Chapter 7. Political Cartoons and ‘offensiveness’
7.4 Creating Discourse
7.4.5 A Semiotic study of the Jesus and Mo cartoons
Semiology (which was described by Saussure as ‘the study of the role of signs as part of social life’ (1983:15)) is deployed as a foundation for this analysis of how meaning, or particular messages, are communicated through cartoon imagery. Drawing upon the relationship between denotative and connotative readings of the Jesus and Mo cartoons this
203 The quote is an extract from the full apology, and is taken from the Guardian article ‘LSE apologises to
students asked to cover up Jesus and Muhammad T-shirts’, which was published on 20/12/2013. [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/20/lse-university-apology-students-atheism-tshirt- religion-jesus-muhammad (Accessed 14 September 2014)
204 The image is available online: https://homoeconomicusnet.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/20140127- 002048.jpg (Accessed 14 August 2015). In his tweet Nawaz stated, ‘This image is not offensive and I’m sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it’.
205 The Big Questions is a BBC programme which debates moral, ethical and religious questions. 206
The petition described Nawaz as having posted ‘offensive and disrespectful images’ of ‘the Prophets Muhammad and Jesus’, and attracted over 20000 signatories. A counter-petition pledging support for Nawaz also attracted over 8000 signatories.
207 Nick Clegg gave his views during an LBC radio interview. His words were reprinted in an Independent
article on 30/01/2014, ‘Nick Clegg will not drop Lib Dem candidate Maajid Nawaz who tweet a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad and Jesus’. [Online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick- clegg-will-not-drop-lib-dem-candidate-maajid-nawaz-who-tweeted-a-cartoon-of-the-prophet-mohammed-and- jesusclegg-will-not-drop-lib-dem-candidate-9095691.html (Accessed 14 September 2014)
analysis uses Barthesian semiology to explore the steps through which the broader messages of the Jesus and Mo cartoons are communicated. In the cartoon used by the UCL Atheist Society Jesus and Muhammad are shown sitting in a bar together and sharing a drink. The T- shirts worn by students at the LSE Freshers’ Fair displayed two images: firstly, Jesus is shown saying ‘Hey!’ to Muhammad, who replies by saying ‘How ya doing?’; and secondly Jesus and Muhammad are depicted with banners protesting against the drawing of prophets. Each cartoon includes the text ‘Jesus and Mo’ in order to make clear the identity of the two figures. However, their identity is also conveyed through the use of signifiers such as their religious attire (we recognise Jesus as he is wearing a crown of thorns; and Mohammad through his beard and turban). In the cartoon used by the UCL Atheist Society the bar pump and pint glasses also act as signifiers which suggest that both figures are drinking together in a bar or pub. The images displayed in the T-shirt designs also use text which provides anchorage as it allows the reader to choose between possible denotative meanings of the images. In particular, the text used on the banners carried by Jesus and Muhammad makes it clear that the cartoon is satirising religion208. A connotative reading, however, allows us to link this denotative description to one which looks at the way in which an image is understood, at a broader, more associative, level of meaning (Hall, 1997:164). In other words, the signs identified in the denotative reading are attached to a further set of signifieds. In exploring this wider cultural dimension, this thesis nevertheless maintains that meaning remains polysemic. Unlike traditional Saussurean models of semiotics, it is therefore primarily concerned with the complex ‘play’ of meaning at work within imagery rather than simply the analysis of language’s rules and laws.
What messages, therefore, do the cartoons convey? The images used do not obviously mirror some of the crude or negative stereotyping previously highlighted by this chapter (such as the use of imagery linking Muhammad to terrorism, or extremism). Indeed, the image used on the t-shirt in which Jesus and Muhammad greet each other is striking in view of how innocuous the dialogue between the two religious figures is. In this respect, the literal meaning of cartoon (in which Jesus and Muhammad exchange a friendly greeting) also acquires the connotative meaning that an innocuous image is able to offend some believers. In a similar vein, the denotative reading of the image used by the student Atheist Society has already encouraged us to assume that Jesus and Muhammad are drinking alcohol. If we link
208 The banners held by Jesus and Muhammad declare ‘stop drawing holy prophets in a disrespectful manner
this to its wider cultural significance - or connotative meaning – then this depiction taps into and mocks religious prohibitions surrounding the consumption of alcohol. By displaying Jesus and Muhammad engaging in ‘everyday’ interactions (such as sharing a drink together, or greeting one another in a friendly manner) the connotative meaning of the cartoons is that religion (including its beliefs and practices) is treated with a particular reverence which satire should mock.
Any analysis of how representation operates on a broader cultural level can also not ignore how the cartoons clearly disregard the Islamic taboo against depictions of the prophet Muhammad. From this, we may come up with the connotative message that such taboos are ripe for mockery. (The web comic also knowingly pokes fun at this prohibition by claiming that the Muhammad it uses is actually a ‘body double’)209
. Finally, the use of textual anchorage in the image depicting slogans on banners makes explicit through a denotative reading that the cartoon is ridiculing religious based claims of offence, particularly its prohibitions upon ‘disrespectful’ drawings. Barthes (1977) had introduced the idea of anchorage primarily in relation to advertisements or photographs which appeared in newspapers, magazines or other visual forms of media. He argued that the main function of anchorage was ideological. (For example, the captions attached to newspaper photographs are typically presented as simply descriptive rather than ‘anchored’ to encourage a preferred reading). Indeed, Barthes was particularly interested in how the relationship between a sign (whether this takes the form of text or an image) and wider culture is deeply ideological (rather than relatively arbitrary, as in traditional Saussurean semiotics). According to Barthes, the two ‘orders of signification’ (denotation and connotation) combine to produce ideological myths about the world. These myths make dominant cultural and historical values appear ‘natural’ or self-evident. The role of semiotic analysis, therefore, is to ‘denaturalise’ these myths.
Does the ridicule of religion within the cartoons shown here help to circulate ideological myths about the world, and how usefully can these cartoons be viewed as upholding dominant cultural values? The Jesus and Mo web comic was created and surfaced within the
209
The full interview in which the Jesus and Mo cartoonist makes this claim is available online at:
context of our ‘post-secular’ society210
. One feature of this society has been the reassertion within it of atheism and secularism as important and visible identities211. Emilsen (2012:524) argues that what distinguishes the ‘new atheist movement’ from earlier forms of atheism is ‘the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ways it critiques and attacks Islam through its ‘scattergun’ critique of religion in general’. The Introduction of this chapter points out how prejudice on grounds of religious and/or cultural identity has emerged as a significant trigger or factor within contemporary disputes of offence. Chapter Five of this thesis also highlights how our growing concern with disputes of this nature is reflected in some of the language used to debate these disputes, including the emergence of neologisms (such as ‘Islamophobia’ or ‘Christophobia’212
). Some of the prejudice directed at religious groups and believers is attributed to the newly galvanised atheist or secular ‘movement’, or what Fiala (2009) describes as ‘militant atheism’213
. From this perspective, might the mockery of religion in the Jesus and Mo cartoons be viewed as fuelling a secular form of prejudice against religious groups, or those with strongly held religious beliefs? In particular, does its mockery of Islam (and Islamic norms) reinforce dominant cultural values or ideology through its targeting of a minority religion214?
In order to answer this, it is worth returning briefly to the taboo against visual depictions of Muhammad which is adhered to by most Sunni traditions of Islam. In Shia Islam, however, images of Muhammad have been present historically within Islamic art, and there is no overall consensus across the faith over whether images should be prohibited.
210 Section 7.2.2 describes in depth the idea espoused by Habermas (2008) that Western societies can today be
usefully described as ‘post-secular’.
211
This reassertion can be observed in the plethora of books published in the 21st century which are critical of the role and powers of religion. They include The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (2006), and God is Not
Great (2007) by Christopher Hitchens. Many of the ‘New Atheists’, such as Richard Dawkins, also attract a
high media profile and public following.
212
Although the term ‘Christophobia’ is not part of our mainstream lexicon, it was used by MP Ian Paisley in a Commons debate to describe the vilification of Christian beliefs and values. It therefore, forms part of a wider narrative of the modern-day persecution of religious beliefs and believers.
213 Labels like ‘militant atheism’ are increasingly drawn upon in media and political discourse in the 21st
century. For example, in February 2012, the then Conservative chairman, Baroness Warsi, denounced Richard Dawkins in a speech as a ‘secular fundamentalist’ and warned that Britain was under threat from a rising tide of ‘militant secularism’. In her speech, she also argued that religion was being ‘side-lined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere’. In his study of ‘The Politics of New Atheism’ Schulyske (2013:788) refers to how terms such as ‘aggressive atheism’ are also evoked in academic discourse surrounding religious and ethical debates.
214
Of course, globally Islam is a major world religion adhered to by 1.5 billion people. The Jesus and Mo cartoons also ridicule religion more generally, although Jesus and Muhammad form its main focus. However, within the specific context of the UK, the cartoons choose to ridicule a powerful prohibition within a religion adhered to by a minority of its population.
Even though Islam is often conceived and presented as a religion that prohibits pictures, there are important differences between various regions, times and religious interpretations when it comes to the question of the representational and visual arts. (Larsson, 2011:50)
In a similar vein, not all Muslims who entered the discussion surrounding the events provoked by the Jesus and Mo cartoons were offended by the images. Most notably, following the furore caused by his decision to tweet a Jesus and Mo cartoon, Maajid Nawaz claimed that he was ‘speaking up for Islam against the loudmouths who have hijacked it’215
. Furthermore, the censorship of such imagery in parts of our mainstream media may help legitimise or privilege the position of those offended (or help to designate them as the authentic voice of an entire group or community)216. It is also notable that Jesus and Mo is a small online web comic and is not published in print form. (No British national newspaper has published a Jesus and Mo cartoon, although the small circulation atheist magazine The
Freethinker used to publish one every month217) .The creator of the web comic also uses a pseudonym for reasons of personal safety and the website is regularly subject to online attacks. This broader context suggests that it is misleading to view the imagery as reinforcing dominant cultural values or ideology. Nevertheless, despite Maajid Nawaz’s claim that the Jesus and Mo cartoons are ‘inoffensive’, others disagree and believe the imagery to be
‘Islamophobic’ and/or insulting to those with religious faith more generally. The range of readings an image is open to, therefore, draws our attention to the subjective nature of offence and how disputes of offence are enacted around our personal feelings or beliefs, even when these are embedded within broader identities about group membership or religious identity.
215 This quote is taken from a Guardian article written by Nawaz.on 28th January 2014. [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/28/speaking-islam-loudmouths-hijacked (Accessed 18 September 2014)
216 For example, The National Secular Society (NSS) expressed concern when Channel 4 chose to pixelate the
image of Muhammad in their coverage of the row over Maajid Nawaz’s use of the image on Twitter. In a letter to Channel 4, the NSS wrote ‘..you have become complicit in a trend that seeks to insidiously stereotype all Muslim people as reacting in one uniform way (generally presented as overly sensitive and potentially violent)’. In a responding statement, Channel 4 stated, ‘The senior editorial team decided that the showing of the entire illustration, whilst likely to cause offence, was not integral to the story, and therefore took the decision to pixelate’. [Online] Available at: https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4569/channel-4-accused-of-censorship- over-jesus-mo-story (Accessed 18th September 2014)
217
The Jesus and Mo cartoons are also used to illustrate the 2013 book by Russell Blackford, 50 Great Myths
7.5 Summary and conclusions
This chapter has drawn upon religion and religious identity in order to make sense of our preoccupation with the giving and taking of offence, including the relationship between the changing conditions of debate and the nature or character of debate. Analysis of the various data sources (including the controversies they have provoked) demonstrates how the assertion of offence contains a regulatory power which may be used (with varying degrees of success) to preclude or discourage ‘offensive’ forms of expression. The chapter also suggests that the very assertion of offence is increasingly taken as the grounds for why something is felt to be offensive more broadly. This regulatory aspect of ‘offence taking’ is manifest in various ways in some of the examples examined in this chapter: for example, the use of cartoon imagery to critique Israel may be discouraged by those who believe the imagery to be anti-Semitic and/or encourage an anti-Semitic viewpoint, whilst depictions of Muhammad are censored by the UK press as a consequence of the offence they continue to cause.
An important focus of the chapter is how representational practices within our media avert attention from the individualised dimension at work in the taking of offence. For example, representational analysis has enabled this project to observe some of the ways in which distinctions are made between ‘Muslim’ and ‘non-Muslim’ positions, or between ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ identities. In this respect, the response to the Danish cartoon controversy on the part of the British press homogenises how those who share an identity (in this instance, as ‘Muslims’) might construe and interpret ‘offensiveness’. The newspaper editorials are, therefore, unanimous in their declaration that the cartoons are offensive to Muslims. This binary way of categorising entire groups can be observed more broadly in media and popular discourse surrounding the giving and taking of offence. For instance, disputes of offence are often understood as shaped by the competing interests and grievances of different groups so that categories like gender, class, ethnicity, or sexuality also become homogenised in ways which echo our conceptualization of religious identity. This in part is a reflection of the language of identity politics and of the power differentials it seeks to uncover, describe and challenge. However, this way of grouping together different identities may also obscure the diversity of opinion and experience within each group or amongst those who share a common identity.
The data analysis also draws attention to the ways in which the changing conditions of debate impact upon how disputes of offence are enacted and perceived. Firstly, this thesis suggests
that the emergence of new media technologies (such as the online opportunities for debate created by Twitter or Facebook) has contributed to an intensification of pre-existing discussion and social contestation around what might constitute ‘offensiveness’. For example, the controversy arising from the decision by Maajid Nawaz to retweet a Jesus and
Mo cartoon propelled various viewpoints and arguments into the foreground of media
discourse. However, the argument over whether or not it is blasphemous to depict the prophet Muhammad in visual imagery predates both the creation of Twitter and the Jesus and Mo website. In this sense, although the creation of new discursive opportunities can be viewed as helping to amplify or intensify the discussion of particular arguments, it is more difficult to claim that the very nature of debate has changed as a consequence of the changing conditions in which it takes place218.
Secondly, the emergence of new discursive spaces also provides a stronger voice and platform for those who may once have been side-lined or marginalised within the traditional mainstream media. Crucially, the relatively democratised nature of new media technologies (like Twitter or the blogosphere) encourages a multiplicity of voices to participate in the process of creating discourse. For example, the cartoons which appear on the Jesus and Mo website are unlikely to have been published within our national press (particularly in the years following the Danish cartoon controversy). Similarly, the controversies provoked by the web comic encourage us to recognise the diversity of opinion and dissenting voices which prevail within (as well as between) communities, and cautions against the homogenisation of those who share a common identity219. In summary, this chapter asserts that the significance of group membership and identity needs to be considered alongside the significance of this individualised dimension. It also aligns this with the regulatory power of the assertion of offence, whereby offence has become increasingly attached to the distress caused to our sense of selfhood or personal identity.
218
The idea that social media has exposed forms of discourse which once remained ‘hidden’ with our ‘back- stage’ selves is addressed by this thesis in Chapter Five using Goffman’s dramaturgical model.
219
This thesis has drawn attention to the diversity of opinion within groups or communities, however, it is also worth noting that this diversity of opinion will be influenced by the many factors which help to form an individuals’ identity such as their gender, age, class or sexuality. When considering disputes of offence, therefore, it also worth considering the significance of the intersectionality of these different factors. For example, the arguably ‘offensive’ and ‘non-PC’ creation of the character Vicky Pollard (who appeared in the popular sketch show Little Britain) has been explored in light of her representation as both female and working class (see Lockyer; 2010:101-103).