It is the phenomenon where thousands of social media users use the power of social media to condemn, “nullify” and magnify outcry against people or practices they disagree with.
The reasons may be different – their name was indirectly or directly associated with cases of sexual violence, they expressed an opinion or did something that raised a storm of reactions, they were associated with an incident of animal or human humiliation/abuse respectively. The result was common: Thousands of social media users posted relevant hashtags on their accounts to condemn and reject individuals or practices.
It is a phenomenon that in recent years has left no one unscathed, from comedians and actors to musicians and television presenters.
Cancellation of polyphony?
These practices as a starting point often have the need to expose and formalize practices of abuse and brutality, forms of social injustice and phenomena of racism and sexism, or the breaking of the immunity enjoyed by various “brand names”, fortified behind their popularity. Perhaps they are inspired by the need for social change, to encourage accountability and to highlight serious social issues. However, there are not a few voices that point out that a culture is now being formed that can bring about the exact opposite results, with the first victims being polyphony itself, freedom of expression and ultimately the distortion of the message.
Many times, however, this criticism is focused on a personal level, instead of focusing on meaningful discussions.
From social exile to modern annulment
The peculiarity of cancel culture is that the users of social networks themselves decide who will be criticized and ultimately isolated – reminiscent of the exile of Ancient Athens. This criticism is based on actions or opinions that the … self-appointed judges find controversial. More specifically, after numerous cases of cyberbullying became widely known, the term came to be used to describe a widespread, outraged online reaction to a single provocative statement made against a single target. Over time, as individual cases of rejection increased and the mindset of users became clearer, commentators began to see a “culture” of resentment and denial. Therefore, anyone whose actions or opinions are controversial to the general public can be “cancelled” or isolated from society.
The starting point with “Your love is canceled”
But what is the starting point of this culture? The first references can be found in African-American art with “cancel” referring to the song “Your love is canceled” by Nile Rodgers of Chic which later inspired a lyric – “Cancel that bitch” – of the heroes in the 1991 film “New Jack City” by Barry Michael Cooper.
In 2005, 50 Cent included this lyric in his track “Hustler’s Ambition”, which reappeared in 2009 in Lil Wayne’s song “I am Single”. In the 2000s, the term is circulating on black twitter (the part of twitter used by the black community) and it is mainly used by young African-Americans precisely to discuss and touch on the bad texts of America.
In the 2010s the term became a trend, especially after the emergence of the #MeToo online movement. From 2010 onwards we start and have this wider “call out”, i.e. the “exclamation” which takes on a much larger dimension, becomes viral due to the digital condition and the development of social media.
In this context the #MeToo movement has encouraged women or men to talk about whether they have experienced inappropriate or abusive behavior, particularly by powerful or famous people. Accordingly, the Black Lives Matter movement sought to highlight the inequality, racism, and discrimination faced by the black community at the hands of police officers who abused their power and took the lives of black men and women across the country.
However, the generalization of the use of this term has led to a different practice and marking of it. More specifically, the term acquired a different sense and usage when it crossed the boundaries of the wider African-American community and was appropriated by “white” America. Now, the usurpation of “cancel” by the conservative strata has led many to ridicule it, with the result that it has negative co-demonstrations.
Users are using the power of online platforms to publicly voice their displeasure and push to outcry or block someone.
Supporters, critics and informal people’s courts
There is no shortage of those who treat the culture of nullification as a positive term, arguing that the “disclaimer” is a form of free speech expression that promotes accountability and gives a voice to the wronged. On the other hand, its critics argue that it is counterproductive, fails to bring about social change, breeds intolerance and is often bullying. In any case, it is a practice that can significantly affect the lives of people who are “cancelled” before any verdict by the natural courts – in cases where the “dispute” falls within their jurisdiction. But, at the same time, its devotees argue, it helps rally around the defense of the rights of someone who has been wronged.
We could say that the “culture of annulment” sometimes resembles an informal people’s court, as communities take justice into their own hands, deciding who should be criticized or criticized. Of course, on the other hand, there are many cases where social outcry through social networks contributed to a solution or a balance.
A toxic and unforgiving culture
In the context of the culture of cancellation as well as political correctness, often entertainment content (films, songs) is censored, changed or rejected entirely. Now we find in the term a punitive mood that does not take into account the historical context. We see a rhetoric of hate, a toxic and unforgiving culture. Many times it judges outside historical contexts, so it is punitive because it thinks in today’s terms about things that happened in another era, under other circumstances, where the world worked differently.
The extent and form the phenomenon has taken undermines real dialogue. It should be worrying that a lot of people are filtering two, three, five, fifteen times what they’re going to say, because they’re going to think that I shouldn’t say it like that, because it’s going to have an impact on me and they’re going to cancel me. We don’t know if all this really promotes dialogue, openness, inclusion. There is often an exaggeration in this phenomenon, a lack of dialogue and an inability to correct potential mistakes that can lead to superficial judgments.
The danger lies in an uneducated public deciding where to blame or punish for something they don’t like, questioning the importance of informed criticism, public debate and the institutions and principles of justice. There are several cases in which people who “suffered” cancel were eventually convicted. However, there are also those where they were wrongly accused and finally acquitted by their natural-institutional judges.
Obviously we have to criticize, criticize, take a stand, speak our mind openly and bring to the fore bad texts. But who defines right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, politically correct? How sure are we that we are always on the right side of history? It’s one thing to put an issue on the public agenda in this way and give it visibility for the world to discuss, and another thing to have concrete tangible effects on the lives of those involved. When the term began to exist, it was not a banner of revolution. It has now been turned into a weapon.
