Invisible Privilege and Paradox in Whitman

     To preface, Whitman’s “Song of the Open Road” is perhaps the most resonant poem I have ever read; however, it reverberates in my memory as having relied on unrealistic and privileged conditions. Abandoning societal constructs and systems of imposed meaning sounds awesome, and is reminiscent of the Peace Pilgrim, but it is decidedly escapist in nature and depends on invisible privilege. 

In the very beginning lines of the poem, Whitman declares walking on the open road as an exercise that is accessible to all: “The black with his wooly head, the felon, the diseas’d, the illiterate person, are not denied." Later on, he invokes both men and women, old people and young people. It seems he excludes mention of their actual limitations during this time period, which are undoubtedly prevalent, thus invalidating his philosophy. He also, midway through the poem, denies “diseas’d person(s), rum-drinkers, or venereal taint(s)” from walking with him as well as those who have already “spent the best of (themselves)." Perhaps he only means to exclude these kinds of people from accompanying him rather than excluding them from the open road entirely. Either way, it is still exclusive and implies that his vision of the open road relies on unacknowledged boundaries shaped by privilege.

Similar to the Peace Pilgrim, Whitman seems to rely on the resources of others to sustain him on his wanderings when he writes, “to take the best of the farmer’s farm and the rich man’s elegant villa, and the chaste blessings of the well-married couple, and the fruits of orchards and the flowers of gardens/To take to your use out of the compact cities as you pass through." I find issue with this, as I did with Peace Pilgrim, because if everyone were to rely on the kindness and generosity of hard-working people so they could wander aimlessly and seek freedom for their entire lives, the whole practice would collapse. Whitman’s philosophy of aimless wandering relies on the fact that not everyone can, or will, partake in it. It seems lazy, especially if one intends to wander indefinitely. 

Universal freedom cannot exist and thus, Whitman creates a paradox. Open road freedom, which he celebrates and grants to “all” though it’s later rescinded, depends entirely upon the stability of the structures he believes himself to transcend. The farmer must keep farming, the rich man cannot cease to exist, and the married couple must remain domestic so that Whitman can “enjoy all without labor or purchase." To be free, in his sense of the word, others must remain “un-free." This unconscious privilege does not take into account that many were unfree to simply walk away from obligation: the slave would be immediately captured and returned to his master, the woman assaulted or returned to her husband. Reading Whitman with this awareness doesn’t destroy its effect; the sentiments are still wonderful and written well, but awareness complicates it, denoting what freedom means and also raising questions of what freedom costs and who pays.