“…the way our idioms convey our cultural norms. We used to say things like, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,” “It’s a free country,” “Who am I to judge?” and “Different strokes for different folks,” much more often than we do now, and our culture reflects that.
We should consider collectively bringing those idioms back with greater emphasis so our culture can begin to reflect something we’re more comfortable seeing.”
You are right. I used to hear those idioms all the time. As a kid we used to say: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend your right to say it.” There was an implied and I expect the same respect from you for what I have to say.
Have you seen the book "The Case for Cancel Culture: How This Democratic Tool Works to Liberate Us All" by Ernest Owens? It provides a poor definition because the author defines "cancel culture" way too broadly. The author includes the Boston Tea Party and the case against Bill Cosby as cancel culture cancelations. Ironically, one reviewer of the book at the web site Goodreads wrote: "no rating no review because of the Saint Martin Press boycott." The boycott is an attempt to cancel the publisher because of one of their employees making an allegedly Islamophobic social media post. So, I assume there are a number of people who didn't read the book because of the "cancelation."
Very interesting post, Greg. The stuff on the definition of cancel culture is particulaly persuasive.
On that note, I've written a long-form piece, from a philosophical angle, on cancel culture's logic that may compliment your piece (although I do cast the definitional net wider to include acts, and not just speech). You can find it on my Substsck, Last Sunday of the Month.
Another great definition, along with "social justice fundamentalism." This is so needed, in order to clarify the conversation and even make meaningful conversation possible. Please keep this up!!
Great post - thank you @Greg Lukianoff. Something popped into my mind around the topic of being able to immediately respond to someone whose idea one doesn't like via social media.
Neuroscientists who work for fast food companies found that the addictive potential of a product is directly linked to how quickly the product can be opened and the item consumed. Maybe some people have become similarly 'addicted' to the immediate emotional rush they feel because they can respond immediately - no searching for an address, writing a letter etc, which would all lead to a deeper contemplation of the issue and possibly deciding not to address the other persons idea.
Social media allows emotion to be the fuel, not cognition, of 'canceling' others.
If a company's policy is that an employee can't criticize the BLM, and we assume that the company is not an affiliate of the BLM, shouldn't the policy also prohibit employees from praising the BLM?
Cancel culture dates back to Ancient Greece. Especially during the turbulent years of the Peloponnesian war and the Athenian plague.
Pythagoras, Aeschylus, Anaxagoras, Protagoras, Socrates, Alcibiades, Demades, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Demetrius of Phalerum, Theodorus the atheist, and Stilpo of Megara were all tried and most convicted. Religion was always the pretext. And we only have a small fraction of the total number. At least a dozen other trials during same period. Of the great three philosophers, two of three--Socrates and Aristotle--were tried or attempted (Aristotle fled).
Cancel culture is as old as Western thought itself. New thinking is scary.
"But this action raises the specter of a more atomized and plutocratic society in which one’s livelihood depends on agreeing with one’s boss’ political stances — in which people only work for and with other people that they totally agree with. If done everywhere, that brings people uncomfortably close to a situation in which they can have an individual political opinion or a job, but not both."
This certainly sounds bad, but flip it around to consider it the other way. To use a current example (though a minor one many may not have heard of), a couple of years ago after Roe vs. Wade was overturned, the RPG designer and publisher Steve Jackson, of Steve Jackson Games, announced his intention to donate a significant chunk of his company's profits/income to the Lilith Fund, a pro-abortion support NGO. As I am a practicing Catholic, that amounted to telling me the money I gave SJG for their products would go to support something I considered unconscionable, so I immediately decided I would not buy any SJG products again as long as I knew this policy was in effect.
Now, if I have the right to not do business with people when I know they will use the money I pay them in ways I find unacceptable, regardless of my opinion of the quality of their product, why don't employers get the same right? Why shouldn't an employer be able to fire somebody who he knows is taking the money he's being paid and donating it to causes that offend, or potentially even threaten, the employer or his company? I certainly don't like the idea that people will sometimes have to choose between their livelihood and their conscience, but I don't think we have a "right" never to have to make that choice.
One point that I think you recognize, but don't quite capture in the definition itself, is the essentiality of social media as a facilitating technology for Cancel Culture as a distinct phenomenon from other pro-censorship waves in American history. The use of social media results in a blitzkrieg of negative attention that is wholly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged offense--just think of the paradigmatic example "Has Justine landed yet?" which destroyed the life of some mostly-anonymous woman for a tasteless joke--and like in the blitzkrieg analogy, is made possible only through the weaponization of a new technology that our body politic hasn't yet developed effective countermeasures against.
It is wrong to continually other your political opposition, and it is especially wrong to advocate for their death. Not wanting to have such a terrible person working for you is not cancel culture. The fact that this rhetoric is 95% from the left it is understandable that leftists then think it is okay to want Trump dead.
“…the way our idioms convey our cultural norms. We used to say things like, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,” “It’s a free country,” “Who am I to judge?” and “Different strokes for different folks,” much more often than we do now, and our culture reflects that.
We should consider collectively bringing those idioms back with greater emphasis so our culture can begin to reflect something we’re more comfortable seeing.”
You are right. I used to hear those idioms all the time. As a kid we used to say: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend your right to say it.” There was an implied and I expect the same respect from you for what I have to say.
And MYOB.
Have you seen the book "The Case for Cancel Culture: How This Democratic Tool Works to Liberate Us All" by Ernest Owens? It provides a poor definition because the author defines "cancel culture" way too broadly. The author includes the Boston Tea Party and the case against Bill Cosby as cancel culture cancelations. Ironically, one reviewer of the book at the web site Goodreads wrote: "no rating no review because of the Saint Martin Press boycott." The boycott is an attempt to cancel the publisher because of one of their employees making an allegedly Islamophobic social media post. So, I assume there are a number of people who didn't read the book because of the "cancelation."
Very interesting post, Greg. The stuff on the definition of cancel culture is particulaly persuasive.
On that note, I've written a long-form piece, from a philosophical angle, on cancel culture's logic that may compliment your piece (although I do cast the definitional net wider to include acts, and not just speech). You can find it on my Substsck, Last Sunday of the Month.
Regards, Adam
Another great definition, along with "social justice fundamentalism." This is so needed, in order to clarify the conversation and even make meaningful conversation possible. Please keep this up!!
Great post - thank you @Greg Lukianoff. Something popped into my mind around the topic of being able to immediately respond to someone whose idea one doesn't like via social media.
Neuroscientists who work for fast food companies found that the addictive potential of a product is directly linked to how quickly the product can be opened and the item consumed. Maybe some people have become similarly 'addicted' to the immediate emotional rush they feel because they can respond immediately - no searching for an address, writing a letter etc, which would all lead to a deeper contemplation of the issue and possibly deciding not to address the other persons idea.
Social media allows emotion to be the fuel, not cognition, of 'canceling' others.
If a company's policy is that an employee can't criticize the BLM, and we assume that the company is not an affiliate of the BLM, shouldn't the policy also prohibit employees from praising the BLM?
Cancel culture dates back to Ancient Greece. Especially during the turbulent years of the Peloponnesian war and the Athenian plague.
Pythagoras, Aeschylus, Anaxagoras, Protagoras, Socrates, Alcibiades, Demades, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Demetrius of Phalerum, Theodorus the atheist, and Stilpo of Megara were all tried and most convicted. Religion was always the pretext. And we only have a small fraction of the total number. At least a dozen other trials during same period. Of the great three philosophers, two of three--Socrates and Aristotle--were tried or attempted (Aristotle fled).
Cancel culture is as old as Western thought itself. New thinking is scary.
Recognizing Cancel Culture: Four practical criteria
https://substack.com/home/post/p-148627200
"But this action raises the specter of a more atomized and plutocratic society in which one’s livelihood depends on agreeing with one’s boss’ political stances — in which people only work for and with other people that they totally agree with. If done everywhere, that brings people uncomfortably close to a situation in which they can have an individual political opinion or a job, but not both."
This certainly sounds bad, but flip it around to consider it the other way. To use a current example (though a minor one many may not have heard of), a couple of years ago after Roe vs. Wade was overturned, the RPG designer and publisher Steve Jackson, of Steve Jackson Games, announced his intention to donate a significant chunk of his company's profits/income to the Lilith Fund, a pro-abortion support NGO. As I am a practicing Catholic, that amounted to telling me the money I gave SJG for their products would go to support something I considered unconscionable, so I immediately decided I would not buy any SJG products again as long as I knew this policy was in effect.
Now, if I have the right to not do business with people when I know they will use the money I pay them in ways I find unacceptable, regardless of my opinion of the quality of their product, why don't employers get the same right? Why shouldn't an employer be able to fire somebody who he knows is taking the money he's being paid and donating it to causes that offend, or potentially even threaten, the employer or his company? I certainly don't like the idea that people will sometimes have to choose between their livelihood and their conscience, but I don't think we have a "right" never to have to make that choice.
One point that I think you recognize, but don't quite capture in the definition itself, is the essentiality of social media as a facilitating technology for Cancel Culture as a distinct phenomenon from other pro-censorship waves in American history. The use of social media results in a blitzkrieg of negative attention that is wholly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged offense--just think of the paradigmatic example "Has Justine landed yet?" which destroyed the life of some mostly-anonymous woman for a tasteless joke--and like in the blitzkrieg analogy, is made possible only through the weaponization of a new technology that our body politic hasn't yet developed effective countermeasures against.
A brilliant and thorough analysis of one of the most dangerous times in American history. Thank you, Mr. Lukianoff.
Holy Apples and Oranges batman.
It is wrong to continually other your political opposition, and it is especially wrong to advocate for their death. Not wanting to have such a terrible person working for you is not cancel culture. The fact that this rhetoric is 95% from the left it is understandable that leftists then think it is okay to want Trump dead.
But it is not okay.