“Cancel culture” is a relatively new trend in the media space. Thanks to the global spread of social networks, blogs and YouTube channels, there are almost no people left who do not follow at least one media personality. It is only natural that over time, the Internet community has needed a lever of control over those who surpass them in social status and level of influence – and this has become “cancel culture”.
The author of this term is currently unknown, but cancel culture became a word in 2019 according to the Australian dictionary Macquarie Dictionary. This statement is interpreted as an online phenomenon of the boycott of public figures who say or do wrong things (ProCon.org, 2020). The key idea and task of the “cancel culture” is to bring celebrities to justice for “violations” of a social or political nature. These can be either incorrect statements or actions recognized by the Internet community as deviant (deviating from generally accepted norms) or criminal.
The “cancellation” pattern is as follows: a star or other public figure makes a mistake or says (writes on social media) something offensive to a group of people. This is followed by a negative reaction from society, which is often picked up and disseminated by users of social networks. Then there are calls to remove a person from office, end his career or level of cultural achievements – as a result of a boycott of his activities or disciplinary action by the employer.
One can start tracking the phenomenon from the launch of the #metoo movement. Some well-known people accused of rape or sexual violence (that is, objective offenses that have harmed someone and cannot be ignored), including Garvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Kevin Spacey, have been effectively “canceled” (Mishan., 2020). Then, Joan Rowling has been accused of transphobia for her tweets that transgender women cannot be considered real women. After the first wave of cancel culture, shortcomings began to appear. It turned out that ending someone’s career with a public reaction is not so easy. And few of the really famous people are completely boycotted because of the scandal on the Internet. The careers of some of them, after a forced lull, on the contrary, received a second wind.
The main criticism of this phenomenon is that it is time for us to stop “canceling” people, not their actions. By discussing acute problems and taking into account opposing views, we learn to create a constructive discourse that will help steer society in a morally positive direction (Koziol, 2020). People should not be “canceled” just because of their prejudice against other nationalities, sexual orientations, or identities. Nor can you “cancel” them for an opinion you disagree with or for a joke that seems offensive to you. Many psychologists claim that now, we are more insecure about ourselves and the world around us than ever before. We feel vulnerable to people in our virtual and real worlds, so we are easily exposed to group thinking.
Group thinking is a specific way of thinking in which the search for consent, rather than rational solutions, dominates in a cohesive group. Participants may ignore any ethical or moral implications in making a decision that facilitates their group work. This leads to a loss of individuality – in the manifestations of cancel culture, members of the group try to avoid expressing doubts, judgments, or disagreement with the consensus. At this point, it should be concluded that “cancel culture” is not a way to change things forever. One can disagree with something, and yet it is vital for society to learn to have a constructive debate in which everyone can learn a valuable lesson.
References
ProCon.org. (2020). Is cancel culture (or “callout culture”) good for society?
Koziol, M. (2020). “We can’t cancel everyone”: The cultural phenomenon at a crossroads. The Sydney Morning Herald.
Mishan., L. (2020). The long tortured history of canceled culture. The New York Times Style Magazine.