Cultural awareness training for satirists and all people of goodwill

This is the framework of a cultural awareness training session, designed especially for satirists but applicable to all people of goodwill, who live in modern democratic societies and who are willing to challenge their beliefs and opinions on the issue of satire and its place in society.  It has been prompted by the recent “Charlie Hebdo” tragedy. A fictitious case study and our reactions to Islam will form the practical content of this course.

Case study : your grandmother has been satirised

Imagine you had lost your grandmother a few years ago.  You were very close to her and she was hugely respected and loved by your whole family, mainly because of the love she showed you all.  She had been through World War II, poverty, illness, and redundancy yet still raised her family with love, generosity and selflessness.  But perhaps her biggest weakness was that she enjoyed a few too many gin and tonics, especially towards the end of her life when she was in a lot of pain from arthritis. 

Take some time to get into this situation, imagining the emotions you had and still have for your grandmother. 

One day, you are on your way to work on the train and reading the local free newspaper for commuters.  This publication is also freely available on the internet.  You turn the page and you immediately see a whole page cartoon, drawn by a famous cartoonist, which shows your grandmother looking haggard and ugly, with stained and ripped clothes, a bottle of gin in one hand, and with a speech bubble in which she says:  “Gin’s the only thing that matters in life – the rest of you can get lost.”

Questions on the “grandmother” story

Consider the following questions:

1.      How might you feel when you first saw this cartoon?

2.      What feelings might you have for the cartoonist who drew it? 

3.      What would you actually do in response?  (Assume you are not yourself a satirist or cartoonist)

4.      Later you found out that this cartoonist publishes a lot of this kind of cartoons, satirising the weaknesses of various individuals, some well-known and some less well-known.  Would this make a difference to your feelings and reactions in your case?

Considering the different reactions of others to the “grandmother” story

Put yourself in the position of a range of different people in society, who had seen their grandmothers satirised in the same way, for example:

·         A university professor

·         A homemaker

·         A bus driver

·         A convicted mugger

·         A teenager with anger-management issues

·         An elderly, lonely woman in a care home

·         The president of a powerful country hostile to the UK

·         An Afghan refugee who is the widow of an innocent man killed in an air raid by UK/US forces

How do you imagine each of these people might react – in their feelings and their actions – to their grandmothers being satirised like in the story above?  Review the questions from the previous section for each example.

Satire vs the written word

Let’s change the story a little.  Imagine if, instead of a cartoon, a written story had been published which mocked your grandmother’s appearance and drink problem in the last few weeks of her life, and included some insulting comments about her. 

a)      Would you feel or react differently to the written story as opposed to the cartoon?

b)      Do you believe that the cartoon and the written story should be viewed differently? 

c)      Is one acceptable and the other not? 

d)     If applicable, what criteria are you using to distinguish them?

Muslims and the prophet Muhammed

The point of the “grandmother” story was to consider our feelings about a special, personal relationship and how those feelings might be injured if that relationship was satirised.  Turning to Islam, it is common knowledge that most Muslims highly regard their own religion and one crucial aspect of this is respect for the prophet Mohammed.   When Muslims refer to Mohammed, they typically add the words “peace be upon him”.  One common feature of all religions is that they include emotional connections to e.g. a deity, a founder or teacher, a set of guiding principles, sacred literature, a group of people, a place of worship, one’s fellow believers. Islam is no different.

1.      How do you imagine the average, believing Muslim might feel about Mohammed and his achievements? 

2.      What words do you think they might use to describe their feelings?  Consider positive words such as “reverence”, “respect”, “admiration”, and negative words such as “indifference”, “interest”, and “disinterest”.

“Charlie Hebdo’s” satire of Mohammed

The cartoons and satirisation of Mohammed by “Charlie Hebdo” can be easily found on the internet. Let’s consider how Muslims might react to them. 

1.      What do you think the average, believing Muslim would feel about these cartoons?

2.      How would you expect them to react?

3.      Would you distinguish between these cartoons and non-satirical, offensive comments about Mohammed? How and why?

4.      Looking back, do you think that any of the negative reactions of Muslims to these cartoons were foreseeable?

5.      Do you think these cartoons are likely to damage relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the world, in general?

6.      Can you foresee any security problems as a result of future, similar cartoons, both to the cartoonists and others?

7.      Do you think satirists should take into account the likelihood that the target groups of their satire will be offended and react negatively?

8.      Should satirists account for the reactions of people who are likely to be offended by their satire and react violently as a result?

Strategies for handling satire

1.         When it comes to publishing satire, do satirists have any responsibility to account for the interests, likely feelings and reactions of:

            a) society as a whole

b) members of groups they plan to satirise?

2.         Should satirists moderate their satire in order to minimise the likelihood of offence?

3.         Should satirists have different or extra criteria when producing and publishing satire in respect of different groups e.g. politicians from their own country, individuals not in the public eye, members of other faiths, citizens and politicians from other countries, religious figures?

4.         Should satirists have a greater right to publish offensive material than others?   

5.         Should satirists consult others before publication e.g.

a) representatives of religions and groups they plan to satirise

b) the police

c) politicians

d) community groups? 

6.         Are there situations when satire is not an appropriate means of expression at all?

Conclusion

This material was designed to stimulate thinking on the effects of publishing satire, particularly relating to religion.  Having considered all the issues, do you think there are good reasons for:

a)      the media not to publish satire; and /or

b)      for democratic governments not to permit publication of satire

which can reasonably be expected to cause widespread offence?

James Campbell, 11 January 2015