Monsters are philosophical beings that human beings want to relate to either consciously or unconsciously, much like immortality, which human beings cannot really exist without in terms of relating to both known and unknown people as well as objects. In this piece, our analyst discusses monsters using seven theses proposed by Cohen and relate them to some of the existing scholarly views and specific examples of an African ethnic group. From Cohen to Mittman and Nirta and Pavoni, different perspectives have been explored in the quest to find an appropriate definition for what monster really means. However, while searching for the true meaning of the concept, arguments have been predominantly made about whether monsters really exist or not.
All in all, existence has been examined through binary and non-binary options. Aligning with binary options suggests that one needs to see existence as ‘real’ and ‘unreal’, whereas non-binary options expect monsters to be viewed as non-existing or not existing at all. Suffice to say that the binary option is more problematic because what is monster and monstrous in a particular culture might be the same in another culture. On the other hand, what a person experienced and mainly tagged ‘monster’ and ‘monstrous’ might not be for another person. In other words, monsters are situated within the localized beliefs of individual societies.
Historically driven and culturally constructed
In two of his theses, Cohen further notes that monsters are not just physical entities but are culturally constructed, persist, and reemerge in different forms throughout history. Thus, one can say monsters are culturally constructed and maintained historically by people and society through specific discourses. Cohen’s physically bonded and culturally inclined monsters’ description suggests that they are products of cultural representations and processes of any society that cannot be separated from people’s total way of life, especially when some of them are considered myths for warning people against committing sinful acts or encouraging them towards doing good. It could be further argued that monsters can represent more than just cultural symbols and also have a material existence in stories.
For instance, some monsters can represent actual phobias and anxieties that are not just products of culture but may also result from personal encounters. Monsters challenge established boundaries and reveal the fragility of cultural categories. This thesis contends that monsters question and obfuscate preconceived notions, revealing the frailty of cultural categories. This idea is consistent with the theory that normative structures are disrupted and societal norms are challenged by monsters. But it is important to understand that not all monsters equally represent this category of crisis. Monsters can have a variety of effects on category crises, including reinforcing preexisting categories or acting as cautionary tales.
For instance, in Yoruba mythology, Ìjìnl?? is a terrifying monster or spirit that guards sacred places and can inflict harm on those who disrespect them. Àbíkú is a malevolent spirit associated with child mortality, and rituals and charms are performed to prevent their return. Àjé is a powerful female witch or sorceress known for her ability to shape-shift into animals, possess supernatural powers, and manipulate forces of nature. Ègúngún is an ancestral masquerade tradition in Yoruba culture, where participants wear costumes that embody the spirits of deceased ancestors. These costumes represent a bridge between the living and the spirit realms. Ìbejì, also known as ‘the divine twins,’ are revered in Yoruba culture as the spirits of deceased twins who bring good fortune and protection to their families. Although not monsters, Ìbejì are often depicted as small, mischievous beings with supernatural abilities.
“Monster” as a figure posing a threat to a social group or “pure culture”
Monsters often represent marginalized and oppressed groups at the fringes of society. According to Cohen, monsters frequently stand in for oppressed and marginalised groups that are on the periphery of society. While highlighting the potential subversive power of monsters, this thesis runs the risk of oversimplifying and reinforcing stereotypes. Not all monsters are representative of marginalised groups, and drawing a straight line between monstrosity and marginalisation can obscure the intricate and nuanced relationship between the two. In another thesis, Cohen states that monsters can enforce societal boundaries by defining what is considered “normal” or acceptable, claiming that by defining what is deemed “normal” or acceptable, monsters enforce societal boundaries. Monsters can indeed serve as cultural markers that outline the boundaries of what is regarded as acceptable, but it is crucial to understand that they can also push these limits and encourage alternative viewpoints. The transformative potential of monsters may be overlooked if they are viewed as merely norm enforcers.
Monsters as ‘strangers’ and the elimination of their negativity
Monsters are fascinating because they challenge our fears and provide a way to confront and engage with them. However, fear and desire are complex emotions that can vary across cultures. Monsters can embody transformative potential and act as agents of change, challenging preexisting social norms and opening new possibilities. However, not all monsters are progressives or change agents, and it is crucial to critically examine their role and intention. Popular culture has framed the presence of monsters through biological taxonomies, legal discourses, and moral panics. The monstrous category signals a transgression of social, cultural, or moral law, leading to the demystification of insidious characterisations of the other as monstrous. This reduces monstrosity to a socio-cultural construction, depriving it of any reality. The monstrous is not something we can join, endorse, or celebrate, nor is it something that empowers or emancipates us.
Therefore, monsters are not human beings. They exist in their own ways, as God wants them to. Claiming that they are part of us through the ‘pure culture’ concept is uncalled for and unnecessary because they were created to perform specific tasks God assigned to them. Furthermore, technologically, creating techno-monsters to establish a sense of real natural monstrosity is tantamount to challenging God’s power regarding the essence of natural monsters on Earth and possibly invoking apprehension associated with their lifestyle upon ourselves.
Make and limit kin with monsters
Forming social relations and caring for monsters depends on a person’s perspective and understanding of their role in their life and society. For example, not all Yoruba people believe in cases like Ìjìnl??, Àbíkú, Ègúngún, and Àjé, which are rooted in cultural values and norms. However, those who have Ìbejì as children celebrate their deity, indicating their readiness to have strong bonds with the deity and their children. Individual differences and religious orientations may be the main determinants of making kin or not with monsters among Yoruba people in Nigeria.
