Understanding and Conceptualizing about Cartoons

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

13

what he calls “image critique”: “a double procedure of both a critique of images and their critical engagement” (p.31).

Plenty of previous research has studied the frontier between both countries from an anthropological perspective that literally describes Mexican-American border locales to explore the concepts of inequality, power, global economics, and connections among cultures and societies (Alvarez 1987; Alvarez & Collier 1994; Chávez 1992; Fernández-Kelly 1983;

Greenberg 1987; Heyman 1991; Kearney 1991) as well as theoretical works (Gupta & Ferguson 1992; Rosaldo 1988) concerning the relationships between Mexicans and the United States conceived broadly (Behar 1993; Rouse 1991). Also, the border wall has been previously studied as an evaluation of the enhanced U.S. border enforcement measures (Cornelius 2001; 2004; 2007;

Emmott 2007; Hinkes 2008). However, the U.S.-Mexico border wall is a phenomenon that warrants further academic research because of its current impact on relationships between the two countries.

2.2 Understanding and Conceptualizing about Cartoons

Cartoons are a specific media form which tends to use humor and satire to convey messages about the social world (Kris & Gombrich 1962). It can be racist and sexist and it can contribute to the promotion of stereotypes (Templin, 1999). Cartoons are capable of communicating “subtle, complex, multilayered messages about people and events in the details of how they are drawn messages that would be difficult or impossible to express verbally”. Moreover, a political cartoon allows the cartoonist to express views that would be too “extreme, mean-spirited”, or “politically incorrect” to express in an essay column (Gilmartin & Brunn, 1998: 536) and “to be most effective, a cartoon must have three characteristics: sparkling wit, a basic element of fact, and a didactic or editorial purpose” (Cuff, 1945: 87).

The word “cartoon” is derived from the Italian word Caricatura, meaning to charge or load. An early definition is found in Sir Thomas Browne’s “Christian Morals” published in 1716:

“When men faces are drawn with resemblance to some other animals, the Italians call it, to be

‧

drawn in Caricatura”; making inference to Caricatura as a “loaded portrait”. “Cartoon” as a term was first used in its current meaning in the mid-19th century, when the British satirical monthly Punch used it as a title for a series of humorous illustrations lambasting the government’s plans for a new lavish Parliament building and contrasting this lavishness with the extreme poverty of many ordinary people (Kleeman, 2006). The antecedents of the editorial cartoon were anonymously produced woodcuts, which typically depicted scenes of a political or religious nature and were hawked around the streets of 17^th century Europe. Many of these woodcuts contained words as well as images and there is evidence that some artists even employed speed lines and word-balloons (Sabin, 1996). The invention of copperplate engraving and, in the mid-1800s, of facsimile reproduction facilitated the mass production of more detailed images, and the early cartoons became increasingly humorous and satirical.

At a time when the newspaper was still a predominantly verbal medium, cartoons created a visual sensation and many cartoonists of the late 19th century and early 20th century came to be regarded as influential and highly respected political commentators (Walker, 1978). In 1981 Horn stated that “any draw that encapsulates a complete thought can be called a cartoon” (p.15) while Dovifat (1960) claimed that cartoon is the satirical exaggeration of the own peoples’

particularities or circumstances shown in an accurate or impressive form and Geipel (1972) pointed out that any illustration which makes use of such conventions as physical distortions, exaggerated facial expressions, speech balloons or sequences of framed strip is likely to be called a cartoon, whether or not it is supposed to be defamatory or humorous.

In 1968, Dunn classified cartoons according to their purposes: comic cartoons are for amusement; social cartoons comment in the problems of everyday life and attempt to entertain while editorial cartoons attack a point of view or political figure. In the last classification, the editorial cartoons represent the newspaper’s views and provide readers with condensed information on complex issues. The tone is generally concerned with a political event or revealing a political true motives or behavior (Tyson 1989). They are selected by an editor or an editorial board with only a few elected out of an average of six panels that cartoonists create each week (Buell & Maus 1988).

‧

The editorial cartoon then, developed from the Caricatura which in the theoretical sense represents the basic concepts of today’s cartoon studies. According to Harrison (1981), editorial cartoons focus attention on current issues and they can be analyzed for their portrayal of social trends, attitudes and culture. Morrison (1969) emphasized the importance of visual aspects in this discourse, arguing that non-verbal symbols can transmit meaning more directly than verbal symbols and Cahn (1984) suggested that cartoonists should rely on visual properties that are universally understood. Cartoons and caricature aim at those without time to read or who prefer visual news to understand a certain issue by just taking a look into the cartoon. As Streicher (1966) noted, “caricature is a way of catching in a glance the meaning of an event, a person in the news or a pictorial summary of a current power constellation”. Furthermore, he emphasized the aspects involving the cartoon understanding when he affirmed that the caricature analysis

“require at least materials from the history of the fine arts, political history of the areas concerned and the sociology of public opinion and mass communication” (p.427). The editorial cartoon expresses criticism or disagreement in a social issue and simplifies the diverse links between the events, the power and the civil society, aiming “at a purposeful condensation of sometimes complex meanings into a single striking image” (Morrison, 1969:253).

From the fundamental conception of Caricatura in regard of it as a “loaded portrait”, some features can be exaggerated, Mogollon and Mosquera (1983), for example, stated “a draw in which are deformed, -to excel them- the most peculiar characteristics, the factions and the aspect of a person or thing” and Bergson indicated “catching a sometimes imperceptible characteristic and making it visible to the eyes when enlarging it” (Columba, 1959). Buell and Maus (1988) argue that “exaggeration and distortion” are the cartoonist’s “stock-in trade”. They conclude their analysis of the cartoons about the 1988 elections in the USA with the observation that most cartoons in the sample depict “frontrunners and oddities, and most of these were unflattering to the candidates” (p. 856). In addition, Nelson (1975) emphasized “today’s cartoon means a drawing usually humorous that stands by itself as a work of art” (p.5). A political cartoon is “a satirical comment, usually humorous . . . about a political person, event, institution

‧

or idea, and reflecting the cartoonist’s own values or opinions on that issue” (School Programs Section, National Museum of Australia, 2002: 4).

What makes political cartoons unique is the way in which they typically use a fantasy scenario to comment upon an aspect of topical social, political, or cultural reality. In LeRoy’s (1970) apt words, they are “complicated puzzles mixing current events with analogies” (p. 39). If readers are willing and able to solve the mental puzzle that every cartoon poses, this can give them a real sense of satisfaction and sometimes provoke a humorous response (Smith, 1996).

The editorial cartoon then, offers a new manner to observe a social issue by the use of transformation or exaggeration and when it embraces a social criticism, it can take part in historical events of great transcendence, such as the case of the U.S.-Mexico border wall construction analyzed in this study.

Nevertheless, cartoons have not received the academic research attention they deserve despite of their power and popularity. Carrier (2000) insists on the traditional partition between high and low art forms and does not allow “comics” to be part of art history. No discipline has truly dedicated to the study of editorial cartoons, yet at the nexus between several disciplines there is little academic literature on political cartoons (De Sousa, 1981, and 1984; DeSousa &

Medhurst, 1982; Edwards, 1992, 1997; Gamson & Stuart, 1992; Hess & Kaplan, 1975; Medhurst

& Benson, 1984; Paletz, 2002) with its main focus in humor and satire. However, the split is increasingly diminishing with more and more academic work on caricature and cartoon, as borne out by the references of this study, the publications devoted to humor and cartoon and the expansion of disciplines and approaches such as semiotics, framing, visual and critical discourse analysis to include semio-linguistic work on cartoon texts. These texts can cause not only amusement, claim or reflection but also conflict and clash as was briefly mentioned in the introduction chapter, the controversy with the Danish cartoons published in 2005 in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten depicting the prophet Muhammad in inappropriate ways for the majority of Muslims, resulted in diplomatic problems between Arab countries and Denmark, in addition to a general boycott on Danish products in Arab-Islamic societies (Rustomji, 2007).

‧

A cursory review of literature can tell us that most cartoon studies are qualitative, often of anecdotical nature, compiling cartoonist experiences or criticism of the media and news. Such studies make interesting reading. Their journalistic approach also offers insights into the everyday life of cartoonists and editorialists, besides these studies may be useful as data for more systematic and explicit analyses in news production.

The quantitative approaches included time serial analysis of a few editorial cartoonists (Belk 1987, Beniger 1983, Kasen 1980), time series analysis of a variety of news media in editorial cartoons on a single issue (Gamson & Modigliani 1989), and analysis of an icon such as Fischer’s (1986) Statue of the Liberty in American cartoon art. According to Messaris (1994, 1997, 1998), the recognition of pictorial images is based on people’s ordinary, everyday visual perception and does not require any special competences. It is precisely because images are so close to our real-world perceptions that they can be used as “an especially elusive means of audience manipulation” (Messaris, 1998: 74); however, editorial cartoon involves a degree of abstraction, or, as McCloud (1993) specifies: “amplification through simplification” (p. 30).

Cartoonists generally rely on widely shared cultural symbols and metaphors from popular culture which often seem so natural that we accept them through barely conscious thought processes (Edwards, 1997: 29; El Refaie, 2003: 83). Thus, Raskin (1985) takes prior knowledge to be part of a social scenario selected by the cartoonist and reorganized to form the script which is essential for the accomplishment of the cartoons’ humorous effect. However, Pogel and Somers (1989) pointed out that “the indexes are incomplete; independent bibliographical guides appear in limited numbers; and serious critical analysis of editorial cartooning and cartoonists stylistic political, historical, remains in its infancy” (p.368) and Rothman and Olmsted (1966) stated, “knowledge about the characteristics and effects of newspapers cartoons is not based on research evidence but consists predominantly of assumptions, hypotheses and speculations going not far beyond the adage that one picture is worth a thousand words” (p.67).

Some Spanish literature has been written about cartooning in Mexico but is mostly by cartoonist compilations such as “La Caricatura Política [The Political Cartoon]” (Gonzalez,

‧

1995), “La Caricatura Política del Siglo XIX. Colección Alfredo Guati Rojo [The Political Cartoon of 19^th Century: Alfredo Guati Rojo collection]” (Acevedo, 2000; Daumier, 2000), “La historia de un país en caricatura. Caricatura Mexicana de combate 1829-1872 [The history of a caricature country. Mexican combat cartoons 1829-1872]” (Barajas, 2000) or studies of political campaigns such as “Análisis del Discurso: El cartón político en dos periódicos de la ciudad de Puebla durante un mes previo y uno posterior a las elecciones para la gubernatura [Discourse analysis: The political cartoons in two newspapers of Puebla city, a month before and a month after the governor elections]” (Aguilar, 2007).

In the English language, very little research literature has been written about cartooning in Mexico, like the retrospective “The Mexican Revolution and the Cartoon” (Alba, 1966).

However, a political cartoon analysis of the border walls and specifically boarding the fence between Mexico and the United States, although there are studies on cartoons or humour in the academic journals on media and communication, to the best of the researchers’ knowledge, seems non-existent. Therefore, the significance of this research is to be an original contribution for a better understanding of the border wall and the identification of framing similarities and discrepancies between the American and Mexican press.

We have reviewed literature which is available from the main library and libraries of communication and social sciences of National Chengchi University in Taipei as well as National Central Library in Taipei. Online libraries such as Questia and Google Books, also served as important tools in identifying pertinent literature in Spanish and cartooning as well.

The periodical search included Journalism Quarterly, Studies in Visual Communication, Journal of Popular Culture, Journal of Communication, Public Opinion Quarterly, Journal of Mass Communication, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, Revista Sala de Prensa and Global Media and Communication, Journalism, Mass Communication Quarterly and Global Media and Communication.

There is already a rich amount of humor research. Specifically on political cartoons, for instance, Cuff (1945) and Lee and Goguen (2003) wrote about the history of political cartoon on the two sides of the Atlantic. Some studies deal with the relationship between editorial cartoons

‧

and reality, for example, Streicher (1967) argues that they are grounded in reality. They are somewhere between what something or someone is and what it is not (Belton, 2000) while Mulkay (1988), points that humor in general derives from patterns of serious political discourse.

It is an inversion of the serious world – a response to the difficulties occurring in the course of

“socially coordinated production of the serious domain” (p. 197).

Some studies showed the relation between editorial cartoon and its role in persuading the audience about a certain topic. In 2002, Josh Greenberg pointed out that political cartoons are both informative and persuasive because they render normative judgments about social issues by employing a variety of journalistic conventions such as figures of speech, metaphors and irony (p.185). As Savarese (2000) noted, persuasive techniques are used either “deliberately or unwittingly to convince the public of a certain point of view (for or against something) without being explicit” (p.365). However, studies conducted by Cooper and Jahoda (1947) and Carl (1968) demonstrated that the persuasive potential of cartoons might not change readers perceptions since they found evidence to proof that the interpretation of the individual reader was divergent from the cartoonist’s mind. In addition, is difficult to empirically prove a direct causal relationship between the editorial cartoon and the corresponding behavior in the real world.

(Morrison, 1969).

Related to news discourse, research on political cartoons (Morris, 1989; Gombrich, 1978);

news photography (Hall, 1973; Banks, 1994; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1998; Huxford, 2001) and press (Emmison & McHoul, 1987; Gamson & Stuart, 1992) have shown the prevalence in the research of written or verbal discourse while visual news discourse has obtained less attention.

Other studies explore the relationship between the level of satire in political cartoons on the one hand, and the political realities surrounding them on the other. Press (1981) believes that cartooning depends on the political system. In a totalitarian regime, it must praise the system and denounce its enemies. In an authoritarian regime, there is some dispraise, and when the regime becomes brittle, cartooning exposes “their rigid foolishness” (p. 53). In a Western democracy during peacetime, cartoonists are “watchdogs”, keeping power-holders “honest” and

“accountable” (p. 56). Morris (1992) continues to examine the status of political cartoons as low,

‧

medium or high satire. He tests two competing high and medium satire hypotheses by studying cartoons of civil servants and the British royal family, arguing that if they too are portrayed mainly in comic terms, cartooning has become high satire, critiquing politics as an institution.

One conclusion Morris arrives is that royalty occupy an intermediate position as targets of cartoon. They are often portrayed as the victims and servants of politicians. The study supports the medium satire hypothesis: most political cartooning targets the democratic and public segments of decision-making processes in the contemporary state.

On the other hand, several studies focused on the role of symbolism to influence in a cartoon humorous interpretation “reducing the individual’s tension in the area depicted by the emotional theme of the humor stimulus, be it a joke, a cartoon or a situation” (More & Roberts 1957:236). Thus, to enhance the social aspect of humor, providing society with a channel to liberate tension, just as DeSousa & Medhurst (1982) point out, is “Merely the adult’s way of displacing aggression through the adoption of a symbolic substitute” (p.84). In this sense, an editorial cartoon can be cathartic, resulting in an Aristotelian purgation, recognition or relief. Can also be adjustive, resulting in behavioral or material change. Thus, relief can happen upon beholding a negative object or entity being ridiculed, or dysphemized (Lively, 1942).

But symbols are not only seen as a means for stress release. Scholars and observers have noticed the value of condensing the reality, like for example, when editorial cartoons simplified different social groups and their common perspective. In 1966, Victor Alba pointed out that “the cartoon that uses symbols is found particularly in societies or social groups of less cultural refinement: it is the most common form of cartoon” (p.122).

Besides, the cartoon replicates cultural values and norms that might induce the readers to think and reflect about certain topics. As a means of visual discourse, editorial cartoon uses particular symbolic expressions to transform ideas into pictorial symbols, which, according to Berger (1990), can have a “conventional meaning that often carries a great ideal of emotional baggage with it” (p.148). DeSousa and Medhurst (1982) observed, the strength and the impact of an editorial cartoon lies not only in the cartoonist’s intent of success but also “in the degree and the manner by which the cartoonist taps the collective consciousness of readers and thereby

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

21

reaffirms cultural values and individual interpretation of those values” (p.148). Moreover, Carl (1970) concluded that cartoon readers may not interpret cartoons as the cartoonist intended and that no two persons see a single cartoon in exactly the same way, which suggests that cartoons like many visuals, are polysemic.

To conclude, the above review shows that political cartoons have been studied from diverse approaches. Nevertheless, they have not been employed as a means of analyzing its message of a major political event such as the construction of the border fence between Mexico and the U.S.A.