Summary
In "The right word," the speaker struggles to use the correct language to define the situation she is in. In the first stanza, there is a terrorist lurking in the shadows outside the door. In the following stanza, the speaker asks if that was the wrong description, and states that outside that door, taking shelter in the shadows, is a freedom fighter.
In the third stanza, the speaker says, "I haven't got this right" (Line 8). Outside, a hostile militant waits in the shadows. The next stanza questions whether words are no more than waving, wavering flags. Instead of a terrorist, freedom fighter, or hostile militant, now a guerrilla warrior stands watchful in the shadows outside "your" door (Line 13).
The speaker beseeches God for help in the fifth stanza. Now, the person standing outside is defined as a martyr who defies every shadow. The speaker sees the person's face, and no words can help her now because just outside the door, lost in shadows, is a child who resembles the speaker's own.
In the seventh stanza, the speaker claims to have one word for the reader. Outside her door is a boy who resembles the reader's son, too. His hand is too steady and his eyes are too hard. The speaker opens the door in the eighth stanza and invites the boy to come in and eat.
In the final stanza of the poem, the child steps in and carefully removes his shoes at the door.
Analysis
In Imtiaz Dharker's poem "The right word," she demonstrates the way that words influence identity and perception. While encountering a boy standing outside her door, the speaker in the poem struggles to contextualize what is happening. The first stanza reads, "Outside the door, / lurking in the shadows, / is a terrorist" (Lines 1-3). These lines situate the speaker inside a building, but it is not yet specified where this door is; the speaker could be anywhere, including an unfamiliar place. The word "lurking" has an unpleasant undertone of impending ambush, suggesting that the physical barrier of a building will not protect the speaker. These opening lines of the poem elicit a sense of danger and fear, particularly with the third line defining the outside threat as a terrorist.
The word "terrorist" is a loaded term, operating mainly in the dimension of fear. In the poem, the word "terrorist" is used purposely to present all the possible connotations that people will associate with the word. These include extremism, political violence, and foreign infiltration, as well as possible assumptions about race and religion. In a research article on the psychology of terrorism, neuroscientist Emile Bruneau points out that "When Americans and Europeans think of terrorists, they likely imagine Muslim extremists." However, the think tank New America published a report stating that despite the assumption many people have about terrorists being foreign radicals, nearly all attacks in America in the post-9/11 era were conducted by American citizens or legal residents. Though this report concerns the US, this assumption about terrorists being only foreign extremists is prevalent in all Western countries. By withholding any other specifications of identity at this point in the poem, Dharker evokes all the possible assumptions surrounding terrorism.
In the second stanza, the speaker wonders whether "terrorist" was the wrong description. As if editing a film, the poet cuts the scene and recasts the characters. This time, the person standing "Outside that door / taking shelter in the shadows / is a freedom fighter" (Lines 5-7). Rather than wait in the shadows for the opportunity to attack, here the person protects himself and his righteous cause. The alliteration of /sh/ in "shelter" and "shadows" and /f/ in "freedom" and "fighter" demonstrates the alignment in the person's motivation. A freedom fighter is a person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order to overthrow their government. Whether a person is called a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" depends on who is making the identification. Race often plays a role in whether someone is configured as a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter." Word choice in the context of the poem (whether the person outside should be called a terrorist, a freedom fighter, or neither) is influenced by religious, cultural, political, and social factors.
In the third stanza, the speaker claims, "I haven’t got this right" (Line 8). Rather than a terrorist or a freedom fighter, a hostile militant waits outside in the shadows. This term aligns more with the word "terrorist" than with "freedom fighter." Someone may personally identify as a freedom fighter, but "terrorist" and "hostile militant" are more likely to be externally-placed labels.
The process of searching for the right word in the poem evokes the role that media plays in shaping perception. Media reports on terrorism often sensationalize violence. In a report on Media and Terrorism given to a European Committee on Culture, Science, and Education, the Czech academic and politician Josef Jařab states that "The media are attracted by extreme terrorist acts not only because it is their duty to report on any major event but also because, at the same time, the dramaturgy of terrorism attracts large scale attention." Rhetorical techniques in the reporting of these events shape public perception. A UNESCO report on Terrorism and Media states that certain kinds of representations "can fan stereotypes and division, and fuel backlash and counter-violence." While the poem does not explicitly delve into this problem in generalized terms, it does deal with it on a personal level, as the speaker grapples to find the right language for the situation.
In the fourth stanza, the speaker asks if words are "no more / than waving, wavering flags" (Lines 11-12). The alliteration of /w/ shows the fluctuating movement of words as they wave and waver. Flags are used to communicate belonging to a specific group, usually a nationality. They also symbolize patriotism and military efforts, which is relevant to the poem's focus on identity and perception. This passage suggests that, like the movement of flags, words are not static and can mean different things to different people. The regular iambic rhythm in these lines falters with the word "wavering," further expressing the speaker's uncertainty.
The door in the poem has become "your" door in the fourth stanza, and the person outside is now a guerrilla warrior standing watchful in the shadows (Lines 13-15). The "your" connotes a personal familiarity; the situation is moving closer to home. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a guerrilla warrior engages in a "type of warfare fought by irregulars in fast-moving, small-scale actions against orthodox military and police forces and, on occasion, against rival insurgent forces, either independently or in conjunction with a larger political-military strategy." The range of words used to describe the person standing outside showcases a variety of labels and identities. Here, a rhythm is created as the "w" sound repeats in the words "watchful" and "warrior," and the "g" sound repeats in the words "guerrilla" and "God" (the latter is from the next stanza).
Thus far, the poem's stanzas have numbered three, four, three, and five lines. This lack of a fixed structure in the poem's stanzas contributes to the overall sense of uncertainty as the speaker grapples to find the right word. The poem is also written in free verse, which echoes the freedom one has to frame and reframe a situation with language.
In the fifth stanza, the speaker beseeches God for help. Now, a martyr stands outside and defies every shadow. A martyr is someone who voluntarily suffers death rather than deny their religion by words or deeds. Again, the use of this label depends upon religious, cultural, political, and social factors. For a person to defy every shadow suggests that they are a metaphorical source of light. To defy something also gives a sense of righteousness. It is in this stanza that the speaker first sees the face of this person who has so far been called a terrorist, a freedom fighter, a hostile militant, a guerrilla warrior, and a martyr. The distance between the speaker and the person outside is shrinking.
Language fails the speaker in the sixth stanza; she claims that "No words can help [her] now" (Line 20). This is because "Just outside the door, / lost in shadows, / is a child who looks like" the speaker's own (Lines 21-23). This demonstrates the way that words can create and diminish the distance between people. As the speaker proceeds to discard words and phrases in the poem, she also discards the baggage they carry. This brings her closer to the boy, and now she recognizes an apparent kinship with him. This stanza also reveals the youth of the person standing outside.
The speaker directly addresses the reader in the seventh stanza, saying she has "One word for you" (Line 24). These lines read, "Outside my door, / his hand too steady, / his eyes too hard / is a boy who looks like your son, too" (Lines 25-27). The details about the boy's hand and eyes suggest that he has been through hardship but has been conditioned to tough it out and distance himself from emotional pain. These bodily details come before the revelation about the boy's resemblance to the reader's son. This is a stronger prompt for the reader's imagination than just stating that the boy "looks like your son" because of how specific the details are. Even if readers do not have a son, they will be able to imagine this boy.
In this stanza, the word "you" at the end of the first line rhymes with the word "too" at the end of the final line. This simple rhyme reflects the speaker's process of discarding complicated language that forms artificial barriers between people. This process has led the speaker to find common ground with the person standing outside. Rather than othering the boy with words like "terrorist," the speaker sees his humanity. By using the second-person pronoun, Dharker encourages the reader to consider the filters that language places on our conceptions of and interactions with others.
The speaker proceeds to open the door and invite the boy in to eat with her family. As the speaker's mental barrier (created by language) collapses, she eradicates the physical barrier between herself and the boy by opening the door. The invitation to enter one's home and eat a meal is a meaningful act. Sharing food and shelter with someone affirms their very existence. That the speaker invites the boy into her home to eat with her family shows that she recognizes their shared humanity.
In the last stanza of the poem, the child steps into the speaker's house and carefully removes his shoes at the door. This is a sign of respect in many cultures, as the soles of shoes are considered unsanitary. It is not stated if the boy's reason for doing this is because of his own beliefs or if he is mimicking those of his hosts. However, he removes his shoes "carefully," meaning that whatever the reason for doing so, he does this act with attention and respect. This detail complicates the labels that were placed on the boy throughout the poem. The speaker peels back all these layers of perceived identity (terrorist, freedom fighter, hostile militant, guerrilla warrior, martyr) until she arrives at what is underneath: a child who carefully removes his shoes at the door before entering a home.
