We are all familiar with what it means to get “canceled” — it all starts with an off-color comment resurfacing from a YouTube video back in 2010, and quickly ignites a social media firestorm. This phenomenon, more commonly known among Gen Z as cancel culture, has the power to bring to light problematic behaviors that otherwise go unchecked in a matter of minutes. But too often, cancel culture goes beyond holding people accountable for their actions and becomes more focused on public shaming and destroying someone’s online image and personal life.
In an era dominated by the rise of social media platforms like TikTok, Reddit and Instagram, few could have predicted these would become spaces for accountability just as much as they are avenues to seek entertainment. Whether by exposing brands for their greenwashing marketing tactics or holding influencers and celebrities accountable for transgressions, younger generations wield social media as the judge, jury and executioner. Cancel culture was the cornerstone of social movements like #MeToo, which held sexual predators in positions of power responsible for their actions. Social media has become a space for marginalized groups to challenge institutional problems like police brutality or sexual harassment in the workplace, demanding that celebrities, corporations and individuals do better. This accountability movement has inspired those who are victims to speak up, as well as being a deterrent for abusive behavior. But in this quest for justice, do we forget to leave room for growth and change?
Cancel culture is a double-edged sword — the same means of pursuing justice can also morph into cyber harassment and online bullying, leading to irreparable public shaming and the destruction of an individual’s reputation. When we use social media, claims, comments and screenshots are often inflated or misrepresented, creating an informational asymmetry that prevents us from understanding the entire story. Before cancelling someone, it is important to listen to their side of the story and treat the situation as an opportunity for mediating and reconciling rather than an opportunity for mob action. While public figures and celebrities are usually in the position to bounce back from their social exile thanks to their resources and public relations teams, many canceled individuals don’t have the same capability for defense, facing consequences like unemployment, depression and anxiety as a result.
Public callouts have been shown to often prioritize public punishment rather than emphasizing transformation, making the matter seem more about optics than ethics. With social media making an individual’s digital footprint permanent, it is essential to think about whether past actions should continue to define an individual indefinitely. Take the case of Alexi McCammon, who lost her position as the editor-in-chief of Teen Vogue at the age of 27 due to racist and homophobic posts that resurfaced from when she was 17.
Permanently condemning an individual for their actions provides no space for personal growth, meaning that there’s no incentive for them to become a better person. If we want to maintain cancel culture’s usage as a transformative social tool rather than a virtual witch-hunt machine, we must re-approach how cancel culture is employed.
Therefore, it would be better to shift from cancel culture to revision culture, wherein mistakes aren’t looked down upon but serve as catalysts for change. By attempting to foster conversation regarding one’s transgressions, revision culture can create an environment where people identify their own biases and shortcomings. While revision culture does require more effort from the end of users, it makes conversations around accountability more fair and honest. Rather than simply pouncing on individuals based on what we read on a singular post on Instagram, we must take the time to understand both sides of the story. By leaving room for second chances, we increase the possibility for a deeper change to take place in public figures, corporations and individuals like ourselves.
If we intend to use collective action to condemn those whom the mainstream media won’t, we must make sure we guide our focus carefully and not succumb to herd mentality. True responsibility should leave enough room for future growth on a deeper level, and it should push bad-acting individuals to mold themselves into something better. While this may not apply to every situation, it is important to differentiate between accidental ignorance and deliberate malice and distinguish between teachable moments and irredeemable harm — encourage growth in those who are willing.
WSN’s Opinion section strives to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented in the Opinion section are solely the views of the writer.
Contact Shanay Tolat at [email protected].
