Some examples of how cancel-culture has reared its head in recent times
Many social scientists have claimed that Facebook and Instagram feed narrow our intellect and outlook. The high degree of personalization which exists tells you exactly what you want to hear. Now since we have been exposed to it for so many years, people have been trying to emulate in the world as well. To see, hear and read exactly what they would want, and everything else, cancelled. It is probably time for a digital Dandi march, ‘here, please take this article with a pinch of salt’, or rather heaps of them.
Was public opinion ever this expressive than now? Not only has it become easier to share it, but it has also become possible to push people in power to act in our good faith. Every time someone fails to keep with the ideals of the present, they are called-out until they fix it. Also, the recent diversification of representation across movies, music, books, etc. has only been possible because people not just wanted but demanded it. But during a debate the role of public opinion is murky. The fallacy is called Argumentum Ad Populum; if many believe so, it is so. Especially since it Is very easy to fall onto a bandwagon on social media without complete information. Another issue being, people branded by labels. Once you brand me as a transphobic, it will undermine whatever I have to say. So more people stand against you as the public court has labelled you. (Inferred from Gal-Dem article)
Let me start with a relatively safe example or rather NSFW example, WAP by Cardi B. I have watched the video a couple of time, much to the dismay of my conscience for liking this shit. There is this moment in the video when Kylie Jenner walks in, slowly, as you might imagine, and opens a door. This started a furore on Twitter. They wanted her removed for featuring in a black singer’s video and appropriating their culture.
As everyone in the audience has become an expert, it is difficult to make anything except giving them exactly what they want. This incessant desire to contribute by every other person has also taken interesting forms. Many indie singers, like Ashnikko literally ask their audience what she should do for her next video. And who can forget Doja Cat dancing to her ‘Say so’ with the same moves which became popular on TikTok.
Let us go to a slightly warmer example, JK Rowling and her transphobia. Although it has been quite some time, she is one of the few to have stayed put with her opinion despite all the backlash. (Click here for the 101) Besides tweeting, she went as far to post an essay on her blog to explain her stand. To this many celebrities started to disassociate with her. Mostly Hogwarts alum, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, etc. Am I to believe they had no bias when deciding to disassociate with a woman now branded as an evil white woman? Why would they tank their careers along with her if all they had to do was tweet a few lines? This of course only added fuel to the fire of public opinion, one of them even claimed to have burned Rowling’s books in front of his children. Still not backing, she released an open letter on Harper’s Magazine, this time signed with 150 other authors and writers (notably Salman Rushdie, Margaret Atwood, etc.) The letter commented on how cancel-culture subverts free speech and open debate. One of the co-signers was Jennifer Finley Bolan, a transwoman writer. And suddenly she withdrew her signature, it was because she did not know that it is signed by JK Rowling as well. This is clearly ostracization which has taken place out of fear from getting the cooties of the public lynching. Personally, I could never decide which side I was on, because like every other guy on social media, my mind fleeted away to the next trending hashtag.
India, of course, has not been immune to this. Cancel Culture reared up when ‘BJP-sympathizer’ labelled writer Monika Arora (and Sonali Chitalkar + Prerna Malhotra) decided to publish the book Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story. While the book, set to be published, didn’t get much steam, it’s scheduled launch event did. For the launch, Bloomsbury had dared to invite BJP leader Kapil Mishra, the person who allegedly incited the riots. All of this was too much to take by the leftist/liberal citizens of the country (another label). They were all fumed that the book was set to deliver a false narrative on the riots and also had come in a precarious time when the case is still ongoing in court. So following the cancel-culture, many authors threatened to pull their books from Bloomsbury and boycott it. Complicit to every media house’s reaction, they pulled the book before it could launch. Unsurprisingly another fire started, complaining that book banning or pulping undermines free speech. Also started a demand for William Dalrymple’s head (One of the best sellers under Bloomsbury), who is accused to have had a hand in making the publisher pull the book. But he has since claimed that he does not support book banning at all even if he personally did not agree with the idea of the book. Anurag Kashyap also had chimed in and called the book ban terrible as well (My guess is they don’t use social media as much). Either way, the book is now being published by Garuda Prakashan and it’s Tamil translation by Footprint Publications (to which Wikipedia slyly adds that it is run by a BJP leader) and has gained much popularity.
In conclusion, a conclusion to all the conclusions, cancel-culture is the most interesting thing to have come out recently. While my layman’s intuition claims it stems from narrow-mindedness and several others have called it ugly, it does not change the fact that the public has more power than ever before. The most interesting reaction to this I have seen is from Disney. Instead of removing or censoring the offences in their old movies, they put up a disclaimer,
“The cartoons you are about to see ….may depict some of the ethnic and racial prejudices….these cartoons are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.”
It is a tolerant approach and does not seek to edit the world and its history to suit current ideals, which we all are pinching to do. I do believe it is unfair to bully someone for being in the wrong, or having opinions not in tune with time. Hell, if you put me in any other country I am sure I will offend a lot of people because obviously, they have a whole different social dynamics. The best one can do is keep their eyes open and learn as much as possible. Cancel-culture, on the other hand, wishes to click unfollow on any opposition. But then again, it would be ironic to ask for cancel-culture to be cancelled. Maybe I am behind in time in understanding it.
Hopefully, I’ll get there.
Comments