In the age of social media and instant communication, cancel culture has emerged as a pivotal issue in society. On the surface, cancel culture seems like a necessary response to harmful speech as it enables individuals and communities to call out behaviors or rhetoric that perpetuate hate or discrimination. However, when taken too far, cancel culture can stifle free expression, foster division, and undermine constructive dialogue. While we must continue to denounce hate speech, the widespread use of cancel culture presents risks that threaten the principles of free speech and discourse that are fundamental to our democratic society.
Cancel culture, at its core, refers to the practice of publicly calling out individuals – often celebrities, influencers, or public figures – for actions or statements deemed unacceptable, usually with the intention of ostracizing or “canceling” them from social or professional circles. Essentially, this draws a hard line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. When someone engages in hate speech, they often harm marginalized groups. There is a need for accountability in these cases, and I firmly believe that such speech must be condemned.
However, when we opt to “cancel” a celebrity or public figure, we lose an opportunity for productive and educational discourse. Rather than confronting the harmful behaviors or ideas head-on, canceling someone removes the chance to engage in a conversation that could lead to genuine growth. By swiftly ostracizing individuals, we effectively shut down the possibility of learning, reflection, and change. Public accountability is far more effective when paired with an invitation to learn.
Cancel culture teaches us to value exclusion over education, which is detrimental to constructing a more inclusive environment and world. In fact, the impact of cancel culture in certain circumstances is significant enough that it leads some to ‘cancel’ themselves before others can in order to maintain better control of the outcome.
“There’s the tacit hope that if we have the grace to cancel ourselves first, our ostracism will be temporary, a mere vacation from social media,” wrote New York Times journalist Ligaya Mishan in an article using examples from Adam and Eve to Oedipus to comments on social media. “Instead of retreating into introspection and actually examining our behavior, we submit to punishment and imagine ourselves thereby purged of both sin and the need to do anything about it. We emerge clean, or so we let ourselves believe.”
It is easy to cross over the fine line of accountability. As all claims should be evaluated within the context in which they are made, and considering the subjectivity that speech provokes, there is no set boundary when it comes to the extent to which cancel culture is acceptable. While I encourage and support the censure of hate speech, when someone uses ‘cancel culture’ to justify silencing another solely because they hold a different belief, they are providing more harm to our environment than good.