Tweet

Humans have a long history of rejecting one another. In Nathaniel Hawthorn’s “The Scarlet Letter,” Hester Prynne is deemed an outcast and subjected to public ridicule for committing adultery. For hundreds of years, entire kingdoms were excommunicated from the Catholic Church for the actions of their kings and queens. And in 2021, more than half of the states in the United States (Iowa is not among them) perform the ultimate act of rejection by sentencing human beings to death for crimes apparently so egregious that the perpetrator is beyond all hope of reform or redemption.

 These are, of course, extreme examples. Other examples are more commonplace.

 Have you ever avoided a friend or gossiped about them behind their back because of something they did? Have you ever stopped reading an author or watching films featuring a certain actor because of something they said? Or, perhaps most common of all, have you ever “unfollowed” someone on social media because you found their posts to be annoying?

 Today, we have replaced the term rejectionism with something new, something fresh: “Cancel Culture.” You’ve undoubtedly heard this phrase both in the media and in your social circles. But what do you make of it? What is Cancel Culture? When is it a good thing? When is it a bad thing? And what would you do if you were canceled? The Viewfinder editorial team dives head-first into these questions and more below.

Echo Chambers : Caleb Grizzle

For some, Cancel Culture is viewed as a product of self-awareness, cultural growth or justified punishment. To others, it’s seen as a product of the soft, overly sensitive, “woke-police.” Both are extremes that can bring contentious and divisive perspectives to current social issues or a view of someone’s checkered past. These divisions become even more pronounced thanks to something called echo chambers.

Echo chambers are often defined as a space where one only consumes or hears information that confirms and reinforces their own beliefs and convictions. This can create comfortable spaces for people who want to feel understood; it is also fertile ground for organizations eager to capitalize on a captive audience. The freedom to tell ones’ audience exactly what it wants to hear may be a successful business model; however, it is ethically dangerous because it creates unnecessary division in an already heated political climate. A practical result of this damage comes when echo chambers collide. 

Echo chambers collide online on social media, at family gatherings and among college students on campuses across the country. People accustomed to hearing exactly what they want to hear online quickly become turned off or appalled by other viewpoints. This echo chamber effect breeds Cancel Culture on a personal relationship scale. The unfollowing of the ultra-conservative uncle on Facebook or the muting of tweets of the left-leaning cousin are all small actions of cancelling someone because their views do not align with your own. These little actions begin to form an echo chamber that continues the cycle of division within relationships. 

An article in The Guardian by David Robert Grimes captured this danger of the internet accurately in 2017, saying, “But what the internet has done is facilitate the emergence of alternative news sites. And here, factual accuracy can no longer be taken for granted. … And social media allows the rapid growth and spread of everything from the ludicrous Pizzagate conspiracy theory to rampant climate-change denial – and exists across the political spectrum.” 

In other words, by tuning out — or cancelling — opposing views and tuning in to our preferred echo chambers, we expose ourselves to misinformation and division.

How does one break the cycle of divisive echo chambers? Seek out high-quality journalism, and engage in conversation with people of different cultures, beliefs and party alignments.

History of “Cancelling”: Cole Bernsden

Social ostracization, like Cancel Culture, isn’t anything new. If anything it’s been part of humanity for centuries, even millennia. I’ll go over some of the more famous examples throughout history. 

Beginning in the 12th century, the Inquisition was set up as a powerful office within the Catholic Church with the purpose of weeding out heresy within Europe. The most famous application was in Spain, where some 32,000 people were executed for heresy during the Spanish Inquisition. Many of the confessions were made only after torture.

Another moral crisis that led to social ostracization was the Salem Witch Trials, which began in 1692 after a group of girls claimed that they were possessed by the devil and accused several local women of witchcraft. Eventually more than 150 people, including children, were accused of being witches and 19 were executed. Toward the end of the Salem Witch Trials, public opinion began to turn against the trials. Eventually, courts began to overturn guilty verdicts for those previously convicted, but the legacy of the trials would linger for centuries.

Arthur Miller wrote a play about the Salem Witch Trials in 1953. Called “The Crucible,” the play doubled as an allegory for what was also happening in 1953: the Red Scare and the McCarthyist era. Ironically, the term “witch hunt” originated from the McCarthyist era.

After World War II, communist subversion seemed to be a real possibility to the American public. News of the first Soviet atom bomb detonation and the communists winning the Chinese Civil War in 1949, along with communist North Korea invading South Korea in 1950, gave the theory plausibility. 

At the same time, a Republican-led House Un-American Activities Committee (or HUAC) began a campaign to root out supposed communist infiltration. Their targets included left-leaning people in Hollywood and the state department. This environment of fear led to the rise of Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy caught the public’s eye during an appearance at the Ohio County Women’s Republican Club in Wheeling, West Virginia, where he waved a piece of paper that he claimed had the names of 205 known members of the Communist Party on it. McCarthy claimed these people were “working and shaping policy” in the State Department.

There was no evidence found of subversion, and his colleagues in both parties, including President Dwight Eisenhower, disapproved of his tactics. Nevertheless, in 1953, McCarthy was placed in charge of the Committee on Government Operations, which allowed him to launch even more expansive investigations of alleged communist infiltration of the federal government. In committee hearings, he would aggressively interrogate witnesses in what the public eventually saw as a blatant violation of their civil rights. Despite a lack of any proof of subversion, more than 2,000 government employees lost their jobs as a result of McCarthy’s investigations.

McCarthy’s downfall came in 1954, when he focused his attention on supposed infiltration of the armed forces. The American public eventually saw through him when the hearings were broadcast on live television. 

After watching him intimidate witnesses, the chief counsel famously said, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” McCarthy lost his allies, and then died in 1957 at the age of 48.

These are just a few famous examples of social ostracization or moral panics, and many believe that Cancel Culture is the newest form of this. Historically, moral panics such as these are seen in a negative light in the future.We will see if history repeats itself yet again.

Canceled Celebrities: Nerma Turan

There are many reasons that social media influencers and celebrities are canceled online.

According to lifestyle platform InsideHook.com “(Being canceled) usually begins when a person says or expresses an opinion that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic.”

In recent years, there have been people in the public eye who have been “canceled” by former fans because of certain remarks or behaviors. 

An example of a canceled celebrity is Ellen DeGeneres. In 2020, interviewees and employees of The Ellen Show made allegations against DeGeneres for having an attitude that was opposite of her “Be Kind” brand. One of the most notable allegations was that of YouTuber Nikkie de Jager, who called out DeGeneres for being “cold and distant” when she appeared on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, according to Insider.

Insider reported in April 2020 that there was a Twitter thread started by comedian Kevin T. Porter where he asked people to post crazy stories about DeGeneres being rude. This thread had thousands of Twitter users responding about their personal experiences or things they heard about DeGeneres.

Adding more fuel to the fire, crew members who worked on DeGeneres’ show publicly claimed that the work environment didn’t follow the brand that DeGeneres promotes on her show and there was a lack of respect, along with a controlling attitude, from DeGeneres and executives.

An Australian executive producer for the radio show “4BC Breakfast,” Neil Breen, worked with DeGeneres in 2013 when she was interviewed on his show. Host Richard Wilkins was the interviewer, but Breen experienced working with DeGeneres’ team beforehand.

According to an Insider article, Breen quoted DeGeneres’ team to have said, “Neil, no one’s to talk to Ellen. You don’t talk to her, you don’t approach her, you don’t look at her. She’ll come in, she’ll sit down, she’ll talk to Richard, then Ellen will leave.”

Given all of these accusations, The Ellen DeGeneres Show’s distributor, WarnerMedia, set out to investigate the show’s workplace environment.

Another celebrity that recently faced Cancel Culture backlash is Chris Harrison. Harrison is known for hosting the Bachelor and Bachelorette franchise. According to NBC News, Harrison recently stepped away from the shows to take some time to reflect on controversial statements he made in defense of former contestant, Rachael Kirkconnell.

In early 2021 during the airing of the 25th season of The Bachelor, a photo of Kirkconnell spread through social media like wildfire. In the photo, Kirkconnell and friends were shown attending an antebellum plantation-themed fraternity formal only three years prior to her being on The Bachelor. Many saw the event as racist. Kirkconnell was also accused of liking photos of the Confederate flag online.

According to NBC News, Harrison tried to support Kirkconnell and clear her name in an interview with former Bachelorette Rachael Lindsay. He said that people were treating Kirkconnell unfairly in this situation and suggested that she should not be criticized for the antebellum formal because it had taken place three years prior. Following the interview, Harrison was accused of defending Kirkconnell’s racist actions.

The public was outraged at Harrison defending Kirkconnell, and many started calling for Harrison to be “canceled” online. Harrison stepped away from The Bachelor’s season 25 and hasn’t posted on social media since February as he takes some time to reflect on his actions.

In an Instagram post by Harrison on February 13, he wrote, “I have spent the last few days listening to the pain my words have caused, and I am deeply remorseful. My ignorance did damage to my friends, colleagues and strangers alike. I have no one to blame but myself for what I said and the way I spoke. I set standards for myself, and have not met them. I feel that with every fiber of my being. Now, just as I taught my children to stand up, and to own their actions, I will do the same.”

Harrison continued by apologizing to the BIPOC community and noted that he will be “stepping aside for a period of time.”

Both Harrison and DeGeneres have publicly admitted wrongdoing and promised to do better in the future. Are their words empty gestures, or will they truly respond to adversity by becoming better versions of themselves? Are they redeemable, or is this cancellation permanent?

Dr. Seuss: Megan Marshall

Recently, Cancel Culture collided with the well-known Dr. Suess books that many grew up with and cherish to this day. On March 2, 2021, Dr. Seuss Enterprises (DSE) decided to discontinue the printing of six books due to their hurtful or inappropriate imagery and to protect author Theodore Geisel’s (Dr. Seuss) legacy. This action resulted in many outspoken and mixed feelings on social media from the public. Some were against it and said the move was just the latest example of oversensitivity. Others were for it and said the move was overdue.

“We are committed to action,” DSE said in a statement on its website. “To that end, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, working with a panel of experts, including educators, reviewed our catalog of titles and made the decision last year to cease publication and licensing of the following titles:  “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street”, “If I Ran the Zoo”, “McElligot’s Pool”, “On Beyond Zebra!”, “Scrambled Eggs Super!” and “The Cat’s Quizzer”. These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong. Ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises’s catalog represents and supports all communities and families.”

DSE canceled these books because of the way ethnic characters were portrayed. For example, in “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street,” an Asian individual is depicted wearing a conical hat, holding chopsticks and eating from a bowl. Another book that was canceled, “If I Ran the Zoo,” depicts two bare-footed African men wearing what appear to be grass skirts with their hair tied above their heads.

Despite the mixed emotions that this statement brought, Random House Children Books, Dr. Seuss’ publisher said in a statement, “We respect the decision of Dr. Seuss Enterprises and the work of the panel that reviewed this content last year, and their recommendation.”

Many of those who spoke out against the decision said they felt as if a part of their freedom and childhood was being taken away. Their complaints are unlikely to persuade DSE to rethink its decision, but there are also others caught in the crossfire. Although DSE banned the books from being sold and produced, libraries must decide what to do with the Seuss books that are currently in their collections. Removing them would force libraries to take sides in the long-running debate between freedom of expression and cultural sensitivity related to content that is outdated and hurtful to many today. 

In response to the controversy, conservative commentator and author Ben Shapiro tweeted, “We’ve now got foundations book burning the authors to whom they are dedicated. Well done, everyone.”

There are also people who have expressed respect toward DSE for the decision of pulling these books. Many in this group contend we are living in a different world from the one in which these books were written and claim we have adopted better morals. They add that these books promote outmoded values that could potentially teach children to think insensitively. Pulling these books helps to prevent the continuation of this thinking. 

“The books we share with our children matter,” tweeted Rebekah Fitzsimmons, assistant teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University. “Books shape their worldview and tell them how to relate to the people, places, and ideas around them. As grown-ups, we have to examine the worldview we are creating for our children, including carefully re-examining our favorites.” 

I can see both sides to this debate and would encourage others to do the same. Here are some topics to get you thinking about both sides and and some of the deeper, hidden issues. 

One: Many of us are quick to condemn and cancel racist people on social media, and this is almost never disputed or debated. People get kicked out of schools and fired from jobs for being racist. Famous people lose their fame for social media messages they wrote when they were 12. But when it comes to books with clear racist images and messages, people go crazy over them being canceled or taken away. Why is this? 

Two: Shows like South Park and Family Guy are accepted in today’s society despite being filled with racist and sexist slurs and references. Why are Geisel’s books being canceled while the writers of Family Guy can outright say something racist or offensive and it is OK? Should these shows be canceled, too? 

Three: I do believe that these books could have the potential to teach children the wrong ways of thinking, but do we really believe that these books are going to determine whether someone racist or not all by themselves? Canceling six offensive Dr. Suess books is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t cancel all of the racist books out there. Was the main mission of DSE to cover their own asses or to set an example for other publishers? Because the message wasn’t so clear about their intent. Which brings me to my last point… 

Four: Does covering up racism actually address the problem? Why are we so concerned about the books that we grew up with being canceled when really we should be concerned about the fact that racism is present in these books to begin with? Oh, and it is still running rampant in our society today! Put another way, should we be covering up racism or learning from it? A lot of racist history is either covered up or sugarcoated in the typical history class. It wasn’t until my fourth year of college that I was encouraged to read in depth about the history of racism. Does  taking away examples of racism and acting like they did not happen make things better or worse? 

Regardless of where you stand on Dr. Seuss’s canceled books, make sure that you don’t get so consumed by the controversy that you ignore the root problem. Take a stance, but also educate yourself about both sides, and don’t lose sight of what’s most important. Taking a stance based on one side of the story can make you just as much of a fool as not being educated at all.