Cancel culture - does it exist?

Cancel culture. What is it? What can only be described as a new phenomenon that is appearing by name across social media, with even its definition being contested. Generally, it can be used to describe a form of boycott in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles - either online or in the real world. They are said to be cancelled. It can be used to refer to the practice of rejecting, ignoring or publicly opposing someone's views or actions in order to deprive them of time and attention. This idea of cancelling someone has become a polarising topic of debate.

It can begin with a celebrity or other public figure saying something offensive which can ensue a public backlack. This is often fueled by social media, with calls then following to cancel the person - that is, to effectively end their career. Cancel culture has its origins in black Twitter and now is being used in the prestige media. In 2019, the list of people being cancelled included predators like R.Kelly and comedians like Kevin Hart who faced public backlash after social media unearthed homophobic jokes they made in the past. But are they truly cancelled? 

It is very hard to end someone's career and essentially cancel them. There has been continued support for those who have been cancelled, with it not costing them their careers but rather encouraging sympathy towards them. Should cancel culture be tool to gain social justice or is it merely intimidation? The idea of cancel culture has emerged from its humorous origins to refer to celebrities who have made mistakes into a broader and more serious conversation about how to hold public figures accountable for bad behaviour. This trend of cancel culture can be compared to call out culture, with it merely being an extension. It can be the escalation of calling out a problem to calling for the head of the person who caused it. 

This issue with cancel culture is not only if it even exists in itself but that there is a fine line between holding someone accountable and trolling and harassment. It can relate to a broader trend of public shaming. This public shaming is only going to give a short-term release of cathartic energy. Cancel culture does not create change as many celebrities have not actually been cancelled. This can be a reason why people oppose the culture. This does not mean that they are rejecting the principles of social justice and the push for equality that fuels it. Rather they believe that others are capable of change and we should give them that opportunity rather than writing them off. The bottom line for many opponents of cancel culture is that they have a need to believe that other people can change and treat them with according optimism. Opponents have a more reconciliatory, transformational approach. 

However, cancel culture has moved from celebrities to being a question of politics. President Obama gave remarks about the phenomena of cancel culture and callout culture during an interview about youth activism with the Obama Foundation. In a speech, Donald Trump said that, "One of the left's political weapons is 'cancel culture' - driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters and demanding total submission from anyone who agrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America." This is surprising considering that Trump was the biggest advocate of cancel culture before he was elected in 2016. 

Right wingers love to talk about cancel culture. This can be evident in the fact that they whine so much about being 'persecuted' or 'silenced' by political correctness. They love to emphasise the idea that cancel culture is impeding their freedom of speech and emphasising this idea of the authoritarian left. ,However, when left-wing commentators call out bigots for racist things, they are not impeding their free speech. This is due to the fact that they are not the government. The fact that we can criticise opponents for what they say is in itself freedom of speech. The right is not about being silenced. 

The idea of cancel culture is not something that is new. Whilst the name is, it has often been referred to as political correctness and been with us for a long time. The true danger is this right wing political correctness which has the real power and does real damage. It is now weaponizing the phrase 'cancel culture'. The right controls the Executive Branch, the Senate and a large part of the judiciary. They have cancelled Sinead O'Connor. The Dixie Chicks. Kaepernick. Right wing cancel culture is the real danger. 

Many people have resisted to use the term due to it being used so much by the right. The phrase is almost tainted by the right as they use it to define the left wing. Yet it happens plenty on the right. After all, religious conservatives have spent decades trying to band things that offend their sensitivities. But the fact is that cancel culture is elitist. Many on the left are concerned about the inclusion of marginalised group and this cancel culture is the most popular with elite whites. Therefore, cancel culture in itself insists upon a way of seeing that is deeply unpopular with minority groups. 

The issue of cancel culture has received fame recently after July the 7th, where 153 mostly left-leaning intellectuals wrote a letter to Harper's Magazine, expressing their opposition to "a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate." The Harper's letter prompted the discussion about the scale, the existence of what has become known as 'cancel culture'. This led to a backlash over whether this culture even exists. It warned that the growth of political correctness threatened democracy itself and suggests that the "new set of moral attitudes and political commitments make everyone less capable of democratic participation." Yet ironically, what these writers are intellectual consider to be a threat to free speech are in fact themselves acts of free speech. 

A counter-letter was produced on July 10th, signed by 164 journalists, writers and academics and published in The Objective. They opposed the letter on the basis that it was signed by many individuals who are white, wealthy and endowed with massive platforms. Secondly, it neglected to mention that marginalised voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia and publishing. Third it only cited isolated examples of censorship despite referring to it as a major social trend. And finally, the letter conflated intolerance and public shaming with people being held accountable for their views.

The criticisms over the original letter were further emphasised by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who wrote: "People who are actually 'cancelled' don't get their thoughts published and amplified in major outlets." She also said, "Odds are you're not actually cancelled, you're just being challenged, held accountable, or unlike." Likewise, the New York Time columnist Charles M.Brow noted, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE." He added, "You can say and do as you pls, and others can choose never to deal with you, your company of your products EVER again. The right and powerful are just upset that the masses can now organise their dissent."

I therefore leave the question to you, does cancel culture exist? Can someone really be cancelled and should we be promoting or oppressing cancel culture? Cancel culture looks different from two sides of the political spectrum and is used as a weapon against each side. Trump is campaigning as a warrior against the left wing 'cancel culture' despite repeatedly calling for the boycott of CNN, the firing of Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer and many other journalists. Cancel culture, if it can be called that, is merely an indication that free speech is alive and well. There is an audience that engages with the work of others. 

Should cancel culture be cancelled itself? Cancelled figures like Kanye West and Taylor Swift and Louis CK can make full recoveries from their respective hashtags. In this respect, where does the line fall between cancel culture and online trolling?