The cancel culture debate is stupid. Here’s why.
“Cancel culture” has been used to encapsulate such a broad range of things that it is almost meaningless. It’s been used to refer to President Trump’s impeachment, allegations of sexual misbehavior by Governor Cuomo, J.K. Rowling being told she’s wrong, and a company’s voluntary decision to not sell some books that they have the rights to. What ties these together? The sole thing is somebody saying that something is bad. That’s stupid.
This confusion serves exclusively to obfuscate issues, not clarify them. Who benefits by this obfuscation? Well, it seems people who try to incite riots and sexually harass people. Those who aren’t being particularly harmed, like celebrities being told they’re wrong on social media or companies who just made a business decision under virtually no pressure, don’t stand to gain a lot because they didn’t lose much in the first place. Josh Hawley was “cancelled” because one publisher refused to publish his book, so he went to a different publisher. Didn’t lose much, didn’t gain much.
It also contributes to a narrative, very popular among conservative men, that the big bad woke is coming to take away your nuclear family, your grilled steak, and your penis. If you don’t let them take your penis, then you’ll get cancelled, Republicans say. This isn’t happening, but Republicans keep telling them this is going to happen unless they vote Republican. So cancel culture is useful electorally.
That’s not to say that there isn’t a tendency for the internet to turn into mobs looking for vengeance. That’s actually part of why I can’t stand the cancel culture debate anymore. This isn’t some new thing that needs a novel, frustrating nebulous term. So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson was published in 2015 and it covers much of the same ideas, without so much polarizing charge, and with more empathy. The book looked into the psychology of the people who engage in this mob justice and the devastating effects it has on the psyche of the victims. One particular section from it that sticks with me is its explanation that public shaming was phased out as a punishment, in part, because it was too cruel and caused too much harm. Instead, they sought more humane punishments, like beating them and breaking their bones in a private room. That’s not a joke; they genuinely believed that beating someone in private was more humane than public shaming. That’s how harmful public shaming is!
So when I read the latest mind-numbing usage of “cancel culture,” my internal feelings match this image:
I’m going to spend my time on something more productive than trying to pretend that “cancel culture” is an actual thing. You can read my previous two pieces discussing this, The Public Debate About Public Debate and Cancel Culture if you want some other thoughts. But what thoughts are there to be had about a term that’s hardly become more than a partisan war-cry and a shield for bad behavior? It sucks. Not much more to it.