Cancel Culture: A Piece for Academia

Introduction

As a result of its widening scope, expanding dimensions, and variant nuances, it can be challenging to pen down a once-and-for-all definition of cancel culture. Evidently, however, as the term ‘cancel culture’ marries two words into one, the distinctive meaning of each can offer a glimpse into how the term may be perceived in its entirety.

The verb “cancel” means, according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, “to exclude somebody from social or professional life by refusing to communicate with them online or in real life, because they have said or done something that you do not agree with.”

The same source defines “culture” as “the customs and beliefs, art, way of life and social organization of a particular country or group.” Put together, these definitions ground cancel culture, even to the casual observer, as an expression of disagreement or disapproval - with a human being as the expresser, and a human being at the receiving end. Unavoidably, the associations and impact of cancel culture on decision-making, social order, and human interactions bring the concept within the lenses of ethical scrutiny.

Therefore, this essay will analyse the titular phenomenon, beginning with its origin, and branching out into its influence, and evolution into the current dispensation. Concurrently, the dimensions of cancel culture as observable in its recent manifestations will be examined against the two major normative theories in ethics: deontology and utilitarianism.

The ultimate objective is to decipher if, and to what extent cancel culture may be regarded as an ethical practice, as well as the viability of the arguments for and criticisms against it – as far as the major ethical theories are concerned.

Cancel Culture: Origins, Associations & Evolution

The term ‘cancel culture’ made its way into contemporary lingo in the late 2010s, but certain semblances of it could arguably be found in ancient societal practices such as ostracism, notable in Ancient Greek history.

Cancel Culture vs Greek Ostracization.

Ostracism or ostracization referred to the banishment of people by the government or fellow citizens, either as a punishment for a crime committed or as a blatant display of tyranny.

Scholarly and non-scholarly manuscripts have thus drawn the similarities between social ostracization and cancel culture by describing the latter as a “modern form of ostracization.” This finds some truism in the nature of both practices as reactionary, punitive, and socially enforced.

However, the first outstanding distinction is that while Greek ostracization mostly had legal backing, cancel culture is not and has never been ratified by any law or democracy. Secondly, cancel culture, unlike Greek ostracization, would typically set its target at people in positions of power or elevated status within a defined setting – a secular/religious society, a government, or an institution.

Political Correctness & Cancel Culture

Between the last known ostracization in Greek history, dated 417 BC, and the emergence of cancel culture as a widely used terminology by 2017, another term “political correctness” reared in the 1990s as an associate – or as described in an article by NPR, an in-joke turned a right-wing weapon called cancel culture.

This formed the angle of criticism against cancel culture that accuses its proponents of taking extreme, irrational actions in a bid to be (perceived as) politically correct – a term that means being fearlessly unorthodox at best, or a euphemism for being too cowardly to offend people, as implied by Donald Trump.

While the desire to be politically correct may present itself as a viable motivation for participating in cancel culture, the two concepts cannot be regarded as inextricably related. Political correctness does not always find expression in cancel culture. Likewise, cancel culture does not stem solely from the quest to be politically correct. This will be further explored in subsequent case studies of cancel culture discussed in this piece. 

The Emergence of Cancel Culture

One of the earliest mentions of ‘cancelling’ someone was in the 1991 crime thriller “New Jack City,” where the main character Nino, played by Wesley Snipes, used the word to mean a breakup with his girlfriend. Fans of the film would begin to use the word in similar contexts decades after the film’s release, and slowly, the term ‘cancel’ made it into music and reality TV shows.

By 2017, ‘cancelling’ a person had taken on a more political nature, expressed on social media platforms, notably Twitter (now X).

One of its crucial mentions was during a scandal in November 2017, involving Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas. Douglas, in a tweet she posted, appeared to victim-blame her colleague Aly Raisman who had experienced sexual assault.

As a result, Douglas’ tweet generated a ripple of controversy and ended in staggering disapproval from thousands of netizens. Due to the immense backlash, Douglas deleted the tweet and tendered a public apology.

Weighing in on the saga, writer Shanita Hubbard tweeted: “Let’s talk ‘cancel culture.’ Personally, I am willing to give a lot of grace to young Black girls (referring to Douglas) simply because the world doesn’t.”

In this context, cancel culture had come to mean a more socio-political terminology, veering away from its initial placement in the Wesley Snipes movie. Cancel culture also owes its popularization in the political scenes to Black-oriented movements such as ‘Black Lives Matter,’ as well as the ‘#MeToo’ movement, a women-focused movement that publicly named, shamed, and ‘cancelled’ alleged sexual offenders.

Cancel Culture: Case Studies

Following its foray into the socio-political scenes, cancel culture has become a mainstay across multiple sectors and industries. Three case studies will be examined in this section, where cancel culture was employed, as a weapon of social justice as perceived by its proponents; or as a tool for vengeful retribution, as opined by its critics. Importantly, each case study will be juxtaposed with basic ethical principles and theories.

The Kevin Hart Story

On the 4th of December 2018, American comedian and actor Kevin Hart announced his excitement at being selected to host the Oscars Academy Awards slated for 2019. However, it wasn’t long before his old tweets from a decade ago were brought to the surface by people who accused him of being homophobic and thus unfit to host the Oscars.

The tweets, mostly from 2009, were jokes about LGBTQ people, including a description of Hart’s potential (negative) reaction were he to discover that his son was gay. The aggrieved people also pointed out Hart’s anti-gay jokes in his comedy special “Seriously Funny,” as well as in a film he featured in. These revelations generated a major upheaval on the internet, with pro-LGBTQ activists vehemently questioning the decision of the Academy and calling for Kevin Hart to be replaced as the 2019 Oscars Awards host.

Despite his statements about having apologized for the jokes and refrained from such content in his acting and comedy career in recent times before the incident, the pressure on Hart mounted. He was ‘cancelled’ by pro-LGBTQ activists and allies. Eventually, Kevin Hart announced his step-down as the host for the 2019 Oscars Awards and tendered another apology to the offended groups.

Two questions emerge from this scenario; the first one, more case-specific is: “Was the use of cancel culture in this story ethical?” The overarching question of this piece also applies: “Can cancel culture, in any context, be considered ethical?”

The next case study is about how cancel culture was employed in what more people agreed to be a deserving situation.

The Ellen DeGeneres Story

In July 2020, news made the rounds from Twitter, to other social media platforms and tabloids that Ellen DeGeneres, one of the most successful television show hosts in the world, was a serial abuser.

Having run seventeen commercially successful seasons of the Ellen DeGeneres Show since its debut in 2002, Ellen became famous for her tagline “be kind to one another.” Therefore, the allegations of workplace abuse, racial discrimination, intimidation, unfair layoffs, and salary cuts that arose against her were noted as ironic.

News outlets like BuzzFeed published articles containing the full allegations that centered Ellen in what was described as a toxic and oppressive work culture. According to the accusers, Ellen was complicit in the ill-treatment meted out to them by the show’s producers and supervisors.

Consequently, heated conversations about the topic spiralled into a wave of heavy criticism against DeGeneres, prompting WarnerMedia to launch an internal investigation the following month.

Despite penning an apology letter to the affected employees and dismissing the show’s producers, the Ellen show remained ‘cancelled’ to many. This was evident in how the ratings for the following 18th season plummeted – with over 1 million viewers lost.

In 2022, Ellen DeGeneres announced that the 18th season would be the final one for the show.

Could this be considered an ethical use of manifestation of cancel culture?

Cancel Culture: Pros & Cons

Cancel culture only exists because people choose to practice it. This question of whether or not it is ethical stems from the significance of situating it as a logical or illogical approach.

The dictionary definition of cancel culture is concise and provides a scope of extent. However, as exemplified in the case studies, cancel culture can stretch beyond a deliberate refusal to communicate with someone, especially if communication is not the intent and said person is not directly accessible.

In both case studies, cancel culture is propagated by demanding or influencing action against the perceived offender by the offended. Cancel culture has also lent itself as an effective medium of direct access to celebrities or people in power by ordinary or unpopular people.

In light of this, highlighting the ideals and criticisms of cancel culture becomes an imperative prelude to ethically analysing the concept.

Arguments For Cancel Culture:

• Accountability: Cancel culture can hold individuals and entities accountable for their actions. In cases of misconduct or harmful behaviour, public scrutiny can lead to consequences, fostering a sense of responsibility.
• Amplification of Marginalized Voices: Cancel culture has, at times, been associated with amplifying the voices of marginalized groups. It can provide a platform for those who have traditionally been unheard or overlooked, allowing their concerns to gain more attention.
• Cultural Revolution: Cancel culture can contribute to cultural revolutions by challenging and questioning harmful societal norms. It may encourage discussions about issues like social justice, equality, and ethics.

Arguments Against Cancel Culture:

• Lack of Due Process: A major criticism of cancel culture is the potential lack of due process. Accusations on social media platforms can lead to swift and severe consequences without a thorough investigation, potentially harming innocent or undeserving individuals.
• Mob Mentality: Cancel culture can sometimes devolve into a vindictive mob mentality, where individuals face mass criticism, harassment, or even threats. This can create an environment of fear and hinder open dialogue.
• Stifling Free Speech: Cancel culture may lead to a chilling effect on free speech. Fear of backlash might discourage individuals from expressing unpopular opinions, stifling the diversity of thought and open discourse.
• Inconsistency: Cancel culture is often criticized for being inconsistent in its application. Some individuals may face severe consequences for certain actions, while others who engage in similar behavior may go relatively unscathed. This perceived inconsistency can undermine the credibility of cancel culture.
  
  

Cancel Culture: Ethical Considerations

Cancel Culture & Deontology

“In law, a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics, he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.” – Immanuel Kant.

From a Kantian deontologist perspective, cancel culture finds some ethical ground. The actor Kevin Hart lost a job for being homophobic – considered a violation of gay rights; just as Ellen’s show went under for her compliance with a toxic workplace culture – discrimination, salary inconsistencies, and intimidation constituting the rights violated.

Hinging its core principle on the duty to always take the right action regardless of consequences, deontology lends credence to cancel culture as a potent and ethical way to protect human rights and maintain societal order.

On the flip side, deontology may challenge the motive for cancel culture and question the intent of the enforcers – based on Kant’s categorical imperative. As observable in the case studies, the court of public opinion stands as the judge and executioner, seeming more desirous of harsh punishment rather than correction which is more humane.

In the Kevin Hart case, the accused has reportedly tendered an apology but is still not spared from outrage until a step is taken to his disadvantage. Similarly, firing the producers, who were the actual culprits of the Ellen case does not suffice to appease the enforcers. Thus, it can be argued that their outrage is ultimately ulterior or vindictive.

To firmly establish the double-sided ethical affiliation between deontology and cancel culture, it is notable that while the positives of cancel culture weave into the strong principles of deontology such as moral absolutism, the negatives of cancel culture clash with other principles of the same theory.

From a grand standpoint, the conservative, moralist nature of deontology does not wholly favour the radical or unorthodox dimensions of cancel culture. 

Cancel Culture & Utilitarianism

“It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” – Jeremy Bentham.

While it is difficult to measure the number of people who enforce cancel culture on a case-by-case basis, it is typical that the ‘cancelled’ is a single person (as in the Kevin Hart case) or a small group of people (as in the Ellen case).

Similar to the famous trolley problem, cancel culture is favourable to the utilitarian perspective as it typically sacrifices the happiness of one or a few for that of many.

As the theory also overlooks motives behind the decision and does to take into account the nuances of human relationships, cancel culture finds a more comfortable fit within the ethical confines of utilitarianism than in deontology. After all, the end justifies the means and the majority is a priority.

However, in the event that the criticism of cancel culture as a threat to freedom of speech/expression materializes, the relationship between utilitarianism and cancel culture may be affected. In effect, if the ‘greatest number’ begins to live in fear of being cancelled and become hindered from free speech or expression, utilitarianism may no longer favour cancel culture.

This sets cancel culture on a delicate tightrope with utilitarianism despite the liberalist nature that they share.

Conclusion

The evolving cancel culture is steeped on a slippery slope between democratic social justice and socio-political witch-hunting by its enforcers.

It is upheld as a voice for marginalized groups and a weapon for the socially disadvantaged. 

However, considering the divergent trend of its application, its lack of an established body of rules, its lack of defined limits, and the potential to negatively impact certain human rights; cancel culture may occasionally stray out of ethical boundaries.