Is cancel culture detrimental to society?

Dictionary.com, in its pop-culture dictionary, defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for (i.e.,
'canceling' ) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered
objectionable or offensive.

Positives

 Cancel culture has been effective at combating wrongdoing, especially sexism and racism. It
demands social change and addresses many inequalities.

For example In 2016, many members of the film community boycotted the Oscars because of
the lack of diversity among nominees. Canceling the Oscars resulted in social change. In 2019,
the Oscars set a record for the most wins by Black nominees ever.

In addition cancel culture was the main trigger for the #MeToo protests in 2017: More than 90
actresses, including Angelina Jolie and Salma Hayek, accused Weinstein of sexual harassment or
abuse. The Oscar Academy fired him; his own production company parted ways with him. In 2020,
Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison.

Ultimately, cancel culture surrounding R. Kelly, Harvey Weinstein and Woody Allen have proven
that public attention has an effect. Online campaigns like #MeToo or #MuteRKelly triggered
discussion of abuse beyond social media

 As a form of boycott cancel culture goes beyond individual choice and become stronger the more
people participate in them. To participate in a righteous boycott is to show solidarity with those
who are directly harmed by the actions or products being boycotted and escalate the threat to
their bottom line, forcing them to stop trying to get away with business as usual.

 Cancel culture can be seen as the backbone of the idea of free market (the idea that there don't
need to be any regulations on the market, because if a product is unethical then the consumers
won't buy it, therefore forcing the company to change its practices or go bankrupt)
 Cancel culture is accessible to more people than power over traditional media


Negatives

 Cancel culture can amount to online bullying and can incite violence and threats even worse than
the original offense being called out- e.g., threats against J.K Rowling and her family
 Cancel culture is not always productive and does not always bring about social change.
 Cancel culture can be seriously misinformed with consequences for the individual targeted
 If you have been canceled, it can make you feel ostracized, socially isolated, and lonely-
research shows that loneliness is associated with higher anxiety, depression, and suicide rates.
 Little to no redemption
  Trials in the court of public opinion
 Will this mean we will never be able to appreciate art? Consider: Elvis Presley (wifebeater), John
Lennon (wife beater), Michael Jackson (suspected pedophile), Roald Dahl, (antisemite,
misogynist) Pablo Picasso (antisemite, misogynist) (Salvador Dali, fascist Franco supporter,
misogynist)
 People afraid of the repercussions of cancel culture may choose to not express themselves
 ‘cancelling’ often involves going after a person’s livelihood, which will affect the cancelee’s life
negatively- for example, A top executive at Boeing recently lost his job because of an
article he wrote in 1987,
 Viewing tweets from 10-plus years ago might not reflect the way a celebrity views societal or
political issues now e.g. Billy Eilish
 Can it even be viewed as a form of activism?
For example Black Lives Matter, a movement sparked in 2013 after the murdering of Trayvon
Martin, is also wrestling with cancel culture. One of the co-founders, Patrisse Khan-Cullors stated
that “people don’t understand that [social activist] organizing isn’t going online and cussing
people out or going to a protest and calling something out.”

Emily’s opinion

Firstly, I would like to state, that overall cancel culture is not detrimental when the
benefits and consequences are weighed. The court of public opinion is a precarious
one, I grant you. Yet it is still the only way certain marginalized voices can be heard.
For example, It is still the main tool for challenging racist incidents such as the
central park birdwatching incident and bringing justice for rape victims such as those
of Harvey Weinstein.
Before the rise of social media, the anger of young people was restricted. Some of us may have
been angry about Thatcherism, but our ability to sway mainstream public opinion was limited
because print and broadcast media kept youth on the margins Today, a 22-year-old footballer
with a Twitter account can force the government to make a U-turn in less than 48 hours.
Darnella Frazier whose smartphone footage of police officers killing George Floyd provoked
outrage around the world, is just 17 years old.
But why is cancel culture is such a widespread topic for debate (hence why I chose it) when so
many of the most powerful actors in public debate are not shady twitter accounts but media
companies? These are owned by oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch; the man who tried to cancel
climate change evidence and oversaw the shaming of many cultural icons, including princess
Diana, Freddie Mercury, and most recently Britney Spears. Likewise, whilst cancel culture can
be misinformed, that is surely not to say it is any different from any other form of mainstream
media. After all, there are the faked photographs of soldiers abusing an iraqi prisoner of war
which cost Piers Morgan his job at the daily mirror, the News of the World bugging scandal, not
to mention Trump’s intervention when in 1989 five Black and Latino boys were wrongfully
arrested and convicted for rape, he signed full-page newspaper advertisements calling for the
boys to die.

The main difference between traditional media and cancel culture is that the power of traditional media
is in the hands of the few. Cancel culture, however, can be wielded by far more people- for better or for
worse admittedly.

This can be exemplified thorough the ‘letter on justice and open debate’ published by Harper's
magazine, signed by 153 notable rich and famous individuals complaining on how they have been
‘silenced’. Yet their access to this forum makes this deeply hypocritical because they still have access to
this type of forum- which you or I would not have access to In addition, no attention was given to the
menace of Trump or protest suppression, only to cancel culture which is treated as homogenous
throughout.

Furthermore, I cannot help but find a lot of action being taken against ‘cancel culture to be deeply
problematic In July, then-education secretary Gavin Williamson claimed that ‘cancel culture’ threatened
British universities’ reputations for free thinking and free speech and proposed a new law to deal with
this issue.

Should the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill – which is now in its report stage, having passed
its first and seconding reading in Parliament – pass into law, the Office for Students will have the power
to fine universities if it believes they are breaching “a culture of open and robust intellectual debate.” It
will also give people the right to take universities to court if they feel their freedom to speak has been
breached.

Universities are already bound by government legislation and have a legally binding duty to support and
actively encourage freedom of expression on campus, including the right to protest. However regulating
‘cancel culture’ fails to recognize the various rights at play in any given situation, for example the rights
of students to protest that speaker. A recent example would be students at the LSE (London school of
economics) protesting the Israeli ambassador speaking at the university.

So called cancel culture scandals also include the renaming of Edinburgh’s David Hume Tower (because
of the 18th-century philosopher’s racist writings) to complaints about calls to remove a statue of the
19th-century colonialist Cecil Rhodes from Oxford’s Oriel College.

Obviously, these shifts do not represent an attack on freedom of speech. Hume’s ideas will still be
discussed in Edinburgh’s philosophy department. Rhodes’ role in southern Africa is still taught in
Oxford’s history seminars. They just would not come with implicit institutional endorsement. Students
have used their free speech to steer debate onto terrain that was previously politely ignored.
Cancel culture is far from perfect- extremely far from perfect in fact- but for some of us, it is all we have.