The rhetoric of the political cartoon, as applied by editorial cartoonists in a high-output public profession, can come into being through a synthesis of two conflicting rhetorical theories. One great debate within the realm of rhetorical study has been that which has existed, for the past thirty or so years, between Lloyd F. Bitzer and Richard E. Vatz. Bitzer argued that rhetoric is a response to a situation, Vatz argued that rhetoric creates the situation, and political cartoonists would argue that the creation of their rhetoric is a bit messier than either one of these clean-cut theories can account for. The research examined in this paper suggests that the ideas of detached rhetorical theorists may, in certain instances, differ from the realities of public rhetors who are consistently caught within the vortex of continual public discourse. Looking through the lens of the editorial cartoonist, essentially a producer of weekly public discourse, this paper will explore both the situations that have spawned the rhetoric of the political cartoon, and the political rhetoric that has been used, by these cartoonists, to create salience. The examination will hope to help answer the question, for Bitzer and Vatz, of whether or not their theories can coexist within the realm of public discourse. Does this debate have to remain black and white, or can their argument, like so many other aspects of life, meet in a gray area?

In order to put the theories of Bitzer and Vatz into the context of the political cartoon, one must first understand what the theories claim and why they have been the source of such debate. In “The Rhetorical Situation,” Bitzer makes the argument that “rhetoric is situational.”(3) He asserts that, because the purpose of rhetoric is to “effect change,” there must invariably be a situation that exists prior to the rhetoric and that calls the rhetoric into existence. Following this line of reasoning, rhetorical discourse is therefore a response to situation. The situation is the controlling factor here, regulating the rhetoric through necessity. Bitzer defines this rhetorical situation as “a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence.”(6) The rhetorical discourse participates in the situation and thus obtains its meaning. According to Bitzer, the rhetorical situation has several required elements: exigence, audience, and constraints. An exigence is an “imperfection marked by urgency.”(6) It must be changeable, and it must be something that the rhetorical discourse can persuade the audience to alter. The audience is rather self-explanatory, being composed of those who are meant to receive the message of the discourse, be called to act, and ultimately alter the situation. The constraints are often broad and complex, but can be defined as those elements of a situation that “have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence.”

(http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~davis/crs/E398t/Bitzer--Rhetorical%20Situation.pdf)

Vatz, on the other hand, argues that the rhetor is, in fact, “responsible for what he chooses to make salient”(158) within a situation. In other words, the rhetorical discourse in not objectively set by the situation, but rather subjectively selected by the rhetor, who does not respond to so much as interpret the situation, placing emphasis wherever they choose. Rhetorical discourse is therefore more of “an act of creativity,” rather than a natural response to an external exigence. Vatz contradicts Bitzer by suggesting that “the utterance strongly invites the exigence” and that “rhetoric controls the situational response.” (159) In this assertion, Vatz lends the power and influence to the creator of the rhetoric, and to the rhetoric itself, rather than to the situation.

(http://www.public.iastate.edu/~drrussel/www548/vatz.pdf)

To begin a discussion centered upon political cartoons and their rhetoric as it applies to these theories, it seems only logical that one must also have some knowledge of the history and origins of the political cartoon. Political cartoons have been around, as a vehicle for social and political commentary, for centuries, even millennia. Though the first political cartoon emerged in Egypt around 1360 BC, for our purposes, we will begin our examination much later, when the political cartoon began to take on a visual rhetoric more similar to that of today. During the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, Germany witnessed the rise of caricature as a visual means of communicating the socio-religious ideals of Martin Luther. Luther found that this visual rhetoric was especially effective within a society that was neither “too primitive nor too advanced.”(Source- see website below paragraph) In order to reach a largely illiterate population of peasantry, images proved to be the most efficient medium, and as they also provided a source of entertainment to the more educated merchant class, they were essentially able to reach a wider range of people than words alone could have hoped to reach. Luther used juxtaposed images to convey his ideas about the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, one image depicting Jesus as he chastised the wealthy religious sect in Jerusalem and the other showing the Pope receiving money from the common folk and distributing it amongst a new wealthy hierarchy of religious practitioners. In light of the current religious hegemony, these images had a great impact upon the biblically educated populace. During the following centuries, the popularity of the medium continued to grow, new artists all across Europe perfecting the craft of caricature and adapting it to an increasingly broad range of social issues.

(http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma96/puck/part1.html)

Already, using this somewhat medieval example, we can begin to see the nature of the political cartoon, its rhetoric, and that rhetoric’s connection to both Bitzer and Vatz. There is clear evidence, in Luther’s Reformation, of an exigence. The Catholic Church, during the time, reigned supreme as the dominant religious organization on the European continent. Much of the populace had begun to feel as if the Church was abusing its powers, and not adhering to the scriptures that it claimed to advocate. This discontent was the manifest exigence for Luther’s rhetoric, which he sought to communicate to his audience, the common folk as well as the merchant class of his nation. His commentary was constrained by both level of education within his audience, which prompted to use of image and caricature, and the complete authority of the Church, which kept his rhetoric subversive lest he be burned or beheaded. However, in accordance with Vatz, it was Luther who chose to pinpoint the inadequacies of the Church. It was Luther’s beliefs, and his own feeling of responsibility to the people, that brought about the rhetoric that created a situation in which people revolted against the Church.

As political cartoons were born of rebellion, so did they act as a medium of defiance in America, even before the formation of the union and the drafting of the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin was credited with creating the first political cartoon on American soil, when he published his “JOIN, or DIE” cartoon of 1754, which sought to inspire the colonies to unite against the Native American threat. This idea of colonial unity was integral in the Revolution that Franklin would help to incite during the next decade. In this image, Franklin created “the connection between a drawing and a specific political idea in the American imagination.” (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma96/puck/part1.html)

To apply Bitzer’s rhetorical situation to this cartoon, it can certainly be said to have had a clear exigence that led to its creation. During the time period, the British-American colonies were divided on the subject of whether or not to wage war on the French and their Native American allies in what would become known as the French and Indian War. This division, Franklin felt, put the colonies in peril. He responded to the situation by creating a powerful symbol, directed towards his fellow colonists, that sought to alter their perceptions regarding the necessity of a united front against their enemies. One chief constraint of the situation was the lack of expediency with which he could transport the image, impeding his ability to circulate it quickly throughout the entirety of the colonies. Bitzer could certainly argue that, without the immediate threat of the French and their allies, the rhetoric would not have been necessary and, in all probability, would not have been created. On the other hand, the theories of Vatz could be applied to the cartoon with regard to Franklin’s independent sentiments. Because Franklin, by this point, has already exhibited evidence of his rebellious nature, a sound argument could be made surrounding his emphasis on the colonies, rather than the Crown, and the subtle message he was sending to his fellows. Fight not for Britain and her Crown, but instead for the preservation of the colonies. Incidentally, the image gained great significance as a symbol of American independence, valor, and unity. Whether intentional or not, it is clear that Franklin’s visual rhetoric created an idea of American unity that would later contribute to situational changes. In this case, the two conflicting theories can both be soundly applied.

Though there is more to be said about the history of the political cartoon, it is in the interest of this paper to provide a prevalent focus upon the modern rhetoric of political cartoons. It will suffice to end this discussion of the political cartoon’s history by saying that, from the beginning up until today, the rhetoric of political cartoons has been used primarily as an instrument of incitement, usually created as a result of a tumultuous atmosphere, and often quite effective at shifting public opinion and thus creating an alternate situation. By the modern rhetoric of the political cartoon, this paper will refer to the political cartoons created over the last half-century. During this time period, political cartoons flourished as a medium of social commentary, printed in newspapers and aimed towards both local and national issues of controversy. However, due to the largely conservative sentiments of the 1950s, during which an established social dogma pervaded much of the nation, political cartoons seemed to have lost their luster. According to Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist Ben Sargent, it was the momentous social upheavals of the 1960s, along with the revolutionary Underground Comix movement, that renewed the power of the political cartoon. Underground artists such as Robert Crumb, Gilbert Shelton, Jack Jackson, and Frank Stack were instrumental in creating a shift in what the cartoon medium could do. They pioneered a style of cartooning that transcended all previous social limitation, producing truly uncensored social satires that brought in a new age of political cartooning. Sargent remembers that, during the tail end of the heyday of Underground Comix, political cartoonists such as Pat Oliphant and Jeff MacNelly appeared on the scene as nationwide forces, combining the traditional caricature and style of political cartoons with the raw lack of restraint displayed by the Beatniks and their Underground artists. Sargent said that he was “fortunate enough to enter the business during the Golden Age” of political cartoons. As the popularity of both social satire and political criticism skyrocketed, so did the demand for the editorial cartoon, which is essentially a political cartoon placed on the editorial page of a newspaper. This demand resulted in a sharp increase of fulltime political cartoonists, working at both local and nationally syndicated media production companies. Sargent said that, during the 70s and 80s, there were as many as “200 fulltime editorial cartoonists” working for newspapers around the country.

It was during this time that the rhetoric of the political cartoon really became solidified and gained a reputation for its concise commentary and subtle socio-political attacks. Sargent worked for the Austin American Statesman from 1974 to 2009, and so saw this rhetoric blossom. Here it would be beneficial to mention that, according to Sargent, the rhetoric of the cartoon is quite separate and unique from that of the written word. Sargent said, of the rhetoric of political cartoons, that “the way a cartoon works, being a picture, is that it goes straight to the readers subconscious.” Whereas written commentary, especially in the realm of journalism, deals largely with facts and statistics on a more rational and conscious level, the cartoons strive to hit the viewers on “a subliminal level.” If the cartoon is effective, it will “speak directly to your feelings and prejudices.” This comment indicates that the rhetoric of the political cartoon deals primarily with the pathos. While the cartoon is usually a response to some aspect of the political or social atmosphere, it does not issue a clear call for action or provide a logical course of action. Instead it merely stirs the audience, rattling their emotions, usually toward some form of social defiance. The subtlety and the ambiguity of this rhetoric afford the artist a certain power, but also certain limitations. For example, if the rhetoric is going to effectively hit the audience’s subconscious, it must be very concise and yet deliver a certain amount of impact. It should be noted that Bitzer and Vatz, in their arguments, were not speaking about a particular rhetorical discourse that deals primarily with the pathos and works on subconscious levels. However, as their arguments claim to be universally applicable to rhetorical discourse, and so this rhetoric, as well, should be applicable.

When interviewing Ben Sargent, I inquired about his methods of conceiving and producing political cartoons. He began by saying that, for him, it “happens all different ways.” Most often, he would “start with an idea of what he wanted to say,” and apply that idea to an image. Sometimes the image would come first and then he would “try to wrap it around a news story” that he wanted to comment on. Always, though, the idea of an editorial cartoon is to “express an opinion on a given story.” Sargent believes that, while the cartoonist might hope to influence the perception of the audience, the visual rhetoric of the cartoon is not specifically geared towards logical persuasion. The above answers seemed to indicate aspects of both rhetorical theories in question, and so, to better get a hold on which of the two viewpoints better applies to the rhetoric of political cartoons, I decided to analyze one of Sargent’s own cartoons.

He drew this particular cartoon in 2008 in response to a Congressional bipartisan report that revealed the harsh, tortuous treatment of imprisoned Al Qaeda members in military prisons such as that of Guantanamo Bay. According to Ben’s methods and thoughts, this report, or its transcription in a local or nationally syndicated paper, would be the exigence for the cartoon. His audience would be the paper’s readership, and, if the cartoon was to become picked up by a national syndicate, a general American audience. The constraints would be largely due to conflicting political ideologies; perhaps those with blind faith in the government would not be so receptive to the criticism. However, it would not be an objective response to an exigence, but rather a highly subjective commentary, fueled not only by the facts of the situation but also the sentiments of the cartoonist. The rhetoric, spun with an emphasis on the brutality and injustice of the present military interrogation, could very well incite people and, in effect, alter the situation. Sargent, however, did convey his idea that the rhetoric of journalism is a more efficient means of persuasion, with its length and ability to divulge the details of the situation. Again, it seems that elements of both Bitzer and Vatz can successfully be applied.

There is much evidence, both in the Sargent’s commentary and in the historical application of the political cartoon and its rhetoric, that there exists within the rhetoric of the political cartoon a synthesis of the theories of Bitzer and Vatz. An editorial cartoonist is required, by the token of their profession, to respond to a political event or news story. The editorial cartoonist must conceive of the image in such a way that it resonates with their readership, and so the rhetoric of the image is constrained by the necessity of this resonance. The cartoon must respond to the story in a subjective manner, and the cartoonist is required to inject his or her sentiments into the rhetoric, to place a unique emphasis on the aspects of the story that he or she must choose. The political cartoonist must do this publicly, to influence the public on a subliminal level that most directly deals with the pathos, and often leads to alternate situations in the future. It is almost as if the initial news story is Bitzer’s exigence, but as soon as it enters the mind of the cartoonist, the choices and the creativity that Vatz emphasizes take over, until the cartoon is put into circulation, at which point the audience, along with the social constraints surrounding the audience, act as a filter through which the meaning of the cartoon is lost or, if it is effective, used to alter the situation. In conclusion, it is apparent that, at least in certain real-life situations, public rhetors are able to use both of these competing theories, or a synthesis of the two, in order to create their rhetoric. 

Bibliography

Lloyd F. Bitzer. The Rhetorical Situation. Pennsylvania State University Press. 1968. Web. April 7, 2012.
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~davis/crs/E398t/BitzerRhetorical%20Situation.pdf.  

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma96/puck/part1.html

Richard E. Vatz. The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation. 1973. Web. April 9, 2012. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40236848?uid=35369&uid=3739920&uid=2134&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=67&uid=35366&uid=5910584&uid=62&uid=3739256&sid=56017807623.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~drrussel/www548/vatz.pdf

Jimmy Margulies. Article with Clay Bennett. Journal PS: Political Science and Politics, 2007. Web. April 7, 2012
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/PSApr07Margulies.pdf


Ilan  Danjoux. Reconsidering the Decline of the Editorial Cartoon. PS: Political Science and Politics, 2007. Web. April 7, 2012.
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/PSApr07Danjoux.pdf


Lucien Leon. An Animated Discussion About Political Cartoons. The Punch, 2011. Web. April 8, 2012.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/an-animated-discussion-about-political-cartoons/.