I imagine all writing dealing with social change are personal (manifestos have to have a reason for being written, for example) but the usage of the word “I” adds a sense of urgency to the piece in recognizing how your own experience is a critical piece of a larger problem, and forcing others to see individual experiences versus an abstract movement might make calling for social change more effective. Something that I’ve noticed from my own project is how personal my pieces had become; the reason that I feel so strongly about what I am writing about is because I have a stake in it. Reading Boyer’s The Undying and Baldwin’s letter to his nephew really resonated with me, because both of these authors were writing about something that their own experiences had validated. There were also poems in Long Soldier’s Whereas (such as the poem regarding her father apologizing) where that usage also popped up. I think something apparent in all the pieces we read in class, not just those above, was the need to give a voice to someone who didn’t have that before, and to make sure you aren’t taking away their agency when doing so. When that voice is your own, that becomes much easier than when you undertake the same job for someone else.   

Question: Where do you draw the line between saying something you think is honest but might come out as overstating to someone else? There were quite a few times where I found myself asking if invoking a concept/person was too much and if I had a right to do so, but my decision came down to validating my own experiences, and I was wondering if toning down language for people to stop and listen to you makes it less impactful.