Cancel culture is a recent phenomenon in which people “cancel”—withdraw their support for—famous people and celebrities after they do something that is deemed offensive. Article 19 correspondent Devika Dinesh talks to some of our readers about their opinions on cancel culture. Names changed on request lest our contributors themselves get cancelled.
Anonymous Panther: Cancel culture is a good example of the blurred line between criticism and harassment. It transcends the ethical and healthy practice of criticising a person, and instead ends up detrimentally affecting them on a personal and psychological level. Ironically, it is in itself a counterproductive practice—cancelling does anything but teach a person how or why they went wrong, which is meant to be its goal.
Saino Starflow: Judging history through present-day morality is a redundant academic activity. Toppling statues may be symbolic, but a movement for real change needs to go beyond that.
Berryweather: While the debate surrounding removal of statues erected in the Jim Crow era is not new, it has widened in 2020 owing to the institutional murders of Black people across the US. The important thing to keep in mind is that the toppling of statues is not just “symbolic”. It is part of dismantling a past which glorified slave-owners and white supremacists. It is radical in the act itself because the historically oppressed finally have their voice heard. They finally have the ability to say that the version of history we all celebrate and consume as the norm was in fact suppressive and oppressive, the brunt of which they face to this day. Of course, larger institutional change to remove systemic racism is necessary, but the point of this is also to challenge social consensus and outdated perceptions. Besides, as a non-Black person, it does not make sense for us to say how Black people should be doing the movement in the ‘right’ way or what ushers in ‘real change’. (Some interesting reads about reimagining monuments: Black Monuments Project, Re-imagining America’s Monuments)
Detective Peralta: It is really convenient and surprisingly easy to dehumanize an “other” while on digital platforms. It’s easy to see people who we disagree with as merely “terrible humans” who do not care as much as we do about the world, and denounce their every opinion. However, it’s a lot harder, and yet a lot more effective, to genuinely communicate with civility and respect. These conversations can be difficult, at times even exhausting, because not everyone will respond in kind. But I think it can make a difference.
Instead of burning bridges, perhaps all it takes is to not shame people for what we perceive as wrong, and rather start a civil conversation to bring about the change you wish to see. As it turns out, we’ll most likely learn something new too!
Harvey: Bringing up the past when condemning celebrities or other public figures is not really fair. It almost ironically promotes the notion that people do not change or grow. It ends up being more of a PR attack than addressing a social issue.
Deadpool: I think it is a dangerous kind of justice that has no respect for nuance or context. The potential for misuse is astronomical. It also imposes a kind of conformity on Internet users, which is awful because the Internet is supposed to be a free space. In addition, proportion is something that’s lost on the net because of its hyperrealistic nature. Petty offences resulting in being cancelled is a kind of injustice that shouldn’t be tolerated. Apart from this, a lot of cancelling is performative. People are more obsessed with appearing woke than with actual retribution.
shrxthxghx: I think cancel culture kinda encourages people to be superficially “woke”. From the surface it seems like progressive thinking—but when you look closer, they have no idea why they’re supporting something, but do it anyway just because supporting its opposite might get them “cancelled”, you know?
Cancel culture is rather counter productive. Because you essentially want to hold people accountable, and cancelling them is expected to make them want to do their research and be more conscious. But most people just end up wanting to not be cancelled than wanting to be informed and aware. The process ends up having no basis because people would rather follow the crowd than take their own informed stance.
Cry, sis: While cancel culture in its present form does more harm than good, this does not mean social media activism is itself “bad”. It is important to remember that popular activism allows people from marginalised groups to voice sentiments that may not have been given much attention otherwise. Social media allows people to actually understand the lives and struggles of people who belong to different social backgrounds than them, and while it’s not a perfect medium, it does rally people who face similar struggles together. However, it is necessary that our activism not be restricted to just social media, but also be reflected in the actions we do in the real world. It is all too easy to forget the real struggles of real people when you’re liking and resharing, and it is necessary to not just be armchair activists but do our part to make the world better.
Berryweather: Also would like to add that the only reason we’re able to notice people “cancelling” celebrities is because “normal people” finally have a voice, thanks to social media (interesting read: 10 Theses about Cancel Culture).
Mina: The general masses usually don’t tend to remember who got cancelled when another trending issue pops up. Especially social media influencers who got “cancelled” get back on their feet after the initial shitstorm goes down. They keep a low profile and then come back out. For example, Logan Paul videotaped himself making fun of a dude who committed suicide in Japan’s suicide forest. And yet he still has a strong viewer base today.
Berryweather: “Cancelling” people I guess also has to do with going against the power status quo. Like for example with the #MeToo Movement, women were finally able to call out their abusers and many got “cancelled” which previously would’ve be unimaginable (because women have been taught to not speak up because ‘it will ruin the man’s career’) I think it definitely started out as a radical act of giving people’s voices but right now, the boundaries have become blurred.
Mditya Aukherjee: The way contemporary social media functions and how notions of ideology develop among people of our age takes out most (if not any) scope for nuance—in art as well as opinion.
The most visible sections of the young left-wing community think nonverbally in terms of ideological monoliths, something that is fundamentally opposed to the belief system they present themselves as being part of. It has become almost entirely about one’s performance of ideology. Not sharing an Instagram infographic saying “Read.” is becoming subliminally equated with complicit silence—something which it is decidedly not.
Unique, intersectional positions may become susceptible to being bracketed as contradictory or being “not real liberals”. It’s being confused with being in the same vein as, for instance, someone who identifies with the liberal position but says same-sex marriages shouldn’t be registered, which is actual equivocation.
On the other hand, while the intersectionality argument about having unique ideological identities accommodates nuance, can it actually function as an escape for people who are actually contradicting themselves, passing it off as “my brand of ideology”?
[Editor’s note: “Intersectionality” is a concept originated by Kimberlé Crenshaw, used to describe how social, economic and cultural circumstances combine and overlap to disadvantage people from these backgrounds. For example, a Black woman has to face combined struggles for her womanness as well as her Blackness. For further reading, here’s a link to an article about Black women’s experiences in the Black Lives Matter protests.]
Berryweather: On a side note, I also feel like there is a burden placed on marginalised identities to carry out their activism in a non-angry, non-harsh manner. The burden is still on them to deal with the guilt of the privileged—and I think as privileged people, the least we could do is step down and stop seeing it as something that’s about us. It’s about the people who historically did not have a voice finally speaking up, it’s about their activism, them reclaiming their agency. It is not about us feeling guilty. The conversation simply cannot turn towards us. As always.
Edited by Sadhana Nadathur Jayakumar and Abhirami G
Article 19 