"Congratulations: You're Cancelled!"

Last Summer, I wrote an angry piece on Harper’s Magazine’s attempt at engaging in “open discussion”. In hindsight, I’m mixed on it. On one hand, I didn’t articulate my thoughts well, striking where I shouldn’t have. On the other hand, I still agree with the sentiment of the piece: it was misinformed fluff meant to distract from some of the signatories. Especially in light of how they’ve behaved since then.

Still, I was willing to put it to bed and bury it. But then I saw a column from The National Post recently, one that decried Cancel Culture and used Rowan Atkinson to prove the underlying thesis. That got me thinking about Cancel Culture, its implications, and whether or not it’s as damaging as its detractors have made it to be. Because, in truth, it’s complicated.

What’s Cancel Culture? It’s tough to define it, but the best description is that it’s about de-platforming and shaming those we deem hateful, even without sufficient evidence. That’s the common sentiment. In fact, going by that, it’s almost an attempt to “shame people into compliance”. And I think that’s wrong.

The concept of “cancelling” someone isn’t new. Back in the early-2000’s, plenty of outspoken critics of The Bush Administration were “cancelled”. The Chicks, a popular band from Texas, had labels discontinued and received plenty of hate mail for it. Additionally, Bill Maher (yes, that Bill Maher) had his talk show pulled for criticizing the invasion of Iraq. Even Hayao Miyazaki had to wait several years to discuss his disdain of The Iraq War via Howl’s Moving Castle, lest it backfire.

So yeah, “cancelling” has been around for a while. But while some consider the current iteration to be “too extreme”, I think it’s lost its original meaning. I don’t feel that people understand what it’s about anymore. And that’s a problem. It’s a problem because it’s still applicable as accountability for bad behaviour.

Let’s look at one of its common misuses. In 2017, Harvey Weinstein was accused by several high-profile actresses of sexual assault and rape. This led to #MeToo going public, allowing people to come forward with names of their accusers. On some level it gave power back to the oppressed. Yet it also led to people claiming that their favourite (insert field here) was being unfairly targeted. And this manifested in Cancel Culture being weaponized as pushback.

I don’t think these individuals, many of them men, were victims of Cancel Culture. Were some of them unfairly accused? Yes, but only a small fraction. The rest either ended up going to court and being exonerated, going to court and being tried, or got away with it by downplaying the allegations or, effectively, going into hiding.

Essentially, they weren’t really cancelled. Or if they were, it didn’t stick. Cancelling usually comes with two components: de-platforming, and accountability. And the latter rarely, if ever, happened here. Alternatively, if it did, it was miniscule.

I think this gets overlooked. When someone’s “cancelled”, there’s a reason for it. And when the cancelling occurs, it’s to hold that person accountable. It doesn’t always stick, it rarely does, but it’s an attempt. And that’s what needs to be understood.

It’s also, unfortunately, based on the court of popular discourse. Unlike law, popular discourse is loose. What you might find worth cancelling, I might not. And vice versa. This subjectivity’s so heavily built in that it becomes impossible to objectively and entirely cancel someone.

Another issue is when the “cancelled” individual becomes radicalized. Remember that comic about the columnist who got let go for extremist views, only to claim he was being silenced to large crowds of people? This happens constantly. Remember when it was revealed that Louis CK had been masturbating in-front of his colleagues without their consent? Remember how he moved underground and became really nasty and bitter? I do.

Keep in mind that people get defensive about this stuff constantly. No one likes being attacked and criticized, it’s the lizard-brain’s defence mechanism at work. When we’re attacked, we either fight, or run. It’s helped us survive as a species. Add in the component of being socially ostracized, and you can see how messy this is.

Some of you might be thinking, “Well, some people DO get cancelled, but only for challenging the status quo!” And you’d be right…but that usually applies to those without power. Remember Bill Maher? He’s still around, even though he temporarily got pulled from television. If anything, he’s become more brazen since, picking on targets that never warranted his ire in the first place. Even well-respected individuals who don’t die from speaking out usually have enough venues to express themselves, venues they wouldn’t have if they were truly cancelled.

I guess my takeaway is that “Cancel Culture” has lost its meaning because we’ve warped it into something it’s not. Detractors also like using the “Freedom of Speech” clause to justify cancel-worthy behaviour, not realizing that “Freedom of Speech” doesn’t override “Freedom of Consequences”. Nor does it allow for “Freedom to Be Heard” by those who aren’t interested. It goes both ways.

Truthfully, there’s a two-pronged issue here. The first is that while Cancel Culture might not be the boogieman it’s been made out as, sometimes powerful voices need to be muted in favour of other, much smaller ones. The second is that while minor transgressions aren’t necessarily worthy of cancelling, especially when the transgressor’s shown genuine remorse, repeated patterns of bad behaviour should warrant it. These two points might seem contradictory, but they’re needed for true equity.

Also, the decriers of Cancel Culture need to get off their high-horses and recognize their ability to do harm. Rowan Atkinson’s a comedian and actor of great fame. Louis CK’s a famous comedian. Even JK Rowling, whom I’ve criticized before, is a well-known children’s author. All three have done real harm, and they need to understand that. Because they’re not being cancelled, they’re being held accountable. And they’ll never run out of venues to say what they want, despite claiming otherwise.