Attention: You have been cancelled.
Defining ‘Cancel Culture’ and how to avoid it.
Many of us have experienced the dreaded defeat of cancelling an unused gym membership, unwanted plans, or in my case a tabloid subscription (because $20 a month on salacious gossip is not a valuable way to spend money). But have you ever cancelled a person? It is possible you might have without even realising it…
Social media platforms are today heated places of racial, social and political discussion, and many celebrities are adding to the discourse with highly problematic viewpoints. But on these platforms is an emerging group response to this issue, known as ‘Cancel Culture’. Cancel Culture is the policing of celebrity and social media influencers’ political views, and it keeps our otherwise free reigning celebs accountable to their actions.
So, who have we cancelled?
The 28th of May 2018, Roseanne Barr, and some regrettable tweets. This combination single handedly led to the axing of the popular show Roseanne, revived only last year. Barr used the infamous Twitter platform to publish a blatantly racist and ill-informed comment on Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama’s former White House aide. In doing this Barr also revealed to the public her undivided support for Donald Trump’s presidency.
Through posts, shares and likes on social media the internet unanimously ‘cancelled’ Roseanne, condemning her post and renouncing themselves as fans and followers.
The backlash was so great the ABC network was forced to address the issue. They promptly cancelled the Roseanne show and called Barr’s tweet ‘abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values.’
Why is Cancel Culture so effective?
Tarleton Gillespie in The Politics of Platforms summarises why Cancel Culture is so effective: social media platforms enable ‘a progressive and egalitarian arrangement, promising to support those who stand upon it.’ So, one user calls out the behaviour of another online, and here begins the systematic destruction of a problematic individual. Cancel culture effectively unifies people against a common enemy. In the Roseanne Barr incident, this was Roseanne herself, and her inherent racism.
While it is effective, Cancel Culture shows us why social media is not the ideal place for media personalities to express political views. A Habermassian analysis of social media provides that the online public sphere only appears to be a place of freedom to express views and engage in ‘rational dialogue’ online. In reality, posts that are shared to a large following are vulnerable to an elevated level of scrutiny in today’s socially ‘fragile’ online environment.
Consider the example of Israel Folau. On April 10 the Australian footballer shared an Instagram post offending well, basically everyone. The main backlash was to Israel’s clear message condemning homosexuals to hell. In support of the LGBT community and in alignment with their own protocols, Rugby Australia is now threatening to repudiate Israel’s contract for what they call a ‘high level breach’.
So despite the impression that social media and by extension Cancel Culture, provide freedom of speech, the fleeting post of a celebritie’s political opinion, if deemed problematic, can have damaging career effects which last a lifetime. Thus making the space not truly accepting of ‘free’ speech.
Cancel Culture operates to remove the barrier that divides celebrities and everyday individuals, holding the often untouchable members of society - like actors and footy stars - accountable for their wrongdoings. But it is also an example of why the emotionally charged environment of social media is not the place for complex social and political discourse, particularly from the viewpoints of societies’ most privileged members.
So there we have it. To avoid your own ‘cancellation’, don’t use social media as a place for your politics. But don’t panic if you do; as Youtube star Laura Lee has shown us, the path to redemption starts with an apology on the same platform where the cancelling first begins.
