Is cancel culture beneficial to society?
We have all seen the videos. A white person calls the police to complain about a person of color being where they’re not supposed to be. The person of color states they were minding their own business when they were accosted by a white person. The video’s subtext is clear: The white person’s actions are due to the color of the person’s skin. Typically, the video is accompanied by a post calling out the apparent racism. In some videos, the person at fault is clear. In others, it’s less clear.
These videos and posts come in many different flavors. Sometimes an employee is claiming that their place of work is hostile to a race or gender. Other times, a woman is accusing a public figure of sexual misconduct. Or a customer is accusing a local business of unethical practices. In all cases, there is a call to “cancel” the perpetrator.
“Canceling” someone or something can mean having a social media account banned, getting someone fired, forcing a change in corporate culture or closing a business down. Through public shaming, people who normally do not have the agency to seek justice are asking the public at large to help right perceived wrongs.
It is hard to pin down a precise definition of cancel culture, as it has only now entered the public realm and is still evolving. Initially, canceling someone meant getting their Twitter or Facebook account removed for hate speech, as a means to take away their platform. That evolved into shaming public figures for bad behavior, which could lead to loss of employment or a position of power. The #MeToo movement used it to seek justice in cases of sexual misconduct. Today the tactic is used not only on public officials but on people who hold power over the perceived victims in the videos. This power could reside in skin color, wealth or a literal position of power. The tactic is now used against entire law enforcement departments, with calls to defund police departments after the death of George Floyd, and against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), following the separation of migrant children from their parents.
Cancel culture can be broadly defined as the public shaming of an individual, group or business via social media, to use public pressure as a means of justice and to influence behavior. In other words, seeking justice through the court of public opinion versus a court of law. When we think about cancel culture in this way, it is nothing new. For as long as humans have formed groups large enough to have a “public,” we have used public pressure to influence behavior or eke out justice when other ways have failed.
This takes me back to Sociology 101 and learning about mores and folkways. A quick refresh at Wikipedia reminds me that mores and folkways are societal norms and customs that help form a culture. Mores are more serious norms commonly backed by formal rules or laws. For instance, murder is both against the law and considered grievous in our society. Folkways are less serious and are usually acts of politeness and etiquette. For instance, leaving a dinner party without saying goodbye to the host is a folkway. Violating it might earn you some ribbing the next time you see your friend, but you could expect another invitation to dinner.
If cancel culture is a modern twist on something that society has done since society was a thing, why does it inspire so much criticism? From speakers at the Republican National Convention to Barack Obama, people from both ends of the political spectrum find fault with it. Critics on the right generally call cancel culture a tool of the liberal elite to stifle free speech. Critics on the left also complain that cancel culture is stifling speech, which, in turn, prevents dialogue and may actually harm the movements that cancel culture supports. At the Obama Foundation Summit on Aug. 10, during an interview on youth activism, Obama said:
“Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, cause, ‘Man, you see how woke I was, I called you out.’ That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change.”
I agree with Obama. Cancel culture is a low-effort form of activism that does not necessarily bring justice or change to those who deserve it. However, I am also sympathetic to the use of cancel culture. Of course, I would never defend every single instance of it, but, as a tactic, I can see its benefit. It is a tool for groups that do not necessarily have power or agency to seek justice.
Critics also see the lasting effects of cancel culture as creating a society that is intolerant of differing opinions. I agree with this view, but I see this intolerance limited to racism and sexism. The instances of canceling that create the most public outcry are primarily acts of racism or sexism. So, rather than cancel culture creating an intolerant society, I think society’s shifting attitudes toward racism and sexism are causing cancel culture. I think we are witnessing, in real time, society saying it is no longer willing to accept racism or sexism.
Perhaps it is generational or perhaps it is because people who previously didn’t have agency are now finding a voice, but attitudes toward racism and sexism, and especially our understanding of what is racist or sexist, have certainly shifted. What were once folkways are now mores, and what were already mores are now more serious ones that require policies and laws to be updated. If you need more evidence, watch a television show from the ‘90s, 2000s or even the early 2010s. The subject matter of jokes, and even the language used, will seem out of place. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with that change, you can still see a difference.
Cancel culture is a symptom of that change. It is society informing everyone what is and is not acceptable. In that regard, cancel culture is a good thing. Surely, not every instance of someone getting canceled is justified or fair, and may actually do more harm than good. But as a whole, the lasting effects on society are good.