A Conversation about Cancel Culture
by Hope Yehl
My roommates and I will often find ourselves in deep conversations that seem to come out of nowhere--what’s the meaning of life? What are the problems of our criminal justice system? Why does our university keep letting fraternities get away with partying during a pandemic? Recently, the conversation surrounded the topic of cancel culture. Individuals have been canceled for a variety of reasons: Matt Lauer for sexually harassing women, J.K. Rowling for posting multiple anti-trans tweets, Shane Dawson for creating racist YouTube content. This list is just a small example of the people who have been exposed for inappropriate and harmful behaviors.
Considering my roommates and I are all queer gen-Zers, I was a little bit surprised by the response they had to my question “What are your thoughts on cancel culture?” They both took a stance against cancel culture, which I normally associate with right-winged adults who claim that liberals are “too sensitive” and that they can’t say anything without offending someone. However, my roommates approached this discussion with a very nuanced and thoughtful perspective and in the end made many valid points.
One concern they expressed was how cancel culture does not address the root of the problem. They brought up the example of Mimi Groves, a teen from Leesburg, VA, who was exposed by a fellow student for saying the n-word by posting a video they had saved of Groves on social media. The consequences of this video included having her college acceptance revoked from the University of Tennessee and being harassed by others, especially on the internet. This example demonstrates the power that social media and cancel culture have not only to hold people accountable, but also implement major consequences. However, my roommates pointed out some issues with this situation.
My roommate, who is from Northern Virginia, explained how Mimi Groves was most likely not the only teen at that high school to use racist language. A New York Times article covering this story describes this high school in Loudoun County, Virginia as “an environment rife with racial insensitivity.” Mimi Groves was only one case of a much larger issue in this county and in the United States as a whole. This story did bring attention to this larger issue, however it did not fix it. Most of the energy was spent on reprimanding Groves, but what about the rest of the students who foster this toxic school environment? What about the societal factors that teach individuals to be racist at such a young age? What happens to people who are in positions of power who behave in the same way?
This brings us to the next critique my roommates brought up about cancel culture. Being canceled impacts different individuals unequally depending on the individual’s circumstances and privilege they hold. In an interview about cancel culture, Professor Loretta Ross from Smith College explained how the most vulnerable populations are impacted more than others. For example, recently the mother of the beloved Harry Potter series, J. K. Rowling, exposed her transphobic viewpoints via Twitter. Despite major backlash and critiques from fans, Rowling continued to defend herself. Although Rowling likely lost the respect and admiration of many fans, she still holds a very privileged position as the second highest paid author in the world. Should a random teenager from Northern Virginia receive more severe consequences than a wealthy celebrity author who has over 14 million Twitter followers?
Despite having many concerns with the realities of cancel culture, my roommates and I also acknowledged some of the positive aspects. First, people should be able to decide to stop supporting others, especially celebrities, when they say or do something harmful. Second, cancel culture provides an opportunity to take action and seek a form of justice when other systems fail you. Lastly, cancel culture is a way to hold other people accountable for their actions. Is there a way to keep these positive qualities of cancel culture while mitigating some of the negative consequences? Professor Ross provides a solution that she refers to as “call-in culture.” The goal of “calling in,” as an alternative to the calling out and canceling of others, creates space to have constructive conversations while still holding others accountable for their harmful behaviors. While these conversations may be more uncomfortable and not instantly satisfying, the effects may be more long-lasting and meaningful. As Professor Ross said in the interview, “Truth and reconciliation doesn't happen without justice and accountability.”
