 |
| Arthur Rackham (1910) |
L is for Loki. Why Loki,
the reasons are almost as complex as he is.
Reason One: Loki is about the
fluidity of sex and gender. He gives
birth to Odin’s horse, Sleipnir. Loki
cons the unnamed builder into building Valhalla – It’s a little more
complicated, but essentially, the builder is going to finish the project on
time (because of his magical stallion, Svaðilfari. Loki transforms himself into a female horse,
to lure Svaðilfari away from his job.
The time they spend together results in Loki becoming pregnant. So literally he becomes a woman – not just cross-dressing
(as was common in Norse Myth). What is
so amazing about this, at least in my contemporary paradigm, is all of this
fluid gender seems to be a non-issue in the myths. No one ever calls him out for not being
“manly” enough – which given the contemporary presentation of the culture that
created him, I find especially important.
Many people develop some very rigid ideas about gender/sex (even when
they do not realize it). **Side note, this is one of reasons that I left
Wicca. The entire mythic cycle is built
on essentialist, heteronormative values. But staying on topic** Loki is a very real reminder that gender is a social construct. And even more than gender, sex itself may not
be as hard and fast as people want it to be (as in not binary male/female). Loki encompasses all of the fluidity, all of
the mutability, all of the possibility of sex and gender. What’s more, is Loki reminds people to
celebrate that potential. People are not
static in their sex – nor must they be slaves to a socially constructed
gender.
 |
| Marvel Comics Loki |
Reason Two: Tricksters. Like the lessons Loki imparts about gender
and sex, Loki’s also a trickster.
Trickster is often used synonymously with fool, and while they are
related, they are not clear synonyms.
Tricksters are at their core rule-breakers. They are willful, wanton transgressors of
society’s norms. Loki, like other
tricksters (Coyote, Prometheus, Anansi), breaks rules. However, in true trickster form, these transgressions
often end in positive results – at least for those around the trickster. The trickster may suffer some consequence for
his actions. Loki excels at guile. Neil Gaimen in American Gods is dead on by
portraying Loki as a grifter. Of course
as a grifter, Loki uses words to his advantage.
So much so, that in one story after tricking the dwarves, they sew his
mouth shut to prevent him from using words against another. Words matter.
I believed I digressed a bit into this idea in my post about the Kindly
Ones. The words people use space reality. Words contain value judgments, create
paradigms, and literally give meaning to the world around people. Thus, Loki is a reminder of the sheer power
of words. Further, he is often portrayed
as being a jerk – but in many cases, he is being honest, perhaps not in the
most politic of ways, but honest, nevertheless.
He also suffers the consequences for being so blunt in his presentation. So being a follower of Loki is not license to
be an asshole.
Reason Three:
Getting away from Christianity. In the
NeoPagan world, I often see Loki presented as harmless mischief maker – I’d
never think of a trickster as “harmless,” but whatever- Or, I see him presented as some sort of Devil
analog, as if an evil entity is needed.
Some of this comes from his role in Ragnarok. Norse myth isn’t my area of expertise – I
focused on different eras of literature – but, I am aware of how religious
myths function, how translations function, and how who wrote the story down
makes a huge difference. One, there is a
question about the veracity of the various Eddas. They were written down well after after the
Norse world converted to Christianity (also they were written down by Christians
– which may lead to fundamental misunderstanding of the texts). So how were the eddas altered to suit a Christian
paradigm *this is more blatant in the Old English works like Beowulf and Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight – the Christianity stuff is weirdly tacked on.* So, the eddas are a potentially unreliable
source (as is any ancient religious text).
Two, Ragnarok itself.
Was it created to mimic Christianity? As the written sources are
limited, it is possible Ragnarok was added to the myths to compete with Christianity
*see we’ve got an apocalypse too* or as part of the conversion process *your
stories as similar to ours – you have a god who hung from a tree, we have a guy
who hung from a cross.* I rarely go in for the “original” matters, but in this
case, it may. If Loki is forced into the
Ragnarok story, due to a Christian paradigm, than to view Loki as “evil”
requires a person to view it from a Christian paradigm. Also, why is the end of the world a “bad”
thing? I realize that no one wants to die, but seriously, as Pagans shouldn’t
we accept that death is part of life with a little less discomfort?
 |
| Urnes Stone Image |
Let me state unequivocally, I do not believe in any evil
entity. Devils in all their forms are
social constructs to excuse bad behavior.
People may commit terrible acts, heinous acts, horrific acts – but I
seldom use evil. It is a loaded word, one
that dehumanizes and removes responsibility and culpability. If the murderer is
“evil” well then as a society, we can lock evil-guy up and never have to look
at society’s role in his creation – we never have to examine ourselves either. So essentially, I find belief in and blame of
evil to be a cope out (and in the US at least, Christian driven). “The devil
made me do it” is a stupid claim.
Looking at Loki as a
player in Ragnarok is accepting this “evil” mindset. I do not intend to sound like a moral
relativist, as I am not. However, the
persistent idea that there is a “good” and “evil” force in the universe strikes
me as ludicrous. Nature is neither good
nor evil. Humans, with free-will and
reasoning skills and all, may make choice that conform to societal norms or
not. Humans may choose to accept the
prevailing moral values of their respective societies – but this does not
coincide with evil. However, there are
specific human rights that the world (ok, largely industrialized nations) have
adopted as kind of world-wide morals. But
these are still concepts that people decided
on and are not inherent. Thus, there
is not “good” and no “evil” per say – there are agreed upon rules.
When NeoPagans in particular point to Loki as this devil
analog, I wonder why they left Christianity in the first place. Also pointing to the eddas as inviolate
sacred texts is the same as claiming “the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the
Vedas, etc. told me so” – which to me is an excuse for lazy thinking.
So Loki challenges the very ingrained Christian thinking
that NeoPagans in the US may be struggling with (even if they don’t realize
it). He certainly keeps me thinking
about how my world view may or may not reflect a Christian paradigm.
 |
| Kirkby Stephen Stone |
In the end: Loki is complicated. He challenges so many concepts that people
find to be inviolate. He is not evil, he
is not the comic relief, he is not male or female. Loki reminds me on a daily basis to challenge
my thinking. He reminds me that nothing
is static. He reminds me that nothing is
a binary.
He also reminds me to have fun.
Addendum **There is a line of inquiry in research that
also posits Ragnarok has already occurred in the eddas, but that’s a post for
another day**
No comments:
Post a Comment