TW for the article: mentions of verbal abuse and transphobia
If you have any social media exposure at all, you’ve probably heard of the term cancel culture.
We’ve seen prominent cases of cancel culture at work over the past few months. Most of us know about the Night Owl Cinematics (NOC) saga, Korean actor Kim Seon-Ho’s controversy with his ex-girlfriend, and the backlash against American comedian Dave Chappelle for his allegedly transphobic remarks.
In general, views on cancel culture as a phenomenon are polarized. Some believe that it’s a necessary force to hold public figures accountable for their wrongdoings, while others believe that it can get too far. In this article, we attempt to provide a balanced view that weighs out both the benefits and drawbacks of cancel culture in media, so you can form your own opinion of it.
What is cancel culture?
The term cancel culture refers to the collective, widespread backlash against a celebrity or public figure when they are believed to have done something politically incorrect. The most common cause for being cancelled is the use of offensive speech (racist, homophobic or transphobic remarks) against a particular group of people. In other cases, the public figure may have committed wrongful actions, such as cultural appropriation, cheating on a partner or even sexual assault.
Often, this leads to the person in question being asked to leave their position of power within the industry, such as being removed from a film or TV show. In more severe cases where a crime is involved, the police might even be called in to investigate.
Why do people have a problem with cancel culture?
The term was coined relatively recently. It was first used in 2014 by activist Suey Park, as part of the #MeToo movement, before gaining much more traction on social media in 2019. Despite that, many people are still confused about what constitutes a cancel-worthy situation.
For example, at the start of the NOC saga in September 2021, NOC co-founder Sylvia Chan was accused of workplace abuse following leaked text messages by some of her employees, in which she was found swearing and using harsh words to berate them. Though Chan faced a lot of backlash and was promptly dropped by major sponsors such as Colgate and Milo, some people could not understand why she was being cancelled as they believe that using foul language at work is commonplace and not unprofessional.
Some people have also been disillusioned by cases of ‘the boy who cried wolf’ — people who were cancelled for things they did not do.
At the peak of his career, South Korean actor Kim Seon-Ho was accused of manipulating his ex-girlfriend into undergoing an abortion, as his company’s contractual terms did not allow him to have children. Kim had just concluded his first-ever leading role in the drama Hometown Cha-Cha-Cha and was quickly on the rise to becoming one of the top K-drama actors of 2021. The scandal caused public opinion to rally against him, and he was rapidly dropped from most of his brand sponsorships, upcoming dramas and variety shows before he could even release a statement or apology.
Eventually, it was revealed that Kim’s ex-girlfriend had made up the allegations in order to ruin his career. Leaked text messages revealed that he had been supportive of her own decision to have an abortion, and was willing to put his career on hold to take care of her. The revelations spurred discourse in the K-drama community about the perils of cancel culture, especially since tabloid news outlets and anonymous online forums are powerful tools that frequently shape and polarize public opinion in South Korea. This shows how sometimes, the toxicity of cancel culture can implicate innocent people and cost them their careers.
Lastly, many people have been unfairly cancelled in scandals where multiple parties appear to be at fault. In the NOC saga, Sylvia Chan was cancelled partly because she had allegedly cheated on her ex-husband, Ryan Tan, while they were still together. This prompted an outpouring of support towards Tan, with many praising his kindness and genuinity. However, it was revealed in a later interview that Tan had also emotionally manipulated her, causing her to become incredibly frustrated with him and their marriage. Netizens were quick to notice the hypocrisy of Tan in trying to call out Chan for workplace abuse while he had been emotionally manipulating her at home.
All these factors contributed to reducing the legitimacy of cancel culture in recent years. So if cancel culture is so harmful, why is it still prevalent on social media? Surely, there has to be some good reason that necessitates cancel culture, if it’s managed to exist for so long.
Unpopular opinion: we still need cancel culture
In a world without cancel culture, high-profile individuals who actually do bad things will often never have to face the consequences of their actions.
American comedian Dave Chappelle, known for his politically incorrect humour, was called out by Netflix employees for transphobic jokes in his controversial film ‘The Closer’. A group of employees even staged a walkout to protest the film’s release. However, Netflix stated that it has no intention of removing the film, and the organizer of the walkout was fired by Netflix, supposedly for leaking information about the film. If the court of public opinion had been more vocal about this case, the outcome might have been entirely different. Dave Chappelle would, at least, be accountable for the fact that his remarks were hurtful towards members of the transgender community. But in reality, the film remains available on Netflix, a testament to the discrimination and invalidation faced by the transgender community every day.
In even worse scenarios, celebrities’ wrongdoings might never have come to light without elements of cancel culture, such as social media exposés and political movements. Personal apologies and private settlements are important for closure in some cases, but not every wrong action can be resolved with a simple apology, because this could allow perpetrators of serious crimes to continue achieving undue success. Cancel culture is, in part, helping to shift the narrative away from victim-blaming, and towards victim support instead.
Political correctness, though sometimes overboard, ultimately stems from the need to avoid offending or discriminating against certain members of society by implementing inclusive language and infrastructure. Cancel culture works in the same way — although it might be too cutthroat in some instances, its intentions are to correct wrongs and maintain safe spaces for protected groups in society.
When assessing online controversies, the most important thing is to strike a balance. It’s important to conduct fact-checking on both sides of the story before swooping in to cancel someone, and to remember not to invalidate victims’ experiences. Before you dismiss things as ‘just cancel culture’, seek to inform yourself on why someone might be wrong and how they can improve from then on.