How the heck are cartoonists NOT important? Part Three
III: The Role of Cartoonists in Civil Society
There hasn’t yet been a large body of scholarship on political cartooning in the world, “presumably because cartoons do not belong to any particular academic discipline…”. What of the College of Fine Arts at the University of New South Wales, or other similar institutions? While they do provide for the study of the ‘art of cartooning’, their immediate interests are predominantly in the artistic value of cartooning and are thus are at quite a distance from its potential ‘political’ functions. Some might suggest that political cartoons fall under a School of Social Sciences or Liberal Studies given their role in facilitating political communication.
But even there, the scope of study into political cartoons remains somewhat limited. They generally provide some biographical material, such as accounts of individual cartoonists’ working styles, the environment in which they might work and how this has developed over time. They tend not venture further than a general overview of cartoonists as illustrators for newspapers.
Existing literature about the more philosophical aspects of cartooning ‘as a profession’ are written by cartoonists themselves and occasionally non-cartoonists researchers. The difference between the two viewpoints can largely be summarised as cartoonist giving a romantic portrayal of their ‘sacred mission’ in civil society as great defenders of democratic principles and pioneers of free speech, whereas the non-cartoonist researchers present a very straight-forward rendition of cartoonists as a communication medium of their own that can reach audiences through more diverse channels than written editorials.
Neither viewpoint is particularly successful in explaining the role of cartoonists in civil society. This is largely due to the difficulty in appropriately wording and phrasing the literature to illuminate the complicated depth of cartoons, in order to craft a persuasive argument that sways people away from the entrenched assumption of cartoons as simple and childish fables. To explicitly state that cartoons make significant contributions to our political consciousness is fatal where the reader might be one who doesn’t even take a glance at editorial drawings say, in a newspaper, let alone one who regularly reads cartoons. A person unacquainted with cartoons in the adult world of civil discussion will often hold an immature impression they adopted from their childhood, and thus be readily dismissive.
The room for discussion between the two kinds of authors appears to be confined to discussions about how cartoons function within the editorial sections of news media. They inquire on questions such as ‘What kind of topics for cartoons generates the most comments from readers?’, ‘Should cartoonists adopt self-censorship?’ and so on.
The instances where they do attempt to pursue an in-depth discussion about cartoonists’ special status in society’s democratic consciousness, the quality and direction of the discussion from the authors who are also cartoonists seems largely influenced by their own personal career in political cartooning, and hence a noticeable romanticism inthe portrayal of their profession.
Cartoonists see their work as one of the main checks and balances in the system that impedes people from getting away with abusing the common standards of morality. Political cartoons are the cultural indicator of the present state of society, bringing attention to imperfection, that which is uncomfortable, or unpopular. They are important outlets to our social frustration, to lighten up the solemn scene.
Some part of the community, however, does not appreciate this role. The first well-known event of a cartoonist facing retribution for drawing on a political topic was the imprisonment of Charles Philipon, who drew a caricature of King Louise Philippe of France as a pear in 1832. The key issue raised was the fine division between satire and subversion. The cartoon, which was published during a time of political instability, was considered to do more harm than good as it might have caused the populace to lose further confidence in the monarchy.
This demonstrates a formal recognition that a political cartoon is capable of influencing public debate and it is sufficient enough to call for a reaction on the part of the authorities. On the note of cartoonists and the probable harm their cartoons can inflict on society’s political awareness, Michael Hogan of the University of Sydney once expressed concerns about their fairness, accuracy, and the cynicism to inflict harmful feelings in the community about politics and politicians. He believes that the portrayal of political events and important public figures in satire is potentially unfair to the actual circumstances of what is occurring in an elected parliament (or similar body) and give people a potentially unbalanced view of events. He suggested some form of restrain or self-awareness on part of the cartoonist, to act in accordance with the standards of journalists and representing their work in an unprejudiced light.
However, this argument misinterprets the cartoonist’s role for a number of reasons. Political cartoons are concerned with politics, which is an adversarial world where politicians participate by the application of criticism and self-praise. The public can’t reasonably expect to see a balanced description of reality from any interaction with them.
To say that a ‘balanced view’ is possible is ultimately to make a value judgment of circumstances that are conditional on the individual’s ideological position. Each person is capable of assessing for themselves what the political landscape is, on the assumption that they are reasonably educated and have easy access to different sources of information. I don’t think people are easily influenced by a single media entity, and in our increasingly connected world, people have a greater awareness of the diverse range of opinions that exist and are more willing to explore and hear different views. Cartoons, though they may overtly present a particular side of an issue at the expense of others, do not themselves become a force responsible for the swaying of the opnion of the majority. Instead, they become one part of the many stimuli that form debate within society.
Cartoonists are more than mere journalists who explore news and current affairs through their illustrations.
They are not a source of information for the public; instead they are participants in public debate and engaged in commenting rather than reporting. As commentators, they do not merely satirise events and make their audiences laugh — political cartoons poke fun at difficult events and make their audience feel amused at their common predicament. They use metaphors to challenge and test the limits of freedom of speech; to topple popular opinion and enable the discovery and expression of what may supressed by taboo and conservatism. If a cartoonist is one who draws only to support a particular political party, then that person’s work is no more than propaganda.
So what is a ‘cartoonist’ and where do they stand? Renowned Australian cartoonist Michael Leunig has an idea:
“The cartoonist is not interested in showing that the enemy is in league with the devil but rather the extent to which a bit of the devil is in all of us… The true cartoonist is a moral philosopher who compulsively and dutifully challenges and resists the powerful, the victorious, the dominant, the fashionable, the well-heeled, the well-established and the well-armed; and in so doing, upholds the importance of the powerless, the vulnerable, the voiceless outsiders, of nature and many improbable or neglected ideas.”
And here, now, with no better description, I shall leave you.
This concludes Jonathan’s cartoonists articles series
