Introduction
In the last few years, the idea that a person can be “canceled” has gained prominence in the public space. Commonly known as cancel culture, this habit involves culturing and blocking prominent public figures when they do or say something that is considered offensive or inappropriate according to the current community guidelines. There is no denying that this culture has emerged as a polarizing topic of contest, particularly the social media influence, according to Gale. How exactly does the cancel culture work? It may happen through withdrawal of support by, say, ceasing to listen to music that the offending individual has sung or featured. In other words, cancel culture is akin to severing ties or voiding contact with a person or group used to follow (Alexander). To one group, this culture poses a significant threat to freedom of speech and an approach used by the intolerant left wing to instill puritanical censorship. To the second group, cancel culture is just a way of expressing dissatisfaction with what someone has done that is seen as offensive. This group believes that this culture is just an extension of the consequences of free speech that has always existed, particularly in cases where somebody uses the freedom to harm others or spread hate (Alexander). While this group may have a point, this culture should be viewed as a loud, powerful voice that exposes those who need to be punished, corrected, and taken off the pedestal. Although it can be abused and used incorrectly and immaturely, with a good approach, cancel culture can be good and not all the way bad to society.
Gives Voice to the Vulnerable Group in the Society
As already noted, cancel culture is good because it gives a voice to those who need it in society. This culture enables highlighting mistakes that may harm a particular group in society. Although its objectors may feel that it is a potent culture, socially conscious consumers can use it to advocate for the interest of the vulnerable in society. When there is no consequence for harmful behavior, society may begin to accept or agree with the said behavior in the long run. One community that has benefited from cancel culture is the LGBTQ community.
One public figure that has felt the wrath of cancel culture in recent years is Harry Potter series writer JK Rowling. She met a public backlash in early June 2020 for her controversial message on one of her social media accounts (Alexander). In particular, Rowling retweeted a piece of work that addressed “people who menstruate” rather than referring to them as women. The initial share got backlash from numerous people across social media. There were also numerous calls for cancellation due to her remarks. On this note, Brené Brown suggested that cancel culture is good because it is a weapon used to tell public figures that even though they may be good people, “their behavior is OK” with specific groups of people or the entire society, as observed by Alexander. Another significant example of the effectiveness of this culture is R Kelly’s cancellation after he was accused of sexual exploitation (Alexander). This means that this culture can be used by the people in the society whose voices are marginalized. As cited by Traversa, Marissa et al. (p.3), cancel culture is also an effective way of saying through which harmed groups in society may receive support from a third party. In general, this culture is arguably an excellent tool to call out those who are repeat offenders of sexual misconduct and those who are bigots, racists, and immoral.
Correction Tool
Another critical point supporting the cancel culture is that it can be used as a correction tool. In other words, this culture can direct the current generation on what not to do. It may also correct the mistakes of those who appear to have crossed certain lines in their lifetime. For instance, cancel culture is sometimes used to cancel essential people from history for their bigotry. This does not mean that their accomplishments and exemplary achievements in the world, like science and art, are discredited. No, this culture is only a simple way of correcting their mistakes and displaying them as they do or think, and still appreciating their good. According to Fries, “cancel culture still implements the use of its discipline against those who do not fall in line.” A perfect example of how cancel culture excels as a correction tool is Rowling’s case (Alexander). When he was accused of sexual exploitation, he was banned from numerous platforms to send a strong message about those with similar status and behavior. The hope is that when other people of such public stature see what happened to their colleagues, they will avoid committing similar mistakes.
Exposing Wrongdoing
Cancel culture is also an effective tool for exposing wrongdoing. Alexander says this culture “taps into feelings of shame” to expose people’s wrongdoing. When a person does something that is viewed as unacceptable by a section of society, this culture enables them to be exposed for their behavior. Some of the public figures whose behaviors have been exposed through cancel culture include JK Rowling, R. Kelly, and Dominic Cumming.
Free Speech
Sadly, many people who disagree with cancel culture feel that free speech has a massive backlash, considering how far this freedom has come to be what it is today. As noted by Breakey, over 100 highly celebrated authors, scholars, and commentators signed an open letter echoing how free speech is under attack due to the cancel culture. In particular, they observed that “open debate and toleration of differences” is at high risk in the joint statement in Harper’s magazine (Breakey). Many commentators believe that this culture can be used to impose punitive consequences on people’s speech based on perceived moral rightfulness or wrongfulness rather than arguing whether or not a statement is true or false (Brown). This issue is concerning because the claim of moral wrongfulness or rightfulness is swayed to become a matter of immediate urgency that may distract the public from the debate. When Rowling comments “those who menstruate” rather than women, the people who called for cancellation did not want to debate whether she was wrong or right; they only came for her “neck” (Alexander). This is one way through which many commentators believe that cancel culture has come to suppress freedom of speech. Those who believe that cancel culture suppresses freedom of speech also say that those who support it use it as an intimidation tool rather than to promote discussions. When an individual or group says what they consider “offensive,” this group suddenly becomes vigilant through side-lining.
While this point has much weight, there is still reason to believe that cancel culture does not threaten freedom of speech or expression, as many people try to put it. If those who suggest that cancel culture have a keen look at this culture per se, they will realize that it promotes this freedom in itself. This is because the culture symbolizes freedom of speech. After all, a group can express themselves regarding what has been said but disagree with it. In addition, this culture shows that agreeing with everything another person says is not a must. When people do not agree with something, as long as they can provide the ground for their position, they are free to condemn the subject matter at an individual level, and this is what freedom of speech is all about.
Does Undue the Wrong Done
Many people opposing cancel culture also believe that canceling a person does not undo the wrong done (Gale). When an individual like Rowling spewed what the transgender community viewed as offensive, canceling her did not undo the harm done. On a similar note, when R. Kelly was canceled for decades of sexual assaults, it did not mean that his victims found solace. Beresford equates this behavior to the “The process is like air-brushing someone or something out” (Alexander). However, this reasoning is far stretched because even in the justice system, when a murderer is sentenced to ten years in jail, the victim does not resurrect. This culture has only come to ensure that people pay for their bad behavior by boycotting them pending criminal justice intervention if deemed necessary.
Restricts Learning
Some people say that cancel culture restricts learning. For example, Ullman observed that the New Jersey State Government tried to cancel Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” in its educational institutions for using stereotypical and racial slurs. However, those who read it say that the book unmasks the racist lies that were used to justify slavery many years ago. Most near-sighted readers only concentrated on the frequent use of the n-word. Ullman states, “The idea is that the removal of such a novel will shield the nation’s schoolchildren from bigoted words and sentiments, but this will not be the real outcome.” While such may have a point, the risks of losing educational books should not mean that society tolerates publications that spread hate or demean other races. In other words, cancel culture is evidence that society is willing to go to great lengths to ensure social justice is achieved.
Conclusion
In summary, cancel culture has emerged as a significant tool for society to punish inappropriate behaviors through mass boycotts. However, the debates about its effectiveness have been two-sided. Some believe that it is ineffective, while others see it as an effective tool to punish public figures for their wrongdoings. Although there are numerous arguments against it, it is good to appreciate cancel cultures ability to give voice to the voiceless, expose wrong doings, and correct bad behaviors.
Work Cited
“Americans’ Opinions Regarding Freedom of Speech and Cancel Culture, 2020.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2021. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/PPYPGQ445153328/OVIC?u=lincclin_mdcc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=63841645. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.
“Cancel Culture.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2023. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/UHLPSW240013521/OVIC?u=lincclin_mdcc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=d4a0aa16. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.
“Cancel Culture.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2023. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/FDTMXO616414349/OVIC?u=lincclin_mdcc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=a77c19f7. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.
“Is It Ever OK to Cancel Someone?” Choices/Current Health, vol. 35, no. 7, Apr. 2020, pp. 2+. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A621580887/OVIC?u=lincclin_mdcc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=82f02a6a. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.
“US Opinions on the Results of Calling People Out on Social Media, May 2022.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2023. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/PYVAXT673351389/OVIC?u=lincclin_mdcc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=9a6dcaae. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.
Alexander, Ella. Cancel culture: a force for good or a threat to free speech? 2020.https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/a33296561/cancel-culture-a-force-for-good-or-a-threat-to-free-speech/
Breakey, Hugh. “Is cancel culture silencing open debate? There are risks to shutting down opinions we disagree with.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2023. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/UHTLJX266067129/OVIC?u=lincclin_mdcc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=6b2c21e0. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023. Originally published as “Is cancel culture silencing open debate? There are risks to shutting down opinions we disagree with,” The Conversation, 10 July 2020.
Brown, Dalvin. “Is cancel culture a force for good, or does it stifle free speech?” USA Today, 20 July 2020, p. 01B. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A630006369/OVIC?u=lincclin_mdcc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=720fed52. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.
Teekah, Alyssa. “Lessons from slutwalk: how call-out culture hurts our movement.” Herizons, vol. 29, no. 2, fall 2015, pp. 16+. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A435795269/OVIC?u=lincclin_mdcc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=74f780e4. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.
Traversa, Marissa et al. “Cancel culture can be collectively validating for groups experiencing harm.” Frontiers in psychology vol. 14 1181872. 20 Jul. 2023, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181872
Ullman, Thomas. “Cancel Culture Is Undermining Learning and Harming Students like Me.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2023. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/UHWHGH329441172/OVIC?u=lincclin_mdcc&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=773fed09. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023. Originally published as “Cancel Culture Is Undermining Learning and Harming Students like Me,” Foundation for Economic Education, 17 Aug. 2020.
Fries, Morgan. “The paradox of cancel culture.” 2023. https://theaggie.org/2020/12/10/the-paradox-of-cancel-culture/
write