A Brief Dissection of Cancel Culture

When the #metoo movement began in 2014, prominent people in “high places” have been exposed or called out for indiscretions, often focusing public attention on their actions. The use of social media to initiate investigations and even resignations and jail time for individuals who were formerly unreachable (i.e. like Harvey Weinstein) in their spheres of influence. With the success of the organic strategy to bring justice to individuals without a voice, the use of the strategy of calling out people in prominent positions for less direct actions (i.e. like what individuals say in the public sphere) had brought scrutiny to the strategy itself. The concept of cancel culture was born in recent years, a branding that implies that if the trend continues, then permanent damage will be done to the foundation of democracy — freedom of speech.

Supporting Perspective

Those who support what has been labeled as ‘cancel culture’ argue that the public has a right to react as the public will to whatever information comes to light. A notable example is J.K. Rowling’s consistent denigration of transgender culture. When someone oversteps, they say, then that person should be held accountable. This includes not buying what they might be selling, even if it is completely unrelated to the action the individual took in the first place. There are also those who claim that ‘cancel-culture’ is an attempt at negative branding to fight against real social justice change.

Contrary Perspective

Those who argue against the idea of ‘cancel culture’ express that the often knee-jerk reaction to respond to accusations of inappropriate actions stifle speech and expression. They argue that institutions are too quick to react to try to get out of the spotlight as quickly as possible, often with disproportionate punishments.

Other Considerations

The term cancel-culture came about from a very real need in society. People in high places were not held accountable. What became clear as the #metoo movement spread was just how unaccountable people in positions of power were. The initial reaction of someone coming out and accusing a higher-up of abuse or coercion was disbelief, and for years women were ignored or sidelined when making accusations. That balance of power shifted during #metoo, when the trend became simply too great to be ignored. So in a way, it’s exactly our collective prior bad behavior that has driven the heightened sensitivity. No organization or institution wants to be the next USA Gymnastics, so accusations of sexual misconduct are being treated more seriously.

Subsequent to #metoo (although technically during since #metoo is not dead), the George Floyd video demonstrated something else of a similar nature. Police organizations were abusing their authority and killing black people. The modus operandi was the same: people in positions of power were sweeping things under the rug. The first thing that happened to black people who were shot was character assassination (and this still happens). Given these two highly-public situations, very few organizations have the appetite to back an accused individual. Nobody wants to be the next Minneapolis Police Department.

Neither of these is a defense of ‘cancel-culture’, but are needed context to have a meaningful conversation.

Right and Freedom Perspective

As usual, we ignore the law. Law doesn’t make right and wrong, people do and our collective culture determines how the law is written and interpreted, but typically after the fact. With regards to cancel culture, if we truly want to get to the right of it, we have to acknowledge that the birth of cancel culture came from the abuse of power and the democratization of information peeling back the clandestine natures of the inner workings of powerful institutions. In other words, thanks to social media, we now have visibility into those powerful institutions that were once opaque at best.

Many of these institutions have appalled us with their lack of integrity and accountability. The entertainment industry, for one example, has consistently been shown lacking in judgment with regards to how to properly handle sexual misconduct allegations. So the question we feel is the correct one to ask is: what has changed to guarantee that accountability is in place in these institutions? And another question we must ask is how much canceling is actually done?

The #metoo movement has led to many statutes of limitations changes and other legal changes in the way that NDAs have been used to protect abusers in the past. In this context, yes, there has been positive change if we consider that the earliest “victims” of cancel culture were sexual predators — and change for multiple states. Whether or not that change is sufficient to warrant we no longer be as vigilant can only be determined by looking forward.

Also, some token examples used of cancel culture are laughable (i.e. Mr. Potatohead and Dr. Suess). Other examples are plainly disingenuous (like the 1619 project). The people who have been ‘canceled’ are largely fine with the exception of those who really did do display serious and consequential bad behavior. In fact, the most damage being done by cancel culture to free speech is by those who are passing laws against cancel culture, like legislators in many states passing legislation against teaching critical race theory or the 1619 project.

Given that 1) several perpetrators of consistent sexual misconduct have been brought to justice, 2) laws are being impacted which break down the barriers to investigating sexual misconduct, and 3) most people being 'canceled’ do not suffer from long term career damage, we have to question why so many are fighting this perception of lasting damage. Also, given that there are no better forums than social media for shedding light on damaging behavior, cancel culture is a useful tool to hold institutions and people in positions of power accountable.

At Right and Freedom, we feel that everyone should be accountable for their actions. Any tool that widens the net of accountability, especially with minimal side effects, is a good one. And, as #metoo and other later cancel culture actions have brought real perpetrators to justice, so-called cancel culture is good for our society in the long term.

References

A letter on Justice and open debate: Harper's magazine. Harper's Magazine . (2020, August 21). Retrieved January 3, 2022, from https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

Greenspan, R. E. (2020, August 6). How 'cancel culture' quickly became one of the buzziest and most controversial ideas on the internet. Insider. Retrieved January 3, 2022, from https://www.insider.com/cancel-culture-meaning-history-origin-phrase-used-negatively-2020-7

#MeToo has changed our culture. now it's changing our laws. The Pew Charitable Trusts. (n.d.). Retrieved January 3, 2022, from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/07/31/metoo-has-changed-our-culture-now-its-changing-our-laws

Romano, A. (2021, May 5). The second wave of "cancel culture". Vox. Retrieved January 3, 2022, from https://www.vox.com/22384308/cancel-culture-free-speech-accountability-debate