Examining Cancel Culture

by: McKenzie Culliver

Cancel culture has been the demise of more than a few celebrity careers. The wave of “#canceling” celebrities, politicians, and influencers took off in 2017, and immediately sparked heated discussions on its implications and role in society.

Some say cancel culture is the younger generation’s way of enforcing or solidifying the social change they fought to create. Social movements like #BlackLivesMatter, #TimesUp, #StopAsianHate, and the LGBTQ+ community have all brought about a more accepting society. To them, cancel culture is a way of holding people with influence accountable when they try to pull us back into a lesser society.

Influencers like Sienna Mae Gomez give reason to this first theory of cancel culture. Gomez was a famous TikToker with millions of followers until video footage emerged that showed her sexually assaulting fellow TikToker Jack Wright at a party. After others in attendance corroborated this event, Gomez faced a whirl of backlash—she was, effectively, canceled. She lost millions of followers on TikTok, was cut from the new Netflix show Hype House, and hundreds signed petitions to get her arrested.

Others argue that cancel culture is driven by boredom and negativity, and invents problems where none exist. Its proponents maliciously dig into someone’s past, searching for a comment, post, or video that could destroy his career, all so they can claim to stand for something. They disregard the fact that people are not the same at fourteen as they are at forty. Critics also question its end game. What purpose does it serve? What comes after being canceled? Where does redemption come into play?

Kevin Hart is an example that lends credence to this perspective. In 2019, Hart was set to host the Oscars, but was asked to step down when an old tweet that contained a homophobic joke resurfaced. However, this was not the first, but the third time Hart had been canceled for this tweet, and he had apologized for it twice before. This is where people call into question the logic and purpose of cancel culture. If cancel culture is about forcing people to take responsibility for their actions and protecting oppressed communities, how does a third cancellation for the same offense fulfill this purpose? Furthermore, who exactly are we holding accountable? Hart’s younger self?

Tyler the Creator found himself in a similar situation in 2016; he was publicly vilified and banned from the UK for three to five years because of lyrics he wrote when he was eighteen years old. Once again, we see an artist being canceled for something they no longer represent. Tyler the Creator is not the same person he was when he was a teenager. Moreover, what he said was not racist, sexist, or homophobic; it was arguably completely unoffensive. In situations like these, people are led to ask, who benefited from these celebrities being canceled? And who did we protect or defend in the process?

So, is cancel culture an effective tool and are we using it correctly? Do its pros outweigh its cons? The answer may be somewhere in the middle. While cancel culture can be a useful tool and a driving force behind social change, it is underdeveloped and in need of a more exclusive enforcing party. Not just anybody should be canceled, not just anybody should be canceling, and a redemption clause or an “after” should be established.