- Question
How do we think about cancel culture?
In June 2020, cancel culture claimed its latest victim: the popular children's television show Paw Patrol. People claimed that its protagonists - animated dogs who operate as police in a fictional universe - were being derided. These pieces said critics saw its positive portrayal of law enforcement strengthened a culture of deference to the police. Headlines around the world stated cancel culture had gone mad. But none of this was true. What began as a joke about cancel culture had grown into a conspiracy tearing across the internet. This crisis underpinned the bigger picture: anyone can be cancelled, and it has gone so far it can reach the international news without questioning. In recent years, the practice of withdrawing support for public figures who hold controversial views has exploded. And not just amongst the cartoons. Michael Jackson, JK Rowling, Louis CK, Woody Allen: the list of its celebrity victims is growing. The boom has divided opinion. Some believe it is a form of online activism that helps the marginalised hold the powerful to account. Their opponents see it as a devastating attack on civil liberties. So, what are the pros and cons of cancel culture?
Cancel culture is critical for democracy
This approach argues that cancel culture empowers marginalised groups. It understands that society is built in institutionalised hierarchies that cut across social identities. The de-platforming of offensive views is therefore an important type of activism. Cancel culture has become an important tool to redress these inequalities.
Cancel culture is a myth
This approach argues that society is always changing, and culture adapts with it. Cancel culture has not emerged from historical power relationships. It has grown out of internet culture, produced by changing public attitudes.
Cancel culture must be cancelled
This approach argues that cancel culture exposes a crisis of individual liberty. It considers freedom of expression to be an inalienable right. Disagreement is being weaponised to silence those who hold unpopular views.
- Cancel culture discourages dialogue and creates a climate of fear
- Cancel culture is an insidious form of virtue signalling
- Cancel culture exists to promote a ruthless mob mentality
- Cancel culture represents a crisis where free speech is silenced
- Cancel culture endangers democracy and freedom of expression
- Cancel culture incorrectly assumes that morality is binary
- Cancel culture strengthens the surveillance state
- Cancel culture is rooted in the ethics of white supremacy
There's no such thing as cancel culture
Demanding better from people who have sizable platforms and a wide influence is not silencing them. It is an effort from those who have been accused of harmful behaviours, or people who sympathize with their harmful attitudes, to silence the people who call them out. It is an attempt to shift blame and make people who stand up for themselves and others seem like theyre the ones causing the issues. Clearly this is an effective technique for deflecting accountability