Duality of Cancel Culture
BY RIYA SHAH '22
As a kid, I found a home in JK Rowling’s legendary fantasy series, Harry Potter. Whether it was the fascinating spells or lovable friendships, the one-of-a-kind series captured so many of us and built an enormous audience. So when I heard that Rowling was #canceled, I was shocked. Though I had heard some controversy over Rowling’s statements revealing Dumbledore and other characters’ sexuality, I dismissed it as performance activism and didn’t think much of it. But more recently, Rowling’s fans have truly said evanesco (vanishing spell!) after she posted a series of transphobic tweets. Of course, I was glad to see Rowling held accountable for actions that promoted a highly discriminatory mindset to her vast platform. But on the other hand, I wondered how such a passionate fanbase could abandon their leader so quickly. Given the sheer number of supporters turned adversaries, is “cancel culture” merely fueled by an extreme form of bandwagoning?
Before I get too ahead of myself, I should probably explain what cancel culture means. Although the definition can vary, to me, cancel culture is the exclusion of certain, usually famous, people via social media. Many people will essentially stop supporting a person and their work due to controversial comments or actions. However, the duality of this concept has divided online users. It’s unclear whether cancel culture is a helpful form of regulation, or if it is simply limiting ideas and people’s right to free speech.
To minorities, cancel culture presents an opportunity for new voices to be heard. Although the term was coined recently and is usually associated with pop culture, the concept can also be applied to past events, like the Southern Black use of the boycott. It empowers people to stop the spread of harmful ideas and gives a voice to minorities, who are often shunned from political and social conversations.
This voice has grown especially prominent in mass movements including #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter. Thousands of people can unite behind one cause and “cancel” those who have truly disregarded human rights. The Me Too movement, for example, shook power institutions and gave a voice to sexual assault victims. According to the New York Times, the movement called out and “cancelled” 201 powerful men, who ultimately lost their jobs. Organized efforts like these hold these people liable for their actions. These movements have brought about a higher degree of social justice for oppressed groups.
However, the problem occurs when social media presence shifts from activism to straight-up mob intimidation. Although it sounds dramatic, it can be dangerous to put so much power into the hands of internet users. Cancel culture becomes toxic when people go after celebrities for small mistakes that have been amplified by their online presence. People want to feel like they have power, so they “cancel” those who make mistakes or have differing points of view. It is important to note that celebrities, like all humans, do make mistakes. While I agree that they have a higher degree of responsibility for their actions, they should not have their careers put in jeopardy for the kinds of errors everyone makes.
Moreover, it can be difficult to distinguish between people’s opinions and hate speech or misinformation. In some instances, cancel culture simply silences the opinions that may not be accepted by the majority. Therefore, seeing others “get canceled” sends a message to online creators to avoid speaking their mind, limiting the flow of different ideas that characterizes the internet.
Maybe J.K. Rowling did deserve to face backlash for her close-minded and transphobic comments; social media gives a voice to all sorts of beliefs, and it is important to shut down those driven by misinformation and prejudice. We live in the Information Age, but also the Misinformation Age, characterized by fake news and bias. Many social media platforms struggle to impose regulations on the kind of content published, but shifting this power to the people, however convenient, can have contradicting outcomes. While “canceling” celebrities for small, inconsequential mistakes is clearly detrimental, cancel culture in moderation—between restricting hateful ideas and promoting freedom of speech—can truly empower the voiceless.
Before I get too ahead of myself, I should probably explain what cancel culture means. Although the definition can vary, to me, cancel culture is the exclusion of certain, usually famous, people via social media. Many people will essentially stop supporting a person and their work due to controversial comments or actions. However, the duality of this concept has divided online users. It’s unclear whether cancel culture is a helpful form of regulation, or if it is simply limiting ideas and people’s right to free speech.
To minorities, cancel culture presents an opportunity for new voices to be heard. Although the term was coined recently and is usually associated with pop culture, the concept can also be applied to past events, like the Southern Black use of the boycott. It empowers people to stop the spread of harmful ideas and gives a voice to minorities, who are often shunned from political and social conversations.
This voice has grown especially prominent in mass movements including #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter. Thousands of people can unite behind one cause and “cancel” those who have truly disregarded human rights. The Me Too movement, for example, shook power institutions and gave a voice to sexual assault victims. According to the New York Times, the movement called out and “cancelled” 201 powerful men, who ultimately lost their jobs. Organized efforts like these hold these people liable for their actions. These movements have brought about a higher degree of social justice for oppressed groups.
However, the problem occurs when social media presence shifts from activism to straight-up mob intimidation. Although it sounds dramatic, it can be dangerous to put so much power into the hands of internet users. Cancel culture becomes toxic when people go after celebrities for small mistakes that have been amplified by their online presence. People want to feel like they have power, so they “cancel” those who make mistakes or have differing points of view. It is important to note that celebrities, like all humans, do make mistakes. While I agree that they have a higher degree of responsibility for their actions, they should not have their careers put in jeopardy for the kinds of errors everyone makes.
Moreover, it can be difficult to distinguish between people’s opinions and hate speech or misinformation. In some instances, cancel culture simply silences the opinions that may not be accepted by the majority. Therefore, seeing others “get canceled” sends a message to online creators to avoid speaking their mind, limiting the flow of different ideas that characterizes the internet.
Maybe J.K. Rowling did deserve to face backlash for her close-minded and transphobic comments; social media gives a voice to all sorts of beliefs, and it is important to shut down those driven by misinformation and prejudice. We live in the Information Age, but also the Misinformation Age, characterized by fake news and bias. Many social media platforms struggle to impose regulations on the kind of content published, but shifting this power to the people, however convenient, can have contradicting outcomes. While “canceling” celebrities for small, inconsequential mistakes is clearly detrimental, cancel culture in moderation—between restricting hateful ideas and promoting freedom of speech—can truly empower the voiceless.
