Clashing Taboos: Danish Cartoons, the Life of Brian and Public Diplomacy

Rolfe, Mark

doi:10.1163/187119109x455900

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not until late January of 2006 did violent demonstrations erupt. Post-mortems of the affair (Klausen, 2009;Rolfe, 2009;Yasmeen, 2008) suggest that one key turning point was the decision by Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to reject an urgent request for a meeting from ambassadors from 11 Muslim countries soon after the cartoons were published. Rasmussen's decision was a costly failure in public diplomacy, argues Rolfe (2009).…”

Section: Insulting the Prophetmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…President Hosni Mubarak's government in Egypt played a leading role, not because it was less secular than other Muslim states but quite the opposite. Feeling the pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood ahead of local elections, it found it politically advantageous to perform Muslim outrage and display a willingness to defend the faith (Rolfe, 2009). The cartoons proved useful as a transnational injustice symbol, including by al-Qaeda (Olesen, 2014).…”

Section: Insulting the Prophetmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performative censorship: Why some free speech conflicts should be taken seriously but not literally

George

2023

Media, Culture & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In some speech-related disputes, censors do not gauge their success by whether the challenged cultural product or practice has been suppressed in accordance with their explicit demands. This article proposes a theory of performative censorship that can help explain this paradox. Building on the concepts of expressive laws and symbolic crusades from legal studies and social movement studies respectively, performative censorship disputes are defined as contentious episodes in which demands for or against speech regulation are expressed partly for the broader objective of gaining recognition for a group’s way of life, dignity or status. Case studies of two highly contentious conflicts are offered: over Confederate statues in the United States and cartoons of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. The case studies show that movements’ goals and tactics are neither uniform nor static, making them more complex but also presenting opportunities for de-escalation.

show abstract

Section: Insulting the Prophetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Insulting the Prophetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performative censorship: Why some free speech conflicts should be taken seriously but not literally

George

2023

Media, Culture & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That spotlight, however, cast a shade over any explanation of the aggressive and moralistic potential of satire. The resulting furore need not have escalated into an international crisis but for the political incompetence of Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen whose government was mired in local politics and culture war battles and who stubbornly refused to defuse the affair before it became a worldwide fracas (Rolfe 2009).…”

Section: Satire and Parrhesiamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Danish Cartoons, Charlie Hebdo and the culture wars: satiric limits in comparative national and transnational perspectives

Rolfe

2021

EJHR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A considerable body of academic literature has lauded political satirists as rebellious defenders of democracy and free speech against an establishment. Although satire is not always rebellious, this reputation of satirists and of satire may itself be the object of partisan capture. In this article, it is the object of capture by right-wing populists. In that respect, satire and the meta-discourse about satire can be used like any political rhetoric in gathering like-minded allies, claiming standards, and fighting opponents. With the Danish cartoons crisis of 2005-2006 and the Charlie Hebdo massacre of 2015, proponents of culture wars rhetoric added satire to their list of Western cultural legacies that needed defence against Islamic terrorism as well as left authoritarian elites who suppressed free speech through political correctness. They constructed simplistic global political dichotomies about satire, free speech, and civilisation and lifted events out of local contexts in a process of global framing. The culture war rhetoric was absolutist in support of free speech and satire on the international level. But the national level reveals the hortatory and partisan side to this rhetoric and the complexities that belie the absolutist stand. Nations are the arenas where struggles over free speech and political humour are played out.

show abstract

“…State leaders joke about difficult conflicts and ambiguous problems. For example, when Denmark faced global criticism over the publication of the Muhammad cartoons (Hansen, 2011), hostile reactions from Muslim voices were portrayed as aberrant to democracy and it was suggested that ‘Muslims should get a sense of humour’ (Rolfe, 2009: 262). While rarely taken seriously in IR theory, humour is intrinsic to the very conduct of international relations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International misrecognition: The politics of humour and national identity in Israel’s public diplomacy

Adler‐Nissen

Tsinovoi

2018

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognition, or the lack of it, is a central concern in International Relations. However, how states cope with international misrecognition has so far not been thoroughly explored in International Relations scholarship. To address this, the article presents a theoretical framework for understanding international misrecognition by drawing on discursive and psychoanalytical theories of collective identity formation and humour studies. The article conceptualises international misrecognition as a gap between the dominant narrative of a national Self and the way in which this national Self is reflected in the ‘mirror’ of the international Other. We argue that humour offers an important way of coping with misrecognition by ridiculing and thereby downplaying international criticism. The significance for international relations is illustrated through an analysis of the public diplomacy campaign ‘Presenting Israel’, which, through parodying video clips, mobilised ordinary Israeli citizens to engage in peer-to-peer public diplomacy when travelling abroad. Public diplomacy campaigns are commonly seen by scholars and practitioners as attempts to improve the nation’s image and smoothen or normalise international Self–Other relations. However, after analysing the discursive and visual components of the campaign — which parodied how European media portrayed Israel as primitive, violent and exotic — this article observes that in the context of international misrecognition, such coping attempts can actually contribute to further international estrangement.

show abstract

Clashing Taboos: Danish Cartoons, the Life of Brian and Public Diplomacy

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Performative censorship: Why some free speech conflicts should be taken seriously but not literally

Performative censorship: Why some free speech conflicts should be taken seriously but not literally

The Danish Cartoons, Charlie Hebdo and the culture wars: satiric limits in comparative national and transnational perspectives

International misrecognition: The politics of humour and national identity in Israel’s public diplomacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About