Kevin Montag

PWR 2: Rhetoric of the Monstrous

Presentation Paper

Masking Inhibition

The Empowerment of Visual Mystery

Even for those of us who haven’t seen Star Wars, Darth Vader is probably a recognizable figure. He is ominous, he is intimidating, he is powerful, and if we were ever brought face to face with him, we would likely be terrified. Yet at the end of the Star Wars saga, when Vader removes his mask, we experience a moment of tremendous pity. He is no longer frightening, but rather, we see him in all of his human weakness, and, perhaps more importantly, we empathize with his struggle. We are left to wonder: was it his actions which made him terrifying, or was it his mask which somehow created that intimidation?

In my presentation, I will answer a number of questions related to this issue. First, I will examine, empirically, the historical significance of the mask, and use this as a basis to draw more meaningful and theoretical conclusions. In this examination, I will address the question: what is the cultural purpose of the mask, that is, in what types of situations are masks employed? I will then consider more general topics about the actual mask experience, namely, the experience of observers, and of the wearers themselves. Finally, I will use the results of these investigations to explain why, on a psychological level, the mask serves is used in certain types of situations.

Let’s begin by discussing the historical significance of the mask, and, more specifically, the more universal aspects of its purpose within a culture. It is often assumed (without full justification) that masks are a universal phenomenon, present “in every age and in every region of the world.”[1] This is true in a sense. Studies of prehistoric paintings suggest that masks probably appeared in the Paleolithic period, and were almost certainly in use by the Neolithic period, between about 7600 and 6000 B.C.E.[2] Additionally, if we extend the definition of a mask to include not only objects which physically cover the face, but also tattoos, body paints, and scarifications, then we can assert that the mask is geographically universal, and that every culture has, at some point in history, employed its use in one form or another.[3] Masks appear in tribal ceremonies, “civilized” religious rituals, drama and entertainment, and just about everywhere in between. But there are problems with this universalized point of view. The most obvious of these is that while the mask is, in the sense described, both temporally and geographically universal, it has never been geographically universal at any given point in time. There are also problems with the extended definition of the mask we have given, in that it groups many different phenomena into the same category. Different forms of masks can have very different cultural significance, and it is important to take these differences into account.

A discussion of all of these variations would take far longer than ten minutes. For the purposes of this study, therefore, let’s focus strictly on physical masks—that is, objects which are placed over the face to obscure or change certain features. For our purposes, this will include face paints, which tend to work toward the same intent as strictly physical masks. While the use of physical masks has been widespread at most points in history, it has not been universal, and it therefore becomes important to ask the question: why do some cultures use masks, while others do not? More specifically, what cultural purpose, or purposes, does the mask serve?

In his book Masks, Transformation, and Paradox, A. David Napier puts forth a plausible, though not entirely complete, theory regarding the purpose of the mask. He tells us that the mask represents, again and again, the visual incarnation of transition. Masks are used to reflect (or, more importantly, induce) change on their wearers or their observers. As Napier says, “the presence of masks in situations relating to transition is so commonly the rule that exceptions to it are hard to find.”[4] He cites, as common examples, cultural rites of passage and religious ceremonies such as exorcisms, where masks play a key role in creating a change of status or consciousness in a targeted individual. He goes on to assert that it is, in fact, impossible for a mask to actively represent a lack of change, simply because the wearer of the mask has a different appearance once the mask is in place.

Napier’s last assertion seems wholly reasonable. Indeed, it requires a great stretch of the imagination to envision a situation in which a mask does not serve to represent or create some degree of change. However, his statement about the universal presence of masks in transitory situations leaves room to be questioned. One might cite, as a counterexample, a knighting ceremony, in which a warrior undergoes a significant change of status, but no mask is worn—in fact, the person being knighted would remove any sort of helmet or headgear before undergoing the ceremony. Clearly, not all change requires a mask in its representation.

What, then, are the factors which decide whether a mask is used to represent change? I would posit two criteria. First, the change must be necessarily marked by a specific event. Potentially gradual transitions—for example, a criminal finds God and works his way back into society—do not fall into this category. Instead, these types of changes include immediate changes of social status, possession by spirits, etc.

Second, and more importantly, the change must require a transcendence of the self. A knight receives his knighthood as a reward for his success as a warrior; it is an extension of his own accomplishments. In a tribal coming of age ceremony, however, a boy is made into a man; he ceases to be himself and becomes someone new. Thus the mask becomes an integral part of the experience. Emigh puts it best, perhaps, in his discussion of mask use in Papua New Guinea, where, “appearing as hybrids of the animate and inanimate worlds, masks are particularly effective ‘transitional objects’ in performance events that cluster around ‘liminal’ occasions.”[5] Masks serve their purpose in situations where the wearer needs to be part himself, part something else.

To further justify these criteria, let’s focus on the two primary aspects of the mask experience: the perception of the wearer, and the perception of the observer. Napier’s theory also fails to answer the question of why masks are used to induce or represent change, and a deeper look will offer insight into this question. We’ll look first at masks from the perspective of the observer, and see what kinds of changes they create.

Among the most common mask-induced transitions is the change of status or authority. This can happen both ways; masked figures can take on either high or low statuses, but in any case they become something other than themselves. On one end of the spectrum, masks are used to establish a sort of unnatural authority, frightening or awing viewers into willful submission. We see this transformation in familiar situations, for example, the donning of face paint by football players to intimidate the opposing team. We also see it, of course, in figures such as Darth Vader, and in the hangman who wears a mask and thereby claims authority over his victim. Less familiar examples can be found in southeast Nigeria, where the Igbo people employ masks in disciplinary action to make police seem less like peers and more like authoritarians[6], as well as Melanesia, where warriors paint their faces to intimidate their enemies[7]. In each of these cases, mask wearers become less familiar, and thus lose their humanity in the eyes of the viewer, becoming frightening and anonymous. On the other end of the spectrum, we find examples of masks which are used to lower the status of an individual. The target of a shooting line, for example, is given a blindfold to prevent empathy on the part of the soldiers. In the classic story “The Man in the Iron Mask,” a mask is used to strip an individual of his identity and alienate him from society. Again, in each of these cases, masks dehumanize their wearers, though now it is in a way that makes them pitiful rather than powerful.

So far, the situations we have discussed use masks with a clear intent, for the purpose of inducing a specific change upon the viewer in order to accomplish some goal. There are, however, situations where this intent is not so obvious. In tribal ceremonies, for example, masks are often used to transform the wearer into a deity or a deceased person. The wearer’s experience leaves much to be said, but for now, we should wonder about the purpose of the transformation from the perspective of the viewer? What makes observers want to see these ceremonies? The answer lies in the observers’ inner awareness of their personal flaws. Watching such a ceremony consoles fears of mortality and restriction to the self—when they see someone become something else, observers are comforted by the possibility that they can achieve something beyond their mortal weaknesses. Deren describes the transformation best, as “the evolution of a mind for meaning in the animal which is the issue of their flesh.”[8]

It is interesting, as well, to consider the mask transformation in a less intense sense, particularly as it is used in dramatic entertainment. In the Italian Commedia dell’Arte, masked and unmasked figures are intermingled on stage, and masks generally covered only the forehead, nose, and cheeks of the actor. In this case, the actors retain their humanity and their familiarity: “the mask did not dehumanize the actor, it lent mystery without detracting from the live actuality…”[9] In addition, with the mixing of masked and unmasked players, “the effect of the ‘masks’ was to highlight those figures who did not wear masks by pointing the greater kinship of the unmasked to the spectators.”[10] This use of masks, therefore, is better suited to comedy and entertainment, since the full power of the mask is tempered, and observers are allowed to experience it without falling victim to it.

I have gone into quite a bit of detail about the mask experience from the perspective of the observer, but it remains to examine the experience from the perspective of the wearer. In many ways, these discussions are one and the same, since more often than not, the wearer of the mask becomes exactly what the observer perceives him to become. However, the psychological reasons for, and consequences of, this transformation are still of interest. Mask wearers in tribal ceremonies truly believe that they have become something outside of themselves, and they speak of having lost control of their individuality entirely. What power does the mask have to create such an extreme transformation?

Let us begin by considering the general case in which masks are worn by members of a large group. In these situations, the changes which a mask induces are often caused by the anonymity which wearing the mask creates. In 1999, the Ku Klux Klan planned a rally in the streets of New York, but a law was enforced which prevented members of the group from wearing masks during the rally. As a result, very few Klan members showed up—that is, they were powerless to express controversial ideas without the anonymity that their white hoods create. As another example, consider again the Melanesian warriors who paint their faces to intimidate their enemies, this time from the perspective of the painted figures themselves. With their disguise, they lose sight of themselves, and become simply a part of the war machine. “Men speak of this magic as having induced in them a state of dissociation in which they became capable of extreme, indiscriminate violence, a kind of trance-state in which their only thoughts were of homicide.”[11] Again, we see that individuality has been lost, and that mask wearers have been absorbed by the group mentality.

The important thing to note here is that when a person wears a mask, they are allowed to behave in a way that goes beyond their traditional self. This is particularly evident in the example of a large group, since group members are both wearers and observers of those around them. They project the expectations that they have for others onto themselves, and they feel justified in mimicking the group’s actions. More generally, when a mask suggests a certain behavior, viewers of the mask expect the wearer to follow that behavior. Thus it is the reaction of others that truly gives the mask its power. If a mask can force observers to look differently upon the wearer, then the mask lets the wearer act differently, as well.

We are now in a position to examine situations in which a single individual wears a mask. As we have seen, in these situations, observers are quick to project on the individual a new set of social expectations. Actors in the Commedia dell’Arte, for example, are expected to act as their masks might act, and thus it is natural for the actors to assume these personalities. In tribal ceremonies, when a mask wearer is thought to be possessed, the audience collectively believes that the possession will take place—they allow it to take place, and so it does take place. “‘The wearer of the mask not only represents the spirit in question, he becomes, he is, this spirit.’”[12] In other words, the wearer of the mask takes on every attribute which is expected of him. War decorations empower their wearers not because of any inherent strength, but because they induce fear upon their viewers. The power of the mask lies entirely within the reaction and the expectations of the person who observes it, and the wearer’s actions are justified in his or her own mind as a result of these expectations.

It is easy to interpret this result negatively. In one way, masks are nothing more than mankind’s way of saying, “I am nothing more than what others think of me.” But if we can understand this aspect of consciousness, and learn to control it within ourselves, we can see the mask phenomenon as a resonating confirmation that we are capable of more than we could ever imagine.

Works Cited

Deren, Maya. Divine Horsemen: Voodoo Gods of Haiti. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1970.
Emigh, John. Masked Performance: The Play of Self and Other in Ritual and Theater. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996.
Enekwe, Onuora Ossie. Igbo Masks: The Oneness of Ritual and Theater. Lagos: Nigeria Magazine, 1987.
Harrison, Simon. The Mask of War: Violence, Ritual, and the Self in Melanesia. New York: Manchester University Press, 1993.
Napier, A. David. Masks, Transformation, and Paradox. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986.
Pernet, Henry. Ritual Masks: Deceptions and Revelations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992.
Richards, Kenneth, and Laura Richards. The Commedia dell'Arte: A Documentray History. Cambridge: Shakespeare Head Press, 1990.