Argumentative Essay on Cancel Culture

Introduction

Based on alarmed media commentary, there are moments when it appears that a gathering of individuals united for a common cause is more unsettling than a solitary gunman. When this cause involves expressing grievances against someone’s problematic behavior and leads to actions like “calling out,” silencing, or boycotting, it is commonly referred to as “cancelling” someone. The inclination toward this behavior is known as “cancel culture.” Above all else, cancel culture is likely to be recognized as an inherent aspect of publicly lived life in this decade, marked by the downfall of influential Hollywood producers, comedians with racist and sexist tendencies, white supremacists, and oblivious corporations. Similar to cyberbullying, cancel culture has also affected individuals who unintentionally became its victims—ordinary citizens expressing unacceptable views in a public forum. The essay aims to illustrate the potentially harmful impact of the contemporary trend of calling out.

The Arguments Supporting Cancel Culture

Insights into cancel culture provided by the college were uncovered through research. The findings indicate that cancel culture predominantly manifests on social media platforms due to the progressive nature of contemporary social media. Respondents in the study concurred that cancel culture holds individuals accountable for their actions, influences behavior in modern society, and fosters self-reflection, addressing past wrongdoings. This, overall, is considered a significant advantage of cancel culture. While acknowledging its potential problems, messiness, and judgmental nature, it’s essential to recognize that cancel culture empowers minority groups that have traditionally lacked the opportunity to voice their concerns. It is crucial to comprehend that while cancel culture can be prone to misuse, it also has the potential to spotlight and rectify longstanding and profound injustices (Luu, 2019).

The Complications of Culture Culture

Many view the act of canceling as a relatively new and intimidating practice, particularly attributing it to the younger generation, to the extent that some are prepared to dismiss it entirely. The language used to describe groups of individuals gathered together or engaged in collective actions aimed at challenging the status quo often portrays them as irrational “mobs” or “rioters” with uncontrolled and invalid emotions. This characterization presents these communities as a faceless contagion that poses a threat to civilized, law-abiding society and the established governing system. While canceling someone, whether through public shaming, shunning, or criticism, is not a novel concept, its online manifestation is arguably different due to the speed and severity with which it can occur (Luu, 2019).

Cancel culture is, in one aspect, less severe than traditional acts of public shaming, primarily relying on linguistic and communicative means. On the other hand, it may appear more extreme because, unlike historical events of shaming, it is not bound by geographical limitations and can involve a large number of people, leading to an unrelenting personal attack. This can result in unintended repercussions. The loosely connected nature of social media, especially platforms like Twitter, facilitated by a network of weak ties, makes it easier for new, particularly negative information, such as rumors, criticisms, or even fake news, to rapidly spread. Unlike closely linked social circles where information eventually stops spreading after being shared by multiple individuals, the online environment lacks such constraints (Breakey, 2020).

The Limitations of Cancel Culture

The primary objective of this presentation is to underscore the adverse effects of cancel culture on social discourse and academic deliberation. Specifically, cancel culture frequently fosters a hostile environment that hinders the possibility of engaging in a meaningful discussion on controversial issues. Moreover, there is an issue with the distribution of social justice within cancel culture: persons lacking sufficient power or fame are more likely to experience serious consequences than those who are more prominent.

Additionally, the research shows how cancel culture contributes to ideological intolerance, subjective interpretations of humor, and heightened polarization in serious social questions. Thus, cancel culture can lead to such negative issues as disregard for intellectual development, the selective attention to certain controversies while disproportionately demonizing others of similar nature, and its tendency to achieve the unexpected effect (Breakey, 2020).

Conclusion

While some acknowledge its advantages, cancel culture remains predominantly viewed negatively by the general public. The primary concerns raised by people include the restrictions it imposes on free speech and the creation of a toxic discourse environment. Similar to the potential dangers of language and the destructive nature of crowd movements, cancel culture, particularly orchestrated by “internet mobs,” can be detrimental in inappropriate contexts. The future will unveil the efficacy of this recently acquired power, and rather than dismissing cancel culture as a misguided millennial invention, it is essential to recognize its enduring presence as a necessary aspect of our lives. Its impact can be both constructive and harmful, a duality that time will continue to reveal.

References

Breakey, H. (2020). Is cancel culture silencing open debate? There are risks to shutting down opinions we disagree with. TheConversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/is-cancel-culture-silencing-open-debate-there-are-risks-to-shutting-down-opinions-we-disagree-with-142377.

Luu, C. (2019). Cancel culture is chaotic good. JSTORE. Retrieved from  https://daily.jstor.org/cancel-culture-is-chaotic-good/