Cancel Culture
I understand the need for consequences to actions. They serve to teach (hopefully) one to alter future action to avoid further censure. The more introspective offender will seek to change the foundations (values, thoughts and considerations) upon which the action was founded, so as to improve as a person, not just to avoid further censure. However, cancel culture does not provide adequate, meaningful, or useful censure that yields meaningful change. I see it as performative outrage to display being “onboard” with the movement of the moment. It amounts to little more than performative allyship and virtue signaling. Even the ones “paying” the price, don’t ultimately have to do more than provide a performative display of mea culpa and “I’m sorry”. Honestly, how many times does one encounter supreme ass showing to have it followed up with something like this:
“In retrospect, I can see why someone might find the image hurtful, and I regret this attempt at humor that clearly failed. It was not my intent to hurt or be offensive, and if anyone is offended by this picture I apologize.”
Honestly, if a person didn’t agree with something, if it didn’t make a difference at the time the individual was erring, what’s the point in offering something to superficially, transparently lazy? This particular statement was released by one of the three professors placed on leave in Alabama for pictures of them holding and wearing racist symbols at some gathering in 2014. Racism is racism, no matter what year it occurred in! There’s nothing humorous about it! It should never be made a joke of!
Okay, I get it… these morons could be clueless white supremacists. Or unrepentant and gleeful closet white supremacists, which would make the “apology” all the more damning. In relating this to cancel culture, I have to ask, are these individuals actually sorry? Is this performative nonsense? Are the offenders trying to prevent, or mitigate, the degree to which they might pay for their actions?
Similarly, it is de rigueur for companies to cancel contracts, fire individuals and otherwise distance themselves from offenders, especially when those offenses end up splattered messily across the headlines. But is the ‘canceling’ of these unsavory individuals really making them pay anything of substantive value? I would say no. Additionally, what does it say about the companies severing relationships with these individuals? I personally question their personal investment in equity and equality. They’re covering their financial backsides and polishing their public images.
There are numerous political figures, two currently in government offices, whose censure has brought them celebrity. They have capitalized on their victimized status and become even more effective catalysts in hardlining and entrenching the polarization in this society. They have become “proof” of “good” people (cough, gag) being punished for “mistakes” they made in the past. And not drawing sides or elevating anybody, I think its fair that Neera Tanden should receive equal censure for her historically inflammatory comments every bit as much as Marjorie Taylor Greene. Tanden’s lack of confirmation has been presented as a loss, as bias at work, rather than an equivalence to Greene’s loss of committee positions and other censure. Do I believe an apology from Tanden would likely be more sincere than one from Greene? Probably. Even then, she isn’t going to pay for anything that might have caused offense. She will still receive a position in the Biden government.
Actors and other public figures have received cancelation as well. Whether it’s Gina Carano for her tweets, or Hollywood execs and actors, I wonder to what degree these individuals actually pay for their crimes? Yes, Harvey Weinstein got 23 years in prison. Bill Cosby got 10 years. However, Kevin Spacey paid nothing. Sure, he was charged and all that, but it got dropped. Has he lost his Hollywood cache? Yes. Permanently? Who can say? Gina Carano, however, has become another poster child for the right. Being a Republican and spouting tow-the-line BS is likened to how Jews were treated during the Holocaust? Give me a fucking break…
Even Amy Cooper got it easy. Sure, she lost her job and still holds pariah-ish status, but what does it -actually- mean? Did she actually stir meaningful indignation and consciousness, meaningful enough to motivate change that doesn’t merely discourage behavior like hers, but eliminates it altogether? I will say no.
Someone close to me made the following observation today:
I think a lot lately about the reactionarily labelled “cancel culture”, and how there doesn’t seem to be much room for intellectual inquiry or dissent if one considers themselves “progressive”.
There’s so much in American society that has slammed hard to the black-and-white extremes.
If we’re collectively looking for progress (and yes, that might actually equal a small number of people in reality), does cancellation hinder that goal? It’s a shiny distraction from taking action. It’s virtue signaling… well, isn’t it?
If you can dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullshit…
I believe the headway made by those deeply and honestly invested in change for the better of all, is hijacked and derailed by those who aren’t actually invested. They are invested only to the point of signaling their virtue and making a lot of noise. It’s insincere. It’s lazy. It’s useless.
“Cancel Culture” is reactionary and performative. It is about self-interest and self-indulgence rather than invested, meaningful social action. It will be until the noise makers shut their collective noise and invest their time and energy where it matters most: in places and with people who are silently and tirelessly applying themselves to change the foundation of things. They’ve been around for years. Their voices and bodies have been collectively invested for years, decades even. Their virtue is action. They don’t need your signals or your virtue. They need your blood, sweat and tears right alongside their own, for good, forever.
