Deleting a cartoon is not a triumph
Sometimes only a profound and painful debate can break down misguided societal beliefs.
Cartoons can be problematic — and we’ve had several opportunities to discuss the offensiveness of cartoons in Austria. One example was a cartoon that depicted a well-known female politician in a sexist way. On Twitter — of course, the discussion started on Twitter! — a bitter dispute arose about the legality of publishing such a caricature. Many called for it to be deleted.
I find it deeply unfortunate that women are frequently seen from a male-sexualized point of view, no matter how much they have proven their competence. And I speak deliberately of seen and not depicted. After all, a caricature is not the misstep of an individual but provides insight into a systemic view.
Outrage is not a discussion
But when I follow the discussion about the caricature in social media, I often only see anger and polemics: people rant about the existence of cartoons they don’t like, while others rant about supposed restrictions on free speech. It is essential to exchange arguments and explore the limits of freedom of expression again and again. But outrage and polemics are not about discourse.
Outrage is an indictment. Instead of facing the question of what the portrayal of a female politician says about us as a society, the caricature is often just deleted, and the unpleasant truth is overlaid with indignation and shifted into the invisible. The deletion is perceived as a triumph — as if the limits of what one is allowed to say had been renegotiated again. But outrage and polemics are not enough; they do not change thinking at all — instead, a paradoxical phenomenon of defiance is reinforced: the more we are suppressed, the more we feel we are right after all. This can be observed again and again: in filter bubbles and conspiracy theories. People do not understand the point and accept they went too far with a statement or attitude; it’s just that they do not express it anymore.
Michel Foucault had it right
In an interview in 1984, Michel Foucault calls polemics a parasitic figure in the discussion and an obstacle to searching for truth. The polemicist does not lead an equal discussion; polemicists do not want to point out faulty arguments or engage in the search for truth with the discussion partner.
Polemicists tell the truth in the form of judgment and by the authority, they have conferred upon themselves. Polemicists seek to destroy opponents; they seek offense evidence and pronounce sentences. Like Foucault wanting to slam a book of controversial accusations right back shut, I want to close Twitter and never open it again. You can’t expect a microblogging service to have deep discussions, but I hope for more than merely enraged outcries.
This climate of not discussing things openly, exacerbated by the lack of context, the fast pace, and the way social media works, was addressed by numerous writers in an open letter two years ago. They pointed out that open debate and the proverbial endurance of differences must not fall victim to ideological conformity.
Dialogue is necessary
An intolerant climate that does not allow dialogue can be found on all sides of the political and ideological spectrum. A conversation is both pleasant and painful. But it respects the partner. Outrage and polemics use a power structure that they usually denounce themselves. We have the chance to see a cartoon as an uncomfortable contribution to a discourse (in the case mentioned above: on the perception of women in society), engage with it, and move closer to truth and democratic inclusion. Or we can be outraged and celebrate our triumph and the destruction of the opponent.
