One of the predicaments of our times is that the more we are connected through the processes of globalisation, the more alienated we seem to get from each other, in terms of identity, interests and worldviews. This paradox of getting closer and yet moving farther from each other is an indication of the growing social and cultural anomalies in a globalised world. In one way, the latest cartoon crisis is a symptom of a larger social and cultural malady.

Let us look at the facts behind the cartoon controversy. On September 30, 2005, a Danish Newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published 12 cartoons, caricaturing the Prophet Mohammad in a variety of satirical situations. They were published along with an editorial criticising the self-censorship of the Danish writer Kare Bluitgen, who complained that he was unable to find an illustrator for his children's book about the Prophet. While some of the images were gentle, others could easily be perceived as reinforcing the new offensive stereotypes, both in terms of the politics associated with the ‘war on terror' and in terms of culture and religion.

How did a set of cartoons published four months ago became such a big issue with global dimensions? Though the mild and rather liberal foreign minister of Egypt noted the offensive nature of the cartoons and registered his protest, the global media in general did not take notice of it.

It was the re-publication of the cartoons in Austria on January 30 and in the beginning of February 2006 in a number of European newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain, that made it a global issue. The protest that began in Europe spread like wildfire, resulting in protest marches and violence, leading to the loss of lives and destruction of Danish embassies in many countries around the world.

This crisis is not just about a cartoon. It is more about the globalisation of images, visuals and perceptions reinforcing a sense of alienation and the resulting anger leading to violence and conflict based on perceived violations of dignity and identity. This is not the first time there has been tension between the right to express and the right to belief, between secular fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists. The protests against the novel (and film and theatre adaptations of The Last Temptation of Christ, the fatwa and protests against Salman Rushdie in 1989 in the wake of his novel The Satanic Verses and the outrage of Hindu fundamentalists at M.F. Husain's painting of a nude Goddess Saraswati exemplified these tensions.

However, there is a critical difference between the present protests and the earlier ones. The key difference is the role of the media in this theatre of postmodern times. This whole controversy was created by the media and fanned by the media and now the media stands in amazement when the violence and protests erupt across the world. It is the re-publication of a set of cartoons followed by the globalised telecasting of small protests here and there on 24X7 news channels and various blogs and Internet sites that has added fuel to the fire. Every single protest has been televised, and these powerful images have inspired and ignited others, though most of the people who are protesting have never even seen the cartoons in question. A key difference is the speed with which the images and perceptions are globalised through 24X7 television (ever in search of more juicy stories and news to churn out as visual products in a marketplace) and the extent to which websites and blogs have become a medium for mobilisation and political action of one kind or another.

Bulldozing globalisation -- through media images, markets and the exhibition of powerful unilateral military might -- perpetuates a feeling of insecurity amongst communities at the receiving end. This sense of insecurity is coupled with a growing sense of inequality and unjust power relations. When coupled with cultural stereotypes and distrust, we have a potent recipe for alienation. The insecurity is often felt most by immigrant populations (with less power in given social and cultural conditions), and those who feel discriminated against and excluded from the economic benefits of globalisation. These conditions create alienation, and violate people's sense of dignity.

However, there are political forces and fundamentalist elements who are trying to make political capital of such insecurity and alienation. They tend to use any means to accelerate the process of alienation and make long-term or short-term political capital of it. The cartoon controversy has proved a very good tool for such people to turn alienation into anger and violence and help their own propaganda.

In many ways, dignity is at the core of the notion of rights. When the sense of dignity and identity is violated, people tend to react with violence. The recent unrest and riots we have seen in France, Australia and elsewhere are symptomatic of the growing sense of alienation and the violation of a people's sense of being, beliefs, dignity and identity.

The cartoon crisis is a result of the sense of alienation and the cynical use of such conditions by the network of vested political interests and religious fundamentalists.

But we cannot allow this clash of civilisations, as Samuel Huntington termed it, to continue unchallenged. We need to build more bridges and counter the stereotypes based on religion, culture and identities.






Contributed by John Samuel. Reprinted with permission from Info Change India.

To read another Global Envision article about globalization, see Unpopular Globalization: Why So Many Are Opposed.



Return to top