Angel Chaisson<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unlearning \u201cCompulsory Heterosexuality\u201d: The Evolution of Adrienne Rich\u2019s Poetry<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Adrienne Rich (1929-2012) was an American poet and essayist, best known for her contributions to the radical feminist movement. She notably popularized the term \u201ccompulsory heterosexuality\u201d in the 1980\u2019s through her essay \u201cCompulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Experience,\u201d which brought her to the forefront of feminist and lesbian discourse. Her article delves deeply into men\u2019s power over women\u2019s expression of sexuality, and how the expectation of heterosexuality further oppresses lesbian women. My purpose is not to question Rich\u2019s assessment of sexuality and oppression, but rather to examine how the institution of heterosexuality as depicted in \u201cCompulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Experience\u201d impacted her life and career. Before elaborating on Rich\u2019s argument, it is important to clarify her definition of compulsory heterosexuality as sexuality that is \u201cboth forcibly and subliminally imposed on women\u201d (\u201cCompulsory\u201d 24). One of the defining arguments of the essay is that heterosexuality is a tool of the oppressors, playing into politics, economics, and cultural propaganda\u2014 that sexuality has always been weaponized against women to perpetuate the inequality of the sexes (\u201cCompulsory\u201d 32). The foundation of Rich\u2019s argument is Kathleen Gough\u2019s \u201cThe Origin of the Family,\u201d in which Gough attributes men\u2019s power over women to various acts of repression, such as denying or forcing sexuality onto women, commanding or exploiting their labor, controlling reproductive rights, physically confining or restricting women\u2019s movements, using women as transactional objects, depriving them of creativity, and barring them from the academic and professional sphere (\u201cCompulsory\u201d 9). Although Gough only describes such oppression in relation to inequality, Rich believes these behaviors are a direct result of institutionalized heterosexuality; her determination to dismantle said institution drives the anger and passion present in both her essays and her poetry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As stated before, Gough mentions that a method of male control is stifling women\u2019s creativity and hindering their professional success. Part of the control stems from the heavy scrutiny on female professionals such as Rich, who explains that men force women into limiting boxes: \u201cwomen [. . .] learn to behave in a complaisantly and ingratiatingly heterosexual manner because they discover this is their true qualification for employment\u201d (\u201cCompulsory\u201d 13).Women writers, for example, would be more likely to receive praise from male critics for corroborating a positive portrayal of marriage instead of depicting real and serious struggles faced by wives. In fact, it is not difficult to find intense criticism of Rich\u2019s feminist ideals by men who sought to silence her. In the essay \u201cSnapshots of a Feminist Poet,\u201d Meredith Benjamin states that Rich faced the typical backlash that other feminist poets did\u2014 her writing was \u201ctoo personal, too close to the female body, not universal, and privileged politics at the expense of aesthetic and literary merit\u201d (633). The personalization of her poetry was heavily scrutinized, even by her own father, Arnold Rich. He found her writing \u201ctoo private and personal for public consumption\u201d and rejected her casual exploration of the female body, or in his words, the \u201cwombs of ordure and nausea\u201d (Benjamin 6). The intensity of such criticisms further support Gough\u2019s notion of men suppressing female creativity, fueling Rich\u2019s fire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lesbian women suffer even further beneath this heteronormative structure\u2014 heterosexist prejudice, in Rich\u2019s terms\u2014 because of their sexuality and gender expression. Lesbians must fall within the typical expression of femininity and cannot be \u201cout\u201d on the job; they must remain closeted for the sake of their personal safety and the possibility of success. Although she does not make the connection herself within her essay on the topic, Rich\u2019s personal and professional life centered around maintaining outward heterosexuality. Her experiences fit well within her own descriptions of lesbian suffering; having to \u201c[deny] the truth of her outside relationships or private life\u201d while \u201cpretending to be not merely heterosexual but a heterosexual woman\u201d (\u201cCompulsory\u201d 13). During her seventeen-year marriage to Alfred Conrad (1953-1970), she reluctantly filled the roles of mother and wife, her experience with both drastically changing her poetic approach. It was not until six years after Conrad\u2019s death that Rich established herself as a lesbian through the release of Twenty-One Love Poems <\/em>in 1976 and her public relationship with writer Michelle Cliff the same year. Rich\u2019s deeply personal style of writing allows one to construct a distinct line of growth and development through her poetic work, which was fully intentional on her part. In his essay \u201cAdrienne Rich: The Poet and Her Critics,\u201d Craig Werner quotes Rich on her decision to include dates at the end of every poem by 1956, viewing each finished piece as a \u201csingle, encapsulated event\u201d that showed her life changing through a \u201clong, continuous process\u201d ( Pre-Divorce Poetry (1953-1970)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/strong>The first collection of poetry published after Adrienne Rich\u2019s marriage to Alfred Conrad was The Diamond Cutters: and Other Poems<\/em>, released in 1953. According to Ed Pavlic\u2019s essay \u201c\u2018Outward in Larger Terms \/ A Mind Inhaling Exigency\u2019: Adrienne Rich\u2019s Collected Poems,\u201d the collection is largely ignored, likely because Rich herself \u201cdisavow[ed]\u201d the work as \u201cderivative\u201d (9). The poems largely reflected the formalist tradition of poetry, much different than the poetry Rich would write in the late 1950\u2019s and beyond. Regardless, it is worth examining some of the work from that time to establish a foundation for Rich\u2019s growth as a writer; there are already inklings of dissatisfaction with the heteronormative framework of love. Here are the opening lines from \u201cLiving in Sin\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n She had thought the studio would keep itself;<\/p>\n\n\n\n no dust upon the furniture of love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Half heresy, to wish the taps less vocal,<\/p>\n\n\n\n the panes relieved of grime. (Rich et al. 6).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The speaker of the poem seems to be assessing her belief that the \u201cfurniture of love\u201d would maintain itself. Describing love as furniture conjures up the image of something solid and fixed in place. Without careful attention, furniture collects dust and dirt over time and becomes a tarnished version of what it once was. She acknowledges this later in the poem when the speaker dusts the tabletops and cleans the house, declaring that she is \u201cback in love again\u201d by the evening, \u201cthough not so wholly\u201d (Rich et al. 6, lines 23-24). The progression of events shows that the doubt the speaker feels is persistent; the dust will always return, no matter how often it is swept aside. The poem calls into question the expectations she had of her recent marriage: did she expect her relationship to survive without nurturing? Was she hoping that she could still thrive as a woman and a writer under the strict heterosexual constraints of marriage? In \u201cFriction of the Mind: The Early Poetry of Adrienne Rich,\u201d Mary Slowik cites this early poetry as the breeding ground for Rich\u2019s anger: \u201cRich makes an uncompromising examination of the secure world she must leave behind and an even more painful inquiry into the disorderly and isolated world she must enter\u201d (143) .The new life Rich enters is dominated by a heterosexual framework\u2014 it would only take a few more years for her experiences as a wife and mother to radicalize her feminism and transform her poetry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSnapshot of a Daughter-in-Law\u201d (dated 1958-1960) is featured in a collection of the same name and is arguably one of Rich\u2019s most prominent earlier works. Although the poem barely scratches the surface of her steadily growing anger, it represents \u201cearly attempts at understanding a world of deep displacements, painful isolation and underlying violence\u201d (Slowik 148). The collection received much attention due to its innovative form and feminist themes; it contrasted starkly with Rich\u2019s previous collection and potentially the \u201creinvention\u201d of her career (Pavlic 9). The poem itself is divided into ten numbered sections, each one with an ambiguous female voice. The pronouns cycle through \u201cI,\u201d \u201cyou,\u201d and \u201cshe.\u201d Although the speaker seems to change throughout the poem, one cannot ignore that each voice seems to offer some observation or criticism about domestic life, or the role women must play in relation to men. Slowik states that behind each pretty line of verse is a \u201cgrotesque, vicious, and unexpected violence\u201d (154). Section 2, particularly the last two stanzas, perhaps receives the most observation due to the portrayal of a housewife committing subtle acts of self-harm:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026 Sometimes she’s let the tap stream scald her arm,<\/p>\n\n\n\n a match burn to her thumbnail<\/p>\n\n\n\n or held her hand above the kettle’s snout<\/p>\n\n\n\n right in the woolly steam. They are probably angels,<\/p>\n\n\n\n since nothing hurts her anymore, except<\/p>\n\n\n\n each morning’s grit blowing into her eyes. (Rich et al. 9, lines 20-25)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The woman that Rich portrays in this section is one who has become numb to her way of life. The only stimulus that elicits any feeling is the pain of waking up each morning in the same unfulfilling role. In fact, each of the various voices seems to be dealing with some sort of displeasure or pain, such as being \u201cPoised, trembling, and unsatisfied,\u201d stuck singing a song that is not her own (lines 54-60). These women exemplify the pitfalls of institutionalized heterosexuality, forced to maintain a certain image of womanhood and femininity at their own expense. Furthermore, Benjamin asserts that the sections are indeed \u201csnapshots\u201d as the title suggests, implying that they all refer to \u201ca <\/em>daughter-in-law, if perhaps not the same one\u201d (632). Regardless, Rich joins them all together in the final line of the poem, which is simply the word \u201cours\u201d (line 122). The cargo mentioned in line 118 suddenly belongs to every voice in the poem, joining them under a shared weight\u2014 a similar baggage. It hardly matters if Rich is depicting various aspects of herself, relating her woes to those of other women, or creating characters entirely for the sake of the poem; the brewing dissatisfaction within her is clear through her carefully chosen words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA Marriage in the \u2018Sixties,\u201d written in 1961, is a bittersweet account of romance between a couple who is holding onto the passionate past while living in a much less passionate present. The connection the speaker has with her husband feels superficial; the only outright compliment paid to him is in stanza 3, when she commends how well time has treated his appearance. She remembers how she felt reading his old letters, but in the present, they are \u201ctwo strangers, thrust for life upon a rock\u201d (Rich et al. 15, line 33). The image of the rock implies that the speaker feels stranded with her husband, even if they feel a spark every now and again. In the end, they are still strangers with differing intentions. The speaker poses the question: \u201cWill nothing ever be the same\u201d (line 39). The question comes across as genuine concern. Will the couple remain strangers forever? Returning to the notion of compulsive heterosexuality and marriage, the speaker does not outright consider removing herself from the situation; marriage was often viewed as being a life-long commitment. Rich\u2019s own concerns seem to shine through here, eight years into her own marriage, as she depicts an emotionally distant couple. A poem written two years later in 1963 titled \u201cLike This Together, which is addressed to A.H.C\u2014 Alfred H. Conrad \u2014 stands out among the others because it is distinctly in Rich\u2019s voice, a direct message to her husband. Lines 8-13 evoke a similar emotion to conflict within \u201cA Marriage in the \u2018Sixties\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n A year, ten years from now<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019ll remember this\u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n this sitting like drugged birds<\/p>\n\n\n\n in a glass case\u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n not why, only that we<\/p>\n\n\n\n were like this together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The imagery of drugged birds in a glass case is not pleasant: two creatures, in a stupor, on display for the world to see. Rich stating that she will remember this moment for years to come still feels like reminiscing. Perhaps she is conscious that the couple is \u201cdrugged,\u201d going through the motions, but appreciates the time they spent together\u2014perhaps more akin to friendship than romance. Both \u201cA Marriage in the \u2018Sixties\u201d and \u201cLike This Together\u201d feature a sort of emotional tug of war; one moment, the speaker feels comforted by their marriage, but in the next moment, she feels isolated or betrayed. Rich portrays that in stanza 4 of \u201cLike This Together\u201d with the metaphor of her husband being a cave, sheltering her. She finds comfort in him, but she is \u201cmaking him\u201d her cave, \u201ccrawling against\u201d him, as if she must force that intimate connection (Rich et al. 23, lines 44-46). Compulsory heterosexuality is at work within this poem, once again showing how the institution of marriage can make a woman feel trapped. Rich is doing everything she can to make something out of nothing, even though their love has been \u201cpicked clean at last\u201d (line 54).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rich\u2019s examination of the heterosexual relationship dynamic continues in the 1968 poem \u201cI Dream I\u2019m the Death of Orpheus,\u201d a feminist reading of the ancient mythological tale. The speaker wanting to become the death of Orpheus implies a role switch, perhaps turning the patriarchal structure on its head\u2014 what if Orpheus\u2019s fate had been in Eurydice\u2019s hands? Lines 2-4 corroborate a feminist lens: \u201cI am a woman in the prime of life, with certain powers\/ and those powers severely limited\/ by authorities whose faces I rarely see\u201d (Rich et al. 43, lines 2-4). While the mention of Orpheus may once again aim to criticize marriage or the husband, the overall tone of the poem seems to be a broader rejection of the strict heterosexual lifestyle forced on women. In the essay \u201cThe Emergence of a Feminizing Ethos in Adrienne Rich’s Poetry,\u201d Jeane Harris cites this poem as a drastic shift in Rich\u2019s poetry, that \u201cthe [feminizing] ethos began to take its measure\u201d with a \u201ca deeply self-scrutinizing attitude\u201d (134). Harris\u2019s interpretation forces readers to revisit the poem; as much as Rich is damning the patriarchy, she is also damning herself. She recognizes her own power, but it is a power she cannot use. She has \u201cnerves of a panther,\u201d but she is still wasting the prime of her life filling a role she does not want to fill. Perhaps Rich is criticizing herself for being stuck in the heterosexual sphere for too long, knowing that she is missing out on valuable time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Post-Divorce Poetry<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cRe-forming the Crystal\u201d was written in 1973, three years after Adrienne Rich\u2019s divorce from Alfred Conrad and his subsequent suicide. Despite the poem\u2019s target being deceased, Rich does not hold back\u2014the verse is raw, scathing, and honest. Therefore, \u201cRe-forming the Crystal\u201d deserves extensive analysis regarding both Rich\u2019s personal development (sexuality, identity) and artistic development (poetic style and content). The poem itself has a striking format, incorporating both stanzas and blocks of prose poetry; once again, Rich is disrupting the formalist poetic tradition in favor of something more authentic to her own style, breaking free from the constraints that had limited her for so long during her career. The break from traditional form surely fits the theme of the poem: denouncing the heterosexual institution of marriage and facing her feelings about her ex-husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first stanza and the third stanza, when paired together, reveal the speaker\u2019s resentment for the subject. The poem begins with \u201cI am trying to imagine\/ how it feels to you\/ to want a woman,\u201d as the speaker attempts to place herself in the subject\u2019s shoes (Rich et al. 61, lines 1-3). Stanza 3 heightens the tension, almost sounding accusatory: \u201cdesire without discrimination\/ to want a woman like a fix\u201d (Rich et al. 61, lines 8-9). The speaker wants to know how it feels to desire without limits; a man is allowed and even encouraged to want women within the heterosexual framework, but a woman is forbidden to want another woman. In the block of prose poetry following the first three stanzas, the speaker hammers in her resentment toward the subject. She says her excitement was never directed toward him; \u201cyou were a man, a stranger, a name, a voice on the telephone, a friend; this desire was mine\u201d (lines 14-15). From here on, it can be said with near certainty that Rich is talking directly to Conrad, as she did in previous poems. Although the husband figure is described as a stranger in both \u201cA Marriage in the 60\u2019s\u201d and \u201cRe-forming the Crystal,\u201d Rich expresses uncertainty regarding her relationship in the former that is no longer present in the latter. The emotions felt toward her ex-husband beforehand are no longer up for debate as romantic love. She goes on to say that she is also a stranger to herself: she is the person she sees in pictures, and \u201cthe name on the marriage-contract\u201d does not belong to her (line 28). The poem, then, is about Rich rediscovering her sense of self. She is not just denouncing her marriage, but also the person she became during those years. Having to play the part of a heterosexual woman compromised Rich\u2019s politics, art, and identity, all of which she must reevaluate after her divorce. The final point of reconciliation for Rich is understanding the role her relationship with Conrad played in the oppression she experienced: \u201cI want to understand my fear both of the machine and of the accidents of nature. My desire for you is not trivial; I can compare it with the greatest of those accidents\u201d (lines 33-36). Perhaps Rich means for her frustrations not to be directed fully at Conrad, but on a broader scale, heterosexuality as an institution\u2014the \u201cmachine.\u201d The marriage itself may have been a result of the heterosexual institution, but the relationship formed between Rich and Conrad is the accident she refers to, a mere coincidence that may have happened with or without outside factors. The distinction is important, as it saves Conrad from being the sole oppressor and object of her anger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rich\u2019s first blatantly lesbian work, Twenty-One Love Poems, <\/em>came out in 1976. The collection was arguably the biggest risk Rich had taken with her poetry up until that point. Although she had always been criticized for her techniques and feminist themes, she was now directly rejecting the heterosexual framework she had placed herself in publicly for her entire career. Harris also comments on this risk when identifying the emergence of Rich\u2019s feminizing ethos: \u201cPerhaps the most costly and potentially damaging position taken in Rich’s poetry is that of lesbianism. Unable to exist in the world ruled by the patriarchy, Rich must create a place for a lesbian ethos to exist\u201d (Harris 136). Twenty-One Love Poems<\/em> is a result of Rich trying to create that lesbian space, an attempt to radicalize her art along with her politics. As is true with many of Rich\u2019s defining works, the collection incorporates a distinctive form\u2014each poem is numbered from I-XXI (except for \u201cThe Floating Poem,\u201d which appears between XIV and XV); and together, the poems tell a cohesive narrative. The overarching story is the growth and decay of an intimate relationship between two women, without the resentment present in Rich\u2019s past poetry. The following paragraphs will analyze the collection based on which poems best exhibit Rich\u2019s personal and artistic growth, prioritizing discussion based on content rather than numerical order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Poem I establishes the basis for the collection with one simple line: \u201cNo one has imagined us\u201d (line 13). Rich is treading on new ground by depicting lesbian romance, likely creating an image of women that others may have failed to consider\u2014existing separate from men, loving each other, experiencing nuanced passion and lust. She is also entering a territory unknown to herself, describing love in a manner that completely clashes with the dynamic created within her past writings. In poem II, she writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026You\u2019ve kissed my hair<\/p>\n\n\n\n to wake me. I dreamed you were a poem,<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n I say, a poem I wanted to show someone . . .<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n and I laugh and fall dreaming again<\/p>\n\n\n\n of the desire to show you to everyone I love,<\/p>\n\n\n\n to move openly together<\/p>\n\n\n\n in the pull of gravity, which is not simple. (lines 9-16)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Already, Rich has presented a level of intimacy that was virtually absent from her older works\u2014her love for her partner is genuine and giddy. The poem metaphor perhaps serves two purposes: to show that she is experiencing a new kind of love, and that her poetry is changing as a result. However, she is facing a roadblock that comes with this new way of life. She wants to show her partner off to everyone she loves; but due to the stigma around lesbian relationships, it is impossible to express that level of joy. In \u201cCompulsory Sexuality and the Lesbian Experience,\u201dRich states that lesbianism is often regarded as a conscious choice made by women who are \u201cacting-out of bitterness toward men\u201d (3); aside from the societal bias against homosexuality, Rich faced the risk of people invalidating her expression of love because of the public falling out she had with her husband. Although she was no longer directly oppressed by her marriage, she was not free from the effects of institutionalized heterosexuality. Rich brings institutional oppression up again in poem IV: \u201cAnd my incurable anger, my unmendable wounds\/ break open further with tears, I am crying helplessly\/ and they still control the world, and you are not in my arms (lines 19-21). Rich uses strong words to describe her anguish\u2014 \u201cincurable,\u201d \u201cunmendable,\u201d \u201chelplessly\u201d\u2014all indicating that her emotions are a symptom of the patriarchal system and cannot be erased. Considering previous works in which Rich harps on her resilient nerves or impenetrable will (rebelling against notions of softness and weakness), the vulnerability shown in this poem is interesting as well as refreshing. Escaping the stereotype of the frail, dependent heterosexual woman only comes with more stigma\u2014lesbians were considered hardened and bitter. The poem is not the \u201cmeaningless rant of a \u2018manhater\u2019\u201d that Rich discusses in her essay, but rather one meant to humanize the lesbian struggle (\u201cCompulsory\u201d 23).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rich further elaborates on the differences between her experiences with heterosexuality and lesbianism based on the way her relationships have affected her. In poem III, she acknowledges that she is no longer young, yet she feels more alive than ever: \u201cDid I ever walk the morning streets at twenty \/ my limbs streaming with a purer joy?\u201d (lines 4-5). She spends every possible moment making up for the time she lost as a careless young adult, living in the heterosexual framework. More importantly, she accepts that even though this relationship is blissful, it will not be completely perfect: \u201cand somehow, each of us will help the other live\/ and somewhere, each of us must help the other die\u201d (lines 15-16). The tug-of-war described in poem III is starkly different than the one described previously in poems such as \u201cLike This Together\u201d or \u201cMarriage in the 60\u2019s\u201d; instead of woefully predicting a bitter end to their relationship, Rich\u2019s close connection to her partner allows her to accept the possibility of splitting up. \u201cThe Floating Poem\u201d also supports this notion with the phrase, \u201cWhatever happens to us, your body\/ will haunt mine\u2014tender, delicate\u201d (lines 1-2). \u201cTender\u201d and \u201cdelicate\u201d throw off the typically negative connotation that \u201chaunt\u201d has. Rich knows that her partner has changed her forever, and she fully accepts whatever fate has in store for them. Another interesting disparity between the heterosexual relationship(s) depicted in past works and the relationship depicted in Twenty-One Love Poems <\/em>is the notion of the partners being too different. In past works, Rich referred to her husband (or the representation of a male partner) as a stranger on multiple occasions, the relationship crumbling because their minds were too dissimilar. Poem XIII, however, celebrates differences. Rich and her partner are from different worlds, have different voices, all while having \u201cbodies, so alike\u2026yet so different\u201d (line 11). All that matters to Rich is what ties the women together: \u201c[they] were two lovers of one gender\/ [they] were two lovers of one generation\u201d (line 16-17). Regardless of their differing pasts, experiences, and ways of life, they are a part of a new, shared future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Twenty-one<\/em> Love Poems<\/em> serves yet another purpose outside of exploring and documenting sexuality\u2014establishing Rich\u2019s renewed relationship with writing. Rich was known for her anger, and her continuous suffering was the muse for her art and career. She conceptualizes her pain in poem XX: \u201ca woman\/ I loved drowning in secrets, fear wound her throat\u201d (lines 6-7). Rich seems to be discussing someone else, but she reveals that she was \u201ctalking to her own soul\u201d (\u201cXX,\u201d line 11). The woman Rich used to be was stuck between a public lie and a personal truth, dealing with the constant agony of performative womanhood. However, in poem VIII, she declares that she will \u201cgo on from here with [her lover]\/ fighting the temptation to make a career out of pain\u201d (lines 13-14). Although heterosexuality as an institution constricted Rich\u2019s freedom and creativity, her work seemed to thrive there; her entire career at that point was spent occupying a different persona altogether. Suffering, in other words, was familiar, comfortable, and reliable. Poem VIII is Rich\u2019s vow to prioritize her own happiness over that reliability. \u201cThe woman who cherished\/her suffering is dead,\u201d she writes, \u201cI am her descendant\u201d (\u201cVIII,\u201d lines 10-11). She accepts the strength of the person she was before, and all the sacrifices she made, but recognizes that it is time to let go. Poem XXI, the last poem of the collection, is the process of Rich doing just that\u2014 finally moving on from the mind\u2019s temptation of pain and loneliness with the phrase, \u201cI choose to walk here\u201d (line 15). She is establishing her effort to break through the heterosexual framework and establish her own path in life. Twenty-One Love Poems<\/em> marks a monumental shift in Rich\u2019s life and writing, no longer embracing her own suffering as the main avenue for her work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Between her unfulfilling marriage and the start of a new life with a female partner, Adrienne Rich\u2019s poetry experienced a drastic transformation from subtle feminist criticism to outright expressing her displeasure with the heterosexual life she was living. Her anger with the world became the core of her art, which trapped Rich into a corner: Could she successfully liberate herself from the confines of the heterosexual framework and continue her career? With every new publication, Rich continued to take risks and push boundaries until she reached a breakthrough\u2014fully embracing her feminist politics and identity. Between The Diamond Cutter<\/em> and Twenty-One Love Poems, <\/em>Rich\u2019s poetic and political motivations merge into one cohesive unit; she no longer feared the backlash she would face as an outspoken, radical woman. This groundbreaking confidence would be the defining trait of Rich\u2019s work; nothing, not even the looming influence of the patriarchy, could force her into silence again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Works Cited<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Benjamin, Meredith. \u201cSnapshots of a Feminist Poet: Adrienne Rich and the Poetics of the Archive.\u201d Women\u2019s Studies<\/em>, vol. 46, no. 7, Oct. 2017, pp. 628\u2013645. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080\/00497878.2017.1337415.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Harris, Jeane. \u201cThe Emergence of a Feminizing Ethos in Adrienne Rich’s Poetry.\u201d Rhetoric Society Quarterly<\/em>, vol. 18, no. 2, 1988, pp. 133\u2013140. JSTOR<\/em>, <\/p>\n\n\n\n www.jstor.org\/stable\/3885865.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pavlic, Ed. \u201c\u2018Outward in Larger Terms \/ A Mind Inhaling Exigency\u2019: Adrienne Rich\u2019s Collected Poems: 1950-2012: Part One.\u201d The American Poetry Review<\/em>, vol. 45, no. 4, July 2016, pp. 9-14. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com\/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,uid&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.456674446&site=eds-live&scope=site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rich, Adrienne, et al. Adrienne Rich\u2019s Poetry and Prose: Poems, Prose, Reviews and Criticism<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n W.W. Norton, 1993.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rich, Adrienne. \u201cCompulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.\u201d Signs<\/em>, vol. 5, no. 4, 1980,<\/p>\n\n\n\n pp. 631\u2013660. JSTOR<\/em>, www.jstor.org\/stable\/3173834.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Slowik, Mary. \u201cThe Friction of the Mind: The Early Poetry of Adrienne Rich.\u201d The<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Massachusetts Review<\/em>, vol. 25, no. 1, 1984, pp. 142\u2013160. JSTOR<\/em>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n www.jstor.org\/stable\/25089526.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Werner, Craig. “Adrienne Rich: The Poet and Her Critics.” Contemporary Literary Criticism<\/em>, edited by Thomas Votteler and Elizabeth P. Henry, vol. 73, Gale, 1993. Gale Literature Resource Center, https:\/\/link.gale.com\/apps\/doc\/H1100001540\/LitRC?u=lln_ansu&sid=LitRC&xid=96381f70. Originally published in Adrienne Rich: The Poet and Her Critics<\/em>, by Craig Werner, American Library Association, 1988.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Angel Chaisson Unlearning \u201cCompulsory Heterosexuality\u201d: The Evolution of Adrienne Rich\u2019s Poetry Adrienne Rich (1929-2012) was an American poet and essayist, best known for her contributions to the radical feminist movement. She notably popularized the term \u201ccompulsory heterosexuality\u201d in the 1980\u2019s through her essay \u201cCompulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Experience,\u201d which brought her to the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-volume-5"],"yoast_head":"\nWerner<\/s>). Over the years, Rich\u2019s struggles were documented and immortalized through her ever-changing poetic voice and style. I will examine the timeline of Adrienne Rich\u2019s poetry from 1958 to 1976 to determine how Rich\u2019s work evolved from the beginning of her marriage all the way to her divorce and eventual coming out. Each poem offers a unique glimpse into Rich\u2019s inner conflict with compulsory heterosexuality and the institution of marriage. Each poem mentioned in this essay can be found in Barbara and Albert Gelpi\u2019s 1995 publication, Adrienne Rich\u2019s Poetry and Prose.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n