5

You have probably seen an advertisement for house cleaning products in one version or another. The story goes usually like this: There are some dangerous germs in the interior and then cleaning brings shiny whiteness. It is the happy end of the story. It is also symptomatic of the Western concept of happiness. The goal is to enjoy a purified world. Once germs are gone, you are absolved of your dirtiness. We hardly consider the other part of the story. Growing up and living in an aseptic environment weakens the immune system. Many mainstream cleaning products are toxic for yourself and the environment. I believe that cancel culture – similarly to cleaning dogma – has implicit drawbacks. If education becomes a download of “the truth” and protection against viruses, society will pay for this weakening of the capacities needed for critical thinking and collaboration.

The structural constraints imposed by the corporations limit our ability to meet fully and directly our needs. Corporations sell us replacement strategies that leave an insatiable feeling of wanting more. For example, someone who eats nutrient-poor food craves more despite having enough calories. Engaging in canceling is one of those strategies replacing meeting one’s needs in other ways. The result is that they never will be met fully because online life takes time and energy that does not go into reflecting what one needs and how to meet basic needs. Meanwhile, corporate profits depend on their ability to cultivate addiction to their product.

Evidence-based professional evaluation of medical treatments is under attack. Cancel culture foils the opportunities to raise questions about the economic interests behind such procedures as sexual transitioning. There are dozens of transgender medical clinics in the US. The industry built around sexual transition, such as hormone providers, may benefit from the obstacles to critical thinking and scrutiny. Some concerns regarding safety and the transparency about long-term consequences have been raised. An activist, who has detransitioned in the US, revealed that she did not receive enough support in the clinic specialized in sexual transition when she decided to revert the process.¹

The use of Lupron, a medication given to cure prostate cancer or treat sex offenders, has been given to children confused about their gender. Such an application can interfere in bone density. Doctors are reported to fear backlash if they oppose the treatment.² 25,000 adverse event reports, including more than 1500 deaths have been reported.³ Reactions include suicidal thoughts, stroke, muscle atrophy and debilitating bone and joint pain. A Swedish hospital suspended hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria patients under the age of 16. In its explanation, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, infertility, increased cancer risk, and thrombosis have been cited as potential consequences of the treatment.⁴

In the current context of canceling, any investigation into the ethics of the organizations providing such procedures may evoke backlash. For example, a book investigating the spike in interest in transition among female teenagers has been canceled with the following means: staff threats at the publishing house, Amazon’s refusal to sponsor ads on its site, Spotify’s employees’ protest, GoFundMe’s deleting of the campaign raising money to promote the book.⁵

Playing with complexes and the promise of a rapid change seems to have a high seduction potential. I am afraid to refer to Adolf Hitler and his era, (my canceling sensors are alarmed at the moment of writing this), however, the history of a man who otherwise would be ignored but has managed to have an apparatus of uncritical executors needs to be reminded again and again. His bureaucrats were recruited from low-educated strata of the German society. For them, serving the leader was an unexpected advancement. Nazi movement also used grandstanding as a form of manipulating to submit to its agenda. You may doubt that elites who belong to the dominant group could sway the under-privileged and minorities to help them with power grab. Adolf Hitler was neither tall nor blond. There is some evidence that he was of Jewish origin.

I invite you to see the current cancel culture turn as a preparation for power grab. If you wanted to increase control over public debate and people’s minds, the best way to do it would be by outsourcing it and let others do it for you. The Soviet system and state communism has illustrated how costly it is to implement a state-controlled surveillance and punishment apparatus in place. Western, so-called democracies have outperformed dictatorial methods by putting “policemen” in people’s heads rather than have them suppress diversion. I believe that the current spike of cancel culture is a stage of strengthening people’s “policemen in their heads” with the help of their own clicking hands. This stage prepares the ground for more self-censorship and closing eyes on the misconduct by corporations.

A friend of mine participated in a meeting where a young Black American man made a proposal to the group. An older White female opposed this proposal. Another White male accused her of being a racist, which she denied. The White man retorted that she was suffering from white fragility. While the self-appointed ally acted in good faith influenced by the current woke fad in the US, this type of conduct may deepen the racial divides. Being under the constant threat of canceling, people may not want to voice their opinions in the presence of minorities. As a result, denying the difference of the views or preferences would lead to superficial interactions, walking on eggshells, and segregation. Segregation used to be imposed by state regulations. Nowadays, it may be induced by cultural norms making it uncomfortable to be in the presence of other races or other people claiming to be victimized by society.

Ironically, cancel culture undermines the solidarity and community that would improve the underprivileged people’s situation canceling claims to defend. Belonging constructed in opposition to what one does not like is ephemeral because there always will be a challenge, discomfort, or need to change something. In the absence of language describing existential loneliness, one can numb oneself with online struggles to correct the world. But nothing is built through these actions. It is the very nature of life that things are not the way we daydream they should be. All these stimuli keep us alive. Our physiological system needs to be challenged as part of its maintenance procedure. Focusing all the energy on calling out does not leave much time for creating something positive instead.

The propensity to be triggered by small comments and gestures or merely a differing opinion is a symptom of an unhealed wound. Someone who is grounded and knows their worth would not be affected considerably by other people’s opinions. Things may trigger us because they resonate with something that is already there. Wounds that may be rubbed come from a past event of injustice. However, blaming is not the best way to take care of them or compensate the wounded.

Giving the conditions for healing may be a more constructive and just course of action than the calling out culture would ever allow happening. The inner work – which is an integral part of healing – may be inhibited when the affected person focuses on adjusting the outer reality. The focus on preventing or punishing triggers indicates how inadequate the external culture is so that this is automatically selected as a remedy for one’s pain. Cancel culture gives a cultural justification for not attending to one’s wounds and healing. In this way, the inner work has no chance to build up inner resources and strength. Canceling is an ideology built around the cultural void in the realm of emotional healing. In indigenous societies, people had the traditional wisdom to embrace rituals that helped them heal their emotional scars. Our Western culture leaves us without any means to attend to wounds and, consequently, perpetuates trauma.

Although victimhood may be an essential stage in healing, existing in a perpetual state of victimhood obstructs growth and healing. Cancel culture may lead to self-destruction because it indulges this self-affirmation. Canceling may be a subconscious quest to find a perpetrator to recreate one’s position from the past. While one may have been a victim in the past, canceling prompts to dwell in the past’s helplessness, even if they are not affected directly anymore.

People working in the publishing house about to publish Jordan Peterson’s book were crying as if this publication affected their lives. This resembles a situation where the victim identifies a perpetrator in anyone suitable for this role because this can relieve the emotions suppressed in the past. While crying can bring relief and is generally good for physiology, pursuing this healing stage in an aware manner would bring better effects than projecting blame on other people.

The human capacity to generate denial and avoid effort and pain is incredible. I know a 50-year-old who saturates to wokeness in explaining his situation caused by addiction. Of course, it is not the fault of woke discourse that people use it against themselves. Addicts tend to blame outside circumstances to distract themselves from seeing how their conduct causes their problems. Wokeness is a nicely packed tool in the hands of those who seek to escape the truth. It provides a culturally appropriate cover-up to protect people from self-insight. It helps to keep them in the infantile stage, postponing maturation. Maturation is a painful process. Looking outside foils it effectively, “Whom can I cancel today to distract myself from the truth?”

Cancel culture provides a framework that gives an illusion that one controls the world. One fritters away one’s energy on actions that offer a short-term gratification of winning over the world, whereas one’s situation worsens because of this misallocation of time. This may lead to losing one’s inner compass and control over one’s life. Since corporations benefit most from our helplessness, those who are lost are delivered to their power.

Cancel culture may impose a tyranny of triggers under the guise of pursuing justice. Wokeness may legitimize various forms of oppression. The past shows us how virtuous language can justify evil acts. We need to be careful because submitting to group dynamics prompting us to cancel people in the name of wokeness may have a hidden agenda. A skillful manipulation may trick people into controlling and censoring others. Imagine that a corporation wants to edit expressing unfavorable opinions about the working conditions and ethical standards in the production process. By supporting moral grandstanding in woke issues, it is sending a hidden message that it can fire anyone on the grounds of an unwoke “sin.” Therefore, one should be very careful expressing any opinions. Not only may voicing any issues in public be risky, but one-on-one conversations may lead to denunciation. Self-induced censorship is far more effective public relations strategy than an externally imposed one.

Cancel culture partakes in a growing trend of handicapping our capacity and propensity to have meaningful conversations. The environment that inculcates the habit of canceling deprives us of the skills for critical thinking. It also compromises our capabilities to empathize and understand another person. Atomization works for the people at power. Professor Loretta Ross, a Back feminist with a rich experience in antiracism activism, proposes an alternative to call-out culture, namely calling people in and engaging in dialogue.⁶ Such an approach can help to build bridges across a divided society.

In the book The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck, the US American author describes his experience of talking with people he barely knew when living in Russia. He was surprised by people expressing their opinions without trying to be nice. It was a cultural shock for him. He needed some time to start appreciating it, but he concluded that he preferred such a culture.⁷ Imagine how our relationships would be impoverished if we let cancel culture dominate the sphere of our relations. They will become flat and superficial because people will censor themselves, anticipating canceling.

Cancel culture in the public sphere can easily be reproduced in personal relationships, which will lead to worsening them. People deprived of the benefits of knowing others and of being known by others for an extended period of time may not access the wisdom and guidance that such relationships can offer. This will make people dependent on professionals or technology in making decisions. The latter option is particularly dangerous because it may manipulate people into making choices that serve large corporations. The commercialization of life conditions us into choosing things rather than making them. Repeating the experience of selecting, comparing, and rating products may inculcate the habit of thinking that people are ready-made products. One just needs to make the proper selection of who is worthwhile and who is not. Cancel culture is a symptom of this mentality and further reinforces it.

People lacking deep relations can be easily manipulated into pleasure-seeking, which makes them slaves to the providers of pleasures and numbing tools. Atomization and isolation lead to disempowerment. The illusory power taking with the acts of canceling may distract from the drowning into helplessness. Woke ideology is a clever cover-up dressed in empathy and compassion. Pursuing these values and moral grandstanding may turn out to weaken relationships and the possibility to build collective autonomy. Cancel culture erodes social fabric and generates a void which corporate agenda has an easy access to fill.

Due to immersing oneself in one’s echo chamber, one may conform to norms that lead to further isolation. Human disconnection enhanced by the digitalization of our lives may lead to various forms of violence. Someone caught in the tentacles of addiction and ideology may become reckless. Cancel culture reinforces radicalization because of its focus on purifying and demonizing the other. Whether it is an act committed by a xenophobe or an anti-xenophobe, an intolerant or an anti-intolerant, the result of potentially damaging another person are the same.