Cancel Culture: A Fine Line between Accountability and Toxicity

Op-Ed by Joelle El Sheikh, Staff Writer and Roa Daher, Staff Writer

February 15th, 2021

Money, fame, and glamour; life as a celebrity sure has its perks. Don’t be fooled, though, being under the spotlight, or having influence, comes with a heavy catch: Accountability. Around 2016, cancel culture came into collective consciousness after the idea of “cancelling” celebrities for problematic statements and/or actions became normalized. The phrase gained more popularity on the platform Twitter in 2017, when several users started quoting cancel culture and joined the trend. Eventually, cancel culture grew bigger, and today, it is considered, by some, a necessary form of accountability that actively tries to allow marginalized people to seek accountability where the justice system fails.

This brings in question the power and positive impact cancel culture can possess. After all, would there be a #MeToo movement without cancel culture? By the end of October 2018, 429 people faced 1,700 allegations of sexual misconduct, including the infamous Harvey Weinstein, who is now convicted of third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act and is serving his 23-year prison sentence. The list however, extends beyond Weinstein and includes Bill O’Reilly, Kevin Spacey, Travis Kalanick, who stepped down as CEO of Uber in 2017, Matt Lauer, Roger Ailes, Dr. Larry Nassar, the convicted gymnastics doctor... Cancel culture gives a voice to those disenfranchised or less powerful people, making them feel part of a bigger fight towards justice and accountability.

While “to cancel” was a verb previously used when referring to events or other occurrences, in recent years it has begun to be used when referring to people, in effect perhaps reflecting the nature of the harsh culture created by the internet: cruel and unforgiving. Cancel culture has become a collective force propelled by millions on the internet who are just waiting for anyone, be it celebrities, politicians, or random twitter users, to have a mistake from their past resurface so that they can be “cancelled”. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a past mistake, as it could be a controversy that the person has gotten involved in or any form of drama really. After a seconds-long assessment that does not consider context whatsoever, the internet community deems the defendant “cancelled”.

There is no doubt that while accountability remains a crucial element in the life of every person, so do mistakes. Often we forget that celebrities, just like the rest of the world, are human beings; they make mistakes, they learn from them, and they have room for growth. Cancel culture, realistically, cancels any room for growth, change, or awareness. It simply acts as a ticking time bomb, with one wrong move and your entire career, and life, is over. This is not to say that celebrities who make mistakes can have a pass, but rather to point out the difference between a mistake with the possibility of redemption, and a death sentence. Unfortunately, cancel culture is not confined to the matters that need attention the most. In fact, part of the reason why cancel culture remains controversial is due to its flexible nature, one that often goes down the path of toxicity, online bullying, and inciting violence. According to high school student Alex Miranda

“All too commonly… users feed off the negativity presented in these online boycotts to create a hate train of mass cyberbullying targeted at one specific individual. Death threats are oftentimes among the list of obscene proclamations directed toward canceled individuals, which elevate the resented climate to an even more alarming state and can lead to real-life detriments. From this perspective, social media users’ retaliation against those who are canceled is sometimes more offensive than the exposed behavior of the offender themselves.”

Naturally, those who have committed serious damage to society and/or the people around them are not the target group. The appeal and prevalence of cancel culture can be very easily understood; after all, criticizing others for their mistakes makes us feel better about ourselves, like we would never do the same thing. To the public, they reserve the right to collectively raise someone to the sky or figuratively bury them underground. It is much easier to “cancel” individuals for their actions than it is to reflect on the matter and react appropriately. When we cancel someone, we effectively reject to see any room for their growth or education and we collectively say that we will accept nothing less than perfect. The obvious flaw here is that none of us are perfect nor born omniscient. The whole purpose of navigating life is to learn from one’s experiences and grow as a person but cancel culture prohibits that by handing out virtual death sentences like candy.A major example is what happened with Taylor Swift, who was subjected to mass public shaming after Kim Kardashian released a clip on her Snapchat of West reciting song lyrics, leaving out the last part of the lyric where West says he made Swift famous. Without knowing the full story, millions of users decided to “cancel” Swift. In an interview with InStyle, Swift explains the detrimental effects ‘cancel culture’ left her with,

“I don’t think there are that many people who can actually understand what it’s like to have millions of people hate you very loudly […] When you say someone is canceled, it’s not a TV show. It’s a human being. You’re sending mass amounts of messaging to this person to either shut up, disappear, or it could also be perceived as, Kill yourself.”

More often than not, cancel culture directed towards such issues is becoming counter-productive and not creating social change. Aaron Rose, Corporate Diversity and Inclusion Consultant, explained to Britannica, “Mainstream internet activism is a lot of calling out and blaming and shaming. We have to be honest with ourselves about whether calling out and canceling gives us more than a short-term release of cathartic anger.”[1] In some situations, cancel culture backfires: It turns into a pity party over the actual offender. Kevin Hart, who was cancelled over a series of old homophobic tweetsof his resurfaced, stepped down from his gig to host the Oscars, but, according to Britannica, saw no decline in audience for his movies or stand-up comedy specials [2].

Lastly, cancel culture, in its current form, most likely leads to intolerance and systematically excludes anyone who disagrees with the “mainstream” views. Instead of engaging in the act of cancelling, we should resort to different ways and encourage people to share their stories, to feel included and supported. In some cases, people might refrain from doing so in fear of being cancelled, deeming the entire point null.

It remains crucially important for the element of accountability to be present. However, alongside accountability is critical thinking. This is in no way saying that individuals should not be held accountable for their actions; on the contrary, accountability should be as strong as ever. The tolerance paradox states that in a completely tolerant society, intolerance cannot be tolerated and that is where accountability comes in. A healthy society cannot function without accountability, and neither can it function with a cancel culture that is reductive and restrictive. 

[1] https://www.procon.org/headlines/is-cancel-culture-or-callout-culture-good-for-society/#18

[2]https://www.procon.org/headlines/is-cancel-culture-or-callout-culture-good-for-society/#18