"Cancel Culture" by markus119 is marked with CC0 1.0

2020 was a year of change. Not only in terms of lifestyle and outlook for millions across the world due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, but for politics and society too.

We all followed the Black Lives Matter movement and the call for police reform on Twitter after the murder of George Floyd in May, and saw the Facebook posts branded #MeToo in the light of the allegations of domestic abuse against Johnny Depp by Amber Heard. British Politician Jeremy Corbyn was outcast from the labour party after anti-Semitic comments resurfaced and author J K Rowling’s name has trended more than a few times in response to her opinionated tweets regarding Transgender rights.

What do these events have in common? All were driven by public outcry on social media, the new way to protest for justice in the age of internet access and global lockdown restrictions across the globe.

 “Cancel Culture” has gained more media traction this year than ever -- a term coined to describe a modern form of online justice, in which a person is shunned from social and professional circles for expressing views or behaviour that goes against the left-wing ,“socially woke” norm of the internet today.

Or more simply, revoking support for those with status who are considered harmful to minorities, cultures or institutions.

Cancel Culture has largely affected the social media “influencer” crowd, with many being criticised for “misusing” their fan-dependent platforms with the controversial content they put online. Youtuber Shane Dawson is among many to have suffered a career blow, losing 60,000 subscribers after coming under fire for past displays of racism and paedophilia.

Cancel Culture has even been the driving force in more prolific instances, such as in the case of Kathy Griffin, American comedian, who faced backlash and lost her spot on CNN in 2017 for uploading a picture of her posing with a likeness of former President Donald Trump's severed head.

“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”

“Cancelling” can be gruelling for those involved because of its public nature. Twitter has become the mothership for cancellations of public figures, the ‘trending hashtag’ feature allowing thousands of Twitter users to spread the word of someone’s wrongdoings to the masses in minutes.

It could be compared to a modern form of execution; a guilty party is held accountable for their crimes in front of the digital masses, but instead of losing their head they lose their online presence, their reputation or in some cases, their career.

But is it a rallying cry for those with public platforms to be held accountable for the rippling aftereffects of their actions? Or is it simply a counterproductive way of punishing them, “casting stones” as former President Barack Obama said at the Obama Foundation summit in 2019, without bringing about the true intention behind cancel culture: change.

A CAUSE FOR CHANGE?

“Call-Out Culture” largely originated as a response to the #MeToo movement, gaining media traction in 2017 after the widespread sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein surfaced. The movement aimed to empower women, seeking change and solidarity in numbers by publicising allegations (or “calling out”) the sex crimes committed by powerful men in society to the masses.

In the era of the internet, this largely took place on social media; new allegations appeared almost daily, and the public’s attitude towards the accused warped. They were now “cancelled”, or in other words, ostracised from society. For those who were “called-out”, such as singer-songwriter and alleged sexual abuser R.Kelly, their past work and legacy became tainted; his music was no longer enjoyable in good taste to his fans and his popularity diminished despite being found innocent. For many following the case online this was a small, but ample form of justification for his crimes, spearheaded by the public on behalf of his victim’s where the legal system appeared to fail them.

The term “call-out culture” has evolved in recent years, giving birth to it’s more mainstream sister “Cancel Culture.” It slowly leaned away from just existing to hold abusers accountable and became a way for normal people like you and me to reject views that don’t abide by our moral codes. Lisa Nakamura, professor of media studies at the University of Michigan, defined cancelling as simply a "cultural boycott" in which “the act of depriving someone of attention deprives them of their livelihood” in an interview with The New York Times in 2018.

Whether that be in the case of Kevin Hart who was forced to step down as host of the 2019 Grammy’s after a controversy regarding homophobic tweets, or the never ending stream of politicians and celebrities being called out for racism, cancel culture became a tactic for those of us who lack the social power to enact change; to dismantle oppression and abuse as a collective, simply through our refusal to participate.

Cancel Culture has played an integral role in letting voices for change be heard this year. The Black Lives Matter movement of 2020 was spearheaded by powerful internet activists who demanded reform and justice, “calling out” the racial prejudice ingrained in pop culture by using “cancelling” as a form of accountability. This is one example of a call for greater equality, a reckoning. A digital way to protest, in which social media users refuse to support harmful ideals any longer.

“Held accountable or silenced?”

Whilst there are evidently “mobs” of supporters, those who are the loudest critics of “cancel culture” are also some of the loudest defenders of “free speech” and “open debate”. An open letter presented by Harper’s Bazaar in July 2020 views cancel culture as being inherently harmful in and of itself. The letter, which was signed by 150 writers, academics and activists, says that: “free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted”.

“In a spirit of panicked damage control, [we] are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms.”

“We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus.”

The letter goes against what Cancel Culture represents completely; it presents it as suffocating, as a way of stifling freedom of expression using fear tactics. Instead of enforcing a new set of moral and political commitments through change, is cancel culture just silencing those who do not favour ideological conformity?

Education VS Ostracization

Ayishat Akanbi, British stylist and writer, believes in the importance of education as a reckoning for change. In an interview with Double Down News she said: “Mistakes are how we find ourselves, it’s how we learn.”

“We should be a bit more forgiving of peoples mistakes … if you are seeking a deeper understanding, you welcome being wrong, it’s a pleasure to be wrong. Because when you are wrong, you are closer to being right.”

Akanbi warns of the dangers of advocacy simply being motivated by the fear of being cancelled. If we cannot make mistakes, how are we to expect ourselves and others to learn from them?

“Mob culture is terrifying.” She admits. “But if you are committed to trying to make the world a better place, you have to be prepared to think for yourself.”