communication

Sample Response Two (on a similar controversy)

The Goal of Cancel Culture

       In the year 2020, “cancel culture” does not need an introduction. With movie stars, directors, musicians, comedians, athletes and historical figures all facing intense scrutiny over past and present misconduct, it has become a common occurrence to watch some of your favorite celebrities face backlash. But the large scale ostracizing of public figures begs the question: what is the point of it all? Many authors see cancel culture as a useful tool, but there is disagreement about what direction it should take. For Shamira Ibrahim, cancel culture is a way for everyday people and their communities to stand up for their values by weaponizing their collective weight as audience members. Dr. Grant Hillary Brenner advocates the removal of harmful objects, but stresses that it must be part of a more long term process that involves changing the culture. Tovia Smith also emphasizes the need for a process-based approach to cancel culture, but advocates a path to redemption rather than permanent cancelling. These authors agree that there are cultural problems centered on powerful individuals that need to be addressed, but promote starkly different visions for how to address those issues.

       Out of all the authors provided, Shamira Ibrahim is the most vocal in her support for the power of cancel culture in her article, “In Defense of Cancel Culture.” The article begins with the story of a comedian facing backlash after posting her stereotype-filled overreaction to Sikh men boarding a plane. Ibrahim then explains that the reason for the backlash comes from the fact that the comedian’s success is due in large part to the support of communities that tend to be more progressive, and therefore maintaining one’s status in such a position means keeping in line with that community’s values. The ability to police popular figures’ actions is therefore "limited to the collective power their audience can muster, which is why people like Donald Trump are immune to cancelling" (Ibrahim). This view of cancel culture as a power calculus is where the other two authors disagree with her the most, with the other two claiming examples like Harvey Weinstein and the Berlin Wall as instances of justice overcoming institutional power. Ibrahim goes on to cite another author to say that "the pushback provided by cancel culture is what keeps celebrities accountable for actions they would otherwise continue doing if the response was not as severe" (Ibrahim). She gives Kevin Hart’s deplatforming from the Oscars over older offensive jokes as an example of communities using their power to push back against an environment that would otherwise forget about the incident. In this way, Ibrahim ultimately sees cancel culture as good in and of itself, because it provides ordinary people the opportunity to exert control over popular culture, whereas the other two authors see it only as a first step. Cancel culture is the goal, rather than the tool for achieving something else.

       Dr. Grant Hillary Brenner also agrees that cancel culture should have the power to cancel things, but he argues in Psychology Today that it should be the first step in a longer process and uses psychology to back up his claims. While the other two authors use more objective instances of harm like sexual assault or displays of prejudice, Brenner uses the polarizing example of Confederate statues to argue his point about how cancel culture should work. He uses the analogy that people are like tents, with the individual at the center identifying with the canvas that makes up the outside of the tent, which represents the culture. This is an important distinction because when two “tents” intersect at a point like Confederate statues, repair for one side looks like destruction to the other. This is why Brenner argues that cancel culture must be a part of a process. It is not enough to simply cancel one thing after another because doing so misses the opportunity for us to grow as a society by contemplating why certain symbols are harmful and whether they should be contextualized or simply removed. And like Tovia Smith, Brenner sees the offender as part of the process. He says that "the only way to get the opponents of cancel culture to come around is to help them stop seeing themselves as part of a group and embrace the sort of individuality that doesn’t require clinging to controversial symbols" (Brenner). In this way, offenders are only part of the process in the sense that they are a hurdle to be overcome, whereas Tovia Smith sees them as being agents of both personal and collective growth. Ultimately, Brenner endorses what he calls “cancel and” culture, where people discuss who or what should be cancelled as individuals with the capacity to accept nuance.

       Similar to Dr. Brenner, Tovia Smith sees cancel culture as being a first step in the process of lasting change in her NPR article. She cites leading MeToo activist Tarana Burke to explain the obligations that offenders face. To her, it is not a matter of permanently cancelling them, but providing them a path to rehabilitate themselves, saying that "We can't move to a culture that eliminates sexual violence if we're not dealing with how harm-doers become harm-doers and how they undo that.” However, Smith shows how this is an imperfect process, and victims often speak out about what they see as a lack of sincerity. She goes on to cite a number of opinions on how to allow disgraced figures back into the spotlight, like making sincere, direct apologies to victims, or preventing them from being in positions of authority over the kinds of people they have victimized, and she concludes that "ultimately it must be some kind of calculus that takes into account the seriousness of the harm done, the commitment to change on the part of the offender, and the potential danger their reentry into society may cause" (Smith). She includes the people around the offenders like employers and coworkers as part of the problem as well, and explains how it is ultimately up to them to put in the work to create safe environments. Of all three authors, Smith focuses the most on how cancel culture places certain obligations on individuals who have been cancelled. Shamira Ibrahim talks about how offenders are forced to recant as a matter of accountability to their audiences, but to her this is done out of self-interest, which is fine so long as the community is being heard. Tovia Smith sees offenders as being required to meet certain criteria before being allowed back into society for moral reasons, both to eliminate the initial threat they posed but also to help create a culture where real consequences and accountability exist for people who abuse their power.

       All three authors agree that cancel culture serves some beneficial purpose in society, but they disagree about what specific direction it should take. Most of the disagreement comes down to the scope of cancel culture and the role offenders should take in it. Shamira Ibrahim believes cancel culture is a way of allowing less powerful groups to influence the broader culture and sees offenders as a central but less important aspect of it, but she constrains the effectiveness to a power calculation. Dr. Brenner thinks that cancel culture should be a process that involves everyone and allows room for discussion and nuance, and is optimistic that with the help of detractors large-scale change is possible. Tovia Smith argues that cancel culture succeeds or fails based on how well offenders can be rehabilitated, and the amount of change that is possible is determined by the cooperation of offenders and the people around them. In the end, all three want to hold powerful people accountable for wrongdoing and use cancel culture as a way of changing society for the better.