The reporting of a ‘cartoon crisis’: Using representation theory to explore the

Although the publication of the aforementioned cartoon using the stars of David generated a wider discussion about the nature of anti-Semitism, the cartoons used in the intertextual readings can be viewed primarily a form of commentary upon events as they occur in the real world. However, representation theory is used in this project to explore the significance of cartoons which have contributed more directly to the creation, rather than simply reflection of broader political events. The third research question is examined in light of the controversy generated by the publication in 2005 of images of the prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. There has been much academic and journalistic discussion regarding use and nature of the imagery depicted in these cartoons (see e.g. Hakam, 2009; Levey and Modood, 2009; Cohen, 2012; Norton, 2013). However, this thesis looks primarily at the response the cartoons provoked amongst British national newspapers. The research process is informed by the conceptual framework developed by Hall (1997) to explore the process of representation within the media. Hall’s analytical approach is used in this thesis to examine written text within newspaper editorials, (although his approach has also been used to explore imagery and spoken language).

Hall’s interest in representation is located both within an understanding of the complexity of meaning(s) surrounding images or texts; and in an analysis of how power operates in society in order to shape and circulate these meanings. The methodological approach advanced by this project agrees with the view that culture is constructed through the ideas that people have about it, and the practices that flow from those ideas (Rose, 2007:1). According to Hall,

Culture…is not so much a set of things – novels and paintings or TV programmes or comics – as a process, a set of practices. Primarily, culture is concerned with the production and

exchange of meanings – the ‘giving and taking of meaning’ – between members of a society or group… (Hall, 1997:2)

Hall’s framework moves beyond the traditional view of representation which has attempted to capture the level of distortion involved in media images and depictions of particular groups, events or ideas. This view is dependent upon the assumption that it is possible to identify a fixed or ‘true’ meaning (independent of representations of an event or idea) against which the level of distortion within representations can be measured. (For example, the scale of the offence generated by the Danish cartoons was, in part, a reflection of how the cartoons were felt to depict a distorted view of Muhammad and/or Muslims more generally). However, Hall maintains that there is never one agreed or fixed meaning of an event as this is always dependent upon how it is interpreted. Furthermore, interpretation is also dependent upon how the media represents something. Hall, therefore, views representation not simply as a process which occurs after the event, but as an important component of the event, and as constitutive of it. In this sense, the focus of sociological enquiry is drawn towards how meanings are able to enter into texts or images, and how particular forms of knowledge are (re)produced through them.

Hall argues that we need access to a shared language in order to exchange and externalise the meanings we are making of the world. He also defines language broadly:

Any sound, word, image or object which functions as a sign83, and is organised with other signs into a system which is capable of carrying and expressing meaning is, from this point of view, ‘a language’. (Hall, 1997:19)

A political cartoon or newspaper editorial, therefore, can be studied as a type of language which will carry meaning through their use of signifying processes or practices:

Meaning is produced within language, in and through various representational systems which, for convenience, we call ‘languages’. Meaning is produced by the practice, the ‘work’, of representation. It is constructed through signifying – i.e. meaning-producing – practices. (Hall, 1997:28)

Signifying practices might, for example, involve the use of stereotyping which works through the ‘construction of ‘otherness’ and exclusion’ (Hall, 1997:257). According to Hall, stereotyping tends to occur where there are inequalities of power so that ‘power is usually directed against the subordinate or excluded group’ (1998:258). Crucially, our understanding of representation cannot be divorced from the issue of power. Hall argues that although images or texts do not have a fixed meaning, the use of power and ideology can attempt to ‘fix’ or naturalize the meaning of an image or text. In this context, power is understood not only in terms of economic power, but also in broader cultural or symbolic terms; including the power to represent someone or something in a certain way – within a certain ‘regime of representation’ (Hall, 1997:259). Hall describes this process as ‘the exercise of symbolic power through representational practices’ (ibid.).

This project examines briefly the use of signifying practices within the most controversial of the Danish cartoons – an image by cartoonist Kurt Westergaard which shows Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. However, the use of stereotyping in the Danish cartoons has been debated at length by the academic community (see e.g. Klausen, 2009; Tamaz, 2010; Poole, 2009). The project, therefore, conducts a detailed analysis of the representational practices at work within British newspapers in order to consider the response to the publication of the cartoons and the offence they provoked. The analysis uses editorials from the following national newspapers as data: The Times, The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Guardian84. All of the editorials discuss the decision by British newspapers not to republish the cartoons and debate their ‘offensive’ nature. The newspapers were chosen to reflect a cross section of political opinion (ranging from the right of centre Daily Mail to the liberal-left Guardian). They also include broadsheets and tabloid publications (including the ‘red-top’ Sun newspaper and ‘middle-market’ Daily Mail). The representational strategies at work within the paper editorials are critically examined. In particular, the analysis considers how the representation of ‘difference’ is produced and maintained through the signifying practices used in each of the editorials. In summary, the data analysis is used to answer the third research question, particularly in light of how ‘offence’ continues to provoke discussion within our media.

84

The editorial from the Guardian was published on 4th February 2006. All other editorials were published on 3rd February 2006.