Alyssa Elliott
Professor Skelly
ENGL 21001 Section L
27 November 2023
Weighing the Effectiveness of Cancel Culture
In the era of cancel culture, a single statement can be the judge, jury, and executioner of one’s reputation. To “cancel” typically means to stop or call off something that was planned or scheduled, and “culture” refers to the way a group of people live, including their beliefs, traditions, and everyday behaviors. When put together “cancel culture” describes a situation where people collectively stop supporting or associating with someone or something, usually due to controversial actions or beliefs. This often happens online, where widespread criticism aims to hold someone accountable through social rejection. It is something that has been around for a long time, but social media has turned it into a common occurrence. Many people argue that cancel culture is effective in showing that actions have consequences while others claim that it takes away a form of expression and freedom of speech. Which leaves the question “How does cancel culture affect people and society, and does it genuinely hold individuals accountable, considering its impact on freedom of speech and open dialogue?”.
Even though the concept of “cancel culture” as we understand it today did not exist in ancient times, figure heads of that era still faced repercussions that were in line with the customs of their time. In ancient civilizations, accountability was typically ensured through laws, religious organizations, or community-based methods. If someone was perceived as violating religious principles or acting against the interests of the community, they could face consequences such as exile, loss of social standing, or punishment determined by authorities or governing bodies. An example of this is when the philosopher Anaxagoras in Greece was accused of disrespecting traditional gods, violating religious principles. Although sentenced to death, he escaped punishment by leaving Athens, spending the rest of his life in exile (Warmflash 2019). Fast forward to before the rise of social media, individuals didn’t get “canceled” in the contemporary way we see now. Instead, public figures faced backlash or consequences for their actions through outlets such as newspapers, television, or radio. Controversies would be covered over an extended period, allowing for more in-depth analysis and public debate. But they would be generally slower, less widespread, and not as directly influenced by the immediate reactions of a global online audience. In tracing ancient practices through traditional media to today’s cancel culture, we see a notable shift in how society holds individuals accountable. The influence of technology has played a crucial role in shaping these changes, emphasizing the dynamic nature of public scrutiny and individual responsibility.
Meredith D. Clark’s essay, “DRAG THEM: A Brief Etymology of So-Called ‘Cancel Culture,’” intricately navigates the complex landscape of digital accountability practices, unraveling the historical roots of the term “cancel culture” within Black vernacular tradition. Clark traces the linguistic evolution of cancel culture by putting a spotlighting on its reappropriation in the digital age by social elites, as evidenced by the Harper’s Magazine letter. Within the interconnected communities of Black Twitter, the essay shows social media callouts as powerful tools of activism, emphasizing their role in networked framing and collective reasoning (Clark 2020). Clark contends that being “canceled” is not merely a form of silencing but often an urgent appeal for justice, particularly when critiquing systemic inequalities. Ultimately, her exploration encourages readers to rethink where these practices come from culturally and what impact they have on our modern public conversations.
It is true that “cancel culture” is a significant part of the digital era that widely criticizes individuals or organizations for perceived wrongs magnified by social media. That involves public shaming directed at both public figures and regular people, leading to potential harm to reputations and financial consequences for businesses. The trend triggers discussions about finding the right balance between holding others accountable and going too far, given the absence of a fair process and the toll it takes on mental well-being and free expression. Which shows how hard it is to find a balance between holding people responsible online while also being fair. Cancel culture mirrors the changing norms and language of society, but its influence raises concerns about fairness and the risk of online justice. When a Pew Research Center’s survey data from September 2020 was examined, it revealed the complexity of public perceptions regarding cancel culture. While 49% of respondents who are familiar with the term describe it as a movement to hold individuals accountable for offensive behavior, 14% see it as a form of censorship restricting free speech. Additionally, 12% characterize it as mean-spirited attacks used to cause harm, indicating a perception of cancel culture as a disciplinary action (Vogels 2021). This shows that people have different opinions on cancel culture based on their age, education, and political beliefs. Some see it as holding people accountable, while others think of it as a type of censorship.
In the early 21st century, China witnessed the emergence of a trend known as “renrou sousuo” or “human flesh search,” as explored in The Long and Tortured History of Cancel Culture in The New York Times Style Magazine. It refers to a practice where internet users would collectively investigate and expose information about individuals, originally for harmless reasons. However, it evolved into a more negative phenomenon where the online community targeted people believed to be wrongdoers or morally deficient. Even though this practice was initially specific to China, draws comparisons with “cancel culture” in the West, particularly in the United States. Stating “the sheer arbitrariness of some of the targets of cancel culture… lends a ritualistic distance to the attacks, enabling a casual cruelty.” Meaning that in cancel culture, some targets are picked without clear reasons, making it seem random (Mishan 2020). The attacks feel like a ritual, and because there’s not much personal connection, people might engage in them casually, showing a kind of cruelty. The tension between the desire for accountability and the potential dangers of a culture centered on public humiliation. Critiques the term “cancel culture,” indicating it already has a negative bias along with its lack of a clear leadership, making it more of a spontaneous expression rather than an organized movement.
Originally, cancel culture started as a way to address wrongdoings, but over the years it has transformed into a form of online bullying. Many claim that it has surpassed the severity of the initial issues, impacting the mental health of those targeted. It is criticized for its ineffectiveness in promoting meaningful social change and promoting intolerance, resulting in the exclusion of individuals with differing views. Critics say cancel culture has some problems. One big issue is that it oversimplifies things and doesn’t consider the details of why someone did or said something. Worrying that when people quickly condemn others, it can cause serious problems in their personal and professional lives, even if they didn’t mean any harm. There’s a growing concern that cancel culture may create a climate of fear, discouraging people from expressing themselves freely due to the fear of backlash. It is also argued that cancel culture often falls short in achieving its intended outcomes. Instead of facilitating learning and growth, it can make individuals defensive and resistant to change. The online bullying and group dynamics associated with it counters to the principles of open and understanding conversations. Mental health concerns are raised on both sides; those being canceled and those participating in the cancellation. Lastly, there’s a worry that cancel culture sometimes happens based on wrong or incomplete information, leading to unfair targeting of individuals.
Figures such as President Barack Obama, Patrisse Khan-Cullors, and diversity consultant Aaron Rose, depict cancel culture as an ineffective tool for driving social change. President Obama stressed the shortcomings of online activism that merely involves calling out and criticizing, emphasizing the need for tangible, strategic actions. Patrisse Khan-Cullors contributes to this narrative by expressing that genuine activism involves tedious efforts like meetings and campaign building, contrasting with the impulsiveness of cancel culture. Rose’s insights further expose the limitations of cancelation, revealing that it often fails to bring about the desired change and may even perpetuate negative outcomes. The suggestion of a different method called “calling in” by Rose and Maisha Z. Johnson’s that advocates for an alternative approach that encourages dialogue and personal growth instead of immediately canceling or condemning individuals for their actions (ProCon.org 2020). The removal of historical statues is seen as a slippery slope, erasing contributions without considering their full impact. Arguing that cancel culture stifles free speech, as seen in cases where people fear speaking out to avoid retribution. They suggest a more tolerant approach, encouraging open dialogue and understanding different perspectives instead of resorting to immediate cancellations (ProCon.org 2020). An example of this happened in 2018 when director James Gunn came under fire for controversial tweets from his past, leading to widespread calls for his dismissal from Disney which was the studio behind “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Despite the initial backlash, several actors from the cast rallied to Gunn’s defense, acknowledging his tweets and arguing that he should not be defined by them. Eventually, Disney reconsidered their decision and reinstated Gunn as the director for the third installment of the series.
Cancel culture can also have negative effects on people’s mental health. When someone gets “canceled,” they deal with a lot of mean messages online, fear of losing their job, and worries about their personal life being affected. The constant criticism and shame that comes with it can make people feel anxious, depressed, and really stressed out. What makes it worse is that there’s often not much understanding or empathy in the process. People don’t always think about the person’s side of the story or give them a chance to learn and grow from their mistakes. This lack of empathy can leave individuals feeling lonely and worthless. Online harassment, fear, lack of empathy, damage to self-worth, and social rejection can lead to depression, increased anxiety, and in some cases suicide. To help people’s mental health, it might be better to approach these situations with more compassion and a focus on helping people understand what they did wrong and help them change. Cancel culture, initially a response to wrongdoings, is now causing harm without considering the bigger picture. President Obama and diversity consultant Aaron Rose, argue it hinders genuine social change, creating fear and defensive reactions. Mental health concerns highlight it’s damaging effects, with online harassment contributing to it. Instances like the redemption of director James Gunn emphasize the need for empathy and dialogue over immediate cancellations, urging a more compassionate approach to understanding towards each other.
Cancel culture, despite its controversies, offers a platform for societal accountability and positive change. Advocates believe that cancel culture promotes social justice by challenging and breaking down systems of power that perpetuate discrimination and inequality. It’s viewed as a tool to address racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression. It has been prominently illustrated by movements that empower victims to speak out against abuse, and other instances where individuals use social media to expose and challenge perceived wrongdoing. Critics often overlook the fact that cancel culture plays a crucial role in amplifying the voices of marginalized groups, providing them a platform to speak out against injustices. Similar to historical boycotts, cancel culture aims for social change by challenging systemic injustices. According to advocates like Osita Nwanevu and Meredith Clark, cancel culture is a way for individuals to express their agency and reclaim power, especially when mainstream institutions that might not listen to their problems. Anne Charity Hudley points out that canceling provides a platform for those who may not have access to powerful figures, allowing them to participate in important conversations. Dee Lockett highlights the effectiveness of cancel culture in social justice movements, noting how it can bring attention to issues and lead to positive changes, such as charges against police officers and increased activism from public figures (ProCon.org 2020). The #MeToo movement seeks to hold powerful figures accountable when traditional justice systems fail. “” states that the case of Harvey Weinstein, where social media becomes a platform for people to publicly address harassment, leading to job losses for powerful individuals despite few criminal convictions. Statistics indicate that, by October 2018, 429 people faced 1,700 allegations of sexual misconduct, resulting in 201 powerful men losing their jobs in the first year of #MeToo. (ProCon.org 2020) By allowing victims to share their experiences and confront their abusers in the public eye cancel culture contributes to a more accountable and transparent society.
Cancel culture is paralleled to a modern form of boycott, as described by Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan. Nakamura sees it as a cultural boycott that is a collective decision to withhold attention, support, and financial contributions from individuals or entities involved in controversial actions or statements. This form of accountability, even though it’s decentralized and haphazard, it’s viewed by some as necessary. It is seen as a means for people to express their discontent, particularly when traditional political avenues may be ineffective. It’s not just about criticism, it involves refusing to participate in or endorse what is deemed offensive. Some argue that cancel culture has shifted the power dynamic between consumers and brands, holding the latter accountable for their actions (ProCon.org 2020). The withdrawal of advertising by major brands from platforms like Facebook in response to cancel culture exemplifies its impact on corporate behavior. Despite the ongoing debates, cancel culture has the potential to enhance societal accountability, amplify marginalized voices, and instigate positive change, drawing parallels to historical movements and significantly influencing contemporary discussions on justice and accountability.
Based on everything we can say that cancel culture is a slippery slope, yes it does it’s job in holding individuals accountable and gives a voice to people who have been silenced creating a sense of justice for those who have been wronged. But there are also valid concerns about the potential for cancel culture to devolve into a form of censorship and inhibit free speech. The fear of public shaming and career-ending consequences might discourage open dialogue and the exchange of diverse ideas. There’s a risk that individuals may be “cancelled” for expressing unpopular opinions or making mistakes that could be opportunities for learning and growth. Instead, there should be a way to find a balance between holding people accountable for harmful actions and allowing room for individuals to learn from their mistakes. Constructive criticism, dialogue, and education can be more effective than outright cancellation. Society should hold individuals accountable without creating a fearful environment that stifles open discourse. Emphasizing empathy, understanding, and encouraging conversations for personal growth is
essential for positive change.
References
Clark, Meredith D. “DRAG THEM: A Brief Etymology of So-Called “Cancel Culture.””
Communication and the Public, vol. 5, no. 3-4, 16 Oct. 2020, pp. 88–92,
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2057047320961562,
https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047320961562.
Mishan, Ligaya. “The Long and Tortured History of Cancel Culture.” New York Times, 3 Dec. 2020,
www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/t-magazine/cancel-culture-history.html.
ProCon.org. “Is Cancel Culture (or “Callout Culture”) Good for Society?” ProCon.org, 5 Aug. 2020,
www.procon.org/headlines/is-cancel-culture-or-callout-culture-good-for-society/.
Vogels, Emily . “Americans and “Cancel Culture”: Where Some See Calls for Accountability, Others
See Censorship, Punishment.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, Pew Research
Center, 19 May 2021, www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culturewhere-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see- censorship-punishment/.
Warmflash, David. “An Ancient Greek Philosopher Was Exiled for Claiming the Moon Was a Rock,
Not a God.” Smithsonian Magazine, 20 June 2019, www.smithsonianmag.com/sciencenature/ancient-greek-philosopher-was-exiled-claiming-moon-was- rock-not-god-180972447/
