Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The primary source of authority of persons who possess the power to influence society and public opinion in the modern information field is their reputation. The latter is founded on every little action, expression, and activity, which is constantly monitored thanks to the free flow of information and social media. In this vein, the contradictive phenomenon of cancel culture occurred. It is aimed at cancelling famous people for their inappropriate behavior from the media space; however, this is not as obvious and clear as it seems. Below, the discussion on why cancel culture should be considered a negative phenomenon through the lens of its essence, origins, and advocated significance will be provided.
Essence of Cancel Culture
The term cancel culture is used to characterize modern social practice, expressed in the deliberate disregard or boycott of people, companies, and organizations for inconsistency with social values (Bakhtiari). According to Greenspan, although the term itself owes its appearance to a slang expression within the social network Twitter, the concept of canceling famous people (excluding them from the information space) arose thanks to the discourse initiated by the #MeToo movement, demanding more responsibility from public figures.
Despite the fact that the practice of moral judgment is not new when analyzing the phenomenon of the cancel culture , one cannot ignore the fact that the structure of a transparent and public space of social networks greatly simplifies the possibility of public presentation of moral requirements. The specificity of the cancel culture lies in the fact that these requirements should have been formulated in the form of a prohibition or prescription of a certain model of behavior. They are a part of the development of Web 2.0, based on user interaction in the production of information space and the reputation risks of the canceled person (Nossel).
At stake is the degree of this persons presence in the complexly organized area of the global network, within which each user, by the very fact of their activity, is involved in the process of permanent reconstruction of information reality.
The damage that can be caused as a result of a public boycott of an individual or an organization in the space of social networks and the Internet should be considered in the context of the concept of the attention economy. The characteristic features of this phenomenon might be formulated as follows. In a world saturated with data, an abundance of information means a lack of something else a deficit of what is consumed by this information. What it consumes seems apparent the attention of its recipients (Greenhut). Consequently, the abundance of data leads to a lack of awareness and the need to effectively distribute this attention among the plenty of information sources that can consume it.
At the same time, the attention of a modern Internet user is valuable not only as a scarce resource for making a profit (for example, by selling advertising to a user) but also as a factor in the reproduction of the information field. It should be mentioned again that the concept of the modern Internet is focused on the organization of user interaction, as a result of which the global network is created. In such conditions, the boycott potentially carries the threat of global exclusion from social and economic relations.
Origins of Cancel Culture
Thanks to cancellations, it became possible to speak openly about unacceptable things, thereby establishing new unspoken rules. Thus, people began to talk openly about the problems of racism, sexism, misogyny, and other everyday topics that were previously hushed up, avoided, or even considered the norm. Social networks also allowed users to speak out against influential people and did not enable high-profile scandals to be hushed up.
One of the earliest prerequisites for massive celebrity shaming were Tumblr pages, which were popular in the early 2010s. For example, a blog collected problem situations in which celebrities were involved (Greenspan). According to its authors, they did not try to cancel anyone and considered themselves only keepers of the archive. But it was these resources that gave readers reasons to criticize and set the stage for cancel culture . When the phrase you are canceled came into use, it was used as a way to draw attention to racism, bullying, and other issues (Greenspan). Given its effectiveness, the cancel culture began to be mentioned more and more on social media. It ceased to be the prerogative of blacks, as well as started to affect people not only from a unique environment: for example, a cheating guy or school hooligans.
The #MeToo era, which began in 2017, became the catalyst for the cancel culture. Its first major target was Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who was accused of sexual harassment by dozens of victims. After a series of accusations on social networks, there was a massive call for a boycott of Weinstein and his projects (Greenspan). And when it became clear that Weinstein could no longer get away with it, the actors and directors who had previously collaborated with him left the producer.
In the same year, cancel culture reached actor Kevin Spacey, who was also accused of sexual harassment, singer R. Kelly, who was charged with pedophilia, and comedian Louis CK for masturbating in the presence of women without their consent. For example, Kevin Spacey was fired from the series House of Cards, where he played the main role, and all scenes with his participation from the movie All the Money in the World by Ridley Scott were cut out. R. Kelly was arrested and now faces a real term. Louis CK lost his contracts with Netflix and HBO. However, his cancellation lasted about ten months now, his shows continue to gather full houses of spectators. To prevent new scandals, he simply forbade filming his shows. A similar case is related to Kevin Hart, who continued to release films and stand-ups almost immediately after the canceling and was uncancelled simply with the flow of time (Grobar), which indicates the phenomenons inconsistency.
Advocated Significance of Cancel Culture
The main advocated advantage (and, in fact, the goal) of the cancel culture is the ability to influence influencers and hold them accountable, including material, for their words and actions. Even if the canceled person was brought up in different values, as was the case with Rowling, he or she will have to change the views of those held by his audience or face angry fans and financial losses (Nossel). Companies also need to monitor their reputation and information partners because now their values have become important to customers. Sometimes the personality of an influencer starts to harm his own company.
The cancel culture makes influencers think about their reputation right from the start of their careers. One can earn a second chance, but only if you independently control new (and old) content, be honest and open. Subscribers realized their power and realized that now every vote and every follower are counted. It is assumed that after serious damage to his reputation, the influencer will return to the Internet with the idea of never speaking out on controversial topics again (Nossel). This may be called a definite achievement destructive values will no longer be broadcast to a large audience.
Arguments against Cancel Culture
Of particular interest is the practice of referring within the framework of the cancel culture to the figures of the past without taking into account the relevant cultural context, that is, their condemnation from the standpoint of a post-industrial society. For instance, within the scope of the cancel culture , the call for the destruction of statues of the General of the Army of the Confederate States of America R. E. Lee is considered.
Nevertheless, the purpose of the dismantling operations is not the statues themselves as physical objects, but a historical figure that is undesirable for the collective memory, which must thus be consigned to oblivion ( Cancel Culture, Part 1 ). Following the logic of the cancel culture, any mention of this person would be considered a violation of the taboo. There is a resurrection of the practice of the damnation of memory the destruction of any mention of a state criminal in ancient Rome). However, the difference is that today the decision on punishment is made without trial and even before a clear public consensus is established. It is not surprising that such an attempt by the insurgent masses to assert their right to a monopoly on collective memory is met with resistance and criticism.
In order to draw attention to the disturbing trends, significant cultural figures drew up a collective message Letter on Justice and Open Debate, published on the Harpers Bazaar website on July 7, 2020 also known as Letter of One Hundred and Fifty (Chotiner). It lists the following common in a society of cancel culture problems. Editors are fired because of controversial materials; books are recalled due to perceived inaccuracy; journalists are prohibited from writing on certain topics; professors are prosecuted for quoting books in class; a researcher is fired for distributing a peer-reviewed scientific article; heads of organizations are dismissed for what could have been just a stupid mistake.
All this became possible thanks to the peculiarities of the structure of the modern information field, which not only contributes to an increase in the speed of communication but also neutralizes the role of rational arguments against the background of general pathos. The one who will win more attention turns out to be right, and this is much easier for a convincing sophist to do than for a philosopher striving for truth (Gerstmann). As a result of the emotional excitement of the broad masses, the lynching called the cancel culture is transferred from the virtual to the real world, in which the decisions of Internet communities have consequences for people, organizations, and history as a whole.
When the masses justify their judgment of history by seeking to represent the voice of previously oppressed groups, it seems logical to argue that the problems associated with collective trauma should be discussed collectively and not become the target of sporadic and unreasonable decisions. XX century has shown numerous examples that voluntaristic censorship does not lead to positive changes, but, on the contrary, is capable of radicalizing the mood prevailing in the society. And although many modern problems and challenges are unique in the context of human history (globalization, the fourth industrial revolution, the climate crisis, etc.), this does not negate the fact that a dialogue is needed to find a way to solve them and not a planned collective silence (Gerstmann).
There is some contradiction in the culture itself. More precisely, it is in how cancel culture actually looks. The prerequisites are clear all people are equal, tolerance is above all, and if you have your own mouthpiece, be kind, respect all people on the planet. But its embodiment has nothing to do with the original postulate because the meaning of cancel culture is precisely in ignoring: do not comment, do not dislike, do not enter into dialogue (Greenhut).
In fact, there is an ugly transformation of the original idea in endless arguments on Twitter or Instagram, a lot of activity under videos in general, nothing to do with a boycott ( Cancel Culture, Part 1 ). Then, the cancel culture introduces a certain imbalance in freedom of speech with a correct scenario of cancel culture, expressing an opinion opposite from the majority becomes a problem because the alternative point of view is a priori socially unfair . Given the provided contradictions, cancel culture cannot be considered a consistent and universal tool for putting pressure on inappropriate individuals.
Conclusion
To conclude, the discussion on the cancel culture provided above follows the position against this phenomenon. After its essence and origins were explored, as well as the opposite position given, the arguments regarding the contradictive and ambiguous character of cancelling seem to serve as a solid foundation for the mentioned position. It should be admitted that the cancel culture is rather an uncontrolled and unpredictable weapon than an efficient and significant instrument.
Works Cited
Bakhtiari, Kian. Why Brands Need to Pay Attention to Cancel Culture. Forbes. 2020. Web.
Cancel Culture, Part 1: Where It Came from. New York Times, uploaded by The Daily. 2020. Web.
Chotiner, Isaac. Thomas Chatterton Williams on Race, Identity, and Cancel Culture . The New Yorker, 2020. Web.
Gerstmann, Evan. Cancel Culture Is Only Getting Worse. Forbes. 2020. Web.
Greenhut, Steven. Cancel Culture Is a Dangerous, Totalitarian Trend. Reason. 2020. Web.
Greenspan, Rachel E. How Cancel Culture Quickly Became One of the Buzziest and Most Controversial Ideas on the Internet. Business Insider. 2020. Web.
Grobar, Matt. Kevin Hart on Cancel Cultures Bad Environment and Defending Ellen & Nick Cannon: I Know Who They Are . Deadline. 2020. Web.
Nossel, Suzanne. Cancel culture Censorship Can Be Most Dangerous for Those Who Promote Social Justice. NBC News. 2020. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.