cancel culture: dodging bullets amid trigger-happy crossfire
Over the past few months, you may have heard the term, “Cancel Culture” circulating throughout the public conversation, the news, and across social media platforms. Ignited by a flagrant comedy show last year, this system of social checks and balances barreled ahead during the Coronavirus pandemic and continued to grow exponentially during the Black Lives Matter movement. Cancel Culture has since overtaken our collective perception of public figures and businesses whether we asked for it or not. This overzealous public shaming has undoubtedly made its way into the psyche of our modern culture, leaving our First Amendment teetering precariously and calling into question the very framework of our unique American democracy in a way that was never previously challenged.
“Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. [It’s] generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.” Described by Katie Camero, Miami Herald.
Oftentimes these cancellations are a reaction to unconscious behavior, a politically insensitive musing, a concerning affiliation, or a dogmatic Tweet. Increasingly, the general public has become lightning fast to strike without pausing to examine the full context or intent of the individual’s comment, behavior, or photo. And not only does pause often lend context and clarity, but it also allows for the fact that at some point or another, we have all been guilty of stating opinion from an uneducated perspective- oftentimes regretting our words and wishing we had been more informed. If we’d never experienced a tail-between-the-legs moment, we may all still think and act very differently than we do now. It’s the very nature of being human, to misstep, to feel emotion about our wrongdoing, and then draw from that experience to grow into better people. And it is our collective responsibility to help guide those seemingly lost or misinformed towards a more widely accepted truth.
So how do these personal attacks on figureheads and the widespread quieting and canceling of people, corporations, and brands affect our collective experience as Americans?
Many have found that this runaway train of sensitivity and the censorship of personal opinion to be dangerous, and damaging to our autonomy in the process. This censorship has fostered a contemporary culture in which honest thought is no longer valued. A nation in which shared opinion is unsafe from public scrutiny, a world in which anything said from the totem of our public platforms will undoubtedly trigger someone somewhere.
To clarify, there is, of course, a place and a real need for checking one another within reason so as to educate, evolve, and elevate our collective language and views towards one another. Nobody likes to see the remarks of that racist/sexist/xenophobic friend while scrolling through the daily feed. Yet the ultimate difference between calling in and calling out is that the former is done with compassion, patience, and guidance, while the latter is achieved through slanderous public shaming with defamation as the main target in sight. Does this form of “canceling” create understanding? After witnessing the effects of Cancel Culture over the last year, it appears that this concept has actually deepened the divide between races, sexes, and classes, and in most instances, has deviated us off the road to real change.
Admittedly, some acts of “cancelation” are done as a citizen’s only system of checks and balances when other forms of accountability do not exist. When the public witnesses political leaders using freedom of speech to discriminate and dismantle oppressed groups, people are moved to take action against power groups.
Brandon Tensley of CNN offers, “Some are articulating righteous anger; others, such as the President, are just afraid of a bit of accountability.” For those enjoying a station of power, Cancel Culture can act as a real threat to the continuation of bad behavior and affecting rhetoric. For example, Donald Trump’s distaste for Cancel Culture is an unequivocal protest in evading responsibility for his bigotry, offensive language, and unsavory actions. When slanderous comments are so frivolously cast on the general public, it is affecting, troubling, and exhausting.
Though, without our collective ability to consider each other’s views, values, and unique perceptions, we have abandoned our ability to debate, to grow, to bridge gaps in misunderstandings that ultimately lead to compromise, and nurture the ultimate goal of acceptance. When we publicly shame people based on one or two statements taken out of context, whether unknowingly or not, we demand ideological conformity that runs the risk of totalitarianism.
Moreover, when the public “cancels” someone, they strip these figures of their life’s work and disallows them to grow, to reply, to explain or to repair whatever triggered the collective, casting them to the point of no return. This leaves their careers, businesses, and entire lives in total disarray.
“A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” was recently published by over 150 writers, poets, playwrights, screenwriters, scholars, and journalists, among them Margaret Atwood, and Gloria Steinem. This letter was intended as a public rejection of Cancel Culture, cyber-bullying, and a protest against attacks on free speech, which they call “the lifeblood of a liberal society.” “The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.” they asserted in their collective statement.
As a human being, one must allow room for diversified thoughts and opinions to enter their sphere in order to develop reason and to learn how to engage in two-sided debate. It is inevitable as humans that we will experience disagreements whether at the individual or collective level when considering values, morals, and ethics that filter into our everyday lives. It is an integral facet of our human condition to experience adversity, perhaps our greatest journey is that of becoming ultimately unaffected and uninhibited by others. So is closing our eyes and ears to those who trigger us the answer? Like Seth Andrews said, “The internet has made this kind of mob rule far too easy. It has never been easier to pounce on someone from a distance, jam them into a box, and set the box on fire.”
We should be collectively asking ourselves, “Do personal attacks help solve these larger issues?” “Does calling out and embarrassing someone publicly help to change their opinions and better our world, or is it just bullying under the guise of righteousness?” Behind the veil of digital anonymity, people feel a sense of security in their assaults on others because there are no major consequences for egregious behavior when it’s done for the sole purpose of proving their own personal agenda of rectitude.
Despite its intent, this novel instrument for accountability is so infantile that we’re only scratching the surface of mastery, and with that, comes all the awkwardness and misguided harm along with it. At the core of this movement, I truly believe that those who engage in Cancel Culture simply demand liability from our top figureheads and real leaders alike, calling from the only platform available to them. My question is, how can we achieve the ultimate goal of mutual respect and acceptance without leaving a path of destruction in our wake?