Cancel Culture is a God We Should Not Worship

Mar 23

True Liberalism Tolerates Skepticism, History & Ideas

Cancel: 1. To destroy the force, effectiveness, or validity of; annul; 2. to match in force or effect; offset; 3. to bring to nothingness; destroy; 4. to mark or strike out for deletion; omit, delete. (Merriam-Webster)

Where do people go when they are cancelled?

Is there an island? A prison? Do they receive a scarlet letter via email that will attach to all subsequent correspondence? Once they are fired from their jobs, do they go on unemployment, so the average citizen funds the living they sought to destroy, or should they starve? Are they the new untouchables of society?

I recall this episode of Netflix’s Black Mirror airing years ago.

We are in a societal moment of eliminating things we deem offensive because they seem dangerous. There are disagreements between what people believe to be morally and ethically right. Judgements are made quickly and without sound thought. People who question or think outside a defined paradigm of tolerance are placed in the modern day stocks: “accountability” via cancellation. Previously revered historical figures are now considered problematic. Furthermore, the voracity of the movement has unraveled due process, the opportunity for forgiveness, and freedom of speech.

Dissent is patriotic. The American mind has always been a hot and lively place. Ideally it is like iron sharpening iron for the good of the American people—not to better stab one’s neighbor.

Disagreeing Well

There are no 10 Duel Commandments of Facebook and Twitter. You can say whatever you like in the privacy of your own home, without facing a flesh and blood human. This has led to slander regularly on display with relative anonymity and little consequence.

As a response to the culture of cancellations in media, academia, and journalism, Harper’s Magazine wrote a letter in 2020 signed by 150 journalists, writers, and academics that strives to protect a free press. Entitled “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” it reads,

“… institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.”

In a traditional verbal debate, there are guidelines and structure. There is a topic, a moderator, and time limits. Opposing parties shake hands with each other. The High School National Speech and Debate Club states in their manual, “I pledge to uphold the highest standards of integrity, humility, respect, leadership, and service in the pursuit of excellence,” then proceeds to define each tenet. Even the fatal duels of eras past had 25 defined rules, the Code Duello, as dueling was a method of settling differences between “gentlemen of honor.” Of course, we do not get these luxuries in everyday conversations, but could stand to apply some of their principles, such as Rule 13: “No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children's play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.”

Social media has opened a door enabling people to commit word murder. There used to be protocols for verbal and physical duels and debates. Now, all bets are off. Unfortunately, the average teacher, professor and working professional cannot afford to be cancelled. Would we cheer knowing that individuals cancelled for their viewpoints could no longer feed their family, or felt like there was no other option than to commit suicide, if they did not adhere to the new subjective moral standard?

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Vitriol

As you may have heard, J.K. Rowling has been under fire recently for her views on women, biology, and the transgender dialogue in concordance with women’s rights. She wrote a blog post describing her concerns about the hard fought battle for women’s rights being affected by legally removing the biological requirements that constitute what a woman is. She has sat down with trans people, read abundant materials, and expressed her concerns in a compassionate way. She also vulnerably publicized that she has experienced domestic violence herself. Subsequently, she has been called a c%nt, a whore, etc., and been declared worthy of violence and cancellation. Her bottom line reads,

“All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse,” and, “I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.”

If you read the letter, then read people’s responses, one might consider the question, whose language “is violence”?

Harry Potter is the story of an unassuming boy facing an oppressive and violent regime. He is abused at his adopted home, and often disbelieved at school. He struggles with post traumatic stress syndrome, which only multiples over time. The resistance operation would not have been successful without the brains of a female, Hermione Granger. Ms. Rowling later revealed that the powerful wizard and beloved headmaster Professor Dumbledore is gay. Together, they fight a war for freedom and inclusivity in the wizarding world. Love and friendship triumph over evil.

Why are we so willing to assume the worst about a person whose books project a resonant message of love and tolerance, and also such an understanding of struggle?

I had the pleasure of visiting the Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Orlando, Florida in 2018. I was struck by how seemingly every tongue, tribe, and nation was represented, each cloaked in the different Hogwarts houses with their choice of robes and character wands; adults and children alike stood before the shop windows to “perform magic.” It seemed like J.K. Rowling’s creation brought the world’s people together.

Is History a Threat to the Present?

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln have come under scrutiny. Abraham Lincoln, President during the Civil War and abolitionist of American slavery, is under cancellation threat in some universities and cities due to the treatment of a number of Dakota Native Americans, who were killed in the United States-Dakota War and land skirmishes. Apparently he had plans to rectify the wrongs committed under his jurisdiction, but was assassinated before their fruition.

Founding Father George Washington inherited a plantation, therefore owned enslaved people. Yet it was his wish to abolish slavery, and in 1774 he endorsed the Fairfax Resolves, which condemned the slave trade: “Resolved that it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that during our present Difficulties and Distress, no Slaves ought to be imported into any of the British Colonies on this Continent, and We take this Opportunity of declaring our most earnest Wishes to see an entire Stop for ever put to such a wicked cruel and unnatural Trade.” Washington freed his slaves upon his death. In retrospect, this can seem insufficient. Did he need to wait until his death? Did he want to benefit from his slaves while he was alive? But we should also consider that to be an abolitionist in the 1770s was a fairly progressive view for a Virginian, considering the entire southern plantation life was undergirded by this system of free labor.

Should we view Washington and Lincoln singularly as patriarchal racists, in the way we now view Christopher Columbus and Confederate figures? Washington and Lincoln overwhelmingly dedicated their lives to freedom, at great effort and sacrifice; they did not purpose their lives to plots of genocide. Both used positions of power for the purpose of liberation more than oppression. We all must do our best within the perimeters and context of our time. 200 years from now, what might future populations think about us and our tweets?

From Top, counterclockwise: George Washington statue in Portland; New York City, Abraham Lincoln in Chicago, Winston Churchill in London, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt in Washington, D.C.

The musical Hamilton brought colonial America into the present, honoring both history and progress. Our nation’s sins are not ignored, and the humanity of the characters and modern presentation resonated strongly with the hearts of millions. And George Washington riffs! However, Hamilton has taken heat for glorifying the American inception story considering the slave owning status of the Founding Fathers.

Playwright Ishmael Reed wrote a scathing piece on the musical, calling the actors who have leant their talents to the show “ignorant.” Beyoncé and Jay-Z, the Obamas, LeVar Burton, and Busta Rhymes are some of the high profile fans of Hamilton. Are they ignorant in making a choice to support and enjoy this production, and its positive effects on culture? Lin Manuel-Miranda is a progressive Puerto Rican who has brought prodigiousness and diversity to Broadway. Furthermore, the musical collaborated with the New York City Department of Education, the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, and the Rockefeller Foundation to create a program that provided 20,000 NYC Title 1 schools with an opportunity to study the era, create their own performance pieces, and see the show for $10 (!). In the promotional video, students claim that they felt seen and inspired by a man of Hamilton’s station making such an impact on the country and world. The program has expanded nationally, and adapted online due to COVID-19. There is triumph in taking on America’s creation story and putting people of color in the room where it happened, who would not have been there in the past.

But, if one views the inception of the United States as one purposed for oppression instead of liberation, then I suppose it will not matter who is on Hamilton’s stage as long as the story is being told.

A Call for Consistency

If we’re going to cancel, let’s at least strive to be fair.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of America’s more beloved Presidents, especially for his New Deal programs during the Great Depression. Yet, he put Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II. Also, he served four presidential terms (well, three and change before his death), a move that sets off “tyranny” red flags. We ascribe these policies as responses to the World War II era, which was undoubtedly deeply stressful and difficult, to say the least. While his compatriot Winston Churchill’s statue was defaced during summer 2020 in London to read “Was a Racist”, FDR remains untouched, for now. Perhaps we could give Abraham Lincoln some grace for being unable to fully handle the Native American bloodshed whilst leading the house divided during the Civil War.

Publishing has long been heralded as an arena for free expression, but this is changing. University of Toronto professor, psychologist and controversial thinker Jordan Peterson released a new book with Canadian Penguin Random House: “Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life”. It is a continuation of his previous book, “12 Rules for Life,” which encourages and enables people to take responsibility for their own lives to improve them. The rules include “Treat yourself like you are someone you are responsible for helping,” and “Assume the person you are listening to might know something you don’t,” and even the odd “Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street.” He has been dubbed an “alt-right fascist and white supremacist” for his criticism of Post-modernism and identity politics, and employees of the Canadian publisher held a town hall meeting where they protested the publishing of the book.

Interestingly, if they push to cancel Peterson’s book, they could also consider removing the following titles: “The Nicomachean Ethics” by Aristotle, who believed in slavery; “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” by Nietszche, which was a favorite of the 1930s facists; “The Prince” by Machiavelli, dubbed a “how-to manual on the art of getting and keeping power”; and an autobiography called “Mein Kampf” by the original Adolf Hitler (only available by Penguin Random House in the UK).

The Marketplace of Ideas

Naturally, over time certain ideas and pieces of culture become impertinent. But to torch them, creating the rules as we go, has dangerous implications. Great societies are at risk when they start cancelling their history, culture, freedom of thought and expression. China lost 40 million lives (or more) after purging itself under Mao Zedong and the Great Leap Forward policies. This is one of numerous examples across the globe. Nature does not like a vacuum, and if we clear out our past, we become ripe for a regime far worse than what we’ve seen (yes, far worse than what we’ve seen) in America.

Cancel culture will burn it all down if we let it. We are in a bad spot if we demonize and dehumanize anyone who does not adhere to the ever shifting moral code. Cancel culture has already shown that it will divide friends, families, and deepen political factions. Is this what we want?

The idea behind free speech, debate, and thought is to bring all ideas to the table, and the best ideas—like scientific theorems, not advertising campaigns—will win, to the benefit of all society. But, we are also in the messy business of creating a society that is morally and ethically sound. To be able to do this, we need to bring reason back to the table. Cancel culture is highly reactionary and emotional. We must put our tendency to be offended on the back burner and understand that situations are complicated, because humanity is complicated. We are good, bad, and ugly. We need to be able to look at Jordan Peterson and Adolf Hitler and understand that they are different. Peterson purposes for good, and Hitler did for evil. We may not agree with J.K Rowling, but she does not have cruel intent. She expresses her skepticism from a place of tolerance and care. There is a difference. If we are increasingly not allowed to voice skepticism over very serious issues, that is a slippery slope into tyranny with consequences beyond those we can foresee. Skepticism is a benchmark of a liberal society, and the core of science. If we do not question our surroundings, we cannot improve. At the end of the day, someone makes the decisions controlling society. The West may be flawed—as is any human system—but it is worth protecting.

We can still advocate for the oppressed and marginalized without dismantling our history. Cancel culture is playing God by taking a human’s words and deeds—in the present, and now the past—and judging their morality. This judgement dictates whether they can continue in society or be eliminated. Let us not become intolerant in our pursuit of tolerance.

A wise wizard once said, “Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” Are you proud of everything in you ever did, said, believed, or posted on the internet?

Have you ever needed to be forgiven?