CANCEL
CULTURE
In
the past decade, considerable attention has been paid
to cancel culture. Both cancelers and canceled have
been the focus of headline-generating partisan innuendo
and public scrutiny which has resulted in the reexamination
of the protections conventionally afforded to persons
wielding power, as well as enabling those for whom political
correctness has become the most effective means of advancing
their radical positions on, for example, race and gender.
Wiki describes cancel culture as "a cultural phenomenon
in which an individual thought to have acted or spoken
in an unacceptable manner is ostracized, boycotted,
shunned, fired or assaulted, often aided by social media."
This shunning extends to social or professional circles,
either on social media or in person, with most high-profile
incidents involving celebrities. Those subject to this
ostracism are said to have been "canceled."
Despite
its sudden intrusion into the daily conversation, cancel
culture has a long history whose roots extend to the
dawn of man, and, in particular, the advent of self-consciousness.
We
are the only species that can pass judgment on others
and in turn be the object of the other's judgment, which
is often unsettling, and why every culture in the world
allows for the consumption alcohol and drugs in its
quotidian. Who among us hasn't altered his behaviour
or way of thinking consequent to being judged or evaluated
by another? Why do we dress one way in public and another
way in the privacy of our homes? Being self-conscious
has proved to be a burden which mankind is still unable
to bear without some sort of frequent respite.
When
an individual refuses or is unable to modify his behaviour
so that it conforms to a desired point of view or presumed
orthodoxy, he risks being canceled. A university may
cancel a tenured professor who refuses to relinquish
the position that homosexuality is a sin. The CEO of
a company who threatens to terminate a female employee
if she doesn't provide sexual favours risks being canceled.
The CEO can pre-empt being canceled if, consequent to
third party pressure, he modifies his position or behaviour
and self-cancels. As it concerns behaviour or postings
that cannot be undone, the perpetrator is limited to
two choices: he/she can own up and apologize to the
aggrieved party or go into denial, with the latter much
more likely to result in cancelation.
Among
the criticisms aimed at cancel culture is that it is
often discriminatory and strictly punitive. No one would
argue that Harvey Weinstein and others who have been
outed are fully deserving of cancelation, but individuals
who have used the wrong word at the wrong time or have
spoken out against, for example, gender fluidity, or
have had an innocent remark or ethnic joke reconstituted
as a slur have seen their employment terminated and
lives thrown into chaos.
But
for most of human history, cancelation, especially self-cancelation,
has provided the energy and motivation upon which all
forms of civilizational progress depend. Without the
cancelation process, which is a vital corrective mechanism,
the social development of the individual throughout
the course of his life would be severely hampered.
Self-cancelation
or self-shaming are agencies whose cause and effect
may arise from within or without. An individual, upon
self-examination, may became ashamed of his behaviour
which he then changes. In most cases the change, usually
behavioural, redounds to the benefit of the greater
society.
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, in Thus Spake
Zarathustra, introduces the much misunderstood
concept of the Superman or Overman. He writes: [The]
time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is
no longer able to despise himself," which simply
means the Overman despises himself the most. If I am
content with the amount of money as a percentage of
my income I leave for charity I will never leave more
than that. Only if I become embarrassed or ashamed of
my meager offering, will I be motivated to give more
and be relieved of my self-loathing. Since the change
in my way of thinking results a new and more pleasing
self, it can be said that my previous, uncharitable
self has been canceled or superseded. Despite the headlines
and scandals concerning the many powerful who have been
brought down from without, most canceling is in fact
self-canceling.
French
philosopher Jean Baudrillard, in Seduction,
points out that women are more vulnerable than men to
self-cancelation because of the unrelenting pressure
of the male gaze and the importance society places on
appearances. If she refuses to play the game, to beauty-up,
short of ostracization, she will suffer very real consequences
in respect to her marketability both at work and in
romance. That a woman who rids herself of her wrinkles
with Botox injections is canceling her age, maturity
and who she really is at that point in her life is viewed
as a necessary adjustment in going forward. When did
we last see a female television broadcaster wearing
her natural eyebrows?
Self cancelation can be authentic or inauthentic. The
former speaks to persons who, on their own, decide to
change their behaviour or point of view because it is
consistent with their principles. Inauthentic self-cancelation
refers to cancelation imposed from without, where the
victim, consequent to third party pressure, adopts points
of view with which he is privately in disagreement.
A professor who reluctantly abides by the new gender
decrees as put forth by radical feminism is inauthentic
in his self-cancelation; but decides to go along with
the new creed because he has a family to feed and a
monthly mortgage to pay down. He is de facto
caught between the talk and a barred place.
Cancel culture can be weaponized to the effect that
lives and reputations have been unfairly destroyed.
The University of Toronto canceled Jordan Peterson because
he refused to use politically correct pronouns during
his lectures. Cancel culture can be used to control
speech, to manipulate social behaviour. It can turn
people against themselves, against their principles.
It can bully people into adopting positions and beliefs
that go against their self-interest. The Catholic Church
canceled Galileo because he refused to renounce his
science; to its credit the Church restored him almost
four centuries later in 1992.
As it concerns the inner workings of identity politics,
cancel culture is a means by which institutions or social
groups impose their will on an individual or a segment
of the population. In too many instances, there is very
little wriggle room when it comes to refusing the prevailing
orthodoxy. In this either/or binary the first effect
of cancel culture is to cancel all the gray areas in
life.
When
deputized for the good, cancel culture holds accountable
people who have abused their power; their fate is to
be judged first in the court of public opinion and then
in the judicial system. At the other extreme, when misused
or abused, cancel culture can destroy the lives of the
nation's very best.
Socrates,
who maintained that the unexamined life is not worth
living, was canceled with a vial of hemlock for questioning
the nature and validity of the Greek gods. Among those
who have convinced themselves that self-examination
is a waste of time or the pain isn't worth the effort,
they risk being caught in the net of cancel culture.
Most of us, despite an over-abundance of free time,
an endless offering of material distractions, manage
to figure out where we stand between good and evil as
we get on with our lives, in large part thanks to the
self-cancelation process.
In
the absence of cancel culture, which includes the vital
option of self-canceling, the expectation that we will
grow wise as we age becomes less of an option and more
of a promise not kept.
