---

Olivia Natan | Phoenix Staff

Victor Navasky spoke on campus last week.

BY AMELIA POSSANZA

In print | Published November 12, 2009

Victor Navasky ’54 is proud of the time he spent as editor of The Nation, the National Book Award he won for “Naming Names” and the current post he holds as the George Delacorte Professor of Magazine Journalism at Columbia University. But he is most proud of being included in David Horowitz’s list of the 101 most dangerous academics in America, a recognition that he wishes hadn’t been left out of his introduction.

Navasky, a humorous as well as dangerous academic, gave the annual McCabe Memorial lecture on Monday night. His talk, titled “The Art of Controversy, or Why Caricature May Be Worth 10,000 Words,” explored and evaluated several theories as to why seemingly inconsequential political caricatures often create such vehement backlash.

Chenge Mahomva ’11, a McCabe scholar, described him in her introduction as “a fellow Swattie whose curiosity about the world we live in and his ability to enjoy a good laugh have led to an extraordinary career in journalism and other print media.”

Navasky both alarmed and amused his readers during his early years as a reporter for The Phoenix. During his sophomore year he shared the position of co-editor and wrote a story about the administration’s open-door policy for male-female visitation. Navasky also ran an accompanying illustration dramatizing an incident of an administrator walking in on a couple in a locked room.

Amidst all the ensuing turmoil, including a suggestion that sophomores did not have the maturity to serve as editors of the newspaper, one of his professors commended him on his work and taught him an invaluable lesson. “It is the job of the student newspaper to be a thorn in the side of the administration,” he said.

“My topic this evening has a similar function,” Navasky said. Despite the perception that caricatures are gimmicky and inconsequential, they have produced heated debate and public outcry at the personal and global level. Navasky related an anecdote from his time as editor of The Nation.

Thirty-four members “of what [Navasky] thought was a staff of 32” signed a petition to not publish a caricature by David Levine depicting Henry Kissinger on top of the world as a woman with a United States flag covering the act. People cited the cartoon as sexist, asking why it didn’t depict the world as a man. But Navasky held his line, stating, “You can’t take a vote on aesthetic matters.” The cartoon has since been included in exhibits chronicling political art.

How does this “seemingly inconsequential art form” make so many people squirm? Navasky first turned to neuroscience to answer his question. Authorities have suggested that the emotional right brain is triggered by visual stimulus more than by words. “When I heard neuroscientists explain … it reminds me of the old spiritual about how the hip bone is connected to the thigh bone,” he said. Navasky is not swayed by psychology, in part because it reminds him of his fellow Swarthmore students who were all too eager to be paid $1.25 an hour to walk around with shaved patches on their head to have their brain waves measured.

“The cause of the agitated discontent is not so much in our right brain or in the images themselves as in their context.” This shift in perspective led Navasky to look at the messages of the cartoons as the source of “agitated discontent.”

For example, the Kissinger and world cartoon alarmed his staff because it reinforces active male and passive female stereotypes that already exist in our society. Yet this argument is undermined by the fact that words fail to ignite the same anger.

To account for this aspect of the cartoon, Navasky posited that cartoons derive their power from the “totemic power of images.”

“Maybe these heathens, these savages, these cave painters were right after all,” he said, referring to idolatry of images. But he found this theory ultimately unsatisfying as well.

He looked back to the art form itself and the unique opportunity it provides to link the recognizable with the distorted, the real with the myth. “It’s like you were framed for a crime you didn’t commit,” he said. And even worse, it’s difficult to respond to the joke a caricature creates with such instantaneous impact. “There’s no such thing as a cartoon to the editor,” he said.

“Always say finally when you have five minutes to go. It puts the audience at ease,” Navasky said as the lecture wound down. He concluded by suggesting that despite the debates and controversies they have sparked, cartoons and caricatures are here to stay.

The lecture assured Mahomva that her initial perceptions of Navasky were correct. “He has a good way of mixing intelligent observations about the world with humor,” she said. Other students, Swarthmore Borough community members, alumni, and campus community members from Rebecca Chopp to Maurice Eldridge ’61 shared in the laughter.

Mahomva and the other McCabe scholars, who receive the McCabe scholarship for “ability, character, personality, leadership, and service to school and community,” are responsible for the selection of the speaker. The annual McCabe Memorial lecture brings to campus individuals selected by the McCabe scholars for their distinguished careers. The McCabe scholars ate dinner with Navasky before the lecture.

The scholars picked Navasky in part because of the prevalence and importance of caricature in the 2008 presidential elections. The lecture also held more personal relevance for Mahomva. A native of South Africa, she has noticed that as democracy has grown there so has the amount of caricature. “In South Africa, caricature is becoming really popular. It was really nice to hear an American perspective.”

Other McCabe scholars enjoyed their choice. “A lot of the older alums are more conservative,” said Emily Bryant ’12, a McCabe scholar. “He offers a fresh viewpoint.”

Finally, Maddie Williams ’12, also a McCabe scholar, echoed this perspective. “I thought he was really human … really down to earth.”

---

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »