11
Introduction. Encountering Images of the Other
To see ourselves as others see us can be eye-opening.
To see others as sharing a nature with ourselves is the merest decency.
But it is from the far more difficult achievement of seeing ourselves amongst others as a local example of the forms human life has locally taken, a case among cases, a world among worlds.
(Clifford Geertz 2000: 16)
Images of the Other are a traditional subject of anthropological research, but schol- ars working on that topic must face a kind of a paradox. The fact that such images are one of the most popular subjects of anthropological study makes them simulta- neously an easy topic, because there are many, many theories allowing explanation of the phenomenon, and an extremely difficult topic, since images of the Other are one of the biggest challenges for researchers: how to present the topic in a new way?
how to refresh traditional approaches? how to ascertain whether existing models give exhaustive explanations of images of the Other or whether they can be used from a different perspective to analyze caricatures? Finally, how can we encourage readers to discover that studies on images of the Other are influential and mean- ingful for the development of the discipline? This book represents our attempts to overcome the challenges. We believe that it gives at least some answers to the questions posed above. To give research on the images of the Other a new look, we decided to choose data that are not usually taken into consideration when inves- tigating perceptions of the Other, namely, ethnic caricatures published mostly in daily newspapers and satirical journals. To give our effort a chance for success, we invited the collaboration of researchers from various disciplines, hoping that various academic traditions would help to achieve an exhaustive approach to the study of images of the Other in ethnic caricatures.
This book has its origins in a conference held in Warsaw in February 2010. As already mentioned, it was meant to be an interdisciplinary event, and it embraced anthropologists, general historians, historians of art, and political scientists.
Contributors were recruited only from the countries of Eastern and Central Europe based on our decision to narrow the subject of the conference to one region. We wanted to be able to show mutual relations between nations and their mutual depictions in caricatures, instead of presenting the general way of drawing the Other in caricatures. Thus, we invited to the conference scholars from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Russia, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia. These scholars presented sources from their own countries as well as from Germany, Austria, and Lithuania. Having researchers and images from those
13 12
neighboring countries we could show the mutual historical, political, and ethnic relations as represented in caricatures. We could present the ways in which two (or more) nations represented each other and also show how one nation was depicted by several others. Thanks to having such a broad choice of data, we acquired a representative review of images of the Other from one region of Europe preserved in caricatures. We had also decided to restrict the subject of the conference, and, thus, of the book, to caricatures from the period between the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century.
We also would like to focus the attention of our readers on the fact that the whole book is viewed as an attempt to propose various approaches to investigating visual data such as ethnic caricatures, and we do not feel obliged to give the reader one fi- nal and all-encompassing theory. In the book, one can find articles suggesting some theoretical solutions, showing a specific way of analyzing or interpreting caricatures.
However, the materials collected in the book, all together, represent only a prelimi- nary contribution to the discussion on how to investigate ethnic caricatures and how to use them in the studies of images of the Other. The conference held in Warsaw is the first one of a few planned conferences, all dealing with ethnic caricatures from Central and Eastern Europe, but from different periods. We have started with the prewar period and we will continue with data from the period during World War II, and then, the postwar period. Lastly, we will deal with contemporary caricatures.
Another part of the volume constitutes the collection of described caricatures.
The choice of caricatures for that section was made by the authors of the articles to show the readers of the volume the most representative data. The caricatures in- cluded for description are thus a representative comparative material, which can also be a basis for understanding by the readers who can interpret them on their own.
We give the readers this source of information and hope that meeting with it will be as fruitful as reading the analyses proposed by the contributors of this volume.
We give ourselves and our contributors time to participate in all events, to share experiences, to exchange thoughts, to write further, and to examine more and more ethnic stereotypes. We hope that after these conferences, we will be able to give our readers more complex insights and more mature conclusions that will be useful, not only in studies of how the Other has been perceived, but also in widely understood visual anthropology. Although in this book one can find, in our opinion, some valu- able and truly insightful texts, we perceive the volume as a first step on the way to developing a theory of deconstructing the ethnic stereotypes present in caricatures.
Our aim is to start a discussion of the use of caricatures as a source from which researchers can investigate images of the Other and of ethnic stereotypes, rather than find an exact answer to the question of how printed satirical pictures should be studied and interpreted. We hope that the debate on ethnic caricatures enables us also to find a way to constructively critique caricatures, to clarify our understand- ings of the relationships between the stereotypes represented in pictures and those functioning in society and, simultaneously, to recognize the functions of stereotypes
in a constantly changing world. We would like to see in satirical pictures, not only representations of ethnic relations extant in the historical period under examination (that would be obviously a simplification without any analytical impact), but also a comment on a complex historical, political, and ethnic situation. Since we perceive ethnic caricatures neither as a reflection of a common opinion nor as a reflection of their creators’ opinions, we must construct an approach that allows us to make caricatures a scientific source taking into consideration all the limitations coming from various contexts—the creation of the image, the political opinion of the journal that has printed it, the political situation in the country, and so on, and, finally, the special, provocative language of caricature that is full of simplifications, overdrawn details, superficial stereotypes, and specific humor. But beneath flat drawing there are hidden multidimensional relations that are to be brought to light by research- ers. In scientific analysis, caricatures show their multifaceted nature. In our opinion, caricatures should be perceived, not as a sign for which a univocal meaning has been established once and for all, but as a stylized commentary on a particular social, political, and historical situation, sometimes a kind of political weapon, evoking meanings depending on the context in which the caricature was drawn and then
“read.” Such an understanding of caricature, in our opinion, is valid also for the in- terpretation of that kind of visual data. We would also like to find a way to express in scientific language what one can see when one looks at a caricature.
In the chapters of this volume, authors deriving from various disciplines analyze different aspects concerning the image of the Other in caricatures, namely, a way of seeing and looking at the caricature, the representation of the cultural elements in it, the influence of the author’s creativity on such a representation, the mental images present in a particular culture graspable in caricatures, and the specific language and humor of caricature. Scholars investigate the category of the Other, placing it in a wider context, seeing it as a kind of a commentary to political, historical, and social events—a sign of what was important for people of that time. Below we mention some of those commentaries; you can find many more in the papers.
Caricature as Part of a Wider Set of Visual Techniques
Images as a part of reality are an outgrowth of culture, so they cannot be ignored in describing it. Moreover, we should ponder their place and function in culture, reflect upon their diversity, and through them try to gain important information about the corresponding culture or society. In this book, we concentrate on a very special kind of images—caricatures—also present in almost every society.
The caricatures of the Other are a particularly interesting topic for anthropologi- cal research. Ethnic caricatures combine artistic techniques with the whole system of conventionally understood symbolic forms operating in society (imagery, ritual, narration, etc.). They communicate their meaning by means of various visual tech- niques characteristic to the whole body of art. In this sense caricatures belong to the art. But their aim is not only artistic, and it is exactly the other aim that draws much
15 14
more of our attention. In this sense they belong to the broader category of humor on one side and to the political discourse on the other. But some aspects of caricatures’
meaning, in our opinion, should be examined in terms of cultural stereotypes. That is why we ask why the images work in particular ways. To answer this, we consider several aspects of the problem. From the perspective of visual techniques we have to distinguish several levels of the analysis—an artist, reality and the audience, a long history of conventional creative techniques in art, and making sense through repre- sentation. The first three concern the history of art; the last refers to anthropology.
The language of caricature has its source in a rich tradition of a wider visual culture and uses tools characteristic of visual arts—metaphors, allegories, and con- ventional signs attributed to particular objects and actions in particular societies.
This aspect of visual culture is described in much detail by Ágnes Fülemile in her study focusing on the visualizing ethnicity in European popular graphics, which she considers to be the antecedents of ethnic caricatures. Also Florin-Aron Pădurean draws attention to those visual aspects of caricatures showing the way in which al- legory was used in caricature, Gundega Gailīte presenting their artistic quality and Karel Altman in much detail describing caricatures drawn by a famous Czech artist Karel Krejčík. To complement this theme, Petăr Petrov asks what compositional techniques, elements, and motifs were used to construct the image of a nation and its representation. What appearance (size of figure, dress, position, etc.) was chosen to represent the respective nation and why? He stresses a need to apply the rules of iconographical analysis to caricature interpretation.
Humor and Caricatures
As we mentioned earlier, caricatures can be seen as part of a broad category of humor.
We assume that humor is an important aspect in caricature analysis, however, it is often generally ignored in analyzing caricatures. Usually humor belongs to verbal folklore often completed by caricature. The analysis of caricatures shows that in a given historical moment the Other is always the most popular subject of laughter, while we laugh at ourselves rather seldom. Humor therefore is a tool for differentiat- ing the “bad ones” from the “good ones.” Christie Davies claims that the ethnopoliti- cal joke aims at the stupidity of the unrightful holder of power (Davies 1990). Such ethnopolitical cartoons were present in the comic press of interwar Central and East- ern Europe. They are explored by Liisi Laineste. She states that it is impossible to dis- cuss the issue of ethnicity without reference to existing power relations of that time.
She stresses the functions of humor classified as cognitive (coping), social (group mechanism), and personally related (humor as a trait). She argues that humor was regarded as antidiscourse and that subversive laughter occurs always when a society goes through crises accompanying every change. Ethnic humor is frequent in old joke tales, slowly being replaced by other categories of humor, including caricature.
Caricatures were often used as a means of persuasion, discrediting rivals and their positions and, as Morgan puts it, “spreading its claims and the principles upon
which it makes its claims” (Morgan 2005: 69). Humor of that time targeted the Others frequently, not people “like us.”
Otherness as a Distinct Category and a Representation
Our aim was to collect, not only various visual data, but also various approaches, methods, and worldviews. Thus, we have not interfered in the content of the articles, allowing the authors to express their beliefs, feelings, and convictions. Some of the examples may seem controversial—some too politically correct. On that basis we can see that caricatures, even from such a distant time, still provoke strong emotions. It appears that ethnic caricatures sometimes fall outside dispassionate analysis. As we can see in some of the articles in this volume, stereotypes captured in caricatures, seemingly deconstructed by the scholars describing them, once again come onto the stage and force researchers to defend or to present their worldview, their interpretation of the history of their nation—that is, to respond to those stereotypes. One could say that such work has been an failure as an objective, value-free scientific approach and, thus, of our conference; however we see a great advantage in such interplay between the authors of the articles and the stereotypes described by them. We perceive that the aspect of ethnic caricature that provokes emotion as proof that images of the Other still are a subject requiring scientific reflection, since the scholars themselves may fall into traps set by common stereotypes. Moreover, articles that make obvious that any analysis of ethnic stereotypes cannot be free of the author’s own point of view on those stereotypes, we perceive, not only as an attempt to interpret particular visual data, but also as a very particular comment showing how stereotypes work independently of thousands of pages of theories devoted to their deconstruction.
According to Alina Cała, presenting a model of traditional culture in Poland, the Other constitutes an integral part of each culture (Cała 2005: 13). In this sense, the Other can be considered as a wider category inherent to the particular group and saturated (filled) by specific local content. For one the Other will be German or Russian, for others, Chinese, and so on. Thus perceiving the Otherness serves an organizing function for the group, more in a sense of enhancing the belonging than indicating the hostility toward the outer forces. As a result of working through this process, the image of the Other tends to be viewed as an undifferentiated entity, deprived of individualistic features and reduced to a few distinctive iconographi- cal signs. But the process of Othering initiated by the integrating function can be moved further and transformed into hostility, then, using a sharper tongue, even invectives. Florin-Aron Pădurean develops this aspect in his chapter.
On the other hand, perception of the non-Other involves seeing similarities and closeness. The Otherness can be graduated in a sense that the same group can be seen as close in one matter and distant in another. Those differences can be categorized—
cultural distinction, religion, language, patterns of behavior, beliefs, and appearance.
The features ascribed to particular groups are often of non-empirical origin, often resulting in a dissonance when our own image encounters the alternative one.
17 16
We assume that images involve a special relation between the artist and the reality he or she depicts. Interpretation of the world, often stereotypical, finds expression through the content and the form of the artist’s work. By contrast, ethnology considers caricatures as an example of a way of imaging the world through depicting it. To paraphrase what Clifford Geertz says, “[everyone] inhabits the world he imagines” (Geertz 2000: 161). As another ethnologist, Helge Gerndt working on caricatures (mentioned by Petrov), says, “If caricature reflects anything at all, it reflects not the external world but internal, mental worlds.” Following this ethnological perspective what artists convert into visual signs might be seen as evidence of their attitudes toward and perceptions of the historical events (see Petrov, this volume). A similar subject is reflected upon by Ágnes Tamás, who mentions the methodology of Hungarian sociologist György Csepeli.
Means used in a caricature may create in the mind of the viewer an image gaining completely new sense. It happens especially when imagining has a political subtext.
Reality is now replaced by a representation, often very expressive, and thanks to this is able to evoke a particular effect. Culture is based on representations as a way of imagining what is real, and they refer not to visual images only in the sense of David Freedberg (1989). In Geertz’s words, “See not what has happened, but what is going on” (Geertz 2000: 179). Such a situation allows a caricature to reveal new, sometimes surprising meaning, for caricatures are not merely reflections of reality but, before all, its interpretation. They take part in a debate showing various points of view concerning important events of given time and given ethnic group.
Images of the Other belong to a broader category of imagery. Generally speak- ing, imagery is a descriptive language evoking sense experience and appealing to visuality. Imagery is also strongly connected with a category of mental images. This connection allows the deconstructing of a complex relation between mental image and forms of its representation in culture. A mental image is an effect of experi- ence that significantly resembles the experience of perceiving an event, category, or people. It emerges when the relevant event, category, or people are not actually pres- ent to the senses. Mental images as a kind of representation play a significant role in a collective mentality—in memory, thought, and communication. The mental images are remarkably useful in investigating caricatures. They give access to col- lective memory and communication. They frame recognition of the meaning of caricatures in a particular culture. The category of mental images was exhaustively described by Géza Buzinkay, Petăr Petrov, and Ágnes Tamás. The same category is also important in articles published in part In the Mirror of Mutual Imageries, especially in Géza Buzinkay’s and Krzysztof Buchowski’s presentations of mutual images of Austrians and Hungarians and of Poles and Lithuanians.
According to Buzinkay and Buchowski we can grasp in an image only that which is already known. In a case of neighboring nations (Poles-Lithuanians, Hun- garians-Austrians) linked by hundreds of years of cultural and political relations, knowledge of the Other is based on direct experience. However, attempts to
describe the Others in terms and categories deriving from one’s own culture cannot be exhaustive and, therefore, some characteristics of the Other, even those quite close to us, remain stereotypical. As Buzinkay and Buchowski state, the data suggest a conclusion that relationships between neighboring nations are usually asymmetric.
In other words, both nations belong to a common culture but have different mentalities that are superseded by civilizational traditions and political interests (the case of Austria and Hungary), or there is a wall between them, difficult to remove and causing mutual accusations relative to the actual situation of those nations (the case of Poland and Lithuania).
Caricature and Social Construction
The Other as a subject of reflection is present in anthropology from the very be- ginning of the discipline, especially in the study of the categories of belonging to a group or to a society. The study of ethnic groups assumes the creation of borders that separate us from the Others. In this process, a subjective, internal feeling finds its objective expression—a sign of distinction. Within a short time, a stereotype is created. Initially, the stereotype serves to maintain a distance, then it remains in the culture as an image (or mental image), frequently independent from a constantly changing social situation. The Other, therefore, must be perceived by scholars as a general category, defined by local context and content. When we acknowledge dis- tinctiveness and specific character of a group, we are able to see who the members of a group are and what their vision is of themselves.
There are two opposite models of national identity in social sciences—objective and constructivist. The first assumes that national identity features can be described by means of objective categories such as territory, language, economy, myths and memory of the past or of folklore and mass culture. Followers of this model look for the essence of a local group to pervade all of these categories. Contrary to that, a constructivist model underlines a conventional character of collective identity.
According to that model, identity is constructed on the basis of practice, born from particular aims, imaginations, and values of the group, and requires particular procedures of creating collective identity and, then, rituals to confirm and maintain it. It could even involve symbolic codes serving as a tool to accomplish identity (for more on that, see Bokszański 2007). In their articles Božidar Jezernik, Dagnosław Demski, Florin-Aron Pădurean, Andrzej de Lazari and Oleg Riabov, and Magdalena Żakowska refer to constructivist model. The point of reference for some of these authors is also Peter Said’s idea of orientalism, describing a kind of “knowledge” based on common clichés that do not exist in reality but are used to imagine and picture the Other. According to Said, orientalism derives from the process of secularization, including expansion, historical confrontation, and classification being—as well as a narration of progress—a product of eighteenth century Europe (Said 1991: 183).
According to this understanding, images of the Other are rather an expression of the dominating ideology, culturally dominating values and stereotypes of the epoch.
19 18
However, the attitude of Said seems to be limited to ideology. Geertz’s idea of local knowledge in the category of representation both reflecting local imagery structure and locally representing the way of experience seems also useful for us (Geertz 2000).
The key question is why representations of the Other often are comparable to each other but sometimes they differ a lot. What makes the difference?
From the constructivist approach the process of Othering is described by Florin- Aron Pădurean as the four-stage process of indicting the enemy: (1) the entering of the foreigner causing experiences of intrusion, infiltration, and occupation, (2) assault or, in other words, battery and physical aggression, (3) malversation, lar- ceny, and misfeasance in money and possession issues, and (4) duress or abduction and constraint culminating in homicide. Blaming the Other for all of this is an expression of social prejudice. In this way, the presumption of guilt (instead of the presumption of innocence characteristic of “us”) and the generalization constitute a rule in the making of ethnic caricature.
As Pădurean concludes, the enemy and the collective enemy renew their roles periodically, in accordance with the updated official position of the enemy and with national idiosyncrasy. Nonetheless, under the pungent pens of the cartoonists, the Other’s hostility proves to be constant and latent.
History and Caricatures
Because we deal with the peculiar sort of historical caricatures produced over the long period of time from the second part of the nineteenth century until 1939, we have to focus on history a bit and on the distinct features of the two historical periods reflected in caricatures. Images of the Other may be treated as a reflec- tion of events important for particular society and they are a specific commentary to them. Such an understanding of caricatures enables us to perceive historical events through them. Studying caricatures gives us access to meanings that were ascribed to particular events. Such a background of satirical pictures—histori- cal, political, and social events—is seen in every article in the volume. At times it is a main topic of the text, at other times it serves only as a context of the main topic. In both cases, however, such a background is important, since all articles deal with a historical period from the middle of the nineteenth century to the beginning of World War II, including World War I. Although the period is quite short, it is divided into several historical subperiods that differ a lot in political, cultural, and, above all, social conditions and that each are characterized by a different “time spirit.”
Caricatures circulated mostly in written and printed culture. They reached the sphere of intelligentsia, including provincial and rural ones, groups that at the end of the nineteenth and beginning twentieth century were witnesses of the fall of the old social and cultural order. In the sense of caricatures as reflecting social currents, historians study views of this aspect of society. Examples can be seen in the papers of Krzysztof Buchowski, Ágnes Tamás, and Aleksander V. Golubev.
World War I as a Censure for Imagery Expressed in Caricatures
Caricatures are surely not direct reflections of reality, but they are representations.
Consequently, we understand them as ways of seeing particular events often opposite to the neighbors’ or opponents’ view of those events. What is also interesting is the fact that caricatures from both periods can by recognized by concrete features reflect- ing the actual historical situation. Probably the situation could be surmised through the hundreds of caricatures presenting the Other during that time.
The collapse of the traditional structure intensified social tensions. World War I sped up this process disrupting boundaries between the countries in Central and Eastern Europe. This process was accompanied by the assimilation of the Other ethnic groups, mostly Jews, Germans, and a few other groups (Réka Dranik devel- ops this topic). The changing position of Jews in societies in the second part of the nineteenth century was accompanied by the rise of anti-Semitic sentiments. Previ- ous clear and respected boundaries seemed to be safe, but the growing blurring of borders gave birth to feelings of insecurity.
World War I divides two epochs that are especially significant for the history of Eastern and Central Europe. They were different because of the events of political, social, and cultural character. New Europe’s political maps were completely different.
Before World War I, there were great political empires on the one hand and indepen- dent countries on the other. In caricatures of the second half of the nineteenth cen- tury (after 1848), we find the theme of traditional social strata elaborated in various ways (see Demski this volume); on the other hand, we see motifs that indicate com- ing back to the roots, looking for the essence of ethnicity (Poland, Czech Republic, Romania), and “national awakenings” (Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania).
If a rule expressed by Ortega y Gasset (1958: 93) works—that we don’t pay attention to an object because we see it, but, on the contrary, we see only what we take notice of—then we should observe the differences in themes and ways of presentation of the two periods.
According to this rule, rising nations, returning nations, and falling-down political organisms often were imagined differently, and depiction of reality confirmed their being on the move upward, backward, or downward. On the one hand, for example, Slovenians discovered their past since, as Božidar Jezernik writes, “memory of the past became the essence of the nation.” They combined anti- Turkish sentiments with Slavic sentiment, and religious Christian consciousness shaped their imagery. As he continues, “They perceived reality in categories of competition between Romance nations, Germans and Slavs.” The Young Czechs movement, on the other hand, gave a foundation for creating a modern nation (as mentioned by Karel Altman). Furthermore, in Poland, the search for national roots was perceptible in the birth of a so-called national style. In Hungary, however, the situation was different. Changes of law considering citizenship (the Emancipation Bill in 1867) offered both civil and political rights to Jews, but it assumed unequal access to the status of nation to some groups (Croatians), as shown in the article
21 20
by Ágnes Tamás. The full citizenship offered to Jews led in consequence to their assimilation. This subject was developed more by Réka Dranik.
Tamás concludes that stereotypes present in Hungarian and Austrian journals changed in a similar fashion during the second half of the nineteenth century. The Austrian comic paper which focused on the political problems deformed to a lesser extent its object’s characteristics than did the Hungarian comic weekly in a case of the analysed national groups. This difference can be explained by the fact that Hungarian public opinion considered Hungary a fortress under siege from several sides. At the end of the nineteenth century, the conflict between the Hungarian po- litical elite and the national movements intensified, further deepened by the process of “magyarization” and the birth and development of the neighboring nation-states;
thus the caricatures reflected the fears of the society.
The Soviets and Caricatures
In his article, Alexander Golubev presents Soviet caricature. Because of the political situation during the interwar period, the Soviet Union was characterized by feelings of isolation from the European countries and hostility toward other nations. Eastern Europe was considered as the territory between the borders of the Soviet Union and the countries of Central Europe. The author presents data that inform us of who was represented, and how, in Soviet caricatures during the interwar period. From them he concludes that relations between the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were full of prejudices and hostility.
In caricatures we can see topics common for all countries, on the one hand, and local topics on the other. Thanks to this we can analyze one theme, for example, service to the country, in many local contexts that allow us a comparative analysis.
In countries without a state (Latvia, Estonia), the past was used as an instrument for building national identity.
A time of creating a national identity in new political and social circumstances is described in the article devoted to a motif of a Russian Bear in Polish caricature from the interwar period. Caricatures presented by Andrzej de Lazari and Oleg Riabov show that a Russian Bear was, above all, an expression of a feeling of threat from the neighbors. As de Lazari and Riabov underline, Polish caricatures from the beginning of the 1920s picturing the Polish-Bolshevik War show that during the war two armies fighting for different purposes met: Soviets went to war under a class banner and the Poles, under a national one. This difference reflects a confrontation between two various ideologies—formation of a country founded on a nation in which ethnos dominated and a new kind of a country (a Soviet one) trying to promote internationalism instead of local nationalisms.
Distinct “Gaze” Characteristic of Caricatures from the Two Periods
Old and new topics in caricature reflect some changes in ways of seeing the world and what David Morgan, analyzing the relations between images and a social reality,
calls a gaze: “vision as complex assemblage of seeing what is there, seeing by virtues of habit what one expects to see there, seeing what one desires to be there, and seeing what one is told to see there” (Morgan 2005: 74). Following this suggestion, we may say that images articulate roles to be performed by various ethnic groups.
As Morgan puts it: “Image as social reality means to regard its significance as the result of both its original production and its ongoing history of reception”
(Morgan 2005: 32). So, changes in visual communication reflect distinct social transformations that took place during this period.
In caricatures from the period before World War I, images reflecting a chang- ing perception of the national consciousness prevailed. The expression of national sentiments was interdicted, and that is why religious, artistic, and everyday use ar- tifacts were potentially objects of patriotic feelings. Metaphor, allusion, and symbol became the substance of patriotism.
World War I was a kind of a breakthrough for many nations of Central and Eastern Europe. On the ruins of great empires many small countries came into ex- istence; they first of all aimed at sustaining itself and assuring national safety. We can see this in caricatures in which pictures depicting a threat from neighboring nations—the Others—and the need to defend new boundaries (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) prevail. This can be easily explained by the fact that con- structing a national identity is strictly connected with making boundaries. Unfortu- nately, we do not have data from other countries of the region, since articles devoted to them deal with an earlier period.
We may contend that apart from distinct ways of imagining characteristics of particular nations and societies, there are two separate ways of imagining characteristics of these historical periods.
Why do the images of the Other work in certain ways in various periods? Sub- jects and kinds of ethnic caricatures of both periods—before World War I and after it—confirm a presence and popularity of ethnic motifs. On the basis of those pictures we can, however, note some differences in perceiving and making represen- tations of reality. Demski deals with this subject in his article. Images of the Other in ethnic caricatures took a particular shape before World War I. The caricatures often were presented in a way that underlined no contact between those who see and those being observed.
This theme was elaborated by Alina Cała, referring to Polish-Jewish relations, who described a model of non-conflict coexistence but devoid of a deeper contact between them. According to her, the “mutual tolerance allowed [Poles and Jews] to live side by side” (Cała 2005: 20). Such a model (confirmed by ethnographic and folkloric studies) can be found in all states of Central and Eastern Europe due to the fact that societies were strongly hierarchical and divided people into separate groups marked by rigid borders.
Such a view of the world as separated groups can be noticed in caricatures where particular Others were exhibited as a sort of decontextualized attraction. Shows
23 22
of attractions, “wonders,” were characteristic of the world not threatened by what was separate from it. Such displayed figures were perceived as freaks of nature. It reminds the reader of the kind of caricatures that depicted other ethnic groups as stereotypes (ill. 49). Feelings of curiosity were stronger than interest in a story about the character of the presented Other. The stereotype was deprived of individuality and at the same time devoid of a cultural context, neither arousing interest. Cultural and social features were reduced to iconographical emblems. However, interest in distant lands and people began to grow.
World War I changed that reality. In caricatures we can see that the world after the war was perceived differently than it had been before. The war erased boundaries dividing “old” great empires. The old world collapsed and a new one took its place.
The changes, above all, concerned an understanding of boundaries. In old empires the boundaries seemed to be firm and constant, being a general frame for existence of all inhabitants. Inside them, conflicts and tensions did not lead to a complete breakup of the structure. The appearance of new countries transformed boundaries from external ones—dividing great political structures into local ones—and dividing ethne, one from another. Political and social dynamics run by World War I ended isolation of individuals in their groups and turned people’s attention to many pro- cesses taking place within and between various groups. Generally we can say that traditional separateness was replaced by interest in social relations. The Others re- mained the same, but new relations between “them” and “us” were seen and pictured in caricatures.
A few years after the fall of empires that had seemed permanent, life side by side ended. In a new political order there were no old-style social strata and ethnic groups mingled more than earlier. A rise of new states in Central and Eastern Europe was accompanied by the emergence of a new type of caricatures in which the Oth- ers were shown in the context of border protection. In this new world individuals seemed to have more capabilities for social, economical, and cultural development.
The Others more often gained human features, which, in our opinion, reflected a process of moving one from the category of the Other to the category of the familiar.
Toward Making Comparisons: Close and Distant Others
Comparisons risk misinterpretation, especially when we investigate visual signs and stereotypes that are part of local social constructs. However, comparisons offer the possibility of reconstructing fields of interest of representatives of all presented countries, and especially of reconstructing what is presented and what is ignored by caricatures coming from individual countries. Finally, we see different ways of measuring Otherness or even different models of being European (Central or East- ern) founded on distinct experiences and, thus, using different points of reference.
It was a time of printed media and of limited communication and, thence, of relative isolation of the states and regions. From the viewpoint of someone living in a relatively isolated region, an image of the world seems to be more coherent, clear,
and irrefutable. Going beyond that, being introduced to the images prevalent in the other states of Central and Eastern Europe provides awareness of the limits and conventionality of a separate image, even if it is affected by emotional ties. As Clif- ford Geertz states, “Seeing ourselves as others see us can be eye-opening” (Geertz 2000: 26). Taking it into consideration, on one hand, we notice the distinct points of view, relative character of presentations. On the other hand, we see that other people encounter similar problems and challenges of larger character, but their reac- tions could be different because of their unique experiences and peculiar systems of values using exclusive points of reference. As we mentioned earlier, the same pattern of the Other can be filled by various cultural contents.
Features of the Other that may be seen in caricatures suggest to us that we do not differ from the other, for example, fearsome, barbaric, wild, and so on. But close (familiar) and distant (unknown) Others can be differentiated—the familiar Other, though distinct culturally, is a neighbor. On the other hand, there is no direct contact with those from distant lands (Asians, Africans). The image of the familiar Other relied on direct or indirect experiences and was shaped by our cultural sys- tem of values, categories, and notions. The image of the distant Other was usually based on representations of Others from “exotic” countries made by those who had direct contact with them—often the image was a copy of pictures and caricatures from Western journals which also could produce a representation based on previous representation, not on direct experience.
On the level of visual signs used and elaborated in caricatures, we observe the similarities of the universal frame and, simultaneously, many local features. The genre of caricature coming from the West with several satirical journals as inspiring examples—Punch, Charivari, Eulenspiegel, Simplicissimus, then Kladdenradatch and Figaro—established a pattern of presentation, the language of signs, metaphors, and motifs, and so on. Using modern innovations like the printing press, the comic jour- nals made space for a new type of message representing public discourse and political discussions. Used in various ways, expressing social discourse, as Liisi Laineste says about Estonian sources, “Western forms were filled with Eastern European content.”
To a certain extent, this can be said about all caricatures, which in each case reflect local viewpoints.
Main Characteristic Targets of Central and Eastern European Caricatures We consciously resigned from presenting images of Americans, English, French, and
others having nothing in common with Central and Eastern European countries.
However, noticeable and regretful is the near absence of Gypsies (Roma), most often seen in Hungarian caricatures.
In subsequent chapters of the volume many common caricature motifs were presented, as well as those local, singular ones. Figures most often pictured in the caricatures described were of Germans and Russians, and in caricatures of Southern Europe (in Bulgaria, Slovenia, Romania), the figure of the Turk, depicted usually as a
25 24
barbarian, had a significant place. The Jews are present in drawings from all presented countries, however, in satirical representations from Bulgaria and Romania, we also find a figure of the Greek, sometimes depicted in a way similar to the Jew.
Representations of the Other as seen in caricatures has a universal character.
The figure of the Russian Bear described in this volume (Magdalena Żakowska concentrates on the function of the Russian Bear in German caricatures of the end of the nineteenth century) is not the only way of representing Russia in caricatures.
Along with the Bear, Russia is presented as Ivan the Cossack who is depicted as a peculiar type of wild soldier, a poor uncivilized peasant, an imperialist, and Mother Russia. Russian in foreign caricatures is most often pictured as a barbarian, an oc- cupant, or an imperialist. Germany, likewise, is shown as an imperialist, occupant, often as a cruel person, but in some contexts, as a savior (e.g., in Estonia, Laineste writes about it). Very popular is an image of German Michel (see Szarota 1988) who is presented as a normal hardworking person—a petty bourgeois wearing slippers, knee-stockings, breeches, and a night-cap. A German also has been depicted as a bureaucrat (Beamter).
Among minor figures, a Pole is often pictured as an arrogant military man or a beautiful young woman; a Hungarian, as gentry Magyar Miska, represented as a fat man in noble dress, or in Austrian journals as a shepherd with baggy trousers like Ludas Matyi. A Czech is most often depicted as Vašek Czech, an industrious simple person, but in Polish sources, also as a traitor or a thief. A Serb is shown as a wild person; a Romanian was depicted as a barbarian and as a poor peasant; a Bulgarian was shown as a Turk or a peasant. From the Soviet perspective, persons from the countries of Eastern Europe were represented in caricatures in the form of small predators, more ridiculous than terrible, or as robbers. In Latvian (less in Estonian) caricatures, the striking place takes a characteristic motif of death, skeletons, and life under the shadow of Big Brother of Russia.
Some of the figures found themselves serving as metaphors, which are elements that link mental images and their representations in caricatures. Such figures appear both in mental images and in caricatures, giving a helpful tool for their interpretation.
Some of metaphors commented upon in the volume gained a new status. A Russian Bear in contemporary culture became an iconic figure, evolving from the moment of creation of that metaphor in Western Europe, through its spread throughout Eastern Europe to a final recognition by Russians themselves. To compare its way of being represented in various caricatures from states—small and large—all over Central and Eastern Europe may lead us to conclusions. The smaller states (Estonia, Latvia, Po- land, Romania) represent this figure as more terrifying. It means that internal control is uncertain and the external power is perceived as a threat.
Simple reproduction of old images of neighboring nations and ethnic groups is not our aim at all, especially because images of the Other still evoke strong emotions and stereotypes hidden in them did not vanquish but are still present at least in media or in the minds of individuals. Articles presented in the volume, we believe, serve to de-
construct those stereotypes by increasing awareness that some pictures are a reflection, although often in a curved mirror, of particular local, historical, political, or social events (e.g., referring to mutual border relations). Some, like figures like Russian Bear, are popular in the imageries of most of the European countries. Illustrations let the readers develop their own personal perceptions and their own comparisons.
Statistical data referring to the number of caricatures showing particular nations described in the texts (Demski, Laineste) indicate the degree of meaning assigned to them and the degree of interest in them. Presence of the images of the nations reflects the importance of ethnic relations during the period they were popular. From the number and the ways of presenting those nations in caricatures, we may conclude that in the formation of most Central and Eastern European nations, Germans, Russians, and Jews took a strong role and in the south, likewise, the Turk and the Greek. Probably thanks to encounters with them and with other minor neighbors who were named in this volume, we have become modern Poles, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Russians, Germans, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Austrians, Slovenians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and so on.
If an encounter with an Other consists in including them into our experience, it is due to a process going beyond the limits of our imageries. In this process we gain a new dimension to our identity. In the historical period we discussed in the volume, the encounters drawn in caricatures were between people belonging to their own groups rather than between individuals. We suppose that caricatures from the later period would show us some different ways of defining and encountering the Otherness.
References
Berger P. L., T. Luckman 1966, The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City N.Y.
Bokszański Z. 2007, Tożsamości zbiorowe (Collective Identities), Warszawa.
Cała A. 2005, Wizerunek Żyda w polskiej kulturze ludowej (Image of a Jew in Polish Folk Culture), Warszawa.
Davies C. 1990, Ethnic Jokes Around the World, Bloomington-Indianapolis.
Freedberg D. 1989, The Power of Images. Studies in the History and Theory of Response, Chicago-London.
Geertz C. 2000, Local Knowledge. Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology, New York.
Gerndt H. 2007, Gedanken über “innere Bilder” anhand von Cartoons, Bayerisches Jahrbuch für Volkskunde. Gedenkschrift für Ingolf Bauer, pp. 225‒234.
Morgan D. 2005, The Sacred Gaze. Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice, Berkeley.
Ortega y Gasset J. 1958, Uwagi o powieści (Remarks about the Novel), Przegląd Humanistyczny, no. 2 pp. 78‒104.
Said P. 1991, Orientalizm (Orientalism), Warszawa.
Szarota T. 1988, Niemiecki Michel. Dzieje narodowego symbolu i stereotypu (German Michel. History of National Symbol and Stereotype), Warszawa.
