It is hard to say that cancel culture should or should not practice. As I learned in this class and reflected in previous blogs, cancel culture does not have a definite meaning and does not function on those with platforms and power. Most victims of this phenomenon are ordinary people (primarily journalists and academics) who expressed ideas against the mainstream. So, in this context, cancel culture should not practice, and instead of that, we must focus on increasing our tolerance and critique skills. Also, those in power are not cancelable; even if academia cancels them, there are always people who buy their words; for example, Jordan Peterson is a controversial figure, and despite many opponents, particularly academics, he has five million followers on Instagram. I must acknowledge that I am not entirely familiar with this figure, but I disagree with many of his ideas based on what I studied about him. For instance, he believes cancel culture is a feminine way of retaliation. Peterson believes because women cannot retaliate physically, they go after someone's reputation. Besides the fact that it is a very insulting idea not only to women but to all human beings, my main problem is why we need to relate every phenomenon to gender and then find a reason to justify our statement. Does the idea that cancels culture is feminine or masculine help to achieve something functional? What is the point?
As Peterson's idea is how to help men run society, he has many fans and is not cancelable. However, even if academics could cancel him in academic environments, I "may" disagree. Peterson has a robust platform with too many videos and podcasts in which he tries to teach his ideas to people and provoke their thoughts. Canceling people like Peterson in the academic community separates academics from society. Moreover, a healthy society needs to include different voices and different points of view; even if some perspectives are harmful, they exist, and ignoring or canceling them does not remove their existence.
Moreover, sometimes their points of view challenge our approaches and force us to review and improve our perspectives. For example, studying the thoughts of their followers improves our knowledge about society and helps us understand what features intrigue folks in a figure like Peterson. What are reasons of Peterson's followers for following him? Here are some of them:
“He has a visible passion for teaching. I’ve gone to some notable universities and colleges, and few were as impressive as Peterson.”
“I’m not an academic, so I can’t comment as an insider of that community. As an outsider looking it, Peterson seems to be a decent lecturer — one I’d be interested in listening too — based on the many videos he’s posted. He’s evidently well versed in his subject areas. And he does what I think any good professor should do — encourage students to think! He also seems to listen well.”
“To a professor in the humanities a lot of what he said really resonated with me. It was so strange to see a professor take a stand against progressivism so publicly. At the time, I was afraid to ever say anything about politics in fear of my job being lost. To see a professor so publicly denounce the orthodox political positions of academia was unique.”
And here are some reasons of Peterson’s opponent:
I’m not a fan of his promotion of rigid gender roles.
I’m not a fan of how he belittles men who do not live up to his standards.
I’m not a fan of his ‘what women want from men’ rants.
I don’t like how he seems to ignore that not all men and women are the same.
I don’t like how he preaches responsibility and a rigid version of masculinity for men in today’s climate when the cultural foundation for this simply does not exist anymore. Responsibility without authority is merely slavery.
I very critical of how JBP claims he’s a Christian, but yet believes that the Bible is nothing more than the product of human metaphors.
I’m a bit suspect of how JBP brags about his own level of intelligence, and Trump’s. Most intellectuals that I know of don’t do this.
Therefore, everybody can listen to some of Peterson’s ideas and decide whether to follow him. The pressure from academia to cancel him isolates the academia and highlights Peterson more. I “may” disagree about canceling him, and I need to acknowledge that I use the word “may” because cancel culture does not have a definite meaning, because I am not 100% sure about the future. Because I come from a country governed by a totalitarian regime, I cannot stop thinking of what if the power of someone like Peterson increases and they become dominant everywhere, and they start to cancel us? In saying this, I am trying to visualize a model of a totalitarian society in which there is no balance between someone like Peterson and those who believe in equity, liberty, and progressive ideas. What if those who don’t believe in diversity and equity come to power and take control of everything? Do we still say we shouldn’t cancel them? How can we say this when we have already been canceled?
Sources:
Like You, I didn’t either know about him and as I saw his video his comments left me like “Oh no…”. But as I searched more about him, I now understand some of his opinions and even though I don’t agree with everything that he says I found him necessary in the academic and social setting. This is because we are all allowed to have different opinions and perspective in a way to have a free flow conversation and/or debate. We can all learn from each other’s opinions even if makes us uncomfortable. And like you mention one decides whatever we want to see and hear so if a person doesn’t like Peterson that person can just not consume his…