Boldly Braiding

Undercover Racism vs. Freedom of Expression

Explosions Waiting to Happen

This entry is in reference to the article “The Political Iconography of Muhammad Cartoons: Understanding Cultural and Political Action” by Marion G. Muller and Esra Ozcan.

The publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the Danish periodical Jyllands-Posten depicted sarcastic, humorous, critical, insightful, inflammatory, and/or possibly racist and culturally prejudiced images and concepts depending on the perspective of the viewer. There are two binary vantage points that mark both extremes of how these cartoons have been perceived. The first is that the cartoonist was displaying racist, religiously biased, and culturally ignorant images that are rooted in stereotyped caricatures of the father of the Islamic religion. The opposing perspective is that any such rendition through cartoon artwork is protected by tenets of free speech and expression, and can be judged and criticized, but has the privilege and right of entering the public sphere without censure. Both positions co-exist, and are vehemently defended by governments, cultural institutions, communities and individuals who are grounded in historical contexts informing those ‘standards of respect’ and ‘standards of expression.’

In reality both perspectives are more than valid, and each has to deal the repercussions of the historical tumult that precedes, surrounds, and follows the publication of these cartoons. One would have to be myopic and ignorant to not expect these cartoons to have a backlash from both sides of this binary; the reality being that they could spur dialogue between cultural viewpoints, or serve to widen the gulf between the West and some Muslim communities. The prevalent tensions in the global socio-political landscape indicate that the fire would spur entrenchment in the latter, widening the gulf, and that the artists and publishers will have to face vindication and retaliation from those who have been offended. Who is surprised that threats have been made and attacks incurred?

There are two forms of iconography represented in the discourse surrounding these images. There is the original representation of Muhammad as a religious leader, an icon, to be visual shown with great respect or not at all within Islamic traditions. Then there are the repercussive emanations pulsing from the representation of Muhammad in these cartoons, as they become historic icons. Noting “iconography is a comparative method, aimed at disclosing the meanings of visuals in a specific context at a specific time,” (287) the meanings and associations with these visuals are differentiated by a history of ‘heroic respect’ and ‘societal commentary.’ Icons inevitably are images embedded with meaning, drawn from their place in history and their interpretations by historically placed viewers.

“One can argue that artists were guided by the medium in which they worked: the essential stylistic elements of the cartoon as an art form are exaggeration, ridicule, and distortion. Still the argument is not sufficient to explain the overall negative tone of the cartoons.” (289)

What may go unexamined, but which is brought out in the article, is that two extreme political viewpoints have been expressed in the process of publishing these cartoons. The iconographic meanings swirling around these cartoons illuminate social quandaries that must be recognized and challenged. The newspaper and the cartoonist have proved themselves to be racist and prejudiced to some degree, because the publisher would not put out cartoons depicting Jesus in such a compromising position. It’s seems that extremism is only attributed to the response of Muslim activists to the cartoons, and not to the cartoonist and publisher purveying images that may be representative of a hegemonic view towards Islam in some Western nations. It is necessary not to simply coalesce these images into the political ring of freedom of speech, but to critically analyze them for the racism that under girds the mentality informing the creative venture of the artist. Perhaps the artist and the newspaper and a number of the papers’ readers are racist. This means that the dialogue needs to go beyond free speech and enter into the foray of ongoing Eurocentric and Christian domination of politics, media, and representation in Western nations.

How would the cartoonist(s) and publisher responds to the question, “what cultural socialization were these images informed by?” Is this a racist micro-aggressionor blatant macro-aggression in light of Denmark conservatives' historic racist identifications (or any Western nations' racist tendencies in light of the history of colonization, neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism). The easy escape is to claim freedom of speech, but one must answer to what cultural norms substantiate these types of cartoons, while other visual renderings of religious leaders are prohibited from publication.

Recalling Henri Giroux’s and Stanley Aronowitz’ qualifications of types of intellectual inquiry into the four categories of critical, hegemonic, accommodative, and transformative, these images fall into the hegemonic realm when placed within the social context of ongoing tensions between Western and Muslim nations. These images represent the dominant view of one culture over another, a majority over a minority within Denmark, and contribute to prejudiced cultural viewpoints of non-Muslims towards Muslims. Though the cartoonist(s) and publisher may not face accountability within their home nation, the caustic contribution they have made to ongoing cultural stereotypes, has come home to roost.

“Problems relating to the adjustment of non-democratic systems to the demands of modernization and democratization still present an important challenge in a number of Muslim countries in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. In fact, democracy, freedoms of expression, and freedom of the press are alien, and sometimes contested, terms to Muslim citizens in a variety of contexts.” (289)

In addition to this point made by the authors, what about the problems that the Danish community may have with Muslim culture’s presence in its nation? What type of conservativism exists there, and what fears do members of the Danish population exhibit towards Muslim and Middle Eastern communities? As much as we may be concerned about the reaction of Islamic extremists to these cartoons, we must also be concerned about sublime and quite obvious racist gestures in the form of such visual images. Not to challenge the ideas that are reflected in these cartoons makes members of the accommodative public corroborating witnesses with potentially racist ideology.