What Does it Mean to Be “Canceled?”

If you have been on social media in any capacity for the last two or three years, you’ve probably heard of someone being “canceled.” This could be a celebrity, influencer, comedian, author, or your everyday Karen. Social cancellation is nothing new: we’ve seen public humiliation in some capacity for as long as we’ve seen civilization. What makes this global phenomenon so different from previous social norms is that it happens almost entirely online. As online phenomenons often do, cancel culture has also infiltrated the American political scene. In order to decipher rhetoric from all sides of the debate surrounding cancel culture, we must first understand what it means to be “canceled.” Of the many definitions of being “canceled” that get thrown around online, they all surround the same debate: does calling-out equate to a rush to judgment or a genuine attempt to help foster understanding?

Cancellation is nothing short of public shaming, but this isn’t to say this canceling is evil by nature. Public shaming can be a means of fighting social injustices like racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. Previously, we have seen people publicly shamed by others who already have some sort of established relationship with the person being shamed. Cancellation takes this a step further and lets people with little to no knowledge of a situation hop onto a bandwagon of sorts, joining a group united by their disapproval of another’s actions. This allows for people to come together and urge accountability from the “canceled” target. As author Roxane Gay put it in an interview with Mother Jones, “When you make a mistake – and we all do, by the way – there should be consequences.” This, however, brings up some of the leading arguments surrounding cancel culture: how do we define a mistake worthy of public humiliation? This argument can be further broken down into a few different questions about the nature of cancel culture: Is calling someone out online productive behavior? Is it more important to preserve free speech or a comfortable environment online? Do those who call out others have agendas behind their actions?

Pre-social media, social norms were enforced by laws and rules, but also by socialization, which happened predominantly in-person. Now, social norms are influenced heavily by strangers online.

Social media platforms allow for a disconnect between a person’s actions and their humanity, allowing others to more easily jump to conclusions about the nature of their actions. The ability of anyone and everyone to have an online presence allows strangers to perceive one person as their collective enemy, thus forming a mob of sorts.

Before social media, societal normalities were constructed by higher-ups in government and large businesses/corporations. Now, norms are determined by whatever ideas achieve the most virality or backlash on social media. Importantly, there still exist those higher-ups who benefit from this virtual call-to-arms, especially when we talk about the political side of canceling others. Being “canceled” can be a political move from either side of any debate rather than a truly justified way of holding someone accountable. In this way, canceling someone would happen because one side of a debate dislikes the ideas or values held by someone on the opposite side. So, they cancel them for holding a different opinion rather than as a means of holding them accountable. We have seen this happen in politics where people are ostracized and cast out of a party for holding an opinion that diverges from the typical opinion of other party members. The distinction here is if someone’s actions or opinions are simply different, or if they’re legitimately causing harm. The debate on whether or not canceling someone is ever justified plays into this too.

According to Pew Research studies, around 58% of US adults say that, in general, calling out others via social media is more likely to hold people accountable for their actions, while 38% say it is more likely to punish undeserving people. All this being said, the term is “cancel culture”, meaning that this online phenomenon has indeed spilled over into society as a whole. The “culture” behind canceling originated in the same way it is used today: as a way to seek justice, primarily by creators of color online on apps like TikTok. Canceling online allows for anyone to point out social injustices at play, whether that be in hateful comments from celebrities or unfair terms and conditions for creators on social media apps.

Canceling has become essentially another form of boycott which has been used in the past to foster greater respect and understanding for others online. The power to establish social norms now belongs to the masses. Importantly, canceling can be used against people who aren’t in positions of influence just as well as it can be used against our favorite celebrities. This idea is frightening to some, leading to a wildly disproportionate reaction from those in politics. Cancellation has started an online culture war in which people’s fear of repercussions drives their behavior. In scenarios where people have unjustly been fired for very minor transgressions due to “cancel culture”, we see how individuals can jump to conclusions that cause serious harm. So, do the benefits of accountability outweigh the cons? Additionally, how do we see this debate play out in the political sphere? 66

There is obvious merit behind both sides of the politicized arguments surrounding cancel culture. “Cancellation” can act as a well-timed attack on an opposing person’s character when coming from a political standpoint. There are a plethora of perspectives surrounding “cancel culture:” those who believe cancel culture creates accountability, those who believe cancel culture is an unjust system, and some who believe cancel culture simply doesn’t exist. According to Pew Research, around 14% of American adults who had heard about cancel culture described it as a form of censorship. Additionally, around 12% of the same group believed cancel culture to be a mean-spirited attack used to harm others online. These views typically are held by Conservative Republicans, the same ideological and political group typically seen discussing the dangers of cancel culture for everyone, not just celebrities and politicians. Notably, 36% of Conservative Republicans familiar with the term “cancel culture” describe it as an action that holds people accountable. This figure compares with 51% of Moderate or Liberal Republicans, 54% Conservative or Moderate Democrats, and 59% Liberal Democrats who responded similarly. Conservative Republicans were also more likely than other political/ideological groups to believe that cancel culture allows people to attack anyone they disagree with (15%). Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that, in general, calling people out via social media for posting harmful or offensive content holds them accountable (75% vs. 39%).

In contrast, 56% of Republicans –compared to just 22% of Democrats –believe this type of action generally targets and punishes people who don’t deserve it. About 17% of Americans who say that calling out others on social media holds people accountable say it can be a teaching moment that helps people learn from their mistakes and do better in the future. Along with those who say calling out others unjustly punishes them, about the same percentage (18%) say the injustice comes from people not taking the context of or intentions behind a person’s post into account before confronting that person. Another debate online regarding this is whether or not people should be punished for their actions even if they had pure intentions. Many say that, no matter a person’s intentions, if their actions cause harm, they should have to take accountability.

Cancel culture is important because it is both novel and effective. However, it can be used to hurt both sides of any debate. As Derek Robertson of Politico puts it, “and like any tool with its combination of newness and potency, this phenomenon poses a potential danger to both weakened, fading power structures and, in the potential for backlash, to those who might supplant or transform it.” It’s not wrong to believe that cancel culture can be dangerous, because there have been examples of times when it has been, specifically when looking at mental health. However, unlike other standard forms of accountability which have previously been enacted in and by society, “cancellation” does not only stem from changing norms both social and cultural: it creates them. 67

We must therefore cancel with the intent to further others’ understanding so that we create the norms we wish to see in society. ***