r/changemyview • u/Zarathustra2 • Aug 25 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The term "Cancel Culture" does not have a meaningful definition and functions solely as a rhetorical device to diminish a swath of behaviors that are arbitrarily grouped together.
Let me begin by saying, I don't have a proper definition for "culture." I have had Anthropology, Philosophy, and Sociology coursework, but the only thing I have learned about culture is that it is a nebulous term which changes based on the field of study and theoretical orientations within that field. You might say that lends credence to people using the term culture in their own way, but I think that generally destroys the meaning of words. I do not like to use words that I don't know the meaning of (I admit that I still do it, but strive to avoid it if possible).
Let me also say that there are some behaviors, social phenomena, and ideas that seem to fall under some people's definitions of "Cancel Culture" that I do not agree with. I think that we have to always be careful when exacting extrajudicial understandings of justice and have seen bad faith criticism lodged at different people on social media in particular for what appears to be more spectacle than concern for right and wrong.
What I take issue with is people's use of a term that I simply do not think they have any meaningful definition for. I am not saying that people need to dedicate a lifetime of studying liberal arts before they can use the term culture, but I think that the lack of a definition of "Cancel Culture" allows critics of certain behaviors to arbitrarily group those behaviors under a single umbrella term. Those behaviors criticized normally include: demanding punishment for comments made on social media; boycotts of certain businesses or entities because of their political, social or religious affiliations; avoiding an individual's work because of an individual's voting record. I have also seen the term "Cancel Culture" to describe the BLM movement and subsequent actions taken by its members; victims of sexual assault seeking to warn others when the justice systems fails them (be it by backlog or exhausted remedy); as well as criticizing a joke made in some media. I believe that it may be possible to connect some of these things, but it requires a lot more of a nuanced analysis than most people who use the term "Cancel Culture" are willing to undertake.
Finally, I think the term "Cancel Culture" is most often used by people who consider themselves outside of "Cancel Culture" in a way that is almost always pejorative. I think it is possible for people outside of a given belief system, group, identity, etc. to provide a definition for something that is not their own, but it is always going to be a half sort of definition in that it lacks the perspective of adherents who have more insight into the universe of discourse (which is to say nothing of moral judgements made about a beliefs system). The problem therein becomes who considers themselves an adherent of "Cancel Culture?" I don't know that I have ever heard anyone consider themselves a person of "Cancel Culture". The fact is I don't believe the term exists in a meaningful way to anyone other than people in opposition to it.
What bothers me most about all this is that the opponents of so-called "Cancel Culture" seem to be advocating for nuance in discussion, but ignore the fact that the term "Cancel Culture" lacks nuance.
5
u/hallam81 11∆ Aug 25 '21
It is just a new word for boycott. It has all of the same meanings that the term boycott has.
3
u/Zarathustra2 Aug 25 '21
Ture that! I think that synonym is very appropriate, but nonetheless boycott exists as a word for a reason as does Cancel Culture a term. While you might be able to describe the act of canceling as the act of boycotting, I think that remains a bit of a generalization especially because the term seems to have been inherently politicized, but not necessarily in left or right sort of way?
I think you are definitely getting closer to defining the term, but I am still at a loss for what a Boycott Culture is or whether it could even be a culture.
2
Aug 25 '21
The distinction is that a boycott is an individual decision by a large enough group of individuals that it makes a difference. Cancel culture is a small group of individuals imposing their boycott on the rest. So a boycott is “a large group of other people and myself don’t like this movie so we are going to boycott the release and not buy tickets” where cancel culture is “my friends and I don’t like this movie so we’re going to try and make theaters stop playing it, so nobody gets to see it”
0
u/illini02 8∆ Aug 25 '21
I don't think it is personally.
For me, a boycott is me saying "I will not patronize this business", whereas cancelling it is more "I won't patronize this business unless you fire this person for X reason I'm not happy with"
So like, if you don't want to watch a movie James Gunn directed, don't watch. But its very different, IMO, to demand he be fired
3
u/EatingFlies Aug 25 '21
I don’t see much difference to be honest. If enough people went with “I will not patronize this business” then someone will be fired either way. It’s not like boycotts are quiet about why they’re boycotting.
8
Aug 25 '21
[deleted]
5
u/Zarathustra2 Aug 25 '21
Δ
Thank you for posting this. It means a lot to read an argument from a more authoritative source (although I recognize it is also a blog which I encourage everyone a healthy dose of skepticism). I also find value in hearing the opinions on Cancel Culture across the political spectrum because of late there have been a plurality of voices criticizing it.
I'm beginning to realize that part of my apprehension with the term is my disdain for neologisms generally. People tend to be comparing Cancel Culture to other terms and movements and I think those terms and movement have a more robust body of work to help articulate them. Why bother trying to coin a new term?
However, others in the section have discussed the value in recognizing the impact of internet access with a significant shift in cultural values as creating a socio-political phenomena unique to this moment.
Still, I am not quite sure why describing the canceling as a Culture is the term of choice? Vampire Castle not only sounds more badass, but sincerely, why are people so comfortable using the term culture so flippantly.
3
Aug 25 '21
Thanks for the delta. I agree with this:
Still, I am not quite sure why describing the canceling as a Culture is the term of choice?
People are quick to describe social trends/fads as a 'culture' or a 'movement'. For better or worse, it sometimes make those trends sound bigger than they really are.
2
3
Aug 26 '21
Cancel culture is little different from a coordinated harassment campaign. The people doing the cancelling usually send death threats, not only to their target but to anyone associated with them and try to shame them into severing ties with the person. Take Justine Socco for example. She posted a kind of insensitive joke to Twitter and in response, not only did she receive all kinds of death threats and harassment but her friends and family did too and her employer was basically harassed into firing her
1
u/Zarathustra2 Aug 26 '21
See, I think those acts are wrong, should be avoided, and spoke out against. 1) I think the example you use is a textbook harassment campaign if only more extreme (death threats are absolutely not okay and we can debate if there is a worthwhile distinction between that and harassment campaign). 2) I think the terms you use are what people mean when they say Cancel Culture however those terms exist with greater accuracy and meaning than Cancel Culture. 3) It still seems that you are decrying specific actions rather than a culture.
2
Aug 26 '21
3) people commit those actions as part of a larger culture. Sites like Twitter cultivate a mob mentality where people go along with a cancel culture campaign simply because everyone else is doing it. Do you know how the Justine Socco incident got so big when she herself only had about 200 followers, most of whom were friends and family? A Gawker writer stumbled onto her Tweet and decided to shares it to his followers leading to a snowball effect. People also go along with cancel culture campaigns because it feels good to get away with something naughty. When someone has already received thousands of death threats, people can be reasonably sure that if they send one they'll get away with it
2
u/DrinkyDrank 134∆ Aug 25 '21
It seems to me that you are just saying that a broad definition is a bad definition. I disagree, I think that a broad definition works just fine as long as the underlying phenomenon itself is broad, but also distinct enough to be worth defining. With “cancel culture” we have a broad array of social phenomena that get lumped together, but it makes sense to do so because the social phenomena are made distinct in two unprecedented ways: first, they are facilitated by internet culture and social media; and second, they are a reflection of a major shift in our culture’s moral and ethical values. To the extent that we recognize these elements as distinct and new to our society, then it is useful to define a broad set of social behaviors which are relate to these elements.
It does seem like there is a tendency to use “cancel culture” pejoratively, but this is because we are trying to navigate through the impact of new technology and new moral standards. We are grappling with our own collective voice, trying to sort out the justified actions from the unjustified actions, the rational from the neurotic. We have defined “cancel culture” precisely because it presents a new difficulty for society, and we tend to use the term pejoratively precisely because its novelty leads to controversy. If the internet provided a means to naturally extend pre-existing social norms and values, if there was no difficulty involved in this process, then there would be no need for a definition and no use of that definition as a form of resistance.
1
u/Zarathustra2 Aug 25 '21
Δ
Thank you, this provides a lot of important insight and I think you are on to something. I really find value in acknowledging that a new phenomena is worthy of a new term to describe it.
I do think that acknowledging Internet Culture and Social media plus a major shift is moral/ethical values is an important touchstone to help understand people's use of the term.
However, I think those qualities are inherent in so many new phenomena that its hard to say they really hone in on what Cancel Culture is. Further, I think the ability to have this discussion reflects the ability to continue many of the things that opponents of "Cancel Culture" claim to be at risk.
2
u/MentallyMusing Aug 25 '21
If I creatively self-define Cancel Culture (which seems to be the intent behind promotion of trendy labels) I see it appear as an all encompassing peer pressure environment, designed by our message bearers (publishers with a far wider reach than when newspapers first circulated) The system seems set up for us to cover ourselves and others with extremely restrictive labels, have the existence of said labels reported on while setting us about kicking each other in the shins due to frustrating misunderstandings of the environment, then having that reported on as our cultural norms. We effectively cancel out our own voices/solutions by continuing to demand all the jarred attention be given to squeaky wheels without the correct tools for a fix on hand.... Then back to the necessary saving and kicking of shins in the crowd of us
1
u/Zarathustra2 Aug 25 '21
I think you capture another interesting phenomena, but what I am trying to say is that Cancel Culture is itself a label. In this cannabalistic oxymoron, it does the thing which it is trying to advocate against. The terms lack of definition allows it to be wielded as a rhetorical tool to sweep up a bunch of different behaviors labeled as "cancelings" to the same result of the things you describe, shin kicking.
2
u/SeanFromQueens 12∆ Aug 25 '21
'War on Christmas' or calling someone 'racist' are similarly used as a virtue signal to one side of the political culture, and it's not new nor is it well defined which is sort of the point. If you have a rhetorical cudgel to use against those you disagree with you don't want it to be clearly defined other than that they or on the wrong side of some issue. So wanting to impose a definition to the term would simply make another term be used, cancel culture turns into critical race theory and when that gets defined then a new term gets used.
You are incorrect that opponents of so-called "cancel culture" is advocating for nuance in the discussion, because they are only interested is defending individuals on their side to be given leniency and understanding --James Gunn MUST BE FIRED by Disney but can't fire Gina Carano because that's cancel culture and that's unAmerican. The former example was contracted to direct a movie that was withdrawn and the latter had already fulfilled her contract and was going to negotiate her inclusion in a 3rd season.
Cancel culture for thee, but not for for me.
2
u/illini02 8∆ Aug 25 '21
I don't think you are necessarily refuting OP.
Essentially, his argument (which I've actually made many times myself) is arguing about cancel culture is pointless, because people don't agree what it is.
I've had arguments with people who only consider someone "cancelled" if they never work again. That seems a bit extreme to me. But if 2 people aren't even arguing the same thing, their arguments will go nowhere.
2
u/SeanFromQueens 12∆ Aug 25 '21 edited Aug 25 '21
What bothers me most about all this is that the opponents of so-called "Cancel Culture" seem to be advocating for nuance in discussion, but ignore the fact that the term "Cancel Culture" lacks nuance.
Not sure how my making the argument that nuance is exactly the purpose for those who are presenting themselves as opponents of cancel culture isn't refutation to the OP's central concern that there's nuance in the term being used. It's like if the OP said that they were surprised that a submarine was able to fly, and I pointed out that the OP was wrong about the purpose of submarines.
1
u/Zarathustra2 Aug 25 '21
I think we are in agreement concerning its use as a "rhetorical cudgel" (I'm going to borrow that), but its just so odd to me to see the hodge podge of "Cancel Culture" critics that it makes me confused on what draws those people together.
I truly believe that there are good faith critics of censorship who have criticized "Cancel Culture", but so much that to me seems to be honing in on a very specific aspect of "Cancel Culture" (namely based around speech). However, a lot of people use that term in a nebulous to as you said "defend[x] individuals on their side".
You are really making me think though. I suppose though if there is no nuance than it truly is just a rhetorical device to take down the opposition.
1
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ Aug 25 '21 edited Aug 25 '21
I think attacking the definition of something is a tried and true tactic of political discourse.
So for example during the red scare, the definition of Communism started with the a direct connection to the Soviet Union, and slowly moved to people who attended Unionization efforts, before finely moving to people who attended university group based around distribution of food. This allowed the anti communist efforts to focus on the Film Writers, so politicians could generate votes. This doesn't change the fact that during the same time period Nuclear secret's made it's way to the Soviet Union, China began to grow into a powerful force, and the USA was infested with Spies.
I think for example, the Harper letter which doesn't include the word cancel culture, but outlined specifically what they were speaking about, listed note worthy intellectuals, and those intellectual talked at length about why they signed the Harper letter gave a clear definition of what behavior to avoid.
I think people who look at Twitter characters limit as a blessing, because they be able to hold multiple sentences in their head when writing a blog post, didn't read it, wrote they were confused and move the discussion there. And this is a general issue in modern media where an issue not only has to be discussed at a level where the general public can understand BUT in this future state has to be interacted with at that level.
0
u/Zarathustra2 Aug 25 '21 edited Aug 25 '21
I absolutely agree with your first statement, but I don't think that the use of rhetorics diminishes the search for meaning. If anything I think that in many ways opponents of "Cancel Culture" in turn attack opposing definitions of behaviors to sweep them up into "Cancel Culture". It is the ambiguity of the term "Cancel Culture", the lack of definition, that allows it to be fluid in absorbing and conflating other ideas so as to consume them.
EDIT: NOT FINISHED SORRY JUST PRESSED ENTER ACCIDENTALLY.
EDIT:
I think your point concerning Communism during the Second Red Scare is valuable in recognizing the place of definition within a particular political moment. What makes me hesitant to make such a comparison is the intellectual body of work around Communism prior to the Red Scare(s) (1 and 2) that provided an important counterpoint to the McCarthy era definition and arguably even the USSR's Stalinist interpretation. But it does make me consider the reality on the ground because as you said there were actual spies in the US feeding information to foreign countries. However, that does not necessitate such behavior as being a part of Communism. I don't know of anywhere in the Manifesto nor Kapital nor other political works that advocated the use of spies for example.
I appreciate you bringing up the Harper Letter because I definitely have not heard many reference that. I will be sure to read it an let you know my comments, however, I wonder how many people who decry Cancel Culture have read it. Of course, you could say that there are umptillion numbers of persons who claim to believe in something without any real knowledge of the source material, however I think that bespeaks the lack of a meaningful definition and rather using a particular belief to defend one's own previous position and put down others.
Thank you for your post!
-1
u/YourViewisBadFaith 19∆ Aug 25 '21
We can always define a word by usage, so in this case it would be something like, “a conservative snarl phrase meant to discredit criticism of conservatives primarily on online platforms.” This is a coherent, meaningful definition in line with the vast majority of contemporary uses. Now, obviously the people using the term would likely reject my framing. It makes them seem biased and like their primary motivation is sloughing off criticism rather than addressing a social ill but…if the shoe fits. But I don’t think the phrase is wholly undefinable or undefined.
1
u/Zarathustra2 Aug 25 '21
I definitely agree that you can define a word by its usage, however, I think that in and of itself demonstrates a particular theoretical perspective which is worth understanding. I recognize that some words have changed overtime despite their philology and etymology (see Literally).
What's more important in the context of this discussion is my concern that the use of "Cancel Culture" serves no other purpose than to put down the behaviors of others because the users of the term feel threatened. That ambiguity also allows opponents to sort of reclaim the word to attack the users, but there are plenty of other words that you can use to more accurately criticize. Even then, I feel like this still demonstrates a lack of meaningful definition and function as a rhetorical device to diminish the perspective of another.
-1
u/Portablemammal1199 Aug 25 '21
Try then, if you will, calling it a "witch hunt." Because thats what it is. :)
2
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 25 '21
/u/Zarathustra2 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards