Cancel culture

Cancel culture (or call-out culture) is a modern form of ostracism in which an individual, a group, a media outlet or even a corporation is thrust out of social or professional circles. - either online on social media, in the real world, or both. Those who are subject to this ostracism are said to be "canceled." The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship.

The notion of cancel culture is a variant on the term call-out culture and constitutes a form of boycott involving an individual (usually a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner.

For those at the receiving end of cancel culture, the consequence can lead to loss of reputation and income that can be hard to recover from.

Origins

"Call-out culture" has been in use as part of the #MeToo movement. The #MeToo movement gave women (and men) the ability to call out their abusers on a forum where the accusations would be heard, especially against very powerful individuals. Additionally, the Black Lives Matter Movement, which seeks to highlight inequalities, racism and discrimination in the black community, repeatedly called out black men being killed by police.

In March 2014, activist Suey Park called out "a blatantly racist tweet about Asians" from the official Twitter account of The Colbert Report using the hashtag #cancelColbert, which generated widespread outrage against Stephen Colbert's and an even greater amount of backlash against Park, even though the Colbert Report tweet was a satirical tweet. By around 2015, the concept of canceling had become widespread on Black Twitter to refer to a personal decision, sometimes seriously and sometimes in jest, to stop supporting a person or work. According to Jonah Engel Bromwich of The New York Times, this usage of cancellation indicates the "total disinvestment in something (anything)". After numerous cases of online shaming gained wide notoriety, the term cancellation was increasingly used to describe a widespread, outraged, online response to a single provocative statement, against a single target. Over time, isolated instances of cancellation became both more frequent and the mob mentality more apparent, commentators began seeing a "culture" of outrage and cancellation.

The phrase cancel culture gained popularity since late 2019, most often as a recognition that society will exact accountability for offensive conduct. More recently, the phrase has become a shorthand employed by conservatives in the United States to refer to what are perceived to be disproportionate reactions to politically incorrect speech.

In 2020, Ligaya Mishan wrote in The New York Times, "The term is shambolically applied to incidents both online and off that range from vigilante justice to hostile debate to stalking, intimidation and harassment. ... Those who embrace the idea (if not the precise language) of canceling seek more than pat apologies and retractions, although it's not always clear whether the goal is to right a specific wrong and redress a larger imbalance of power."

The Internet and hate speech

With the rise of the internet in the mid-1990s, political discourse moved online. Due in part to the anonymous nature of much of the communication, controversial posts became commonplace.

The internet played a role in the shift from third-wave to fourth-wave feminism, and facilitated the rise of cancel culture. This new development extended third-wave feminism's focus on micropolitics.

Many commentators argue that the internet itself has enabled a shift from ‘third-wave’ to ‘fourth-wave’ feminism. What is certain is that the internet has created a ‘call-out’ culture, in which sexism or misogyny can be ‘called out’ and challenged. This culture is indicative of the continuing influence of the third wave, with its focus on micropolitics and challenging sexism and misogyny insofar as they appear in everyday rhetoric, advertising, film, television and literature, the media, and so on.

Calls to limit or punish hate speech grew during the 2010s. There are numerous antecedents to the rise of call-out culture. The United Nations developed a policy on hate speech, defining it as "any kind of communication in speech, writing or behavior, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender or other identity factor."

The definition does not clearly elucidate what is considered hate speech, but it does clarify that the notion of hate speech is connected with the protection of certain minority groups or protected classes. The definition of hate speech expanded with the rise of the notion of the microaggression. While the concept had been around since the 1970s, it grew in popular usage during the 2010s, particularly in campus culture. Some psychologists, like Columbia University Teachers College professor, Derald Wing Sue, argued that microagrressions were "the new face of racism." Sue defined microaggressions as "brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional... " p. 40. These microagressions are whatever minority groups find offensive. Sue suggests almost anything can be a microagression, such as a white person saying that "America is a melting pot." Sue argues that intent doesn't matter, only impact. If something offends the minority group, it is a microaggression, a kind of verbal violence.Sue argued that Getting White Americans to become aware of their unintentional racist communications is a major challenge to society.... Although research on overt forms of racism is valuable, few scholars have explored the hiddenand denigrating messages of racial microaggressions that are directed toward Black people." These microaggressions are more subtle, ambiguous, and often unintentional. Sue says this has led some Americans to believe wrongly that non-white Americans no longer suffer from racism.

Postmodern political culture

Postmodernism led to the rise of identity politics and a political culture based on equity which directly attacked the liberal notion of free speech. Freedom of speech is a First Amendment right, that is subject to limitations. For example, hate speech is not protected free speech. Postmodernism has largely defined what constitutes hate speech.

Postmodernism argued that the Enlightenment and scientific knowledge that emerged from it produced knowledge that supported the ruling class. Specifically, these are discourses that are shaped by those with power. Jacques Derrida argued that Western discourses were phallocentric, by which he meant both theocratic and patriarchal. Even the secular culture that swept in secularism and modernism remained essentially both as the "Truth" that was promised by the scientific method did not sufficiently recognize that the referent, or object, of its aim was grounded in Western metaphysical tradition, namely God. His methodology, which he termed deconstruction, was designed to eliminate any absolute truths, replacing them with only provisional meanings that were always in the process of revision.

Foucault argued that knowledge was produced by discursive practices that ultimately served the interests of the existing power structures. People did not create the discourses themselves, but were initiated into an already existing set of discourses, so it was the discourses that made the individual, and not the other way around as is commonly assumed. He imagined society as a kind of grid with each of us situated somewhere within it. Those who were not part of the ruling elite, or beneficiaries of the system were is some sense excluded and oppressed.

The postmodern theories of Derrida, Foucault and others were taken up by scholars in race and gender studies and serve as the basis for critical race theory, intersectionality, gender theory and queer theory. It is the ideas of these theorists that have played a significant role in a different attitude towards speech. Hate speech was generally understood as derogatory or denigrating speech directed at members of minority groups. But postmodernism defines those groups as already systematically oppressed. Thus, any speech that minority groups consider offensive is said to serve as a re-oppression.

That was the observation of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and free-speech activist Greg Lukianoff in their book The Coddling of the American Mind. They concluded that "call-out culture" arises from the rise of the concept of "microaggressions" leading to a campus culture based on what they call "safetyism." Modern campus culture treats students, especially minority students, as fragile, in need of protection. They point to an article by To protect the minority group from verbal violence, the free speech of the offending group of oppressors must be curbed and controlled to protect the safety of the minority group. Even actual violence to prevent the expression of ideas or words taken to be offensive is not only acceptable, but necessary. The implementation of this idea led to numerous incidents of physical violence on college campuses in the 2010s. Call-out culture is based on the idea that those on the side of the minority groups are good people, while those who do not support this agenda are not simply mistaken in their opinions, persuadable by better arguments. They are bad people. When bad people make statements that oppose or contradict the work of the good people, it is the responsibility of those that see that bad behavior to call it out. That is the meaning of call-out culture on campus. If you fail to call it out, you are complicit in the bad behavior and culpable. You may be called out.

the which is defined as a moral culture where people are unwilling to make tradeoffs demanded by others' practical and/or moral concerns, on college campuses. Keith Hampton, professor of media studies at Michigan State University, contends that the practice contributes to the polarization of American society, but does not lead to changes in opinion. Cancel culture has been described by media studies scholar Eve Ng as "a collective of typically marginalized voices 'calling out' and emphatically expressing their censure of a powerful figure." Cultural studies scholar Frances Lee states that call-out culture leads to self-policing of "wrong, oppressive, or inappropriate" opinions. According to Lisa Nakamura, University of Michigan professor of media studies, canceling someone is a form of "cultural boycott" and 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".

Postmodern theories are an explicit attack on the universalist assumptions of liberalism. Liberalism accepted the notion that truth is possible and that science is the method to arrive at it. Based on these ideas liberals had fought to correct what they saw as flaws in the political society that led to discrimination against women, people of color and homosexuals. The postmodern critique argued that these universal ideals were grounded in discourses that were designed to prop up the power of the establishment, who are predominantly white, male and heterosexual. Those who do not fit into those categories are considered to be oppressed. Consequently, discursive practices in our normal use of language always runs the risk of oppressing those not part of the dominant white, male, heterosexual society. Speech that is considered to generally support the cultural norms, conservative views and even liberal views that are not in line with the postmodern view of culture are subject to attack, and the speakers cancelled for their offensive speech.

According to an article written by Pippa Norris, a professor at Harvard University, states that the controversies surrounding cancel culture are between ones who argue that it gives a voice to those in marginalized communities, while the other spectrum argues cancel culture is dangerous because it prevents free speech and/or the opportunity for open debate. Norris focuses in on how the role of information technology, such as social media can be a large contributing factor to the rise of cancel culture within the last few years. Additionally, there have been online communications studies that demonstrate the intensification of cultural wars through activists that are connected through digital and social networking sites. Norris also mentions that the Spiral of Silence Theory may be a contributing factor as to why people are hesitant to voice their own minority views on social media sites in fear that their views and opinions, specifically political opinions, will be chastised because their views violate the majority group's norms and understanding.

Some academics proposed alternatives and improvements to cancel culture. Critical multiculturalism professor Anita Bright proposed "calling in" rather than "calling out" in order to bring forward the former's idea of accountability but in a more "humane, humble, and bridge-building" light. Clinical counsellor Anna Richards, who specializes in conflict mediation, says that "learning to analyze 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 too quick to pass judgement against those they view as public offenders or persona non-grata. Knobe asserts that these actions have the opposite effect on individuals and that it is best to bring attention to the positive actions in which most of society participates.

Safe spaces

The idea of safe spaces are most frequentlya ssociated with college campuses. For students it dates back to the 1990s for gay and lesbian studnets.With the rise of gender studies, queer theory, and critical race theory, the number of covered groups grew over the ensuing two decades. According to the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, call-out culture arises from what he calls safetyism on college campuses.

According to Keith Hampton, professor of media studies at Michigan State University, the practice contributes to the polarization 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 makes marginalized groups feel "even more hesitant to speak out for what they feel is right." Cultural studies scholar Frances Lee states that call-out culture leads to self-policing of "wrong, oppressive, or inappropriate" opinions. According to Lisa Nakamura, University of Michigan professor of media studies, cancelling someone is a form of "cultural boycott" and that 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’.

Some academics proposed alternatives and improvements to cancel culture. Critical multiculturalism professor Anita Bright proposed "calling in" rather than "calling out" in order to bring forward the former's idea of accountability but in a more "humane, humble, and bridge-building" light. Clinical Counsellor Anna Richards, who specializes in conflict mediation, says that "learning to analyze our own motivations when offering criticism" helps call-out culture work productively.

Reactions

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 criticized 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.

Open debate

July 2020 marked a "high point" in the debate over cancel culture. Harper's Magazine published an open letter signed by 153 public figures. The letter set 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 organized by lecturer Arionne Nettles, "A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate," was signed by over 160 people in academia and media and criticized the Harper's letter as a plea to end cancel culture by successful professionals with large platforms but to exclude others who have been "cancelled for generations."

After the Capitol Hill riot of January 6, 2021, Simon and Schuster cancelled the book contract of Republican Senator Josh Hawley. Hawley was one of the Senators who had planned to issue a challenge to the vote. The decision to cancel Hawley's book, The Tyranny of Big Tech, drew criticism from conservatives, but was hailed as a long overdue check on conservatives by some liberals. Shortly thereafter, Hawley found another publisher.

American public opinion

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 canceling) 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% having engaged in this often. Behavior differed according to age, with a majority (55%) of voters 18 to 34 years old saying they have taken part in cancel culture, while only about a third (32%) of voters over 65 said they had joined a social media pile-on. Attitude towards the practice was 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.

Criticism of the concept

Some journalists 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 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, David Olusoga, similarly argued:

The great myth about cancel culture, however, is that it exists only on the left. For the past 40 years, rightwing newspapers have ceaselessly fought to delegitimise and ultimately cancel 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.

Twitter ban

On January 8, 2021, Twitter officially permanently banned President Donald J. Trump's twitter account. This step blocked the former President from using Twitter to communicate with his 90 million Twitter followers. According to Twitter, the account was banned based on the following two tweets:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

The reasons given included:

• the decision not to attend the inauguration might be seen as further refusing to accept the election as legitimate
• by not attending it might be a signal to supporters that it would be ok to attack the inauguration since he would not be there
• using the term "American Patriots" could also be interpreted as support for his more violent supporters
• use of the term "GIANT VOICE" could mean that he does not plan to facilitate an orderly transition
• plans for another attack on the Capitol were already proliferating on and off Twitter.

According to Twitter CFO Ned Segal, once you are removed, there is no procedure to be reinstated.

During the last weeks of the 2020 Presidential campaign, Twitter suspended the account of the New York Post for publishing a story about Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden's laptop. The laptop contained information about business dealings with China and Ukraine, which Twitter claimed violated its hacked information policy. This was not

Twitter campaigns

Sleeping Giants is a liberal social media activism organization aiming to persuade companies to remove advertisements from conservative news outlets. The campaign started in November 2016, shortly after Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 United States presidential election, with the launch of a Twitter account aiming to boycott Breitbart News. The first tweet targeted personal finance company SoFi. Most tweets on the account are messages to companies advertising on Breitbart. Of these, most are retweets from other accounts.

The campaign operated anonymously until The Daily Caller identified freelance copywriter Nandini Jammi as a co-founder with Matt Rivitz. Shortly afterward, a New York Times profile of Rivitz and with freelance copywriter and marketing consult Nandini Jammi, said the two ran the campaign's Twitter account "along with other still anonymous contributors". Other reports identified Jammi as "co-founder". Jammi has since left Sleeping Giants, saying that Rivitz "gaslighted me out of the movement we built together".

Campaign

The organization primarily operates from its Twitter account, and also has a Facebook account. It has regional Twitter accounts for Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

As of February 2017, 820 companies had joined the campaign and stopped advertising on Breitbart News, according to statistics provided by the organization. By May 2017, thousands of advertisers had stopped advertising with Breitbart.

The list of advertisers includes Allstate, AT&T, Autodesk, BMW, Deutsche Telekom, HP Inc., Kellogg's, Lenovo, Lyft, Visa, Vimeo, Nest, and Warby Parker. The Canadian government also stopped advertising on Breitbart News after declaring that its contents "did not align with the Government’s Code of Value and Ethics". Sleeping Giants' strategy combines traditional approaches to pressure advertisers with direct online activism, aiming to recruit and mobilize a large population of social media users. According to Slate, Sleeping Giants' strategy is similar to the one adopted in 2014 by the Gamergate movement against Gawker Media.

Breitbart News responded to the response to the initiative by Kellogg's with a campaign to boycott its products.

Other campaigns

Sleeping Giants was involved in the campaign pressuring advertisers to drop The O'Reilly Factor after the discovery of five sexual harassment settlements by host Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, which resulted in the show's cancellation.

Since May 2017, the Canadian section has used the same methods to persuade advertisers to remove ads from the Canadian conservative news outlet The Rebel Media.

The French section also campaigns in a similar manner with regard to the French far-right website Boulevard Voltaire.

In Brazil, Sleeping Giants Brazil gained traction against Jornal da Cidade On-line, Conexão Política and Brasil Sem Medo, far-right and fake news outlets which support Jair Bolsonaro. They also tried to defund Olavo de Carvalho's YouTube channel and online courses. Consequently PayPal decided to remove their services from Carvalho's online seminars upon violations of their terms and conditions of use due to his inflammatory rhetoric, polemic remarks and hate speech.

In August 2016, a similar organization was organized in the United Kingdom. Stop Funding Hate targets major corporations, calling on them to stop advertising in more conservative newspapers such as The Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express.

See also

• Stop Funding Hate
• 2018 NRA boycott

In popular culture

The American animated television series South Park mocked cancel culture with its own "#CancelSouthPark" campaign in promotion of the show's twenty-second season. In the season's third 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 actress, and the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Both the Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher have said they are victims of cancel culture.

In 2019, cancel culture featured as a primary theme in the stand-up comedy shows Sticks & Stones by Dave Chappelle and Paper Tiger by Bill Burr.

See also

Cancel culture Portal

• Blacklisting
• Deplatforming
• Deviationism
• Divestment
• Enemy of the people
• Freedom of speech
• Internet vigilantism
• Online shaming
• Political correctness
• Politicization
• Persona non grata
• Presumption of guilt
• Relational aggression
• Social exclusion
• Social justice warrior
• Thoughtcrime

References

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Cancel culture  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Cancel culture"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Cancel culture  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Cancel culture"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.