Cancel culture, also calledcall-out culture, is a cultural phenomenon in which people criticize an individual thought to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner, and call (typically oversocial media) for the target to beostracized,boycotted,shunned orfired.[1][2][3][4] This shunning may extend to social or professional circles—whether on social media or in person—with most high-profile incidents involvingcelebrities.[5] Those subject are said to have been "canceled".[6][7][a] While the careers of some public figures have been impacted by boycotts—widely described as "cancellation"—others who complained of cancellation successfully continued their careers.[8][9]
The term "cancel culture" came into circulation in 2018 and has mostly negative connotations.[7] Some critics argue that cancel culture has achilling effect on public discourse, that it is unproductive, that it does not bring realsocial change, that it causesintolerance, or that it amounts tocyberbullying.[10][11] Others argue that the term is used to attack efforts to promoteaccountability or give disenfranchised people a voice, and to attack language that is itselffree speech. Still others question whether cancel culture is an actual phenomenon,[12] arguing that boycotting existed long before the origin of the term "cancel culture".[11][13][14]
The 1981Chic albumTake It Off includes the song "Your Love Is Cancelled", which compares a breakup to thecancellation of TV shows. The song was written byNile Rodgers following a bad date Rodgers had with a woman who expected him to misuse his celebrity status on her behalf. "Your Love Is Cancelled" inspired screenwriterBarry Michael Cooper to include a reference to a woman being canceled in the 1991 filmNew Jack City.[15] This usage introduced the term toAfrican-American Vernacular English, where it became more common.[16]
By 2015, the concept of canceling had become widespread onBlack Twitter to refer to a personal decision, sometimes seriously and sometimes in jest, to stop supporting a person or work.[15][17][18] According to Jonah Engel Bromwich ofThe New York Times, this usage of the word "cancellation" indicates "totaldisinvestment in something (anything)".[3][19] After numerous cases ofonline shaming gained wide notoriety, the use of the term "cancellation" increased to describe a widespread, outraged, online response to a single provocative statement, against a single target.[20] Over time, as isolated instances of cancellation became more frequent and themob mentality more apparent, commentators began seeing a "culture" of outrage and cancellation.[21]
In October 2017, sexual assault allegations against film producerHarvey Weinstein led to the cancellation of his projects, his expulsion from theAcademy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and legal consequences, including a conviction on charges of rape and sexual assault. These events contributed to the rise of the#MeToo movement, where individuals shared their own allegations of sexual assault, leading to the cancellation of the careers of those accused.[22] In November 2017, comedianLouis C.K. admitted to sexual misconduct allegations and, as a result, his shows were canceled, distribution deals were terminated, and he was dropped by his agency and management. After a period away from show business, Louis C.K. returned to work in 2018 and won a Grammy award in 2022. However, many people in the entertainment industry said that it was inappropriate to support his career or award him a Grammy due to his past misconduct.[23][24]
Conversations about "cancel culture" increased in late 2019.[26][27] In the 2020s, the phrase became a shorthandnom de guerre employed by spectators to refer to what they perceived to be disproportionate reactions topolitically incorrect speech.[28] In 2020, Ligaya Mishan wrote inThe New York Times: "The term is shambolically applied to incidents both online and off that range from vigilante justice to hostile debate to stalking, intimidation and harassment. ... Those who embrace the idea (if not the precise language) of canceling seek more than pat apologies and retractions, although it's not always clear whether the goal is to right a specific wrong or redress a larger imbalance of power."[29][30] "Call-out culture" has been in use as part of the #MeToo movement.[31] The #MeToo movement encouraged women and men to call out their abusers on a forum where the accusations would be heard, especially against very powerful individuals.[11]
An article written byPippa Norris, a professor at Harvard University, states that the controversies surrounding cancel culture are between those who argue it gives a voice to those in marginalized communities and those who argue that cancel culture is dangerous because it prevents free speech and/or the opportunity for open debate. Norris emphasizes the role of social media in contributing to the rise of cancel culture.[32] Additionally, online communications studies have demonstrated the intensification of cultural wars through activists that are connected through digital and social networking sites.[33] Norris also mentions that thespiral of silence theory may contribute to why people are hesitant to voice their minority views on social media sites and fear that their views and opinions, specifically political opinions, will be chastised because their views violate the majority group's norms and understanding.[34]
In the bookThe Coddling of the American Mind (2018), social psychologistJonathan Haidt andGreg Lukianoff, president of theFoundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argue that call-out culture arises on college campuses from what they term "safetyism"—a moral culture in which people are unwilling to make tradeoffs demanded by the practical or moral concerns of others.[35][36][37]Keith Hampton, professor of media studies atMichigan State University, contends that the practice contributes topolitical polarization in the United States but does not lead to changes in opinion.[38] Cancel culture has been described by media studies scholar Eve Ng as "a collective of typically marginalized voices 'calling out' and emphatically expressing their censure of a powerful figure".[39] Cultural studies scholarFrances E. Lee states that call-out culture leads to self-policing of "wrong, oppressive, or inappropriate" opinions.[40][41] According toLisa Nakamura,University of Michigan professor ofmedia studies, canceling someone is a form of "cultural boycott" and cancel culture is the "ultimate expression of agency", which is "born of a desire for control [as] people have limited power over what is presented to them on social media" and a need for "accountability which is not centralized".[3][42][43]
Some academics have proposed alternatives and improvements to cancel culture. Clinical counsellor Anna Richards, who specializes in conflict mediation, says that "learning to analyze our own motivations when offering criticism" helps call-out culture work productively.[44] ProfessorJoshua Knobe, of the Philosophy Department atYale, contends that public denunciation is not effective, and that society is too quick to pass judgement against those they view as public offenders orpersonae non gratae. Knobe says that these actions have the opposite effect on individuals, and that it is best to bring attention to the positive actions in which most of society participates.[45] Former U.S. Secretary of LaborEugene Scalia wrote in a 2021Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy article that cancel culture is a form of free speech, and is therefore protected under theFirst Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. According to Scalia, cancel culture can interfere with theright to counsel, since some lawyers would not be willing to risk their personal and professional reputation on controversial topics.[46] In 2023,American conservatives andanti-trans activists engaged in aboycott of Bud Light over its hiring of transgenderTikTok personalityDylan Mulvaney.[47] The incident is seen an example of cancel culture andconsumer backlash. TheHarvard Business Review cited the incident as an example of an attempt to "resonate with younger, more socially-conscious audiences", but that it "generated downstream adjustments from retailers and distributors" that negatively hurt the product's performance. It highlighted the incident as making consumer brand marketing departments fearful of taking a stand on social issues.[48][49]
Ng defines cancel culture as "the withdrawal of any kind of support (viewership, social media follows, purchases of products endorsed by the person, etc.) for those who are assessed to have said or done something unacceptable or highly problematic, generally from a social justice perspective especially alert to sexism,heterosexism,homophobia, racism, bullying, and related issues."[50] There are different perspectives on the morality of cancellations. On the one hand, there is the view that cancel culture imposes punishments that are not proportional to the offenses or alleged offenses.[51] This is closely related toJohn Stuart Mill's criticism of public shaming; he argued inOn Liberty that society "practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."[52]Martha Nussbaum similarly says that cancel culture represents the "justice of the mob", but this alleged justice is not "deliberative, impartial or neutral."[53] On the other hand, there are those who defend the value of shaming as constructive, if done right; people who defend this view maintain that cancel culture often shames people counter-productively but that it can be tweaked or altered in order to be a valuable tool for people's improvement.[54] For instance, holding people accountable for things that they have done wrong can be a powerful way of correcting bad behavior, but it has to be paired with a belief in the possibility of redemption.[55] People who take this approach often agree withPlato that shame is an important feeling that can lead to moral improvements.[56] Everyone in this debate agrees that it is important to avoid what Nussbaum calls a "spoiled identity": to have a spoiled identity is to have the public image of someone who is irredeemable and unwelcome in a community.[57]
The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is used in debates on free speech and censorship.[28][58]
In a speech at theObama Foundation's annual summit in 2020, former U.S. PresidentBarack Obama criticized the role of "call-out culture" and "wokeness" among young activists on social media.[59][60] U.S. PresidentDonald Trump criticized "cancel culture" in a speech in July 2020, comparing it tototalitarianism and saying that it is a political weapon used to punish and shame dissenters by driving them from their jobs and demanding submission. He was subsequently criticized as being hypocritical for having attempted to cancel a number of people and companies in the past himself.[61] Trump made similar claims during the2020 Republican National Convention when he stated that the goal of cancel culture is to make decent Americans live in fear of being fired, expelled, shamed, humiliated, and driven from society.[34]
Pope Francis said that cancel culture is "a form of ideological colonization, one that leaves no room for freedom of expression", saying that it "ends up cancelling all sense of identity".[62][63][64]Patrisse Khan-Cullors, the co-founder of theBlack Lives Matter movement, states that social activism does not just involve going online or going to a protest to call someone out, but is work entailing strategy sessions, meetings, and getting petitions signed.[11] British prime ministerRishi Sunak included cancel culture, where one group "are trying to impose their views on the rest of us", among the contemporary dangers of the modern world.[65]
PhilosopherSlavoj Žižek states that "cancel culture, with its implicit paranoia, is a desperate and obviously self-defeating attempt to compensate for the very real violence and intolerance that sexual minorities have long suffered. But it is a retreat into a cultural fortress, a pseudo-'safe space' whose discursive fanaticism merely strengthens the majority's resistance to it."[66]Lisa Nakamura, a professor at theUniversity of Michigan, describes cancel culture as "a cultural boycott" and says it provides a culture of accountability.[3]Meredith Clark, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, states that cancel culture gives power to disenfranchised voices.[11] Osita Nwanevu, a staff writer forThe New Republic, states that people are threatened by cancel culture because it is a new group of young progressives, minorities, and women who have "obtained a seat at the table" and are debating matters of justice and etiquette.[67]
Dalvin Brown, writing inUSA Today, has described an open letter signed by 153 public figures and published inHarper's Magazine as marking a "high point" in the debate on the topic.[28] The letter set out arguments against "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty".[68][69][70] A response letter, "A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate", was signed by over 160 people in academia and media. It criticized theHarper's letter as a plea to end cancel culture by successful professionals with large platforms who wanted to exclude others who have been "canceled for generations". The writers ultimately stated that theHarper's letter was intended to further silence already marginalized people. They wrote: "It reads as a caustic reaction to a diversifying industry—one that's starting to challenge diversifying norms that have protected bigotry."[71][72]
A number of professors, politicians, journalists,[73][74][75] and activists have questioned the validity of cancel culture as an actual phenomenon.[9] Connor Garel, writing forVice, states that cancel culture "rarely has any tangible or meaningful effect on the lives and comfortability of the cancelled".[8] Danielle Kurtzleben, a political reporter forNPR, wrote in 2021 that overuse of the phrase "cancel culture" in American politics, particularly by Republicans, has made it "arguably background noise". Per Kurtzleben and others, the term has undergonesemantic bleaching to lose its original meaning.[76]
HistorianC. J. Coventry argues that the term is incorrectly applied, and that the label has been used to avoid accountability for historical instances of injustice.[77][b] Another historian,David Olusoga, made a similar argument, and argued that the phenomenon of cancellation is not limited to the left.[14][c] Indigenous governance professor and activistPamela Palmater writes inMaclean's magazine that "cancel culture is thedog whistle term used by those in power who don't want to be held accountable for their words and actions—often related to racism, misogyny, homophobia or the abuse and exploitation of others."[13]
Sarah Manavis wrote for theNew Statesman magazine that while free speech advocates are more likely to make accusations ofcancel culture, criticism is part of free speech and rarely results in consequences for those in power who are criticized. She argues that social media is an extension and reincarnation of a longer tradition of expression in a liberal society, "a new space for historical power structures to be solidified" and that online criticism by people who do not hold actual power in society tends not to affect existing power structures. She adds that most prominent people who criticized public opinion as canceling still have highly profitable businesses.[12]
Some media commentators includingLeVar Burton andSunny Hostin have stated that "cancel culture" should be renamed "consequence culture".[78] The terms have different connotations: "cancel culture" focusing on the effect whereby discussion is limited by a desire to maintain one certain viewpoint, whereas "consequence culture" focuses on the idea that those who write or publish opinions or make statements should bear some responsibility for the effects of these on people.[79]
A survey conducted in September 2020 on 10,000 Americans byPew Research Center asked a series of different questions in regard to cancel culture, specifically on who has heard of the term cancel culture and how Americans define cancel culture.[80] At that time, 44% of Americans said that they have at least heard a fair amount about the new phrase, while 22% have heard a great deal and 32% said they have heard nothing at all.[80] 43% Americans aged 18–29 have heard a great deal about cancel culture, compared to only 12% of Americans over the age of 65 who say they have heard a great deal.[80] Additionally, within that same study, the 44% of Americans who had heard a great deal about cancel culture, were then asked how they defined cancel culture. 49% of those Americans state that it describes actions people take to hold others accountable, 14% describe cancel culture as censorship of speech or history, and 12% define it as mean-spirited actions taken to cause others harm.[80] It was found that men were more likely to have heard or know of cancel culture, and that those who identify with theDemocratic Party (46%) are no more likely to know the term than those in theRepublican Party (44%).[80]
A poll of American registered voters conducted byMorning Consult in July 2020 showed that cancel culture, defined as "the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive", was common: 40% of respondents said they had withdrawn support from public figures and companies, including on social media, because they had done or said something considered objectionable or offensive, with 8% having engaged in this often. Behavior differed according to age, with a majority (55%) of voters 18 to 34 years old saying they have taken part in cancel culture, while only about a third (32%) of voters over 65 said they had joined a social media pile-on.[81] Attitude towards the practice was mixed, with 44% of respondents saying they disapproved of cancel culture, 32% who approved, and 24% who did not know or had no opinion. Furthermore, 46% believed cancel culture had gone too far, with only 10% thinking it had not gone far enough. Additionally, 53% believed that people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, such as those that may be construed as deeply offensive to other people.[82]
A March 2021 poll byHarvard University'sCenter for American Political Studies andthe Harris Poll found that 64% of respondents viewed "a growing cancel culture" as a threat to their freedom, while the other 36% did not. 36% of respondents said that cancel culture is a big problem, 32% called it a moderate problem, 20% called it a small problem, and 13% said it is not a problem. 54% said they were concerned that if they expressed their opinions online, they would be banned or fired, while the other 46% said they were not concerned.[83] A November 2021Hill/HarrisX poll found that 71% of registered voters strongly or somewhat felt that cancel culture went too far, with similar numbers of Republicans (76%), Democrats (70%), and independents (68%) saying so.[84] The same poll found that 69% of registered voters felt that cancel culture unfairly punishes people for their past actions or statements, compared to 31% who said it did not. Republicans were more likely to agree with the statement (79%), compared to Democrats (65%) and independents (64%).[85]
In a January 2022Knight-Ipsos study involving 4,000 participants, most Americans surveyed said that some speech should be prohibited. Specifically, they stated that "a variety of private and public institutions should prohibit racist speech". However, most also noted that these same institutions should not ban political views that are offensive.[86] A March 2022New York Times/Siena College survey of 1,000 Americans found that 84 percent of adults said it is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism. The survey also found that 46 percent of respondents said they felt less free to talk about politics compared to a decade ago, and that only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely.[87][88][89][90][91]
Activists on the right have also attempted to and sometimes succeeded in canceling various people.
Historian Nicole Hemmer finds historical "cancel culture" on the right before the term was coined, in various movements.McCarthyism and theLavender Scare of the 1940s and 1950s aimed to get people suspected ofcommunist sympathies or homosexuality fired from their government or private-sector jobs, including the entertainment industry through theHollywood blacklist. TheSave Our Children campaign in the late 1970s was a movement to legalize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation legal, and ban gay and lesbian people from school employment. Conservatives angry at various comments were able to secure the cancellation ofBill Mahr's showPolitically Incorrect, and the resignation ofVan Jones andShirley Sherrod from theObama Administration. Attempts to banLGBTQ-related books (e.g.Heather Has Two Mommies,And Tango Makes Three) in the 1990s and 2000s have continued in the 2020s with groups likeMoms for Liberty.[92]
The right has also been criticized for supporting cancel culture in regards to Israel and Palestine. For example, during theGaza war, Republicans held Congress hearings in which they accused university leaders of not doing enough to silence what they perceived as antisemitic speech on campus.[93] In another example,New York University withheld the diploma of graduating senior Logan Rozos, in retaliation for his criticism of US support for thegenocide in Gaza during a graduation speech.[94][95] Cancel culture directed at pro-Palestine activists, also known as thePalestine exception to free speech, is engaged in by some activists who present themselves as defenders of free speech.[96] Other critics of cancel culture have also supportedbook bans in school and public libraries or censorship of school curriculums.[97]
In the aftermath of theassassination of Charlie Kirk, some conservatives who had previously criticized cancel culture pushed for the firing of people who criticized Kirk after his death.[98][99][100] Vice PresidentJD Vance called on Americans to report those allegedly celebrating Kirk's killing to their employers and promised to use the federal government to investigate and punish liberal organizations and donors. Adam Goldstein of theFoundation for Individual Rights and Expression described the shift as a form of right-wing cancel culture, noting that people were being targeted for simply quoting Kirk or failing to mourn his passing adequately, comparing government involvement to McCarthyism.[101]The New York Times described the campaign as morphing into "a conservative version of the cancel culture that only a few years ago was wielded by the American left",[102] and evidence of the rise of a "woke right".[103] Some conservative voices also objected to the Trump administration's efforts to police speech surrounding Kirk's death, withThe Wall Street Journal running an editorial saying: "The squeeze on Disney looks to be a case of cancel culture on the right."[100][104]
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
