Introduction
In the present day, social media space may be characterized by digital activism that has both positive features and negative consequences. Digital activism that is also called social media or online activism is a particular form of civic activity that is conducted through the internet and digital media. In comparison with demonstrations in person and conventional activism, social media activism has several highly essential advantages that distinguish it from other forms.
First of all, it is convenient and accessible for all, including seniors, adolescents, people with disabilities, and the representatives of racial and cultural minorities. People can join conversations and keep connected with each other from almost any part of the world without informing local authorities. In addition, digital activism is particularly important in countries with limited or banned conventional activism. In general, it may be regarded as an excellent opportunity for individuals to express their opinions and share knowledge.
At the same time, there are multiple disadvantages of digital activism. Anonymity along with impunity and the absence of responsibility for expressions and statements that lead to disrespect and trolling may be regarded as the most significant one. In fact, cancel culture is strongly associated with online activism. However, being a mechanism of social regulation in the digital sphere, it has already become the medium of people who perform unrighteous conduct to express their attitude or simply cope with negative emotions. In general, cancel culture is a contemporary form of ostracism that presupposes the exclusion of an individual from social life or professional circles in person or on social media.
Originated from a 1980s song’s obscure slang term that referred to breaking up in relationships, cancel culture was initially a form of digital activism. It aimed to highlight the unethical behavior of famous people and influential personas (Vogels et al., 2021). To many people, cancel culture as the process of boycotting and calling for public accountability has become an essential tool of social justice when nothing else worked (Romano, 2019). In other words, collective actions or words influenced others’ behavior.
The characteristics and prominent features of cancel culture have changed with time as well. Mueller (2021, p. 1) defines cancel culture as “the withdrawal of support for individuals who have acted in a way deemed to be unacceptable or problematic related to social media, viewership, or the purchase of products or services.” At the same time, the author mentions that the demand for an apology was a key element of cancel culture (Mueller, 2021).
Moreover, the process included the investigation of canceled people’s characters and the reasons for their words and actions and forgiving when they learn from mistakes. Thus, cancel culture represented society’s needs in moral behavior and a social consensus.
However, in the present day, a considerable number of journalists and media reporters pay attention to the shift in the purpose of cancel culture and its negative tendencies. Instead of being a particular way of fighting unjustness and speaking the truth, cancel culture has got out of control and become a complete form of so-called social media lynch-law (Romano, 2019). Multiple individuals all over the world currently participate in the establishment of cancel culture through digital activism, trying to denounce famous influencers (Ng, 2020). In addition, cancel culture has turned into the public punishment for the freedom of speech and expression, and cancellation may severely affect the lives of ostracized people.
All in all, cancel culture in its modern perception may be regarded as a serious issue that should be addressed. From people’s attempt to establish justice and make a wrongdoer admit his mistakes, it has evolved into a threatening trend. It may currently affect a substantial number of influencers and even ordinary users without any considerable reason (Saint-Louis, 2021).
That is why the proposed research question for my work is: Why cancel culture is a negative phenomenon nowadays and what factors contribute to the creation of negative attitudes towards cancel culture, exhibited by social media reporters? In order to present cancel culture as an undesirable, inappropriate, and even dangerous form of digital activism designed for social justice from the position of social reporters, its main characteristics will be evaluated as well.
Method
Finding and the evaluation of empirical data is required for the examination of this issue as the study focuses on the perception of cancel culture phenomenon by a particular group of people. First of all, I used the method of content analysis in order to identify and examine articles related to the negative attitude to cancel culture. A search was done for “cancel culture,” “cancel culture today,” “characteristics of cancel culture.” The goal was to find the well-recognized articles in which authors uncover the phenomenon of cancel culture, negatively frame it, and explain how and why this practice has become unfavorable.
In addition, through the connection of the emerging patterns, I could evaluate the presence of particular characteristics of digital activism that contribute to the switch in the perception of cancel culture. Subsequently, I used the descriptive method and searched for examples of cancellation in social media in order to illustrate that the perception of reporters may be regarded as well-grounded.
Findings
In general, multiple reporters examine cancel culture and its significance in modern society. In her article, Romano (2019) reflects on whether cancel culture is an efficient tool of social justice or a contemporary form of merciless intimidation that mutes citizens, encourages lawlessness, and violates free exchange of thoughts and ideas. In the present day, it is represented by communal calls to dismiss and boycott a particular celebrity for doing something – either seriously or jokingly – that is disapproved by others. The author argues that instead of evoking social dissatisfaction in response to someone’s offensive words or actions, cancel culture establishes new social norms and rules of ethics and figures out how violated norms should be addressed.
According to the reporter, factors that contribute to the modern negative perception of cancel culture are the rise of social media and the strengthening of civil rights movements. The author explains that cancellation is not a new phenomenon to Black culture – the practice of boycotting was used by Southern Blacks as a survival skill when there was no power (Romano, 2019). Later, cancel culture channeled Black empowerment movements in the 1950s and 1960s.
Due to social media platforms that currently embrace diversity and the rights of minorities, the collective voice of marginalized communities has become louder than ever. In the present day, Black culture is more widely recognized and may be regarded as dominant in relation to a large sector of pop culture. It establishes new rules of ethics and the refusal to follow them or participate in someone’s cancellation is perceived as a reason for boycotting.
The ideas of the distribution of cancel culture from the Black community are supported by Dudenhoefer (2020). Moreover, she states that celebrities are more vulnerable to public criticism due to the specificity of their occupations. At the same time, viewed as agents of change, they contribute to the spread of cancel culture – in other words, boycotting one person leads to the cancellation of others for similar misconducts and the strengthening of new moral norms and social patterns. At the same time, according to the author, the peculiarities of the digital sphere and social media platforms contribute to the shift of social culture’s perception.
As previously mentioned, digital activism presupposed the freedom of speech and expression that frequently cannot be reached within the framework of conventional activism. At the same time, the digital sphere offers users a considerable level of anonymity along with general impunity. In addition, the social media addiction of a considerable number of people all over the world leads to the situation when users do not distinguish between real and fake, public and private (Dudenhoefer, 2020). All these factors create the modern tendencies that characterize cancel culture – people easily call for cancellation online and write humiliating comments via social media that they would never say face-to-face. They do not think critically or investigate all facts before cancellation on the basis of personal or social values and beliefs.
Cancel culture strongly depends on people’s individual characteristics when they are allowed to be freely expressed. In their article, Tidwell and Falinski (2020) also mention how the social commitment to new norms and standards makes people less thoughtful and more judgmental. They provide several examples of how celebrities got immediately canceled on the basis of single evidence that could be easily falsified. In addition, they address the aggressiveness of cancel culture that dictates others what to do – for instance, the followers of a canceled person will be shamed as well for their support. In this way, this phenomenon genuinely mutes people and limits their freedom of opinion.
In addition, in the present day, cancel culture does not presuppose repenting and forgiveness. Once a person is canceled, it is hard to restore his or her reputation even after a sincere apology (Tidwell and Falinski, 2020). People do not want to accept others’ non-ideality and their right to make mistakes and learning from them. Thus, taking into consideration the fact that celebrities are blamed for things that are frequently permitted for ordinary people, it is possible to conclude that cancel culture reflects people’s nature. It is expressed without a fear to be legally responsible, and shaming others for particular misconducts, users frequently make the same mistakes.
In the present day, cancel culture still preserves its initial goal in certain cases – for instance, in the case of Harvey Weinstein, who faced allegations of sexual assault and rape that are impossible to ignore. However, there are multiple examples of famous people who were canceled on the basis of new social norms and tendencies, including the protection of the rights of the LGBT community, antiracism, and women empowerment. In general, their misconducts imply jokes or the expression of ideas that do not correspond or violate these standards. In addition, the cancellation has affected the lives and careers of many of them regardless of apology and official acquittal. Remarkable examples include:
- Mike Richards. The host of Jeopardy! was fired for anti-Semitic and sexist comments made eight years ago regardless of his apology.
- Chris Harrison. The host of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette were dismissed after the protection of a former contestant involved in a racism controversy.
- Joe Rogan. The podcaster was canceled for his political beliefs and anti-vaccination comments.
- Piers Morgan. The TV personality has lost his show for the refusal to accept Meghan Markle’s claims and apologize for his position.
- JK Rowling. The writer was canceled for her comments related to transgender people and cancel culture controversy.
- Eminem. The rapper was supposedly canceled for the text of his song that justifies violence against women.
Discussion
The negative perception of modern cancel culture by reporters is reflected in the peer-reviewed literature dedicated to this phenomenon. The concept of digital activism and its characteristics are examined by George and Leidner (2019). They analyze the attributes and common activities of digital activism along with the negative consequences of such practices’ uncontrollable use. At the same time, the authors frame the characteristics of cancel culture within the framework of digital activism – the digital organization of participants on the basis of collective emotions. Another well-elaborated and informative study relevant to this work was conducted by Bouvier (2020). The author argues that cancel culture may be regarded as a controversial and unsafe tool of social justice that, however, does not solve current problems or mitigate the influence of particular ideas.
Limitations
The major limitation of this study is a potential lack of credibility in relation to reporters’ personal opinions. As a matter of fact, reporters should consider social media organizations’ rules and policies, and their impact on journalists’ work may be substantial. Thus, it is difficult to establish whether their perceptions are unbiased and fully credible or may be regarded as the representation of corporate views.
Ethics
In general, to be ethical, any research should incorporate several essential principles, including objectivity, honesty, integrity, carefulness, confidentiality, openness, respect for participants and intellectual property, and responsibility in the case of publication. In my research, I guarantee that all data was critically examined and reported without falsification or misrepresentation. The ways in which all information was presented were carefully chosen to avoid negligence. In addition, articles written by people of both genders and the representatives of minorities are planned to be incorporated in order to address the issue of opinion diversity.
As the research implies the analysis of articles written by other people it is essential to respect their intellectual property. Thus, no unpublished articles r articles the use of which is not permitted were chosen for this work. When participants are involved in the research, they should be informed concerning the purpose of the study, its methods, and potential risks. In addition, all participants should provide their consent, and all materials not related to the subject of the research should remain confidential. In general, this study is ethically conducted as it does not require informed consent due to the absence of participants.
Conclusion
As a matter of fact, cancel culture initially appeared as a tool of social justice that punishes arrogant individuals for their misconduct through collective disapproval. However, in the present day, this phenomenon turns into the practice of humiliation intolerant for others’ opinions, apology, and critical thinking. A considerable number of reporters express their negative attitude to modern cancel culture. They introduce several factors that contribute to the shift in the perception of this phenomenon. They include the rise of social media, anonymity and impunity of digital activism, the strengthening of civil rights movements, new social norms and standards, and personal characteristics of people who call for cancellation.
Reference List
Bouvier, G. (2020) ‘Racist call-outs and cancel culture on Twitter: the limitations of the platform’s ability to define issues of social justice,’ Discourse, Context & Media, 38. Web.
Dudenhoefer, N. (2020) ‘Is cancel culture effective?’ Pegasus. Web.
George, J.J. and Leidner, D.E. (2019) ‘From clicktivism to hacktivism: understanding digital activism’, Information and Organization, 29(3). Web.
Mueller, T.S. (2021) ‘Blame, then shame? Psychological predictors in cancel culture behavior,’ The Social Science Journal. Web.
Ng, E. (2020) ‘No grand pronouncements here…: reflections on cancel culture and digital media participation’, Television & New Media, 21(6), pp. 621–627. Web.
Romano, A. (2019) ‘Why we can’t stop fighting about cancel culture,’ Vox. Web.
Saint-Louis, H. (2021) ‘Understanding cancel culture: normative and unequal sanctioning’, First Monday, 26(7). Web.
Tidwell, S. and Falinski, J. (2020) ‘The good, the bad and the dirty: analyzing cancel culture and its effects,’ The State News. Web.
Vogels, E.A. et al. (2021) ‘Americans and ‘cancel culture’: where some see calls for accountability, others see censorship, punishment,’ Pew Research Center. Web.