Gates’ Essay “The Signifying Monkey” and class discussion today had me thinking about the reputation of the characters who are deemed the title “Signifying Monkey.” Is it a good thing? It seems a little apeish. Who want’s to be known as a trickster? But as I dug deeper I couldn’t help but think about how witty and cunning these people/ characters must be.
What characters in literature are known as the tricksters? After a quick Wikipedia search the mythological god Eris was listed. Fascinatingly, Gates mentions Eris in his essay. A character, not so Greek or ancient, is the ever tricky Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean. Now, spoiler alert… He is white. But he is covered in a layer of grime by the end of the movie and is seductively tan so… JUST KIDDING. We don’t joke about race. But in all seriousness, Jack Sparrow is a tricky little pirate. He knows what he wants and he know how to get it. Why, now, is this a bad thing? Being a Signifying Monkey tends to come with negative connotations.
The word “monkey” is rarely used to connote positive and genius even though monkeys are some of the smartest animals in the animal kingdom. Coincidence? I think not. Being a signifying monkey, one must truly know the ins and outs of language, of comedy, of syntax, and of human emotion. Let’s look at the definition given to us by Roger D. Abrahams in Gate’s essay:
“It certainly refers to the ability to talk with great innuendo, to carp, to cajole, to needle, and lie” (989 RR).
Well, according to this definition, no dull man possess these qualities. Signifying monkeys must always be thinking on their toes. If they can talk around any situation, they must be able to convince, to steer, to drive people to the wrong conclusions. Signifying monkeys must have an awareness of great metaphoric stature. They must be able to know and freely associate words with little connections. They can take two words, say poetic ape, and turn them into a joke that makes a whole room laugh. They can twist and turn and maneuver any situation into what they want it to be! This is no simple task and no simple man could do it. That being said, I am sure that these characters have other flaws, but being as stupid as a “monkey” is not one of them. I really think Gates should have made it the signifying squirrels.
Meaning and Pleasure2014 
While I agree with you that calling someone a something like ‘monkey’ is not exactly always the most flattering– i.e. calling someone an ‘ape’ means you are calling someone uncouth, uneducated ect– there are also many representations of monkeys as being clever creatures in our society as well. Curious George, for example, is a quick-witted, mischievous figure in popular culture. He is a trickster who plays jokes on his friend the Man in the Yellow Hat. Calling someone a monkey like Curious George is not as big of an insult as calling someone an ‘ape.’ So although Gates calling someone a “signifying squirrel” might be a bit more humorous, I think he’d better stick with monkey
LikeLike