I put him on the table, I squeeze him and stifle him.

I mess him up and drown him.

He recovers.

(Henri Michaux)

Trying to remember her is an impulse to make things up constantly, like being subsumed by an obscene compulsion to romanticize. To nostalgize, if I may make up words, to attempt (in earnest futility) to make the trimmings speak for the object itself. Searching for shards of meaning in the rubble, sifting through bushels of chaff for those two grains of contingency.

Overhearing, reliving the fights between amma and her mother – over doll-curios and the middle-class mentality that wraps souvenirs in plastic and retains adhesive wrappers on mobile phones. Fights that went down like world-war-threes in the young mind. Rows like those I still get into with amma these days, and usually just before I leave town (and country, across seven seas). And how – wait, I am getting a text – ‘an Indian girl student from Southern Illinois University was found dead in a car. Pl dnt travel alone at night… Ur a foreigner there,’ she says. I sigh, even smile, thinking she must be scratching her nose raw.

hmm.

- provide such a map/transparent stack of tricksters throughout myth and history with which to describe the archetype.

- apply that, for thesis’ sake, to the projects of the last 2 years.

- research and follow up on the various tentacle-themes of the archetype (the grotesque, shapeshifter, transgender, air element, psychopomp, messenger, border crosser….) and apply them.-

- search out modern day tricksters and analyze their activity through the model set by (1)

- implement trickster methodology.

- ayayayayayayay

We are somehow in between things. The internet is not yet taken as serious enough by academics of the social sciences and humanities. Intercultural philosophising is not yet established enough within academic philosophy. In intercultural debates philosophy is not concrete enough. And so we are inbetween, and in a way that is where we want to be, and where we need to be. Being in between characterizes the focus of intercultural philosophy, in between philosophies, cultures, disciplines, traditions, religions, and worldviews.

Our project is an attempt with an open end – an attempt to openness. It is an attempt to cross boundaries, to provide space for exchange and contact, space for a philosophical polylogue. Some threads have been laid out. Now the task is to take them up, use them as starting-points, develop them further; also, to spin new threads, one’s own threads, weave them into the wider web that is being created; not as a fun-fair of a multicultural “anything goes”, but with intellectual seriousness and according to scientific standards.

I find this passage, from the webzine Polylog, to be an apt description of Visual and Critical Studies as msdivvers and I have been lately approaching it: as an attempt to reach beyond the self/other, higher/lower, center/periphery, etc dichotomies of social, cultural and artistic theory that forms the bases of the canon that informs our critique. Our sense is that it is a task of VCS not to add to the existing literature that perpetuates such dualism but to use those texts as platforms to leap from in an attempt to realize a more creative, if more ambiguous, analysis of the World… an analysis that always takes into consideration the position and ‘personality’ of the analyst, that understands the dis/unity ever present in the subject, that discards ‘objectivity’ from the outset as an ‘outmoded’ term.

… much of what we read and research in VCS (indicative of what is available in terms of critique, and what has yet to be written) is based in the premise of ‘center/peripheral’ – an image of cultural production that delineates between mainstream and subculture, dominant and subaltern. What we (msdivvers, madame mim) feel intrinsically (which is to say, not yet scientifically) is that such designations have been dissolved and though differences remain, it is impossible to separate one from the other, or even point to the place where they meet and mix – we can do so in an historical context but the proliferation of information and narrative, especially via the internet, has mingled the sources and voices sufficiently so that the polylogue takes precedent over the platonic dialogue.

Which is not to say we hereby forgo Plato – as students of culture, we take interest in cultures that precede us. But as students of a burgeoning discipline that thus far refuses to be disciplined, we must take clues from Socrates and question that which is mythical and that which is logical, and acknowledge that each informs the other.

How, then, do our methodologies differ from those that came before us? Intrinsic to this, and our projects, is that they may not differ much at all – but that the focus and subject of our methods will combine with our approach to produce a new ex/change.

“rhythmic gymnastics wants to incorporate the soul about which it knows nothing.”

and how is that relevant, i ask her.

we always want to address the other. and we’re always stuck in this awkwardness and inabiity to address the other: ‘the soul about which you know nothing.’ and i think that’s what drives critical theory… right? the whole question is how to do that.

what are the methodologies that we put into play in order to ‘do that?’ to speak of the Other, of hierarchies and peripheries, without losing our language in awkwardness (taboo) or denying our own subjectivity (experiences, memories, socializations) because they position us on the ‘wrong’ side of the divide – without getting so tied to maneuvering the ‘problematic’ that we become mute, or apologetic, or scrupulously detached?

I got into the ‘ball project’ because i was interested in the play of identity, gender and masquerade that the House Balls so succinctly, and so positively ambiguously, enacted. Yet the big question that everyone wanted an answer to was what it meant for a white academic woman such as myself to become so intrigued by a queer black scene. I was interested in the answer myself – why Jennie Livingston? Why Madonna? What is it about the white woman/trans black? But in investigating the question i found myself mute, re-iterative, and ultimately uninterested in focusing the entirety of my thesis on the dissection of I and Other. I realized that my project was not (only) one of race and gender but rather of role-playing, where such definers play one role of many, and wherein one plays many roles.

Key to this project, and to the project as a whole, is enacting what msdivvers refers to as the ‘refracting mirror.’ This implies an othering of oneself, as the image in the mirror is refracted through various screens (social, historical, narrative, etc) with the end-result that one recognizes oneself as another’s other, sees the ‘others’ in onself, and ultimately integrates such otherness within one’s ‘oneness.’ this is what i actively proposed in ‘Ambiconti:’ an exploration of multiplicity with the result that such a refracted state becomes natural.

here, there, somewhere, then, is where the Trickster comes in. His state has been stated, and my thesis is to position his antics as a productive methodology towards developing a discipline that isn’t – a field of study that finds and takes its power from shapeshifting, ambiguity and desire – a gesture rather than command, insolent query instead of demand – a subject that puts faith in the undisciplined, suspects the disciples, and accepts being disciplined as an element of chaos and change.

The Trickster, as an agent of the border or boundaries between, resides in the space between dualities (in mythology, between heaven and earth – in history, as Jester, between the monarchy and the common people – as the Psychopomp, between the living and dead – and often, between having and having not -) and as such is not limited to nor governed by the rules of either realm. His position is that of n/either, and therein lies his power – he can play for one or other, can imitate or impress, but does so knowing that he will never be one of either/or. The secret of the Trickster (if i may) is that he plays both sides against each other, through himself. as a character he embodies chaos, chance, luck (and its opposite, misfortune) and ‘the winds of change’ – somehow, by acting in the interest of his ego and desires, his ego is obliterated and he becomes a regenerating/sacrificial double agent, enabling the desires of his ‘subjects’ to act out through his actions and let the pieces fall what may.

Trickster, remember however, is an archetype – a prototype, from which many forms may be gleaned. Archetypes cannot be understood by reading one example, only many. The reading of archetypes exemplifies the process of the bricoleur – case studies and personality profiles are stacked transparently or connected thematically until certain constants come clear.

Interestingly, “the root of the word “fool” is from the Latin follis, which means “bag of wind” or that which contains air or breath.” (wiki, sorry).

if history is by some accounts driven by the butterfly effect (see esp. chaos theory), then is not the fool (and too the trickster, also often allied with the wind) an embodiment of the randomized energy that sets tornadoes spinning?

for the moment more specifically, i’m curious whether Armstrong’s ‘foolish’ talk somehow fanned the fires of certain ideas that threatened to (or did) rise above his allotted realm of influence and changed the games of empires.

perhaps here?

if so, this could be an indicator of the shift from Fool to Trickster… and why he was unceremoniously kicked from the king’s court.

In recent years, scholars including David Carlyon have cast doubt on the “daring political jester,” calling historical tales “apocryphal,” and concluding that “Popular culture embraces a sentimental image of the clown; writers reproduce that sentimentality in the jester, and academics in the Trickster,” but it “falters as analysis.”

I think I am trying to take on the task of disputing this statement, but obviously I need to read (a lot more, including) the article sited in order to make an improper response.

JSTOR doesn’t have it, neither does EBSCOhost. I’m not wanting to shell out $40 on top of what I pay to study already, so I guess that means it’s time to visit the library.

The Trickster as Academic Comfort Food. Author: Carlyon D. Source: The Journal of American Culture, Volume 25, Numbers 1-2, Spring & Summer 2002

However – my understanding thus far is that although the figure or ideation of the Fool is similar to that of the Trickster, and many characteristics are shared (such as an aptitude for ‘trouble’ and denial of authority), they are fundamentally different in that the Fool acts from a place of play (and thus, an understanding of the limits thereof) whereas the trickster is unaware or utterly over any distinctions between ‘play’ and ‘real life.’ what this distills to, perhaps, is a question of self-awareness… though I am unsure as yet which figure is more conscious of it’s play/place/positioning.

The court jester of the middle ages was the ‘symbolic twin of the king,’ providing an outlet for ridicule and comic critique. His status as ‘fool’ allowed him to speak ‘truth’ to power – but he, too, was not above punishment and thus had to be always aware of the thin line between jest and blasphemy. Therefor, the ‘Fool’ could be no idiot – he too was bound to upholding the ‘system’ he was partner (twin, even) to, and this is the point that many make when they insist that the Fool is a fool to think he holds any power to effect change from within. So how, and where, and why, and in what recognizable forms, does he differ from the Trickster?

First and most obvious (and admittedly, wiki-defined) is that the Fool is always known as such through his relationship to hierarchy, often monarchy. His identity is defined in relation to those who have power over him. Trickster, by shapeshifting (and moreover through a dis-acknowledgment of any hierarchy that doesn’t advantage his immediate interests), can be found relating to ants as well as kings – such as in the many folktales that have farmer-boy completing impossible tasks through clever delegation in order to win the hand of the princess (one ought to wonder what happens when he takes the throne….)

Certainly, the ambiguity that helps define the Trickster also helps confuse the boundaries between he and the Fool. Undoubtedly the Fool is a manifestation of some Tricksters, such as Archibald Armstrong, of which it is said (in wikipedia, at least):

His influence was considerable and he was greatly courted and flattered, but his success appears to have turned his head. He became presumptuous, insolent and mischievous, excited foolish jealousies between the king and Henry, Prince of Wales, and was much disliked by the members of the court.

…all of which are common traits of the Trickster (see Coyote).

Note to self: organize tags, links and edits so not all point to full page Wikipedia…

the judderman and the woodcutter's wife

Wikipedia sez…..

Judderman

The Judderman is the central character in “Forrest”, an advert for Metz. An elf creature, the Judderman waylays innocent travellers and tempts them to taste the alcohol, at which they ‘judder’ due to its being served cold. It was also banned because it scared people ^reference. It was voted the 31st scariest thing on T.V.

The Judderman character starred in his own point-and-click style exploration game, created as a viral ad campaign for Metz.

Man in the Mask

Prior to these advertisements, came an advert based on a single character in a red balaclava, doing a piece to camera, in snowy, cold, mountain background. The slogan for the series of adverts was “why does the man in the mask drink Metz”. One of the more memorable adverts was the explanation that “everytime a stranger enters the village and drinks metz, they all wonder if it is me, without my mask on” <leans towards camera> “one time, it was.”

play the game here…