The Australian tradition of political satire is one in which few holds are barred. Since colonial times, Australian politics itself has always been a fairly naked struggle for power. 1 Although some New Zealanders might claim their politics to be somewhat more civilised (or perhaps just better run) than that of their uncouth cousins across the Tasman Sea, by and large the two countries share a frank approach to governance and also to the vital role of satire in rendering its frustrations tolerable for the electorate. While many other nations have an equally robust satirical discourse about politics (France, for example), this chapter invites the reader to adopt a particularly Australasian perspective; reflecting partly the bookâs origins, and partly the richness of material for study.
The term âAustralasianâ is used here, not to indicate a relationship with the countries of North and South-East Asia, but to refer to commonalities in the polities and cultures of Australia and New Zealand. Both inherited their political and economic systems from Great Britain, accompanied by cultural influences which have been modified only a little by multicultural immigration and by the aim of better recognition of their different Indigenous peoples. As Nicholas Holm points out in Chap. 4, among the many things that the two nations have in common are a wide permit for the use of humour in daily life and a particular taste for the deadpan and levelling kind. To these can be added a preference for what is practical and down-to-earth and a fixed distrust of leaders and politicians.
In Australia, many of these traits are embodied in âthe larrikinâ, a male figure (almost exclusively) that has long served as a national self-image. It looms large in political cartooning, even if its power is waning somewhat today. Typically, larrikins delight in rule-breaking behaviour, often masked as humour or leg-pulling, and mostly of the forgivable kind. This chapter describes the evolution of the larrikin image in Australian cartooning history and its use in political satire. It also introduces the book as a whole by relating its different chapters to each other and to the general topic of satire and politics. It begins with a brief account of Australian humour and of the nature of satire and political cartooning, before turning to the larrikin and cartooning.
Australian Humour
Like other Anglophone countries, Australians like to see an ability to laugh at themselves as a national trait. Others are also good targetsâespecially the English and the cousins in New Zealand. But as a rule, Australians do expect to be taken down a peg or two by their own compatriots. Humour as practised in Australia effectively acts as an equalising force and the habit of âtaking the mickeyâ (taking the piss) is nearly universal, serving a normative function across all levels of society and between various cultural groups. 2 It has even been termed a democratic right. 3 Cockney and Irish traditions have both contributed to shape this permissive culture about the use of inter-personal humour. Post-war immigrant cultures have mostly absorbed the practice, with remarkable numbers of successful self-styled ethnic (âwogâ) comedians, including some Indigenous stand-ups. 4 This insistence on putting down the newly arrived and mocking not only incompetent or self-important leaders but also oneâs own friends has been seen by one historian as sharing something with the rich tradition of satirical name-calling and mimetic mockery found in many Australian Indigenous cultures. 5
Literary scholars nevertheless point out that despite its assertive irreverence, Australian humour is âusually an acknowledgement of the status quoâ, 6 frequently displaying uncertainty and bravado rather than confidence and finesse. 7 As with the larrikin, rebelliousness is contained within and limited by the humour. The prevalent style delights in crudity, valuing it somewhat childishly as a form of rebellion against propriety. Collecting Australian jokes for publication, Adams and Newell decided that Australians must in fact âfear the âotherâ, what we deem to be foreign or alien, and so tell savage, uncivilised jokes about Aborigines, Jews, migrants ⌠Jokes that are bigoted, blasphemous or phobic outnumber all other categoriesâ. 8 Davies found a unique corpus of Australian âdirt and vomit jokesâ. 9 Almost anything goes, it seems, excused as humour.
This permissive culture of humour use extends even to satire with its openly critical intent compared to more happy-go-lucky jokes and general humour. Satire can be applied very freely in Australia, both to individuals and to political as well as other topics. Politicians have effectively been regarded as fair game from the early days of white settlement when they were frequently third sons or neâer-do-wells sent out to the colonies from Great Britain. Despite current debate about the limits of free speech and increasing hesitation over cultural sensitivities (in the wake of religious terrorism, for example), political figures continue to be pilloried in satirical cartoons without much reprisal. 10 In fact, Australian satire enjoys unique legal protection from copyright, if not from defamation law. 11 One eminent jurist well versed in tackling corruption in Australia describes satire as âthe most important form of public humourâ, designed to make society âexamine itself critically and confront its deficienciesâ. 12
Satire, Politics and Cartooning
The marriage of satire and politics seems natural. Both set out to sayâperhaps even to doâsomething serious about life. Satireâs name derives from a literary tradition of serio ludere (to play in earnest) that dates back to Lucian of Samosata (c.120â180 ce). Its playfulness can range from sunny and light to a savage indignation (Jonathan Swiftâs saeva indignatio) 13 that is so bleak that it barely functions as humour. 14 When the term âsatireâ is used loosely (as often today) to apply to anything funny or amusing, its defining moral aspect is undercut: it is essentially humour with a critical purpose. 15 Applied to politics, its purpose can be intentionally partisan, either in pursuit of a particular political agenda or to comment on politicians individually or collectively. Despite the views of some critics, its agenda may be of either the left or right, since hypocrisy (among its other targets) recognises no political boundaries. 16 Sometimes the topic may be the folly or confusion of the electorate or of the system as a whole, but more often it is the failings of those who claim to lead the nation and make decisions on its behalf, in the best interests of âthe peopleâ.
Since classical times, cartoon drawing has been linked to political satire, exploiting the fact that one image is worth a thousand words. 17 While literature, drama and polemical writing have all played their parts in advancing satire, the encapsulation of a message into an image, whether performed or printed, gives satire an immediate bite. Cartoons are an exceptionally condensed form of imagery which means that they also benefit more readily than long texts or performances from mass distribution, enhancing the outreach of the satire. It could be said that they play a leading role in the creation of satire,...
