Gonzo Tricksterism Vs Politics: Anarchy, Sabotage and Self-Sacrifice

Parts of this paper were originally published in my book The Trickster and the System: Identity and Agency in Contemporary Society (Routledge, 2015). The sections ‘Definitions of the Trickster’ and ‘Common Motifs in Trickster Narratives’ appear here in abridged versions. I am very grateful to Routledge for allowing me to include material from The Trickster and the System into this presentation. I would also like to thank Roman Leibov for allowing me use Pavlensky’s letters. Gonzo Tricksterism vs Politics: Anarchy, Sabotage and Self-Sacrifice This paper discusses the contemporary manifestations of the phenomenon I call gonzo tricksterism - a form of political protest, often disguised as a creative product, whose sole aim is to expose and mock the system and its operations. One of the most defining characteristics of this phenomenon is that the human agent takes upon himself or herself the role of the trickster and uses the human frame to fight against the perceived systemic oppression. In their defiant stance, gonzo tricksters are often prepared to sacrifice themselves (their body, mental health, career and social position) in order to draw attention to a particular issue. The ‘gonzo’ part of the term reflects the participatory, first hand, experience-orientated nature of their activities. The ‘trickster’ part refers to their willingness to take on the role of a bringer of change and to challenge the existing societal power dynamics. Empowered by the immediacy of the new media, the trickster protest has become one of the most effective tools of social criticism. Recent prominent manifestations of it include the Russian performance artist Pyotr Pavlensky, the punk band Pussy Riot, the Ukrainian ultra- feminist protest group Femen, the trio of whistleblowers Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, and the extreme comedic exploits of Frankie Boyle and Sacha Baron-Cohen. This paper also includes Pyotr Pavlensky’s prison letters in which he writes about the conflict between the individual and the state. These letters are translated by me and are published with kind permission of Roman Leibov, Associate Professor of Poetics of Russian Literature, Tartu University, Estonia. Gonzo tricksterism, as evident from the above list, is not limited to a single profession. This difficult and controversial vocation attracts musicians, artists, IT security specialists, comedians, actors, journalists, writers and soldiers - and the list is not exhaustive. Although at first sight a motley crew, the group nevertheless have one thing in common: they reject the prescribed normative behaviour in their respective societies, recognizing it as a rigid system of rules aimed at limiting individual freedom. Moreover, their rejection is active rather than passive as they openly attack the framework and the people who maintain it (let’s call these people ‘the frameworkers’). The actions of a gonzo trickster are based on the assumption that all systems are man-made, and therefore adopting a different (an outsider’s) perspective will reveal the flaws in the ‘given’ structure which looks solid and logical from the inside. Their mission consists of delivering this different, outsider’s view to the masses and shocking them out of their slumber. They pay dearly for the privilege: many are prosecuted by their respective states (Snowden, Manning, Assange, Pavlensky, ‘Pussy Riot’ and many others). 1 Even if one does not take into consideration this enlightening, idealistic, aspect of gonzo tricksterism, rebels’ activities boil down to creating a balance between change and stability, between creative dynamics and the safety of belonging to a system, between individuals and the sociopolitical framework that contains and controls them. Bordering between reckless and heroic, Gonzo tricksters take upon themselves the anthropological role of system-tamer and change-bringer, often without much concern for their own safety and security. In this sense, they are no different from their mythological and folkloric colleagues: the Greek Prometheus, the Chinese Sun Wukong, the Scandinavian Loki, the American Br'er Rabbit, the Russian Ivan the Fool and numerous other trickster figures that reflect the complex anthropological dynamics between loose and rigid elements in a social system. Gonzo tricksters’ journeys also have structural similarities with and contain the stock elements of mythological, literary and cinematic trickster narratives: being trapped, boundary-breaking, licentious behaviour, scatological humour, bodily transformations, the presence of animals (which I prefer to call ‘the animal connection’), naming issues, loss of control over one’s body and mind, and the trickster’s dissolution/death/transformation at the end of the story. Usually, a trickster narrative starts with the cunning creature being or feeling restricted (often physically), goes on to describe the trickster’s escape and its adventures, and ends with the dissolution/transformation of the trickster. Not all of the elements can be present in one story, film or myth, and their place in the narrative sequence is certainly not fixed. However, the core sequence of events does not have much variety: the trickster challenges the system, instigates change, is caught and inoculated, and the framework deals with the inevitable change (or repairs the damage caused by the trickster). Born in the Soviet Union and raised by extremely normal and conformist parents, I have always been fascinated by people who refuse to accept the status quo. There were plenty of them in the USSR: poet Joseph Brodsky, writers Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Vladimir Bukovsky, physicist Andrei Sakharov to name but a few. Regarded as anarchists and saboteurs, as dangerously a-systemic people, they were vilified in the Soviet media, publicly shamed, locked up in prisons or mental health institutions, ostracised, and expelled from the country. Yet, they remained unbreakable, stood by their principles, and waited for the tricksterless system that despised progress, change and criticism, to fold in on itself. Their patience paid off: the system did eventually crumble. Gonzo trickster is probably the oldest profession in the world. Judging by the sheer number of trickster characters in myth and folk tales, our predecessors were very much interested in the dynamics between change and stability in social systems. Mythological tricksters and their contemporary cinematic and literary versions share a range of characteristics, united by one idea: one should never accept things ‘as they are’; one should never uncritically merge with the framework into which one is born or placed. One should question, criticise, and annoy the system. Tricksters in narratives do this in a variety of ways, from stealing fire from the gods to warning the king about possible grave consequences of being too proud and despotic. Meanwhile, their gonzo colleagues do the same in real life. Definitions of the Trickster There have been numerous attempts to define the trickster but this paper only has space for a few major definitions. 2 For Carl Jung, the trickster is an archetype – that is, an archaic, universal image regularly occurring in myth, folk tales and dreams. In his seminal essay ‘On the Psychology of the Trickster Figure’, Jung defines him as a creature of the unconscious, the wise fool, the clown, the delight-maker who has a dual nature: half-animal, half divine. Tricksters reverse the hierarchic order, are capable of changing shape and are famous for their malicious tricks and pranks. Jung also mentions the strong link between the Trickster figure and the tradition of carnival, where the Devil appeared as simia dei – the ape of God (CW9/I: paras. 465-472). The duality of the trickster’s nature and his mutability are also emphasized by several cultural anthropologists. Paul Radin writes in the preface to The Trickster: A Study in American Indian Mythology (1956) that the trickster ‘knows neither good nor evil yet he is responsible for both. He possesses no values, moral or social, is at the mercy of his passions and appetites, yet through his actions all values come into being’ (Radin, 1972: xxiii). He also foreshadows ‘the shape of man’ (1972: xxiv). The folklorist Barbara Babcock-Abrahams argues that the trickster is responsible for ‘the tolerated margin of mess’; he is the kind of creature who does not respect rules, restrictions and regulations: ‘Although we laugh at him for his troubles and his foolishness and are embarrassed by his promiscuity, his creative cleverness amazes us and keeps alive the possibility of transcending the social restrictions we regularly encounter’ (Babcock-Abrahams, 1975: 147). Likewise, Andrew Samuels calls attention to the trickster’s ability to revive the ‘civilizing forces’ of society by shaking them up (either in a positive or a negative sense). As such, this figure ‘acts as a yardstick and spur to consciousness’ (Samuels, 1993: 83). Thus, the trickster describes the process of individual development and meaning-making in relation to a socializing and civilizing structure. As a psycho-anthropological phenomenon, it is of paramount importance for the balance between the social and the personal in the individual’s life. Common Motifs in Trickster Narratives Being Trapped Tricksters can be trapped at any stage throughout the narrative, and when they are locked up, this is usually as a punishment for some misbehaviour such as theft, lying or murder. When a narrative starts with the trickster freeing itself from his prison, the rest of the narrative is devoted to the characters’ efforts to regain control over the situation and to recapture or tame him. The entrapment metaphor also describes the destructive potential of the trickster, who becomes more powerful the longer he is kept inside his cage. If neglected by the system, change tends to accumulate and grow. The Arabic trickster, Sakr al-Jinni from One Thousand and One Arabian Nights is stuffed into a jar and sent drifting in the open ocean for rebelling against King Suleiman. There he remains for two thousand years during which time he is ‘washed and swashed like a lake squeezed into a cup or a whale squeezed into an egg’ (McCaughrean, 1999: 35-36).

Load more