The cancellation culture, due to the fact that so virtually it is possible to translate the increasingly popular phenomenon of "cancel culture", sounds like oxymoron to me. due to the fact that what would it gotta do with culture to cancel, cancel? Or possibly going further, even annihilation, or, behind Orwell, “evacating” certain people from public life...
According to the definition, Cancel culture is simply a social phenomenon where social media users massively boycott individuals (or brands or institutions) as acts considered unacceptable, specified as racism, sexism, violations of social standards. Aim? Exclusion from public space and prosecution for alleged wrongdoing, which frequently leads to the failure of a occupation or reputation of those targeted by this self-appointed justice system.
Deviating from average in seemingly tolerant Western societies – a problem or a chance? Veronika Course
And if it is not hard to condemn certain behaviors (such as racism, sexism or even, for certain governments, genocide), but unfortunately, this phenomenon takes very broad forms, due to the fact that it boycotts behaviours that do not necessarily should be something bad (examples will appear later in the text). The question is, who decides what is unacceptable and who should be cancelled? Another, how fluid is it to specify what is unforgivable?
Is Cancel Culture truly a conflict for social justice, or is it a modern form of totalitarian insistence?
Readers who already know any of my thoughts will easy guess that I am closer to this second description.
A “Democratic” Wave of Hate
Remember, whenever a alleged "mass" enters the action, which, as in this case, wants to "cancell" someone, it is dangerous. It is precisely due to the fact that it is not so certain whether the "mass" or those who are behind the imposition of "mass" of certain views are indeed going in the right direction, specifically whether they have the right to decide what would be the right direction.
Week of civilian Affairs
Since 2020 we have been discovering uncomfortable truths and announcing stories that have the power to change Poland.
Donate and become our contributor
This problem was beautifully portrayed in the tv series "Black Mirrors" in the episode "Hated in the Nation". In social media, the hashtag #DeathTo (#death to) was utilized there, adding the name of the individual who, according to the community, deserved to die most, e.g. for controversial statements. A individual with the highest number of votes was “unsold”, in short, was killed. Democratic decisions, right? It turned out that the “internet crowd” was a tool in the hands of the killer.
Ch. Brooker, A. Jones: Black mirror. On the another side
This is, of course, an overshadowed imagination of the future, conceived for the needs of the series, and yet it seems that we are not far from specified "democratic" decisions made by a group of people behind a crowd who are willing to anonymously administer justice on the web.
‘Victims’ Cancel culture
It is most frequently heard of "victims" of Cancel culture in the field of broadly understood show business, although this is not just about this circle. The most popular of them is surely the author of the best-selling “Harre Potter” which even got the Wikipedia “controversy” tab. We will learn from there, for example, that alternatively of utilizing the word "menstruative persons," J.K. Rowling prefers the word "women" and this comment has been considered "inappropriate and cruel." In general, her views are considered transphobic even though She doesn't think so.“I know and love transgenders, but erasing sex concepts makes it impossible to talk about the lives of many people. fact is not hatred." The issue of anti-Semitism has besides reached her alleged transphobia, because, according to Jon Stewart, “the «Harry Potter» Goblins working at the Gringott Bank match illustrations from the anti-Semitic book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion» of 1903.
W We will find many more articles on the subject, as well as the author himself,
However, I wanted to show on these 2 examples how fluid the notion of what is unacceptable and how easy it is to see “inadequacy” if you want to find it.
The vocalist Róisín Murphy is besides considered a “victim” of Cancel culture, mentioning the freezing effect that political correctness and censorship had on her artistic work. It suggests that artists are forced to self-censorship, and public art backing favours ideological conformism. It's not amazing what she said, considering BBC has withdrawn her from the radio frame a fewer weeks after Murphy criticized the drugs suppressing puberty in transgender adolescents. It's a rough ground, due to the fact that even worse, it caught up with indirect criticism of pharmaceutical companies, and with this giant, it's hard to win...
Wikipedia's "controversy" tabs have besides earned German vocalist Nena. This was due to the fact that she opposed sanitary segregation (in the days of Covid-19), ensuring that everyone was welcome at her concerts, whether they were vaccinated or not. She besides felt that Germany was going in a direction that she did not intend to be a part of. In addition, she dared to express her solidarity with those protesting the lockdowns, criticizing the inhuman conditions as a consequence of coronavirus restrictions.
"COVID-19Epidemia – Time of chaos and missed decisions" – about the silenced study of the ultimate Control Chamber Veronika Course
She did not fall victim to a Cancel culture (she is truly besides affirmative to be met!), but this example shows how easy 1 can be regarded as "controversial", being simply... pro-human. At a somewhat better time, due to the fact that in 2025, I myself attended her performance in Warsaw. It was good due to the fact that I knew that no substance what the time, no substance the views, I was welcome there.
Incidentally, it stands completely in contrast to another band I like, Tame Impala, who utilized segregation at his concerts. I do not have specified a narrow position to halt listening to their music with large resentment, but I know that even if I could, I would not go to their performance at the moment. I think you just don't go to a guest where you're persona non grata.
By the way, The Institute of civilian Affairs besides has a "controversy" tab on Wikipedia. If individual were passionate about her editing, that column would most likely be 1 of the sources of controversy...
Dangerous Jokes
A celebrated actor and comedian, John Cleese, besides expresses his concerns about Cancel cultureWhich he thinks is censorship.
I agree with Odyss Korczyński, the author of the article ‘Stars which have been loudly opposed to Cancel culture’, in that the jokes themselves are to be a point of view, a disadvantage, and the another side should have a distance to itself to presume that everyone is equal to the joke.
However, it may seem that Cleese would be afraid of joking with homosexuals or transsexuals. According to Korczyński, he should not be worried if he does not cross the line of good taste, adding, however, that the actor's imagination is “a distortion of the Cancel culture and should not be an argument in criticism of this cultural phenomenon”. But here I find it hard to agree with Korczyński. We come to an absurd point where in certain subjects we should be in agreement – just saying that there are 2 sexes can offend someone. I would not be surprised, then, if John Cleese did not exceed good taste, he rapidly became the subject of criticism, joking with a group of people.
Who knows if the Cancel culture has been wiped off by Michał Czernecki and Adrianna Borek, a well-known cabaret duo, in the program "No Powder". Their change sketch pays was considered ‘sad and untasteful’. I decided to check it out, and I truly didn't see anything that would go beyond the limits of good taste. But I couldn't say the same. about another sketch in the same “No powder” program, where stand-up Paweł Ścierski stated that a politician was given the nickname “Pinocchio” after another politician “found splinters in the ass” ...
Regardless of political views, specified a gag is indeed embarrassing. I would add that I am not the idol of the erstwhile Prime Minister or of the president of his organization (because, as you can imagine, this is what we are talking about), neither is the current Prime Minister and the ruling party, but of whoever it is, it is inactive tasteless. However, I have not heard this sketch origin so much controversy. This shows only the arbitraryness of decisions about what is embarrassing and untasteful and what is not.
Science victim to censorship cancel culture?
Not only the planet of show business can be targeted by the cancellation culture. Psychologist Dr. Witkowski was removed from the conference at the Jagiellonian University, after writing on Facebook that “it seems that fashion for identifying itself as a trance is passing away”. Although impressed by his technological achievements, the organizers explained their decision to make the conference “a safe place for all student” ...
Also German scientists have drawn attention to the fact that the Cancel culture exerting force on conformism suppresses technological debates in the embryo:
"Discurses and studies that do not focus on diversity, equality and integration that do not conform to multiculturalism... are branded as remnants of white man's ideology. Those who do not respect this are rapidly placed in the right-wing, sexist or racist corner.”
The cancellation culture is in any sense a form of exit from the Enlightenment Project: “The principles of Enlightenment are fundamental to academic activities: we must defend them. Self-criticism, error, revision of positions, openness of questions consist of freedom of science, which has been laboriously enforced for centuries. They are the goal of all social advancement and, of course, make fresh ideas to meet fresh challenges at all."
We do not request to look for another examples, after all, not so long ago Polish doctors and scientists criticizing actions to fight Covid-19 were pursued by the medical chambers. And let's just say, this year, 1 of these doctors, Zbigniew Martyk, won After years in court. In any sense, this kind of (as you can see is unfounded) "public lynching" is besides the effect of "a culture of cancellation", which is completely contrary to the thought of science. And this, at least in theory, should be about openness, asking questions, searching and questioning.
Doctor hunting. Dr. Martyka, COVID and classified court hearings Rafał Górski, Zbigniew Martyka
Are you allowed to criticize Cancel culture?
Returning to the subject of placing critics in the corner, 1 can see a pattern: and critics are surely conservative.
Tomasz Sawczuk of the Liberal Culture clearly defines specified critics:
"Conservatives protest the culture of exclusion, but in practice request immunity from criticism of their own beliefs. That's what they want to make for themselves. safe spaces in public culture."
I don't consider myself a conservative, I don't identify with either the right or the left, and yet
I dare to criticize, in my eyes a toxic, cancel culture, seeing in it a certain threat. Not even for the famous, but for the average people who may besides fall victim to baseless assault.
The phenomenon is based on fast (and possibly besides unreflexive?) stigmatizing, or possibly lynching, frequently being disproportionate to "mistakes". Do you should be a conservative to be careful about trendy, but not necessarily rational currents? I'm afraid we've been heading towards unanimity for any time now.
We can find something truly good in the thought of a culture of cancellation (e.g. erstwhile it comes to condemning unquestionably bad behaviours, specified as violence, aggression, racism, sexism, genocide), and that would actually be fine. However, while observing the arbitrariness of the decision on what should be immediately condemned, the full thought of a culture of nullification leaves much doubt.
How about we cancel the culture of humiliation in the media?
About the culture of humiliation in the media wrote Michał Rydlewski, a doctor of humanities with whom, by the way, We interviewed. The word itself was invented by prof. Andrzej Shahaj.
In the word “culture of humiliation” it is about objectifying another people, taking their voice distant from them, showing them as inferior, weaker, little resourceful than they are. According to Rydlewski, most amusement programs are based on this. "It is very visible in programmes specified as «Boys to take», «We give and peasants» and «Gentelmen and villagers». In short, a respectable man is 1 who has more than he is (following Fromm).
Philip G. Zimbardo: Lucifer Effect. Why do good men do evil?
If we think that in these programs everything is directed, and people play only certain roles there, which do not reflect on them after the end of emissions, unfortunately we are wrong. After the "Only Love" program was released, people gave the participant, Grzegorz Piechowski, a mock label, which led to his suicide. The program rapidly disappeared from the framework, but in its place many others are created, based on the same thought "better vs. inferior". In turn, 1 of the participants of "Big Brother" besides suffered a tense breakdown. So the problem is as real as possible.
In the context of this culture of cancellation, which is besides the participation of mass media, I wonder if the same media could so cancel the culture of humiliation they promote?
I think that would be an interesting paradox. They'd gotta cancel themselves.
