Cancel Culture: Fact or Fiction?
If you also have an unfortunate addiction to Twitter, you likely haven’t escaped the recent furious debate around cancel culture. It’s not a new phenomenon, and it refers to online shaming. Think of Louis CK’s (temporary) hiatus from comedy after being confronted for his nasty habit of masturbating in front of female comedians. Or Roseanne Barr losing her status as an American TV icon celebrity for her racially insensitive comments. Generally, cancellation had come to mean the downfall of a celebrity caught out for bad behaviour and the resulting internet pile on.
In recent weeks, however, cancel culture seems to have taken on a whole new meaning. Rather than seeing cancellation as the online masses seeking retribution for bad behaviour, like racism and sexual harassment, cancel culture has been co-opted by people in positions of power to claim they are being silenced simply for speaking their mind. This might seem like they’re stretching the meaning of the term - but do they have a point?
An open letter published in Harper’s Magazine summarised the argument against this new “threat to democracy”. Essentially, these 150 or so public figures are concerned with how political discourse is being restricted, and that in the light of the Black Lives Matter movement and other societal upheavals like the arrival of the #MeToo era and youth climate activism, people are being unduly punished for “clumsy mistakes” and “depart[ing] from the consensus”. With signatories including academic heavyweights Salman Rushdie and Noam Chomsky, and prominent activists like Gloria Steinem, this letter must be given due consideration.
The letter presents itself as the defender of reasoned argument and debate against a growing consensus culture. The fear is that anyone who might stray from the norm, intentionally or otherwise, will be swiftly punished by those wielding a “blinding moral certainty”. If this actually was a risk for journalists, academics and business people, it would be a sad indictment of modernity. If people's livelihoods and reputations could be completely eradicated by a mere transgression of thought, that would certainly be a threat to open debate and liberal democracy.
The issue is: that isn’t the case.
This open letter falls at the first hurdle In linking the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement with this so-called intolerant climate, it exposes its true motivation: the fear of criticism and accountability. Part of BLM’s biggest work is exposing the pervasiveness of racism within society, that it doesn’t start and end with lynchings, but with micro-aggressions and implicit biases. When a prominent journalist feels fit to refer to black people as “picanninnies” it reveals something about their character. , If challenged when said, this may prevent the normalisation of racist language and the risk of its long lasting effects. Additionally, the letter equates individuals deciding to call out celebrities and public figures for their indiscretions with the demagogues and authoritarian regimes, suggesting they carry the same weight and have the same intentions in restricting free speech. The rise of nationalism and authoritarianism in governments across the world is indeed a worrying trend, with freedom of expression being curtailed and the rights of minorities restricted. So it seems that the comparison of this dangerous and often life-threatening situation for many with being criticised on twitter is a little insensitive.
What is perhaps most revealing about the letter’s intentions is the presence of one particular signatory - Harry Potter author, J.K Rowling. The publication of the letter coincided with a period of contention for Rowling, embroiled in a row over her vocal support for transphobes and use of misinformation surrounding hormone therapy and the threat of transgender women in female-only spaces. These comments brought to Twitter a furious debate between Transgender activists, allies and so called TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists), as Rowling’s supporters have been labeled.
What we must ask is: is Rowling really in danger of being cancelled? Surely her legacy is secured. She hasn’t lost her publishers; in fact, she is publishing a new book later this year. Not to mention that an upcoming BBC TV show is based on her Strike series. #IStandWithJKRowling still trends periodically on Twitter, so she’s not being silenced by social media platforms, and neither are her followers. She’s not alone in this either. Laurence Fox, an actor who frequently claims to have been cancelled, is more well-known now than ever before, asked to comment on panel shows on this very issue. American political commentator Tucker Carlson is one of cancel culture’s biggest critics, but he’s still on the air despite his vocal support for many things outside of the consensus - including his defense of Kyle Rittenhouse, who murdered two people in cold blood.
People aren’t saying Rowling, Fox and Carlson have no right to say what they believe. Their right to free speech is as important as anyone else’s; what people are doing is challenging how they use their large platforms, criticising them, and correcting their inaccuracies. Surely these people are just using their own right to free speech.
Here we reach the hinge point of the issue. These aren’t ordinary people fearing the loss of their jobs - these are powerful people fearing criticism. To J.K Rowling and the other signatories: you have the right to say whatever they want, but you don’t have the right to respond with the same attitude. When the letter talks about editors and journalists let go for “controversial” content, that’s not infringing on their human rights; it’s an example of organisations putting their beliefs into practice. They are not being suppressed by an authoritarian government, and equating the two does a disservice to the journalists risking their lives doing just that. Labelling “greater risk aversion” among writers as a downside is narrow-minded, since when is being more considerate of what you write and publish a bad thing?
I believe this letter is a well-known thought wrapped up in fearmongering and hidden in the thickets of academic signatories; that this whole issue is simply political correctness gone mad. It promotes the belief that the label ‘writer’ gives you the ultimate right to cause offence without reprisal. The letter wants to encourage debate, but some issues don’t need to be debated. To debate government policy and foriegn affairs is essential. To debate moral arguments of the death penalty and the legalisation of cannibis is reasonable. But when it comes to the fundamental human rights of black people, transgender individuals, and anyone else for that matter, there is no debate to be had except how best to defend them.
Maybe it is time to replace cancel culture with simple accountability. A person can hide behind a term they disagree with and shift the focus from them, change the argument to something irrelevant. But if we refuse to let them do this and hold leaders and people with power to account for their bigotry, we’ll defend the rights of others without restricting free speech.
