The Dangers of Cancel Culture and Conformity
Cancel culture is a threat to freedom of speech and thought, undermining the hard-earned progress we thought we achieved once we declared it a constitutional right. Cancel culture perpetuates a kind of reflexive conformity that limits people to “accepted” groupthink. While thought precedes speech, the power of speech models our thought. Thus, cancel culture not only restricts our speech but it also severely constrains our ability to think.
Cancel culture can be understood as a phenomenon where unaccountable groups exert pressure to “punish” individuals for expressing opinions they disklike. The stakes for saying the “wrong” thing are high. Nowadays, people can lose their jobs for making “politically incorrect” statements. With cancel culture there is no marketplace of ideas. It discourages unpopular opinions and pressures people to think like others. There is no question that this sterilization of public discourse and the resulted homogeneity discourages the pursuit of truth.
Proponents of cancel culture argue that it enforces accountability for public speech and that it allows the public to criticize the speech of others. But, of course, it goes beyond merely meeting speech with more speech. In fact, it does not “meet” speech at all because it works to absolve it before it even comes out. Cancel culture supporters perceive this as a means to achieve social justice outside the law.
The rise in cancel culture as a phenomenon shows the profound ideological divide between social conservatives and progressive liberals. Several studies have shown that one’s propensity to support cancel culture is closely linked to their political ideology. However, it seems as if while right-wing scholars are cancelled more often, they experience this in predominantly postindustrial societies, while left-wing scholars face the same issue in developing societies.
Many are aware of the mounting pressure exerted on Amazon Prime to cancel Clarkson’s Farm due to Jeremy Clarkson’s controversial comments regarding Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, the case of Andrew Tate, and that of the renowned clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, who faced significant backlash for what some labeled as “transphobic” sentiments and was compelled to undergo “reeducation” training. Of course, public figures represent just a fraction of the victims of cancel culture. They just happen to be in the spotlight. However, they play a key role as they can encourage their supporters to stay firm and fight for freedom of expression or they can issue apologies for speaking up their mind and instill even more fear and cowardice within their base.
Media also plays a crucial role in shaping how cancel culture manifests. By staying silent on these stories or portraying the perpetrator as the victim, media outlets not only do an injustice to the victim but also to journalism at large. Giving into cancel culture as a newsroom is a double-edged sword that might come back at you when you decide to report on something that goes against the caprice of the mob.
Let us move past the unfortunate phenomenon of cancel culture toward a more constructive approach to civil dialogue, one that values critical thinking and the interplay of ideas. A society that promotes civil discourse encourages individuals not only to express themselves and but also to learn how to respect the exchange of ideas and to properly assess arguments rather than attacking the agent who shares them. While it would be ideal for these values to be instilled upon students within a formal education system, the family is always a great place to start.
-
The blogs published on this news site are created by contributors to the International Youth Coalition. The opinions, views, and statements expressed in these blogs belong solely to the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of the affiliated organization.