Christopher Kempf’s What
Though the Field Be Lost appears at a moment of profound crisis in American
society. Staggering levels of social inequality ravage the United States, a
political system in advanced decay, and a ruling class increasingly reliant on
authoritarian methods to maintain its dominance. Under such conditions, the
Civil War — the “Second American Revolution” — inevitably returns as a point of
reference. It is the last moment in US history when the contradictions of the
social order were resolved through revolutionary means. Any serious artistic
engagement with the present must therefore confront the legacy of that conflict
not as a cultural inheritance but as a historical process driven by class
forces.
Kempf’s collection highlights the ideological deadlock
facing modern American intellectuals. It is driven by a sincere desire to
explore the past and its ongoing impact today. The work dismisses the
superficial confessional trends common in American poetry, focusing instead on
history, landscape, and the enduring material traces of the Civil War within
the American consciousness. However, it is ultimately limited by the
ideological frameworks—such as race, region, identity, and the elevation of
“ambivalence” as a moral and aesthetic ideal—that shape how the
liberal-academic world interprets reality.
The poem explores key questions of American history, though
it stops short of fully addressing them. Kempf perceives the Civil War as a
revolutionary break and senses the lingering contradictions it left unresolved.
He also intuitively understands that today’s American capitalism crisis stems
from the same class conflicts that ignited in 1861. However, he struggles to
realise these ideas fully, instead adopting a stance of cultivated uncertainty,
as if the poet’s role is to observe contradictions rather than resolve or
comprehend them.
This ambivalence is fundamentally a social issue rather than
an artistic one. It illustrates the stance of a segment of petty-bourgeois
intelligentsia that exists anxiously between the working class and the ruling
class, feeling the mounting pressures beneath but lacking the political and
theoretical tools to understand their true meaning. Kempf’s poetry reflects
this tension clearly: it hints at the revolutionary aspects of American history
but stays grounded in culturalist ideas that hide that history’s true
significance.
In this framework, the Civil War is seen not as a
revolutionary clash between conflicting social systems but as a symbolic space
where issues of identity, memory, and national belonging are explored. The
working class is depicted not as an active historical force but as a cultural
symbol — sometimes sentimentalised, sometimes ridiculed, admired for its
“decency” yet often viewed humorously, as if its presence were an
anthropological oddity rather than the cornerstone of modern society.
Kempf’s approach has limitations that go beyond aesthetics;
they are political. As the American ruling class currently uses reactionary
tactics—such as censorship, rewriting history, and fuelling racial and gender
divisions—the artist’s role is to clarify the historical forces, not to
aestheticise ambiguity. The Civil War was fundamentally a class struggle over
the future of a social order, not merely an issue of identity politics. To
relate its revolutionary fervour to today, one must pinpoint modern parallels,
such as widening inequality, labour exploitation, and the global capitalism
crisis.
Kempf’s poetry, despite its intelligence and craftsmanship,
ultimately doesn't make this leap. It stays confined within the ideological
limits of the present, unable to see the past as a guide for the future.
Therefore, criticism's role isn't just to evaluate the poems but to situate
them within the larger crisis of American intellectual life—one caused by the
petty-bourgeois intelligentsia's failure to break free from the ideological
frameworks that benefit the ruling class.
The Civil War as
Historical Problem — Class, Revolution, and the Limits of Cultural Memory
The American Civil War holds a distinctive place in global
history. It was more than just a regional conflict or a tragic internal
rupture; it represented a revolutionary clash between two incompatible social
systems: the industrialising capitalist North and the slave-dependent,
semi-feudal South. The abolition of slavery—considered the largest
expropriation of private property in the Western Hemisphere before the Russian
Revolution—was not merely a consequence of the war but its core historical
significance. To truly understand the Civil War, one must recognise it as a
class struggle fought across the continent, with its outcome shaping the future
of American capitalism for over a century.
However, prevailing ideological perspectives in modern
American culture make this understanding nearly inaccessible. The Civil War is
often viewed primarily through the lens of identity: as a clash among racial
groups, regional cultures, or conflicting national narratives. This shift
towards culturalist interpretation is intentional, serving the interests of the
ruling class. It aims to hide the revolutionary roots of American history and
to prevent the working class from realising its own historical power.
Kempf’s poetry, despite its historical interest, remains
confined within a specific ideological framework. His portrayal of the Civil
War is filtered through the lens of modern liberal concepts such as race,
region, memory, and the obsession with “national identity.” These ideas are not
just inadequate; they distort the true history of the conflict by turning a
revolutionary war into a symbolic stage for cultural expression, emphasising
ambiguity over social analysis.
Kempf’s portrayal of Confederate memory reveals an aesthetic
focus on the monument’s "splendour," which is not merely a mistake
but a natural outcome of viewing the Civil War as part of cultural heritage
instead of a class struggle. When the war is seen as a conflict of identities,
even reactionary ones gain a degree of legitimacy. Consequently, the
Confederate cause is depicted as a tragic regional pride rather than a defence
of human bondage. The monument is thus seen as an object of beauty rather than
a symbol of violent reaction. A Marxist cannot adopt this perspective. The
Civil War was a clash between social systems, not cultures. The Confederacy
epitomised the most reactionary class in American history: a slaveholding
oligarchy whose economic goals were opposed to modern societal progress.
Approaching its symbols with ambivalence conceals the underlying class struggle
and blurs the distinction between revolutionary change and reactionary forces.
Kempf’s poetry reveals a broader issue in how Americans
perceive their history. The Civil War is fading from its specific origins and
instead serves as a symbol of national trauma, division, and contemporary
anxieties. This isn’t merely a misunderstanding; it is a political error.
Detaching the Civil War from its class issues erases the working class's
revolutionary legacy. It conceals that America’s major advances—such as ending
slavery, expanding democratic rights, and asserting federal authority—were
achieved through mass struggles, not just cultural debates.
Kempf’s work engages with this process, even as it aims to
resist it. His poems include historical fragments, archival remnants, and
traces of the past. Yet these elements do not provide a clear, dialectical view
of history shaped by class struggles. Instead, they remain in an aestheticised
ambiguity, suggesting that the poet is cautious about making definitive claims
about the material he references.
This passage explains the ideological role of “ambivalence”
in modern American literature. It enables artists to acknowledge historical
complexity without confronting its political consequences. Instead of
interpreting contradictions, poets act as curators of them. Essentially, it
represents a form of ideological stagnation—the petty-bourgeois
intelligentsia's failure to recognise the revolutionary significance of history
when such awareness is critically needed.
The Civil War calls for clarity, requiring an understanding
of history as a conflict among social forces rather than merely a collection of
cultural identities. Kempf’s poetry, despite its intelligence and
craftsmanship, ultimately falls short of this requirement. It mirrors the
crisis of a social class that feels the looming Great Events but lacks the
necessary theoretical and political tools to understand them fully.
The Ideology of
Ambivalence — Petty-Bourgeois Paralysis in Contemporary American Poetry
In Christopher Kempf’s poetic universe, ambivalence
functions as more than just a stylistic choice; it is the central ideological
principle. It shapes the way history is perceived, informs the poet's attitude
toward the world, and offers a means of transforming urgent social issues into
aesthetic concerns. To understand "What Though the Field Be Lost,"
one must view ambivalence not merely as an artistic trait but as a mirror of a
broader social problem: the stagnation of the contemporary American petty-bourgeois
intellectual class amidst rising class conflicts.
Ambivalence as a
Social Position, Not an Aesthetic Insight
Contemporary American poets, especially in academia, hold a
conflicted social position. They encounter economic insecurity, become more
proletarianised, and face pressures akin to those of the working class. Yet
they remain ideologically connected to liberal institutions such as
universities, foundations, and cultural organisations, which are strongly
dedicated to maintaining the existing social order.
Ambivalence stems from this contradiction, illustrating a
class segment that senses the system's instability but cannot imagine an
alternative. It embodies the worldview of a social layer that experiences the
pressures of capitalism but lacks the political insight to oppose it. Here,
ambivalence indicates ideological fatigue rather than sophistication.
Kempf’s poetry effectively depicts this condition. His poems
contain numerous historical fragments, political echoes, and social snapshots.
Yet, these components never fully coalesce into a coherent view of the world.
Instead, they remain in a state of unresolved tension, suggesting the poet is
cautious about drawing his insights to their logical end.
The Aestheticisation
of Contradiction
Ambivalence allows the poet to treat contradiction as an
aesthetic theme instead of a historical process. The Civil War is portrayed as
a collage of conflicting narratives; the working class is represented through
cultural symbols; and the current crisis is shown as a series of “echoes” or
“parallels,” rather than as a reflection of deepening class conflicts.
This aestheticisation of conflict serves to disarm political
engagement by transforming the poet's role from a historian's interpreter to a
curator of fragments. It suggests complexity without the obligation to analyse,
indicating a withdrawal from active comprehension of the world. The WSWS review
rightly notes that Kempf’s poems “juxtapose” instead of explaining, "hint”
instead of fully expressing, and “suggest” rather than present definitive
conclusions. This is not about poor craftsmanship but about perspective. The
poet’s ambivalence is not a quest for truth; it is a means to avoid the effort
of discovering it.
The Working Class as
Cultural Object
Kempf’s portrayal of the American working class exemplifies
ambivalence. His mentions of hot dogs, AutoZone, homecoming queens, and
small-town rituals do not show solidarity, but rather an outsider's view. These
references reflect a poet who watches the working class with affection and
amusement, as if examining a cultural spectacle instead of engaging with a
social group.
This perspective mirrors the wider liberal-academic view,
which sees the working class not as active agents in history but as a cultural
concept. Instead of being recognised as subjects shaping history, they are
depicted as objects of representation. Their struggles, hopes, and
contradictions are often aestheticised rather than genuinely comprehended.
Kempf’s ambivalence toward the working class reflects a
class position rather than a personal trait. It represents a social stratum
that is materially near the working class but ideologically disconnected from
it. This group perceives the potential for working-class unity but struggles to
see it as a feasible political reality.
Ambivalence as
Ideological Containment
Ambivalence in contemporary American poetry serves a
conservative role. It stops poets from making conclusions that could threaten
the current social system. Instead, it turns political issues into artistic
expressions. This way, poets can recognise social contradictions without the
need to clarify or resolve them.
In this context, ambivalence benefits the ruling class by
maintaining the intelligentsia's ideological confusion, hindering their ability
to develop a clear critique of capitalism. It also conceals the revolutionary
legacy of the Civil War with layers of cultural complexity. Additionally, it
obstructs the working class from seeing itself as part of history.
The Confederate
Question — Aestheticising Reaction in an Age of Resurgent Authoritarianism
The most politically sensitive part of 'What Though the
Field Be Lost' is Kempf’s handling of Confederate memory. This section
highlights the ideological limits of his uncertain approach and clearly shows
the gap between historical materialism and today's liberal cultural
perspectives. The Civil War is more than just another historical event; it is
the pivotal moment in shaping the modern American state. Addressing its
reactionary aspect — the slaveholders’ rebellion — with an aesthetic hesitation
is not a neutral artistic decision. It represents a political statement,
whether intentionally or not.
The Confederate
Monument as an Aesthetic Object
Kempf’s mention of the “splendour” of a Confederate monument
is more than a minor detail. It encapsulates the book's overall ideological
framework. The monument is presented not simply as an emblem of a reactionary
social order but as an aesthetic reflection, a remnant of a tragic history
whose significance is complex, layered, and open to various interpretations.
This is exactly the core issue. The Confederate cause was
clear-cut. It was neither tragic nor merely a cultural expression of regional
identity. Instead, it was the organised political and military defence of a
slaveholding oligarchy whose economic interests were inherently opposed to
modern societal progress. Approaching its symbols with ambiguity masks the
class nature of the conflict and blurs the distinction between revolution and
counter-revolution.
The beautification of reactionary ideas is always risky
politically, especially now when authoritarianism is resurging worldwide. The
ruling class, facing worsening social issues, often resorts to distorting
history, restoring reactionary symbols, and promoting nationalist myths. In
this environment, the poet’s role isn't to make ambiguity look beautiful but to
make the historical significance of the past clear.
The Liberal-Academic
Reframing of the Civil War
Kempf’s approach to Confederate memory exemplifies a wider
trend within the liberal academic sphere: the transformation of the Civil War
from a conflict of revolutionary class struggle into a cultural narrative
centred on identity, memory, and regional pride. This reframing serves a
particular ideological purpose. It enables the ruling elite to diminish the
revolutionary roots of the Civil War by separating it from its material,
economic foundations. When the Civil War is viewed as a clash of identities,
all identities — including reactionary ones — are given some degree of
legitimacy.
The rebellion of slaveholders is seen as a “perspective,” a
“narrative," or a “memory." Confederate monuments then become sites
of cultural significance rather than symbols of a social order rooted in human
slavery. This perspective is not about historical accuracy but about
ideological control.
The Class Content of
the Confederate Cause
From a Marxist viewpoint, the Confederacy was the most
reactionary social class in U.S. history. The slaveholding elite aimed not to
defend a “way of life” but to uphold a property system that forcibly repressed
millions. Their defeat was a vital step in the development of modern American
capitalism and the expansion of democratic rights. Romanticising Confederate
symbols conceals the revolutionary importance of the Civil War, portraying
reactionary elements as mere cultural symbols rather than organised resistance
by a ruling class resisting progress.
Ambivalence as a Form
of Historical Neutralisation
Kempf’s mixed feelings about Confederate memory are not a
flaw but a core aspect of his approach. This ambivalence enables him to view
reactionary symbols as aesthetic objects rather than as displays of class
dominance. As a result, the Confederate monument becomes a space for reflection
instead of a symbol of the violent social system it signifies.
This is not harmless. In a time when authoritarianism is
resurging—reactionary forces openly use Confederate imagery, the ruling class
revives symbols of past oppression, and historical falsehoods serve political
control—the aesthetic presentation of reaction unintentionally aids in
confusing the public's understanding of ideology. The poet who treats the
Confederate monument with ambivalence is not impartial; instead, he contributes
to a larger cultural trend that normalises, sanitises, and erases the historical
significance of reaction.
The Importance of
Clear Historical Perspective
Understanding the Civil War requires focusing on its social
forces rather than viewing it solely as a conflict of cultural identities. The
Confederate cause was mainly reactionary, as shown by its symbols and
monuments. Ignoring this viewpoint obscures the class dynamics involved and
hinders the working class from truly grasping its history. Kempf’s poetry,
while insightful and skillfully written, ultimately misses this point. It
mirrors the ideological stalemate of a social class that predicts major events
but fails to understand the underlying historical forces.
Kempf’s Interview
— Latent Class Insight and the Limits of Liberal Consciousness
Kempf’s interview with the WSWS is the most insightful
document on What Though the Field Be Lost, revealing the gap between the poet’s
latent political awareness and the ideological limits that influence his
artistic approach. In the interview, Kempf offers insights that nearly align
with a Marxist critique of modern American society. However, these insights are
largely missing from the poetry itself. Thus, the interview acts as a kind of
critical commentary on the book — showcasing what the poet understands but
avoids expressing. [1]
The Poet Speaks More
Clearly Than the Poems
Kempf acknowledges the social themes in his work,
highlighting realities his poems only hint at. He points out that graduate
students, whom he describes as experiencing "precarious labour,"
share similar class interests with "Trump voters" in the rural
Midwest. This is a notable admission because it contradicts the widespread
belief that these groups are culturally incompatible. Instead, it reveals that
beneath political differences lies a shared material condition: exploitation by
capital.
This point is fundamental and underpins any serious
socialist analysis of modern America. However, in the poetry, this
understanding is only implicit, expressed through contrasts and echoes instead
of a clear perspective. The poems acknowledge the cultural divide but fail to
reveal the underlying class unity. The interview shows that Kempf is aware of
this unity—it just can't see it as a political force.
The Poet’s Critique
of Corporate Identity Politics
Kempf’s observation that “virtually every corporation has
much to gain from promoting narrow, sectarian strife” stands out even more.
This insight surpasses the rest of the book in political depth, framing
identity politics not as an accidental cultural trend but as a deliberate
instrument of class control — a way for the ruling class to divide the working
class and hinder its awareness of shared interests.
This analysis is exactly what the WSWS presents, an insight
that poetry, despite its intelligence, never fully captures. Kempf’s
acknowledgement of the corporate roots of identity politics indicates he could
offer a more radical critique than his poetry reveals. However, he remains
bound by the liberal-academic environment, which emphasises identity as the
main lens for social analysis. This creates a clear disconnect: the poet’s
political insight surpasses the ideological boundaries of his artistic approach.
The Liberal Fetish of
“Ambivalence” as a Barrier to Clarity
Kempf justifies his poetic ambivalence as an intentional
artistic choice. He believes that poetry doesn’t instruct directly but instead
uses juxtaposition to provoke thought about parallels, incongruities, or echoes
across history. This perspective is common among contemporary American writers,
reflecting a generation of poets who are wary of clarity, tend to steer clear
of political commitments, and regard ambiguity as a sign of artistic
refinement.
However, this defence fails on closer examination.
Ambivalence is not a way to uncover truth; it serves to avoid it. It allows the
poet to recognise social contradictions without analysing them, thereby turning
political issues into aesthetic concerns. Essentially, it acts as a form of
ideological containment— preventing the poet’s insights from becoming
threatening.
Kempf’s interview shows he can be clear. He understands
modern American class dynamics and the influence of corporations in fostering
division. He also recognises the potential for unity among workers. However,
his poetic style, rooted in liberal ambivalence, stops him from stating these
insights plainly.
The Unspoken Tension:
A Poet on the Threshold of Marxism
The interview reveals a tension permeating the entire
project: Kempf is on the verge of adopting a Marxist perspective on American
history, but is still unable to do so fully. He recognises the Civil War's
revolutionary significance and identifies class struggles in modern society.
Although instinctively aware, he also recognises that identity-politics
categories do not sufficiently explain the current crisis.
However, he stays confined to the ideological frameworks of
the liberal-academic environment. He is unable to see the working class as an
active force in history. He cannot envision the potential for revolutionary
change. Additionally, he struggles to move beyond the aestheticisation of
ambivalence.
The result is a poetry that is historically curious but
politically paralysed — a poetry that gestures toward revolution but retreats
into ambiguity.
The Task of Criticism
Marxist criticism aims to contextualise Kempf's work within
the broader crisis of American intellectual life rather than criticise him for
failing to produce socialist poetry. His ambivalence is understood as a social
issue, indicative of the paralysis of petty-bourgeois intelligentsia who sense
major events approaching but lack the theoretical and political tools to
understand them.
The interview points in a different direction—one based on
class analysis, historical understanding, and recognition of the working class
as the key force in modern society. However, this alternative approach is not
yet reflected in his poetry.
The article discusses how Kempf struggles to link the Civil
War's legacy to today's issues. The unresolved tension in "What Though the
Field Be Lost" only becomes evident when connected to the current American
capitalism crisis. For Kempf, the Civil War is not just history but a key
perspective on America’s ongoing divisions. Yet pressing modern problems like
the decline of democratic institutions, rising inequality, and the resurgence
of authoritarianism demand a clearer historical understanding—something Kempf’s
uncertain approach does not entirely provide.
The Civil War as a
Mirror of the Present
The Civil War marked the final time in American history when
revolutionary methods resolved the contradictions within the social order. It
was a conflict centred not on cultural identity but on the future of the social
system itself. The abolition of slavery was a crucial prerequisite for the rise
of modern American capitalism. As Marx described, it was a “bourgeois
revolution” led by the most progressive elements of the ruling class and backed
by the widespread mobilisation of both the working class and the enslaved
people.
Today, the United States faces a new yet equally significant
crisis. The contradictions of capitalism—such as globalised production,
financialisation, extreme inequality, and political decline—have escalated to
the point where traditional governance structures can no longer contain them.
In response, the ruling class employs authoritarian tactics, engages in
historical distortion, and fosters racial and gender divisions. Meanwhile, the
working class, though fragmented and confused, remains objectively the sole
force capable of addressing the crisis.
At such a moment, the Civil War acts as a mirror, reflecting
the revolutionary potential of the working class, emphasising the need to
challenge reactionary forces, and showing that deep social conflicts cannot be
resolved through cultural negotiation. Kempf perceives this clearly. His poems
echo the past within the present, capturing the “presentness of the past"
and the strange persistence of Civil War memory in modern American life.
However, he cannot explicitly express this link, as doing so would mean abandoning
the ideological frameworks of identity and ambivalence that underpin his work.
The Liberal-Academic
Horizon as a Barrier to Historical Understanding. Kempf’s poetry is limited
not by aesthetics but by ideology. He views the Civil War mainly through
familiar liberal categories like race, region, identity, and memory. These are
not impartial; they serve as ideological tools the ruling class uses to interpret
social conflict in cultural terms, concealing its economic roots. To truly see
the Civil War as a class struggle, one must recognise the class nature of the
current crisis. This involves understanding that the working class, rather than
cultural identity groups, is the key force today and abandoning the dominant
ideological frameworks in academia in favour of a historical materialist
approach.
Kempf is unable to make this leap because it would directly
conflict with the institutions shaping his worldview. The liberal-academic
environment treats identity as the primary analytical category and regards
class as either secondary or suspect. It promotes ambivalence and mistrusts
clarity, encouraging the aestheticisation of contradiction while discouraging
political engagement. Kempf’s poetry embodies these restrictions: it is
historically intriguing but politically reserved. It hints at class struggle
but focuses on cultural aspects, sensing the Civil War's revolutionary
potential yet failing to express it.
The Revolutionary
Legacy of the Civil War and the Fear of Its Implications
Viewing the Civil War as a revolutionary event means
acknowledging the potential for revolution today. This hidden fear underscores
Kempf’s analysis. The Civil War was not merely a tragic conflict of identities
but a violent break that dismantled the old social order and established a new
one. During this period, the working class and the oppressed significantly
influenced the course of history.
Recognising this suggests that the current crisis might
demand a significant rupture. It acknowledges that the contradictions within
modern capitalism cannot be resolved through cultural debates or aesthetic
indifference. Instead, it emphasises that the working class, rather than the
liberal intelligentsia, drives historical change. Kempf’s poetry hints at this
possibility but never fully confronts it. The Civil War is depicted as a
haunting memory or a symbolic landscape — never as a framework for
understanding today. While the poems sense the arrival of major events, they
remain immobile in the presence of these events.
Conclusion — Toward a
Marxist Aesthetics of the American Past
The contradictions at the heart of What Though the Field Be Lost are not merely the contradictions of
a single poet. They are the contradictions of an entire social layer — the
American petty-bourgeois intelligentsia — confronting a historical moment that
exceeds its ideological capacities. Kempf’s work is therefore valuable not only
for what it says, but for what it cannot say; not only for its insights, but
for its silences; not only for its historical curiosity, but for the
ideological limits that shape it.
Kempf’s collection title, taken from Milton — "What
though the field be lost?" — reveals more than the poet might expect. The
field is not truly lost. The revolutionary legacy of American history endures.
The working class continues to be the key driver of historical change. The
contradictions within modern capitalism highlight the need for revolutionary
transformation.
What is required is clarity — the clarity that ambivalence
cannot provide, the clarity that historical materialism demands, the clarity
that the present crisis makes unavoidable.
Kempf’s poetry, for all its limitations, is a symptom of a
society on the brink of transformation. It registers the tremors beneath the
surface. It senses the approach of great events. It reveals, in its very
hesitations, the ideological crisis of a social layer confronted with the
return of history. The task now is to move beyond ambivalence — to grasp the
field not as lost, but as the terrain upon which the future will be fought.
Notes
What Though the Field Be Lost: Poet Christopher Kempf’s
historical view of contemporary America-Erik Schreiber-www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/07/29/kemp-j29.html
