An excerpt from George P. Hansen’s The Trickster and the Paranormal.
COMMENT:
Over a decade ago, when I first became deeply acquainted with Sufi literature,
one recurring figure struck a discordant note amongst the beautiful stories of
mystical gnosis: this was the character known as Khidr. Considered to be an
immortal prophet, Khidr (“the Green One”) appears in Sufi literature as an
irrational and capricious figure making apparently arbitrary decisions,
decisions which often have disastrous consequences for those he comes into contact with.
This character was a constant source of disturbance for me at this time, but
also a source of fascination as I could never fathom his true role or purpose.
Now, after reading George P. Hansen’s marvellous book “The Trickster and the
Paranormal” (2001), the archetype represented by Khidr has come sharply into
focus, as have the broader conventions and prohibitions that this trickster
habitually violates. The following discussion is an excerpt from Hansen’s book.
Here, the Trickster archetype is examined in worldviews characteristic of
“primitive” (i.e. non-literate) peoples. As Hansen says, the Trickster
represents the anti-structural forces which blur binary oppositions and bring liminal (intermediate, threshold)
conditions to light. Enjoy.
* * *
Turner
notes “that liminal situations and roles are almost everywhere attributed with
magico-religious properties . . . [and these are] often regarded as dangerous,
inauspicious, or polluting to persons, objects, events, and relationships that
have not been ritually incorporated into the liminal context.” He explains
that: “all sustained manifestations of communitas . . . have to be hedged
around with prescriptions, prohibitions, and conditions.” The sacred is surrounded by taboos, and there
are innumerable examples.
Anthropologist
John Middleton investigated binary classification schemes among the Lugbara of
Uganda and found that breaches of the schemes are regarded as uncanny and
dangerous. He tells us: “The confusion
of order and disorder is seen as the confusion of authority (which is seen as
moral, responsible, controlled and predictable) and power (which is amoral,
perhaps immoral, irresponsible, uncontrollable and unpredictable). The people
associated with this confusion have in common the characteristic of themselves
being incomplete and so representing the essential nature of disorder itself.
These people are diviners, prophets, witches, rainmakers.” David Hicks reports
in his book Tetum Ghosts and Kin (1976)
that similar patterns were found in Indonesia. Persons ambiguous in binary
classification schemes (e.g. hermaphrodites) were viewed as having supernatural
power.
Cambridge
anthropologist Edmund Leach has given some of the best exposition of the
issues. His 1962 essay “Genesis as Myth” notes that God-man is a major
opposition, and he explains that “’Mediation’ (in this sense) is always
achieved by introducing a third category which is ‘abnormal’ or ‘anomalous’ in
terms of ordinary ‘rational’ categories. Thus myths are full of fabulous
monsters, incarnate gods, virgin mothers. This middle ground is the liminal,
the interstitial, the betwixt and between, the anti-structural; it provides
contact with the supernatural realm.
The same
issues are found in religion today, and the writings of religious scholar
Rudolf Otto illuminate these matters. In his seminal work, The Idea of the Holy
(1917), he explores the concept of the “numinous,” a realm peculiar and unique
to religion. Otto explains that this domain is an objective reality and not
just a subjective feeling, though it has nothing to do with the rational. A
primary function of religion is to deal is to deal with this aspect of
existence. Otto explicitly recognizes that miracles come from the numinous. The
numinous evokes an awe and fascination with an extra-rational power, the mysterium tremendum. But there is a
negative aspect, sometimes referred to as the wrath of God. Otto notes that “this
‘wrath’ has no concern whatever with moral qualities...It is ‘incalculable’ and
‘arbitrary’; it is encountered in the “grisly”. There is a duality to the
divine.
Otto notes
that a much-subdued experience of this wrath is seen in the fear of ghosts.
Ghosts are liminal (interstitial) creatures. They exist in the netherworld
between life and death, and they challenge the idea that there is a clear
separation between the two. The dread evoked by such beings can be profoundly
disturbing. Surprisingly, parapsychologists have largely neglected this, but
folklorists have drawn attention to it. William Clements’ papers “The
Interstitial Ogre” (1987) and “Interstitiality in Contemporary Legends” (1991)
give a helpful introduction. Linda Degh and Andrew Vazsonyi noted that
encounters with such entities raise primal questions such as “Is there anything
one can hang onto? Is there a solid basis on which one can base one’s trust in
this confusing universe...? It is not the individual who is separated from his ‘security
base’...The world itself has lost its protective familiarity.” It is precisely
this that evokes such intense hostility to claims of the paranormal by some,
and extreme anxiety in others, though it is rarely recognized consciously.
British
anthropologist Mary Douglas addresses perils of the liminal in her frequently
cited book Purity and Danger (1966). Speaking of restrictions and taboos, she
says “some are intended to protect divinity from profanation, and others to
protect the profane from the dangerous intrusion of divinity. Sacred rules are
thus merely rules hedging divinity off, and uncleanness is the two-way danger
of contact with divinity.” The supernatural’s intrusion must be limited.
Douglas later comments: “Ritual recognizes the potency of disorder. In the disorder
of the mind, in dreams, faints and frenzies, ritual expects to find powers and
truths which cannot be reached by conscious effort. Energy to command and
special powers of healing come to those who can abandon rational control for a
time.” In disorder comes power, too, in disorder is danger.
Even though
many other scholars could be quoted about the supernatural dangers associated
with liminal conditions, scientists today pay them little heed. Such ideas are viewed as quaint superstitions.
Any scientist who took them seriously would invite derision, and loss of
status. Understandably, parapsychologists rarely discuss these potential risks
of their work.
All this is
directly applicable to the trickster because he is a denizen of the
interstitial realm, and a few analyses of the trickster give clues to the
dangers. Laura Makarius’ discussions are some of the most disturbing. She
called attention to the peculiarities and incongruities so frequently
encountered in trickster tales and commented that “they have been introduced
for the express purpose of concealing some secret fact striving for expression.”
Explicit recognition of this is crucial to deciphering the meaning, and then
she goes on to say: “What that hidden fact is, it is the goal of the student of
folklore to discover. But he cannot do so without a knowledge of that deeper
contradiction in the behaviour of primitive peoples between what they may do
and what they may not. The contradiction manifests itself when forbidden acts
are committed for the same basic reasons for which they are forbidden. That is
why they express themselves only if at the same time they are suppressed...The
deliberate violation of taboo constitutes one of the deepest contradictions of
primitive life. Its purpose is the obtainment of magical power.”
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário