How do we think about cancel culture?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: How do we think about cancel culture?
Position‹2 of 4›: Cancel culture is a myth
Argument‹3 of 4›: Cancel culture may not be widespread.

How widespread is cancel culture? What is its impact? How often are people cancelled? It is possible the cancel culture debate is more hysteria than reality. Without data, it is hard to know. The validity of arguments for and against cancel culture are hard to assess with understanding how real cancel culture is.

The argument

Cancel culture refers to the idea of 'cancelling' prominent brands, figures, and celebrities for their actions or remarks that offend. A pivotal belief underpinning this idea is that those in the public eye should be held accountable for their opinions and ultimately what they share in the public sphere. 'Cancellation' can be understood as Nakamura describes it - a 'cultural boycott' - which refers to the hypothetical way in which people, refrain from interacting with the brand or figure in question as a result of their actions. Manavis argues that while the terms 'cancel culture' and 'cancelled' are recent phenomena that are a product of social media usage, the principal idea behind 'cancelling' people is one with which we are familiar. It is essentially a form of democratic organisation which has been given a new name and can be likened to boycotts of companies and politically-driven protests. That said, Manavis believes that the effects of 'cancelling' people are not longstanding, and figures such as JK Rowling who was cancelled for making transphobic comments, can continue their commercial success without much, if any, disruption. So, given that the effects of cancel culture are not explicitly noticeable, we can doubt whether cancel culture has a real impact and thus, real consequences. If the act of cancelling does not manifest in actuality, that is if no boycott occurs, then we have reason to believe cancel culture is a myth. Although the term is widely used, the intended outcome is rarely ever achieved.

Premises

[P1]Cancelling is essentially a cultural boycott — refraining from interacting with a figure over their actions — and is a familiar form of democratic organisation under a new name. [P2] Its effects are not longstanding, as JK Rowling continued her commercial success without disruption after being cancelled. [P3] If the intended boycott rarely actually occurs, then cancel culture has no real consequences. [C] Therefore, because cancel culture may not be widespread or effective, cancel culture is a myth.

Counter-arguments

Singer Taylor Swift discussed the negative impact that cancel culture can have with Vogue US and said that “A mass public shaming, with millions of people saying you are quote-unquote cancelled, is a very isolating experience. ” This suggests that the impact of cancel culture is noticeable and that the very act of many social media users expressing disagreeing and publicly shaming prominent figures is sufficient to show that the culture is widespread

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Treating cancellation as a familiar form of democratic organisation makes it real rather than mythical. If it is a boycott under a new name, what is in dispute is its scale and its effect, not its existence — which is a different conclusion from the one this position states. [Rejecting P2] A single well-resourced author whose sales held up is not a representative case: those most exposed to a pile-on are people without an established audience, contract or platform, so the premise measures the phenomenon by the person least likely to be affected by it. [Rejecting P3] The premise defines the harm as commercial and then finds none. On the counter's account the injury is the public shaming itself, which does not require a boycott to succeed, so the absence of measurable damage to sales does not establish the absence of consequences.