You probably see the tag “canceled” whenever you scroll through your social media feed at least once a week. A celebrity losing sponsorships because of an offensive comment, an influencer paid for their past actions, or an average person going viral for the wrong reason.
There’s a bigger conversation happening behind those hashtags, comment sections, and trending topics: Is cancel culture used to hold others accountable, or has it become a form of suppression?
Originally, the purpose of cancel culture was to provide a method for people, particularly marginalized groups, to hold others in positions of power accountable. Traditional avenues often fall short, and public callouts help amplify voices that may otherwise not get heard.
The #MeToo movement illustrates how utilizing collective power through social media can have real-world implications on those who would have otherwise not been held accountable. Thus, cancel culture can function as a form of social justice by creating accountability where formal systems have failed.
The distinction between punishment and accountability can be blurry when it comes to cancel culture. There are a lot of nuances missing from modern cancel culture. It can be very easy for a person’s one mistake, even if it happened years ago, to determine their entire public identity.
In many cases, the speed of outrage via social media means that people are unable to get context, demonstrate growth, or learn authentically. Rather than creating an opportunity for positive change, cancel culture often creates an opportunity to completely shut down conversations altogether.
Another concern with cancel culture is its potential to promote mob-like behavior. Social media platforms reward people for engaging with others through outrage.
When people experience outrage about something that happens online, they often want to join in with the outrage of others. They want to ensure they are on the “right side” of an issue. In this way, public opinion acts as the ultimate judge and jury, and can be a very dangerous thing.
Although cancel culture has some negative aspects, we shouldn’t completely ignore the benefits that it provides. In terms of holding people in power accountable, cancel culture has been one of the few effective methods for fighting against those who have abused their power. If not for the pressure created by the public, many individuals wouldn’t be held to account for the damage that they cause.
However, the true concern isn’t with canceling culture as a whole; it’s with how that culture is used. To achieve a more positive form of accountability, we need to create avenues for accountability while providing opportunities to learn, apologize, and change.
Calling attention to an individual’s inappropriate behavior is critical, but we also need to allow space for individuals to learn from their mistakes and change their behavior.
Rather than asking if an individual will be “canceled,” we should be asking: Were they held accountable for their actions? Are they trying to improve their behaviors and make amends?
Cancel culture reflects the culture of the people who participate in it. It shows a desire by a group for justice through collective action; however, it also demonstrates our predisposition toward making hasty generalizations.
As digital citizens, we can create an online world where accountability exists; however, it’s difficult to find a balance between keeping accountability while allowing for growth.
Cancel culture isn’t exactly accountable and isn’t exactly censorship, but it’s in between. For as much as how you participate in cancel culture defines what cancel culture is, it also defines who or what you want it to become.
Want to see more HCFSU? Be sure to follow us on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and Pinterest!