Why People Get “Cancelled”
Many people I know find themselves hesitant to speak up against dominant socio-political ideologies, especially in places where intellects are formed and often weaponized. One reason for such hesitancy is the prevailing discourse on “cancel culture,” the meaning of which has changed ever since it was put into use.
In the past, being “cancelled” referred to attempts to get a person’s broadcast segment off the air. Hence, we can “cancel” a TV show. It then evolved into boycotting the products of targeted businesses and the “cancellation” of professional engagements for certain public figures, which continues to remain a form of “cancellation” today.
Today, however, the term has been misused to refer to any kind of backlash (even by means of gossip) faced by any particular person even with little to no personal or professional consequences whatsoever. Hence, one must distinguish between merely being hated by large groups of people from an organized effort to destroy one’s source of livelihood, be it employment or business.
Nevertheless, it is true that these things tend to go hand in hand nowadays. We are living in a time where companies have developed “personalities” of their own: branding is now more important than it was a hundred years ago, and corporate employees are expected to have so-called “soft-skills” (a cringeworthy term) that can allow for a greater organizational cohesiveness.
Expressing unpopular views would therefore “reflect poorly” on the company, as if the company was itself culpable for the ideological beliefs of their employees (or rather, that by hiring such people they are complicit in their “wrongness”).
This has been augmented by Internet logic which has increasingly distorted the boundaries of “public” and “private” life, making employers more hesitant to employ “cancellable” people in any gainful capacity. This would have not been so important back in the day when business owners were not necessarily “public figures,” businesses were still owned and managed by families, and no one had to make a Linkedin account.
The world, however, has moved on, and corporate dominance (which now separates ownership from management) is the norm, as well as its “organizational culture” which feeds into the idea that “cancel culture” is powerful.
Furthermore, what we call “cancel culture” is in reality a way for complex societies to maintain themselves, especially now that they are atomized. Global trends since the Industrial Revolution indicate the weakening of family ties and those of local communities in favor of “mass-society”—one that is mobilized both for the workforce and the ballot box.
Such societies must rely on a particular level of ideological and technical uniformity in order to function properly. By this I do not mean that societies are truly putting their ideals into practice, but they surely are inculcating them into the multitude. Those who do not conform are sidelined, though in time some of them end up being assimilated and re-invented (and they must, if they want to enter the mainstream).
In more human terms, such cohesiveness generally requires a certain amount of trust. People tend to be more trusting towards those who are like them rather than barbarians or foreigners. Such an instinct comes from millennia of wars and death, and will probably continue until the final unity of the human race in the second coming of Christ.
So when people who “privately” hold unpopular stances are exposed, a breach of trust is experienced among their friends, colleagues, or (in the case of public figures) followers. Even those who are indifferent would be less willing to coexist with such a person due to their breach of the unspoken social pact which is expected of all members of society: “a common agreement as to the objects of their love” (St. Augustine, De civitate Dei XIX).
And this is the reason why “cancellation” remains for many a boogeyman. We are expected to live in a social order which does not hesitate to repudiate our principles of belief and action. Our silence, by which we seek to protect ourselves, paradoxically, keeps us vulnerable: for we insist on continuing to live as foreigners in our own country, playing by the rules of a game which is inherently repugnant to our principles.
In other words, we live in a society based upon a common agreement as to things which we are expected to, but do not love. By choosing silence, we are undermining our own chances of ever making an alternate order.
It is an illusion to expect everyone to hold themselves to fair play and unrestricted freedom of political speech, especially when it threatens the cohesiveness of a collapsible society which can only be sustained artificially. We may wish for mere toleration, but we must remember the words of James Burnham, who understood that “Only power restrains power” (The Machiavellians, p. 278).
Nevertheless, after seeing a problem and judging it in light of the Gospel, we must act. And such action would encompass every aspect of society as we know it. The missionaries of old understood that the fear of death can only be conquered by looking at it with Divine conviction. What more for that trifle we call “cancellation”?
We must become missionaries again.
