(Source: YMI)
Initially coined within the Black community to jokingly criticise others for having a different opinion, the term “cancelled” is now used to condemn anyone who acts unlawfully and force them to take accountability. However, behind this respectable intention lies a tainted reality. “Cancelling” someone now closely resembles a witch-hunt where the Internet stops at nothing, sometimes even resorting to extreme actions, just to bring the perpetrator to justice. But why is there still a controversy over whether cancel culture should be ridden?
Many are unable to forgo the primary benefit of cancelling: Victims finding unparalleled effectiveness in seeking accountability from their perpetrators. It can work especially to the advantage of disenfranchised communities who use it as a platform to voice their grievances and feel they are heard. More importantly, concrete action will be taken. The exposé of popular food corporation, Bon Appétit (BA), by its three BIPOC employees, Krishna, Martinez and El-Waylly aptly encapsulates this. In a series of Instagram posts, each announced that they would be leaving the company due to the racial discrimination they faced. Shortly after these were posted, comments denouncing support for BA flooded the internet. Unable to ignore these accusations, not only did the then editor in chief Rapoport resign, the then vice president of video Druckor, of its parent company, Condé Nast, also followed suit. In a company where racial discrimination was previously ignored, for top level management personales to have been forced to resign rings evident of the effectiveness of cancelling them. This, amongst many cases of “good” triumphing over “evil” come as rare glimpses of hope to propel continual belief in using cancel culture to right the wrongs of others.
(Source: PicPedia)
But of course there would be no debate should this high strung motivation to cancel others not be a double edged sword. By relying on people’s sense of anger and disappointment, “mobs” are inevitably created. Blinded by their emotions, many lose sight of the initial issue for which they started cancelling other people. In the process of canceling, doxxing and ad hominem attacks are prevalent and in some extreme cases, people even make death threats. Cancel culture has thus evolved to masses of hateful speech purposefully inciting hatred and even violence against the perpetrator. Humans’ propensity to take malicious delight in tearing down others’ reputation whilst misusing the name of justice fighters is clearly reflected here. Many have forgotten the primary purpose of cancelling someone is to enable the victim to seek accountability and not to destroy the perpetrator.
In fact, it seems as though it doesn’t matter if the victim is not compensated. As soon as it is deemed that the perpetrator has faced their due consequences, their cancelling ends. With attention having been diverted from the wrongdoing, the act of cancelling often becomes ineffective and worse still, unproductive. Looking again at the BA incident, it is unclear whether Krishna, Martinez and El-Waylly ever received any compensation. Though BA made an official apology and vowed to implement measures to prevent such racial discrimination from continuing, they never specifically mentioned Krishna, Martinez and El-Waylly’s names. Whilst the internal reforms indicate BA’s recognition for change, they ultimately come only after their cancelling and was just a response. It did nothing to reverse the damage done to the 3 ex-employees. So, is cancel culture really bringing justice to a victim seeking real change?
This unpredictability of human emotions involved in cancel culture has also brought upon another issue, which is that of irresponsibility. In the rush to reshare the original post and spread awareness, many fail to fact check and assume it to be fully accurate. Many innocent parties have become caught in this carelessness and painfully suffered the impacts of cancel culture. Poignantly exemplifying this is actor Johnny Depp whose former partner, Amber Heard, filed a lawsuit against him for being abusive during their marriage. Before he could respond, social media had already run wild with Heard’s accusations and began cancelling him. Depp’s reputation was ruined instantaneously, with many expressing disbelief and disgust for his actions. He was hit with another massive blow as he was removed from his role as Jack Sparrow on the famous franchise that made his name, Pirates of the Caribbean. Yet upon police investigation, it was found that Heard’s accusations were false – she did so in a bid to bring him down. His case thereby indicates how many often jump the gun and cause unnecessary harm to innocent parties. Besides, such realisations often do nothing to reverse the damage done. The fact that Depp lost his role and part of his reputation is still true today. There is nothing that was and can be done to reverse this damage. Undoubtedly, being cancelled is scary with its detriments often running deeper than what the online community intended or imagined.
(Source: CineZapping)
However, the validity of this fear has been compromised by those who hold power and status. For them, after being cancelled, they can manipulate the situation to frame themselves as a victim to distract the public from their wrongdoings and the real victim. They claim for their higher status to have been used against them and to put them to an excessive amount of cancelling compared to what others typically receive. Take JK Rowling’s experience with cancel culture for instance. After posting a transphobic tweet, she was cancelled for her insensitivity and disrespect. Whilst one might have expected an apology, she instead deflected the issue, responding by signing an open letter condemning cancel culture. This letter claimed that cancel culture inhibits one’s right to free speech and leaves no room for one to voice out their opinion. Rowling believed that was being done to her with regards to her tweet, painting the picture that not only had she done nothing wrong, she was being excessively cancelled. Her disposition as someone with significant power and influence led her to have the ability to twist the situation to cover up her mistakes. The other 150 equally influential people who signed the letter with her allowed her to further support her view that she was the victim in this situation. The media also diverted its reporting to cover that of the perils of cancel culture instead of her transphobia. What this reflects is nothing but how those with power have created an unfair advantage for themselves. They can misuse their influence to craft a new narrative to benefit themselves. Their wrongdoings can be so easily buried with just a few carefully crafted public statements. There is no longer a need for them to be held accountable which leads to them being cancelled being treated less severely. Yet, with cancel culture’s main goal being that to hold anyone accountable, this loophole points to the need for it to be reevaluated.
Cancel culture has strayed far from its original ideal intent to bring justice. The influence of human emotion, especially that of anger and hatred, has transformed it to this undesirable reality. Is it finally time to cancel cancel culture?
Written by: Alina Tan Xuan Yun (21A14)
Edited by: Tran Vu Phuong Uyen (21A15)
Bibliography:
Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2015, August 17). Hate speech. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 24, 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/hate-speech.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Cancel culture. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved August 20, 2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cancel%20culture.
Premack, R. (2020, August 6). 3 of Bon Appétit's test kitchen stars of color are departing the video channel after failed contract negotiations. Business Insider. Retrieved August 20, 2021, from https://www.businessinsider.com/bon-appetit-test-kitchen-priya-krishna-rick-martinez-2020-8.
Romano, A. (2021, May 5). The second wave of "cancel culture". Vox. Retrieved August 20, 2021, from https://www.vox.com/22384308/cancel-culture-free-speech-accountability-debate.
Shennan, R. (2020, November 16). This is why JK Rowling has been accused of transphobia on social media platforms. The Scotsman. Retrieved October 28, 2021, from https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/jk-rowling-on-twitter-why-the-harry-potter-author-has-been-accused-of-transphobia-on-social-media-platforms-2877977.
Comments