The Detriments of McCloud and Sousanis' Theories

Both McCloud and Sousanis deal with notions of conceptual and perceived meaning and how they relate to image. They both come at it from different angles, with the former suggesting that the physical world can become conceptual through sensory experience and the latter suggesting that imagination “pervades our entire existence” and that it is “the capacity to hold a multiplicity of worlds inside us,” but they are both done with somewhat of a positive connotation (Sousanis 91, 96). Both authors frame their arguments in a way that is supposed to convey a sense of limitless potential in the mind’s ability to relate images to the world around them, as well as construct realities based off of meaningful experience. Lines such as “Imagination lets us exceed our inevitably limited point of view” and “soon we discover that objects of the physical world can also cross over…[they] begin to glow with the life we end them,” imply a reverence for this human ability to recognize meaning, be it subjective or objective, in the images they receive (Sousanis 88, McCloud 40). I offer a counterpoint to both and assert that if their notions prove true, then there is potential for the innate human skill of recognizing, and sometimes embodying images based off of sensory experience to damage one’s mindset and conceptualization of themselves.

I point to these two images in order to discuss some of the problematic elements of McCloud’s notions In his comic he emphasizes the importance of Audience involvement with text or image and posits that viewer identification, which is a specialty of cartoons, hold an advantage not only in allowing an audience to identify itself in an image, but to have more of “an advantage in breaking into world popular culture” (McCloud 42). If this sentiment holds true, then these two images can potentially affect how the general public, who is the most susceptible to influence by pop culture, could be negatively impacted by the meaning, both implicit and explicit, of these images. Let’s observe them through a “good eye,” or a lens that notices details that can form topical relationships, or in this case, contrasts, between images. It is immediately noticeable that the way cartoonists of the time chose to represent white people versus people of color. While not photo-realistic, both images contain enough cartoonish detail to be identified as a person of color and a white man. Notice how the white man’s cartoonish features encourage viewer identification as he contains a consistent skin tone, has hair, and is somewhat realistically proportioned. The darker skinned cartoon strays farther from realism to display a caricature that looks inhuman and unrelatable. If these images are placed into an earlier context where a young black boy has no other means of seeing himself represented in pop culture, and McCloud’s theory that “Any Configuration of ink on paper…[can] still represent a face,” (and by virtue a person) and that “words are the ultimate abstraction” hold true, then that young black boy can come to correlate his own conceptual image of himself with words such as “inhuman” and “weird” (McCloud 46, 47). This is referenced when McCloud states that cartoons have the ability to portray “the world within” (McCloud 41). Even when the images are viewed with a “curious eye,” or a more in-depth realization about theoretical questions raised by images, one might notice how the white cartoon is dressed in pajamas and is given a sense of agency with the cation “Drop Me a Line.” The darker skinned cartoon on the other hand is drawn to be complacent with his subservient role and is implied to be uneducated through his caption. This further speaks to the notion that if McCloud feels that it is possible for the conceptual power of images to hold influence on the physical world, then certain images, especially if they exist with no alternative, can potentially damage someone’s concept of identity.

Whereas McCLoud focused more on how the conceptual influences the physical, Sousanis delves more into how the physical can influence the conceptual. While McCloud states that “our identities belong permanently to the conceptual world” whereas Sousanis states that the physical world we interact with both influences and is held together by imagination. He states that “image is an act of imagination,” and that it fills in the gaps and links images that make it possible for us to think and to act” (Sousanis 90). With these statements he creates a direct link between the act of recognizing an image and the act of acting. This notion is fair, but, much like McCloud, it can be problematic under certain contexts.

Sousanis describes imagination as “the in-between space connecting two places [experience and story] outside of the usual way” (Sousanis 93). These three images represent how this theory can be perverted to reinforce negative stereotypes. These cartoons were drawn by artists whose flames of imagination were fanned by negative generalizations about darker skinned individuals. As a result, their conditioned imagination led to the story that these images tell. The first reinforces the stereotype that black people are sneaky and conniving, the second that they have a proclivity for chitins, and the third that they have inhumanly large lips and all look like they are in a minstrel show. This can create a cycle of detriment if Sousanis’ theory holds true as the stories presented by these images can become a part of another artist’s experience and effectively influence them to act on them to create something more racist and offensive.