When "Cancel Culture" Seemed Justified: Its Origin and History

We live in a beautiful, yet imperfect world. Religious people, myself included, believe that God is perfect and that we, as human beings should always strive to get as close as possible to His mold. We all make mistakes, but we had better learn from our mistakes and that’s how we can grow to become better people and attain forgiveness.

A relationship, in essence, is built based on forgiveness; without it, it wouldn't last very long. In light of this principle, fundamental to religious thought, there is growing concern over what's been called, 'The Cancel Culture’’, a phenomenon or practice especially pervasive among the political left, whereby people, publicly - and typically through social media – withdraw support, shame, reject or boycott a person or group by calling them out because of their social or moral views or actions.

In theory, this ostracism seems beneficial, as it gives the people power to hold public figures accountable for immoral actions or other things that might be above the pale of law enforcement. However, many instances have demonstrated that this power can be easily abused, resulting in the “canceling” going too far or people targeted with hate that exceeds any reasonable bound of human decency. The cancel culture has repeatedly shown that it can be destructive, intolerant, and overly hurtful, which isn’t healthy for society. Furthermore, a lot of things people get canceled about aren’t even considered objectively offensive or wrong in large swaths of society at larger, or a few years prior wouldn't have caused opprobrium to any degree whatsoever.

Thus, in my opinion, the concept of just “Canceling” people, is generally not a beneficial way to fight for the ‘good’, all the more so because it doesn’t give people the chance to apologize and better themselves, in other words, the very fabric of a decent society striving for self-improvement. That notwithstanding, one caveat I would like to add is that at times cancellation can have noble purposes at its core, like in a situation where a real public threat is countered and summarily removed.

The History and Origin of the Cancel Culture

Public shaming has always been used in communities throughout history, says Amanda Koontz, UCF associate professor of sociology. Society is founded, she adds, on punishing people for not conforming to social norms. But with the internet - particularly social media - has changed, how, when, and where these kinds of interactions occur. It’s never been easier before to reach a larger group of people or to attack someone with such vitriol.

Origin of the term to “cancel” someone. The first reference to canceling a person (as opposed to an object or thing) is in the 1991 film New Jack City, when crime boss, Nino Brown, dumps his girlfriend after she has a breakdown due to the violence he has perpetrated and caused; in typical fashion, he says: 'Cancel that bitch. I’ll buy another one'.

The first big boost the term got was from an episode of VH1’s reality show, 'Love and Hip-Hop: New York,' which aired in December 2014, in which cast member, Cisco Rosado, in the midst of a fight, bluntly tells the person who had previously been the object of his affection and desires, Diamond Strawberry, in no uncertain terms: “You’re canceled”.

Usage of the term in the African-American culture. African-Americans have used the word 'cancel' as slang for years. Just like the term “woke” nowadays is widely used, especially in right-leaning circles, to refer to progressive left ideas (which many people get canceled over by not complying with it or mocking it), it originates from the African-American language. 

Sharing Personal Argument and Reflections

A big flaw of cancel culture is that people are very quick to “cancel” someone, which creates a very toxic environment for celebrities, influencers, public figures, and even sometimes regular people. In this judgemental world, a single mistake can practically end someone’s career and reputation. For example, in a case in which someone ironically got canceled for canceling someone else, in 2012, Chick-fil-A’s president at the time Dan Carthy, spoke out against gay marriage and a fierce backlash ensued.

Protesters decided to line up just to order a free cup of water from the fast-food chain and voice their disagreement with the employees. And so did Adam Smith - a successful young business executive who had recently witnessed the struggle of his brother-in-law coming out - while videoing himself. He posted the clip on YouTube where he’s seen telling the drive-thru attendant, ‘’I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here. I don’t understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values’’.

The video went viral, and his employer started getting death threats. He got canceled, even before that terminology was widely used, and got fired, ultimately losing a lot of money. Thereafter, he was to struggle financially for years, never really finding a steady job.

Eventually, while still on food stamps he made an appearance on TV where he told his story, and everything turned around. He is now a CFO at a software company. While the occupational aspects of this social ostracism may not be permanent, as in Smith’s case, the social repercussions from getting “canceled” usually leave a stain on people’s reputations.

It’s not fair, in my opinion, to make influential figures live in fear of mainstream social media suddenly turning on them for ultimately trivial reasons, or the lasting ramifications it could have.

Furthermore, the majority of people are so quick to judge that they won’t try to find context for seemingly condemning tweets, clips, or screenshots of people before denouncing them. For instance, someone might see an old offensive tweet without looking to see if there was any clarification appended to the tweet or if the person apologized for it. This even allows faked screenshots or clips to gain traction online. And even if it’s real and is not appropriate contextually, good, upstanding people make mistakes. We shouldn’t be judging people based on isolated incidents, but rather on who they have demonstrated themselves to be as individuals. Only if someone has shown that they are truly a threat to society should they be “canceled”.

Another issue is that the environment created by cancel culture precludes open debate, instead, facilitating a spiral of silence. In the eyes of mainstream social media, there is little room for middle ground on controversial topics; people are either seen as morally correct or wrong. Just recently the British philosopher Kathleen Stock felt forced to step down from her position as professor at the University of Sussex, after a huge backlash against her opinions. Stock has stated in essays, books, and interviews that “there is nothing wrong with the idea that there are two genders”. She added that if men who felt themselves to be women were given access to spaces previously reserved for women that would be 'a problem in most countries due to the relatively high rate of violence by men against women'. The gender ideology behind it, Stock espoused, is a “terrible philosophical idea”. These comments might be offensive to many a person, but I can't stress enough that everyone is entitled to express their opinion. Civil discourse is important and beneficial in academia, and in society at large, underscored by a study from the ‘Western Washington University’.

Additionally, because people are getting 'de-platformed' for controversial opinions, and people in creative fields are wont to feel that they have to censor their work as well for fear of being “canceled” in response. For instance, writers and artists face harsh criticism for publishing pieces that contain controversial ideas, journalists are de facto, prohibited from writing about certain topics for fear of social repercussions, and celebrities are lambasted for unpopular opinions, simply because they fell outside of the fragile socially accepted construct.

The pleas of many such artists and academics are evident in a piece published in Harper’s Magazine titled, “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate.” This letter signed by 153 influential people, like J.K. Rowling, in protest of cancel culture was unfortunately largely ignored.

Likewise, even the opinions of people without any influence are invalidated for contradicting society’s prejudice. For argument’s sake, imagine that I went on Twitter and tweeted out that I supported some of President Trump’s actions while he was in office. Because he has been “canceled,” no matter how good my reasons for supporting those actions were, my opinion would predominantly be invalidated due to the fact that I was praising his actions instead of deploring them.

This trend of intolerance has created a stifling online atmosphere that restricts open debate. In the West, where we pride ourselves on freedom of speech, we should be encouraging people to be more accepting of other people's values, beliefs, and political opinions. We shouldn’t be invalidating people with opposing views, but instead, have civil discourse so people can learn about different issues and form educated opinions.

The main argument in favor of cancel culture is that it gives power to the average person on social media, allowing him or her to hold public figures accountable for offensive actions and comments. I agree that consequences are important and sometimes canceling may be the only way, but usually, it’s disproportionate and not productive. In the words of former President Obama, relating to the 'cancel culture:' “That's not activism. That’s not bringing about change.”

In essence, according to Obama, there is a difference between holding people accountable and completely shunning them. In the majority of cases, related to Obama, we should simply bring attention to a harmful action so as to encourage offenders to apologize and do better next time. Redemption and forgiveness, I would add, are vital in many aspects of the cohesive society we’re trying to forge together.

Finally, cancel culture simply goes too far, frequently serving out retribution unequal to the wrongs that have been committed. Most commonly, this results in excessive amounts of negativity being directed at people, to the point where the criticism starts to turn into outright bullying. Sometimes, it can go even further.

Notably, a student at Smith College, Oumou Kanoute claimed she was profiled ‘eating while black’ after a janitor called the security guard to ask her what she was doing alone in the canteen which was at the time reserved for a summer program for young kids. She posted the story on social media and claimed to be a victim of racism, however, an investigation concluded that there was no evidence corroborating her allegations.

Kanoute had named staff online, ruining their lives. None of the people she had exposed had or could have had any real influence, so it was unnecessary to bring this into the public eye. It would have been adequate to make a single phone call to these people so they could appropriately clarify matters. Making an example of them by publicly persecuting them only promotes spreading more hate. This is only one example of how this practice of ostracism can be too extreme. People on the internet have a tendency to say things that they would never say to somebody’s face, so because it is so easy to overstep social boundaries online, this backlash endorsed by cancel culture is ultimately too harsh and absolute for most situations.

When “Cancel Culture” Seemed Justified?

There are cases where ‘cancel culture’ seems to have played an indispensable role in bettering society, the response thus being proportionate. One such example is the fall of Hollywood giant Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein was accused of having committed sexual abuse for decades. Many women shared their encounters with Weinstein through publications like The New York Times and The Guardian.

The #metoo movement went viral after several women came forward with their stories of sexual assault and harassment using the hashtag. Eventually, he was found guilty of his monstrous actions. There, his 'cancellation' was important since he was a danger to the public. He shouldn't be able to maintain his position of power which he used to abuse young women. But some would go a step further and try to cancel all of his productions. I don't see the problem of enjoying someone's art regardless of their moral status.

Historical figures accused of oppression. Another big issue where 'Cancel Culture' might be understood is to disregard historical figures that were oppressive to a certain group, ethnicity, or race. In England, a 17th-century slave trader was dumped into Bristol Harbor. In Antwerp, a Belgian king who brutalized Congo was burned and ultimately removed. And in the United States, more than a dozen statues have recently been toppled, including several Confederate figures. No one would like their ancestors’ oppressors being honored in the form of a bronze statue and alike. But the goal shouldn't be to erase history and to ignore the good deeds of some of these people. By some of them, it is arguable if they were even racist by the standards of the time.

For instance, Cristopher Columbus has always been celebrated for his achievements, his courage, and leadership. And yet, there are accounts of him treating Native Americans badly and many are now canceling him over that. Now of course this is a serious matter, but how can we turn a blind eye to his bravery, charting new courses, braving a new world?

Stanford Professor Emerita, Carol Delaney has voiced a different opinion, showing the complexity of judging in hindsight. “They are blaming Columbus for the things he didn’t do,” she explains. “It was mostly the people who came after, the settlers. I just think he’s been terribly maligned.”

At this point, there is also another aspect of it to discuss: judging the past according to the present social norms. This may sound like a hard question. But imagine doing something socially totally acceptable, and in 300 years your descendants are going to berate you for it because it’s not tolerable anymore. Is this fair?

Conclusion

To summarize, this practice of “canceling” individuals is inherently bad. It promotes intolerance, suppressing the work of many in creative fields, and rejecting people with opposing views. Many important individuals from all different careers, backgrounds, and political identities have come out against it, encouraging people not to judge hastily. Yes, it’s important that people’s actions have consequences, but that doesn't always have to mean intense criticism or permanent denunciation. Cancel culture categorizes people as all “good” or all “bad,” but in reality, humans are much more complicated. Controversies are messy, and grouping offenses of all different severities under the same umbrella term, “canceled,” isn’t fair to the people involved. The original concept that truly terrible people should be de-platformed may have been well-intentioned, and sometimes it indeed results in having a harmful person brought to justice, but it’s grown into a whole different idea that commonly focuses more on spewing hate, and launching ad hominem attacks against parties that have fallen out of favor, rather than holding them accountable for their deeds. Simply stated, cancel culture adds more negativity into the world than it removes.

References

• Definition of “Cancel Culture”, website: https:www.dictionary.comepop-culturecancel-culture
• Amanda Koontz on public shaming, website: https:www.ucf.edupegasusis-cancel-culture-effective
• First use of this terminology, website: https:www.google.comampswww.vox.complatformampculture2019123020879720what-is-cancel-culture-explained-history-debate
• Roots in African American language, website: https:www.washingtonpost.comlifestylecancel-culture-background-black-culture-white-grievance202104012e42e4fe-8b24-11eb-aff6-4f720ca2d479_story.html
• Adam Smith's cancelation story, website: https:www.google.comampswww.cbsnews.comampnewscancel-culture-changed-lives-forever-cbsn-originals
• Kathleen Stock getting canceled, website: https:www.bbc.co.uknewsuk-england-sussex-59084446
• A study from the ‘Western Washington University on the educational and societal benefits of academic debate, website: https:cedar.wwu.educgiviewcontent.cgi?article=1235