“Cancel culture” in its current form has become a legitimate form of political engagement. Its expanding prevalence can also be attributed to the fact that those who previously did not have the political or social capital to make their voices heard through traditional channels have been able to utilize social media to achieve the widespread credibility that public exposure grants. The phenomenon of publicity aiding credibility has become a key strategy implemented by ambitious and unscrupulous individuals (and their media teams) who understand that their strength derives from a public that has been groomed by technology to be manipulated into new social and behavioral norms – all the while convinced of their own autonomy.
The power wielded by individuals to grow a base of support built on smoke and mirrors runs parallel to those individuals’ ability to successfully “cancel” their opposition. The fear of being canceled is a phenomenon that future research needs to examine empirically. We do not yet have clarity about the dangers of cancel culture taken to an extreme, however, recent trends suggest we may be at the brink of a profound structural change in how we see political interest representation. Recent events may be a symptom of a larger trend unfolding in front of us. Therefore, we need to understand better how cancel culture works, what it foretells, and what mechanisms are at work when a campaign to cancel is launched.
Let us first examine the origins of cancel culture in contemporary society. The expression “cancel culture” has been gaining popularity since 2017. Google Trends data show a spike in the interest in the phrase “cancel culture” in July 2020.1 After J.K. Rowling was canceled for her tweet on trans women and activists called for boycotting her books, she published an open letter signed by 150 intellectuals in the July 2020 issue of Harper’s Magazine. They warned against a weakening of “our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.”2
In response, the Los Angeles Times published a piece arguing that cancel culture does not exist. The author depicted this term as “blanket criticism” weaponized by mostly young people on social media to denounce injustice. She also noted that the decentralization of media permits opinions to spread faster and provides the marginalized with a voice.3
Cancel culture is often used to negatively describe a new form of activism concentrated on the cultural boycott of celebrities who have committed social sins in the eyes of their followers and audience. However, there have been cases of firing or other forms of canceling targeted at private people. We can disagree on the extent of this phenomenon but undoubtedly, canceling has distinct features, which go beyond standard critiques and tabloid scandals. The fact that cancel culture may be reciprocally applied both by the powerless and the powerful is a critique of the common argument that defends cancel culture in its totality as a means by which the powerless may level the playing field against the powerful.
Lee Jussim, PhD., a professor of social psychology, has provided a comprehensive definition of canceling. This definition characterizes the examples this book uses as the base of its analysis. Out of the ten traits he mentions, I find six of them to be the most relevant:
1) “You are being denounced, not criticized,” – canceling stresses the effects of one’s speech such as being hurt, harmed, or made feel “unsafe,”4
2) “It’s a mob,” which usually is located in social media platforms or large organizations,
3) “Public shaming,”
4) “Flagrant disregard for truth, evidence, or logic,”
5) “Flagrant rejection of due processes,” such as discussion of what the accused has said, and
6) “moral grandstanding.”5
Undoubtedly, we are observing a new form of representing interests and acting in the civic sphere. Regardless of terminology, cancel culture is an interesting phenomenon to analyze in the broader context . In order to both understand and properly utilize the tool to cancel, public debate must go beyond condemning or denying it. There is something to understand in this phenomenon which purports to hold accountable while simultaneously allowing literally anyone to claim the role of social judge. A new chapter of civic life is unfolding.
The term “culture” in cancel culture points to the beliefs about the best strategies to influence society. Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay point to the right/wrong binary inherent, and inescapable, in canceling. People who subscribe to this binary view cancel as a means of: “(…) engineering the discourses to correctness, as that will fix the disparities of power in society, and so people who have a record of making problematic statements must be prevented the opportunity of doing so again while serving as a warning to others.”6
Political sociology has studied shifts in the ways citizens represent their interests and with what effects. Generally, perceived opportunities influence an individual’s motivation to affect society. Issues socially identified as “problematic” speak more to what people would like to see changed as opposed to what is likely or even possible to change. Canceling and wokeness thus indicate a perceived want of greater control by individuals and groups that believe they lack the control and voice they deserve in the public sphere.
What we see happening gives us only a partial picture. Equally important is to ask what is not happening. While canceling offers an easy way to claim attention, cancel culture may be instrumentally used to direct the public’s attention onto imaginary and non-existent problems and even dangers. In these cases, we see cancel culture being used to uphold status quo and deepen societal polarization, allowing incredible and power-seeking actors to consolidate a dangerous support base.
Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist observe that online political struggles focus on “squabbles about choice of words and tone of voice” rather than addressing substantive issues such as the distribution of resources and conditions of living. Identity politics allows polarizing figures to reap attention and a following as a reward and accommodates the elites’ desire to claim and re-claim structural power.7
Frequently escaping cancel culture are bodies that most deserve to be subjected to it. Corporate giants such as Amazon and Alphabet Inc. are omitted from the public discourse despite shaping our bodies’ health and the way we spend time. This is an essential factor related to the interest of social and political voice and representation. In this book, I am highlighting how the realm of civic engagement may be carved around the submission to their power. The absence of powerhouse companies from analyses of cancel culture thus far worrisomely suggests that their power is so great that they appear as part of a natural environment like physics laws: pointless to interrogate on a functional level as they relate to society. Their unquestioned position makes any argument against them illegitimate, while their power allows them to reinforce their position by dispersing mollifying tokens such as AmazonSmile and same-day shipping. When tokens are not sufficient, they have an arsenal of other tools at their disposal – chiefly, the media.
In the first chapter, I will walk you through my revelation that the Left is not tolerant, which in turn sparked my interest in the topic of cancel culture. The second chapter contextualizes cancel culture in the technological development stage that we are in, which impacts our interpersonal relations. The third chapter explores the psychological mechanisms behind canceling. For example, the entertainment-centric structure of public debates may play a role in catalyzing cancel dramas. The fourth chapter elaborates on the latest stage of capitalism, namely woke capitalism by examining how canceling may reinforce the power of corporate giants. The fifth chapter considers the potential consequences of cancel culture on individual lives and collective social processes. The sixth chapter is a fictional dystopian story bringing together current trends. It illustrates how cancel culture may be instrumental in shaping the future. The last chapter explores alternative means of interpreting public debates and posits cancel culture as a practice that deprives us of the creative problem solving that dialogue enables.
1Rachel E. Greenspan (2020): How ‘cancel culture’ quickly became one of the buzziest and most controversial ideas on the internet. Insider, August 20.
2Letters section (2020): A Letter on Justice and Open Debate. Harper’s Magazine, July 7.
3Mary McNamara (2020): Column: ‘Cancel culture’ is not the problem. The Harper’s letter is. Los Angeles Times, July 9th.
4Interestingly, George Orwell – in an unpublished 1945 Preface to the “Animal Farm” book – pointed to the tactics of totalitarian regimes to punish those who opposed it, which echo this focus on the effects of one’s actions. The enemies of the regime were said to “objectively” endanger the plan by holding their opinions. (The text I refer to was published in The New York Times in 1972).
5Lee Jussim (2020): Ten Ways to Tell If You Are Targeted for Cancellation. Psychology Today, November 27.
6Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay (2020): The fightback against ‘cancel culture’ starts with understanding its deep roots. capx.co, September 21.
7Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist (2018): Digital Libido: Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society. Futurica Media, p. 324f.
