When Frank O’Hara moved to New York in 1951 he must, at first, have seemed quite the anomaly to many of his peers. Indeed, even on the eccentric Manhattan art scene, no-one with the same sense of aesthetic wonder as O’Hara; no-one with the same Harvard background in music and literature; no-one with the same credentials of having served as a sonar-man in the South Pacific during the War; and no-one with the same critical understanding of the aesthetics of both Abstract Expressionism and European symbolism, came close to approximating O’Hara’s unique sense of urban bohemianism.
Of course, the likes of John Ashbery and Kenneth Koch, both of whom attended Harvard and the latter of whom served in the South Pacific during the Second World War, are probably the most comparable of his contemporaries. However, unlike O’Hara, neither Koch nor Ashbery had the same intimate experience with the aesthetics of Abstract Expressionism. Nor again did they place the same emphasis in their poetry as O’Hara did on the documentation of everyday experience. The idea that by contrasting the impressionism and colour of Rimbaud and Verlaine with the photographic imagery of Williams, the music of Hart Crane and the “All-American” romanticism of Walt Whitman, the complexity of human experience would reveal itself in the language of the poem.
Indeed, the Whitman comparison seems particularly apt in ‘Meditations in an Emergency’ when we take into account what seems to be the central consideration of the poem: identity. It echoes with Whitman’s credo ‘Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself’ and aches throughout with a desired move toward some kind of resolution; a resolution which, ultimately, never presents itself. But there is also departure from Whitman. O’Hara is not writing to “celebrate” his loss of identity nor even to accept it as someone who is “large” and “contains multitudes”. For O’Hara this vagueness is something to be struggled against. The search for identity is a “meditation” and the very fact of its loss in the first place is an “emergency”. This is an identity crisis. A crisis perpetuated, it seems, by the end of an affair.
‘Am I to become profligate as if I were a blonde? Or religious as if I were French?’
O’Hara begins, as if the “emergency” is already well underway. There is no explanation as to why these questions are being asked. ‘Blondeness’ and ‘French’ are simply presented, at a distance, as fluid oxymoronic paradigms, somehow stable in the labels that they wear, but also completely devoid of the characteristics normally associated with either one. Of course, the irony inherent in the ‘profligacy’ of someone with blonde hair or the ‘religiosity’ of the (normally) secular French is clear, but it must be remembered that the poem is beginning, right away, on a note of resignation; a resignation specific to some compromise within his own identity and his failure to be recognised and understood.
In fact, in the line that follows: “Each time my heart is broken it makes me feel more adventurous”, O’Hara posits that the reason for his compromised identity – and by extension the “Emergency” referred to in the title of the poem – is the end of an unspecified love affair. “What greater emergency is there?” the poem seems to ask, since human relations always depend upon an element of personal connection to give them some meaning. What greater loss is there than the compassion of the “other” in relation to the self? Whether “self” refers to the individual experience of the situated being, or to the communitarian “self” of the city, country or continent, loss of compassion is emphasised as being of the utmost importance. After all, here it has led to the individual pain of the poem’s “broken heart”, but also – if one considers the international situation of the period – Cold War paranoia and violence overseas.
“What is identity then, but mere context?” the poem also asks us. Indeed, O’Hara is only facing into this crisis as the result of having been wrenched away from the stable confines of a relationship. Without such a situation to keep a person grounded, O’Hara becomes restless, contradictory and myriad. Therefore, in a statement like “I am the least difficult of men. All I want is boundless love.” He at once implores his lover with the “boundless” scope of his desire, whilst at the same time reducing the gravity of his request with absurd qualifiers like “all I want” and “I am the least difficult of men.” Opposites exist in a state of flux and swap; humour always undercuts the seriousness of the poem’s “coming to terms”; and often, O’Hara flatly contradicts himself, as though his multiple selves are all vying for position.
In fact, it is when O’Hara is “confined” in the poem – almost trapped within the claustrophobic familiarity of New York City – that he begins to stabilise and return to something like “himself” again. The context that New York gives him is comfortable, stable and like a relationship, gives him the courage to feel there is no need for him to wear any of his innumerable masks; the masks which allow him to come to terms with the rest of the world. He is free, as when he writes “One need never leave the confines of New York to get all the greenery one wishes—I can’t even enjoy a blade of grass unless I know there’s a subway handy, or a record store or some other sign that people do not totally regret life.”
The problem, as O’Hara sees it, is in the false vision people have of themselves. That, like him, everybody is struggling to maintain a stable set of ideals and to live autonomously in a universe that is indifferent and, by extension, cruel. O’Hara posits that the only way to respond to an ever-changing universe is to be fleeting: “It is more important to affirm the least sincere; the clouds get enough attention as it is and even they continue to pass.” Here, indeed, is where O’Hara begins to move toward resolving his identity crisis; the “emergency” brought about by the sudden wrenching away of context. His floundering despair morphs into a kind of freedom where now, instead of lamenting the former “self” who dwelt within the boundaries of a love affair, he compares himself with “the least sincere”. Like the clouds he “continues to pass” but remains forever within the confines of a wandering existence which, for him, is enough to be satisfied, as when he tells us: “My eyes are vague blue, like the sky, and change all the time; they are indiscriminate but fleeting, entirely specific and disloyal, so that no one trusts me.” And then explains that he continues in this way because: “…it’s my duty to be attentive, I am needed by things as the sky must be above the earth.”
To the “you” of the poem then; to the person who dragged him to this dreadful self-realisation in the first place. What of them? Well, naturally enough, it is here that he empowers himself. “Destroy yourself, if you don’t know! It is easy to be beautiful, it is difficult to appear so.” In other words, O’Hara’s living with the knowledge that one is unstable by virtue of the fact that existence is unstable, is more challenging than the great vice of the beautiful – namely, their ignorance. O’Hara accepts his mask, proud of the fact that it is “difficult” to wear whilst at the same time baffled by the irony that the very person who brought him to this point is unaware of their own mask: “I admire you, beloved, for the trap you’ve set. It’s like a final chapter no one reads because the plot is over.” Beauty, like the clouds he mentions, is fleeting – temporary – but caught in the self-perpetuating vice that it will never fade nor pass on to someone else. Hence, why it is “easy to be beautiful”. Ignorance is bliss.
Thus, for the O’Hara in the final stanza, stability is no longer stable; comfort, no longer comfortable. “Identity” has now become something to escape from and the romance of life – the “adventure” alluded to in the second stanza – has become the hunter/hunted pursuit between the “settled life” and freedom: “I’ve got to get out of here. I choose a piece of shawl and my dirtiest suntans.” And yet, the poem seems also to come full circle, as when O’Hara immediately undermines his seriousness in tone by contradicting it in the next line: “I’ll be back, I’ll re-emerge, defeated, from the valley; you don’t want me to go where you go, so I go where you don’t want me to.” Here, of course, O’Hara is once again channelling his inner Whitman. “Do I contradict myself?” O’Hara challenges us “Very well, then I contradict myself…”