Against Cancel Culture

Toxic Becomes Trendy

The inherently controversial idea of cancel culture is often argued to be online censorship, or a means of holding people accountable. As defined by Dictionary.com, cancel culture is “the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive.” This definition raises the question: who are the anonymous people that are responsible for judging what is considered offensive and have they, themselves, not done something “cancel worthy'' before?

The term for this method itself is debated. What one person may see as a means of justice, another will recognize as an anonymous practice rooting shame in someone. However important it is to recognize unacceptable behavior, this unforgiving mentality creates a dangerous society (1). Kimberly Wilson, a well-known psychologist and the author of How To Build a Healthy Brain explains, “Cancel culture often denies the canceled individual the most basic of human opportunities: to apologize and to be absolved.” She further states that this  “mob mentality” blocks any path to redemption. 

Although the idea of “being canceled” is debated to have stemmed from Barry Michael Cooper's 1991 misogynistic film, New Jack City, the term has since become prevalent during its reappearance in the #MeTooMovement (2). The evolution of cancel culture hasn’t just stopped with individuals; canceling is being applied to holidays as well as fictional characters. Among the casualties of Cancel Culture are children book writer Dr. Seuss, a series of Disney Classics, and Columbus Day (3).

Cancel culture is bipartisan; although it is rare for former US presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama to agree on anything, they have found common ground on taking a stand against the movement. Both presidents have agreed that the idea of canceling someone or something is the equivalent of political correctness on steroids. A fear of being canceled has caused people to learn to self-censor, a process which disrupts our First Amendment: freedom of expression. If each person in the US were to lose her job based on one regretful phrase or moment, America would cease to have an economy. Is our judicial system no longer in control of deciding what punishment fits the crime? 

Publications like the New York Post consider: “what does it really mean to get the #RIP treatment — and will society ever declare it to be over, too?” This ruthless mentality of the anonymous high ground justifies eradicating the income of an entire family based on the actions of one individual. Good mental health is dependent on understanding and forgiveness; this stubborn and increasingly unforgiving society is threatening to our populations' well being.

1: VOGUE
2: The Telegraph
3: NY Post

Article Writer - LexaNews Journalist