discussion I had in my Language in Society and Culture class.  In this linguistics class I am reading a book on African American Vernacular English (AAVE) or "spoken soul" as it is sometimes called.  In my discussion we began to talk about black writing and a classmate made a point that expression for the black community is mostly oral.  For example, a very distinct characteristic in AAVE is the use of preaching as well as rhythm in speech.  My TA mentioned that the problem with writing is that characteristics of rhythm and intonation are completely lost on the page.  These are the very characteristics which can make AAVE unique from mainstream white speech.

Of course, the discussion around AAVE is fraught with controversy. Many people do not want to acknowledge it and others want to declare it as a separate language.  Then of course there is the question of who speaks AAVE? Certainly it is not spoken by all African Americans and it is not always exclusively spoken by African Americans either. 

The reason a discussion of AAVE is relevant to this interview with Amiri Baraka is that he is making the point that black literature is often "white" in the same way that American English can be viewed as white or black. In society, AAVE can be a marker that you belong in the group. Conversely, writing similarly to a middle-class white person may put you in that group with middle-class whites.  Meanwhile, Baraka believes that music is directly black and is therefore more legitimate.  Using spoken soul in theater, poetry, or music is a marker of identity in a way that may not be conveyed as freely or clearly in writing. 

In class on Tuesday we began by discussing how theater and poetry are two primary mediums during the black arts movement. Theater and poetry are great for many reasons, including the fact that they can engage audiences or evolve quickly. This interview as well as the discussion over AAVE seems to point that oral expression also provided many other benefits during the black arts movement.  I am curious about what you think about Amiri Baraka's criticism of black writing? Do you think oral art such as music, poetry, or theater carry strength because the use of AAVE?  Do you think it is easier to seem more authentically a part of black culture by using some mediums over others (for example, writing styles are often from white traditions, but poetry is improvised and allows for unique expression)?