Misplaced Pages

Trickster: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:44, 6 August 2008 edit89.216.118.98 (talk) →The trickster's literary role in dismantling oppressive systems: Fixed link← Previous edit Revision as of 07:45, 6 August 2008 edit undoThibaut~enwiki (talk | contribs)9 edits →The trickster's literary role in dismantling oppressive systems: Fixed link to Signifying Monkey articleNext edit →
Line 45: Line 45:
Modern African American literary criticism has turned the trickster figure into one example of how it is possible to overcome a system of oppression from within. For years, ] was discounted by the greater community of American literary criticism while its authors were still obligated to use the language and the rhetoric of the very system that relegated African Americans and other minorities to the ostracized position of the cultural “other.” The central question became one of how to overcome this system when the only words available were created and defined by the oppressors. As ] explained, the problem was that “the master’s tools never dismantle the master’s house.”<ref>Lorde, Audre, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex,” ''Literary Theory: An Anthology'', Eds. Julie Rivkin, Michael Ryan (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 859.</ref> Modern African American literary criticism has turned the trickster figure into one example of how it is possible to overcome a system of oppression from within. For years, ] was discounted by the greater community of American literary criticism while its authors were still obligated to use the language and the rhetoric of the very system that relegated African Americans and other minorities to the ostracized position of the cultural “other.” The central question became one of how to overcome this system when the only words available were created and defined by the oppressors. As ] explained, the problem was that “the master’s tools never dismantle the master’s house.”<ref>Lorde, Audre, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex,” ''Literary Theory: An Anthology'', Eds. Julie Rivkin, Michael Ryan (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 859.</ref>


In his writings of the late 1980s, ] presents the concept of ]. Wound up in this theory is the idea that the “master’s house” can be “dismantled” using his “tools” if the tools are used in a new or unconventional way. To demonstrate this process, Gates cites the interactions found in African American narrative poetry between the trickster, ], and his oppressor, the Lion.<ref>Gates, Henry, “The Blackness of Blackness: A Critique on the Sign and the Signifying Monkey,” ''Literary Theory: An Anthology'', Eds. Julie Rivkin, Michael Ryan (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 990. </ref> According to Gates, the “Signifying Monkey” is the “New World figuration” and “functional equivalent” of the Eshu trickster figure of African Yoruba mythology.<ref>''Ibid.'', 988-989.</ref> The Lion functions as the authoritative figure in his classical role of “King of the Jungle.”<ref>''Ibid.'', 991. </ref> He is the one who commands the Signifying Monkey’s movements. Yet the Monkey is able to outwit the Lion continually in these narratives through his usage of figurative language. According to Gates, “he Signifying Monkey is able to signify upon the Lion because the Lion does not understand the Monkey’s discourse…The monkey speaks figuratively, in a symbolic code; the lion interprets or reads literally and suffers the consequences of his folly…”<ref>''Ibid.'', 991.</ref> In this way, the Monkey uses the same language as the Lion, but he uses it on a level that the Lion cannot comprehend. This usually leads to the Lion’s “trounc” at the hands of a third-party, the Elephant.<ref>''Ibid.,'' 990.</ref> The net effect of all of this is “the reversal of status as the King of the Jungle.”<ref>''Ibid.,'' 991.</ref> In this way, the “master’s house” is dismantled when his own tools are turned against him by the trickster Monkey. In his writings of the late 1980s, ] presents the concept of ]. Wound up in this theory is the idea that the “master’s house” can be “dismantled” using his “tools” if the tools are used in a new or unconventional way. To demonstrate this process, Gates cites the interactions found in African American narrative poetry between the trickster, ], and his oppressor, the Lion.<ref>Gates, Henry, “The Blackness of Blackness: A Critique on the Sign and the Signifying Monkey,” ''Literary Theory: An Anthology'', Eds. Julie Rivkin, Michael Ryan (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 990. </ref> According to Gates, the “Signifying Monkey” is the “New World figuration” and “functional equivalent” of the Eshu trickster figure of African Yoruba mythology.<ref>''Ibid.'', 988-989.</ref> The Lion functions as the authoritative figure in his classical role of “King of the Jungle.”<ref>''Ibid.'', 991. </ref> He is the one who commands the Signifying Monkey’s movements. Yet the Monkey is able to outwit the Lion continually in these narratives through his usage of figurative language. According to Gates, “he Signifying Monkey is able to signify upon the Lion because the Lion does not understand the Monkey’s discourse…The monkey speaks figuratively, in a symbolic code; the lion interprets or reads literally and suffers the consequences of his folly…”<ref>''Ibid.'', 991.</ref> In this way, the Monkey uses the same language as the Lion, but he uses it on a level that the Lion cannot comprehend. This usually leads to the Lion’s “trounc” at the hands of a third-party, the Elephant.<ref>''Ibid.,'' 990.</ref> The net effect of all of this is “the reversal of status as the King of the Jungle.”<ref>''Ibid.,'' 991.</ref> In this way, the “master’s house” is dismantled when his own tools are turned against him by the trickster Monkey.


Following in this tradition, critics since Gates have come to assert that another popular African American folk trickster, ], uses clever language to perform the same kind of rebellious societal deconstruction as the Signifying Monkey. Brer Rabbit is the “creative way that the slave community responded to the oppressor’s failure to address them as human beings created in the image of God.”<ref>Earl, Jr., Riggins, R., ''Dark Symbols, Obscure Signs'' (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1993), 131.</ref> The figurative representative of this slave community, Brer Rabbit is the hero with a “fragile body but a deceptively strong mind” that allows him to “create own symbols in defiance of the perverted logic of the oppressor.”<ref>''Ibid.'', 131.</ref> By twisting language to create these symbols, Brer Rabbit not only was the “personification of the ethic of self-preservation” for the slave community, but also “an alternative response to their oppressor’s false doctrine of anthropology.”<ref>''Ibid.'', 158.</ref> Through his language of trickery, Brer Rabbit outwits his oppressors, deconstructing, in small ways, the hierarchy of subjugation to which his weak body forces him to physically conform. Following in this tradition, critics since Gates have come to assert that another popular African American folk trickster, ], uses clever language to perform the same kind of rebellious societal deconstruction as the Signifying Monkey. Brer Rabbit is the “creative way that the slave community responded to the oppressor’s failure to address them as human beings created in the image of God.”<ref>Earl, Jr., Riggins, R., ''Dark Symbols, Obscure Signs'' (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1993), 131.</ref> The figurative representative of this slave community, Brer Rabbit is the hero with a “fragile body but a deceptively strong mind” that allows him to “create own symbols in defiance of the perverted logic of the oppressor.”<ref>''Ibid.'', 131.</ref> By twisting language to create these symbols, Brer Rabbit not only was the “personification of the ethic of self-preservation” for the slave community, but also “an alternative response to their oppressor’s false doctrine of anthropology.”<ref>''Ibid.'', 158.</ref> Through his language of trickery, Brer Rabbit outwits his oppressors, deconstructing, in small ways, the hierarchy of subjugation to which his weak body forces him to physically conform.

Revision as of 07:45, 6 August 2008

For other uses, see Trickster (disambiguation).
The trickster figure Reynard the Fox as depicted in an 1869 children's book by Michel Rodange.


In mythology, and in the study of folklore and religion, a trickster is a god, goddess, spirit, man, woman, or anthropomorphic animal who plays tricks or otherwise disobeys normal rules and norms of behavior.

While the trickster crosses various cultural traditions, there are significant differences between tricksters in the traditions of many Indigenous peoples and those in the Euro-American tradition:

"Many native traditions held clowns and tricksters as essential to any contact with the sacred. People could not pray until they had laughed, because laughter opens and frees from rigid preconception. Humans had to have tricksters within the most sacred ceremonies for fear that they forget the sacred comes through upset, reversal, surprise. The trickster in most native traditions is essential to creation, to birth".

Native tricksters should not be confused with the Euro-American fictional picaro. One of the most important distinctions is that "we can see in the Native American trickster an openness to life's multiplicity and paradoxes largely missing in the modern Euro-American moral tradition".

Mythology

The trickster deity breaks the rules of the gods or nature, sometimes maliciously (for example, Loki) but usually, albeit unintentionally, with ultimately positive effects. Often, the rule-breaking takes the form of tricks (eg. Eris) or thievery. Tricksters can be cunning or foolish or both; they are often funny even when considered sacred or performing important cultural tasks. An example of this is the sacred Heyoka, whose role is to play tricks and games and by doing so raises awareness and acts as an equalizer.

In many cultures, (as may be seen in Greek, Norse, or Slavic folktales, along with Native American/First Nations lore), the trickster and the culture hero are often combined. To illustrate: Prometheus, in Greek mythology, stole fire from the gods to give to humans. He is more of a culture hero than a trickster. In many Native American and First Nations mythologies, the coyote (Southwestern United States) or raven (Pacific Northwest, coastal British Columbia, Alaska and Russian Far East) stole fire from the gods (stars, moon, and/or sun) and are more tricksters than culture heroes. This is primarily because of other stories involving these spirits: Prometheus was a Titan, whereas the Coyote spirit and Raven spirit are usually seen as jokesters and pranksters.

Frequently the Trickster figure exhibits gender and form variability, changing gender roles and engaging in same-sex practices. Such figures appear in Native American and First Nations mythologies, where they are said to have a two-spirit nature. Loki, the Norse trickster, also exhibits gender variability, in one case even becoming pregnant; interestingly, he shares the ability to change genders with Odin, the chief Norse deity who also possesses many characteristics of the Trickster. In the case of Loki's pregnancy, he was forced by the Gods to stop a giant from erecting a wall for them before 7 days passed; he solved the problem by transforming into a mare and drawing the giant's magical horse away from its work. He returned some time later with a child he had given birth to--the eight-legged horse Sleipnir, who served as Odin's steed.

In some cultures, there are dualistic myths, featuring two demiurges creating the world, or two culture heroes arranging the world — in a complementary manner. Dualistic cosmologies are present in all inhabited continents and show great diversity: they may feature culture heroes, but also demiurges (exemplifying a dualistic creation myth in the latter case), or other beings; the two heroes may compete or collaborate; they may be conceived as neutral or contrasted as good versus evil; be of the same importance or distinguished as powerful versus weak; be brothers (even twins) or be not relatives at all.

Coyote

The Coyote mythos is one of the most popular among Native American cultures. Coyote is a ubiquitous being and can be categorized in many types. In creation myths, Coyote appears as the Creator himself; but he may at the same time be the messenger, the culture hero, the trickster, the fool. He has also the ability of the transformer: in some stories he is a handsome young man; in others he is an animal; yet others present him as just a power, a sacred one. According to Crow (and other Plains) tradition, Old Man Coyote impersonates the Creator, "Old Man Coyote took up a handful of mud and out of it made people". His creative power is also spread onto words, "Old Man Coyote named buffalo, deer, elk, antelopes, and bear. And all these came into being". In such myths Coyote-Creator is never mentioned as an animal; more, he can meet his animal counterpart, the coyote: they address each other as "elder brother" and "younger brother", and walk and talk together. According to A. Hultkranz, the impersonation of Coyote as Creator is a result of a taboo, a mythic substitute to the religious notion of the Great Spirit whose name was too dangerous and/or sacred to use apart from a special ceremony.

In Chelan myths, Coyote belongs to the animal people but he is at the same time "a power just like the Creator, the head of all the creatures". Yet his being 'just like the Creator' does not really mean being 'the Creator': it is not seldom that Coyote-Just-Like-Creator is subject to the Creator, Great Chief Above, who can punish him, send him away, take powers away from him, etc. In the Pacific Northwest tradition, Coyote is mostly mentioned as a messenger, or minor power, "Coyote was sent to the camp of the chief of the Cold Wind tribe to deliver a challenge; Coyote traveled around to tell all the people in both tribes about the contest." As such, Coyote "was cruelly treated, and his work was never done."

As the culture hero, Coyote appears in various mythic traditions. His major heroic attributes are transformation, traveling, high deeds, power. He is engaged in changing the ways of rivers, standing of mountains, creating new landscapes and getting sacred things for people. Of mention is the tradition of Coyote fighting against monsters. According to Wasco tradition, Coyote was the hero to fight and kill Thunderbird, the killer of people, but he could do that not because of his personal power, but due to the help of the Spirit Chief; Coyote was trying his best, he was fighting hard, and he had to have fasted ten days before the fight, so advised by Spirit Chief 8. In many Wasco myths, Coyote rivals the Raven (Crow) about the same ordeal: in some stories, Multnomah Falls came to be by Coyote's efforts; in others, it is done by Raven.

More often than not Coyote is a trickster, but he is always different. In some stories, he is a noble trickster, "Coyote takes water from the Frog people... because it is not right that one people have all the water." In others, he is mean, "Coyote determined to bring harm to Duck. He took Duck's wife and children, whom he treated badly."

Archetype

Further information: List of modern day tricksters

The Trickster is an example of a Jungian archetype. In modern literature the trickster survives as a character archetype, not necessarily supernatural or divine, sometimes no more than a stock character.

In later folklore, the trickster is incarnated as a clever, mischievous man or creature, who tries to survive the dangers and challenges of the world using trickery and deceit as a defense. For example many typical fairy tales have the King who wants to find the best groom for his daughter by ordering several trials. No brave and valiant prince or knight manages to win them, until a poor and simple peasant comes. With the help of his wits and cleverness, instead of fighting, he evades or fools monsters and villains and dangers with unorthodox manners. Therefore the most unlikely candidate passes the trials and receives the reward. More modern and obvious examples of that type are Bugs Bunny and The Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) (see list).

The trickster is an enduring archetype that crosses many cultures and appears in a wide variety of popular media. For a modern humanist study of the trickster archetypes and their effects on society and its evolution, see Trickster Makes This World: Mischief, Myth, and Art by Lewis Hyde.


The trickster's literary role in dismantling oppressive systems

Modern African American literary criticism has turned the trickster figure into one example of how it is possible to overcome a system of oppression from within. For years, African American literature was discounted by the greater community of American literary criticism while its authors were still obligated to use the language and the rhetoric of the very system that relegated African Americans and other minorities to the ostracized position of the cultural “other.” The central question became one of how to overcome this system when the only words available were created and defined by the oppressors. As Audre Lorde explained, the problem was that “the master’s tools never dismantle the master’s house.”

In his writings of the late 1980s, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. presents the concept of Signifyin(g). Wound up in this theory is the idea that the “master’s house” can be “dismantled” using his “tools” if the tools are used in a new or unconventional way. To demonstrate this process, Gates cites the interactions found in African American narrative poetry between the trickster, the Signifying Monkey, and his oppressor, the Lion. According to Gates, the “Signifying Monkey” is the “New World figuration” and “functional equivalent” of the Eshu trickster figure of African Yoruba mythology. The Lion functions as the authoritative figure in his classical role of “King of the Jungle.” He is the one who commands the Signifying Monkey’s movements. Yet the Monkey is able to outwit the Lion continually in these narratives through his usage of figurative language. According to Gates, “he Signifying Monkey is able to signify upon the Lion because the Lion does not understand the Monkey’s discourse…The monkey speaks figuratively, in a symbolic code; the lion interprets or reads literally and suffers the consequences of his folly…” In this way, the Monkey uses the same language as the Lion, but he uses it on a level that the Lion cannot comprehend. This usually leads to the Lion’s “trounc” at the hands of a third-party, the Elephant. The net effect of all of this is “the reversal of status as the King of the Jungle.” In this way, the “master’s house” is dismantled when his own tools are turned against him by the trickster Monkey.

Following in this tradition, critics since Gates have come to assert that another popular African American folk trickster, Brer Rabbit, uses clever language to perform the same kind of rebellious societal deconstruction as the Signifying Monkey. Brer Rabbit is the “creative way that the slave community responded to the oppressor’s failure to address them as human beings created in the image of God.” The figurative representative of this slave community, Brer Rabbit is the hero with a “fragile body but a deceptively strong mind” that allows him to “create own symbols in defiance of the perverted logic of the oppressor.” By twisting language to create these symbols, Brer Rabbit not only was the “personification of the ethic of self-preservation” for the slave community, but also “an alternative response to their oppressor’s false doctrine of anthropology.” Through his language of trickery, Brer Rabbit outwits his oppressors, deconstructing, in small ways, the hierarchy of subjugation to which his weak body forces him to physically conform.

Before Gates, there was some precedent for the analysis of African American folk heroes as destructive agents of an oppressive hierarchical system. In the 1920s and 1930s, T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound engaged in an epistolary correspondence. Both writers signed the letters with pseudonyms adopted from the Uncle Remus tales; Eliot was “Possum;” Pound was “Tar Baby.” Pound and Eliot wrote in the same “African slave” dialect of the tales. Pound, writing later of the series of letters, distinguished the language from “the Queen’s English, the language of public propriety.” This rebellion against proper language came as part of “collaboration” between Pound and Eliot “against the London literary establishment and the language that it used.” Although Pound and Eliot were not attempting to overthrow an establishment as expansive as the one oppressing the African American slave community, they were actively trying to establish for themselves a new kind of literary freedom. In their usage of the Uncle Remus trickster figures’ names and dialects, they display an early understanding of the way in which cleverly manipulated language can dismantle a restrictive hierarchy.

African American literary criticism and folktales are not the only place in the American literary tradition that tricksters are to be found combating subjugation from within an oppressive system. In When Brer Rabbit Meets Coyote, the argument is posited that the Brer Rabbit stories were derived from a mixture of African and Native American mythology, thus attributing part of the credit for the formation of the tales and wiles of Brer Rabbit to “Indian captivity narratives” and the rabbit trickster found in Cherokee mythology. In arguing for a merged “African-Native American folklore,” the idea is forwarded that certain shared “cultural affinities” between African Americans and Native Americans allowed both groups “through the trickster tales…survive European American cultural and political domination.”

Tricksters in various cultures

See also

Notes

  1. Byrd Gibbens, Professor of English at University of Arkansas at Little Rock; quoted epigraph in Napalm and Silly Putty by George Carlin, 2001
  2. Ballinger 1992, p.21
  3. Zolotarjov 1980: 54
  4. Zolotarjov 180: 40–43
  5. California on the Eve - California Indians
  6. Lorde, Audre, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex,” Literary Theory: An Anthology, Eds. Julie Rivkin, Michael Ryan (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 859.
  7. Gates, Henry, “The Blackness of Blackness: A Critique on the Sign and the Signifying Monkey,” Literary Theory: An Anthology, Eds. Julie Rivkin, Michael Ryan (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 990.
  8. Ibid., 988-989.
  9. Ibid., 991.
  10. Ibid., 991.
  11. Ibid., 990.
  12. Ibid., 991.
  13. Earl, Jr., Riggins, R., Dark Symbols, Obscure Signs (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1993), 131.
  14. Ibid., 131.
  15. Ibid., 158.
  16. North, Michael, The Dialect of Modernism: Race, Language, and Twentieth-Century Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 77.
  17. Ibid.
  18. Ibid.
  19. Brennan, Jonathan, “Introduction: Recognition of the African-Native American Literary Tradition,” When Brer Rabbit Meets Coyote (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 73; Baringer, Sandra K., “Brer Rabbit and His Cherokee Cousin: Moving Beyond the Appropriation Paradigm,” When Brer Rabbit Meets Coyote (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 116.
  20. Brennan, “Introduction…,” 72-73.

References

External links

Categories: