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.”
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.
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.
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
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://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/.
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/.