Cancel Culture: From Outrage to Accountability

“Cancel culture” continues to be hotly debated. Source: Markus Winkler / Flickr.  

In the mainstream, the public is considering what should be classified as problematic behaviour, and what the best course of action is on ensuring it isn’t tolerated. The aim is that by ostracising, boycotting, or shunning, society can protect itself from harm. 

You know the term – cancel culture. 

Algorithmic spaces, such as X/Twitter and Instagram, are the backdrop on which outrage and cancel culture occur. 

“The algorithm pushes things that are most emotive, trying to attract people to click,” said Zita Joyce, the Head of Department for Media and Communications at UC. 

Social media has enabled a space for brands, groups, and even individuals themselves to play a role in shaping public opinion about those getting “cancelled”. As a space for discourse, it may be problematic in many ways, but it has allowed for those to share their thoughts on an array of topics. 

Those who are saying and doing questionable things are getting called out for their behaviour. And it can be a way to address systemic issues, like misogyny and racism. 

Joyce said that social media is a place for “identifying things that were happening in the past, but were never okay.” 

So, can there be a jump from outrage to accountability? Can people grow and change, and shape how the public views them when their past behaviours haven’t aged well? 

From those I’ve spoken with, and what journalism and media have pushed – it all depends. 

There’s an ongoing argument that one might be protected from scrutiny due to privilege and social status; that it’s impossible to truly “cancel” certain individuals when they are given a platform to promote themselves and their ideologies. 

An example of this is Joe Rogan, who predominantly interviews ‘celebrities’ receiving similar levels of backlash as himself. His podcast, which earns him a lot of money and relevance online, is an example of harmful rhetoric being capitalised on. 

As mentioned by one of my interviewees, the discourse can focus on the actions of cis white men “not actually reaping the consequences.” 

When it comes to cancel culture in the public eye, it can become an individualised moral dilemma. 

“If a celebrity is being cancelled and I do not have any knowledge or care for them, I will accept the information as a fact, whereas if it is a celebrity I care about, I will research and find out as much information as possible before agreeing or disagreeing with the ‘cancelled’ status,” said Gaby, a Psychology Masters student.  

Due to the fear that someone we enjoy will say or do something that could get them “cancelled”, there can be some hesitance toward being public about our support of our favourites. 

But how do you navigate the impact of cancel culture on those who may not be deserving of immediate slander? Should there be an unbiased process to this, or a sensitivity towards the accused until there is evidence of their adverse actions? 

“Everyone has the right to free speech, and someone who is the target of cancel culture may see this as their rights being violated,” said UC student Jayden. 

“Someone with highly controversial views may cause anger to some, resulting in misinformation and false rumours being spread. This could wrongly, and permanently, destroy a person’s reputation and lifelong prospects, simply for speaking their mind.” 

Freedom of speech is a hotly debated topic, due to the thin, grey line between free speech and hate speech. It is dependent on what is said, and with what intent. 

Cancel culture can go too far. “Especially with how the internet tends to sensationalise and half-tell stories. The current state of cancel culture means people are not allowed to grow as admission of guilt leads to immediate cancelling,” said Gaby. 

“Cancel culture encourages knee-jerk reactions without research occurring beforehand.” 

While the concept of cancelling may be leading to a more informed and aware public, there is the issue of cancel culture as a means for people to remain relevant by jumping onto trends and being among the first to respond to drama. 

“Is it helpful? Or do they just want to be seen?” said Joyce.

If continuous cancelling is happening, there is the potential of undermining – and almost overusing – the power of cancel culture as an accountable force. Those who truly deserve it, like those who have committed crimes and said harmful remarks about cultures and communities with no sympathy, could get overshadowed by silly, misunderstood situations. 

Standing up for what you believe in is important, which is why freedom of speech exists, but so is understanding that your views and opinions may not be that of everyone around you. Certain behaviour can be redeemable, but it’s never an easy area to navigate. It depends on the time and place, and where society stands overall. 

Sure, this can mean that there is bias to whoever is steering the action of cancelling, and sometimes there is no justice. 

“For those who have worries which are not heard, I can understand the attractiveness of cancel culture to raise awareness,” said Jayden. 

There needs to be a level of awareness on both sides, as growth is a possibility. 

“People need a path back,” said Joyce, who reiterated that it is still subjective. But the underpinnings of “cancelling” cannot be unveiled in one short article – so keep thinking and learning.