On Wednesday, an open letter was published in Harper’s Magazine with more than 150 high-profile signatories, including JK Rowling and Margaret Atwood. The letter claimed ‘free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming constricted’, citing unnamed journalists, professors and editors who had been ‘investigated’ or ‘lost their jobs’ as a result of holding unpopular viewpoints as proof.
Almost as soon as it was published some of the signatories retracted their support, including Jennifer Finney Boylan who tweeted ‘I thought I was endorsing a well-meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming…..The consequences are mine to bear. I am so sorry’. But the damage had already been done. The letter prompted #CancelCulture to trend on twitter and furious debates on social and mainstream media ensued.
Coincidentally, the letter was published on the same day as Jodie Comer was ‘cancelled’on twitter, for allegedly dating a Trump supporting Republican, which was seen as being at odds with her previous allyship with the LGBTQ community. Incidentally, Comer has not confirmed who, or indeed if, she is dating and there has been speculation that her current boyfriend merely shares the same name with aforementioned Republican. The whole thing was incredibly silly and was held to be emblematic of [cancel culture](http://What Is Cancel Culture? And Who Has Been Cancelled Now?) by its’ critics.
Yes, the internet has issues with dogpiling, doxing and other forms of harassment, but to lump all of this under ‘Cancel Culture’ and blame it on an undefined group of ‘woke lefties’ wilfully misrepresents the issue.
I, on the other hand, am not at all sure ‘cancel culture’exists. Trolls exist. Online harassment exists. Call-out culture definitely exists. But ‘cancel culture’ seems like another nefarious attempt by powerful people to represent themselves as ‘the real victims’. I tweeted as much. The tweet has, at the time of writing, more than 17k combined likes and RTs, plus about 500 replies from furious people telling me cancel culture definitely is real and to shut my stupid, feminist, leftie mouth (that they don’t see the irony).
The problem is, no one can seem to define precisely what so-called ‘cancel culture’ is and neither has anyone put forward any kind of practical strategies to counteract it. A package put together by BBC Radio on the phenomenon gave widely disparate examples – an exchange featuring the N word being edited out of Fawlty Towers on streaming services (it had been removed from episodes on terrestrial television for some time anyway); food blogger and author Jack Monroe criticising the books of David Walliams for pandering to stereotypes about poor people and being widely agreed with; even the suicide of Caroline Flack, which happened after she was arrested for assaulting her boyfriend and lost her job presenting Love Island.
I spent most of Wednesday on social media trying to establish what people mean when they use the phrase ‘cancel culture’ and concluded it broadly falls into three categories:
- Pile-ons
A mass targeting of one individual or account, usually because an influencer or celebrity has publicly challenged them, or they have written or said something considered ‘problematic’.
Example: JK Rowling writing and sharing an essay on gender which propagated ideas considered transphobic and consequently receiving thousands of tweets telling her to ‘shut up’.
Whilst not, as Barak Obama pointed out in a now widely-shared Youtube clip, the ideal way to win hearts and minds, arguably this is a consequence of the very free speech the signatories to the Harpers letter are apparently so keen to protect. I have the right to make a controversial statement, just as each of the 3 billion internet users worldwide have the right to tell me they think I’m wrong.
Of course, if the pile-on escalates into racist, misogynistic, transphobic or homophobic abuse, threats or doxing that is something entirely different, but outside of that it’s incredibly tricky to police.
- Boycotting
A decision by an individual or group to withdraw their financial support or engagement from products, services or brands associated with employees or ambassadors considered problematic.
Example: Many people chose to boycott L’Oreal, after they fired model Munroe Bergdorf in 2017 for writing a controversial Facebook status about structural racism.
This is a long-established way to campaign and is typically very effective (this year, L’Oreal announced Bergdorf would sit on their diversity board and they would make a substantial donation to Black Pride as compensation for her treatment). What has changed, however, is that those who don’t have disposable income now have consumer power. Engagement, clicks and follows are the new currency. Therefore young people and marginalised groups can influence the cultural landscape in a way they haven’t traditionally been able to, resulting in a status-quo which is perceived ‘more radical’.
- Getting someone fired.
Social media users drawing a person’s online behaviour to the attention of their employers in the hope they will lose their job.
Example: Kevin Hart pulling out of hosting the Oscars after old, homophobic tweets of his resurfaced in 2019.
Here, we enter more nuanced territory. We’ve all made mistakes in the past because we were ill-informed, misled or just plain drunk. What matters is where we are now. Where a person has issued an authentic apology and demonstrated a change in attitude and behaviour, holding them accountable for things they tweeted a decade ago seems an impediment to allowing that person to evolve and grow.
It also depends on who it’s happening to. Kevin Hart is still very much making movies and has not in any meaningful way been ‘cancelled’. The internet is, however, full of stories of anonymous ‘regular Joes’ who claim to have lost their jobs as a result of expressing unfashionable views online. There’s little evidence for this, but supporters argue that’s because the individual has been left terrified of scrutiny. As a result, we don’t know what it is they allegedly said. The internet is a public forum and inciting hatred in such a space can get you arrested, whilst being racist, homophobic or sexist can constitute gross misconduct. It’s all very murky.
Ultimately, the Harpers letter read to me like a group of individuals who had been used to dominating public discourse and were now crying ‘free speech’ because being challenged en-masse had hurt their feelings. It’s difficult to take a person seriously who claims they are being ‘silenced’ in a column for a best selling newspaper, on a podcast which gets millions of hits, or to hundreds of thousands of online followers.
Cancel culture is being talked about as though it is a unified and deliberate ideology, orchestrated by those who want to crush freedom of speech. Yet, I cannot help but think this is taking two and two and making five. Yes, the internet has issues with dogpiling, doxing and other forms of harassment, but to lump all of this under ‘Cancel Culture’ and blame it on an undefined group of ‘woke lefties’ wilfully misrepresents the issue, doing nothing but cause more anger and division. Which, I think we can all agree, is the last thing the internet needs.
READ MORE: What Is Cancel Culture? And Who Has Been Cancelled Now?
READ MORE: [Is It Time To Cancel 'Cancel Culture'?](http://Is It Time To Cancel 'Cancel Culture'?)
READ MORE: Let's Wait For The Facts Before Cancelling Jodie Comer