Cancel Culture in 2020

Source: New York Times

We’ve all seen it in our Twitter feed: Within a few hours, or even a couple of minutes, powerful figures get “cancelled”, which, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, means “removing of support for public figures in response to their objectionable behavior or opinions.” We see the trending hashtags online, thousands of people ready to criticize the person of the day. In an instant, how the public perceives them can experience a paradigm shift - all of a person’s prior actions and statements can be analyzed for moral reprehensibility. As the world descends in chaos, inequities become more opaque, and the distrust between ourselves and our leaders grows, one must question how people use their voices to elevate others. 

In the year 2020, people are exhausted. It’s difficult to process all that’s happened, especially as our emotions struggle to catch up with how much we’ve experienced. As such, we’re seeing a social transformation in public attitudes. Some are waking up to see the racial injustices that have persisted throughout history (and the importance of the Black Lives Matter movement); some actively protest restrictions meant to slow the spread of COVID-19; some even choose to be even more intolerant, resulting in the perpetuation of conspiracy theories (such as that the COVID-19 pandemic had political motivations) and a horrifying increase in hate crimes against BIPOC. As these different groups clash and change, tensions between them will naturally rise, to the point that they can become unmanageable. In this strange, isolated, and racially-charged period within the post-#MeToo era, tolerance for any kind of problematic behavior has waned significantly. As a result, cancel culture has intensified. From Nick Cannon’s racist and antisemitic remarks, the multiple comedians called out for wearing blackface, to the celebrities criticized for insensitivity towards the current COVID-19 pandemic, it’s been proven that no one is above being cancelled for their actions. 

As a result, cancel culture has its many detractors, many of whom have made themselves known. On July 7, 2020, Harper’s Magazine published the now-infamous open letter titled “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” (also known as “The Harper’s Letter). In it, 153 writers, professors, scholars and journalists indirectly attribute America falling victim to “the forces of illiberalism” (i.e., a society in which citizens are barred from knowing the activities of the true people in power, therefore restricting their civil liberties) with cancel culture. The letter argues that, due to cancel culture, those who have differing viewpoints from mainstream media are muzzled. These individuals (who can be from anywhere on the political spectrum) are therefore prevented from, or are even punished for, having meaningful conversations about controversial topics. This line, while it encapsulates its main thesis; it’s also the letter’s most contested: 

“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: 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.”

While it has its supporters, “The Harper’s Letter” received immediate backlash. Detractors not only criticized the piece for overlooking the discrimination faced by BIPOC and the LGBTQ+ community, but because it largely focusing on the struggles of its elite (largely white) signatories. The letter even generated a counter-letter, which proposes that the original piece contains major oversight about its highlighted cases in which a person was targeted for their beliefs.

Essentially, “The Harper’s Letter”, intent on cancelling cancel culture, was cancelled. 

Paradoxes aside, the piece itself is an example of how the privileged use “free speech” to shield themselves from criticism. Yes, everyone is protected by the First Amendment, and yes, a democracy entails that people should be able to express their beliefs without fear of being targeted. On the other hand, the claim that cancel culture targets intellectual minorities is difficult to believe. 

For instance, one of the signatories of “The Harper’s Letter”, Jesse Singal, in his op-ed defending the validity of the piece, believes that criticism against the letter is the reactionary byproduct of cancel culture, in which its constituents set out to ruin the lives of the signatories of the letter. One example he gave was that of Emily VanDerWerff, a TV critic for Vox, who posted  an open letter to her Twitter, specifically addressing her employer and her boss, Matthew Yglesias, who signed “The Harper’s Letter”. VanDerWerff, a trans woman, expressed concern about Yglesias supporting the letter, to which multiple anti-trans writers also signed (the most notorious being J.K. Rowling, who was recently cancelled due to a series of transphobic tweets). According to VanDerWerff, Yglesias’ signature “makes [her] feel less safe at Vox and believe slightly less in it [sic] stated goals of building a more diverse and more thoughtful workplace.” Despite VanDerWerff having every right to share her constructive concern regarding the fallout from “The Harper’s Letter”, Singal classified her reaction as churlish and an attempt at stifling Yglesias’ right to free speech. However, the same could be said about the writers and co-signers of “The Harper’s Letter”: Realizing that they might have to actually answer for their deplorable behavior, the signatories went on the offensive, criticizing anyone who wants them to be accountable. As Singal says, “it’s only natural” - people who are so used to being loud want to be anything but. In reality, they’ve had all the time in the world to say what they want to say.

What Singal fails to realize is that the purpose of cancel culture is not to vilify the innocent; if a person truly did nothing worth criticizing, the chances of them being cancelled are low. In today’s society, people have been encouraged to keep quiet about the discrimination and prejudice they’ve experienced (whether it be because of their race, gender, religion, sexuality, creed, etc.). Slowly, that silence is being broken. People are now refusing to remain silent against people who spread harmful rhetoric, hate speech, misinformation, or conduct themselves in a way that’s detrimental of others. This public shaming pressures powerful people into being held accountable for their actions. It’s helped to make a lot of noise, and has brought problematic figures down. Now, we can say that Harvey Weinstein, once of the most powerful film moguls in Hollywood, is a convicted sex offender due to years of public outcry, and as a result, led to crucial steps to pass legislation regarding workplace misconduct around the world. Even President Donald Trump, a vocal critic of cancel culture who’s tried (and failed) to make himself immune to any kind of legal repercussions, has had his reputation tainted due to, amongst many other things, multiple allegations of sexual misconduct being filed against him. Positive change can come from cancel culture; it’s by no means a perfect practice, and can definitely fall victim to the mob mentality. However, cancel culture may be necessary to address people who need to stop speaking, and start listening.

Hiding behind vague statements about free speech, people who often criticize cancel culture are also the ones who fail to acknowledge the true consequences of their actions, who ignore the marginalized people actually silenced based on systemic inequities. The most unfortunate part about this is, while these people may feel like they’re being silenced now, given how things usually play out, it won’t be long until they’ve regained their voice.