The History

To begin to understand the current changes in political cartoons and their rhetoric, it seems only logical that one must 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 16^th 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.” 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.

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 established “the connection between a drawing and a specific political idea in the American imagination.”

After the Revolutionary War, the political cartoon lay somewhat dormant in America for a time, practiced but not overtly influential, as the new government formed, socio-political controversies were not subject to the satirical criticism that usually comes with a stable and established hierarchy. It was nearly a century later, during the fragmentation of the Union and the subsequent Civil War, that the political cartoon made a strong resurgence on the American political scene. Among the most famous and influential of these new cartoons were those featuring caricatures of the corrupt politician William Tweed, created by Tom Nast and used to incite the populace. Through this cartoon, Nast was able to alter the course of events in the volatile social atmosphere of the time, leading to the downfall of a powerful politician. Nast’s harsh commentaries solidified the political cartoon as a craft of its own, and though they lacked the clever subtlety of future generations of cartoonists, they created the idea of political cartoons as a powerful vehicle for social satire.

After Nast proved the potential power of political cartoons, they entered a period of growth, both in production and popularity, and in the 20^th century they 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.

However, the Golden Age, at least that of the editorial cartoon, was not to last forever. As the nation entered the 90s and, after that, the 21^st century, it witnessed a massive digitalization of news media outlets. With innovative new avenues such as the Worldwide Web, the populace became increasingly less dependent on print media to obtain their news, turning more and more to the Web’s myriad sources of information. According to Sargent, newspapers “lost market shares” and many went out of business. To those that remained, political cartoonists were “easy to get rid of,” and the political cartoon, while being popular among readers, has never been a central element of a newspaper’s mandate. Presently, there are fewer than fifty fulltime staff cartoonists doing editorial cartoons for the nations papers. Despite this sharp decline, cartoonists such as Ben Sargent are hopeful with regard to the future of political cartoons and aware of the numerous possibilities that the rhetoric has been offered by digital development. We will examine these shortly, but first, before exploring the shifts in the rhetoric and delivery of political cartoons, we must examine their rhetoric as it has been previously formulated and utilized.

The Rhetoric

First, as Ben Sargent will be a central source of commentary in each of the remaining sections of this examination, I’d like to take a moment to establish his ethos as a commenter on the subject. Sargent began working as an editorial cartoonist for the Austin American Statesman in 1974. He worked there consistently for 35 years, retiring in 2009. During his years as a practicing political cartoonist, Sargent became locally and nationally renowned for his scathing political caricatures and his witty social satires. In 1982, he won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning. He is considered one of the most talented, intellectual political commentators ever to come out of Texas. As was mentioned earlier, he came into the business during what he considers the “Golden Age” or political cartooning, and he stayed with the business long enough to see the massive changes brought to it by the rise of digital media.

(http://www.statesman.com/opinion/sargent/)  

In this discussion of the rhetoric of political cartoons, the ideas of two famous rhetorical theorists will be applied to the rhetoric in question. Before applying them to political cartoons, I will give a brief outline of each rhetorical theory to be discussed. The first will come from Lloyd F. Bitzer’s The Rhetorical Situation and the second will focus on an opposing theory created by Richard E. Vatz in his The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation.

In The Rhetorical Situation, Bitzer makes the argument that “rhetoric is situational.” 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.” 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.” 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.”

Richard E. Vatz, on the other hand, argues that the rhetor is, in fact, “responsible for what he chooses to make salient” 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.” 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.

The research I have conducted shows that, in the case of political cartoons and their rhetoric, both theories can be successfully applied. 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 political cartoons done by two different Bens, who have lived in very different times but who have both shown us effective uses of image to convey socio-political satires.

In accordance with historical progression, let us begin by analyzing the “JOIN or DIE” cartoon drawn by Ben Franklin in 1754. To apply Bitzer’s rhetorical situation to the cartoon, it can certainly be said to have had a clear exigence which 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.

Moving on to the work of the contemporary political cartoonist, Ben Sargent, his own comments suggested elements of both theories. Let us examine the possible connections to be drawn of a particular cartoon, which he drew 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.

Perhaps the rhetoric of political cartoons can fit into the mold of both of these theories because of its unique nature, quite separate 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 affords 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. Hence, there is no room for long-winded political cartoons.

Another aspect of a political cartoon’s rhetoric is the entertainment aspect of the political cartoon. At least in the modern political cartoon, humor is a widely used and almost expected element of this rhetoric. The base nature of caricature is built around the idea of distorting ones features in a way that is humorous or sometimes grotesque. The rhetoric of the political cartoon, when effective, is primarily image driven, makes extensive use of caricature, must be concise, entertaining, and must drive some subjective message into the subconscious of the audience, most strongly affecting their pathos.

The Medium of Delivery and The Future

From the earliest political cartoons discussed in this examination, those of Martin Luther that were created to further his socio-religious agenda, the medium of their delivery has been centered around print media. Luther used woodcut tiles to transfer his images into pamphlets that he distributed amongst the peasantry and the slightly more educated merchant class, promoting his revolt against the all-powerful Catholic Church. In America, Franklin’s “JOIN, or DIE” cartoon was first featured in his newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette. Nast had his satires featured in Harper’s Weekly and, a century later, Sargent began producing cartoons for the Austin American Statesman. Cartoons in general have been, in the past, confined to printed mediums, and the political cartoon has been largely delivered through the medium of the newspaper. Hence the title “editorial cartoon,” the political cartoon found on the editorial page of the newspaper. Over the past few decades, and especially the past decade and a half, this medium has been in a state of intense flux, leading cartoonists on a bumpy road of highs and lows.

Ben Sargent recalls that, when he began his career as an editorial cartoonist, the newspaper was much more of a communal source of news media. Because local papers were so popular at the time, a newspaper could bring “everyone in a community the same story,” and the feeling was akin to the entire city “being around the same campfire at the same time,” receiving information that everyone would have and share. Editorial cartoons, then, would be expected to be seen by at least the majority of the community. If Sargent were do a cartoon, say, “about the mayor, the mayor would see it, and so would everybody else.” It brought a unity to localized perceptions and understanding. National papers, as well, would often be widely read and so the same stories would be reaching people all over the nation. According to Sargent, it was much easier then, to know who would be reading the stories of looking at the cartoons. Then, upon entering the digital age that begun in the 90s, the political cartoon’s most consistent medium began to take large losses in readership due to the booming popularity of new technologies.

According to Ilan Danjoux of the University of Manchester, since the rise of digital media as a primary news outlet in America, the “decline of employment opportunities, growing editorial controls, and the greater use of syndication” has given the impression that editorial cartoons are “a medium in decline.” As was mentioned earlier, cartoonists are more expendable in the eyes of a newspaper than are journalists, and with the decline of readership among newspapers, “the demise of the editorial cartoonist” has been called into question. It might be considered ironic, but the same combination of forces that so popularized the editorial cartoon in the past, are now working to destroy it, these forces being “technological innovation combined with the corporate interests of newspapers.” These new innovations, especially, have fundamentally changed both the production and the distribution of political cartoons. It increased the economical convenience of nationally syndicated cartoons, which became increasingly sanitized for broad audiences, rejecting much of the controversial flare exhibited by previous editorial cartoons. However, despite failing newspaper editorials, an alternative outlet with possibly limitless potential has opened up in the form of the Internet.

Many editorial cartoonists are already escaping the increasingly tight clutches of censured syndication and corporate-driven controls, escaping into the uncensored, affordable, and vast expanse of media known as the Worldwide Web. According to Danjoux, the political cartoon’s “ability to convey complex messages succinctly appears ideally suited to the age of instant messaging.” Ben Sargent, as well, agrees that the rhetoric of the political cartoon is in no real danger, due to the present generation’s apparent affinity for entertainment requiring only the shortest of attention spans. The editorial cartoonist who is linked to newsprint, may die off, but the rhetoric of political cartoons is still far too popular. It is the future of the editorial cartoon that is now uncertain. For the political cartoon, this is primarily a shift in mediums. 

Sargent did express some concern about the new digital medium. He said that, while the web provides the cartoonist with instantaneous delivery and more immediate feedback, the “web is fragmented” in such a way that the political cartoonist of the future may not be able to “know the exact field of his viewers.” In other words, the cartoonist will not be able to tell exactly whom they are reaching. The danger here is that when one is “getting information through the computer, they are getting it selectively,” and so people have the option to lock themselves into an echo chamber, hearing and seeing only what they want to. This would negate the essential purpose of the political cartoon. At the same time he is concerned, Sargent is also intrigued to see where the new mediums take the rhetoric.

One aspect of the Internet is that it opens up the rhetoric of the political cartoon to new multimodal possibilities. Before the digital age, political cartoons existed as an exclusively visual rhetoric, but now, with the Internet, cartoonists are beginning to experiment with tools like Flash Animation in order to expand the possibilities of the rhetoric. These animations can include image, sound, and movement together to create a new genre of political cartoon. Artists such as Clay Bennett, Mark Fiore and Anne Telnas (http://www.anntelnaes.com/) have already pioneered the use of animation in web-based political cartoons. However, even as the medium shifts, most of the characteristics of the rhetoric remain constant. As Ben Sargent said, the concise nature of the political cartoon will remain its strength, and no one will watch “three minute political cartoons.” Caricature, by all indications, will remain a central tool used by the medium, and political cartoons will continue to use their rhetoric to influence socio-political perceptions of the times. 

(Soon to add original attempt at a successful Flash political cartoon)

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.  

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.

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/.