The Blackness of Blackness, Henry Louis Gates

With the reading, I got to thinking about how black culture and the language identified with it has changed throughout history. During slave times, African Americans’ language differed a lot from white people of that time, largely in part to the fact that English was not their native language. When they did speak English, it was often broken and not very coherent. Such as this example collected from George Dillard: “Kay, massa, you just leave me, me sit here, great fish jump up into da canoe, here he be, massa, fine fish, massa; me den very grad; den me sit very still, until another great fish jump into de canoe; but me fall asleep, massa, and no wake ’til you come…” This broken English and particularly the shortening of words would become a huge marker of African American language in years to come.

As time went on, African Americans developed their English skills, but still kept their own special form of the English language. Gates refers to Signifyin(g), which originates from the trickster monkey often used in African American folklore, thought to have originated during slave times. Signifyin’ seems to have a context-based origin and only the people who share this type of speech culture are able to relate to it. Members of the African American community share a culture and language that is all their own and their use of language has morphed throughout history.

Today, African American language is marked a lot by slang words and still the shortening of syllables. This use of language is a way for African Americans to be able to identity with each other and still use their own special form of the English language. A term that was coined in the 1970’s is the word Ebonics. In an article titled What is Ebonics? (African American English) by John R. Rickford, he says “Ebonics pronunciation includes features like the omission of the final consonant in words like ‘past’ (pas’ ) and ‘hand’ (han’), the pronunciation of the th in ‘bath’ as t (bat) or f (baf), and the pronunciation of the vowel in words like ‘my’ and ‘ride’ as a long ah (mah, rahd). Some of these occur in vernacular white English, too, especially in the South, but in general they occur more frequently in Ebonics.” Ebonics has become a huge part of African American language in today’s day and age. Gates’ essay just really go me thinking about how “Black English” has evolved over time and how the way African Americans speak has become a huge part of African American culture.

The Signifying Monkey and AA Conjure Stories

So, I may be taking these ideas from another class, but that is what you’re supposed to do when you’re in three English classes a semester right?

For my other class, Novel Appetites, which I know some of my fellow classmates are also in, we recently just finished reading and writing a paper on several African American conjure tales by Charles Chesnutt.

While reading the essay by Gates, I kept thinking about these tales. The tales use several stereotypes of the relationship of food and African Americans, such as blacks being described as food, and blacks having enormous appetites. Chesnutt uses the character, Julius, an old, former African American slave, to tell stories to a white couple about the history of the South and several old friends. In these stories, Juliuis tells about a slave who ate grapes from a grapevine and was conjured, or magically, transformed to become a human grapevine, growing in the summer, and withering in the winter until he finally died.

According to the passage on 989, Gates the signifying monkey portrays the characters of Chesnutt’s stories. He uses Abrahams’ passage stating that the monkey as “the trickster’s ability to talk with great inuendo, to carp, cajole, needle, and lie. It can mean to talk around a subject, never quite coming to the point.” This last point is what I believe makes Chesnutt’s stories the most powerful, and really emphasizing the definition of what the signifying monkey is.

Throughout Chesnutt’s stories, there were different ways to take what Chesnutt and his main character were doing. In my opinion, which I wrote my paper on, was that Julius was purposely telling the stories of the old South to trick and gain power/advantage over the white couple. In the story, “The Goophered Grapevine,” Julius tells the story to show that the grapes on the plantation are conjured, and that the white couple would be conjured as well if they bought and tried to eat and sell them (Chesnutt 43). This shows that Julius is being a trickster and is trying to keep the plantation to himself through the story, not actually telling the truth.

Also, the stories by Chesnutt are written in the African American dialect, thus showing how Julius, the Signifying Monkey and the Lion, the white couple, are not speaking the same language (991). Gates says that the Signifying Monkey only speaks and does not act, which is what I wrote my paper about. For African Americans, like Julius, who used to be slaves and trying to gain power in the world, stories were all they had. Julius does not have the power, physically, financially etc, to secure him a place in the world still dominated by the white folks, so he uses what he does have, his own culture and beliefs, like the conjure stories. He relies on these stories and the fascination the white people have with them to gain power, little by little.

When referring back to the Chesnutt stories, the power of the stories told by Julius work sometimes . but not always, meaning he did not stop the white couple from buying the plantation but he affected the couple in other ways in other stories. Gates repeatedly talks about AA literature in parodies, characters duping others, and how AA characters, the Signifying Monkey, only gains advantage over others because of the lack of understanding by other characters, like the Lion. So, thinking about this, how powerful can African American literature be if it must jump through so many hoops to be recognized? Why must African American authors use things like the Signifying Monkey to write and be taken seriously? Does it always work?

Signifying Monkey or Jesting Genius?

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.

The Trickster Monkey: Lying to Tell the Truth

Henry Louis Gates’ paper “The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African-American Literary Criticism” follows the African-American folklore symbol of the signifying monkey to explore and offer a literary criticism of African-American literature. The signifying monkey that Gates describes is a folklore character present in many African-American (North and South Americas, not USA) myths and legends. The monkey is a trickster who often uses double-talk to tell people things. Gates uses this history of double talk to create his term “signifyin(g)” in African-American literature. Gates offers multiple definitions of what “signifyin(g)” means, but essentially it is an indirect, trickstery way of implying meaning, or using the opposite of what one means to show what one means. Gates’ “signifyin(g)” is meant to play off Saussure’s “signifier” in a similar manner, where “signifyin(g)” is more of a vernacular concept than Saussure’s concept which tries to encompass all language. The similarities and differences between the two are heightened by establishing a playfully homophonic relationship comparing the two.

Gates distinguishes two different types of literary “signfyin(g)” in African-American literature, motivated and unmotivated. Unmotivated “signifyin(g)” is when a writer uses similar repetition and alteration used by another writer. Motivated “signifyin(g)” is when a writer expands upon the motifs of other writers and expand or alter them by creating a new meaning. Gates says this motivated “signfyin(g)” is a form that “functions as a metaphor for formal revision . . . within the Afro-American literary tradition”.

This last tid bit isn’t necessarily related to the theories of the Trickster Monkey, but reading Henry Louis Gates brought something about this class and what we are actually studying back into perspective for me. We are a taking a literature theory class as English majors. Because of this, most of the literary theory we have read applies to the English subset of literature. Typically the broadest generalization all of the literary theories we have looked at has been Western literature. There are whole other branches of literature stemming from different cultures that we haven’t looked at. African-American literature is similar to the way that the trickster monkey has one leg in one world, another leg in the other, one foot in Western literature, one foot in African literature. Gates, and his trickster monkey, help show that African-American literature is both a part of that Western tradition of literature, and apart from it.

The Blackness of Blackness by H.L. Gates

Throughout this reading, I couldn’t help but think about the fact that I may not be getting everything out of it that I am supposed to. I have noticed this with most of the readings in this anthology. What all should I be getting from this? What am I actually getting from this? These are the questions I ask myself. I have come to the realization, that most of the readings we have done have more than slightly gone over my head. It is not until we discuss in class or in section that I actually gain a full understanding of the concepts at hand. Because of this, I want to ask for forgiveness if this post is not earth shatteringly insightful or profound. This is what I took away from the reading for today!

Overall, I am confident in my understanding of the signifying monkey and what it means in relation to African American literature. I have seen this used in many works that I read during my semester in an African American literature course. The discussion of the monkey as the trickster or the joker was ever present. If I remember correctly, rabbits have also been used to play this role as well.

What I clung onto most in this reading and what really stuck out to me and made the most sense was Roger Abraham’s explanation of the word “signifying” is it relates to black discourse. In this explanation he states, “…it certainly refers to the trickster’s ability to talk with great innuendo, to carp… it can mean… the propensity to talk around a subject, never quite coming to the point. It can mean making fun of a person or a situation” (Gates, 989).

This quote from reading really stuck out to me, probably because it was so easy to read and to understand, but also because I have personal experience with these types of situations. I would assume all of us do! The way that he explained signifying to mean so many different things was kind of interesting to me. When I think back to Saussure and his idea of signification, I can’t help but remember how stringent the idea was to me then. The signified has its one signifier. The signifier can only signify one thing at a time. That is not the mentality here with Abraham’s description. In this case, signifying has so many different meanings and different contexts in which it can be used.

I’m wondering, how many other people read that passage and instantly thought back to a personal experience they may have had with a signifying monkey? I instantly think back to times when I have been duped or when I have dealt with someone who was talking in circles or when I have been forced to talk in circles for whatever reason. While the whole reading was informative to me, this less complicated and relative part of the reading really stuck out and made me think!

Gates on the Signifying Monkey in Afro-American Culture

In “The Blackness of Blackness: A Critique on the Sign and the Signifying Monkey,” Henry Louis Gates analyzes the way in which the tool of signification has developed within Afro-American culture and art (literature, music, etc.). Although a lot of the language that Gates uses throughout the essay exists outside of my realm of understanding (which can be said about most of the pieces within this anthology), I believe that I have a very, very general understanding of what he attempts to communicate.

Gates traces the Signifying Monkey to mythic figures in black culture and determines that signification contains implied elements of trickery and cunning. The trickster figure Esu in Yoruba mythology is said to be a messenger between the gods and the mortals and Gates relates this to Hermes in Western mythology. Long story short, Gates uses a chain of relations to determine that Esu is the derivative of the Signifying Monkey, implying that the concept is rooted in African rhetoric.

A couple pages later, Gates begins to explain how the Signifying Monkey operates by relating the concept to the way in which black authors have interacted with one another’s works, using them as examples while simultaneously twisting them, employing some sort of “trickery” to produce a new meaning, a new approach to the subject. This fits with Gates’s previous explanation of the Signifying Monkey as “the signifier, he who wreaks havoc upon the signified” (989).

This concept is extremely interesting to me but it’s one that I am hesitant to try to relate to anything that I might be familiar with. The idea of the Signifying Monkey has developed within African American culture over many years and I believe that it isn’t my place to attempt to draw inevitably uninformed conclusions after skimming a single essay. I’m not comfortable with writing on deeply embedded aspects of the vernacular and the approach to literature of a culture different than my own, especially when I have an extremely limited understanding of them.

Taking Gates Seriously

I had never heard of Gates’ term “the signifying monkey” before reading his essay, “The Blackness of Blackness: A Critique on the Sign and the Signifying Monkey.” After beginning to understand the bare bones of the idea, which still isn’t crystal clear, my first question was, “Is this still relevant in today’s culture?” I’d say it is in a way that is obvious or comical, which further more had me asking – is that the point?

It seems that all of Gates’ examples are people who are trying to make people aware of signifying, such as Roger D. Abraham who defines it as, “…a number of things; in the case of the toast about the signifying monkey, it certainly refers to the trickster’s ability to talk with great innuendo, to carp, cajole, needle, and lie…it is signifying to stir up a fight between neighbors by telling stories; it is signifying to make fun of a policeman by parodying his motions behind his back; it is signifying to ask for a piece of cake by saying, ‘my brother needs a piece of cake.’ (989) This definition offers a number of real life examples that would help someone put the idea or the everyday. To put this as simply as I can for myself (again – still not crystal clear on the whole idea), Abraham is saying that signifying is a way to sneak or trick your way into a situation. Relating this to black culture, Abraham and gates agree that it is assumed that the “monkey” is a “master of the technique [signifying]” (990).

Coming back to present day – The first thing I thought of was how black stand-up comedians have a field day with this. People like Kevin Hart and Chris Rock will tell story after story about their childhood, or sometimes adulthood, that will include a way they tricked the system. This could be in a plethora of ways such as getting away from the cops or stealing a piece of pie from the kitchen after being told not to. The thing about these stories, though, is that they are all a mockery. These comedians are proud to tell these stories and to get laughs from them. Is this how Gates envisioned the signifying monkey – as a joke? I’m not sure. At first I didn’t think so, but then Gates starts to talk about how other authors have chimed in on Abraham’s definitions on the “narrative parody.” Did Gates create this as a joke himself?

-Emily Randles

Tyler Perry’s “Madea” as Signifying Monkey

Tyler Perry is a terrible filmmaker. OK, well, that may be unfair to say — let’s just say his films are terrible. But they are also beautiful in how they are living proof that there continues to exist a sort of black mythology in which the Signifying Monkey is king. That signifying monkey is Perry’s character Madea.

Madea is the loud-mouthed archetype (or maybe badly-rendered pastiche) of the Black Grandma. A modern-day but just-as-racist version of Mammy from Gone With the Wind, Madea serves as Perry’s vehicle for racist and reductive quasi-in-jokes in which he bypasses self-deprecation and enters into the realm of self-spectacle by making a mockery of Black American experience. In “The Blackness of Blackness,” Gates lists some examples of signifying. “The black rhetorical tropes, subsumed under signifying, would include marking, loud-talking, testifying, calling out (of one’s name), sounding, rapping, playing the dozens, and so on” (988). Madea typifies pretty much all of these in each of Perry’s films to the extent that it surpasses parody and just gets sad and racist.

The Signifying Monkey is, then, as Gates says, “a trickster figure.” In Perry’s films, Madea is always playing tricks that mean to be funny, but end up being reductive. These tricks seem to usually involve some kind of violent threat, sometimes even with a gun, usually toward other blacks. Gates continues on the trickster figure: “These trickster figures, aspects of Esu, are primarily mediators: as tricksters they are mediators, and their mediations are tricks” (699). This is also true of Madea. Her purpose in Perry’s films is, yes, to be the personification of a racist, minstrel-like performance, but it is also to act as “mediator” between other black characters. These other black characters are characterized by their singular dimension as well as their displaced aggression (especially toward women) and purportedly require the help and mediation of Madea to function in a primarily white world without hurting whites or each other. Madea is there to “save the day” and to manifest laughter in the audience, but usually not for the intended reasons.

“The versions of Esu are all messengers of the gods: he who interprets the will of god to people, he who carries the desires of people to the gods,” Gates says on page 699. This explains the unfailing black church scene(s) that has come to be associated with Madea movies. Madea is always portrayed as a spiritual woman, enduring in her faith to God, and she always helps deliver the message of God to a character that has wavered from the path of righteousness. Many of her mediations are done with respect to this Higher Power and to whatever His will is. A typical conflict is that of a character (usually a black woman or youth) not knowing who God is, straying from His will, and requiring Madea to set him/her straight, to mediate, to serve as “Black Interpreter.”

Are there any other examples of the Signifying Monkey in popular media? What about some black stand-up comics? Can they be Signifying Monkeys too?

–Riley Zipper

The Signifying Monkey and the Art of Misdirection

“Signifying is verbal play – serious play that serves as instruction, entertainment, mental exercise, preparation for interacting with friend and foe in the social arena. In black vernacular, Signifying is a sign that words cannot be trusted, that even the most literal utterance allows room for interpretation, that language is both carnival and minefield.” – John Wildeman, New York Times

After reading “The Blackness of Blackness: A Critique of the Sign and the Signifying Monkey”, I wasn’t sure if I had completely grasped what the implications of “Signification” were in Gate’s eyes. I found an article in the New York Times archive that reviews and summarizes Henry Louis Gate’s claims, and it was incredibly helpful. I’ve included the link at the end of this blog post for those who may be interested in reading it!

I think Gate adds a valuable new perspective on the role of signification. I don’t think that it cancels or conflicts with Saussure’s definition of signification, but it opens the door to the possibility of more than one kind of signification existing. In fact, I think it adds more weight to Lacan’s theories of signification and metonymy. After all, human society often struggles with choosing the proper method to interpret the written language. In politics, for example, there are some people that believe a law should be read very literally, while others believe there is room for interpretation and implicit meaning. There is even disagreement within humanity about how to interpret holy texts, which are some of the most important forms of writing from a historical perspective! For example, some Christians take the text of the Bible literally, while other Christians believe the Bible is meant to be interpreted figuratively.

Maybe this is generalizing too much, but perhaps there are two types of ways that humans finding meaning through language. Both of these methods are pleasurable for a person, but in very different ways. One method involves the literal interpretation of the signified. The sign is directly linked to the signifier. The sign determines the signifier, etc. This method is based in Saussure’s claims. The benefit of this method is that it is repetitive. It is familiar. It assumes a certainty and absolute truth that appears comforting to an interpreter (regardless if this certainty or absolute truth exists in actuality). Some may choose a literal interpretation of the Bible, for example, because they feel this is a secure way to live in God’s good will. There is no room for error or anxiety if one follows exactly what is written. On the other side of the coin, humans love to play and are curious. They like puzzles; they like a challenge. The form of Signification that Gate discusses loves to disassemble and question and poke fun. The space between the written text and the WAY the text is used allows for implicit meaning. Just like the “space in-between” that Barthes mentions, there is bliss in breaking with certainty and decoding what this slippery implicit meaning can be. In fact, this Signification harkens to Lacan’s mention of metonymy in signification – there is no implicit meaning without a conflicting or binary force between the text and the way is conveyed. Kids love to play with building blocks because they can create things in pleasing patterns, they like the repetition of stacking, and they have created something seemingly sturdy and certain. However, kids often take even more pleasure in destroying and disassembling to release their emotions, and this is what Gate’s signification is.

Gate mentions “…signifying is a “technique of indirect argument or persuasion,” “a language of implication”…”shows the monkey to be a trickster, signifying being the language of trickery, that set of words or gestures achieving Hamlet’s ‘direction through indirection’” (990). This statement created a funny image of Signification in my head (that may or may not be correct) – it reminded me of the magician’s art of misdirection. A magician entertains his audience with a trick. He appears to take the very laws of reality and interpret it in a new way, with a result that appears practically impossible. For example, the magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat. Why is this entertaining for an audience? Everyone knows that his interpretation isn’t a “literal” interpretation of the laws of physics/reality; it’s simply untrue! Our human experiences tell us there is no way the rabbit could have been in the hat, as a second before the hat was empty. There has never been anything in our life that has told us that the contrary could be true. In fact, the audience knows there is another answer behind his act of signification. He indirectly, in the space between the audience’s expectations of nothing being in the hat and pulling out a rabbit, suggests there is something outside the audience’s knowing. This space-in between, this implicit meaning through indirection, is what draws the audience to the theater and produces a kind of bliss in the viewer.

Post by Audrey Elliott

Signifying Outside of the Dictionary

While reading Gates’ “The Blackness of Blackness,” I was particularly interested in the idea that signifying can occur because words extend past their dictionary definition. This captivated my attention because it falls into conversation with my CMCL senior seminar class in which we’ve widely discussed definitions that aren’t in dictionaries. Definitions always formally enter the dictionary after their usage in public, so it’s interesting to consider this as a signifying tool. For example, the word “troll” doesn’t refer solely to a troll the likes of Harry Potter, but also to “trolling” online. People always uses new definitions of words before the definitions spread to all corners of society. When Gates mentions the definitions on page 991, he states:

Mitchell-Kernan refines these definitions somewhat by suggesting that the Signifying Monkey is able to signify upon the Lion only because the Lion does not understand the nature of the monkey’s discourse: “There seems something of symbolic relevance from the perspective of language in this poem. The monkey and the lion do not speak the same language; the lion is not able to interpret the monkey’s use of language.” The monkey speaks figuratively, in a symbolic code; the lion interprets or reads literally and suffers the consequences of his folly.

Gates continues, “As the Signifier, he determines the actions of the Signified,” which speaks to the power of understanding multiple definitions and using them in discourse. If we consider knowledge of these definitions as a signifying tool rather than an expanded vocabulary, we can see how this tool could work in discourse. Younger generations could signify meanings through the different applications of technological terms such as “like” and “comment” that have obviously taken on new meanings with social media technologies. On the other hand, older generations may not understand the multiple meanings of new words and “interpret or read literally and suffer the consequences” (991). As we can see, words’ developing definitions that aren’t stapled in dictionaries can be a signifying tool as Gates has shown. It’s interesting to look at the various definitions as something that we can use or be at fault from, and something that people need to be aware of.