Cancel culture: An overview:
“I believe in words with intention and context; you can’t accidentally insult someone nor feign sarcasm masking as bigotry.” -Antoine du L’escaliers
We have been consuming digital
media for nearly one hundred years and the literary aspect for far more. This
gives us plenty of time and space to express ourselves, be it political,
religiously, ideological, metaphysical, educational, radical, so on and so
forth. Genres ranging from music, stories, poetry, essays, news, series, shows,
videos, radio, podcasts, even comedy. However, as of lately, society has done a
counter shift in the media-sphere, where individuals take it upon themselves to
voice what they do not like and condemn the author/creator of the element in
question. When a conglomerate rises, this becomes a cancelation; and when
something becomes consistent and habitual it turns into a culture. Herein
comes the term “Cancel Culture”. What is it? Why is it? Who is it? How
is it? When was it? Where is it? Some do not apply, but the questions still
stand as a point of reference as to the reasons, motives, actions, decisions,
origins, controversies, discussions, discourse, and a total shift in the way
generations communicate to each other. There could be a final answer to the
dilemma, or further discussion on the matter; there is only one way to find
out.
What is it? Generally, Cancel
culture is when a group or an individual excludes a person, the personification/animation
someone produced, the actions someone made, or what someone said, due to their
controversial nature. However, nowadays, it is much more nuanced and
complicated with the cancelation. Although a spectrum, the cancelation usually
has two agendas: canceling the out of fashion for moral superiority and
canceling contemporary elements that harm the society at the moment. This term
has been mocked for how common it is used and how easy it is for society to roll
that metaphorical snowball down the hill.
Our consumption of entertainment is
fueled by the need to converse with others on the subject. We have been trained
to mindlessly watch, read, and absorb as much media as possible. This comes
from the theorem of consumerism, where it states that we are better off
consuming more for an increase in production and economy. The further we
consume, the more we understand and learn. However, there is a flaw in this
thinking, where the majority consume one facet, or one side, of the spectrum, confirming
their biased ideologies. We either under-consume as a whole or we over-consume
a specific subject, narrowing the views and perspectives on controversial
topics.
The problem lies in Free speech. No, not that
it is bad, but that it is the sole reason why cancel culture exists in the
first place. Cancel culture is near non-existent in countries like China or
North Korea for their lack of freedom of speech, while the United States has
lax laws on how to express oneself and what is considered hate speech. Maybe it
is the excessive amount of freedom that lulls us into a false sense of
security; maybe it is how much we can express ourselves; maybe it is the
abundance of misinformation we consume and are being fed; maybe it is the
desire to differentiate ourselves from a collective, becoming unique in a
sense. Cancel culture, in some manner, is the interference of the ideals others
have because it hinders and tramples over the ones that matter; exploiting the
system in order to further their agenda. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act
states that we as humans have the right to express our ideas, however, we are
not exempt from the consequences and penalties of what is said or done.
The mediums in which this concept
applies cover a wide and varied spectrum encapsulating ideas that tend to be
of either personal taste or popular knowledge. Humor, information, and
entertainment are some where this culture grasps to attain that moral
superiority. Comedy tends to be the most attacked due to its controversial nature.
Comedy, more specifically satire, brings forth the aspect of humanity to
humorize what is tragic, laugh when times are tough and smile at the things we
dare not confront. Some people do not take kindly to this side of the human
spectrum and take it upon themselves to cancel comedians. The reason is usually
that “I don’t like that joke, so no one should listen to it”. A variant of the
gatekeeping mentality, where a person guards a sensitive topic, or
controversial point of discussion, on the behalf of everyone else, assuming a
role of protector of sorts. Of course, it is not just one person; when a
collective rises, the snowball goes from a tennis ball to the size of a house in
seconds.
What is the snowball effect and how
does it fit in with this topic? Typically, it starts with a catchy headline
from a news outlet (internet articles, magazines, internet forums, word of
mouth, etc.), then spirals down into a chaotic spread of something that was not
that important in the first place. The spread varies, but it is definitive that
it will stir the pot and the society involved (those that care, anyways). Other
times it builds up from a snowflake, a minuscule particle of information that
few were aware of, traveling steadily from person to person, changing every so
often its real identity, and finally turning into a completely different entity
of misinformation.
Paired with the snowball effect
comes the mob mentality, where an individual riles a mob with the intent of
harm or, in this context, cancel someone or something.
Topics worth canceling, according to
the contemporary society of the youth and their awareness towards certain
facets of morality, are racism, sexism, homophobia/transphobia, sexual assault,
sexual misconduct, pedophilia, poor work ethic, classism, and/or a breach into
the basic freedom to express oneself. Regardless of any bias, these are
sensible topics of discussion where making light and dismissing them as
generational debates are out of the question and should be addressed in a formal
context. Actions have consequences; however, unpunishable by law, they can only
be held accountable by society; shunned or shammed as a means to materialize
that sentiment and contempt.
The other side:
The other side pertains to the
people defending the topic or the person being canceled. Nothing is unilateral
in society, and there are those willing to defend, even the indefensible. A
standard tactic would be to attack with facts and logic, to a certain point,
while the people on the side of the cancel culture tend to be on the emotional
field. It is the inevitable debate of moral versus rational. This other side is
concerned that their affinity with something is threatened and blames the cancel
culture for not liking what they do.
Cancel culture has created an
already fragile divide in the generations of the old and the new. A “war”
between the generation that wants change and the generation that begs to be
kept as is, by the law of their traditional values: Traditionalist versus
Progressives. The other side of the argument just wants to live like the old
days, where no one complained about the faulty or fussed over the simplest of actions
other people made. And most would retort that it is an outdated way of thinking
and the times change. It is a never-ending debate. However, it may appear as a
side note, this topic revolves on the reason as to why cancel culture has
become ostracized: personal gratification on determining what is good and bad,
imposing one's ideals without regard, and age-old dispute between the youth and
the elders.
The
moral high ground is not held by anyone, not even those that ridicule the
movement itself. The contrarian adjacent of the cancel culture is better known
as “Meme culture”, where it chooses ways of discrediting the movement by
attacking its weak points with sarcastic humor. This avenue does not pick
sides, for it will criticize any and everyone they target. The word meme,
deriving from the work of Richard Dawkins and his approach to how genes
multiply and eventually make something out of it. The meme culture satirizes
concepts so much, they in turn bastardize and smear on what it was really
about.
Reasons:
Without further exposition, why is it
that cancel culture has become a phenomenon so large it has been mocked and has
ostracized itself from society? A personal and philosophical answer of mine
would be our ever-present awareness growing and expanding so much we tend to
express our ego instead of our sympathy. A more socially acceptable one would
be our innate desire of belonging to a group or the companionship of some,
making us do whatever it takes to impress them. Maybe it is the close attention
to our questionable moral compass and how others perceive what is ethical in
the eyes of the public in general. There is no real explanation as to why we do
what we do; likely, a personal one at best.
What some do not understand is that
most of the time it is not a group or an individual, but news articles baiting
unsuspecting readers into clicking their story using keywords to attract the
attention; not necessarily addressing the title but something close to it.
Absurdist headlines making the population question and ridicule, instead of
reading further the article and finding the meaning to the outrageous title.
The concept of click-baiting allures to fishing techniques, where the title of
the article uses buzzwords in order to catch the attention of anyone with the
purpose of garnering clicks for their page. The older generation tends to have
difficulties with technology and will often confuse what internet articles
state with what the general or the younger population agrees with. Some say
news organizations are the catalysts for generational wars; it is widely
acknowledged to be true by normal standards.
During:
Once a topic of argument is out, we
debate and fight over who is right and who is wrong. However, not everyone is a
lawyer or a professional debater that is knowledgeable enough to know every
possible fallacy that can be committed. Logical fallacies are set in order to
find a common ground in debate forums. Since not everyone is aware of them, chaos ensues. Such fallacies include ad hominem, strawman, tu quoque,
and several dozen more. When engaging in pointless discussion over canceling a
topic, human nature is to attack the other personally, to create a
diversion from the central topic, and to attack the other for hypocrisy.
On the basis of the logical fallacies,
there is one that attacks for a collective, instead of a person: hasty
generalization. This method of false argumentation fixates on grouping and
using stereotypes in order to create a conclusive argument towards a topic. This
manner of attack shows ignorance and a lack of will to understand the other side.
This type of logical reasoning is found in instances where there is no real
argument to have and argues for the sole purpose of disagreeing. It is common,
nowadays, to find a hasty generalization argument as a means to humiliate and
mock a generation or group, without actually having an argument or basis to it.
On the other hand, there is the
possibility of misunderstanding. We focus so much on the argumentative side
that we forget to inform and learn from what is said by each side. The
immersion in one side of the dispute can only get you so far and refusing to
gain any insight from the other much less. A simple misunderstanding can turn a
discussion into a conversation.
The critics:
In the cancel culture-sphere, there
is a sub-faction that has a different agenda. These individuals take it upon
themselves to criticize every instance or action the movement makes. “If you
want to do it, do it right”, “If you want to cancel that, then cancel this too
why don’t you”, “You missed this one”,
They revel in the thought that their superiority is greater than those
in the cancel culture; they try to push the extremes for entertainment purposes
and not to find a ground point. Signaling the obscure or the popular in order
to ridicule the entire point of the canceling. Virtue signaling in a sense
(trying to show support, only to gain praise and appear self-righteous).
However, it has to be stated: they
can be right at times, though their methodology and attitude towards it speak
differently. Their demeanor when calling attention to a subject is less than
ideal; arrogant even. It is the action to point out the hypocrisy in a person
that follows a group as an argument to invalidate an entire community that
shows malice and ill-intent.
Aftermath:
Social justice is a term made in
order to cast judgment on those who slip away from the claws of the law. When
the justice system does not work, it is in the hands of the people to ostracize
those that deserve it. However, things may go out of hand, quickly, due to the
volatile nature of man without order. So much so that the culture itself has
facets where it goes far and beyond to cancel every grievance in the vicinity
or any aspect that they deem unworthy to them. This is the aspect that the
other side judges and wishes to obliterate, while the honest take the full
brunt of the damage.
In the same vein of social justice,
Death to the author is an essay by a French literary critic named Roland
Barthes. He posits that the meaning found in literature is something created as
it is read, not something the author intended. Therefore, separating the author
from its creation. The relation arises the moment we cancel a controversial
author (for example J.K. Rowling) for their controversial statements (her transphobic
comments) and separate them from their work (the Harry Potter franchise).
Ad hominem transcends most
argument-based discussions. Sometimes it is not even part of the argument but a
derogatory statement to either side. Name-calling is so ingrained in our nature
that we refuse to acknowledge how simplistic and ignorant it is to partake in
such discourse. Words such as “Glass generation”, “easily provoked”, “Everything
is offensive to you now”, “more like offended culture”, “your oppression does
not exist”, “They cancel everything nowadays”, and much more passive-aggressive
comments that have no function in a dialog worthy of conversation.
What can we take from this?
Everything. We live in an ever-changing society fueled by the most minimal of
circumstances, and not learning from mistakes is why history repeats itself. To
argue is natural, to discuss and have a conversation is essential for human interactions,
but to engage and not attempt an understanding or common ground foments our
current standing in society: disastrous discourse. Cancel Culture is neither
good nor bad but is a necessity to maintain balance when the justice system
fails us.
“Often
those that complain diverge in a crossroads: those that want change, those that
do not want change, and those that crave chaos.” -Antoine du L’escaliers