Broken Frontier

I’ve been thinking about the role of symbols in political action, and particularly about the power of the objects that embody those symbols. 

Think of the passions that arise in some when they see an American flag being burned, or the oppressive sense of revulsion you might feel when you see images of the enormous banners of the Third Reich, emblazoned with swastikas.  Think of the signs of peace that crowds carry when they march against war, or the ubiquitous images of Che Guevara on the T-shirts of protestors.  What would Maoism have been without the actual little red books in the hands of revolutionaries?  What would Rastafarianism be without dreadlocks, and where would Jamaican nationalism be without the music of Bob Marley? 

Are comics capable of playing a similar role, in uniting resistance, defining historical moments, or raising consciousness about the sufferings of the poor?  Think of the impassioned reactions to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September, 2005.  There can be power in comics.  If only someone would explain it! 

The American Political Science Association recently made the contributions to its April 2007 symposium, The State of the Editorial Cartoon, available online.  Full of historically informed and engaging scholarship on the art form in the US and around the globe, the articles provide welcome and tantalizing suggestions about how to understand the power that comics can have in the real world.

Take the example of the Muhammad cartoons.  In their essay, “The Political Iconography of Muhammad Cartoons: Understanding Cultural Conflict and Political Action,” Marion G. Müller  and Esra Özcan, both of Jacobs University Bremen, point out that the publication of the Muhammad cartoons sparked an international crisis that is as yet unresolved, three years later.  The cartoons sparked peaceful protests, violent demonstrations, boycotts, sanctions, and death threats, and rocked the foundations of relations between European and Arab nations.  Yet such a far-reaching crisis, sparked by cartoons, is little understood.  The purpose of the article is “to interpret and understand the cartoons and their meanings as motivating factors for political action.”  The authors focus on an interpretation of the images themselves in terms of Islamic teachings and traditions, and how they might have been received by Muslims.

Leonard Rifas (EduComics) takes a different approach in his essay, “Cartooning and Nuclear Power: From Industry Advertising to Activist Uprising and Beyond.”  Rifas presents a highly detailed and interesting chronicle of the uses of comic books by the nuclear industry to promote nuclear power, and the uses of comic books by anti-nuclear activists to challenge industry claims and present a different, more cautionary picture of reliance on nuclear power. 

Rifas notes that data assessing the ability of these comics to affect the politics of their readers is not available.  However, he argues, the anti-nuclear comics likely had no power of their own to influence public opinion.  The comics were a part of the successes of the broader “no nukes” movement.  In other words, the comics didn’t influence the movement so much as the movement influenced the comics. 

In their contribution, “Zapiro: The Work of a Political Cartoonist in South Africa – Caricature, Complexity, and Comedy in a Climate of Contestation,” authors Thomas A. Koelble (University of Cape Town) and Steven L. Robins (University of Stellenbosch) analyze the quite personal conflict between editorial cartoonist Zapiro (Jonathan Shapiro) and the former deputy president of South Africa, and leader of the African National Congress (ANC), Jacob Zuma.  Along with explaining the stories behind Zapiro’s cartoons, and interpreting the details of Zapiro’s cartoons for a non-South African audience, Koelble and Robins situate Zapiro’s cartoons in the context of a fundamental conflict in values between the politics of the anti-apartheid campaign, and the corruption and gender oppression of the new South Africa. 

They conclude their essay with an interview with Zapiro.  The cartoonist, heavily influenced by the anti-apartheid struggle of the 1980s, describes a politics that values non-racialism and accountability, that is community oriented and gender-sensitive.  Zapiro observes that “there is an important role for cartooning in South Africa at the moment.”  He feels that if his cartoons were insignificant, then Jacob Zuma would not be suing him. 

Zapiro also notes that cartoons are “moving off the pages of the newspapers and into radio and television debates.”  At the present time, editorial cartoons are influencing national discussion in South Africa.  Why?  Perhaps because they are highly opinionated, and because they are able to explore nuanced and complex issues in simple terms.

In his introduction to the symposium, Kent Worcester of Marymount Manhattan College calls editorial cartoons “topical outbursts of image and text that punctuate and enliven the daily newspaper editorial page.”  He notes that “the power of cartoons to inspire and enrage public and elite opinion is a matter of historical record,” yet a systematic investigation into how and why this may be so is missing. 

The various essays, interviews, and examples of the form in this volume each make their own contribution to our understanding.  This is an exciting, relevant, and accessible work of fresh scholarship:  highly recommended!