Cancel culture: a series of second chances not given, or a rightful means of holding people accountable?
Do we need Cancel Culture?
From Demi Lovato to Jeffree Star, the reasons for cancelling a famous person are getting vague. From what started as an attempt to allow celebrities to take accountability for previous mistakes, whether that be racial insensitivity in their tweets or cultural appropriation in their music videos, this opportunity to call them out quickly became a series of second chances not given and feeding into this concept of ‘cancel culture.’ But what are the justifications for cancelling someone and how productive is it in the goal to create a more politically correct speech climate for us all?
The rise of this cultural phenomenon of righting previous wrongs by ‘cancelling’ people are often intended to give those accountable, usually celebrities or authority figures of companies, an opportunity to use their social platform to acknowledge their mistakes, and ultimately act as a reminder as to what words and actions cause genuine offence to others. By cancelling them, they intend to stop their support by boycotting them or their companies. Although in some cases this kind of response is rightfully given, many cancellations do not seem proportionate to the transgression made; in fact, cancel culture has often spiralled into a series of death threats and online harassment cases. Not only are these examples of evident overreaction, but can be infuriating to those who intend to use social platforms to teach people where they went wrong, and how to not make that mistake in the future. Using cancel culture to diminish someone before you even begin to explain the effect of their poor choices or give them the chance to rectify themselves can be argued as unproductive. Given events from the last few years, such as the BLM protests or the #MeToo movement, it can be said that we are in a period of self-evaluation where we are criticising our ideologies, comments, and even what we consider a joke. In an incredible way, we are becoming more receptive to change, but ironically forgetting to start with ourselves. So, where do we draw the line between rightful condemnation and a discouraging level of over-correctness?
This is not to say cancelling people isn’t always rightful. It has often happened to put into place the consequences for the serious actions people of authority or fame, who have an immense influence on their audience, have committed, and have almost gotten away with. People often mistake the drive for cancel culture as a new idea, suggesting that people were ‘less offended’ before social media. I argue that people have been offended by verbal insensitivity the entire time, they just have more outlets to express their frustration with social media. It could be said that they are using the advances we have made in equality to shift the culture towards a less discriminatory point by ‘cancelling’ celebrities or CEOs, or in other words, rightfully reminding them where they went wrong. It is fair to say that given these arguments, cancel culture is not so easily black and white; like all things elevated by social media, it can be taken to extremes by people more invested in jumping on a trend than using the online advantage of collaboration to educate others. Given this, it is essential to remember the effect of our own actions online, but at the same time the very human tendency to make mistakes.
Comments