It’s Time We Cancel Cancel Culture

We live in a nation that has a deeply entrenched love of free speech. Americans feel entitled to this tenet and are quick to point to the Bill of Rights whenever their right to “the First” is jeopardized. How, then, do we contend with the rise of cancel culture?

Cancel culture is the practice of ostracizing someone whose comments or actions transgress societal boundaries. Nobody is safe from cancel culture; politicians (e.g., Congresswoman Liz Cheney), musicians (e.g.., Kanye West), CEOs (e.g., Adam Neumann), and celebrities (e.g., Chrissy Teigen) alike have all been shunned for making remarks that offended. People on all sides of political divides are susceptible too. The supposed goal of cancel culture is to create positive social change.

But as it exists now, cancel culture largely stigmatizes people and perpetuates harm. We’ve reached a point where many people feel reluctant to speak up for fear that they, too, will be placed on the blacklist of cancel culture.

Cancel culture is also ineffective in changing the misconceptions at the root of comments that cause people to be canceled. Ostracizing someone and marking them with a proverbial scarlet letter does little to educate them about why what they said or did was wrong. For example, during an episode of The View, Whoopi Goldberg commented that “[the] Holocaust isn’t about race … It’s about man’s inhumanity to man.” After making the insensitive comment, she was suspended from the program for two weeks and later apologized. While the public's perception of Whoopi Goldberg may have changed, it is unclear whether or not Whoopi herself learned from the incident.

Rather than completely condemning those who make bigoted statements, perhaps we can find more effective and less damaging ways of addressing offenses as they arise. This February, writer Jennifer Miller published an article in The Atlantic, titled “What College Students Really Think About Cancel Culture,” that addresses one alternative. Across the country, Miller reported, students are forming organizations to provide safe spaces for students to gather and freely discuss religion, politics, and other popular yet contentious topics. Miller emphasizes that “these spaces are not about First Amendment absolutism, but rather they aim to remove the anxieties of so-called cancel culture while still upholding a commitment to equity and inclusion.” The article further explains that these spaces are not reliant on trigger warnings, political correctness, or hasty apologies followed by disclaimers. These so-called “civil dialogue” organizations provide a space where students can share thoughts without self-censoring. As one student interviewed states: “It’s about “push[ing] people to do better.” Such civil dialogue proves that difficult discussions can take place with respect and consideration for our fellow humans.

Another tactic being used to combat cancel culture is the concept of “calling-in,” a practice developed in part by feminist reproductive justice activist and radical scholar Loretta J. Ross. The rise of brash, affrontive calling-out tactics frequently used on social media platforms in the mid-2000s worried Ross, especially because the anonymity afforded to users of these platforms seemed to embolden people to launch hurtful tirades. This public shaming is a far cry from the accountability methods used by the women’s rights movements she participated in during the 1970s and 1980s; that movement believed that the solution to hate was not more hate, that people can’t be expected to change if they are reprimanded without being shown an alternative. In response, Professor Ross proposes “calling in” as “a call-out, done with love.”

Calling in requires using “three c’s: compassion, conversation, and context.” The focus is on reflection, not reaction. Calling in also lends others the benefit of the doubt and assumes that, in general, people are not malicious; an insensitive comment doesn’t make a person a “villain.” We’ve all had moments when we’ve said something that we shouldn’t have, and that’s OK as long as we hold ourselves accountable for our words and work as a united front to find mutual understanding among divided opinions. The next time your aunt says something cringy at Thanksgiving, for example, you might ask an open-ended question to start the flow of dialogue, such as “I’m curious; what was your intention when you said that?” This approach is far more effective than shunning them.

Whatever method you choose, whether calling in or participating in a civil dialogue organization, the important lesson is that creating change is not easy, and we are all human. We are intrinsically flawed, liable to make mistakes, and have a propensity for hurting those around us. But the beautiful thing about humans is that we are adaptable and resilient; we can learn from our mistakes, own up to our wrongdoings, and become a better version of ourselves. So the next time you feel offended or think your freedom of speech is under attack, try to craft a loving response and see whether it produces new results.