‘Cancel Culture’

Written by Classical Liberal

~~oo~~

On Monday, I said I didn’t believe Meghan Markle in her Oprah interview. I’ve had time to reflect on this opinion, and I still don’t. Freedom of speech is a hill I’m happy to die on.

(Piers Morgan)

We’ve recently witnessed a textbook example of the so-called ‘cancel culture’ in action. TV personality, Piers Morgan, critiqued Me-Gain Markle’s recent interview with Oprah. He did not transgress the traditional boundaries of freedom of speech: he didn’t swear, say anything overly rude or insulting, or incite a mob to cause physical harm to someone. He simply expressed an opinion – his ‘truth’, if we are to ape the language games of our times. He was instantly set upon by a mob of social media bullies and soon hounded out of his job, or ‘cancelled’.

Of course, Morgan is deliberately controversial in order to boost his earning power. And, I, personally, will never forgive him for his disgraceful role in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

Nonetheless, I wanted to find out more about what cancel culture is, hence this article.

‘Cancel culture’ (or ‘call-out culture’) is a modern form of ostracism, in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those who are subjected to this ostracism are said to have been ‘cancelled’. The expression ‘cancel culture’ has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship.

Cancel culture is a form of boycotting involving an individual (usually a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner. For those on the receiving end of cancel culture, the consequences can lead to a loss of reputation and income, from which it can be hard to recover. Not always, of course. Some actually find that the notoriety actually leads to an increase in popularity.

According to the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt call-out culture arises from what he calls ‘safetyism’ on college campuses.

As illustrated by Keith Hampton, professor of media studies at Michigan State University, the practice contributes to the polarisation of American society, but it does not lead to changes in opinion.

Some students are afraid to express unpopular ideas for fear of being called out on social media and may avoid asking questions as a result. Call-out culture’s prevalence can make marginalised groups – like heterosexual white males – feel ‘even more hesitant to speak out for what they feel is right’.

Cancel culture has also been described by a different media studies scholar, Eve Ng, as ‘a collective of typically marginalized voices “calling out” and emphatically expressing their censure of a powerful figure’. (If Ms Ng – or should I say Mx – is a lesbian, her appointment clearly ticked three boxes in one go!) Cultural studies scholar Frances Lee states that call-out culture leads to self-policing of ‘wrong, oppressive, or inappropriate’ opinions. According to Lisa Nakamura, professor of media studies at the University of Michigan, cancelling someone is a form of ‘cultural boycott’ and thus cancel culture is the ‘ultimate expression of agency’ which is ‘born of a desire for control [as] people have limited power over what is presented to them on social media’ and a need for ‘accountability which is not centralized’. Yep, it’s always the academics isn’t it? If I want to hear extreme Marxist drivel, I don’t go and have a pint or two in a working man’s club, I sit quietly in the corner of the common room at an Oxbridge college – which I am not brave enough to name – waiting for my seminar to begin, and listen to the very best and the very brightest in the land discuss real-world issues, of which they clearly have very little experience, cocooned in their ivory towers as they are.

Some academics have proposed alternatives and improvements to cancel culture. Critical multiculturalism professor Anita Bright proposed ‘calling in’ rather than ‘calling out’ in order to embrace the former’s idea of accountability but in a more ‘humane, humble, and bridge-building’ light. Clinical Counsellor Anna Richards, who specialises in conflict mediation, suggests that ‘learning to analyse our own motivations when offering criticism’ helps call-out culture work productively. Professor Joshua Knobe, of the Philosophy Department at Yale, contends that public denunciation is not effective, and that society is quick to pass judgement against those we now view as public offenders or persona non grata. Knobe asserts that these actions have the opposite effect on individuals and that it is better to bring attention to the positive actions that most of society participates in.

The expression ‘cancel culture’ has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship. Former US President Barack Obama warned against social media call-out culture saying ‘people who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids and, you know, share certain things with you’. Former US President Donald Trump also criticised cancel culture in a speech in July 2020, comparing it to totalitarianism and claiming that it is a political weapon used to punish and shame dissenters by driving them from their jobs and demanding submission.

Whatever we may think of him, at least Obama is pragmatic on this. Clearly, world leaders who actually have to get things done in the real world cannot afford to be so dogmatic as the academics who like to lecture the rest of us on what to do from the comfort of their ivory towers. Most of them can’t even tie their own shoelaces! As a PhD myself, I know what most academics are like. Outside the rarefied confines of academe, they’re a pretty sorry bunch. To be fair, many of them are on the autistic spectrum – hence their supreme ability to focus on academic stuff – and cannot help the way they are. However, it does mean that they are not suited to advising the rest of us, who are not so super focused on one thing, on how to live our everyday lives. Greta Thunberg is the obvious case in point here.

Dalvin Brown, writing in USA Today, has described an open letter (‘A Letter on Justice and Open Debate’) signed by 153 public figures, and published in Harper’s Magazine, as marking a ‘high point’ in the debate on the topic. The letter sets out arguments against ‘an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty’.

A response letter organised by university lecturer – what a surprise! – Arianne Nettles, ‘A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate’, was signed by over 160 people in academia and the media, and criticised the Harper’s letter as a plea to end cancel culture by successful professionals with large platforms; and to exclude others who have been ‘cancelled for generations’.

A poll of American registered voters, conducted by Morning Consult in July 2020 showed that cancel culture, defined as ‘the practice of withdrawing support for (or cancelling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive’, was common: 40% of respondents said they had withdrawn support from public figures and companies, including on social media, because they had done or said something considered objectionable or offensive; 8% had engaged in this often.

Behaviour differed according to age, with a majority (55%) of voters 18-34 years old saying they have taken part in cancel culture; while only about one-third (32%) of voters over 65 said they had joined a social media pile-on.

Attitudes to the practice were mixed: with 44% of respondents saying they disapproved of cancel culture, 32% who approved, and 24% who did not know, or had no opinion. Furthermore, 46% believed cancel culture had gone too far, with only 10% thinking it had not gone far enough. However, a majority (53%) believed that people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, especially those that may be construed as deeply offensive to other people.

Some journalists – useful idiots! – question the validity of cancel culture as an actual phenomenon. Connor Garel, writing for Vice, states that cancel culture ‘rarely has any tangible or meaningful effect on the lives and comfortability of the cancelled’.

Historian C.J. Coventry – who clearly knew what to say in order to secure tenure at a progressive institution – argues that the term has been incorrectly applied, and that it more accurately reflects the propensity of people to hide historical instances of injustice:

While I agree that the line between debate and suppression is one that occasionally gets crossed by the so-called left-wing, it is almost invariably true that the real cancel culture is perpetrated by those who have embraced the term. If you look through Australian history, as well as European and American history, you will find countless examples of people speaking out against injustice and being persecuted in return. I can think of a number of people in our own time who are being persecuted by supposedly democratic governments for revealing uncomfortable information.

Another historian – who probably owes his job to an institution’s desire to appear anti-racist, rather than actual academic ability – David Olusaga, similarly argued:

The great myth about cancel culture, however, is that is exists only on the left. For the past 40, years right-wing newspapers have ceaselessly fought to delegitimise our national broadcaster [the BBC], motivated by financial as well as political ambitions.

Pam Palmater writes in Maclean’s magazine that cancel culture differs from accountability in her article about the public backlash surrounding Canadian politicians who vacationed during COVID-19 despite pandemic rules not to.

Former Secretary of Labor, Eugene Scalia, points out that cancel culture is a form of freedom of speech and protected under the First Amendment. Lenin himself would be proud of that twisted logic! Freedom to deny others’ freedom! At the same time, Scalia brings to attention a consequence that has not been addressed, that cancel culture affects the equal opportunity of legal representation for those affected and that it limits the pool of lawyers who are willing to risk their personal and professional reputation on such controversial topics. The legal representation field is subject to manipulation by current clients who do not wish to be in any form associated with cancel culture matters even though firms of lawyers do not necessarily share the same ideology of those whom they represent. He concludes his article by emphasising that every issue deserves to be heard and have appropriate representation regardless of its popularity in current society.

In popular culture, the American cartoon series South Park mocked cancel culture with its own ‘#CancelSouthPark’ campaign in promotion of the show’s 22^nd season. In the season’s 3^rd episode, ‘The Problem with a Poo’, there are references to the documentary The Problem with Apu, the cancellation of Roseanne after controversial tweets by the show’s eponymous star, and the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The American country music group, The Chicks – for their outspoken criticism of the Iraq War and President Bush -, and comedian and political commentator Bill Maher have both said they were victims of cancel culture. In 2019, cancel culture featured as a primary theme in the stand-up comedy shows Sticks and Stones by Dave Chappelle and Paper Tiger by Bill Burr. After receiving some feedback from the education sector, Dr Seuss Enterprises announced that six books will no longer be in circulation. Dr Seuss Enterprises proclaimed that they remain staunchly committed to fair and equal representation of all of their readers.

I take great heart from the fact that in Morgan’s last week, Good Morning Britain surpassed the ratings of BBC Breakfast for the first time, and ITV lost almost £200m in market value following his departure.

Clearly, the silent majority supports Morgan’s defence of freedom of speech, and despises woke hypocrites, like Me-Gain.

It is time for the silent majority to find its voice – and use it to shout down all this woke nonsense. The PC Brigade should be given a stark choice: conform along with the majority, or we will out shout you until you burst your eardrums in frustration. As we learned on the school playground, sadly, the only way to deal with a bully is to find an even bigger bully to put them firmly in their place.