Owens persuades the audience of the benefits of cancel culture. The author argues that cancel culture improves democracy by allowing people to hold individuals responsible, particularly those in positions of authority, strengthening marginalized populations and increasing civic involvement.
Introduction
Ernest Owens is a celebrated award-winning writer, editor, and journalist who has significantly contributed to race, culture, and LGBTQ rights. He has shared his thoughts on diversity, inclusiveness, and activism in several outlets and has been a well-known voice on social justice issues. The present essay draws from Owens’s book, “The Case for Cancel Culture: How This Democratic Tool Works to Liberate Us All,” expressing his apprehensions regarding accepting and integrating diversity. Owens’s perspectives on cancel culture are pertinent because of her background as a journalist and part of a minority community.
Owens proposes cancel culture as a tool for democracy that allows individuals to demand accountability from those in power. The essay contends that cancel culture empowers people to hold those in power accountable, particularly in cases where bigotry and hate speech are protected under the guise of free speech. “Cancel culture is a way for a new generation to practice free speech. The way we cancel today is more advanced because of our rights as a people and our access to digital communication tools, (Owen).” According to Owens, cancel culture has historically existed but has become more prominent and accessible with the rise of digital platforms.
Owen challenges the notion that cancel culture suppresses speech, asserting that it is about accountability. The author references instances where public figures, such as Piers Morgan, faced consequences for their actions due to public pressure, showcasing the power of cancel culture in addressing harmful behavior. The author rejects the idea of reframing cancel culture as a consequence culture, emphasizing the importance of embracing the term and clarifying its true intention. The article concludes by stating that cancel culture has provided a voice to the voiceless, fostering civic engagement and collective action, especially in the face of threats to voting rights.
Rhetoric Analysis
The essay aims to persuade the audience that canceling culture benefits democracy. The paper argues that cancel culture, despite its criticism for allegedly stifling free speech, serves as a tool for accountability, especially against those in power. The author comprehensively elaborates on this theme that cancel culture empowers individuals to hold others accountable for harmful behavior and actions by providing examples. One of the examples provided is Piers Morgan, who faced backlash and firing after his utterances. The author does not include a thesis statement in this essay; however, the main argument is implied throughout the article, emphasizing the positive aspects of cancel culture in promoting accountability, free speech, and civic engagement.
The theme of this essay is driven by the need to address the negative perceptions of cancel culture. Cancel culture has faced massive criticism from the mainstream media and political leaders. “When conservatives on Fox News declare that it is a “free country” and that cancel culture is “un-American,” they forget speech works two ways: It allows for discourse to take place but grants all voices can be heard (Owens).” These debates prompted the author to argue for its positive role in promoting accountability and its potential impact on free speech. In a socio-political context where cancel culture has become a significant and controversial phenomenon, the author must navigate and respond to common critiques of cancel culture, such as claims that it suppresses free speech or leads to online harassment. Addressing these criticisms is a constraint that shapes the author’s argumentation.
The author uses logical reasoning by providing examples and arguments to support the claim that cancel culture is a tool for accountability and positive societal change. The author argues that cancel culture holds those in power accountable, preventing them from engaging in harmful behavior without consequences. An example that supports this claim is Piers Morgan facing backlash and eventually leaving a Television show after making insensitive comments about Meghan Markle. The author also argues that cancel culture gives a voice to the voiceless, allowing marginalized communities to challenge influential figures and institutions. He references this to the collective actions of everyday citizens using digital platforms to call out companies and leaders, influencing change and accountability. Owen also portrays cancel culture as a tool for increased civic engagement and collective action, particularly in the face of threats to voting rights. The essay cites the involvement of hundreds of Fortune 500 companies in opposing discriminatory legislation related to voting rights, attributing this to the collective calls from everyday citizens.
The claims and the examples presented in this essay support the theme of the essay and are appropriate for the argument. The paper presents clear and relatable examples which are relevant to the topic. One example is the case of Piers Morgan and the influence of public pressure on companies, which indicates instances where cancel culture has played a role in holding individuals and entities accountable. The argument that cancel culture empowers marginalized communities also aligns with the idea that it provides a platform for those who may not have traditionally had a voice. These examples are recent and directly attributable to cancel culture, thus helping the author qualify his work.
The essay is presented as a one-sided advocacy for the positive aspects of cancel culture. It emphasizes its role in holding individuals accountable, empowering marginalized communities, and fostering civic engagement. This limits its credibility since a credible and balanced discussion would involve acknowledging its strengths while addressing its limitations and potential challenges. A more evenhanded presentation of the issues would include acknowledging potential criticisms or drawbacks of cancel culture and recognizing that it is a complex and debated phenomenon. This could include addressing concerns about possible misuse, stifling free speech, or instances where cancel culture may lead to unintended consequences.
The essay only expresses the author’s perspective without referencing external authorities, studies, or concrete data to support the claims made. This creates credibility issues since it is difficult to assess the credibility and currency of the information. When engaging in such a critical and fierce debate, it is generally beneficial to include references to credible sources, experts in the field, or relevant studies that support the points being made. This enhances the argument’s credibility and allows readers to verify the information independently.
The audience for the essay is individuals interested in discussions about cancel culture, freedom of speech, and societal accountability. The tone and the organization of the essay suggest this. The paper follows a logical organizational structure. It introduces the concept of cancel culture, presents arguments, and supports them with examples. The structure contributes to the clarity of the author’s perspective and makes the work widely acceptable across all audiences. The essay also uses an assertive and argumentative tone. The author advocates for the positive impact of cancel culture, presenting a viewpoint without directly engaging with potential counterarguments. The tone is formal and severe, befitting a persuasive essay. The author’s use of articulate expressions and the nature of the topic makes the work suitable for individuals interested in or engaged in discussions related to cancel culture, freedom of speech, and accountability.
The author skillfully employs logos, pathos, ethos, and rhetorical devices. The author supports the assertion that cancel culture is a weapon for accountability and constructive social change with logical reasoning, justifications, and examples from cases like Piers Morgan’s. Emotional appeals have also been included in the story, especially when discussing the reaction experienced by people such as Piers Morgan and emphasizing cancel culture’s role in providing a voice to the unheard. By presenting cancel culture as a response to intolerance, highlighting accountability, and framing it as a defense of democracy, the article also establishes ethical legitimacy. These techniques have been skillfully incorporated by the author and employed in this book to bolster his central idea.
Conclusion
This article uses various persuasive techniques to convince the reader of the benefits of cancel culture. It supports the primary notion with a convincing argument, logical reasoning, emotive appeals, and ethical credibility. The essay thoroughly studies the topic and all the evidence to support its assertions. The writing is ordered and well-spoken. The author contributes a straightforward and uncomplicated explanation of concepts using exact language to offer certain instances and arguments. The fundamental point, which emphasizes the benefits of cancel culture in fostering responsibility, free expression, and civic involvement, is subtly conveyed throughout the text despite the prejudice that results from the author’s exclusive advocacy of one side.
Work Cited
Owens, Ernest. “Rolling Stone.” Rolling Stone, 20 Feb. 2023, www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/opinion-cancel-culture-is-good-for-democracy-1234681224.
write