The phrase “cancel culture” is one that, in recent years, has been thrown around with reckless abandon. But what does the phrase even mean? Well, it really depends on who you ask. But to be “canceled” essentially means to be ostracized, or excluded, by one or more groups of people.
When broken down in its simplest terms, what we’re talking about is a concept which has been around since the dawn of society. But if the past few years have taught us anything, it’s that you can slap a catchy buzzword on something, endow it with political significance, and count on everyone involved to lose their minds.
The notion of “cancel culture” gained traction in 2014, and has since become a frequently leveraged device in the revision of public perception. As it pertains to popular culture, “cancel culture” has essentially become shorthand for a group, or groups, of consumers swearing off a brand or public figure based on information which has recently come to light concerning said brand or public figure.
As a reactionary response, the establishment of an opinion or viewpoint based solely on available – and oftentimes incomplete – information is simply an inherent facet of human nature. It is certainly a logistical reach to assume this phenomenon to be some mass, calculated attack on heterosexual white males as a cultural denomination.
In fact, consumers have been disengaging with brands and creators based on everything from conflicting viewpoints to religious and sexual orientation since long before hashtags became regularly occurring features of major news headlines.
Were The [Dixie] Chicks not “canceled” following their public condemnation of President George Bush in 2003? Was Sinead O’Connor not “canceled” way back in 1992 for destroying a photo of the pope on television? Was Kanye West not “canceled” in 2005 for his criticism of President Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina, and then again in 2014 for his endorsement of President Trump?
In 1989, r&b duo Milli Vanilli had their very livelihoods snatched away when it was revealed that they lip synced their live performances. Were Milli Vanilli “canceled,” or were they merely victims of natural consequences stemming from their own choices?
A group of people who share a particular belief rushing to judgment, while failing to objectively consider all significant variables, isn’t a distinction exclusive to a single mob of teary-eyed, bleeding heart liberals posting photos of their Starbucks macchiatos to Instagram.
What is being described here is indicative of any supporter of any political party, as well as sports fans, moviegoers, every person who has ever looked at a Reddit forum, and so on and so forth. Forming opinions (valid or otherwise) around personal biases is nothing new. The concept was around long before Louis C.K.’s infamous fall from grace in 2017, and it will still be around long after we’re all dead and gone.
“Cancel culture,” as leveraged at its most theatrical in performative, ethical finger-pointing, implies a desolate fate for its victims, one of financial struggle and social strife. But do you know where victims of such treatment generally don’t end up? They don’t end up in national headlines, on performance stages around the world, on popular podcasts, or on nationally syndicated shows. Do you know where victims of “cancel culture,” such as Louis C.K., generally find themselves shortly after being “canceled?” You guessed it.
It has become increasingly common to hear celebrities griping about being “canceled” on one of several heavily publicized and widely broadcast platforms to which they have access, the absurdity of which is equivalent to the notion of using your phone to call a person so you can complain that you don’t have a phone.
Cancellation implies eradication from existence in the eye of societal consciousness, not some people openly disagreeing with a thing you said or did.
In its most tawdry of applications, those facing any sort of pushback or backlash in response to their words or actions can now hop directly onto their soapbox, cry “cancel culture,” and rally the support of a legion of fellow sore losers in a misguided attempt to sway whichever narrative has emerged as a result of one or more regrettable decisions. These types will often attempt to equate being held accountable, or simply being challenged, with being oppressed, a false equivalency if there ever was one.
In the interest of illustrating a point (and taking a peek over that pesky fourth wall,) can I, as a writer, claim to be “canceled” if an article of mine concerning a controversial and polarizing issue attracts criticism from readers who are not in agreement with my viewpoint? Can I reasonably claim victimization if certain groups criticize my work based on a belief I hold which they find to be offensive or disagreeable?
These questions, of course, are rhetorical. But in the interest of pellucidity, the answer is “no,”. It is our fundamental right as Americans to express our opinions and to say what we feel. Nowhere in any religious or historical text does it dictate that those opinions are to be greeted with open arms, and conflicting opinions presented as a result of these declarations are equally valid in terms of their right to be expressed.
Generally, the issue with “woke mob” groups declaring cancellation at the drop of a hat based on little to no information is just that – the jumping to conclusions which have real-world effects on the lives of people who, in the eyes of the public observer, are often viewed as abstractions themselves – symbolic representations of sets of preconceived ideals rather than fellow human beings with which we’re all sharing in existence.
With this I can empathize. Having little to no control over narratives being spun about yourself whilst significant details fail to be considered is an understandably frustrating plight. But it is one that, as they say, comes with the territory of engaging in a career in the public eye.
With the right to free speech, which grants us the facility to express ourselves authentically, comes the possibility of those same freedoms being leveraged against us, at times irresponsibly so.
To repudiate the validity of one group’s exercising of these freedoms is to call into question the very integrity of the freedoms themselves. In unjust situations, the grace and aplomb with which one responds to their respective predicament tends to be, in retrospect, the defining factor of the entire ordeal.
To truly embrace the values expressed through the first amendment is to embrace the delineation of ideas and beliefs which may be in direct conflict with our own. Being confronted with the potential distortions of our own systems of belief and understanding is conducive to personal and intellectual growth. Ultimately, it is these ideals which should take precedence over that of exoneration in the eyes of a peripheral abstraction of the general public.