Much of the writing on deconstructionism is opaque, but that is no accident. Some concepts cannot be fully expressed in language. Gerald Vizenor, an American Indian scholar, and Henry Louis Gates, Jr., an African American, have drawn upon deconstructionist ideas in conjunction with the trickster to address problems of ambiguity and interpretation.
Why the Trickster?
Many may wonder what the trickster has to do with any of this. After all, in our society, the trickster figure is simply an odd literary device, a vehicle for amusing and silly stories. It seems preposterous to use him to explain abstruse scientific facts.
But in many less-rationalized societies, trickster tales are not merely literary creations; the tales are sacred; they are descriptions of the world. They bring together many things we consider unconnected, that even appear incoherent and irrational.
Briefly, the trickster is a character type found in mythology, folklore, and literature the world over; tricksters appear as animals, humans, and gods. They have a number of common characteristics, and some of their most salient qualities are disruption, unrestrained sexuality, disorder, and nonconformity to the establishment. They are typically male. Tricksters often deceive larger and more powerful beings who would thwart them; they may be endearingly clever or disgustingly stupid—both cultural heroes and selfish buffoons. Like much of mythology, their stories appear irrational and are difficult to decipher into logical coherence. They have often puzzled scholars. The stories do not follow linear sequences, and their meanings need to be decoded. Fortunately there is a sizeable body of scholarship on the trickster, in a variety of disciplines, and keys to decoding are found in the concepts of liminality and anti-structure.
Carl Jung’s idea of archetypes is also helpful in understanding the trickster. The term archetype is often confusing, and there has been much debate over its definition. For purposes of this volume, “archetype” means only a pattern that can manifest at multiple levels. No more is implied, and nothing paranormal is necessarily required to explain it.
The trickster archetype is not designated by immediately observable physical features. Rather it is a more abstract constellation of characteristics that is usually personified (i.e., identified with a person or animal). Individuals, small groups, larger social movements, and even entire cultures can take on this configuration of attributes. It is often sensical to speak of the trickster and his effects in personified form, though this can be jarring for those entrenched in rationalistic modes of thinking. It is helpful to think in terms of constellations of qualities rather than presuming linear cause-and-effect relationships.
When some aspects of a constellation are found in a situation, one should be alert for the others.
Jung’s work on archetypes is discussed in this book, but emphasis is on more recent work in anthropology, sociology, folklore, and literary theory. Analyses from these disciplines show the common characteristics of trickster tales. They include: disruption, loss of status, boundary crossing, deception, violation of sexual mores, and supernatural manifestations. Not all tricksters have all characteristics, and like other archetypes, there is ambiguity.
The ground for the trickster is found in neither anthropology, nor folklore, nor sociology, nor religious scholarship, nor psychoanalysis, nor literary criticism. All of these are important; they all aid in explaining, but the trickster cannot be reduced to formulations in any of them. My approach is therefore eclectic, and some may find it disconcerting that I do not stand firmly in one discipline or take just one perspective. I sometimes joltingly skip from one to another. Several commentators have noticed that productions of trickster characters are often something of a bricolage, a French word meaning a product made out of hodgepodge materials at hand. This book is somewhat in that tradition, and the juxtapositions of examples may sometimes strike the reader as odd, if not bizarre. I will draw from mythology, folklore, history, parapsychology, anthropology, psychology, Forteana, religion, and psychiatry. Boundaries must be blurred for the trickster to be seen.
Some may be puzzled why I chose the trickster as a vehicle to explore psychic phenomena. I started this book as an effort to understand why the paranormal is so frequently associated with fraud and deception. Many trickster figures are linked with supernatural powers and with deception, so that is an obvious connection. But as I began reading the scholarly analyses, I saw many other commonalities with the paranormal. Most analysts recognized no more than the link with deceit, but notable exceptions were Allan Combs and Mark Holland’s book Synchronicity: Science, Myth, and the Trickster (1990) and Lutz Muller’s article “Psi and the Archetype of the Trickster” (1981).
ESP and PK are, by definition, boundary crossing. They surmount the barriers between mind and mind (telepathy), mind and matter (clairvoyance and PK), as well as the limitations of time (pre-cognition), and that of life and death (spirit mediumship, ghosts, and reincarnation). Likewise, magic tricks violate our expectations of what is and is not possible, and the relationship between psi and trickery is far deeper than most have assumed. Psi blurs distinctions between imagination and reality, between subjective and objective, between signifier and signified, between internal and external. The same is true in much deception. Studies of animals show that pretense (i.e., pretending) is often required for deceit, and pretense blurs the distinction between imagination and reality. Blurring of fantasy and reality occurs with nonrational beliefs pervasive in religion and myth as well as in good fiction.
Paradoxes of self-reference and reflexivity also blur the subject-object distinction; in fact they subvert it. Paradox challenges the supremacy of the rational, because in paradox logic breaks down. Paradox and reflexivity are important for understanding the trickster and the paranormal and will be discussed at length in the theoretical sections of the book.
Opposites-Boundaries-Structures
The concepts of structure and boundaries, destructuring and boundary crossing pervade this book. Boundaries of all kinds are of interest: geographical, personal, social, moral, psychological, etc. The concept is so broadly useful that it needs to be considered at an abstract level.
The notion of opposites is directly related to boundaries. A boundary creates a distinction. One entity or event is distinguished from another. The two entities are often seen as opposites. Together they form a structure, sometimes sharply demarcated, sometimes less so.
“Distinction” is a central idea. A distinction separates one thing from another. Tricksters are associated with destructuring, boundary crossing, and blurring distinctions.
The theme of opposites is found in a wide range of scholarship, including: the structural anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss, deconstructionism, Jung’s work on alchemy, primitive classification schemes, and Neoplatonic thought, among others. The “coincidence of opposites” is discussed in mystical theology. Some Freudian theory is couched in the language of the male-female opposition.
Many analyses suggest that tricksters are combinations of opposites. Some are both cultural heroes and selfish buffoons. The Spirit Mercurius was associated with gods and with sewers. Wakdjunkaga was able to change from male to female. Some ritual clowns and mystics eat feces, and in so doing they invert the opposites of food and excrement.
Classification schemes in many early societies identified binary oppositions such as God-human, life-death, child-adult, food-excrement, man-woman, heaven-earth, etc. These designated important cultural categories. Anthropologists have shown that these distinctions, and their maintenance, were necessary for stability in society.
Earlier peoples also understood that there was a middle ground, the betwixt and between, which was dangerous and surrounded by taboos. Shamans sometimes served as spirit mediums contacting the other world. They crossed the boundary between life and death (a binary opposition), and shamans were often seen as tricksters. Priests mediated between God and man; they were required to undergo purification rituals. Funerary rites assured that the dead moved to the next wo
rld and did not stay to haunt the living. The life-death distinction needed to be strengthened. Crossing from one status to the other (e.g., child to adult, living to dead) required rituals for purification and protection.
The middle area goes by several labels: liminality, interstitiality, transitional space, betwixt and between, anti-structure. These are dangerous positions, situations, and statuses. They break down categories, classifications, and boundaries. Violation of the boundaries was taboo and brought the wrath of the gods. There was a price to be paid. Yet during some liminal periods, taboos were deliberately violated in order to obtain magical power.
Our way of thinking is governed by Aristotelian logic. It too has a binary aspect; something is either A or not-A. In this system, the “law of the excluded middle” specifies that there is no middle ground. The betwixt and between is excluded from thought. Our culture is rationalized; it prefers sharp distinctions and clear boundaries. Even our modern theory of communication is binary, and the term bit is short for binary digit. Bit strings are nothing more than sequences of differences or distinctions (i.e., 0s and 1s).
The trickster is not eliminated simply by making sharp distinctions and clear categories. There is still a realm that lies betwixt and between a signifier and signified, between a word and its referent. Tricksters travel that liminal realm, and ambiguities in communication are their province. In fact the term hermeneutics, the study of interpretation, is derived from Hermes, the trickster of the Greeks. Trickster gods are messengers and communicators; they deal in information, but also in ambiguity.
As mentioned earlier, the issue of status is encountered throughout this volume. Status delineates difference, and thus can be conceived in terms of information. When statuses are abandoned, there is a loss of order, a loss of information. Theorists in many disciplines have viewed status in terms of energy or power relationships. I focus more on information than power or energy, and I have greater concern with the consequences and limitations of information—information in a broad sense.
This book was not written as an exercise in literary theory, anthropology, religion, sociology, or folklore. To the extent that those disciplines ignore or deny the reality of psi, they are seriously flawed. I owe no allegiance to them. This book was produced to address fundamental problems of the paranormal and supernatural. Many peculiar aspects can be understood by recourse to the trickster. He is relevant to everything from random-number-generator (RNG) parapsychology experiments to human sacrifice, from out-of-body experiences to ritual clowns eating excrement. Psi does not merely violate categories; rather subversion of categories is its essence. As such, there are limits as to what can be said about it within our typical logical frameworks.
The themes in this book include uncertainty, ambiguity, instability, the void, and the abyss. These are neither patternless, nor without power. Make no mistake, by using rational means this book endeavors to illuminate the irrational, and to demonstrate the severe limitations of logic and rationality. When the supernatural and irrational are banished from consciousness, they are not destroyed, rather, they become exceedingly dangerous.
Part 1
Overview
The next three chapters introduce the key concepts of liminality, antistructure, and boundaries. The trickster is best understood in light of them, and this is an over-arching theme of this book. Structure requires boundaries and demarcation. Tricksters are boundary crossers; they destabilize structures. The ramifications of this abstract formulation reach into diverse and unexpected areas including parapsychology and literary theory. Theories of liminality and anti-structure were developed in anthropology. Although they have been adopted in a variety of disciplines, they are not well known outside a limited community of academics. They have made no impact on theories of the paranormal.
The first chapter in this Part describes tricksters. The literature on them is vast, scattered, and has many competing perspectives. The chapter necessarily only summarizes key points, and those will be heavily condensed and telegraphic. I do not even try to present the tales themselves. A bit more space is devoted to their common motifs, themes, and analyses. Later Parts of the book present examples that illustrate the general ideas.
The second chapter in this Part is short. It describes the concept of mental boundaries developed by psychiatrist Ernest Hartmann. His approach has much in common with psychological theories of the trickster. For many people, it is probably easiest to grasp the trickster as a psychological construct, i.e., as it is seen in individuals. However, the trickster is not be limited to the psychology of individuals. Trickster characteristics can manifest with small groups and even entire cultures.
The last chapter is more in-depth, and covers the concepts of liminality and anti-structure, which were developed by Arnold van Gennep, Victor Turner, and Barbara Babcock. Their ideas are used throughout the remainder of the book, and they have an extraordinary number of implications for the paranormal and the irrational.
These chapters are somewhat abstract in places, and readers who get bogged down are encouraged to skip to chapters in Parts 2 and 4, which describe concrete examples.
CHAPTER 2
An Overview of Tricksters
From Mythology, Folklore
and Elsewhere
The “trickster” is a character type that appears worldwide in folklore and mythology. The term was probably first introduced in this context in 1885 by Daniel G. Brinton. Virtually all cultures have tricksters, and there are innumerable examples; a few include: coyote of North American Indians, Hermes of the Greeks, Eshu-Elegba of West Africa, and Loki of the Norse. There is considerable diversity among them. At one end are primitive buffoons, at the other, gods. Yet they share some common characteristics. The primary purpose of this chapter is to identify attributes that are particularly pertinent to the paranormal.
This is a difficult chapter because I am introducing both the trickster’s qualities and neglected characteristics of the paranormal. Neither are particularly well known. To understand how they are related, one needs some familiarity with both. The relevant properties can be perceived only after some acquaintance with a large number of examples. As such, some readers may find it profitable to briefly scan this chapter, read the summary, and go on to chapters with cases that illustrate the ideas.
The idea of “archetype” helps explain the trickster. For purposes here, an archetype is defined as a collection of abstract properties that can manifest on several levels (e.g., within individuals, situations, small groups, entire cultures). The properties are not necessarily related by cause and effect; rather they are a constellation. As more of the properties come together, the archetype strengthens, and others tend to manifest. I often adopt the personified form in speaking of the trickster. Although this is alien to scientific discourse, it is probably the best way to comprehend the concept. In short, the trickster is a personification of a constellation of abstract qualities that can appear in a variety of circumstances.
The trickster unifies major, but seemingly unrelated, themes surrounding the paranormal. For instance, the paranormal is frequently connected with deception, and deceit is second nature to the trickster. Psychic phenomena gain prominence in times of disruption and transition. Tricksters are found in conditions of transition. The paranormal has a peculiar relationship with religion; the trickster was part of many early religions, and he was viewed ambivalently. The statuses of paranormal phenomena are typically uncertain or marginal in a variety of ways. Tricksters’ statuses are similar.
When I first began studying the trickster, I found some of the analyses opaque. I did not have any idea what the writers were talking about, and if I did, I could not follow their trains of thought. Because the trickster does not subscribe to Western logic, this introduction to him may seem jumpy, jarring, and not quite coherent. I will only hint at some of the stories’ content, allude to major themes, briefly mention the types of analyses, and scan the diversity of implications. These are all lu
mped together because they cannot be effectively disentangled if one wishes to have a deep understanding.
In some societies, trickster tales are sacred; restrictions and prohibitions surround them. Not just anybody is allowed to tell the stories because they have a power of their own. This assertion seems decidedly irrational in Western thought, but this is the crux of the matter. The trickster shows some fundamental limitations of the Western conceits of logic, objectivity, and rationality.
Mythological tricksters are almost all male. In fact, Lewis Hyde’s book Trickster Makes This World (1998) includes an entire appendix titled “Trickster and Gender,” which begins with the statement “All the standard tricksters are male.” Though female mythological characters sometimes engage in deception, rarely are they included under the trickster rubric. Despite all this, women scholars have provided some of the greatest insight. Among the writings I have found of particular value are those of Barbara Babcock, Jean Shinoda Bolen, Joan Wescott, Laura Makarius, Ellen Basso, Enid Welsford, Kimberly Blaeser, Susan Niditch, Kathleen Ashley, Christine Downing, and Claudia Camp. Their work is often unappreciated by males.
In the next several pages, I will introduce several tricksters, who each have an extensive literature. I can only mention a few stories, briefly describe major themes, and draw out common characteristics.
Wakdjunkaga
Wakdjunkaga, the trickster of the Winnebago, became widely known through the writings of anthropologist Paul Radin. His informant Sam Blowsnake collected the tales in 1912, and Radin published them in 1956 in his now-classic The Trickster. He provided an extended analysis and included an essay by psychologist Carl Jung. The 1972 edition carried an introduction “Job and the Trickster” by anthropologist Stanley Diamond, which signalled the trickster’s importance to theological issues. These commentaries hint at the diverse relevance of trickster tales. They were not just stories to entertain children.
The Trickster and the Paranormal Page 3
