Trickster - Literary Role

Literary Role

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."