Toggle left Slidebar
View Account View Account

Political Cartoonists and Wokeness

When Rishi Sunak, in his infinite wisdom, decided to appoint Esther McVey as a minister responsible for the government’s anti-woke agenda, I thought it was an apt time to see if ‘Wokeness’ affects the world of political cartooning. The term ‘Woke’ was originally mentioned in the Black community in the United States to describe someone who is educated about social injustice or as the Guardian’s Nicola Jennings puts it, is ‘aware of social inequality’. Many like the Evening Standard’s Christian Adams originally thought it was just another term for ‘Political Correctness’. The majority of cartoonists, largely those under 60, told me ‘Wokeness’, in its original meaning, reflects real progress within society. This is what Andy Davey succinctly describes as ‘a shedding of old, long-held prejudices; the prejudices of the powerful towards the powerless.’

Over the last few years ‘Wokeness’ has become a dirty word amongst many on the right of politics who criticise progressive values. For instance, justifying his wife’s appointment, McVey’s husband claimed: “There’s a huge amount of taxpayers money wasted on this equality, diversity and inclusion thing.” Former Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell, who was himself a recent victim of political correctness, refutes this. He believes newspapers like the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail have manipulated ‘Wokeness’ for their own ends. According to Bell: ‘It’s something that exorcises the Daily Telegraph and that is basically it. They have a whole raft of psychopaths who write columns on the subject in order to appease their readers.’ Interestingly, Andy Davey, who works for that newspaper, agrees with Bell, stating ‘that papers that publish my work are like the majority of the UK media right-wing, which means their natural position will mostly be ‘anti-woke’.’ Davey’s colleague, Patrick Blower, believes that left-wing cartoonists like Steve Bell are maybe being too virtuous and thereby missing the main point that political cartooning has always been a cruel and unfair art form: ‘Cartoonists drawing for progressive publications may be on the right side of history but it’s way more fun on the other side of the argument. There’s a left-wing Venn diagram where being a Tory is synonymous with being evil. Anyone who falls into that category can be satirised irrespective of colour, gender or religion.’ 

David English, the former editor of the Daily Mail from 1971 to 1992, stated in his newspaper that cartoonists in Britain have earned the freedom to ridicule and target whoever they feel deserves their vitriolic attention: ‘No one in public lite can expect to escape their remorseless eye. Yes they are often cruel: yes, they are often unfair! yes, they can turn a gentle caricature into a grotesque gargoyle. Yet without them, how impoverished would we be. For the cartoonist, given that very special license which British society has granted him over the centuries, is able to say things through his drawings which the rest of us only dare whisper. Of course the cartoonist’s work is invariably offensive to his victim.’ You would not usually find the Independent’s Dave Brown agreeing with a former editor of the Daily Mail but he does on this point: ‘Of course as a cartoonist I work on that margin of what is acceptable, the cartoon needs to unsettle and discomfort the reader a little if it is to penetrate the target and not simply bounce off.’

Apart from changes in the meaning of Wokeness’ what is important is how it may have impacted on the work of political cartoonists. Have newspaper editors, who are aware of present sensitivities, insisting that their cartoonists take note and avoid offending  any specific ethnic, gender or religious groups? Steve Bright, for one, has noticed how editors are now certainly more wary of causing offence in cartoons: ‘Usually, we'll discuss any potential of that happening at the 'ideas' stage, before a line is drawn, and ideas are either dumped or tweaked or I spend a bit of time reassuring the editor of the day that I had no intention of drawing the bit they feared I might be drawing. So, we head it off at the pass mostly. I think in recent years there have been only two cartoons I've drawn to completion that didn't make it into the following day's paper.‘ Christian Adams has only rarely been advised to change something which might give offence: ‘Jokes about mental health and disability have to be handled carefully. I once described Theresa May as ‘cuckoo’ (the image was a clock) and was advised not to use that word by my editor.’ Cartoonists who draw characters with big noses can sometimes lead to accusations of anti-semitism especially if they are Jewish. Nicola Jennings told me that at the Guardian they have occasionally asked her ‘to reduce the size of a nose or darken/lighten someone's skin colour‘ in order not to offend Jewish or Black people. The Independent’s Dave Brown is of the opinion that the pendulum has swung too far the other way and that too many people today are taking offence for the sake of it: ‘Unfortunately, there seems to be an increasing trend for people to believe they have a right not to be offended, or worse, that anything deemed offensive should be censored.’ For example, at the Times, Morten Morland has said that whenever he draws Diane Abbott or Priti Patel, readers complain: ‘It’s usually because they disagree with the cartoon itself,’ he says, ‘and need something to hit back with. So by hinting that the caricature is racist they aim to discredit the whole cartoon.’

Christian Adams thinks that because it has become such an obsession with the right-wing press he no longer knows what ‘Wokeness’ really stands for anymore. For instance, “the Daily Mail,” Adams says “is using it to describe the most random of things. Roads, animals, the weather.” However, is all criticism of ‘Wokeness’ unfair? Sometimes it can be justified as Andy Davey explains: ‘Like most things, it can be hijacked by angry people who want to provoke a reaction by being more and more extreme in their self-proclaimed wokeness; people who like grand-standing and virtue-signalling, and around whom the whiff of narcissism is strong.’ In concurrence with Davey, Steve Bright believes the term ‘Wokeness’ has been seized upon by all sides and as a result its original intention has been lost: ‘Woke has no easy definition these days. People use the term to suit their own agendas, and what was once a word that stood for social and political enlightenment and awareness (something we should all aspire to, I think), has been weaponised by those who make demands that go well beyond an understanding of the feelings of others, and in turn 'woke' has become a pejorative by those who fear it infringes on their values. Today's woke is a bastardisation of its original meaning, and the nemesis of its own etymology.’ 

Peter Brookes is of the opinion that the whole subject of ‘Wokeness’ is a very tricky one for cartoonists as it is far more complicated a subject than at first it appears: ‘On the diversity and woke thing, it is difficult to define a clear position because there are too many aspects to it. Some people are no longer talking about it whilst others get fired up on it. Also your own mind changes over time’.  Brooke’s mixed feelings and possible contradictory ideas on the subject are not uncommon amongst fellow practitioners. According to Dutch cartoonist, Tjeerd Royaards, ‘I tend not to draw about woke culture because I am ambivalent about it, and I think my ambivalence is shared by many cartoonists… Most cartoonists like to see themselves on the side of the oppressed. In short, most consider themselves to be woke. But cartoonists also like to see themselves as champions of freedom of expression. And this is where tension arises. Because being woke has at times evolved into cancel culture, with large groups of people protesting as certain speakers where invited to speak at universities, or going after people with certain opinions on social media, with the purpose of censoring or publicly humiliating these individuals. And cartoonists have not been spared this fate; often using stereotypes as part of our visual language, the way we portray certain groups or ethnicities in our work has sparked numerous incidents in the past few years.’

‘Wokeness’ has definitely had an impact on other forms of satire both visual and stand up. This has led to comedians and cartoonists now being severely restricted on the selection and treatment of their subject matter. I spoke with an American comedian, Greg Schwem, who specialises in doing stand up for corporate organisations. Whereas in the past, he told me he could judge for himself what would be acceptable or not, he is now forced to sign a contract with a number of organisations who have restricted what he can make jokes about. For example, most of his contracts read: 

‘The Artist will, under no circumstances, be profane. Or perform material that is objectively offensive or unwelcome based on race, colour, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, age, marital status, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation or gender identity.’ 

With such restrictions, one wonders for comedians like Schwem, what topics are left.

The vast majority of cartoonists I have spoken to have deliberately avoided the transgender debate mainly because it’s a very contentious issue. Peter Brookes for one explains why he stays clear of it: ‘An interesting issue from my point of view is that I haven’t done one cartoon on the whole trans thing. Firstly, because I am a bloke, and secondly it doesn't really impinge on Westminster politics. Although saying that, Keir Starmer made it an issue when he said it is "not right" to say only women have a cervix. He wanted to side with the people saying the trans thing. He then realised that he had got it wrong and he doesn't believe that any more.‘

Another reason why cartoonists may have kept away from this issue is as a result of Stella Perrett’s experiences of being cancelled at the Daily Worker after drawing a cartoon on the subject of transitioning.  The offending cartoon which in her words ‘was a literal comment on the very real, physical, fear women and girls feel at the prospect of entire men being allowed into ‘Women-only’ spaces. It featured a crocodile telling several worried newts: 'Don't worry your pretty little heads! I'm transitioning as a newt!' Despite publishing the cartoon, the newspaper fired Perrett (who was an unpaid contributor) after the paper received a ferocious backlash led on social media by columnist Owen Jones, who described the cartoon as 'vicious'.  Without informing Perrett, the newspaper immediately published an apology. It even led to a phone call from the police after a 'hate crime' was reported and recorded.

Depending on which newspaper they work for, and the varying degrees of freedom each cartoonist may have, the majority do now, in any case, self-censor to avoid any problems or issues. According to Steve Bell:”I think cartoonists should be free to comment, but obviously you have to think about what you are saying. You don’t just blow out the first thing that comes into your head, you consider what you are saying. That can be difficult’. Andy Davey automatically self-censors especially when it come to diversity which he avoids as he feels such a subject could easily trip him up: ‘I have never experienced any censorship on the matter; largely because I steer clear of the subject. I don’t see it as a huge issue. It’s part of the so-called “culture wars” - a deliberate distraction from the more important issues afflicting our society – poverty, inequality, government corruption, hypocrisy and lies, the influence of big money and more.’ Dave Brown follows the same line: ‘I prefer to concentrate my fire on recognisable individual politicians and try to avoid drawing figures representing groups of people, which might result in stereotyping.’ Peter Brookes has taken note of what editors expect, with what he calls ‘reverse censorship’ and so gives things like diversity a great deal of thought.“Cartoons ought to also reflect what is going on in society,” he told me, adding “all you have to do is look at television adverts and everyone is a mixed race family, you don't see White or Black families”. Brookes made this decision on his own volition, whereas Ian Hislop instructed all the cartoonists who draw for Private Eye to make sure they include people from diverse backgrounds in their work.  Paradoxically it led to pocket cartoonist, Kathryn Lamb, unhappily likened ‘inking in’ her cartoon faces to ‘blacking up’. One cartoonist, who did not want to be named, was told to colour one of the figures in his cartoon despite it undermining the gag itself. What has exacerbated this issue is the fact that British cartoonists have always been predominantly white and male, which, as the Sunday Times’s Nick Newman says ‘can make any joke about ethnicity feel awkward or patronising. Cartoonists may be cowards, but we are not afraid to admit to our cowardice in avoiding the issue.’

It is not surprising then that Newman finds the growing pressure to depict diversity one of the trickiest problems for all cartoonists: ‘Nowadays readers often write to publications complaining about the dearth of ethnic minorities in our drawings and demand for cartoons to be more inclusive. It’s like being trapped in a bad political cartoon, walking a tightrope above a minefield. Cartoons involve laughing at someone. If that person is Black, you risk appearing racist; even including a BAME character in the background of drawing can lead to accusations of tokenism (‘background box-tickers’). Including any minority character in a cartoon can run the risk of implying that the cartoon is about race and so can inadvertently politicise the cartoon. At the end of the day, it’s safer to make the pale, male and stale the butt of the joke.’ Patrick Blower makes roughly the same point: ‘We’re not that far off to a point where cartoonists will only be able to lampoon white, public school-educated, biologically-born males. Even as Britain becomes more and more ethnically diverse, satirical drawings will increasingly resemble an all-white Giles crowd scene from the 1950’s. ‘

Political cartooning as a profession in Britain has always been dominated by Caucasian men. The question therefore is how can newspapers today properly represent minority and ethnic interests amongst cartoonists? Out of all the British national dailies, the Guardian, has perhaps done more to change that. In the late 1960s, it employed the only person of colour to work as a full-time cartoonist in this country. That was the Indian born Attupurathu Abraham better known as Abu. Unlike other national dailies the Guardian also regularly features today the work of several female cartoonists. The Guardian has not stopped there. Recently it published an advertisement attempting to attract potential new cartoonists from what it called ‘under represented’ groups. It read:

‘If you are part of an under represented group through your race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion, or come from a socially or economically disadvantaged background, we invite you to apply. You'll learn what it takes to be a Guardian cartoonist: everything from the kind of brief you're given, to the generation of ideas, to completing your artwork within tight time constraints.

Interestingly, and what one would think would be the most important prerequisite to becoming a successful cartoonist, there is no mention of the word ‘talent’ as a criterion. More importantly, is the moral question, of whether we should be seeking to drew people into an insecure and unreliable career path, where the entire profession consists of a dozen full-time positions in the national press. Should we in fact be directing our fire at newspapers, who are year by year, reducing the amount of work for political cartoonists, perhaps in part because of a lack of courage around these increasing complexities?

You have to be exceptionally talented to even stand a chance of employment on a national newspaper. Being brought up and inspired by Britain’s long and illustrious cartoon heritage also helps it seems. So we are now in a position where an aspiring and talented cartoonist has to patiently wait until someone dies on the job or is fired before a vacancy becomes available. Political cartoonists tend to see it very much a vocation so they often don’t retire. For example, Mac still draws for the Mail on Sunday and is 88 years old, whilst Peter Brookes at The Times is a mere 81 years old. According to Andy Davey: ‘Newspapers hang on to cartoonists who tend to carry on until they can no longer hold a quill, so there is a legacy of paleness, maleness and staleness. I’m not saying that Old White Men are a bad thing (speaking as one), just that there are so few perches for cartoonists of any stripe. In addition to that, newspapers are read by fewer and fewer people, so young budding satirists of diverse backgrounds might see nothing attractive about working in a dying medium. Also, you have to be a bit of a nerd to want to immerse yourself in political history, cartoon style, news and current affairs, and being a nerd is not an attractive career choice for the funky young person. It’s also passive aggressive, which is not a nice trait to develop for a balanced person’.

Another factor is that, logically, it should be irrelevant what background a cartoonist is from, as many today work from home emailing their cartoons directly to the newspaper. They therefore work independently and do not come into daily contact with other staff members. The most important factor in employing a cartoonist should always be how good they are at what they do. No other factors should come into it. According to Steve Bright: ‘I can say that I have never been given a job based on my gender, colour, age or anything else that can be confidently determined by meeting me in person. The vast majority of my clients/employers over the years never met me before I started working for them, and since the advent of email have never spoken to me. My pen name Brighty derives from my surname and gives nothing away, but anyone who thinks it reflects upon my intellect would be sorely disappointed. I am hired by the quality of my work only, as I suspect the vast majority of cartoonists are. Which is exactly as it should be’.

So when all is said and done, one could claim that the Guardian’s attempts to encourage diversity  is nothing more than an exercise in virtue signalling. To adapt a famous phrase, “never mind the quality feel the diversity!” Are the Guardian suggesting that the quality of their contributors is less important compared to employing those from ‘under represented’ parts of society? The advert is also, in itself, explicitly discriminatory towards white men, the one group that has proven to always excel at this medium. I spoke to a number of former contributors to the Guardian who said they have been given the cold shoulder for this very reason. Cartooning should be open to everyone, and I mean everyone. That, of course, is a given. However, the most important factor is that every wannabe must have the abilities required to do the job so as to compete with the very best in the industry. In the past, the cream has always risen to the top. The Times, for example, employs the cartoonists with the most talent and ability, and consequently, is clearly obvious to all.

As mentioned, it was of no surprise that the Guardian’s approach to finding cartoonists from a diverse background has failed to deliver. Those recruited from the advert have either been artistically found wanting,  whilst producing something that graphically looks more like a meme than a cartoon. They have also produced, in general, what appears as an unsophisticated and anodyne commentary. Of course, it goes without saying that cartooning should be open to all, as I believe it already is. Of course recruiting cartoonists from a diverse background is not a new phenomena. During the Second World War, national newspapers employed a number of Jewish cartoonists for the first time in Fleet Street’s history. Those cartoonists Victor Weisz, Philip Zec, Ralph Sallon and Stephen Roth were not employed because British tabloids were running a diversity program, but because these cartoonists were highly talented and thus were given the opportunity to produce memorable work throughout the war and beyond.

Britain has an unrivalled heritage when it comes to political cartoons going back over 250 years to Gillray, Tenniel, Partridge, Strube, Dyson, Low, Cummings, Trog, Scarfe, Bell and Brookes to name but a few.  What do all these men have in common? They were the best in their profession. Whatever you think, they reflected British society as it once was. As L.P. Hartley wrote in 1953 “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” It seems bonkers to try and project today’s social values on how things were judged in the past. Consequently you cannot rewrite history to suit a contemporary agenda. However, according to the Cartoon Museum in London, which decided to do an audit on its white bias, you obviously can. According to an article in the Daily Telegraph:

‘Officials at the Cartoon Museum are preparing to strip back displays of some of Britain's best known satirists because the galleries are over-represented by "white cisgender men". Curators at the London institution say they are "interrogating" its collection of 6,000 cartoons and comic artwork to address an "inherent bias" favouring white cartoonists… Joe Sullivan, the museum director, said: "From our perspective, our collection - like many museums - is over represented with works by white cisgender men, which of course includes essential and significant works from artists such as HM Bateman, James Gillray, William Hogarth. "From my point of view, and the Cartoon Museum, we are definitely moving towards displaying less Hogarths and more modern and diverse work."’

Is the Cartoon Museum, who one would have thought would be dedicated to protecting its heritage, seeking to erase 250 years of Britain’s cartoon heritage; a heritage that has made the country the world leader in political caricature for more than two centuries? How exactly, from a practical perspective, can you replace what exists with diverse work which historically does not exist in publication? And from a contemporary perspective, if newspapers are not employing people from diverse backgrounds where is this new material going to come from? If the Cartoon Museum follow through on their threat to remove work by ‘cisgender men’ they are in effect canceling proven world class cartoonists and undermining their own collection. If they were to do this, could we take them seriously as an institution representing the history of cartoons?

In the final analysis, ‘Wokeness’ and its impact on political cartooning is seen differently by both the younger generation and the older one. Those under 60 appear to see this as a fuss about nothing, whilst those over 60 have lived in a time when society was very different from today. They can contrast society today to say the 1960/70s for good or ill than their younger counterparts. This is nothing new. It has happened throughout history. As a historian, I observe that each younger generation finds a way to somehow annoy the older generation. David Low’s widow, Madeline wrote to the American cartoonist, Draper Hill in 1969 bemoaning  contemporary life at it was then: ‘If you come to England you will see a great difference not only in the horrid tall buildings, but in the attitude of the people. I often wonder what David would think of the political situation and of the PERMISSIVE SOCIETY.’ Such opinions would most likely have been common amongst her age group. One wonders what she would have thought of today’s social mores.

If newspapers want to employ the best political cartoonists then they have to not only select those with the greatest ability, whatever their background, but also, as their editor, give them the freedom they require in their selection and treatment of their subject matter to do what they do best. This is as Finley Peter Dunne wrote in 1902 to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". As regards ‘diversity’ and ‘Wokeness’ I leave the last words on the subject to an unrepentant Patrick Blower: ‘Bring back the rude times. I feel we’re regressing as we all have to bow to the tyranny of identity politics and the pyramid of privilege where everyone apart from the  designated groups at the top are accorded protected status.‘