The Inequality of Individuality

"The Art Of Response" by Audre Lord demonstrates the conflict between desired individuality and a society's reaction to that desire. In the context of many lines of this poem, that conflict seemingly exists between men and women, but in others the conflict falls elsewhere. Furthermore, to analyze each line by itself would go against what the poem is suggesting, which is that this fight for equality can be done by itself. The lines, if read individually, do not say anything important, but when read together with two or more lines, they are more easily interpreted, just as a battle for equality is stronger if more than one individual is involved. The opening lines of the poem, "The first answer was incorrect/the second was/sorry" (1-3) demonstrate this immediately, as do many lines following it. When read in the context of the time period (the feminist movement) these lines could be read as an interaction between a man and a woman, where the woman makes a statement (line 1), and, according to the poem's lines, that answer she gave wasn't the correct one (lines 1-2), nor was it ever the right one, as the feminists often felt. Within the same line, there is the implication of the said answer coming after the feminists' request for equality, rather than before. In this way, the "sorry" emphasized in the line could also mean "pathetic," which lends itself to the new conclusion that, if combined with the first line, the "second" does not refer back to an individual, but to the action instead, which is an answer in this case. The first answer was incorrect, and the second answer was just plain ridiculous, in the views of the feminists. They fought incessantly for their equality, and as the "sorry" indicates in this case, their fight was often thrown back in their face (viewed as being "pathetic").

The third line demonstrates an instance where the conflict doesn't seem to be between a man and a woman, but rather something different. Again, when read individually, the lines say nothing. The first part, "the third trimmed its toenails," is erroneous, but isn't so once combined with the second half, "on the Vatican steps" (4). Once this second part is introduced, a conflict-in-the-making in sensed by the reader. The individual in this case is obviously protesting something, and, judging by the place in which he or she chooses to protest, it is perhaps of a religious nature. This kind of protest is very prevalent in today's society, just like the issues faced by the feminists. The imagery contained in this line is the driving force that makes this line as effective as it is. It is not uncommon for someone to protest, nor is it uncommon for an individual to be found on the Vatican steps. However, it is shocking to consider the possibility of someone doing something as crass as trimming their toenails on the steps of the Vatican. Not only does it elevate feelings of disgust toward the individual that is committing the act, but, at the same time, perhaps it also makes us feel slightly proud of the individual for standing up for themselves and what they believe, thus fueling the argument for equality.

The fifth and sixth lines don't appear to say anything groundbreaking by themselves, but instead add to the whole work by merely giving the readers two more instances of what someone fighting for something they want might do in order to further that conquest, and also what that fight might do to them, as evidenced by the next line, "the fourth went mad" (5). The reaction ("going mad") is undoubtedly society-driven, in this case. As in the previous lines, the speaker continues the trend of labeling the individuals in succession, and continues to advance the reader's anticipation of something grand happening at the end, by slowly increasing the importance of the events with which the individuals are presented. While lines five and six don't appear to say much, it is the addition of line seven that makes the two lines so important to the poem. Up until line seven, the acts taken by the "individuals" to retort against the proposed force that seems to be attempting to cut them down have been relatively uninteresting, the speaker suddenly, in the spirit of lines 3 and 4, blindsides the reader with the lines "...nursed a grudge until it bore twins/that drank poisoned grape juice in Jonestown" (7-8). These two lines seem to say a lot, mostly using the reader's historic knowledge and perhaps sense of morality. The speaker pulls out of his or her hat the seemingly well-known historic event, involving cult mogul Jim Jones, who single-handedly persuaded thousands of young people to commit suicide, just by using his charismatic power. By using this concrete piece of history, the speaker in turn brings out feelings of shock and surprise from the reader, which helps to make an impression on them from the poem. The speaker uses the feelings of the majority of the nation at the time, and transposes the same feelings to an audience that may or may not know about the historic significance. Regardless, because of the shock value of the situation coupled with the innate feelings of right and wrong that most people have about a situation such as this, the feelings of inequality occur, which is what the speaker has intended.

Lines 10 through 12 again create multiple, simultaneous reactions from the reader. Line 10 begins another instance of an individual, "the seventh," and their reaction to a situation that they have been put into. In this case, the situation is perhaps once again the feminist movement, but could indeed be any reaction to wrongdoing by the law. The individual "argued a case before the Supreme Court against the taxation of Girl Scout cookies" (7-8). This situation is embedded with a lot of irony, if thought of in the context of the feminist movement. At the time of the movement, women were battling for many things, most of which, despite being very significant seemed almost fruitless, so for the speaker to propose that these battles for equality are on the same level as someone fighting against the taxation of Girl Scout cookies (a starkly hopeless and unimportant quest, in comparison) is quite ironically humorous.

Lines 13-16 suggest another situation of individuals pushing for something they want and need, and the proposed feeling of how that battle would end. Like many of the previous lines in this poem, this group introduces a new wrinkle in the reader's interpretation: race. The speaker creates a situation in which an individual ("the eighth") speaks out against an ambiguous force as he or she "holds a press conference" (13). Furthermore, while it is possible that the speaker holding the conference is of a different race than the society they are speaking out against, the race proponent is made certain by the next two lines, "...while four Black babies/and one other...picketed in New York City/for a hospital bed to die in" (14-16). No doubt the speaker introduces these Black individuals to make the reader follow the argument toward lack of equality. Also, the "one other" individual among the four Black babies illustrates the continuing camaraderie among many African Americans and whites, and their coordinating battle for equality. Lines 17 and 18, in the context of society and their feelings toward the government, clearly illustrate that the "Opposition" referred to in line 18 is the government.

The final two lines of the poem, "the fifteenth/changed the question" create a fitting end to the poem. The "fifteenth" individual, upon realizing that none of the acts by his or her fellow individuals has made a permanent change in their society, takes leaps and bounds (to the surprise of society), and simply decides to "change the question" (29). When interpreted as a poem about inequality, the change should center not on coming up with a new question, but rather changing the way the question is asked, which is what the individual in the last few lines is proposing, and what the individuals before had failed to do.