“Cancel culture” is a relatively new term surrounded by controversy. Depending on who you ask, the definition can vary greatly. To better understand the contention, a formal understanding of the recent past is helpful. The terminology has contemporary origins that have taken root in standard usage amidst both sides of the political spectrum in the present day.
In 2016, the term “cancel culture” was unheard of among the mainstream media. Gradually, the term established itself in online Twitter groups with the origins defined similar to that of a boycott. Yet, in 2018 when Google searches of the word “cancel culture” spiked, the definition began to morph. Large technology corporations like Twitter and Facebook were some of the first to exploit cancel culture with the goal to make a profit by increasing time spent by users on their sites. This was achieved by algorithms creating pockets for users to interact with like-minded individuals which produced more engagement and return rates to the site. This form of isolation leads to hyper fixation on one particular side of an issue by an immense group of people. Large technology corporations have fostered an environment where groups become so used to only hearing like-minded beliefs, it’s only natural that ultimately any opposition would be treated with bitter indignation. Cancel culture matures under these conditions.
In a recent book published by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt titled The Coddling of the American Mind, the authors explore a phenomenon that may also help explain the roots of the “cancel culture” movement. The authors argue that since the 2016 elections, a new set of “dangerous and false beliefs” have taken root in the minds of today’s college students that they are “inherently fragile and must be protected from the allegedly harmful impacts of speech with which they disagree.” Interestingly, this belief seems to be contrary to the whole idea of the college setting as a “marketplace of ideas” where the open and thoughtful sharing, studying, discussion, debating, and exposure to others’ opinions is not only welcomed, but encouraged. The authors argue that instead of welcoming a diversity of opinion, modern students are taught to “avoid bad experiences at all costs, trust emotion over reason, and that the world is simply made up of good and bad people and that there is no middle ground.” The author’s research into this topic seems to explain more deeply the roots of cancel culture and why and how it is taking hold. They go on to state that such “insulation of students from ideas with which they disagree are deeply dangerous …and harmful to the students emotional development.’
Politicization of cancel culture has become immense over the past few years, particularly by the left, as politics continues to evolve in the new age of technology. During a 4th of July speech at Mount Rushmore, Trump explained “We want free and open debate, not speech codes and cancel culture. We embrace tolerance, not prejudice.” When addressing the left, Trump added “one of their political weapons is ‘cancel culture’ — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees.” One example of this was in early February when The Mandalorian star, Gina Carano, fell victim to the cancellation phenomenon. Carano was fired from the franchise after posting her thoughts on the 2020 election and the hardships of being a conservative in 2021. It appears the left will continue to label, punish, and cancel those like Carano who do not share similar opinions.
Yet, it is not just conservatives who agree that cancel culture has gotten out of hand. Former President Barack Obama elaborated on his viewpoints of cancel culture during an interview for the Obama Foundation Summit. When discussing youth activism Obama noted that “among young people particularly on college campuses…there is this sense that ‘the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people and that’s enough.’” In reference to this cancel culture mindset, Obama commented, “That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far.
Earlier, I referenced the concept of a “marketplace of ideas.” A simple online search will share that this concept “holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population.” Perhaps we should cancel “cancel culture” and rely instead on this age-old American belief in a diversity of opinion being shared and yes, even passionately debated.
