Is Cancel Culture Productive?

Written by Abby Balter | Designed by Sophie Jurion | Photographed by Alexandra Bradley

The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Celebrity Image in the Age of “Wokeness”

A lot can be said about the way social media has changed the landscape of modern life and celebrity culture—from the accessibility of one another’s lives to the immortality of content posted, the internet has the power to make or break a reputation, a career, and even judicial action. Given the anonymous mechanism social media provides for people to share their opinions and interests, it is also a breeding ground for misinformation, bullying, and bandwagoning. Platforms like Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram have come under fire most notably for the perpetuation of what has been dubbed “cancel culture.”

Cancel culture is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as “a way of behaving in a society or group, especially on social media, in which it is common to completely reject and stop supporting someone because they have said or done something that offends you.” Social media has a special talent for encouraging people to crusade against a cause or else face backlash of their own. So, in conjunction with the rapid spread of information, it creates a thunderstorm of anger that villainizes people, sometimes before understanding the full picture.

To understand why cancel culture may be considered a productive means of holding people accountable, one must first understand why this phenomenon has become so important in internet culture. Over the past few years, political unrest has perforated the U.S. and in turn, has resulted in political activism becoming trendy. And how does something become trendy in the 2020s? Social media. So rather than political activism among young people being rooted in care for others and genuine passion for an issue, it is sometimes more symbolic of one’s “wokeness” and an individual’s social status. Therefore, in order for people to prove how “woke” or progressive they are, they turn to social media to share their opinions on issues or chastise others for their behaviors. Because of this, people are more inclined to call out possibly problematic statements or actions in order to further their own positive public perception, despite not having accurate information or knowledge of the subject.

Let's circle back to 2016. Taylor Swift was at the height of her career after winning her second “Album of the Year” award at the Grammys for her record 1989. Then in July 2016, #taylorswiftisoverparty started trending on Twitter after Kim Kardashian shared a Snapchat recording of a phone call between Swift and Kanye West over Swift’s name drop in his song “Famous” and her alleged approval of the lyric “I think me and Taylor might still have sex/I made that b*tch famous.” After Kardashian and West shared their “side” of the story, people feverishly attacked Swift—leaving snake emojis, hateful language, and even death threats on her social media pages. Her reputation was in shambles. Later it was discovered that Kardasian and West had edited that recording to fit their version of events and Swift was not lying. But the damage to her career had already been done.

Obviously, Swift’s career has since recovered from this debacle, but the question of whether the crime fits the punishment remains. Even if Swift had lied about approving the lyric, does that justify the career-ending backlash?

The crux of the issue with cancel culture comes down to two things: is the response justified and is it a productive way of improving society? The answer to the first question is subjective, for everyone has a different interpretation of if or how the crime fits the punishment, although the accuracy behind the alleged drama would seem to be of paramount importance. The latter question is more complicated; “productive solutions” also mean something different to everyone. But the standard goal (to be used for the purposes of this article) is to help people learn from their mistakes and educate themselves on the issues at play.

There is no justification for abusive, discriminatory, or derogatory behavior and remarks, no matter how far they date back to. But is it fair to completely isolate or cut someone out of society because of a mistake they made?

Travel back to summer 2021, Rolling Loud. DaBaby is performing and says to the crowd, “If you didn’t show up today with HIV, AIDS, or any of them deadly sexually transmitted diseases that’ll make you die in two to three weeks, then put your cellphone lighter up,” among other comments. His speech at Rolling Loud led to intense backlash on social media and major news coverage for days, including many celebrities speaking out against him and Dua Lipa even removing his verse from her hit song “Levitating.”

Now it must be said that there was no condoning DaBaby’s remarks or behavior in the days after the show. But in a situation like that, shouldn’t the goal of criticizing his homophobic commentary be to educate? Attacking people when they make a mistake, even an egregious one, does not make them more apologetic or want to understand the complexities of a subject. It isolates people and fosters more anger and resentment than anything else. The same can be said for internet stars such as Shane Dawson, Summer Mckeen, and many others who have had videos or images of themselves doing or saying things that are considered racist, homophobic, or sexist resurface. This is not to say that the anger at these celebrities' behavior is not justified, but “canceling” someone hasn’t proved to be the most productive means of causing people to reflect on their biases and thought processes.

From the opposing perspective, sometimes canceling someone or publicly shaming them is the only way to draw attention to their actions and possibly receive justice or reparations in some capacity. Such can be argued in the case of sexual misconduct or assault claims, particularly among celebrities or public figures. It is a known fact that rape and sexual assault allegations have a very slim rate of making it to court, let alone the perpetrator being convicted. So in this way, public condemnation can provide poetic justice in the court of public opinion at the very least.

The most notable example of this was during the peak of the #MeToo movement in 2019, which led to countless male celebrities being publicly accused of sexual assault or misconduct, such as Matt Lauer, James Franco, Ryan Seacrest, and of course, Harvey Weinstein. Some of the men publicly accused during that time were brought to court and convicted—most notably Weinstein—but many others faced consequences of their own even without legal action.

Matt Lauer, the longtime anchor of NBC’s The Today Show was terminated from the network, isolated from the journalism and TV world, and divorced by his then-wife. Despite not having seen a day in court, he has certainly faced consequences for his behavior and has had his reputation entrenched in history. Although it is disappointing that the justice system has a way of mishandling sexual misconduct cases, cancel culture and the power of social media were able to bring some form of justice to fruition.

While I wholeheartedly believe in calling out bigoted or dangerous behavior, cancel culture appears to be one of the least effective ways to enact real change. Aside from situations of sexual misconduct, I can think of very few scenarios in which canceling someone worked to educate and inform. For those being canceled and those doing the canceling,

it comes down to one’s own protection or formation of their public image. The long apologies given by the canceled and the act of canceling someone both stem from a need to be perceived in a certain way. And unfortunately, the tactics used to manipulate one's own image are often embraced by the public.

Ultimately, aside from the moral implications presented by cancel culture, it is a deeply ironic phenomenon that speaks volumes about America’s fixation on celebrity. There are a multitude of celebrities who have fallen at the hands of Twitter’s #[insertanypublicfigure]isoverparty, whether justifiably or not, and despite the public backlash, have gained or retained a mass amount of followers with their careers bouncing back stronger than ever. This isn’t shocking, for Hollywood and the American public love a redemption arc. Just look at how many times James Charles or Trisha Paytas have been canceled for offensive, racist, problematic behavior and within a few weeks, all has been forgotten, at least in the scale of their careers. So what benefit does cancel culture provide if a YouTube apology video or rehab stint can undo the damage done to their public image? If you ask me, very little.

It may not be fair to permanently exile someone who has made a mistake from the public eye, for if that were the case, we would all be held in contempt. But there comes a point where certain people just shouldn’t be considered public figures—they have done so many abhorrent things time and time again, just to repeatedly issue meaningless apologies and bounce back. Case in point: Trisha Paytas, Jake and Logan Paul, and hot take, Kanye West. But America loves the drama, and they love to see people suffer and fall from grace and crawl their way back up, purely for their own entertainment. This is why cancel culture will never really change anything. Because just as easily as people will come together to slaughter someone’s public persona, they will sit on the edges of their seats and watch as the person they once maimed is resurrected and granted forgiveness. And they will applaud.