Image of political philosopher, John Stuart Mill, who's ideas of Free Speech go into direct conflict with the phenomena of cancel culture.
I think at its core, cancel culture is understood as a phenomenon in which the masses seek to silence and punish an individual or group as a consequence of an action deemed wrong or dangerous. However, we have seen in recent years how cancel culture has unfortunately become an umbrella term to discuss a whole gamut of issues. However, I would say that it is also characterized by emotional reaction on part of the masses and has become a way for the masses to check various social and political powers. Though, that is not to say that all cancel culture is productive or positive.
Cancel culture also manifests itself differently in different social environments. On the political end, cancel culture is often wielded by those who claim to detest it for political purposes. For instance, we have seen on the right calls to cancel Representative Liz Cheney for her stance on the events of January 6th. By canceling her, they hope that she bends to the social pressures to end her support of the January 6th investigation. On the other end of the spectrum, cancel culture can be directed at businesses for their ties to individuals or support for a cause (Kanye West´s relationship to Balenciaga and Adidas come to mind) (though I would argue that economic cancel culture has more to do with questions of ethical consumption rather the social ill of cancel culture). In internet culture, cancel culture has threatened the careers of many online personalities, most often when people go searching for offensive old tweets or videos in hopes of limiting one´s social power. Cancel culture manifests itself in diverse ways and at various extremes (the losing of a business relationship in the case of problematic celebrities or the destruction of a well meaning persons career and livelihood), which is one of the reasons it is so hard for me to formulate a position.
Despite, the recent fascination with cancel culture, it is not at all new. As Gordon points out, one of the greatest thinkers of human history was executed as a result of cancel culture. Socrates, as a result of not conforming to “either the traditional education that continued to hold sway in Athens or the professional teachers who offered their services for a fee” (29). In the case of Socrates his unwillingness to conform threatened the power and economy of educational institutions, his consequential death sentence, was both literally and metaphorically a cancellation for doing so.
Philosophically, the argument against cancel culture is sound and related to questions of Freedom of Speech. John Stuart Mill warned against such action: “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation—those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (Page 68).
The argument against cancel culture, lauded by political philosophers such as Mill, is one that upholds the role of free speech and discourse as the ultimate process of truth-seeking. According to Mill and his colleagues through the battling of ideas, a sort of darwinian survival of the most “truthful” will happen, allowing participants to correct, to be corrected and to arrive each time closer to truth. Mill himself was radical in advocating for free speech, Gordon posits that Mill would not go as far to support the silencing of Holocaust denial, which is quite extreme.
However, is there a line that cannot be crossed? Is all speech permissible? The Bill of Rights, which ensures the Freedom of Speech to all Americans, does not define what Freedom of Speech is, which does not help in establishing a clear line between what kind of rhetoric is legally and morally acceptable and which is not. Most people would uphold that Hate Speech is the line that can't be crossed, and cancellation is permissible and even encouraged when individuals engage in Hate Speech. The U.N. defines Hate Speech as “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.” However, there is no widespread accepted definition of Hate Speech in the U.S. or internationally. The term is practically devoid of any legal meaning. Therefore, the line, already very arbitrary, that delineates cancelable speech and permissible speech does not materially exist for the collective--though many of us do have a moral line, but that line is subjective and varies from individual to individual and context to context.
Those in favor of free speech, as demonstrated in the debate that the graduate students watched, believe that cancel culture is what establishes the line between what is and not permissible in order to dissuade harmful rhetoric like racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. Those in favor of canceling cancel culture, believe in the supremacy of truthful rhetoric and assume that rhetoric like that above will be defeated by truthful narratives. While I would love to believe in the latter, my concern is that some rhetoric is inherently harmful and violent and can cause serious harm if left to run amuck. Would individuals even have the tools to properly confront and dissuade such speech? Additionally, as we have discussed in the last unit, there are systemic problems that uphold racism and other -isms and -phobias in this country, but racism is the clearest example. If societal change does not happen and systemic change does not happen to curb racism, and racism is continually perpetuated, racist language will flourish despite whatever collisions it may face with other rhetoric. But that doesn't mean I am entirely on the side of canceling culture either.
It has helped me to think of cancel culture as a symptom of a greater problem: education, polarization, media literacy, and empathy. So, for me, the question is not if we should practice cancel culture, it is how do we resolve what everyone agrees to be a problem but everyone actively participates in?
The prevalence of cancel culture and in the current moment, has a lot to do with the democratization of the internet, which has become an important social apparatus. Anyone with a phone, or access to a Public Library, is able and empowered to react to a large number of events. The ability to control what media we consume has led to the polarization of political and social groups, as each group becomes further encased in ideas and rhetoric resembling their own. In this way, people become entrenched in their viewpoints and go unchallenged. Cancel culture is the result of two or more stubborn groups who believe their viewpoint is a universal truth. The unyielding perspectives of groups then cannot be managed via the exchange of ideas and in turns parties turn to cancel culture in order to control what could not be mediated.
Cancel culture is a direct symptom of polarization that has been facilitated by the internet and economies of affect. Additionally, poor media literacy and critical thinking skills exacerbates polarization and entrenchment even further. Douglass Kellner and Jeff Share speak to the media literacy we lack and how it perpetuates polarization and entrenchment: “In our global information society it is insufficient to teach students to read and write only with letters and numbers. We live in a multimedia age where the majority of information people receive comes less often from print sources and more typically from highly constructed visual images, complex sound arrangements, and multiple media formats” (cited in Gordon 70).
Education (including media literacy) and empathy are additional tools that put individuals in the position to hear and understand the positioning of the other. Education in terms of sociopolitical history is a wonderful tool to contextualize the many social issues we see today within a larger discourse, and educating oneself on the particular subject matter one has an opinion on, will allow for nuanced discussions and understanding, rather than the repetition of rhetoric used by warring parties. Empathy is truly the most important skill in allowing for fruitful discourse and the exchange of ideas, so that participants are positioned to listen and understand all perspectives.
Due to sweeping polarization and entrenchment of ideas facilitated by the internet and economies of information, and the lack of resources individuals have to navigate information and think critically (about the issues, about their argument, and the argument around them), cancel culture will continue to dominate our discourse. It is only by addressing these core issues that cancel culture can be addressed. If proper systems and tools were in place, as Dewey advocates, I believe we would be able to, at least the majority of the time, engage in fruitful nuanced discussion and facilitate the optimistic exchange of ideas that Arendt, Mill, and Dewey point to instead of turning to cancel culture.
Works Cited
“Philosophical Arguments Against Cancelling and Restricting Speech,”
by Mordechai Gordon in Education in a Cultural War Era: Thinking Philosophically about the Practice of Canceling , Published by Taylor and Francis Group, 2022.
“Socrates, Spinoza, and Other Cancelled Thinkers,” by Mordechai Gordon in Education in a Cultural War Era: Thinking Philosophically about the Practice of Canceling, Published by Taylor and Francis Group, 2022.
“What Is Hate Speech?” Understanding Hate Speech, United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech?gclid=Cj0KCQjwteOaBhDuARIsADBqRehFwSZ6lQXOAGxh4AzFAHAJTyAFWxbxOL4a5JkdRk_3jT9rZCfl9dQaAtZvEALw_wcB.
Nikita, your writings are always loaded with theory and you make it readable to understand. Your examples and argumentation go hand in hand with it. I also agree that education and empathy is a way to lead a discussion and understanding. Access to it should be more than the internet and social networks. Thank you and wonderful work!
Nikita, I really enjoyed reading your article. I believe you covered all important things that we read this week and discussed in class. It is a solid response to the assignment and I do not have any thing to say. Keep up the great work.
Nikita, I thought your analysis of the intricacies of cancel culture was really insightful and nuanced. You touched on all the different elements that are encompassed by cancel culture and how they all play an important role in creating a shared culture. I thought this was really important since this topic is so far from straight forward. In order to fully take a look at the justifications and ramifications of cancel culture everything that you mentioned should be considered before rendering a verdict on whether or not cancel culture is a net positive or negative for our society.