https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/hchwal/philosophical_takes_on_cancel_culture/
created by princessofwherever on 20/06/2020 at 07:36 UTC*
263 upvotes, 17 top-level comments (showing 17)
I came across the journalist Elisabeth Bruenig's tweet:
"There's just something unsustainable about an environment that demands constant atonement but actively disdains the very idea of forgiveness"
It got me thinking about cancel culture, and the general culture of policing others for even minor perceived digressions. I think there's also a growing sense that any disagreement on a social, cultural or political idea can be used against you, where it begins acting as not a conversational starting point but some kind of reflection of your lack of inner purity. You, not the idea or the sentiment, is dismissed, because the idea is you, in some sense, or it's perceived to be. There are of course many religious analogies one could draw that are quite evident.
Of course many ideologies use silencing as an effective tool against dissent, but I'm wondering if there are any philosophical takes that would explain this cultural moment in terms of people's lack of agency and the internet's role in seeking, giving out or denying forgiveness. Equally interested in the methods people use online to signal their own 'purity'. I'm not sure, I'm thinking out loud, but if anyone has any reading recommendations that could touch on this topic, I'd be interested. I'm still trying to formulate my thoughts on this, so I am also thinking out loud here.
EDIT: Hey everyone, thanks so much for all the excellent and thoughtful suggestions! Found a few gems already, really appreciate it <3
Comment by -2W- at 20/06/2020 at 11:05 UTC
79 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This isn't a philosophical work per se, but Jon Ronson's book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" examines how public shaming has been changed in the age of social media. While public humiliation has fallen out of use as a legal punishment, it's become more and more powerful on social media, both because people's inner thoughts have become more public and because it's easier to fall into a hive mind mentality. Ronson's book doesn't exactly provide a solution (at least not one I found satisfying), but it's a valuable book to read if you're thinking about cancel culture as it is today.
"With social media, we’ve created a stage for constant artificial high drama. Every day a new person emerges as a magnificent hero or a sickening villain. It’s all very sweeping, and not the way we actually are as people."
Comment by Voltairinede at 20/06/2020 at 09:16 UTC
123 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Exiting the Vampire Castle by the late Mark Fisher is the obvious one.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/
Comment by [deleted] at 20/06/2020 at 11:28 UTC*
77 upvotes, 2 direct replies
In Discipline and Punish, Foucault talks about a sort of catharsis that societies get after "lashing out" at the scapegoat. This catharsis is such that it doesn't even matter if the person being punished is actually guilty or not; it's just about the collective effervescence that the mob gets from believing that justice has been served.
Comment by bobthebobbest at 20/06/2020 at 13:42 UTC*
26 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Sara Ahmed’s “Against Students”[1] is a good treatment of the sort of atmosphere in which these phrases might arise. I think it’s the best (meta-)piece I’ve read on the culture wars hysteria about “campus leftists.”
1: https://thenewinquiry.com/against-students/
Addendum: basically everything she writes is worth reading, whether one agrees with her or not.
Comment by Imperatum15 at 20/06/2020 at 08:27 UTC
35 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I'm not sure about any philosophical works on this specifically but there is the principle of charity[1] which several philosophers like Quine have written about. One could argue that in online discussions, especially in social media spaces like Twitter where one can only write so much in a tweet, the principle of charity is completely lacking. I think the philosophical question here should be "What attitude should we have towards those we disagree with?"
Should we have an attitude that judges the character of your interlocutor? What are the consequences of holding that attitude? Consider an example I've given before. Consider a woman who lives in a predominantly Christian town in say the 1950s. If this woman believes that abortion should be morally permissible, is it okay for the Christian townsfolk to accuse her of her being pro-choice *only because* she wants to murder babies? It doesn't seem helpful to convince her how she's wrong while also slighting her character or intentions behind her pro-choice belief. It seems more helpful to listen to her arguments and provide counterarguments.
Of course it does seem controversial to use the principle of charity against views that seem obviously racist like the views held by someone like Richard Spencer. When the views of someone like him are obviously abhorrent, it seems difficult to want give them attention and charitably understand their position. I believe this is where many people online are today. There might be a failure to understand that without a doubt, there are views people hold that are flat out immoral and wrong but there are also views on moral/political issues that do not appeal to say something like bigotry. There's now a question of "Should we charitably interpret all arguments?". If the answer is no then we are now tasked with discerning between which arguments deserve to be interpreted charitably and which don't. I do think there are arguments in favor of an affirmative answer to this question though.
Comment by StrangeGlaringEye at 20/06/2020 at 12:24 UTC*
22 upvotes, 1 direct replies
It always reminds me of Bernard Williams' tongue-in-cheek objection to utilitarianism. A perfect utilitarian society, he argues, does *anything* to increase our maximal happiness -- including, of course, minor productions of pain to ensure the greater good. In this sense, such a society is *duty-bound* to commit what he calls "preventive acts". For example, the murder of would-be serial killers.
He argues that these preventive acts would pile up as the society becomes ever more desperate to ensure maximal happiness, and, ironically, it would result in a long term amount of general un-happiness. His critique is that utilitarianism essentially demands us to make each other un-happy; either by actual preventive action or at least by the constant threat of it. Evidently, such an internal ethical contradiction is unsustainable.
While his argument is rather outlandish, I'd say, it's eerily similar to the more pernicious aspects of cancel culture. While holding truly immoral people with power accountable for their actions is a well-desired goal, and a good use of our conjoint power as a public, there is certainly a dimension to cancel culture that reflects the dystopia of preventive acts that Williams imagines.
Why did trans twitter, for example, cancel ContraPoints so hard when all she did was collaborate with a well-known trans icon? Said icon did say a few problematic statements with his platform, but I find it hard to honestly believe he -- and much less ContraPoints herself -- was deserving of the public shaming that should be reserved to serious public threats.
There are bonafide transphobes, fascists and everything else in the world, and trans twitter finds itself cancelling one of their best known representatives on YouTube. It really makes you think about it.
I think it's an empirical depiction of Williams' hypothesis. Undeserved cancelling seems to stem from a culture ever more focused on the details, the far-fetched consequences and specifities of their goals, rather than the big picture, the true urgency of the situations, and the target that is get getting away under their noses. Both in terms of the actual unjust cancelling/preventive act and, most importantly, the strange climate of paranoia. Everyone watches each other, and becomes the punisher when the barest sign of transgression arises.
Comment by Youre_ReadingMyName at 20/06/2020 at 12:49 UTC
22 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Contrapoint’s video [1] may not be pure academic philosophy, but is definitely philosophically influenced, and gives a very in depth leftist critique of the concept. You may find it interesting.
1: https://youtu.be/OjMPJVmXxV8
Comment by rinkydinkltd at 20/06/2020 at 16:35 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This might not completely align with what you asked, but Judith Butler’s Excitable Speech might offer some interesting perspectives!
Comment by salviaplathhh at 20/06/2020 at 14:22 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Check out “The Medium is the Message”, an essay by Marshall McLuhan, that describes a medium as being an extension of ourselves; it touches upon your point regarding the idea, and creator of the idea, as one and the same.
Comment by [deleted] at 20/06/2020 at 08:24 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
This is such an important question -- and you've articulated it so well.
Short answer: I don't know, but wish I did.
My guess, as I imagine might be something of your general feeling already, is that there must be some political philosophy out there of a psychological bent, where especially communication and dialogue come into technical focus.
Good luck!
P.s. would be very interested in your further thoughts and findings.
Comment by Toa_Ignika at 20/06/2020 at 22:18 UTC*
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think we need to be conscious of why people are motivated to “cancel” on social media if we’re interested in a critique of “cancel culture.” Ideologically demystifying oneself is a lifelong, active process, and the failure of this process—the failure to hold American police accountable for their actions or to communicate that “third world” near-slave labor is postmodern neoliberal capitalism‘s precondition, for some examples—has violent consequences. The stakes are incomprehensibly high, and anything other than the completely ideologically demystified truth, or the communication of an active attempt to reveal this truth in real time, would be highly ethically blameworthy for many leftists.
Comment by pimpbot at 20/06/2020 at 11:41 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
My sense is that we ought to first turn a critical eye to this phrase itself lest we become irrationally seduced by language (nod to Wittenstein). We've seen this game before: with so-called "social" justice where Western society has essentially been conned into using an unnecessary adjective. The word "justice" has always been perfectly adequate, and has rather obviously always included a social dimension.
Let's consider that words and actions have meaning, and that speakers and actors bear responsibility. Let's consider that there is nothing at all unusual about recognizing egregiousness, or about holding people accountable. Because isn't that what we are really talking about here - holding people accountable? Hmm, but when you put it like that it somehow doesn't seem so alarming.
Dont get played.
Comment by AutoModerator at 20/06/2020 at 07:36 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules[1] before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.
2: /message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy
Comment by [deleted] at 20/06/2020 at 15:22 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by AutoModerator at 04/07/2020 at 08:25 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules[1] before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.
2: /message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy
Comment by nothingimportant0 at 20/06/2020 at 19:37 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So seeking ones own purity via acknowledgement from the internet.
I would look at Nietzsche’s Daybreak Book two, he talks a lot about how people will lower/weaken themselves in order to be seen as more moral. Then in Genealogy of Morality, Second Essay, he develops this notion from Daybreak, Book two into the ascetic ideal/ascetic priest focused around the sense of guilt and what he calls bad conscience. Those are really relevant to people���s habits of virtue signaling. Hope that helps.
Comment by [deleted] at 21/06/2020 at 14:07 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Your topic has a big political/sociological dimension to it, so I'm not sure my answer fits your question (or is suitable for this reddit, for that matter) but I think it will be a great starting point for you to look at the history of cancelling as well as its actual definition before digging into its philosophical takes. And I am not exacly sure what cancelling is to you or whether you kind of get the point/definition..?
For instance the goal of cancelling literally is to 'cancel' aka dismiss/shame/ostracize a person socially for its harmful action or opinion (and not to only give a controversial starting point). Now it appears to me that you see cancelling as something inherently negative (means, you are completely opposed to the act of cancelling) and surely, you have a right to take that position (within your informed opinion, of course). However, you should be aware of its origin and development before taking a critical stance on it - such as, for instance, that it was intended to bring justice to people from marginalized groups - who previously had no means to receive any justice - and accountabilitly to people in oppressive positions of power who have previously been immune to legal consequences; as an act of revenge, you could say. Starting with the cancellation of R. Kelly, if I recall correctly. Now whether or not it has problematic aspects or implications to it or whether it has failed such an objective is a whole other question, however it's important to see this development.
I wanted to recommend Contrapoint's video on cancel culture (who has a background in academical philosophy) but now I've realized somebody else already did this.