The Fool of the Animals:
British Lion in Soviet Kukryniksy Trio's Pravda Political
Cartoons, 1965-1982
Reeta Kangas
In the Soviet Union, the dehumanisation of enemies by depicting them as
animals was a significant means in representing the ideological conflict of the Cold
War. Looking at animal symbolism in Soviet Cold War political cartoons helps us
to understand how by portraying the enemy as an animal, the Soviet propaganda
machine framed the conflict and communicated the Soviet ideology to the
population. The animal symbols in use varied from caricatured national emblems to
animals with a culturally coded symbolic value. Different animal symbols
communicated different ideas of the enemy’s nature to the audience. In this way,
different animals were used within varying cultural frameworks to manipulate the
readership's views on the Cold War.
This paper uses the Soviet cartoonist trio Kukryniksy’s work published in the
Communist newspaper Pravda during 1965-1982 to examine the ways in which the
British lion was used to dehumanise the enemy and create an image of a feeble,
passive Britain. More specifically it analyses the ways in which the British lion
was used in Soviet political cartoons to create ridicule and hostility towards the
ideological enemy, as well as, by contrast, to promote the Soviet ideology. Thus,
for example, the traditional symbolic values of a lion, courage and strength, were
juxtaposed in the depiction of the British lion, which was represented in the
cartoons as cowardly and weak. More generally, the purpose of this paper is to map
out how animal symbolism and political cartoons are used as communication
methods in ideological conflicts.
Key Words: animal symbolism, Cold War, political cartoons, propaganda,
Soviet Union
*****
1. Introduction
In Soviet visual propaganda the enemy, i.e. the West, is often depicted in animal
disguises. The animal symbols in use vary from caricatured national emblems to
animals with cultural symbolic values. A lion is the national animal of Britain
(among other countries), but it also has certain symbolic values connected to it. Its
symbolic value is generally positive. Traditionally it symbolises courage, bravery,
The Fool of the Animals
strength, power, and majesty among many other things. It is seen as the king of the
animals. Thus, it is no surprise that it often features in heraldry and flags, and as a
national animal. Although it is neither the only animal on the coat of arms, nor the
only national animal of Britain, it is the lion that came to symbolise Britain in the
Soviet political cartoons. But how can a symbol with such a positive charge be
used as a device of belittling and ridicule? This paper aims to discuss the ways in
which the Kukryniksy trio enfeebled the lion symbol by turning the British lion
into a coward and a weakling, and thus ridiculed and belittled one of their Cold
War ideological enemies.
2
The purpose of this paper is to map the different ways in which the British lion
is used in the Kukryniksy cartoons. What kind of symbolic values does it get? How
does the British lion of the political cartoon relate to the traditional symbolic values
of a lion? How does the image of the British lion change in accordance to
contemporary events? What is the relation of the British lion to other political
entities? More generally this paper aims to discuss the ways in which a generally
positive symbol can be made into a negative one by the means of a political
cartoon. The primary research material consists of 25 Kukryniksy cartoons
depicting the British lion, published in the communist newspaper Pravda during
1965-1982. These cartoons are viewed within their cultural framework and
interpreted through it in order to be able to get as close as possible to the ideas that
lay behind the use of animal symbolism in these cartoons.
2. Propaganda in the Soviet Union
In the Soviet Union propaganda was a significant part of the everyday life. One
of its most important forms was visual propaganda.1 The Party took care that
propaganda posters were visible all over the country, not only in the cities but also
in the countryside.2 But posters were not the only form of visual propaganda.
Political cartoons in the daily newspapers served similar functions. Taking into
account that Communist newspapers were distributed to the common rooms of the
workplaces for the workers to read, displayed on newsstands on the streets for
people to read, and priced so that they were affordable for ordinary citizens, one
can assume that they too played a significant role in the daily lives of Soviet
citizens. Throughout its existence, the Soviet Union emphasised the superiority of
the communist system, to the extent that its socialist values became an important
part of the culture.3
Propaganda messages, generally, are culturally coded, containing culturally
loaded symbols and references to past experiences of the audience in question. 4
Like propaganda, political cartoons rely on their cultural context. Understanding
the message of a cartoon depends on the context in which it is produced and
interpreted.5 In order to be effective in influencing opinions, the political cartoon
comments on recent events and news that are familiar and relevant to the audience.
While cartoons do not usually provide the reader with a vast amount of information
Reeta Kangas
3
on the issue, they do provide a suggestion on how the events could be interpreted. 6
To shape the opinions of the audience, the cartoonist creates a semblance of
revealing the reality behind someone or something, but this reality is actually a
construction that the cartoonist has made in order to affect the opinion of the
audience.7 In this way the political cartoonist constructs and influences the ways in
which the audience interprets and sees the world.
The Soviet artist trio Kukryniksy was well aware of their cultural context and
were able to use it to the fullest in their propaganda art. Kukryniksy was born when
the three artists, Mikhail Kupriyanov (1903-1991), Porfiri Krylov (1902-1990), and
Nikolai Sokolov (1903-2000), started working as a collective in the 1920s. They
were one of the first generations of artists educated in a Soviet art school. Thus, it
can be assumed that they were educated in an environment that taught them how to
depict world events in accordance with the values of the Soviet Union; they were
knowledgeable propagandists for the state. They are most famous for their WWII
propaganda posters, but they also published a vast amount of cartoons in Pravda
throughout nearly the entire existence of the newspaper. During the Cold War, the
Kukryniksy cartoons mainly focused on ridiculing western countries and accusing
them of plotting against the 'peaceful' Soviet Union. In addition to foreign political
events, Kukryniksy found inspiration for their cartoons in mythology, literature,
proverbs, and sayings.
3. The Symbol Enfeebled
Political cartoons often depict humans in animal disguises or create a mixture
of human and animal body parts. When an animal acts like a human, it is termed
anthropomorphic; a human represented as an animal is called theriomorphic; and a
creature with animal and human body parts combined is referred to as
therianthropic. Generally, there is a tendency to portray ourselves as 'wholly
animal', theriomorphic, and others as 'only half-animal', therianthropic, thus giving
'them' a status below that of an animal.8 The British lion of the Kukryniksy
cartoons is a therianthropic figure. It nearly always wears some human clothing,
has human body parts such as hands, or acts in a way representative to humans.
This lion is also a character participating in humanlike actions.9
Generally the lion serves two different roles. Primarily, it is a symbol of the
country itself. But it also often serves as a depiction of the prime minister of
Britain, especially once Margaret Thatcher is in power. It is customary in visual
propaganda to use the leader of an enemy nation as a representation of the whole
country, because it is more difficult to attach negative personal traits to a whole
nation than just its leader.10 When the lion in the cartoons has the function of
depicting both the country and the prime minister, it receives more humanlike
characteristics. For example, in the case of Thatcher, the lion is dressed in more
clothing.11 Before Thatcher, it usually wore a top hat to signify its status as a
capitalist, but no other clothing unless the clothing was significant to the meaning
The Fool of the Animals
of the cartoon.12 But the Thatcher-lion often wears earrings, pearls, high heels,
stockings, a dress, and so on. Its mane is also often curled to make it look more like
a feminine hairdo.13 Thus the national emblem, the lion, is combined with certain
characteristics of the current prime minister, making it a therianthropic, comical
character. Further comical effects are created by juxtaposing the image of the male
lion with the female prime minister.
4
Another way of making an animal character appear ridiculous is to depict it
doing something that it would not naturally do.14 For instance, in one cartoon the
British lion is made to perform the duties of a lion tamer, putting its head in the
mouth of a West German, thus making the German the lion and the lion the tamer.15
Portraying the circus feat in this upside-down way, Kukryniksy makes the lion
appear ridiculous. But it is also a reference to the lion's incapability to be in control
of the situation. Though the lion is portrayed as the tamer, the one in the position of
the animal, the German, has the power in the cartoon. It is the German's decision
whether the lion loses its head or not. The lion gives the false appearance of a
brave creature, but its facial expression reveals its true feelings. National animals'
facial expressions are, in fact, often used in cartoons to bring forth other aspects to
them than the traditional symbolic ones.16
National animals, which often derive from heraldry, are loaded with positive
symbolism. This presents a problem to the cartoonists, when they want to criticise
a country while depicting it as its national animal. The problem is often avoided by
using oppositional pairings, such as when the US eagle is depicted as a vulture. In
this way, the national animal receives the negative values that are associated with
the other animal.17 Another option is to use the actual national animal, like
Kukryniksy largely does; but in this case the cartoonist needs to juxtapose it with
its traditional symbolism making it appear as a ridiculous being.18 For example,
Kukryniksy's cartoons portray the British lion with its tail being yanked or cut off
without any resistance from the lion.19 Thus, the lion is made to look cowardly and
weak. It is stripped from its assumed qualities - strength, braveness, majesty - and
put in positions which are not regarded proper for a symbol like the lion. This
cancels the lion's traditional positive symbolic roles.
The juxtaposition of the lion cartoon character with the characteristics generally
associated with the lion as a symbol effectively ridicules the lion, and with it
Britain. This way the image of a country which once was one of the most powerful
empires in the world, is turned into that of a small country which no longer has any
say in anything. To the audience, the lion reveals the 'true nature' of Britain; it is a
country that boasts with its braveness, strength, and power, but in fact is only a
fearful weakling used and controlled by others. In these ways the symbolic values
of the lion are contrasted with the cartoon characteristics of the British lion.
5. The Passive Lion
Reeta Kangas
5
While describing the character of the British lion, Kukryniksy also describe the
different roles and actions of the British lion. These are naturally linked to the
transformation of the lion symbol, but are connected to contemporary events as
well. What the British lion does and the positions in which it is, define its symbolic
value. This informs us about the ways in which the Soviet propaganda machine
wanted the citizens to interpret the contemporary events. The British lion assumes
different roles and acts in various ways depending on the propagandistic need of
the time.
The cartoons depicting the British lion roughly cover three different themes: 1)
Military, 2) Colonialism, and 3) Economy. The biggest of these themes is the first
one, under which more than half of the cartoons fall. This theme is mainly
discussed in the form of the arms race, or rather the Western part of the arms race.20
There are also references to the European (military) unification and NATO, and
some mentions of Britain's military actions in its colonies, or former colonies. 21
The Kukryniksy cartoons express the Soviet view on the arms race, that the
warmongering west threatened the peace-loving Soviet Union and its sphere of
influence. The political cartoons depict this by representing the western countries,
and mainly the USA, as missile crazy militarists in the middle of an arms build-up.
The role of the British lion in these cartoons is to be a pawn of the US militarists or
a powerless bystander watching how others exploit its country.22 For example, in
two cartoons, the role of the bystander is emphasised by the American and German
military men taking over the British isles, after having pushed the British lion into
the sea.23 Often the expression on the lion's face further suggests that the lion is not
completely in charge of the situation.
Colonialism, or issues connected to it, appear in about one third of the cartoons.
In these cartoons, Britain's role as a colonialist, and the relations to its former
colonies are the centre of focus. The British lion of the Kukryniksy cartoons has
lost its status as a world power. It is no longer the colonial power it used to be,
even though it might try to appear as one. The cartoons make fun of the excolonialist by making it obey the ex-colonies and their leaders.24 In a number of
former British colonies, the British government had failed to prevent cruel and
racist regimes from taking control. Despite being against colonialism, the Soviet
view in the cartoons seems to be that Britain should do something about the
situation in its ex-colonies, that it should try to further the progress of equality in
those countries, and help in the fight against racism. For example, one cartoon
criticises the refusal of Britain to impose sanctions on the racist government of
Rhodesia by depicting the Lion as the loser of a boxing match against the
Rhodesian ruler.25 Being, once again, a passive bystander or a pawn of others, the
British lion is labelled as racist and as a supporter of the activities of its excolonies. In this sense, the Kukryniksy cartoons convey the impotence of Britain to
affect anything happening in the world anymore.
The Fool of the Animals
The least common of the themes is economy, which constitutes slightly more
than one tenth of the cartoons. The cartoons concentrating on economy primarily
discuss the financial problems of Britain. The severity of the lion's financial
situation is due to its wish to be a part of the European single market economy.26
These cartoons portray the Soviet view on economic collaboration in Europe; it
will bring no good to the participants, who gain nothing but have to give all they
have. As with the cartoons on the other themes, the formerly great and powerful
British lion is reduced to a bystander, someone who is no longer in control of the
situation.
6
6. Concluding Remarks
The British lion assumes mainly a passive role, leaving it to the other cartoon
characters, mostly representations of the United States and West Germany, to be in
charge of the action. The lion is represented as a cowardly weakling, not part of the
decision making process in world politics anymore. It is a power from the past,
ousted from its seat as one of the big powers in the world. Moreover, it is incapable
of or refusing to take action when it should be fighting against the wrongs of the
world, especially in its ex-colonies. This juxtaposes the ideological opponent in the
west with the policies of the Soviet Union. By criticising Britain for not fighting
racism, the Soviet cartoonists imply that the Soviet Union, instead, is making a
stance here, and doing what any nation with morals would do.
These cartoons, while depicting the British lion as a weakling, tell a story of the
state of world politics. It is a story of a world divided in two, ruled by an
ideological conflict. The main enemy in this ideological conflict is the United
States, Britain being merely a collaborator in its evil deeds. However, it should be
mentioned that according to the impression the cartoons give, the British lion is not
entirely evil (unlike the United States). It is not the British lion scheming all these
evil plans of militarising Europe, but by not acting against them, it becomes part of
the ideological other threatening the peaceful policies of the Soviet Union. With
the help of simple visual juxtapositions, Kukryniksy manage to convey the
propaganda message of Britain being nothing but a reactionary ex-colonialist
country, which has forever lost its chance to be in control due to its now apathetic
passive nature. The Pravda political cartoons enfeeble the lion as a symbol,
denying it the positive symbolism associated with it.
Bibliography:
Baker, Steve. Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001.
Bonnell, Victoria. Iconography of Power: Soviet Political Posters under Lenin
and Stalin. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
Fudge, Erica. Animal. London: Reaktion Books, 2002.
Jowett, Garth S., and O'Donnell, Victoria. Propaganda and Persuasion.
Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2006.
Reeta Kangas
7
Kukryniksy. Cartoons published in Pravda. 1965-1982.
Lasswell, Harold D. 'The Function of the Propagandist'. International Journal
of Ethics 38 (1928): 258-268.
Lasswell, Harold D. Propaganda Technique in World War I. Cambridge: M.I.T.
Press, 1971.
Marsot, Afaf Lutfi Al-Sayyid. 'The Cartoon in Egypt'. Comparative Studies in
Society and History 13 (1971): 2-15.
McKenna, Kevin J. All the Views Fit to Print: Changing Images of the U.S. in
Pravda Political Cartoons, 1917-1991. New York: Peter Lang, 2001.
Müller, Marion & Özcan, Esra. 'The Political Iconography of Muhammad
Cartoons: Understanding Cultural Conflict and Political Action'. PS: Political
Science and Politics 40 (2007): 287-291.
Rifas, Leonard. 'Cartooning and Nuclear Power: From Industry Advertising to
Activist Uprising and Beyond'. PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (2007): 255259.
Steuter, Erin, and Wills, Deborah. At War with Metaphor: Media, Propaganda,
and Racism in the War on Terror. Lanham: Lexington, 2001.
Taylor, Philip M. Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the
Ancient World to the Present Day. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Victoria Bonnell, Iconography of Power: Soviet Political Posters under Lenin and Stalin (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1999), 3; Kevin J. McKenna, All the Views Fit to Print: Changing Images of the U.S. in Pravda
Political Cartoons, 1917-1991 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 30.
Philip M. Taylor, Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003), 199-200.
Ibid., 255.
Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2006), 8-9; Harold D.
Lasswell, 'The Function of the Propagandist', International Journal of Ethics 38 (1928): 267.
Marion Müller and Esra Özcan, 'The Political Iconography of Muhammad Cartoons: Understanding Cultural Conflict
and Political Action', PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (2007): 289.
Leonard Rifas, 'Cartooning and Nuclear Power: From Industry Advertising to Activist Uprising and Beyond', PS:
Political Science and Politics 40 (2007): 259.
Afaf Lutfi Al-Sayyid Marsot, 'The Cartoon in Egypt', Comparative Studies in Society and History 13 (1971): 2.
Steve Baker, Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001),
108.
Pravda, 28 May 1966; 30 June 1967; 7 May 1982.
Harold D. Lasswell, Propaganda Technique in World War I (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1971), 89.
Pravda, 19 April 1981; 31 December 1982, 5.
Pravda, 5 June 1966; 12 December 1967; 3 February 1973.
Pravda, 19 April 1981; 17 December 1982.
Erica Fudge, Animal (London: Reaktion Books, 2002), 90.
Pravda, 28 May 1966.
Baker, Picturing the Beast, 56.
Erin Steuter and Deborah Wills, At War with Metaphor: Media, Propaganda, and Racism in the War on Terror (Lanham:
Lexington, 2009), 111.
Baker, Picturing the Beast, 55.
Pravda, 12 December 1967; 29 October 1971; 3 February 1973.
Pravda, 29 October 1971; 17 December 1982.
Pravda, 20 January 1967; 30 June 1967.
Pravda, 13 August 1980; 31 December 1982.
Pravda, 15 May 1966; 17 December 1979.
Pravda, 13 November 1965; 9 December 1966; 3 February 1973.
Pravda, 5 June 1966.
Pravda, 24 February 1969; 13 June 1971.