1
"The frontline turned out to be
situated in my living room"
A qualitative study about Dutch political cartoonists in the
aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks
Nele Goutier 10832769 Master's Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master's program Communication Science
Supervised by Penny Sheets Thibaut June 26, 2015
2
Abstract
In January 2015, the world was shaken by a series of violent attacks targeted at the cartoonists
working for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. A public debate about the
consequences for freedom of speech in Western democratic societies quickly ensued. Since
one of the main concerns was that freedom of expression would deteriorate as a result of fear
for terrorism, this study explores the relationship between the attacks and the safety
perceptions, role perceptions and professional ideology of 12 political cartoonists in the
Netherlands. Open interviews help to answer the following research question: What is the
impact of the Charlie Hebdo attacks on the safety perception, professional identity and practices of self-censorship of Dutch political cartoonists? It turns out that fear plays a less
direct and less dominant role in the aftermath of the attacks than is often presumed. The Dutch
cartoonists generally evaluate their safety positively and believe fear to have a limited impact
on their professional activities. A larger challenge can be found in the discrepancy they
perceive between their professional role perception and expectations of society in the
aftermath of the attacks. While the cartoonists consider themselves columnists, entertainers
and/or artists - all rather peaceable - they perceive a societal expectation for them to stand up
as (considerably more pugnacious) activists defending freedom of expression. Although the
cartoonists emphasize the importance of this freedom, they have a different understanding of
the concept than society. According to the cartoonists freedom of expression is not only a
right, but also involves an ethical responsibility. As such, the cartoonists believe
self-censorship and freedom of expression to be two sides of the same coin rather than opposites.
Therefore, this study asks for a broader understanding of self-censorship, in which not only
3
Introduction
On January 72015, a violent attack at the editorial office of Charlie Hebdo – a French
political satire magazine based in Paris – shook up the continent and beyond.Two Muslim
terrorists armed with weapons entered the building and fired over fifty shots. Twelve people
were killed while another eleven were left injured. In the next two days, four more attacks
followed in Paris, killing five more people and injuring another eleven. Responsibility for the
shootings was claimed by the Yemeni branch of Al-Qaida, who announced that the attacks
were a response to allegedly offending cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The
events may reasonably be expected to have turned safety concerns into an issue occupying
many a cartoonist's mind, especially since the Hebdo attacks turned out to be no stand-alone
issue. Only a month later, on February 14, 2015, the Danish capital city Copenhagen was the
stage of two attacks. Two people were left dead; seven were injured. Again a cartoonist who
had mocked Muhammad was the target. The same was the case on May 3rd, 2015, when shots
were fired at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Texas. Both perpetrators were
killed1.
The attacks have sparked a public debate in the Netherlands about freedom of
expression, its limitations and the role of cartoonists in appealing to or defending it. Within
the Dutch media and the political arena, considerable attention was paid to the activities of
cartoonists. With headlines like "This is a war against our freedom" (Jager, January 18, 2015),
cartoons were frequently framed as a symbol for general freedom of expression in society, a
right that is generally considered indispensable for democracy (Manning & Phiddian, 2005).
In academic literature alike, cartoonists are generally considered important in a
well-functioning democracy in which the media serve as a mechanism of control over the
1
It is important to note that the circumstances under which the attacks in Texas took place differ from the two previous attacks, as it concerns a festival sponsored by an anti-Islam group where cartoonists gathered to ridicule only the Prophet. As such, the attacks occurred outside of the professional field that is addressed here, where ridiculing the Islam may be part of the professional activities, but is not the only goal. Nevertheless, the Texas attack is mentioned, because it may have (had) an impact on the way the cartoonists perceive their profession, their role and their safety.
4
authorities (Manning & Phiddian). They are typically believed to "catalyze debate by seeking
the limits of freedom of expression" (Manning & Phiddian, 2005, p. 32). The recent attacks
raise questions about the extent to which cartoonists perceive themselves to be in danger, and
the degree to which safety considerations influence their willingness to seek the limits. Since
the professional safety of cartoonists has received little academic attention - despite the
frequently mentioned concern that fear may lead to self-censorship (Atkins & Mintcheva,
2006) - this study delves into safety perceptions and the influence on self-censorship.
Studying the limits that cartoonists commit themselves to (i.e. self-censorship), or that
others impose on them, is believed to provide important insight into the state of freedom of
expression in a society (Manning & Phiddian, 2005). Such assumptions imply that cartoonists
are typically expected to seek maximum provocation, but fail to take into account the attitudes
of cartoonists themselves on self-censorship and the extent to which they consider it desirable
to stir up controversy. Besides exploring safety perceptions, this study will therefore also
delve into the meaning that freedom of expression and self-censorship have for the
cartoonists. Since the current threat for cartoonists is related to their professional activities
and therefore a common factor within the occupational group, the influence of professional
identity on practices of self-censorship will be explored. Moreover, the interaction with the
broader society and their expectations will be assessed, as the role of cartoonists in defending
freedom of speech has been widely discussed in the public debate.
The study focuses specifically on the Charlie Hebdo attacks because of their impact in
Dutch society: the Dutch public was preoccupied with the affair, as was shown by the
trending use of the Je Suis Charlie2 slogan on social media (Zantingh, January 9, 2015) as
well as the high attendance at demonstrations held in over 30 cities around the country (ANP,
January 8, 2015). The attacks led to heated debate about free speech in the media, the political
2
5
arena and the private sphere3 (e.g. Zantingh, January 9, 2015; ANP, January 8,
2015).Therefore, twelve Dutch political cartoonists were interviewed to answer the following
research question: What is the impact of the Charlie Hebdo attacks on the safety perceptions,
professional identity and practices of self-censorship of Dutch political cartoonists? By
addressing this research question, this study aims to contribute to the understanding of the
reasons for and ways of employing self-censorship, because freedom of expression on paper
does not necessarily mean that this right is (considered desirable to be) actively utilized. The
study shows that not only (nor mainly) safety perceptions, but ethical considerations too play
an important part in practices of self-censorship. Since ethical motivations rather than external
pressure or threat often underlie self-censoring practices, self-censorship is often not
considered a lack of freedom, but is rather seen by the cartoonists as an important aspect of it.
Freedom of expression and self-censorship are considered two sides of the same coin.
Theoretical framework
Cartoons in democratic society
To be able to study cartoonists, understanding what a cartoon entails is required. Manning &
Phiddian (2005, p. 128) describe cartoons as a broad continuum made up of everything between satire (“where the cartoon seeks to make a significant point through humor and
sometimes even attack”) and gags (“where the joke is there to entertain readers”). Thus, while
there is not necessarily a critical message expressed, there is always a humoristic intention
behind a cartoon. Political cartoons however, do by definition contain a deeper message: “they offer newsreaders condensed claims or mini-narratives about putative "problem"
conditions and draw upon, and reinforce, taken-for-granted meanings of the world. By doing
so, political cartoons provide meta-language for discourse about the social order and offer
3
The interviews were (partly) conducted after the Copenhagen attacks but before the shooting in Texas. These events are considered part of the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks and are thus indirectly taken into account.
6
readers a tool for deliberating on present conditions” (Greenberg 2002, p. 33). It is the
producers of such cartoons that this study focuses on.
According to the literature, cartoonists play an essential role in democratic societies
and can instigate democratization processes. "Throughout the history of democracy, political
cartoonists have not hesitated to swing their pens like a battle-ax against injustice, lack of
freedom or political corruption" (Tunç, 2002, p.1). They are essential in the public debate not
only because of the sensitive topics they may draw attention to, but also because of the way
they do so, since "they communicate messages to even the partially literate that would be
missed in the columns of wordy dialogue that shared the pages" (Spencer, 2007, p. 33). This
way, great complexities can be translated into material that is understandable to the wide
audience, giving them a chance to participate in democratic debates.
Manning & Phiddian (2005) claim that criticism lays at the heart of any kind of
political cartoon. Zakarian (2004, p. 23) agrees: "A successful cartoonist challenges
conventional thinking, stimulates thought, skewers misbehaving figures, deflates
self-righteous, pompous characters and flushes out hypocrites." "Dealing provocatively with taboo
topics is, consequently, one of the abiding pre-occupations of any cartoonist who ever seeks to be more than a tame comic entertainer” (Manning & Phiddian 2005, p. 133). However,
while provocation is supposed to instigate thought and debate, it has recently led to much
stronger reactions of physical violence. This situation differs from the context described in the
literature. According to theory, satire functions as sublimation for violence, since humor is
used to distract from anger and aggression and there is no direct call for action (Day, 2011, p.
11). Feinberg (1969, p. 32)therefore refers to satire as “a safe release of aggression”.
However, the events in Paris, Copenhagen and Texas indicate the opposite, since satire led to
extreme violence in these cases.
7
cartoonists, the perceptions of professional safety held by Dutch cartoonists need to be
explored first. While the professional risk perception of journalists and, especially, war
correspondents has previously been assessed, such findings cannot be directly related to the
situation of cartoonists. After all, war correspondents usually make a conscious choice to
expose themselves to the threat of violence and have the option to terminate such exposure
whenever they want (Pedelty, 1995). "Many journalists referred to battle coverage as 'fun'.
Like amateur rock climbers and bungee jumpers, war correspondents gain a sense of
challenge, danger and pleasure protected by the twin virtues of distance and choice", Pedelty
(1995, p.133) explains. The risk faced by cartoonists is different: it is domestic and implied.
Returning to safety is no option. Since the emergence of risk was unrequested, it cannot be
presumed that cartoonists experience danger in a similar way as war correspondents do.
Therefore, the professional safety perception of political illustrators needs exploration. The
World Health Organization (n.d.) defines professional safety as: "a state of complete physical,
mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". This study
revolves primarily around factors of mental well-being, as it is not factual physical danger that
is explored, but rather the cartoonists' subjective experience regarding their and their loved
one's risk to undergo physical hurt, injury or loss for reasons related to their profession. The
following sub-question (SQ1) will be addressed: How do Dutch political cartoonists perceive
their professional safety in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks?
Professional identity
To understand the impact of the Charlie Hebdo attacks and any resulting shifts in safety perceptions on the profession of cartoonists in the Netherlands, the influence on their
professional identity will be discussed. This is relevant, since people's self-perception largely determines their behavior (Burke & Stets, 2003). As such, understanding the professional
8
identity of cartoonists is essential in exploring potential changes in their occupational activities, which in turn provides insight in the impact of the attacks on the active use of freedom of expression.
The definition of professional identity is two-fold. While Sanders, Berganza &
Sanchez Aranda (2008, p. 138) define professional identity as "self-perception regarding their
role and function in society", Deuze (2005) employs a broader definition focusing on
occupational ideology. The scholar describes professional identity in the field of journalism as "a collection of values, strategies and formal codes characterizing professional journalism and
shared most widely by its members" (Deuze, 2005, p. 448). By referring to such values
journalists attempt to "validate, give legitimacy and credibility to what they do" (Deuze, 2005,
p. 450). Thus, "professional identity of journalists can be seen as kept together by the social
cement of an occupational ideology of journalism" (Deuze, 2005, p. 442). Moller-Hartley
(2013), too, focuses on professional ideology in journalism, which is according to him a set of common understandings of what constitutes ‘good journalism’. Conforming to such standards
may increase journalistic capital. Professional ideology is not unique to the field of
journalism, but exists in to at least some extent in any occupation (Moller-Hartley, 2013).
Therefore, this study will address professional identity not only in terms of professional role
perceptions (Sanders, Hanna, Berganza & Sanchez Aranda, 2008) but also in terms of
professional ideology (Deuze, 2005 & Moller Hartley, 2013). More specifically, such
ideology revolves around attitudes towards freedom of expression and self-censorship. First
of all, sub-question 2 will focus on the first component of occupational identity by assessing
role perceptions in relation to the broader (democratic) society. The subsequent questions 3
and 4 will delve into professional ideology.
The literature is not united about the roles that a cartoonist may have in society. While
9
(2002) has farther-reaching expectations, emphasizing the responsibility to fight actively
against injustice and to facilitate social change by continuously seeking to maximize
provocation. Feinberg (1969), on the other hand, focuses on the humoristic content of
cartoons as a way to release tension. And while the pencil is a communicative tool for some
(e.g. Day, 2011), it is a symbolic "battle-ax" according to others (e.g. Tunç, 2002, p. 1).
Because the theory is not united about the function of cartoonists, the self-perception of the
interviewees cartoonists requires exploration. This is especially relevant in the aftermath of
the attacks, because changing contextual circumstances may affect one's self-image and thus
their behavior (Burke & Stets, 2003). Therefore, the following question (SQ2) will be asked:
What is the impact of the Charlie Hebdo attacks on the professional role perception of political cartoonists in the Netherlands?
Occupational ideology: Freedom of expression and self-censorship
In terms of the second component of professional ideology, which focuses on occupational
ideology, attitudes about freedom of expression will be assessed. Focusing on these topics is
essential because of the frequently expressed concern that the menace of violence would
inhibit full-fledged utilization of the right of freedom of expression by cartoonists (Kahn,
2009). According to the democratic ideal of press freedom, cartoonists should have the
freedom to express themselves without constraints. However, Manning & Phiddian (2005) argue that there are potential sources of influence that may affect the cartoonist’s work.
“Cartoonists have the joker’s license to be boundary riders of the representable in the public
sphere. It is in their nature to push the boundaries, and fair enough for those boundaries to push back from time to time”, they write (Manning & Phiddian, 2005, p. 146). Consequently,
cartoonists’ activities are a process of constant negotiation. The violent character of the
10
A frequently expressed concern in the media (e.g. Janssen, 2015), politics (e.g.
Clevers, 2015) and academia alike (e.g. Dalgaard & Dalgaard, 2006) is that the violent
consequences that certain cartoons may elicit may increase self-censorship. Such censorship
is to be understood as "the conscious choice to withhold or the unconscious inhibition of one's
creative ideas" (Williams, 2002, p. 496). In this study, the focus is put on consciously
deliberated self-censorship, since interviews are unsuitable for revealing unconscious
practices. It is relevant to assess the influence of contextual factors, like the Hebdo attacks in
this case, because occupational ideology is fluid and subject to change (Deuze, 2005). The
following sub-question (SQ3) will be asked: What attitudes do Dutch political cartoonists
hold about freedom of expression and self-censorship and how are these attitudes influenced by the Charlie Hebdo attacks?
Professional identity as a negotiation process
Professional identity - made up of professional role perceptions and occupational ideology -
should not be understood as a static given, but rather as an ongoing process in which interaction with the broader society is relevant. Stryker (1980, p. 33) explains: "the self
emerges in and is reflective of society " As such, it is subject to continuous development and
change. The ideas held by others about the role of cartoonists is essential, as "significant
others communicate their appraisal of us and this influences the way we see ourselves" (Stets
& Burke, 2003, p. 5). Thus, identity perceptions are (partly) the result of an interactive and
ongoing process, in which the pursuit of self-verification -"by which one strives to keep
perceptions of self-relevant meanings in a situation in line with the meanings commonly held"
(Burke & Stets, 2003, p. 9) - is essential. Given the impact of contextual interaction on
identity, it makes sense to speak of identity negotiation rather than formation (Stets & Burke, 2003). Identity negotiation processes are characterized by a constant interplay of social
11
structure (meaning given by others) and agency (personal decisions, meanings and behavior)
(Burke & Stets, 2003). Professional ideology can be considered in between these two, as it
concerns ethics and principles held by a small occupational group rather than one individual
or the broader society. This study will explore how professional role perception and ideology
are shaped, altered and/or maintained in negotiation processes in which meaning given by the
individual, the occupational group and society are compared, (re)considered and combined.
This is especially relevant in the aftermath of the Hebdo attacks, since these events
have caused considerable changes in the professional and societal context. Not only were
safety considerations moved to the forefront, but societal debate about the profession also
peaked. This caused high levels of attention paid to cartoonists in the public debate, by media,
politicians and citizens. This may have changed the public opinion on cartoonists, and
opinions were also expressed more frequently and explicitly than before. This study explores
the impact of such an explicit attention peak on the dynamics of professional identity
negotiation processes. The interaction with colleagues is relevant in the current context, since
the threat may not be considered a personal one, but rather a communal risk shared within the
occupational group. Exploring the role and behavior that cartoonists believe others expect of
them as well as the role and ideology they see for themselves, and assessing the way the
interviewees deal with any discrepancies or similarities, provides insight in the way
professional identity is negotiated. The following question (SQ4) will be addressed: How do
Dutch political cartoonists negotiate their professional identity in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks?
12
Methodology
Research design
In order to answer the research questions, interviews were conducted, focusing
on a select group of cartoonists in the Netherlands. Such an idiographic study is relevant,
because of the lack of academic literature on the safety perceptions and professional identity
of cartoonists in light of professional threat. Qualitative methods are useful for such
exploratory purposes, as they are "typically associated with the generation rather than the
testing of a theory" (Bryman, 2012, p. 41). The research question requires a qualitative
approach, because it focuses on "the subjective meaning of social reality" (Bryman, 2012, p.
30). Semi-structured interviews enable the inclusion of the perceptions and interpretations of
the interviewees and allow for new insights to be discovered and included.
Participants
Interviews were conducted with 12 political cartoonists employed and residing in the
Netherlands. This number was not determined in advance but decided in the course of the
study, based on the amount of new information coming in. After 12 interviews no new topics
or angles emerged so saturation could be assumed, which eliminated the need for further
interviews (Marshall, Cardon, Poddar & Fontenot, 2013).
The interviewees were selected based on the nature of their work: only cartoonists
whose work can be categorized as political cartoons4 were interviewed, because such cartoons
are more likely to be controversial and therefore to affect safety (Manning & Phiddian, 2005).
To enable a broad perspective, cartoonists with different amounts of work experience were
invited to participate. This led to an eclectic collection of illustrators for regional, national &
international outlets, as well as online and print media. The youngest cartoonist was in his
4
13
thirties, while the oldest was approaching seventy. All have Dutch origins. Since the
professional field is highly dominated by men, only one woman was interviewed. Having a
sample that consists of 50% of women would not only be difficult to achieve, but would also
be a misrepresentation of the gender balance in the population.
Procedure
The interviewees were approached by telephone or e-mail. To minimize the refusal rate the
relevance of the study was emphasized and anonymity assured. Half of the interviews were
conducted in a face-to-face setting, while the other half took place on Skype because of
geographical distance. All participants gave their informed consent to participate and were
assured of confidentiality.
The interviews started with open questions to allow unexpected information and
angles to be taken into account5. For example: "How would you describe the drawings that
you make?" In order to avoid talking in abstract, ideological terms only, the interviewees were
asked to bring their portfolio, because interviewing through the use of images can help to
discover changes in safety perceptions and considerations over time in a concrete manner
(Harper, 2002). To this end, the interviewees were asked e.g.: "Are there any cartoons that
you have published in the past but that you regretted later?" Subsequently, follow-up
questions investigated 1) why they felt regret (if they did), 2) what they would change to
avoid regret, 3) how they would execute such changes, and 4) which deliberations play a role
in such decisions. This provided insight into the professional ideology, self-censorship and the
impact of safety perceptions on the deliberations of the cartoonists.
To avoid a social desirability bias as much as possible, the interviews began with
questions that were not only open, but that also covered less sensitive topics to gain the
5
14
interviewees’ trust (e.g.: "Can you tell me a bit about your professional background,
education and how you got to where you are now?"). Topics that involved private feelings
(e.g. fear) or that could be influenced by a social desirability bias (e.g. self-censorship), were
raised in a later stage. In a further attempt to avoid social desirable answers, indirect questions
were asked, because referring to others who are in a similar position is another way of
avoiding such bias (Fisher & Tellis, 1998). An example of an indirect question is: “What
reactions have you observed among colleagues when it comes to self-censorship since the Charlie Hebdo attacks?” Since self-censorship may be considered socially undesirable, the
cartoonists were expected to be more open about their colleagues’ behavior than about their
own. Finally, a well-known and very useful technique - creating moments of silence - helped
increase the information value. Since people naturally tend to avoid silence and have a
tendency to continue talking, this has resulted in more informational input (Bryman, 2012, p.
401).
The interviews were analyzed with the help of NVivo, a software package that
facilitates transcribing, ordering and coding qualitative data. Coding was done inductively,
which means that categories were not pre-determined by literature but emerged from the data
(Bryman, 2012). Since the process of interviewing and coding overlapped, the first analytical
ideas arose already in the course of data-collection. Therefore, initial suppositions could be
incorporated in subsequent interviews, while constant comparisons with both theory and
previously coded data were made and preliminary analytical ideas could be compared to new
data.
The coding process consisted of three different phases:
1). Open coding helped to break down, organize and categorize data (Bryman, 2012). In this
15
were in one place. An example of such a topic was 'First thoughts after the Hebdo attacks'.
Irrelevant data, consisting of e.g. small talk before and after the interview, were removed.
2). Axial coding helped to establish connections between different categories (Bryman, 2012)
as well as between the different interviewees. This enabled the discovery of overarching
themes that become apparent in statements about different topics. Fear, for example, could be
addressed when discussing concerns about the future, but also when talking about the way
choices are made to publish a certain cartoon.
3). Selective coding helped to select key categories, relate them to other categories and to find
out which categories need to be further refined (Bryman, 2012).With the help of this process,
concepts were turned into more specific categories, which were then further specified as their
properties were defined. In the last phase of the analysis the key findings were distinguished,
described and linked to relevant literature.
Findings6
The first findings relate to SQ1 – regarding the shifts in safety perceptions of journalists in
response to the Hebdo attacks. The focus is initially on the individual cartoonist, but the
subsequent sections will show how personal experiences and emotions relate to professional
identity by addressing role perceptions and ideological stances on freedom of expression and
self-censorship.
6
The findings are described in present tense, because they revolve for a large part around ongoing developments. For the sake of consistency, the presentation of findings that do not (necessarily) involve continuing developments will be presented in present tense too.
16 Professional safety perceptions
Judging professional safety.
The interviewed cartoonists generally evaluate the risk that their occupation elicits as
relatively low. Just after the attacks, most cartoonists wondered how likely they would be to
fall victim to terrorist attacks, but these thoughts rarely still occupy their minds. Although the
exact level of perceived risk may differ for each individual, there seems to be a general
tendency to consider the direct, physical risk of little relevance in daily life, as long as the
Prophet Muhammad is not drawn. Most cartoonists believe this to have little direct influence
on their daily professional activities. One of the interviewees says: "I don't feel like my safety
is at issue because of what I do. I think it's more dangerous to drive a car to an office every
day than to be sitting behind a desk drawing, like I do." Risks are put in perspective by
making comparisons to other hazards in daily life too. "I drink beer, that's also very
unhealthy. So is smoking. What should I be more scared of?", is the rhetorical question of
another cartoonist. Moreover, there are other groups that are believed to be more likely to fall
victim to Muslim terrorism. One of the cartoonists says: "I think it's more dangerous to walk
around wearing a yarmulke than to be a cartoonist."
Comparisons are also made with the French situation to trivialize risk by rejecting seeming similarities. A major difference is found in the tone of the cartoons, with a much more provocative character observed in France, especially in the Charlie Hebdo magazine. "What they did was just baiting with dull humor - quite heavy and not super intelligent. We don't do that here. It's more substantive and people are more cautious. We disguise critique. Except for Gregorius Nekschot's7 work, it's all mild and intelligent", says one cartoonist. Another one agrees: "We use humor to remove the sting, instead of stabbing it in". Clearly,
7
Gregorius Nekschot is the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who has caused considerable controversy in the Netherlands because of his mockery that frequently focused on the Islam. His work was mostly published online, but eventually also by one print magazine. In 2008 the cartoonist was arrested and interrogated because of allegedly discriminatory behavior. Two years later he was vindicated. Nekschot's real identity is unknown for the public.
17
Dutch cartoonists consider not only their own work, but the drawings of their Dutch colleagues too, less provocative and offensive.
The culture that the interviewees are embedded in is also said to differ from the French context. Several cartoonists explain that cartoons are much more popular in France and that they even have several magazines that revolve entirely around graphic satire. "It's taken much more seriously than in the Netherlands", says one of the cartoonists. While this observation evokes envy among some cartoonists, the lower level of popularity of cartoons in the
Netherlands is at the same time referred to in an attempt to reassure their own safety. After all, what is taken less seriously is also less likely to upset people. One of the cartoonists explains:
"Charlie Hebdo was an institute, a symbol, like the Twin Towers were. Those things have
effect, but we don't have a symbol like that for cartoonists. I don't think a lone drawer in the
Netherlands would find a Jihadist on his doorstep, simply because it has no impact." It is the
combination of a less provocative cartoon style and a society that takes graphic satire less
seriously that is believed to lead to safer circumstances for cartoonists in the Netherlands.
Analyzing risk.
Such comparisons with other daily risks and the situation in France point to a rational way of
dealing with the events at Charlie Hebdo: the interviewees do not rely on primary emotions,
but make cognitive effort. Such an analytical risk seems consistent with the dual processing
model from psychological literature. According to this model, there are two ways in which
people can comprehend and estimate risk (Slovic, Finucane, Peters & MacGregor, 2004). The
analytical system relies on rational reasoning and probability calculations, whereas the experiential system operates more intuitively and less consciously. It builds on associations
provided by previous experiences and emotions through self-education and trial-and-error.
18
analytical model does. In the latter, risk judgments are the result of rational deliberation,
whereas risk perception is considered a feeling when it is the outcome of the experiential
process (Slovic et al., 2004).
Various theories help to explain why cartoonists are rather down-to-earth about their
situation, relying on the analytical rather than the experiential system. First of all, time is an
important factor, since the analytical process is less time-efficient than the experiential model.
After all, relying on pre-existing emotions, assumptions and associations is less time
consuming than careful considerations are (Slovic et al., 2004). When the interviews were
conducted, roughly three months had gone by since the Hebdo attacks had taken place, which
had offered the interviewees time to adopt an analytical attitude towards their risk. A
statement by one of the cartoonists shows that risk perceptions change over time: "In the week
of the event I was wondering how an attack would happen and how they would be able to find
me. It felt so nearby. But then I realized it was so unlikely: a chance of 1 out of 100.000
maybe. So the last three months I haven't thought about it anymore." Probability judgments -
an important element of the analytical processing model (Slovic et al., 2004) - seem to have
helped this man to achieve peace of mind.
The fact that none of the cartoonists had witnessed the Hebdo attacks or a similar
violent event in person further explains their analytical approach. Slovic et al. (2004) explain
that a direct threat requires fast judgments that are most efficiently provided by experiential
processing. However, the threat for my interviewees is rather hypothetical, revolving around
questions such as 'How likely would it be that ..?' and 'What would I do if..?'. Such
19 Motivation to analyze risk.
The cartoonists were not only able to analyze their professional safety, but were also
motivated to do so.First of all, they seem to have been encouraged by the high level of media
attention that they received after the attacks. Almost all interviewees were approached by
national and/or international news outlets, requesting them to voice their opinion. This
encouraged contemplation. A cartoonist with eight years experience at national and regional
newspapers explains: "I don't think my safety as such has changed that much, but the way
other people experience it has. I have had to answer so many questions, which made me think
about safety more than I had ever done before." Such a statement indicates the role of
interaction with society, which will be elaborated on in the subsequent sections.
Some of the feelings reported by the cartoonists encourage risk assessment and
contribute to the analytical model too. Often reported emotions were anger and indignation
about the attacks. "I was very angry, very very angry upon hearing of the attacks. I really
couldn't take it," a cartoonist says. "It's such obtuse Neanderthal behavior." A colleague of his
adds: "I wasn't scared. It was fresh fury." According to theory, the presence of such rage may
lead to lower risk judgments, as "fear amplifies risk estimates and anger attenuates them"
(Lerner, Gonzalez, Small, & Fischhoff, 2003; Lerner & Keltner, 2000, p. 146). While initial
reactions of worry and doubt (soon followed by attempts to put the risk in perspective) were more common, feelings of outrage offer an explanation for the low risk perception of some of the cartoonists.
Likewise, affinity and liking may lower risk judgments according to theory (Alhakami and Slovic, 1994). In this case, risk perceptions seem to be influenced by the joy that the cartoonists take in their profession. Without exception, the cartoonists express their positivity towards their job and the benefits it brings them. "My first goal is to make myself laugh", one of the cartoonists says. His colleague adds: "I find it challenging to really go into a topic and
20
understand it to the very core, just to quench my own curiosity." Another one says: "It's the most pleasurable way of making money that I could imagine". Alhakami and Slovic (1994) claim that there is an inverse correlation between perceived risk and benefit. The higher someone perceives a certain benefit to be, the lower he will estimate the related risk. Thus, the positive attitude of the cartoonists towards the benefits of their job, seems to encourage them to analyze risk, which results in a lower risk perception.
Finally, the cartoonists give a pragmatic reason for their rational approach to risk. "If I
would be worried all the time, it would be impossible to do my job", is the stance voiced by
one of the cartoonists and held by many of the others. Another interviewee elaborates: "If
there is a threat, it is so immense that you are forced to put it in perspective. If IS would
contrive to attack me, it would be such a big thing that there wouldn't be anything that I could
do to stop it. Worrying or resistance would be pointless." Thus, when terrorist threats are
considered to be of little relevance in daily life, this is not always because the risk is perceived
to be low. In a few cases it rather indicates acquiescence because the risk is considered
uncontrollably high. Yet, both the perception that the risk is limited and the perception that
the risk is too high to be controllable share two things in common: they are the result of
analytical processing and they encourage an attitude of equanimity rather than fright.
Despite the aforementioned tendencies and motivations to trivialize personal risk in daily life,
some cartoonists do express concerns regarding the long-term societal impact of the recent
wave of violence against practitioners of the profession. "Now that I think about it longer,
something has changed. It's just that it doesn't affect me in my day-to-day life. It's not part of
my daily consciousness. But maybe the Jews said something similar in 1940. Maybe that's
how it works with gradually growing dangers", says one of the interviewees. Thus, concerns
21
consequences and long term societal developments. "The sting is in the tail", explains another interviewee. "It is an incredibly complex interplay of circumstances that will determine whether there will be a structural effect, whether we will start to draw differently or whether publishers will start to make different choices. It's all very insidious." Therefore, attention should be paid not only to direct safety perceptions, but also to influences on the professional identities, ideologies and activities of the cartoonists as these may lead to changes on the longer term. These topics will be discussed in the next sections.
Professional identity & role perception
As aforementioned, professional identity is considered to be determined by both role
perceptions (Sanders, Berganza & Sanchez Aranda, 2008) and professional ideology (Deuze,
2005). Turning now to SQ2, the next section will describe the first component of professional
identity: professional role perception. This will first be described in general terms, to
subsequently turn to the effects of the Hebdo attacks.
Professional goals.
The findings regarding professional role perception will be addressed by discussing
professional goals and role perceptions in general. Once these are established, the impact of the Hebdo attacks on these perceptions will be addressed.
When asked what their professional goals are, the interviewees gave answers that can be grouped into four categories: provoking thought, summarizing issues, entertaining the audience, and satisfying their own artistic goals. Each will be discussed in turn.
Most frequently mentioned was the goal to provoke thought and to invite for contemplation
and debate, which was worded as: "shedding a critical light", "catalyzing public debate",
22
also talk about "transmitting a message". However, most of them emphasize that they do not
aim to convince others of their viewpoints, but rather to draw attention to a topic that they
consider important. Whether their audience agrees or disagrees is of subordinate importance.
"Some love it, others hate it. I don't care as long as they are not indifferent", says one of the
interviewees.
When cartoonists decide to draw about a situation or issue, their goal is generally to
summarize it in a way that is 'powerful', 'brief', 'to the point' and 'accessible'. While the first
goal revolves around the expression of opinion, the second has an informative value too. "It is
about reducing a complex situation to its very core, so people are able to grasp it in a few
seconds while articles or columns take minutes to digest", an interviewee says. In some cases
the cartoonists consider themselves an extension of journalism, doing something similar
(providing objective explanation) by using a different format. Others, however, combine the
goal to summarize with the objective to provoke thought, emphasizing the importance of
offering a counter-view to commonly accepted ideas.
Whereas the first two goals have a rather purpose-oriented character, the third goal of
entertaining the audience has a pleasure-oriented side too. This goal was not mentioned by all
of the cartoonists, but the vast majority finds humor 'essential' and 'indispensable' in their
work. "A cartoon without humor is like dry bread", one cartoonist says. Another one
considers cartoons "a moment to breath while reading the news". Only one cartoonist
disagrees. For him, encouraging people to reflect - the first objective mentioned - is essential.
"Most of my work does not contain a laugh-out loud joke", he says. His pure focus on
contemplation seems exceptional, as all other cartoonists incorporate humor - either as a goal
as such or as a tool to provoke thought. Several statements refer to such purpose-oriented
sides of entertainment. One of the interviewees states: "Humor is the door to my audience."
23
takes the sting out of sensitive topics". As such, humor should not only be considered a goal,
but also a method used as a valve to discharge social tension (as also described by Kuipers,
2001).
Finally, the interviewees describe artistic and professional satisfaction as a goal. They
take joy in creating good drawings and emphasize the importance of esthetics, skillfulness,
creativity and originality. They also find it "a pleasant way of earning money". This goal is
mostly pleasure-oriented, and it is aimed primarily at the contentment of the producer.
Interestingly, the only objective voiced by every single cartoonist interviewed, revolves
around personal satisfaction rather than the delivery of a public service. This is a remarkable
observation, since theory tends to focus on the public service that cartoonists deliver to
safeguard democracy rather than their personal satisfaction (e.g. Tunç, 2002, Manning &
Phiddian, 2005, Feinberg, 1969). In later sections, the influence of such divergent
understandings on identity negotiation processes will be discussed.
Related to the aforementioned professional goals, the interviewees also mention the
function they believe cartoonists in general could have in society. These can be grouped in
four categories - the role of columnist, entertainer, artist or activist - and were established
based on statements about the cartoonists’ own role in society as well as the role they believe
other cartoonists have. Three of the four roles revolve around one or several of the
aforementioned goals. While columnists typically seek first and foremost to provoke thought
and summarize situations, entertainers prioritize the humorous aspects described as the
entertainment goal, and artists concentrate on artistic and professional satisfaction.
Of the four roles, the columnist role was mentioned most frequently. "Columnists do
not create the news either, they tie into what journalists report about and comment on it",
explains one of the interviewees. "The only difference is that they use words and we use
24
(but not all) cartoonists, and all consider themselves artists. Least important in the current
context in the Netherlands is the role of the activist, according to the cartoonists. While both
activists and columnists attempt to embed a critical message in their drawings, the difference
can be found in the reaction they hope to provoke among the audience. Whereas columnists
aim to draw attention and invite for debate, activists have a farther-reaching goal of
instigating societal change, which requires the audience to adopt a more active attitude. Thus,
while columnists allow disagreement ("People have the right to strongly disagree with me.
That's awesome, that means you've triggered something", says one of the cartoonists),
activists seek agreement to "catalyze change".
Strikingly, none of the personal professional goals relate directly or primarily to the
activist role, as the cartoonists tend to associate this role with other cartoonists rather than
themselves. This observation indicates that most cartoonists do not consider this role relevant
in the current Dutch context, but rather associate it with different people, times and places.
"The idea that I would change the world with my drawings makes me laugh", says one of the
interviewees. Still, the majority does not eliminate the activist role all together, but considers
it relevant in different contexts. "In the past - let's say around 1800 - there was much more to
fight for. There was censorship and the society was much more hierarchical, so a cartoonist
could rebel", says one of the interviewees. Others make a comparison with the situation
abroad: "Cartoonists are really at the front line, maybe not so much in the Netherlands
anymore, but in other countries a couple of drawn lines can have a major impact. It's a way to
broach atrocities and to control any kind of power, be it political, economic or religious. It can
overthrow dictators. It catalyzes societal change." The observation that the activist role is
mostly considered of secondary relevance in the current Dutch context shows that role
perceptions are not stable but may shift according to situational aspects (Stets & Burke,
25
on the professional role perception, by describing the reactions that the Hebdo attacks have
evoked in society and the way this influences identity negotiation processes.
In understanding these processes, it should be noted that neither the goals nor roles are
strictly bordered. The interviews show that the construction and emphasis of a set of goals or
a combination of roles is dependent on both the context and individual choices and
preferences. For instance, a cartoonist in the role of a columnist may consider commentary
and summary the primary components of his work, but may also find entertainment or
esthetics important. Likewise, a cartoonist may consider himself an artist and columnist at the
same time, emphasizing both the esthetics and the underlying message of his work. Thus, role
perceptions should be considered dynamic, fluid and open for individual interpretation and
adaptation. Keeping this in mind, later sections will delve into identity negotiation processes.
First, however, the next chapter will delve into the impact of the Hebdo attacks on role
perceptions, still related to SQ2.
Societal expectations after the Hebdo attacks.
Since one's self-perception is reflective of the expectations and understanding of the social
environment they are embedded in (Stryker, 1980), the next section will describe the
perceived societal expectations in the aftermath of the Hebdo attacks and the way these differ
from the role perception of the cartoonists. After the attacks the cartoonists experienced a
short peak in the attention paid to their profession, causing increased interaction with society
about topics related to their occupation. The consequences of this attention are considered
both positive and negative, although the latter are described as dominant. A positive effect is
found in the increased appreciation for the occupation, which may positively affect the
collective self-image of cartoonists. One of the cartoonists says: "People suddenly connect
26
job is usually considered infantile, but if IS finds it worth killing for, apparently it matters -
that's what people think. Wryly, we're put back on the map." However, since most of the
cartoonists expect the raised appreciation to be short-lived, the effect on their professional
identity seems limited.
Negative aspects of the attention peak, on the other hand, seem to be of greater
influence. For a considerable part of the cartoonists, the media attention, public debate and the
Je Suis Charlie movement evoked exasperation. Even though the Je Suis Charlie slogan was
initiated to show empathy for the victims of the attack, it was taken over by journalists within
hours (Policinski, 2015 january 7). This changed the way the issue was framed: it was no
longer only about the attacks, but became part of a broader, ideological movement in favor of
freedom of expression, encouraging cartoonists to show they were determined not to be
silenced by terroristic threats. To this end, the cartoonists were perpetually requested to draw
Muhammad, they report (see figure 1). "They all ask me whether I dare to draw Muhammad.
Well, what if I don't want to?", is the question of one of the interviewees. Another one says:
"Now we are in this weird situation where you are almost forced to draw Muhammad to prove
that you are not willing to give way." Another illustrator adds: "Suddenly they all assume you
are a scared wimp if you don't draw Muhammad, even if you didn't do that before the attacks
either." Apparently, pressure is not only exerted by requesting Muhammad drawings, but also
by criticizing those who refuse. As a result, a large part of the cartoonists perceive an implied
duty to counteract (self-)censorship, forcing an unwanted activist role on them. One of the
cartoonists elaborates: "To my big surprise I was all of a sudden forced into this role of a
freedom fighter. That was never my intention. I just wanted to draw and make jokes.
Suddenly the front line turned out to be situated right in my living room. I think that was
unexpected for all cartoonists."
27
One of them states: "The whole Je Suis Charlie thing pissed me off. I find it too easy to say:
'we support you, but you are the ones who have to draw Muhammad.' Well, that's nice, but if
those guys show up in front of my door with a hatchet, where will you guys be with your Je
suis Charlie?" This indicates, firstly, that drawing the Prophet is considered a serious safety
threat (despite the aforementioned mainly positive safety perceptions) and, secondly, that the
cartoonist disapproves with the behavior he believes society expects from them. The
cartoonists generally emphasize their role as artists, columnists or entertainers, while they
consider their activist role of limited importance in the current Dutch context. The main goal
expressed by every single interviewee relates to personal satisfaction. Yet, in the aftermath of
the attacks, the cartoonists perceive society to expect roughly the opposite from them,
focusing on their societal responsibilities to fight (self-)censorship as activists and defend
democracy. While the role of cartoonists was for a long time unquestioned in the Netherlands
- the interviewees report how they could do their jobs as columnist, entertainer or artist while
rarely receiving feedback - the recent events have changed the public point of view. As such,
the Hebdo attacks seem to have given rise to a discrepancy between the role cartoonists
believe they have and the role they (should) have according to society. The effect of such
divergent expectations on identity negotiation processes are discussed in later sections, when
SQ4 will be addressed. Yet, before such negotiation can be discussed a deeper understanding
of professional identity is required. To this end, their occupational ideology - the second
28
Figure 1. "We live in a FREE country, so you HAVE to ridicule the Prophet!" (Anonymous source, 2015)
Professional ideology
Freedom of expression & self-censorship.
Moving forward to SQ3, the following section will first discuss professional ideology on
freedom of expression and self-censorship. Subsequently, the impact of the attacks on these
ideological stances will be discussed.
Freedom of expression is a topic that all cartoonists have well formed opinions about.
Essentially, a distinction is made between legality and ethics. While everything should legally
be allowed according to every single one of the interviewees, most emphasize that there is
still an ethical boundary that refrains them from making certain cartoons, especially when the
intention is purely offensive. One of the cartoonists says: "I think freedom of expression is
confused with freedom to offend. In the past it was about being oppressed and having the
right to speak up, nowadays it seems all about having the right to shout no matter what. I don't
see the point. People think offense should be allowed, but the question is: is it something we
should want?" His colleague adds: "People are very fast and loud, yelling that freedom of
29
touch it, but what is missing is the nuance. If something is that valuable, I think you should
treat it carefully. It shouldn't be squandered." Another cartoonist summarizes these points,
saying: "Freedom of expression isn't only a right, it's a responsibility too".
This does not mean that provocation is avoided. It is often even deemed desirable
because of cartoonists' aforementioned goal to "trigger something". Yet, most interviewees
make a clear distinction between offensive and provocative drawings. "I do consciously look
for opposition by trying to be a little sharper than strictly necessary. I want to tease and trigger
something so it doesn't leave the reader cold. But it's not my goal to piss people off. I just
don't want them to be indifferent", one of the cartoonists says. The cartoonists separate
provocation from offense based on humor, the underlying message and focus point. Humor,
firstly, is deemed necessary; without originality, ingenuity and laughter a drawing is more
likely to be considered offensive. "I didn't like the Muhammad cartoons8", says one of the
interviewees, "not because I think one can't draw Muhammad, but they were repetitive,
primitive and not funny". Secondly, the presence of an underlying message is considered
essential, since provocation for the mere sake of provocation is considered 'bad taste' or
'pointless'. Finally, in order to avoid offense, it is argued that people should not be criticized
directly. One of the cartoonists explains: "People are holy, but their ideas are outlawed".
Thus, while the cartoonists plea for the absence of legal restrictions, they do
emphasize their personal, ethical boundaries. One of the cartoonists underlines: "I think there
should be room for all kinds of opinions. I am not in favor of legal procedures. There will be
some opinions that are extreme, but I think we should have trust in the public debate and have
faith that there will be enough normal people to keep the balance right." The high level of
agreement on this distinction indicates the existence of a professional ideology that
disapproves with painful and unnecessary affronts, but emphasizes the importance of
8 Referring to the cartoon series published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten that caused commotion in numerous
30
complete legal freedom of expression. The tendency to avoid offense, is contradictory to the
aforementioned societal expectation for cartoonists to seek maximum provocation. The
impact of such differences on identity negotiation processes (SQ4) will be discussed in later
sections.
The influence of the attacks on self-censorship.
To answer SQ3, the relation between the attacks and attitudes on freedom of expression and
self-censorship will be explored. According to the cartoonists, self-censorship is not unique to
the current context, but rather an ever-present and under certain conditions accepted factor in
their occupation. They mention several themes that have always been likely to cause
controversy, such as the royal family, slander, racism, recent disasters such as the crash of
plane MH17 in Ukraine, the Second World War and Judaism. Lately, not surprisingly, the
prophet Muhammad and, according to some, Allah, have been added to the list of
controversial topics. Yet, the cartoonists note an important difference between these and the
other taboos. An interviewee explains: "There is nothing wrong with self-censorship. You
think about what you want to achieve and what your audience will think and you may adapt
your approach if you're afraid that your point would otherwise be overruled by criticism. That
kind of self-censorship is fine. [..] But the self-censorship that the Muhammad case brings
about is connected to safety risks. The fact that there may be violent consequences is
unacceptable. That makes this situation very scary and wrong." Clearly, the recent safety
threats have given a different meaning to self-censorship. It is no longer uniquely a matter of
ethical or practical considerations (e.g. how to successfully trigger thought) but also of
physical threat. One cartoonist says: "I disagree with the term self-censorship. It's forced
censorship, because violation is penalized with death. How can anyone ever call that
31
Thus, while personal safety is generally positively evaluated when asked about
directly, it turns out that the risk is considered relatively low only under the condition that a
certain degree of self-censorship is adopted: Muhammad and Allah are to be avoided. "The
correct thing to say is that self-censorship is not acceptable", says one of the interviewees,
referring to the perceived societal pressure to act as activist freedom fighters, "but that's
bullshit. You need to be realistic. You can cross the highway running blindly and hope no one
will hit you, but you may as well look left and right so you know for sure." Similarly
defending his decision not to draw Muhammad, another cartoonist says: "You can scream at
the Hells Angels that they are [insult] on motors, but you know you'll be punched in the face,
so you just don't. I apply the same logic to the Muhammad case." Apparently, the violent
consequences of drawing Muhammad are considered self-evident and self-censorship is
deemed necessary.
Yet, while the refusal to draw Muhammad is sometimes referred to in terms of
professional safety, it is considerably more frequently related to professional ideological
stances. The activist role of freedom fighters is related to excessive provocation and often
condemned for ethical reasons. "I think provocation relates to cartoons the same way
extremism relates to religion", says one of the cartoonists. Such statements do not frame
self-censorship in terms of risk and fear, but rather as an ideological choice. Another cartoonist
explains: "There are some topics - like the Second World War - that I try to avoid, because the
point you're trying to make will always be overshadowed by criticism. You will always
overshoot. That's useless, so you use less controversial symbols".
Thus, avoiding certain symbols is often not considered unique to the current context,
but rather a way of prioritizing the goal (of getting a message across, providing comment or
summary, making an esthetic drawing or provoking laughter) over the means (the symbols
32
columnists, artists and/or entertainers rather than activists. Referring to his function as
columnist, one of the cartoonists says: "It is not about Muhammad. It is about the monstrous
behavior that people justify with religion. That's what I want to comment on, not the Prophet."
Strikingly, professional ideological explanations for self-censorship are given
considerably more often than explanations based on safety management. The dominant
ideology seems to condemn dueling with Islamists, but does so based on previously existing,
overarching ideological principles rather than safety considerations. Ideological deliberations
are also given as a reason to continue to reject the activist role: "I am not going to change who
I am or what I do. That would mean they would win", says one of the cartoonists. Staying true
to oneself is described as "the most powerful way of showing reluctance to give in". Thus,
pre-existing role perceptions and ideologies are reaffirmed in an attempt for the cartoonists to
stand their ground in the battle against terrorism. The high level of agreement on such stances
indicates the presence of a shared professional ideology, but is also contradictory to perceived
societal expectations. The next section will describe how such contradictions are coped with
in negotiation processes.
Identity negotiation processes after the Hebdo attacks
While the previous sections have discussed the divergent expectations of society and the
interviewed cartoonists, the next section will assess SQ4 by describing the way such
divergence is dealt with in identity negotiation processes in which individual, professional and
societal meaning-giving plays a part.
As aforementioned, consensus about professional role perceptions is lacking: where
society considers cartoonists to be activists, the interviewees consider themselves columnists,
entertainers and/or activists. Their ideological stances also differ considerably from perceived
33
self-censorship contrasts with the expectations they believe society has regarding their role in
defending freedom of expression through provocation. In this context of non-matching
expectations, successful self-verification (as described by Burke & Stets, 2003) through
interaction with society seems less evident.
Yet, the cartoonists do not show a tendency to conform to societal expectations, but
rather emphasize their pre-existing professional roles. "I don't need to draw the Prophet. I can
make my point clear without drawing him", one of the cartoonists says, implicitly referring to
his role of columnist by mentioning that he aims to make a point. Others refer to their goal to
summarize complex situations: "It's not about whether I dare to draw him. What I need to do
is explain the problem to the audience; show what the sensitivities are. I don't need to draw
Muhammad to do that." Yet another drawer emphasized his role as entertainer: "I started
doing this work so I could create a light moment, a moment to laugh, and that's still why I'm
in it. Drawing Muhammad is not part of that." Meanwhile, the role of activist is often openly
rejected: "This reversed self-censorship is a strange phenomenon. You are a weakling if you
don't draw Muhammad. You need to justify yourself and that's only because there is so much
rumpus about it. It's all schoolyard machismo. I don't feel the need to prove myself."
In- and out-group thinking facilitates the maintenance of a role perception that the
cartoonists feel comfortable with as well as the rejection of the activist role. To this end,
counter-roles are defined, which revolve around emphasizing what the in-group is by pointing
out differences with others (Burke & Stets, 2003). In this case, the shared professional identity
of Dutch cartoonists seems to be reaffirmed by stressing the differences between them and
French cartoonists. In this comparison, French cartoonists are portrayed as more 'provocative',
'crude', 'direct' and 'harsh', and (sometimes) less 'skilled' or 'intelligent'9. The first four
characterizations implicitly push French cartoonists into the direction of activism, and help
9 This does not count for all cartoonists. Three out of twelve do appreciate e.g. the Charlie Hebdo drawings and describe them
34
the Dutch cartoonists to reaffirm their (opposing) professional identity as artists, entertainers
and/or columnists. Meanwhile, the similarities among Dutch cartoonists are mentioned too.
"We use cartoons to release tension rather than creating it", exemplifies one cartoonist.
Another one says: "Me and my colleagues alike, we don't let them tempt us to push the limits
the way they did at Charlie Hebdo"10. Such 'we' and 'them' referrals are common and indicate
in- and out-group thinking (Burke & Stets, 2003). They are enabled by and enable a shared
professional ideology.
The high level of agreement on freedom of expression (that should be bound by ethics
but not legality) and self-censorship (that is accepted if it is voluntarily employed for practical
or ethical reasons) indicates the existence of a shared professional ideology. Conforming to
dominant ideological principles may lead to acceptance among colleagues and an increase of
journalistic capital (Moller Hartley, 2013). One cartoonist says: "If you get positive feedback
from a colleague, that feels really good. Appreciation from someone who knows what they
are talking about is the biggest compliment." Thus, the opinion of colleagues is often valued
higher than the public opinion. One of the cartoonists elaborates: "If you refuse openly to
draw Muhammad, you're criticized from all possible sides, but those who have really thought
about it - colleagues with competence - they will understand. What others blurt without
thinking doesn't matter much." Moreover, professional ideology is prioritized by emphasizing
the short-lived character of the public opinion, as another interviewee explains: "They11 will
be swept away by another hype tomorrow." As a result, durable self-affirmation is considered
more likely through recognition by colleagues than by adjusting to the capriciousness of the
public. While conformance to societal expectations is refused, the cartoonists often show a
tendency to turn to colleagues, where mutual appreciation is enabled by the existence of a
shared professional ideology. Stets & Burke (2003, p. 5) claim that "significant others
10 'Referring to the Dutch media. 11
