Cancel culture

Cancel culture is a form of public shaming in which groups or individuals swiftly denounce and campaign against a target, often using social media. The target may be an individual, a company, an institution, or even a concept. It is also known as call-out culture. It is a phenomenon that has become widespread due to twenty-first-century technology. Because of the reach of social media, the near permanence of postings on X (formerly known as Twitter) and other platforms, and the ubiquity of smartphones with cameras and instant access to the web, in modern times real or perceived transgressions can be shared immediately and widely. Cancel culture may then have an inhibiting effect on public actions and speech.

Overview

"Canceling" solidified as a concept in the mid-2010s with the rise of the #MeToo movement, as well as Black Twitter, or the informal Black community using Twitter to call attention to issues, especially social issues such as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and cultural appropriation, and to share jokes and discussions. It consists of many small communities online who join forces when events warrant. Black Twitter has its origins in blogs of the 1990s and early 2000s. Many of these forums were launched by African Americans who commented on social and political issues. The bloggers offered a wide range of commentary. For example, “Your Fave Is Problematic” on Tumblr hosted sharp but humorously delivered discussions of celebrities by listing questionable or offensive things they had said or done.

Canceling originated as a lighthearted poke at someone, for example a joking threat to cancel a friend for being late. Over time, Black Twitter generated discussion by canceling celebrities such as Kanye West and Emma Stone, both for behavior deemed offensive, and products and brands such as Pepsi and Gucci for similar reasons. Such efforts demonstrate the symbolic nature of canceling a person or an object, since all continued to function, gain wealth, and wield influence online and in real life. Canceling is often the manifestation of a need to control the content users encounter online, which is determined by social media platforms that selectively present posts, advertisements, and other content.

According to University of California, Santa Barbara Professor Anne H. Charity Hudley (quoted by Brito, 2021), an expert on African American culture and linguistics, two overlapping forms of cancel culture had developed by that time. One is a boycott, or a public refusal to support an entity (economically, socially, politically, etc.) that is meant to draw attention and encourage others to participate as well. The second, she said, is shutting someone down, silencing the target’s voice. The first is meant to take attention away from the target, while the second is an attempt to prevent the target from communicating.

Cancel culture rose to a position of prominence in the early twenty-first century, and by 2022, the Pew Research Center reported that about 61 percent of adults had heard of the phrase cancel culture, with 51 percent of those people believing that the phase indicates an action used to hold others accountable.

Canceling as a Form of Shunning

Cancel culture is a modern form of shunning that may be initiated by any member of a group. The group may be small, such as fans of a website, or vast, encompassing millions of users of a social media platform. Historically, shunning has been a practice within communities in which leadership publicly ostracizes individuals who do not conform to expected practices. This setting apart of members is a punishment meant to publicly shame them into submission. The act is often used to reinforce the power hierarchy of an organization. Shunning as a formal reprimand has typically been practiced within religious communities, such as the Church of Scientology and the Amish. It is also seen in cults when leaders use their power to punish anyone who questions the group’s beliefs.

Social or emotional ostracization is an informal type of shunning. It commonly arises within a group as the result of a perceived slight or power shift. Examples include situations in which some members of a group of friends decide to no longer include one or more individuals in activities or interactions, or a corporate whistleblower who is suddenly shunned by coworkers.

Social Identity

Humans are social beings who crave acceptance and belonging. People define themselves by the groups to which they belong, such as their family, social class, academic peers, political party, and affiliations such as organizations or athletic activities. Because humans simultaneously are members of multiple groups, their behavior may change with situations as they interact with others. Humans derive a great deal of their self-esteem from such affiliations (Hogg, et al., 1995, 258–260). The degree to which an individual identifies with a group also affects behavior. An individual with a strong affiliation with a group, meaning the person derives significant identity as a member, may fiercely defend the group if the person feels it is under attack. This may contribute to episodes of canceling online, such as when a celebrity makes a disparaging remark about another celebrity, fans of the latter may attack the person who made the comment.

Cancel culture became pervasive because of the way social identities have changed with technology. Earlier generations predominantly identified with family, neighbors, faith community, and similar localized groups. Mass media created opportunities for individuals to identify with others across ever-greater geographic distances. For example, the technology to record music and movies and supportive print media united fans of artists in the early twentieth century. In later decades, radio and television increased the scope of fan communities. In modern times, by connecting through social media such as Facebook, X, Instagram, or TikTok, fans of a celebrity, sports team, television show, etc. are able to identify with millions of other followers.

As individuals identify with a group, they also separate themselves from those not in the group. They define people, including themselves, as either in the group or out of the group (Hogg, et al., 1995, 261). They assign characteristics to the in-group and out-group members, essentially stereotyping both categories. This creates a sense of connection to the in-group persons and imbues those in the out-group with otherness. The out-group may be depersonalized, viewed as inferior, or seen as being in opposition to the in-group. Meanwhile, one’s status as a member of the in-group may influence one’s actions. An individual conforms to group identity to confirm membership and obtain approval from others of the in-group.

When Fear Inhibits Actions

Cancel culture frequently manifests as a form of collective behavior as one or more individuals, or in many cases social media accounts, begin a campaign against someone or something. If successful, this targeting can become contagious and grow quickly. Sometimes it involves “naming and shaming,” or identifying and leveling an accusation against a person or an organization, which invites others to do the same. Inherent in this tactic is the goal of isolating the target and creating a situation in which the target is punished.

In many cases on social media, individuals have been named and shamed and their employers pressured to fire them. The target may be canceled as an employee solely due to this public pressure (Mounk, 2020). For example, political data analyst David Shor was tasked with advising members of the Democratic Party. He tweeted a summary of and a link to a newly released journal article by Omar Wasow, a Black political scientist, that found Democratic candidates fared better following nonviolent protests than after riots. The article and his tweet happened to coincide with protests following the death of George Floyd in May 2020. An activist posted a negative comment and soon a campaign to force Shor’s employer to fire him was under way. Within a week, Shor’s employer terminated him.

Some critics have denounced cancel culture specifically for the extreme punishment it often metes out. Many targets lose the source of their livelihood—as when a small business is canceled because of the actions of an employee. It also creates an atmosphere in which individuals feel they can no longer make a mistake and learn from it. Instead, they face immediate and possibly outsized consequences. University of Virginia media studies professor Meredith Clark (quoted by Brito, 2021) noted that real-world consequences of being targeted for cancellation are more frequently borne by people who have no power, such as the worker who draws the ire of someone who then campaigns on social media for the individual to be fired. Celebrities and other people with means “can buy their way out of the noise,” she said, such as by making a hefty donation to a cause. Others simply lie low, as when comedian Kevin Hart lost his 2019 Oscar hosting gig after homophobic tweets and comments from 2010 and 2011 resurfaced online. He stayed out of the public eye for a while but eventually resumed his acting and standup work. Ordinary individuals rarely have the luxury of waiting out cancellation because they do not have the finances to weather such storms.

Clark (quoted by Brito, 2021) noted that cancel culture can have a positive impact. It can empower members of underrepresented groups whose points of view would otherwise be unheard. When attention is focused on holding people with power accountable, rather than silencing them, it can lead to meaningful discussions about issues.

The Great Divide

Cancel culture’s prevalence in modern times is indicative of deepening social and political divides that emerged in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s, which saw the rise of feminism and the civil rights movement. It is closely connected to perceptions of the term politically correct, which initially referred to a smart political move. Some civil rights activists began referring to people who were not involved in or supportive of the movement as politically incorrect. Some feminist factions criticized others as being politically correct, or submissive to the patriarchy, for taking stances against pornography and other sexual topics. In modern times some academics have used the term dismissively in reference to ideas such as advocacy for trigger warnings, suggesting that political incorrectness is a sign of fear or weakness. Political incorrectness in such instances has prompted many calls for canceling.

Cancel culture within the feminist movement frequently was based on perceptions of social class or political position. Some feminists felt that the loudest voices did not represent them or their beliefs. For example, some women who self-identified as radical feminists or radical lesbians essentially demanded that women boycott all interactions with men and castigated many in the movement who disagreed. These quieter voices often felt marginalized, and some left the fight for women’s rights entirely.

The Attention Economy, Brands, and Boycotts

Individuals and entities whose power and influence are dependent on attention, money, or both—such as brands, celebrities, and social media influencers who collect followers—are at risk of being targeted for cancellation. Those whose power is based elsewhere, such as in wealth or in holding political sway, are less likely to be affected by being canceled.

This distinction has become increasingly important with the monetization of visibility. Marketers and entrepreneurs recognize that engagement with products increases the chances that a customer will buy the good, service, or idea. Social media platforms and other sites, including news websites, gain financially by attracting visitors and putting advertisements in front of their eyes. Many individuals have monetized attention by establishing themselves as social media influencers, often becoming wealthy by simply amassing followers and earning money to promote products. All this activity is part of the attention economy.

The attention economy specializes in grabbing and holding customers’ interest, often using the same tactics used by gambling websites to keep viewers on websites. The threat of losing this valuable commodity, attention, can be a potent weapon on social media. For example, in 2020 L’Oréal Paris made a statement in support of the BLM movement. Munroe Bergdorf, a Black transgender model, went on X to call the company hypocritical for firing her three years earlier over a post she made against White supremacy. When many of Bergdorf’s fans said they were boycotting the cosmetics brand, L’Oréal hired her for an advisory board and made donations to UK Black Pride and a transgender organization. This is one of many examples of brands being taken to task on social media and responding quickly to lessen the impact and try to improve their image.

Conservatives have also staged boycotts against brands and companies whose conduct they disagreed with. A notable instance of this occurred in April 2023, when major US beer brand Bud Light triggered a massive backlash from conservatives after it hired a transgender social media influencer, Dylan Mulvaney, to post an Instagram video promoting Bud Light. The backlash from conservative consumers began almost immediately and intensified as a number of conservative celebrities and commentators promoted the Bud Light boycott on TikTok and other forms of social media. For example, in April 2023, musician Kid Rock, long known for his controversial political stances, posted a video which featured a profanity-laced statement against Bud Light brewer Anheuser-Busch and ended with the musician shooting cases of Bud Light in his backyard. The boycott proved to have a negative impact on sales of Bud Light and contributed to a number of executives at the company being laid off. Many supporters of Mulvaney and other observers characterized the backlash as motivated by transphobia and homophobia.

Accusations on the Left and Right

While cancel culture had been weaponized by individuals and groups for several years, it was not a significant factor in politics until July 2020. US President Donald Trump spoke at a July 4 event, claiming that liberals were using tactics including cancel culture to stifle all disagreements. His claim was echoed by other Republican politicians in the months that followed. For example, in early 2021, many conservatives insisted the left was canceling Dr. Seuss when his estate decided that it would no longer sell six of his children’s books because they contained racial and ethnic stereotypes. Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy blamed Democrats for the decision.

Journalists noted that Trump had a long history of trying to cancel individuals and companies. He demanded that the NFL fire Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee during the National Anthem and went so far as to suggest that the quarterback did not belong in the United States. Trump, a prolific X user before he was banned from the platform between 2020 and 2022, also called for cancellation of corporations (Apple, AT&T, and Macy’s), newspapers (the Arizona Republic, Dallas Morning News, and Washington Post), and commentators, both liberal and conservative.

Liberals have also pressed for cancellation, such as when colleges or student organizations booked conservatives known for making offensive comments. Engagement of speakers such as Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, and Milo Yiannopoulos generated outrage on campuses during the 2010s and 2020s and in some cases led to the events being canceled.

Politically charged cancel culture has also affected education. Some state colleges and universities have banned courses that conservatives opposed on the grounds that social justice is a liberal idea and serves only to politicize education. In 2020, right-wing organizations pushed for Boise State University to eliminate multiple courses and six departments: Criminal Justice, Gender Studies, Global Studies, History, Social Work, and Sociology. In 2021, Republican lawmakers in at least eight states wrote legislation to control what teachers say about racism and sexism. Book bans are another way in which cancel culture is manifested.

Between 2021 and 2023, there was a significant increase in the number of attempted and successful bans on books by conservative leaders and community members, especially on those written by Black and LGBTQ authors or covering anti-racist or pro-LGBTQ+ content. Many of these bans were engineered by conservative-controlled school boards, which enacted such bans on the levels of individual town library systems or school districts. Instances of book banning by liberals also occurred at that time, often motivated by the desire to shield readers from content viewed as racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise problematic; at times liberal book banning efforts led to challenges against works widely considered classics of American literature, including the works of novelist Mark Twain and children's author Dr. Seuss. However, data collected by the American Library Association (ALA) found that the majority of attempted book bans during the 2020s were attempted by conservative groups, dozens of which had formed by that time to conduct organized campaigns seeking the removal of certain materials from schools and public libraries.

About the Author

Josephine Campbell earned her BA in psychology and communications from King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. She worked in journalism for twenty years and in educational publishing for ten years. She also has experience as a parenting education caseworker for Catholic Social Services of the Diocese of Scranton and has worked as a substitute teacher.

Bibliography

Alfonseca, Kiara. “How Conservative and Liberal Book Bans Differ amid Rise in Literary Restrictions.” ABC News, 12 Jan. 2023, abcnews.go.com/US/conservative-liberal-book-bans-differ-amid-rise-literary/story?id=96267846. Accessed 26 Jul. 2023.

Alter, Alexandra, and Elizabeth A. Harris. “A Fast-Growing Network of Conservative Groups Is Fueling a Surge in Book Bans.” The New York Times, 12 Dec. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/12/12/books/book-bans-libraries.html. Accessed 26 Jul. 2023.

Brito, C. (2021, April 5). “Cancel culture seems to have started as an internet joke. Now it’s anything but.” CBS News. www.cbsnews.com/news/cancel-culture-internet-joke-anything-but/.

Bromwich, J. E. (2018, June 28). Everyone is canceled: It only takes one thing—and sometimes, nothing—for fans to dump a celebrity. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/style/is-it-canceled.html.

Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Real Reason Cancel Culture Is So Contentious." The Atlantic, 28 Apr. 2022, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/cancel-culture-debate-needs-greater-specificity/629654/. Accessed 19 July 2022.

Ghuman, P. (2021, February 22). Cancel culture primer for marketers. Forbes. www.forbes.com/sites/princeghuman/2021/02/22/cancel-culture-primer/?sh=4a1f87626727.

Greenspan, R. E. (2020, August 6). How ‘cancel culture’ quickly became one of the buzziest and most controversial ideas on the internet. Insider. www.insider.com/cancel-culture-meaning-history-origin-phrase-used-negatively-2020-7.

Hassan, S. A. PhD. (2021, March 23). Why cancel culture by anyone is harmful and wrong: We can overcome this toxic and harmful behavior. Psychology Today. www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-mind/202103/why-cancel-culture-anyone-is-harmful-and-wrong.

Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J., & White, K.M. (1995). A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58 (4), pp. 255 – 269. doi.org/10.2307/2787127.

Lewis, H. (2020, February 27). Feminism’s purity wars: Why has Erin Pizzey, once a pioneer of the women’s movement, been written out of its history? The Atlantic. www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/02/feminism-mens-rights-activism-cancel-culture/607057/.

Luu, C. (2019, December 18). Cancel culture is chaotic good: Cancel culture may prove to be the most memorable linguistic trend of the past decade. JSTOR Daily. daily.jstor.org/cancel-culture-is-chaotic-good/.

Mayer, Grace. “Bud Light has been embroiled in backlash since a beer promotion by a transgender influencer. Here's a timeline of how the controversy has played out.” Insider, 21 Jul. 2023, www.businessinsider.com/bud-light-transgender-controversy-backlash-boycotts-history. Accessed 26 Jul. 2023.

Mounk, Y. (2020, June 27). Stop firing the innocent: America needs a reckoning over racism. Punishing people who did not do anything wrong harms that important cause. The Atlantic. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/.

Savage, Luke. “Conservatives Are Banning Books in America, Not Liberals.” Jacobin, 29 Mar. 2023, jacobin.com/2023/03/library-book-ban-campaigns-conversatives-liberals. Accessed 26 Jul. 2023.

Savin, B.-T. (2016, January 11). A form of abuse, a social death penalty: The practice of shunning and its consequences. Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières. www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article51899.

Toler, Lindsey. "The Mental Health Effects of Cancel Culture." Reviewed by Akeem Marsh. Verywell Mind, 14 Apr. 2022, www.verywellmind.com/the-mental-health-effects-of-cancel-culture-5119201. Accessed 6 Dec. 2024.

Vogels, Emily A. “Awareness of ‘Cancel Culture’ Has Grown across U.S. Demographic Groups.” Pew Research Center, 9 June 2022, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/09/a-growing-share-of-americans-are-familiar-with-cancel-culture/. Accessed 29 May 2024.