The Dangers of Cancel Culture
Last year, I wrote an article for my school newspaper, and I’ve recently decided to post it here. I hope you find it interesting.
“There is nothing wrong with a culture that values drinking, but there is certainly something not right about a culture that encourages alcoholism. Holding bad actors accountable and speaking truth to power is a great thing. Actively looking for careers to destroy, names to sully, quarrels to start […] is a recipe for disaster.”
Cancel culture is a versatile movement — one that revitalizes in every generation. It’s not a new concept, but the ways we experience and consume its impacts are constantly changing. Loyalists were tarred and feathered in the 1760s, French women accused of “horizontal collaboration” during World War Ⅱ had their heads publicly shaved, and today public figures are crucified on social media for any minor error.
Writers (recently Dr. Suess and J.K. Rowling) have had books boycotted; intellectuals (notably Steven Pinker) have been shunned from the academic community; and religious leaders have been exiled and excommunicated from the Catholic church for centuries. Politicians, specifically, have been victims of cancel culture, and a reversed bully pulpit of some sort has formed. For instance, Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi have been discredited for discussing contentious issues like abortion, healthcare, and the dismantlement of Confederate statues.
Trump was canceled for one Tweet regarding the latter, “Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments.” This leads to an interesting question: does cancel culture actually lead to a lack of culture? Will art be censored to the point of clinicalism? Will comedy suffer as jokes die under scrutiny? Will this movement form a society so afraid of the consequences of speaking that we just sit in stony silence? Some might say that what our society is experiencing should not be regarded as cancel culture, that it is just a reevaluation of archaic values, and that the objective is progress. But in a hyper-critical world where every misstep leads to demise, how can we move forward if we step on a landmine in every direction?
In fact, cancel culture hasn’t brought our society to an understanding. It has polarized us. Especially because of the way we consume it, through electronics. The ease of blocking someone, turning off a phone, or literally sending for backup in a matter of clicks has hindered conversation. If we choose not to listen to the other argument, we don’t have to. This social pressure to speak not honestly, but tolerantly, directly opposes not only the American value of quality debate, but it also acts against the original intent of the movement that has become cancel culture — to protect minorities and the oppressed. The Founders of America were scared of a tyrannical majority, but they also wanted decisions made by those in power to reflect the consensus of the people. Cancel culture gives dangerous powers to both the minority and the majority. Unpopular opinions are slandered, and popular opinions are given no review before being blindly accepted.
But cancel culture itself isn’t the only problem. Somewhere between 280 characters per Tweet, eight seconds of attention span, and the ineloquence of the average person, it has become more difficult to express ideas, therefore leading to misunderstandings and unproductive conversation. J.K. Rowling, for instance, was canceled after alleged transphobic Tweets. “‘People who menstruate,” she said. “I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” Following outbursts, she stated, “It isn’t hateful to speak the truth.” Maybe not, but it does matter how we present the truth. J.K. Rowling claimed that gender is a fluid idea, but sex is definitive. She is not wrong, but her condescending tone overshadowed her logic. Any person who has felt an intense desire to win an argument will understand Tim O’Brien’s The Things We Carry words when he says “I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth.” Truth lies in perspective — in phrasing. We should not silence people, we should think about how best to converse with them.
Steven Pinker, a canceled linguist and academic, once gave a lecture on what he calls the greatest pseudo-argument in the English language: the fight between the Prescriptivists (people who claim we should reinforce traditional grammar rules) and Descriptivists (people who claim we should write as we talk). “How should we think about correct usage?” Dr. Pinker asks. This pseudo-controversy has striking similarities to the two sides of the argument surrounding cancel culture — the universalists (who believe in inalterable truths) and relativists (who judge morality based on circumstance).
In Pinker’s argument, he uses The Beatles and Cookie Monster to state his case. “Even children recognize that Cookie Monster made a grammatical error,” Pinker says, relating to the monster’s catchphrase, “Me Want Cookie,” which is obviously incorrect. And in The Beatles song “She Loves You,” a preposition is used at the end of a line (“It’s you she’s thinking of,”) making this statement also incorrect. If the Prescriptivists were truly intent on using traditional language, they would sing different lyrics to The Beatles song to avoid making a grammatical error. If the Descriptivists were truly intent on their beliefs, they would have to say there is no error in the phrase “Me Want Cookie,” according to their doctrine.
The same concept applies to the universalists and relativists. For instance, examine a situation where local farmers (who were attempting to feed their families) burned trees in the Amazon Rainforest. A universalist would have to insist that their actions were only immoral, even if their one intention was to feed their families. A relativist would have to completely defend the actions of the farmers because they were in a dire circumstance, and would have to ignore the environmental consequences. Cancel culture stems from a lack of understanding the other side of an argument. It also results from an accumulation of underlying problems, ones that have persisted for far too long. The topic has had time to become as sensitive as the scarred skin that victims accumulate, which causes those who have suffered to be acutely aware of discussion surrounding that very topic. It is something to be addressed with a balanced view and through moderate eyes. Choosing one side, like the universalists and relativists, doesn’t allow for the entire argument to be appreciated. It feels like every opinion someone has in 2021 is obscenely provocative and loud. The passion with which people disagree or agree with any particular idea, person, or event is much too forceful for the thing in question to be receiving the thought that it probably deserves. The arguments within cancel culture are, therefore, pseudo-arguments.
A couple years after this lecture, a letter would be signed by hundreds of academics attempting to discredit Dr. Pinker due to simply a few Tweets and comments. He claims that he is not worried for himself though, but for the younger intellectuals, who by not agreeing with the majority could prematurely ruin their careers; blackballing does exist outside of Hollywood. Dr. Pinker asks the academic community how restricting intellectual growth is an effective way to fix problems. How is revoking a college acceptance because of a blog post or banning unpopular scientific journals to avoid controversy beneficial?
“Our society is built on the values of free speech and mutual respect, but cancel culture rejects both. In place of free speech, it demands conformity. Instead of mutual respect, it tears people down.” In an era dominated by electronics and hyperactive media, America has begun to feel more like a panopticon than a country founded on the ideals of free speech and mutual respect. How we stray from cancel culture is unclear, but counteracting one effect of the movement, destructive silence, is painfully easy: instead of just sitting in an impasse of silence, not intending to hear the actual argument, listen.
