Understand the role of cancel culture.
Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›
It's Friday!
Today's email is canceled, like everything and everyone else this year (kidding). But cancel culture is having a moment in the press this week, and I think it's important to note the role it's played in the movement over the past few weeks – and how it mirrors social movements of the past.
There's been so many thoughtful responses to newsletters this week. I'll be writing a recap and answering some questions in tomorrow's newsletter, so don't forget to send in your thoughts by replying to this email. Separately, if you identify as non-white and have a story to share in an upcoming newsletter, send us a message.
And as always, you can make a one-time contribution on PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or contribute monthly on Patreon to help us grow.
Nicole
TAKE ACTION
1. Consider the steps you would take to hold a public figure accountable for a racist action. How would you gain their attention? How would you measure success?
2. Reflect: How have others held you accountable in the past? How would you prefer to be held accountable in the future? How would you want to be held accountable as a public figure?
GET EDUCATED
Trump said enough this week for a whole spin-off series of the Anti-Racism Daily, but one comment in particular stood out to me. It was when he addressed the nation on Fourth of July weekend about a "growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for". Was it COVID-19? Systemic racism? His consistent bans against immigration? The desecration of Native lands?
No. It was "cancel culture" (NPR).
There's been countless examples of people getting "cancelled" lately because of racist allegations, from racist white women caught on camera, to Youtube personalities, journalists and CEOs, and everyone in between (Fast Company). But cancel culture, or a public call for withdrawing from a public figure (or company) that's doing something harmful (usually via social media) isn't new. It was popularized in the mid 2010's by Black Twitter (Vox).
In a way, canceling someone is akin to a boycott; a public call-to-action not to participate with an individual. Anne Charity Hudley, the chair of linguistics of African America for the University of California Santa Barbara, reflected on this in a fantastic long-form article on cancel culture in Vox from 2019 (Vox). So from that perspective, cancel culture has even deeper roots. Hudley emphasizes that cancel culture is "a survival skill as old as the Southern black use of the boycott". We know that boycotts were not just a comprehensive part of the Civil Rights Movement (Anti-Racism Daily), but persist in other movements, too, including the #MeToo movement (Dictionary), the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in Palestine (Middle East Monitor) and the Delano grape strike (History). And since in today's time, cancel culture is usually fueled online, the boycott becomes actionable from anywhere – allowing a much wider audience to join in, and perhaps a more swift takedown.
Naturally, as tensions rose this past month, instances of canceling did too. In a way, it felt like the digital equivalent of the physical protests. Online canceling likely gained rapid attention for the simple fact that more people are at home and plugged into social media than ever before (Business Insider). Also, in an article for Blavity, writer Anjana Susarla emphasizes that these types of controversy are exactly what social media algorithms love, so they naturally gain traction and visibility (Blavity).
Over the past few years (and especially now), many people have said that cancel culture has "gone too far". In fact, last week an open letter signed by over 150 artists and intellectuals was circulated, warning that cancel culture is eliminating the opportunity for free speech and civil discourse (NYTimes). Last fall, former President Barack Obama encouraged people to get past the idea of always being "politically woke" and remember that all people have flaws (CNN). Another popular argument against cancel culture is around its perceived effectiveness. Although celebrities are often canceled for racist, sexist, ableist, etc. actions, they rarely experience significant setbacks in their careers a result (Vox). Blavity goes so far to say that "canceling is a privilege (among many others) of the rich."
“When they throw around terms like “cancel culture” to silence me instead of reckoning with the reasons I might find certain actions or jokes dehumanizing, I’m led to one conclusion: they’d prefer I was powerless against my own oppression”.
Sarah Hagi, writer for Time
Any tool can also be wielded as a weapon, though, and there's undoubtedly instances of cancel culture out there that don't create actionable change. Oftentimes, cancel culture becomes harmful when it's applied in horizontal power structures, against others that have more complex, intersectional identities, and ask more than the capacity of the individual or company to respond (Vox). It can be used to publicly shame someone or to act out some personal vendetta. Also, you could argue that some do it hoping to boost their followers and voice.
But personally, I always come back to the structural inequities that fostered the culture that we live in. It's easier for people in positions of power to discredit cancel culture, perhaps because they are worried about what they could lose (Time). An instance of cancel culture may seem "new," but it's more likely the culmination of calls for accountability that went left unheard – like by HR professionals who didn't properly address toxic work environments, a board of directors who looked the other way when a CEO repeatedly caused harm, or media platforms that give public figures more exposure despite recent harmful statements. To escalate recent conversations on racial discrimination in the workplace, brave people of color had to break NDAs, navigate unemployment, and carry the stress of 2020 while also holding these brave and difficult conversations. Not all instances of cancel culture are good, but the practice itself is sometimes the only way marginalized folk can ensure their voice won't get lost in a system that was designed to silence.
Remember – usually cancel culture creates consequences for people with incredible privilege and power when they wouldn't have received it otherwise. No only do we need to hear marginalized voices, we need to set better examples for how we actively dismantle white supremacy.
In a way, Trump is right. We do have a growing danger in America when it comes to cancel culture. But that's how our system operates at default: it cancels the culture of systemically marginalized communities and limits their right to be heard. Some argue Trump is leading that charge (Washington Post). We can't tip the scales too far in the opposite direction and lose sight of our goals. But we must be nuanced with how we brand cancel culture. Otherwise, we could discredit both this form of protest and the invaluable stories that need it to be heard.
“Holding someone accountable isn’t the same thing as “cancel culture.” There’s too many people out here who haven’t acknowledged their mistakes, apologized for them, nor have they gone on to make amends; that are using “cancel culture” to shield them from accountability—do better”.
Ashlee Marie Preston, media personality, activist and journalist, on Twitter.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Cancel culture is akin to a digital boycott of a person, usually a powerful public figure
Canceling someone is an attempt to hold them accountable
Although aspects of cancel culture are being used in harmful ways, the practice of accountability is necessary for creating change, and minimizing future harm
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza