Do we live in CancelMania?
Is the shaming practice of Cancel Culture a process of accountability … or is it tantamount to Human "Book Burning?"
They tried to cancel comic Dave Chappelle. But Chapelle was too big to cancel. Same with comic/podcaster Joe Rogan. And entrepreneur Elon Musk, among others.
But they tried. Hard. To discredit. Shame to silence. To compress personal voice to persona non grata. To commit reputation homicide. To remove from public view.
Cancel Culture.
Definition
So what is Cancel Culture? In general terms, it is “a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person.” It is endemic in 21st century tribalism. A weapon of words, feelings and identity. In Chappelle’s case, the cancelers were those belonging to or sympathetic with the LGBTQ community, who demanded the comic’s recent Netflix special “The Closer” be taken off air because they found his jokes offensive. They were unsuccessful. “The Closer” is still on Netflix, and Chappelle more or less flipped them a verbal middle finger.
So who lives in the Cancel Culture world? Most can be found on social media. But traditional and legacy media also cater to the practice. Those engaged in cancelling rationalize their premises on one or more of the following ...
Accountability
Free speech (the First Amendment)
Speaking “truth to power”
Accordance with their moral principles
So what’s the problem? All people, especially those in the public eye, those who shape policy, or represent authority, should be held accountable for their actions. We can criticize and protest … or so says our First Amendment rights (ironically, categorically incorrect). Is speaking “truth to power” the courageous actions of a morally conscious populace to call out injustice? This is America, where we stand up for our beliefs.
The problem is these guardians, who claim commitment to social justice, and are certain of their moral purity, are willing to hurt other people if they don’t agree with their principles. Not just hurt. But intimidate … bully … expunge … decimate and obliterate. Remove them from public space. Their methods are rendered without mercy and executed with extreme prejudice.
Human “book burning”
There are those who believe that cultural forces -- fueled by media (social and legacy) -- may supersede law. In general cultural movements are not defined by law, though they may be compelled by unfairness of law. Rather, they are mobilizations of large numbers of people with a common goal: to inspire change for the greater good. “Protest” typically speaks from the pulpit of fairness, righteousness and rectitude. Civil Rights may be defined as such. But Cancel Culture has reached far beyond altruism and the greater good into an Orwellian weapon of speech control. Metaphorically: Human Book Burning.
But Cancel Culture has reached far beyond altruism and the greater good into an Orwellian weapon of speech control. Metaphorically: Human Book Burning.
In a 2019 New York Times op-ed, Loretta Ross lambasted cancel culture as a punitive practice in which people attempt to expunge anyone with whom they do not perfectly agree. The cancelers destroy reputations and take away livelihoods.
Ms. Ross goes on to say most public shaming is horizontal — that is, it’s not done to justifiably criticize people of impact who are seriously dangerous, but to score brownie points against people who mean no harm. By the way, Ms. Ross identifies herself as a liberal black feminist.
Origins of Cancel Culture
When did this start? And how did it become normalized in recent years? About 25 years ago, it began with the rather benign title of “political correctness.” But PC was more linguistic politeness than vindictive. You know, “mailman” to “mail carrier.”
But PC petered out and virtually disappeared from the social landscape … until around 2010, when, according to Vox, “callout culture” began from within Tumblr fandom blogs such as “Your Fave is Problematic” in exposing faults of pop culture artists and other public figures. It spread from there, and became endemic with the growth of social media platforms Twitter and Instagram.
From there developed a familiar pattern: A celebrity or other public figure does or says something offensive. A public backlash, most often fueled by progressive body politic, ensues. Then come the calls to cancel the person — that is, to effectively end their career or revoke their cultural cachet, whether through boycotts of their work or disciplinary action from an employer.
The movement’s heat turned up dramatically in 2016 with the presidency of Donald Trump, who exacerbated national disunity to galactic levels by his non-stop vitriolic and flame-throwing attacks on any and all perceived enemies, even calling the media “enemies of the state.”
Most social intelligentsia, however, identify cancel culture as a tactical weapon of the Progressive Left, who react to misdeeds, however dated and irrelevant, to virtually anyone who doesn’t share their ideology.
Entertainment
Victims of attempted cancellation: Comics Louis CK, Roseann Barr, Michael Richards, Kevin Hart, singers Justin Timberlake, Billie Eilish and Taylor Swift (more than once). Actors Chris Pratt and Johnny Depp. Even megastar Adele was the target of inquisitors who shamed her for losing weight. And let’s not forget the world’s most celebrated author, J.K. Rowling, whose own publishing company was rocked by an internal revolt over her calling men and women ‘men and women.’
Academics
According to the National Association of Scholars, there have been 194 “cancellations” in the United States and Canada. This trend began in 2014 when Kathleen McCartney, president of Smith College, felt compelled to apologize for including the phrase “All Lives Matter” in an email. This somehow enraged the believers in the Black Lives Matters movement, who believed it a depreciation of their message. Ironically, McCartney’s email hailed the introduction of the university’s policies of “inclusion and diversity.”
In 2015, Yale University’s Dr. Nicholas Christakis, in an email emphasized the role of free expression regarding the use of Halloween costumes. His email was proclaimed ‘harmful’ by students offended by “offensive” costumes. After sustained pressure from students and university administrators, Christakis eventually resigned his position 10 months later.
Then there’s the infamous student revolt against evolutionary biologist Dr. Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College (OR), in 2017. Weinstein spoke out at a faculty meeting against a recommendation that staff honor a request that all white students be forced not to attend class the next day as a statement in support of students of color. The reaction was immediate, and hostile, as Weinstein’s class was forcibly taken over by two dozen students who cursed him and accused him of “white supremacy.” Weinstein was chastised by other faculty members and abandoned by Evergreen president. Eventually, the couple found their jobs untenable and were forced to resign.
Corporate Cancel
Perhaps the most publicized cancellation in the corporate world was that of James Damore, an engineer at Google, who in 2017 wrote an internal memo called “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” In the memo, Damore tried to explain the rationale behind the lack of women in the STEM field.
Damore’s was not a testimony for or against women; it simply stated that while discrimination exists, it was extreme to ascribe all disparities to oppression, and authoritarian to try to correct disparities through reverse discrimination. Instead, the memo argued that male to female disparities can be partly explained by biological differences and career preferences. It also suggested ways to adapt the tech workplace to those differences to increase women's representation and comfort. However, when the memo was leaked to the public, outcries from social and traditional media hit Google like a tsunami. Damore was fired by Google days later.
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry mob (thank you Jonathan Edwards)
As hysterical and irrational canceling has become, the divide seems to be widening and growing more visible. And it isn’t purely a battle over offensive speech, but also between tactical approaches in navigating ideological differences and dealing with perceived offenses. And the view that a traditional approach — apology, atonement, and forgiveness — is no longer enough. Canceling is the final solution.
Perhaps Yale’s expatriate Christakis offers a better suggestion to cancelers … engage.
“If you’re so confident in the integrity and validity of your ideas, win the battle of ideas. Argue. Bring evidence and data and rhetoric and logic to the field of battle and win! It’s only people who lack confidence, in my view, who actually secretly suspect their ideas are not valid -- that seek to silence their opponents to prevent their opponents from speaking.
... in an intellectual battle, you need to test your ideas, whether it's scientific claims about the world or philosophical about the world. I think it gets better in the crucible of contention.”
-- Dr. Nicholas Christakis, former Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science, Yale University.
British comedian/author/social commentator Stephen Fry has a more curt and decisive alternative …
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them (the offended) certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.'
Well, so fucking what!"
###