No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Cartoons go global: Provocation, condemnation and the possibility of laughter
Abstract
Since their publication, the Muhammad cartoons featured in Jyllands Posten and Charlie Hebdo have become a symbol of free speech and Western values. These cartoons used provocation as a tool to discuss the limits of free speech and the scope of social self-censorship. In a just society, should the possibility of laughter be distributed equally? Should cartoonists and editors only publish jokes that are universally laughable? What is the proper reaction to these kinds of provocative jokes once the possibility of censorship is ruled out in a liberal context? Is counterspeech or even cancellation a legitimate response?
According to Ernst Gombrich, cartoons provide us the chance to “study the use of symbols in a circumscribed context [and] find out what role the image may play in the household of our mind” (Gombrich 1973, 190). This paper looks at some underexplored implications and outcomes of Ernst Gombrich’s conceptual schemata when such a schemata is applied to cartoons. While we might easily avoid defamatory reference when picking out a subject in writing or speech, cartoon depictions, especially those unaccompanied by speech bubbles or captions, often rely on a visual symbolism typified by the warping of some features the removal of others, and the manifestation of some visual trope or other, more easily lend themselves to defamatory reference. While harms to the referent are many in cases of defamatory cartoons, this paper focuses on the harms to the viewers of such cartoons by the depicter’s message and mode of representation, unique to the cartoon form. I will focus on the harms of misinformation of the viewer by the visual schemata (Gombrich 1960) present in certain cartoons, and the way this misinformative visual schemata (Ibid) may also restrict the possibility of conceptual revisions in its viewership. Harms of this kind come out uniquely in cartoons via norms of cartooning (as a particularly stylized and symbolic mode of visual representation) and the norms of interaction employed in the act of viewing a cartoon. As we’ll see in our case study of the infamous Jyllands Posten cartoons of Muhammad the Prophet, even in cases where a cartoon representation bears no visual similarity to its referent, viewers can easily and reliably pick out the referent by calling to mind, in our focal case, the defamatory stereotypes, stock figures and icons inextricably linked with the referent. I argue that the damage to viewers of these sorts of depictions lies not in the fact that the viewer manages to pick out the intended referent of the depiction but what tools they use to pick out the referent and how such tools of reference (mis)inform their understanding of the referent they’ve picked out.
Religiously offensive speech, i.e. speech that offends members of religious groups, especially religious minorities, is on the rise in western liberal democracies, particularly following the recent wave of right-wing populism in the UK, the US and beyond. But when is such speech wrongful? This paper argues that the wrongfulness of some religiously offensive speech does not depend on some intrinsic feature of it, or on the subjective reaction of its targets. Instead, such wrongfulness depends on the fact that religiously offensive speech normally takes place against the background of enduring social injustices suffered by certain minorities, for example religious discrimination (which it at the same time compounds). In that context, we argue, religiously offensive speech is wrongful when it disables its victims from maintaining an adequately respectful relationship to themselves, and sets back their freedom through domination. Recognizing the wrongfulness of some religiously offensive speech, however, need not entail endorsing its legal regulation all things considered. The paper therefore illustrates different available forms of intervention, ranging from civil law action to state support for the victims of such speech and long-term programmes of citizenship education.
Free speech is a great value and forms the life blood of a civilised society. It is however, one of several values and may sometimes come into conflict with them. In those cases it may need to be restricted. Hate speech is one such case and the author argues that it can and should be prohibited.
French republicanism is usually understood as the legacy of the French Revolution and the Third Republic, a unique example of colorblind assimilation and universal citizenship: the model for understanding immigrant integration in contemporary France. This article challenges this usual conception of the French model, and highlights the extent to which this approach is not successful in conceptualizing the evolution and content of how France’s politics and policies have defined “French republicanism” over the last three decades. To do so, the article emphasizes first the problems of conceiving a national model such as France’s as a dense system of values—a philosophy of integration or a national idiom of citizenship. Second, through the analysis of public discourses and official reports between 1983 and 2012, the article identifies strong variations in the French public narratives, revealing the existence of no less than four different and contradictory schemas throughout the period: nationality-based integration in the 1980s, antidiscrimination in the 1990s, laïcité in the 2000s, and assimilation based on cultural order in the 2010s.
Alessandro Ferrara explains what he terms ‘the democratic horizon’ - the idea that democracy is no longer simply one form of government among others, but is instead almost universally regarded as the only legitimate form of government, the horizon to which most of us look. Professor Ferrara reviews the challenges under which democracies must operate, focusing on hyperpluralism, and impresses a new twist onto the framework of political liberalism. He shows that distinguishing real democracies from imitations can be difficult, responding to this predicament by enriching readers ‘understanding of the spirit of democracy; clearing readers’ views of pluralism from residues of ethnocentrism; and conceiving multiple versions of democratic culture, rooted in the diversity of civilizational contexts.
World politics is entering a new phase, in which the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of international conflict will be cultural. Civilizations - the highest cultural groupings of people - are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. From Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Central Asia, the fault lines of civilizations are the battle lines of the future. In this emerging era of cultural conflict the United States must forge alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible. With alien civilizations the West must be accommodating if possible, but confrontational if necessary. In the final analysis, however, all civilizations will have to learn to tolerate each other.
Copyright © 2006-2010 ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Simon Critchley, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Essex, investigates humour. And tells some pretty good jokes.
Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are two freedoms which have seemed securely embedded in the culture of modern Western societies. Their conjunction in the right of people to express themselves freely on religious matters has seemed a particularly secure and widely-held conviction. So true has this been that, for decades and with few exceptions, that freedom has passed virtually unchallenged both in the politics of Western societies and in Western political thought. The publication of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. and its aftermath put an end to that comfortable consensus and compelled people to reexamine the basis and implications of principles and commitments that they have long taken for granted.2.
Where is the French Plan to Halt Radicalization?” Politico
- Vinocur Nicholas
Commission de Réflexion Sur l’application
- Stasi Bernard