We have the Harper's Letter, cosigned by 100-odd writers, about why cancel culture removes the ability for writers/artists/etc to make mistakes and explore new avenues, and push new boundaries.
We have AOC and other news outlets' responses that so-called Cancel Culture is just a term that many right-leaning folks use to devalue a movement that is based on taking accountability for one's actions.
E.g. Celebrity/figure/person makes a remark that is (even in a small way) sexist, racist, etc.
Left "woke" would say - this person is trash, must be held accountable, and no longer deserves a platform for their sexist/racist etc. beliefs.
Right "woke" would say - this is the Lost Left edging further into totalitarianism and a world where people are losing their jobs for errant tweets.
In order to avoid using a term created to devalue a culture based on accountability, I'm going to be using the term Condemnation Culture instead of cancel culture to describe what I'm criticizing.
My choice in this matter is due to the fact that I wish to preserve the very valuable elements of a) holding people accountable and b) working to ensure community safety that I believe "Cancel Culture" is inherently based on, while still leveraging criticisms of flawed aspects of "Cancel Culture," and of leftist movements in general.
As the criticisms I wish to leverage are based around the sentiment of moral condemnation, I offer the new term, Condemnation Culture.
But first:
Historicized vs Naturalized Worldview
One way that we can think of distinguishing the left and the right, as explained by the late Michael Brooks, is that the left tends to have a "historicized" view of the past, while the right tends to have a "naturalized" view of the past. A historicized view of the past understands current circumstances to be caused by historical circumstances, and therefore our addressing of current circumstances needs to look at what has happened in history. You look at a current phenomenon and ask, "What are the historical, social, and material reasons why this is happening now?" E.g. We have anti-black racism because of slavery because of colonialism, and because it's entrenched in the economic project that is capitalism. Therefore, efforts to address anti-black racism also need to address its roots. Whereas a naturalized worldview understands current circumstances are the way they are because they are the natural order of things. History, no matter how unjust, has played out the way it has played out, and that is a fact that we need to accept. Efforts to address or mitigate historical occurrences are not only fruitless, but also ridiculous. E.g. Slavery just was and that's a fact that we need to accept in current society; Historically disenfranchised groups have to pull up their bootstraps like everyone else; Some societies were just more advanced than others and those societies ended up being colonial powers; Capitalism is the current system and we have to accept that.
This distinction will come to bear as we go further.
Elements of "Cancel Culture" that are valuable and that are worth preserving
Those who criticize "Cancel Culture" often criticize it for being like a "witch hunt" - a mob of people out to defame people (often, but not always, celebrities) for their transgressions, past or present.
Articles have pointed out that cancel culture is closely related to the boycotts of the civil rights movements of the 1960s, but rather than it being about a problematic business, it's about a problematic person.
To the critics of "Cancel Culture", entities such as AOC and other left-leaning news media often retort that those who criticize cancel culture only do so because cancel culture is really about holding people accountable and working to ensure community safety.
Furthermore, "Cancelling" someone, e.g. affecting change in such a way that can actually impact powerful people, is actually really hard. It's hard to have an impact on the rich and famous.
I believe that holding people accountable for their beliefs is very important. If you have a platform/are famous, and if you are saying things that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. etc. etc., you should be held accountable for your actions and words.
I also believe that community safety is important. As an example, if there is a tattoo artist in a community that repeatedly makes inappropriate comments towards women, then that person should be removed from their position and educated so that women getting tattooed can feel safe to get tattooed.
However...
Elements of Cancel Culture that hurt the left (i.e. Condemnation culture)
While the initial project of "Cancel Culture" - i.e. to hold people accountable and to create safer communities - is noble, I have some difficulties in the execution.
Caveat - I am not here to tell anyone not to be angry about peoples' transgressive behaviour, least of all marginalized communities who are directly harmed by this transgressive behaviour. Anger is often warranted in these situations.
Another caveat - It takes a tremendous amount of work and stress for people in marginalized communities to take it upon themselves to respond coolly and educate people who are directly doing them harm through their bigoted actions. This is why the brunt of my criticism is leveraged towards "allies" of movements, rather than the marginalized communities themselves.
I do, however take issue with the rhretoric of "This person is human scum" that is sometimes attached to movements to call out or "Cancel" people.
Noted, not every person who participates in "Cancel Culture" executes their criticisms in this manner. However there are some, and I believe this kind of rhetoric hurts our movements.
Why?
First of all, I believe that there are people out there who at some point in their lives are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., and then through a process of transformation, are able to see the error of their ways and then change their behaviour.
If we immediately jump to "Wow, what a racist, you are garbage," without offering an opportunity to recognize and correct their transgressions, then this really minimizes any likelihood that they are going to have a transformative experience.
(Again, it takes a tremendous amount of work to attempt to have the kind of interaction that facilitates a transformative experience, and this is why the brunt of this responsibility needs to be on the backs of allies. Being an ally involves inconveniencing oneself because you believe in fighting for something that doesn't really affect you personally.)
It is this attitude/rhetoric of outright labeling someone as scum or garbage for having transgressive beliefs that I will call Condemnation Culture.
We need to be able to leverage criticisms of peoples' transgressive actions, hold them accountable, and create safer communities, without outright calling them scum.
Condemnation Culture is inconsistent with Restorative Justice Principles
I believe in restorative justice. The definition of restorative justice is as follows:
Crime causes harm and justice should focus on repairing that harm. The people most affected by the crime should be able to participate in its resolution.
There are three big ideas highlighted:
(1) repair: crime causes harm and justice requires repairing that harm;
(2) encounter: the best way to determine how to do that is to have the parties decide together; and
(3) transformation: this can cause fundamental changes in people, relationships and communities.
Restorative justice involves the potential for transformation, for the person who has transgressed to be educated about how their actions hurt people, to come to a place of understanding, and to basically be rehabilitated.
If we immediately write them off as scum, we do not offer this opportunity.
Condemnation Culture is inconsistent with a Historicized Worldview
Furthermore, to the point above about the Left having a historicized worldview, we have to understand that people have come to the beliefs that they have based on historical circumstances. The fact that someone is bigoted is yet another phenomenon to which we ask the question, "What are the historical, social, and material reasons as to why this is happening now?" So if we understand that their beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, and often come from a place of unknowing, lack of exposure, conservative upbringing, internalized racism/misogyny etc., then we can come to a place of compassion in our communication.
Calling in vs Calling out
I try to be an ally. As an aspiring ally, I try to take into account the distinction between Calling In and Calling Out. Calling Out comes from a place of anger, outrage, and can come across as vitriolic. Calling In attempts to come from a place of understanding, empathy, the desire to educate, and can come off as more calm and direct. As an ally, when others transgress, I do my best to call in rather than calling out. (But as a woman, POC, etc., sometimes I get angry/exhausted and it's hard for me to watch my tone. And I try to forgive myself that.)
Highlighting the harm or potential harm somebody's words or actions, rather than outright calling that person harmful, can also be a useful tool in calling in.
I know that there are many of us out there who don't call others scum when they transgress. I know that there are lots of marginalized groups who take it upon themselves to educate, to try their best to call in, despite the overwhelming emotional toll this takes. I know that sometimes the emotional toll is too much and they/we get angry. I know that sometimes people start by calling in, get really infuriating responses, and then get angry.
I know that some people, even when called in, refuse to accept that their actions or words are transgressions or that they present an actual or potential harm. I know that these people's denial of the potential harm often comes from a worldview that is narrowed by privilege. I know firsthand that it's exhausting to have these kinds of conversations, and that it can feel like bashing your head up against a brick wall. When you've made every argument that you can to try to get someone to see that current injustice exists, that current injustice is based on historical injustice, that we need to work towards building a world that recognizes the role of historical injustice in current injustice, that freedom of speech does not preclude being held accountable for what you say, and that even seemingly errant remarks can have a major impact in shaping prevailing worldviews... What more can you do? It feels hopeless sometimes.
However I really believe that calling people scum/Condemnation Culture is really harmful to our movements. If you believe in principles of restorative justice, if we understand that people and beliefs exist in a historicized worldview, and if we are truly seeking to inspire transformative experiences in those with whom we interact, we really have to watch the attitude of condemnation that comes across in our communication.
Easier said than done, I know - and something I'm working on as I learn and grow as a human in this world.
