Cancel Culture
The influence of digital media is prevalent in every facet of our society — in politics, public and private discourse, hobbies, fashion; you name it. One notion, in particular, has evolved from an Internet meme to a full-blown cultural renovation project: the idea that a person can be “canceled.”
Of course, social pariahs and taboos existed long before the emergence of “cancel culture” but modern justifications for cancelation and its subsequent process became more nuanced as a result of digital media. Merriam Webster has even adopted the term as part of our modern lexicon: “To cancel someone (usually a celebrity or other well-known figure) means to stop giving support to that person…The reason for cancellation can vary, but it usually is due to the person in question having expressed an objectionable opinion, or having conducted themselves in a way that is unacceptable…” (“Getting Canceled”). Different from “call-out culture,” which is a term that “…arose within fandom, used by fans of all kinds deploying criticism of pop culture or public figure,” cancel culture began online as a means to punish public figures for heinous and inexcusable acts, but quickly spread across the rest of society through digital media (Romano, 2019).
Digital media filters cancel culture because it makes communication easy, accessible, and widespread, while simultaneously making online message threads traceable and public. Many people are able to participate in digital cancel culture both synchronously and asynchronously because digital conversations and are always available (Lindgren, 2017). More importantly, digital media affords “…visibility to voices frequently marginalized by the societal mainstream,” (Papacharissi, 2015). Cancel culture is often used as a tactic to address social injustices, typically made against marginalized groups.
Why, then, is cancel culture such a heated topic of debate? If it’s a weapon of social justice, cancel culture is simply the public’s way of addressing societal issues and disciplining the wrongdoers — right?
One of the key functions of cancel culture is that there are no rules, no officials, and no regulators. Since the trend is entirely at the mercy of public opinion, it is easy to find inconsistencies because it is impossible to get the public to agree on one, solid viewpoint. In turn, people hold more power over others when deciding who and what deserves to be canceled. These decisions are made powerful by their publicness, which then influences masses of people into censoring, banishing, and punishing whomever they deem disagreeable. Additionally, cancel culture instills a false sense of community and activism as an “affective public” (Papacharissi, 2015).
Cancel Culture Before Cancel Culture
It is difficult to trace the origins of cancel culture. Some argue that the first mainstream example stemmed from the public outcry against R. Kelly in 2000, when the first allegations of sexual misconduct about the singer were published in the “Chicago Sun-Times,” (France, 2019). But, Kelly’s “cancelation” wasn’t very permanent, as the singer went on to have a successful career and tons of adoring fans until his many charges and subsequent arrest last year.
Others claim that the first victim of cancel culture was country band the Dixie Chicks, who faced serious public backlash in 2003 for a comment made about then-president George W. Bush. At a concert in London, lead singer Natalie Maines said “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas,” (Moss, 2020). The band suffered a severe deficit in overall success and were even deemed “blacklisted from Hollywood,” but still maintained relevance amongst their fans and remained respected by their peers.
Aja Romano, author of the article “Why We Can’t Stop Fighting About Cancel Culture,” suggests that “canceling” people was made popular by a 2014 episode of VH1’s reality show Love and Hip-Hop: New York, where a cast member used the phrase “you’re canceled” as a comeback during a fight (Romano, 2019). It sounds silly, but the term did gain a lot traction as a result of the episode. Fans of the show took to Twitter and started “canceling” things they deemed unlikable — both sarcastically and seriously.
It is important to note that these instances can now be viewed as examples of cancel culture, but were not viewed as such at the time. Cancel culture is a modern term that describes the process of outcasting someone for doing something culturally unacceptable. The “culture” aspect of cancel culture includes three main groups: the cancelers, the cancelled, and the non-supporters. The public holds the power to cancel someone, which has been made possible by digital media and communication.
‘me too,’ #MeToo, and Cancel Culture
In 2006, Tarana Burke founded the ‘me too’ Movement to help survivors of sexual violence, particularly Black women and other women of color from low-income communities, heal and most passed their trauma with the help of expert resources and shared stories (“History & Vision,” 2018). In 2017, over a decade later, as Hollywood moguls were being exposed left and right for severe sexual misconduct, actress Alyssa Milano tweeted: “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet,” (“Media,” 2018).
The tweet garnered tens of thousands of replies, thus changing Burke’s ‘me too’ Movement to the #MeToo Movement in a matter of hours. As a result, big names in Hollywood, like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, were “canceled” by the public as people showed support for women and their stories. As time went on, more stories surfaced online and more celebrities were canceled; their platforms, careers, and reputations were destroyed instantly. This new mindset extended beyond the hills of Hollywood and into the general public via social media. Suddenly, it was understood that sexual misconduct and the greater mistreatment of women were unacceptable. Moreover, for the first time, previously-acceptable behaviors and perspectives were patently punishable by cancel culture.
Inconsistencies
After the #MeToo Movement, society and culture went through a significant rebranding, in which cultural norms were questioned and people attempted to hold each other and power accountable. In his journal “Social Media and the Public Sphere,” Christian Fuchs explains that modern society consists of three distinct spheres: economic, political, and “culture the sphere where social meanings and moral values are created,” (Fuchs, 2014). In its evolution, cancel culture moved passed the #MeToo Movement and began to tackle issues like racism, homophobia, politics, and everything in between. People used digital platforms and forums like Twitter to set ground rules for this new, evolved culture. But, the waters got murky.
As it turned out, canceling a public figure — ending their career, destroying their platform, and getting everyone to agree on it — is easier said than done.
In 2019, comedian Kevin Hart faced controversy after his 10-year-old old tweets containing homophobic messages resurfaced online, just after Hart announced his Oscars hosting gig (Romano, 2019). As a result of public outcry, Hart withdrew himself from the hosting position, released several public apologies, and flew under the radar for a short while. Despite the controversy, Hart’s movies and stand-up specials still garnered tons of support, attention, and revenue. The backlash died down, and Hart’s cancelation was resolved.
Other celebrities, like Kanye West, Ed Sheeran, Scarlett Johansson, Gina Rodriguez, and many others, faced similar fates for various reasons — that is, they were canceled online but only for a short period of time (Romano, 2019). However, it’s not that these celebrities redeemed themselves and had their cancelation-sentence lifted; they maintained relevance through support from the public.
This phenomenon raised several issues: Were canceled celebrities being forgiven for their behavior, or did the public simply just forget? Is cancel culture a weapon of social justice or is it just a hoax? If cancel culture doesn’t consistently work, then what’s the point?
These questions have been debated beyond the realm of celebrity culture over the last few years. Aja Romano argues “…the conversation isn’t just about when and how public figures should lose their status and their livelihoods. It’s also about establishing new ethical and social norms and figuring out how to collectively respond when those norms are violated,” (Romano, 2019). Moreover, for cancel culture to be effective, it must address an entire issue, not just a fragment.
Attack the Culture, Not the Individual
If the public is to hold the power to punish public figures for unacceptable behavior, they should first separate the person from the action. It is difficult to attack social norms because they are a reflection of a society as a whole, which includes its people, customs, policies, history, and more. When asked about his opinion on cancel culture in a 2019 interview, “Daily Show” host Trevor Noah said: “My issue is, we oftentimes want to pin it on individuals because we do not want to blame ourselves as a society. We do not want to admit that we were all a part of that culture,” (“Trevor Noah,” 2019). Through this lens, one can argue that Kevin Hart’s homophobic tweets from 2009 were not a product of Hart’s personal belief system, but a product of the accepted and common beliefs of society in 2009. The tweets only received backlash in 2019 because societal views on sexuality had drastically shifted over the decade. Cancelers were able to find Hart’s digitally-archived tweets, but other people who engaged in the same verbal discourse were let off the hook.
Participants of cancel culture find it easier to make an example of celebrities rather than politicians and other higher-ups who inherently maintain social injustices through a lack of action and change. This stems from the participants’ false sense of power; they believe they have authority to make change, but unknowingly recognize existing power structures by not calling attention to officials. Cancel culture is a pluralistic digital public, where there is no official authority because everyone (supposedly) has equal power to attack social norms and behaviors. Christian Fuchs argues that the danger of un-unified pluralistic publics is that “ …they will in social struggle focus on mere reformist identity politics without challenging the whole, which negatively affects the lives of all subordinated groups, and that in an egalitarian society common communication media are needed for guaranteeing cohesion and solidarity and a strong democracy,” (Fuchs, 2014). By not challenging institutions and addressing systemic problems, cancel culture does not help marginalized groups. Instead, participants are left with a phony feeling of accomplishment and action — a direct result of participatory culture — while marginalized groups continue to experience social injustices at the hands of real authority.
Cancel Culture, Empathy, and Affective Publics
Digital media perpetuates this notion due to its widespread influence and accessibility; people believe they are making a difference by engaging in social and political discourse online because they have the opportunity to be heard, even if nothing changes. By canceling celebrities via social media, the public is only bringing attention to an issue rather than evoking real change. Additionally, the more visibility a message receives online — i.e. likes, favorites, retweets, shares — — the more effective it seems.
In relation to the #MeToo Movement, cancel culture was an active solution and result of issues regarding gender mistreatment. Harvey Weinstein, for example, was the head honcho of Hollywood production. As Journalist Ronan Farrow put it in his investigative piece about Weinstein: “…at the annual awards ceremonies, he has been thanked more than almost anyone else in movie history, ranking just after Steven Spielberg and right before God,” (Farrow, 2017). By exposing Weinstein’s atrocities and destroying his means, women in Hollywood were able to attack similar instances across the industry before the movement trickled down into other branches of society. The #MeToo Movement had volume, influence, and support, and the subsequent cancelation of public figures helped set the terms and conditions of a feminist revolution. Through a failed mobilization of sentiment, as people attempted to address other social issues using the same tactic, cancel culture evolved to be a branch of passive activism (Papacharissi, 2015).
Much of this is due to the relationship between cancel culture and empathy production. In her 2017 essay, “Is Our Culture of Empathy Perpetuating Inequality?,” Carolyn Pedwell addresses the regressive nature of empathy for marginalized groups through art. She says, “Empathy is often seen as a tool for overcoming the vast chasm between the privileged and the not — yet it remains rooted in that chasm, and may even reinforce it,” (Pedwell, 2017). This same idea exists in cancel culture, cancelers are the artists of empathy and celebrities are their mediums to evoke change. People are able to feel a sense of fulfillment and self-satisfaction by participating in cancel culture because it makes them appear understanding and sympathetic to a cause. This is not to minimize the importance of empathy in addressing social issues, it is only to acknowledge empathy is it not enough to evoke change. Tweeting “#HarveyWeinsteinIsOverParty” doesn’t make you a feminist; it makes you a piece in a larger movement led by people making a real difference.
Zizi Papacharissi would label this combination of digital communication, empathy-driven cultural rebranding, and passive activism as an “affective public,” (Papacharissi, 2015). Affective publics are networked spaces where ideas — typically pertaining to emotion and feeling — exist but are liminal. Cancel culture is an affective public because participants constantly call attention to social issues through empathy production but rarely have a call to action.
Final Thoughts
The fleeting, inconsistent nature of cancel culture derives from its lack of foundation and core values. Digital media does not allot for cancel culture to be anything more than passive activism. Canceling a celebrity online does the bare minimum to make a difference against the greater social issue in question. Participants feels as though they are acting on social injustices by using digital media and applying empathy. This instills a false sense of accomplishment among the cancelers and reinforces debilitating social injustices against marginalized groups. Though it was popularized with a feminist intention, cancel culture has become a means to punish and avoid societal accountability rather than evoke change.
None of this is to say that people shouldn’t voice their opinions, speak to social injustices, or let wrongdoers continue to offend. As we’ve seen, cancel culture can be effective. People like Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly, and Bill Cosby did truly inexcusable things suffered justified consequences as a result of cancel culture — at least according to the majority of the American public and it’s legal system. Those celebrities faced loud and public consequences, which sent a message to the public and challenged many social norms.
I would argue that cancel culture is at its most effective when people practice it on their own terms, rather than expecting to kickstart a social revolution with every tweet they send out. Making the personal decision to stop supporting a public figure — whether it be an actor, musician, or politician — — can be more powerful than applying “call-out” culture or bandwagoning a cause and not seeing it through.
In the wake of digitally-born social movements like #MeToo, it’s clear that members of the public are not going to settle for anything less than just. As we continue to navigate digital media and tackle divisive issues, new tactics for change will emerge and the public will try to hold power accountable whenever feasible. Hopefully, we’ll see action and revolution arise from digitally-mediated conversations.
What do you think?
If you want to hear more about what the public thinks about cancel culture, check out this debate:
Notes
About: History & Vision. (2018). Retrieved April 21, 2020, from https://metoomvmt.org/about/ #history
Farrow, R. (2017, October 10). From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from https:// www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault- harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories
France, L. R. (2019, January 11). R. Kelly scandal: A timeline. Retrieved April 22, 2020, from https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/10/entertainment/r-kelly-timeline/index.html
Fuchs, C. (2014). Social Media and the Public Sphere. University of Westminster, (pp. 1–45). Retrieved from https://rutgers.instructure.com/courses/40548/files/7563482? module_item_id=2125841
‘Getting Canceled’ and ‘Cancel Culture’: What it Means. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cancel-culture-words-were-watching
Lindgren, S. (2017). Digital Media and Society. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Media: Meet the Press: Alyssa Milano and Tarana Burke: ‘People do not often lie’ about sexual misconduct. (2018). Retrieved April 21, 2020, from https://metoomvmt.org/about/#media
Moss, G. (2020, January 22). The Dixie Chicks Were Cancelled For Criticizing The President. Now, They’re Heroes. Retrieved April 22, 2020, from https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/ dixie-chicks-cancelled-president-bush-controversy
Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford University Press, (pp. 1–39). Retrieved from: https://rutgers.instructure.com/courses/ 40548/files/8651610?module_item_id=2306326
Pedwell, C. (2017, October 3). Is Our Culture of Empathy Perpetuating Inequality?: Essay. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2017/07/17/culture- empathy-perpetuating-inequality/ideas/nexus/
Romano, A. (2019, December 30). Why we can’t stop fighting about cancel culture. Retrieved April 21, 2020, from https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/30/20879720/what-is-cancel- culture-explained-history-debate
Should We Cancel Celebrities For Their Crimes? (2019, May 29). Retrieved May 1, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ePvuDm5Is
Trevor Noah Unpacks Religion, Societal Changes & Problematic Culture In America. (2019, October 23). Retrieved May 1, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=7vU7RuBi4Gs
