Manifesto for Self-Care

*Note: This is a Twin Cinema poem. Both columns can be read vertically, offering two independent narratives. It can also be read horizontally across both columns, revealing a third narrative.

Reflection

“Manifesto for self-care” imitates the inner voices of the self. It can be better understood as the angel and the devil that sits on the shoulders of indecisive cartoon characters, except of course, that none of these are angels or demons, but ourselves. In my reflection, I hope to offer my thoughts on my piece of writing, a short analysis, and at the same time provide my insights on the human condition. This reflection is by no means the definite and only way to understand “manifesto for self-care”. Instead, readers should be encouraged to encounter and appreciate this piece in light of their own personal experiences.

The ambivalent and contradictory voices of our inner selves are most obviously presented in the Twin Cinema poetic form. This form originated locally, and is widely considered to be the most groundbreaking contribution that our homegrown poets have made to the global arts and literary scene. This form is unique in the sense that it holds space for seemingly opposing sentiments (the left column imitates the motivated and optimistic ‘angel’, while the right column presents a pessimistic and condemnatory self-perception), yet is able to harmonise them in one final reading of the poem across both columns, where the persona is both not discouraged by, and does not deliberately ignore his personal and external flaws. Genuine self-love becomes his reason to strive for improvement.

Like some of us, the persona finds himself constantly trapped in a place of liminality, best understood to be the area “between” — not here, not there; neither this, nor that. Because of his self-perception, he is entrenched (or, “usually / ever stuck”) in such a position, affecting his social circles, and his body image. His liminality is experienced in a sense of isolation. The ‘angelic’ voice tries to compensate for this through self-improvement that is afraid to admit and recognise flaws, while the ‘demonic’ voice constantly exploits his loneliness to further discourage him.

All three voices offer their resolution:

Most straightforwardly, the ‘demon’ proposes that he should be “someone else who is / self-critical”, suggesting that the persona should sell his personality and identity in exchange for a harsh Pharoah that polices his thoughts, continually dishing out unwarranted and cruel self-judgements.

What, then, is the difference between the proposals made by the other two voices? I believe that the fault of the ‘angelic’ voice lies in an insecure denial of personal flaws in attempting to construct a new social self. In contrast, when read across the columns (let’s call this the ‘middle’ voice), the persona embraces himself, working towards improvement from a place of security. The ‘angel’ believes he should “be / come himself”, yet the ‘middle’ voice “promises to be / himself”. The latter suggests an unforced, uncoerced approach to regain the persona’s sense of self, while the former pressures the persona to “be / come” his own self, suggesting a path of progress laced with subtle disdain and toxic optimism.  

To conclude, I believe that “manifesto for self-care” should not be merely read as a poem or an artistic piece, but as a kind of mirror (not the one that Snow White’s Evil Queen had) that projects and evinces the inner voice. I hope that through this, readers can turn inward, recognise, and assess the tone of their self-talk, putting them in a better position to develop a more nuanced and accepting self-image after “bracing through” their growing pains.