Why Cancel Culture Suppresses People

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.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Background
The Involvement of Technology in Culture Cancellation
The Impact on the People
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

In today’s world, there is one substantial public media space due to the development of communication methods and the globalization of the marketplace. Despite the fact that all developed and developing countries have many internal, both political and social problems, the majority of the world’s inhabitants have access to the world network. Accordingly, in many cultures, the characteristics of people and their associations have become public. Moreover, the attitude to each individual culture, custom, or personality is likewise formed in the mass understanding of a large number of people. The cancel culture is one example of a change in public attitudes toward the denial of certain parts of world culture and is an example of the unjust oppression and suppression of individuals or communities.

Background

In the relatively recent past, social movements focused their attention on call-out culture. It expressed itself in calling on all victims of violence, discrimination, and inequality to voice their grievances publicly to their abusers, regardless of their social status. Subsequently, the essence of the concept changed slightly, and its name was corrected to cancel culture. It was related to the slang application of canceling someone in terms of humiliation or prohibition and actively entered into use as a result of scandals and racist statements (Clark 89). Subsequently, many activists from all kinds of social movements, particularly enthusiastic minority rights activists, have urged society to ignore abolish, and denigrate the opinions, positions, and cultural values of their political or social opponents and their peer groups.

Proponents of the dissemination and application of a culture of abolition generally promote the idea that such appeals are a form of free speech and allow people who have not previously had the opportunity to vote to do so. Some claims can further be seen to equate this process with accountability and holding the perpetrators accountable (Clark 88). However, there are opposing views, highlighting the undoubted deterrence of public discourse and emphasizing the complete lack of productivity of this and any form of ostracism (Norris 16). Its manifestation in digital space can be compared to intolerance and cyberbullying (Ng 623). It is evident due to the similarity of methods, results, and the generation of conflict instead of eradication.

The Involvement of Technology in Culture Cancellation

Cancel culture has shown its most vivid manifestation and development in the digital space. Freedom of speech and access to vast amounts of information have opened up access to public activity for everyone. At the same time, social networks have become a significant battleground and demonstration of rejection of each other (Velasco 1). With the functionality of restricting information from other users on social networks, the culture of cancellation was able to be realized most fully. Unfortunately, it is most often manifested precisely because of personal dislike for specific people or communities.

The Impact on the People

The Harm to the Canceled

Undoubtedly, the first and foremost factor to consider is the suppression of those who are subjected to a culture of cancellation and the violation of their rights. It is challenging to consider it normal, even in the case of clearly incorrect statements or remarks by the victim. If to take the English-language segment of the Internet, there is no strict censorship in any country, and freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. This situation is slightly different in other countries’ segments.

Aggressive or unacceptable positions of social media users or public figures should undoubtedly be condemned. Depending on the rules of the website or platform, such accounts may be muted or banned, and a public discussion should be initiated (Ng 623). However, harassing, boycotting, and completely ignoring a person and their activities without having complete information about their opinions and motivations is illogical. The distinction between oppressors and oppressed is then leveled.

Undoubtedly, it is possible to challenge this position by providing a common view of equal response. However, few consider that humiliating people or their communities, depriving them of respect in society, and sometimes even the ability to earn a living, is not the mirror punishment for a careless comment under a photograph, for example (Sidwell 21). The biblical concepts of an eye for an eye from the Old Testament or turning the other cheek from the New cannot be used as an example of human interaction in a modern, developed society. The average level of intelligence among the world’s population is increasing every year, and some cases of the cancel culture only make one feel ashamed of humanity.

The similarities between the cancel culture and discrimination are apparent; in fact, the concept is synonymous with inequality and humiliation. According to Rutledge, it can be added that the suppression of a person’s identity is a terrible and wrong process. Furthermore, in this case, there is no logical reason to justify such processes as anti-oppression. The psychological, reputational, and even physical problems that may arise for the victim are not positive outcomes of the situation.

The Harm to the Oppressors

However, one can likewise consider the suppression of the individual who is on the side of the abolitionists. In this case, it is rational to consider global examples of cancel culture rather than individual ones. The reason for this is that in cyberbullying, the aggressor rarely feels disadvantaged (Rutledge). However, if an entire society or organization is involved in the initiative of some of its members, the situation changes.

Interestingly enough, in the public sphere, the idea of repeal is often proposed by public figures or leaders who pay lip service to fight discrimination or disadvantage as representatives of marginalized communities. Unfortunately, often the manifestation of the idea of equality for all turns into an increase in pressure and bullying of the opponent (Ng 623). Moreover, some celebrities can call on their fans to boycott anything in pursuit of their personal gain. In addition to black-and-white PRs, there are other techniques for influencing reputations, and undoing a competitor’s popularity with the hands of others is one of them.

On this basis, it can be assumed that not all of the communities that unequivocally cancel someone, or something were guided by their own opinion. Sometimes their opinion is entirely or mainly formulated or substituted for the opinion of a leader who knows how to control the crowd and guide it in the right direction. Very often, the participants in the cancellations are not even aware of the reasons or personalities of those being cancelled, acting under orders, or spurred on by others (Velasco 2-4). In some cases, it evidently can be called a suppression of will, personality, and cognitive ability.

Indeed, this cannot be attributed to every member of any community. Still, the methodology of developing mass attitudes and actions has long been studied (Velasco 2). Examples of similar social phenomena include conspiracy societies, sects, or fake news. Most of the people in them are suppressed by others, and their rights are also violated (Rutledge). However, it is possible that they do not realize it and act in favor of their leaders.

Harm to Man through the Impairment of Science

Equally important is the mention of the application of cancel culture to the scientific segment, which directly harms specific scientists and indirectly suppresses the entire scientific audience or even humanity as a whole. Such cancellations can be divided into two main categories, each of which will be discussed below. They have in common that such practices not only slow down social-scientific discourse but actually have a severe impact on science. The development of the whole community and progress can be stalled by the imposition of opinions or the initiative of people, most of whom have nothing to do with academic work.

The first category can include the cancellation of specific figures or scientists because of their social position or because their statements or methods of work are unsatisfactory to some people. Furthermore, more often than not, it is not because of any inhuman or cruel experiments or research but because absolutely any figure of science can become the target of any Internet society. This fact directly confronts the thinking part of society with the problems of crowd psychology and the non-acceptance of reasoned debate in mass action (Norris 1). Moreover, such a cancellation attempt can end negatively both for the scientific community members and for their research results.

The second category is the rejection by society or some sections of it of specific scientific topics or developments. Thus there is a gradual withdrawal of research on the use of combustible fuels or discourses on the absence of harm from global warming, which is not always a negative. However, in any situation where there is intervention by a party not educated or aware of the importance of research, the consequences cannot be entirely positive (Sidwell 19). For example, it is now trendy to consider some criminological research discriminatory and to call for their abolition on social media. It is happening due to the misunderstanding of causality by most regular social media users and their imposed or elaborated aggressiveness.

In a global format, one person’s suppression does not seem to matter to society. The loss of reputation of a showbiz star or a politician is not always able to resonate with other people, even if they did not participate in their cancellation or were even supporters. Such cases again have a minimal impact on global human development, which cannot be said about the interference with scientific discourse. Compared with all other spheres, social phenomena are most harmful in any sphere outside social life. Such interference in research in the fields of education, medicine, environmental protection, and technological development should be condemned and minimized as much as possible.

The Internationality of the Phenomenon

Moreover, it should be noted that the essence of cancel culture and its dissemination is not limited to the English-speaking cultural segment. For example, Eva Ng notes similar processes on China’s Weibo platform and in other states and societies (626). The essence of the spread of this new form of confrontation is not in a particular locale or mentality of the inhabitants. It lies in the convenience of modern online social interactions and is just another method of boycott and discrimination. With censorship from the government, this process is slightly modified in China but sometimes takes even more violent forms (Ng 627). It is due to the fact that in China, as in other authoritarian countries, abolition can be handled by the state itself, which is fraught not just with suppression but sometimes with human death.

Conclusion

To summarize, it can be concluded that cancel culture is a negative social phenomenon that oppresses the individual and harms fundamental human rights. Positioning cancellation as a right to free speech is illogical – depriving an opponent of the same right is again a violation of human rights. Modern social media cancellations are more often than not pointless, baseless, criminal, and tantamount to cyberbullying. At a minimum, the psychological harm that can be done to a person by insults and subsequent ignoring cannot be positioned above adequate discussion.

Moreover, the development of social networks and the Internet contributes to a growing number of conflicts and confrontations when viewed from the perspective of social activity within them. I, for my part, am an adherent to resolving any conflicts through dialogue and have only strengthened my opinion in the process of this study. Moreover, I can add from my own experience that humiliating one’s opponent or instigating friends to ignore one together is no solution for an adequate modern person.

Works Cited

Clark, Meredith D. “DRAG THEM: A Brief Etymology of so-Called ‘Cancel Culture.’” Communication and the Public, vol. 5, no. 3–4, 2020, pp. 88–92.

Ng, Eve. “No Grand Pronouncements Here…: Reflections on Cancel Culture and Digital Media Participation.” Television & New Media, vol. 21, no. 6, 2020, pp. 621–627.

Norris, Pippa. “Closed Minds? Is a ‘Cancel Culture’ Stifling Academic Freedom and Intellectual Debate in Political Science?” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020.

Rutledge, Pamela B. “Cancel Culture: Accountability or Bullying?” Psychology Today, Web.

Sidwell, Marc. “A Silent Revolution: The Intellectual Origins of Cancel Culture.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2022.

Velasco, Joseph Ching. “You Are Cancelled: Virtual Collective Consciousness and the Emergence of Cancel Culture as Ideological Purging.” Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, vol. 12, no. 5, 2020.

Click Here To Order Now!