The mainstream media has recently blown up a phenomenon called cancel culture, the practice of "canceling" or ostracizing individuals who spoke or acted in a manner deemed unacceptable by societal standards. Like most current social media-related happenings, cancel culture is a term that holds a great deal of controversy. While some claim it “remove[s] celebrity status or esteem from a person, place, or thing based on offensive behavior or transgression”, others claim that it “silence[s] someone that does not have the same belief as you … taking their First Amendment rights away … [violating] people’s civil rights.” (Pew Research Center). However, the large majority agree upon the idea that it calls out others for offensive posts or content, whether the content creator should be held accountable or not.
A similar trend can be found within the Red Scare in the 1950s, a period when hysteria surrounding the fear of communism and Soviet influence spread and permeated throughout American society. This is referred to as the second Red Scare, closely tied to “McCarthyism”, named after Senator Joseph McCarthy who claimed that he knew of communists who had infiltrated the US government. These ungrounded accusations ultimately led to the oppression and persecution of suspected communists and those they associated with. Under the claim of preventing the “alter[ing of] the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means”, permission was given to screen federal employees for possible involvement in activities considered "totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive" (Executive Order 9835). At that time, there were mixed feelings about this as well: while some believed in the noble cause of uprooting the evil of communism within America, others suffered as targeted victims of McCarthyism. However, generally, the threat of communism spurred on the belief that this was a necessary measure to keep America safe.
Senator Joseph McCarthy
Despite the overwhelming lack of concrete evidence, the little evidence was often exaggerated and given credibility nevertheless. In thousands of cases, suspects were imprisoned or lost their jobs and livelihoods. Additionally, this crackdown escalated to all fields of work and American society. For instance, states established laws and “loyalty oaths”, which required government employees, even tenured employees, to deny “radical beliefs” under the threat of losing their jobs. Many refused to do so and were fired as a result. On the same note, a notorious blacklist was created by Hollywood which listed suspected communists, banning them from being involved with any work of Hollywood studios. These are just a few examples of what the Red Scare brought about.
Two examples of published comics that further implanted the fear of communism from the Catholic Catechetical Guild of Minneapolis. These were distributed in 1947 and 1960.
Because of the consequential silencing through incarceration and unemployment on the basis of differing beliefs of government, many considered the Red Scare to be a form of oppression and thus a violation of the First Amendment, specifically the freedom of speech.
As mentioned earlier, some believe that cancel culture is doing the same under the guise of ending discrimination, whether rather be racial, religious, ethnic, or otherwise. In fact, many who are “canceled” for a post on social media, perhaps taken out of context or blown out of proportion, receive similar treatment to those accused during the Red Scare. These people, their family, and their friends may receive threats, get fired, and get their reputation ruined for not displaying “political correctness” online. For instance, New York Times editor Bari Weiss provides her own experience in her resignation letter: “Some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one … post[ing] ax emojis next to my name” (Weiss). She continues in her letter to describe how others labeled her as racist or a Nazi.
Parallel to the Red Scare, cancel culture has also been accused of taking away freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. One person notes that “you should be able to post whatever you want … It’s a free country”; another develops this idea: “Offensive content is a matter of opinion. We are entitled to have an opinion others don’t agree with” (Pew Research Center). In other words, these people claim that cancel culture is an unjust punishment because it takes away the ability to freely post personal opinions without being held to any negative repercussions despite the nature of social media in American society as, after all, they are platforms for sharing said opinions.
Overall, many similarities between the Second Red Scare and modern-day cancel culture can be drawn. Both phenomena involve public shaming and shunning of individuals for perceived offenses, often a product of fear, misinformation, and misunderstanding. In both situations, there is no question that serious ramifications can follow, including job loss and threats.
However, do the negative aspects of cancel culture nearly compare to that of the second Red Scare? Personally, I don't believe so—under the assumption people have common sense. Much argument against cancel culture emphasizes the "mob mentality" where shaming users read one perspective of a situation or post and immediately go out of their way to argue, insult, and/or stalk the offending user because many others have done the same. This has also been connected with the fact that, by following the cancel culture bandwagon and targeting the same user, they're often believed to be "doing the right thing" for confronting an individual "in the wrong" and praised. These affirmations grow feelings of validation and the need to continue this behavior. This, in addition to the fact that the target's perspective is repeatedly ignored or overlooked, creates a problematic mix. But, if users acknowledge that there's another person behind each post with their own life and their own family, recognize the possible aftermath, and research the whole situation before jumping to conclusions, I believe that, for the most part, unjustified "canceling" could be avoided. In the real world, the majority of users honestly don't care enough and have no motivation to care enough. Furthermore, I don't believe that targetted users, perhaps even after an apology posted online, suddenly change their opinions 180 degrees after a social media confrontation. More than likely, they created a facade to placate the media while maintaining their original opinions with a more silent stance.
Does this change my answer to "yes, cancel culture compares to the Red Scare"? Also no. In my opinion, cancel culture, like many other forms of boycotting and outcry, may have extreme cases. But if online platforms create and monitor controlled environments, cancel culture may be a significant step in leading society into a better tomorrow. Writer Shaun Scott also acknowledges this: "While there may be instances of collateral damage, even people innocently accused, a more pressing problem to address is how and why institutions we are supposed to trust are deaf to many of the problems facing women and minority groups" (Schwartz). As mentioned earlier, social media platforms are a place to share opinions, even if they may be misguided, and cancel culture is a form of expression. When the justice system fails, cancel culture allows victims to speak up. When marginalized people are not given a voice, whether it be at work or in their government, they have the freedom to speak up online. The assistant professor of Media Studies at the University of Virginia, Meredith Clark, shares the same thought, “To me, it’s ultimately an expression of agency" (Bromwich). Clark continues to elaborate: cancel culture can be comparable to the "breakup and a taking back of one’s power", whether it be political, social, or otherwise (Bromwich). This is why social media is as widely used as it is today—to connect and share without boundaries of social norms, wealth, or status.
We must ask ourselves how cancel culture impacts our rights as individuals and how we should go about cancel culture with a thorough understanding of accountability and public condemnation. You can learn more about this history of cancel culture and how it has led to today's cancel culture on social media platforms by clicking on this link.
Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/story/did-joseph-mccarthy-cause-the-red-scare-of-the-1950s
https://ethics.org.au/calling-out-for-justice/
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/age-of-eisenhower/mcarthyism-red-scare
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/style/is-it-canceled.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/t-magazine/cancel-culture-history.html
https://www.procon.org/headlines/is-cancel-culture-or-callout-culture-good-for-society/
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/executive-orders/9835/executive-order-9835
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/15/mccarthyism-is-back-this-time-its-woke/
Comments
Post a Comment