#youareoverparty

Cancel culture as it exists today is an especially unique phenomenon. However, the use of public shaming as a punishment has existed across various cultures for centuries. There are similar occurrences throughout history, which have led to many comparisons being drawn, but if there is one thing the past has told us, it is that public shaming as a form of punishment or deterrence is not new. When looking at the history of public shaming we must ask ourselves: how has public shaming evolved, and does it actually work?

Why do people cancel others, and are there common characteristics?

Distinguishing online trolls and haters is not as simple as people may think, as it has the tendency to vary from one person to the next. While genetic predisposition to mental illnesses such as anxiety and depression, as well as the environment in which you surround yourself in are influential in an individual’s behaviour, there are two main factors; Sadism and Psychopathy.  

A sadist is “a person who takes pleasure in inflicting pain, punishment, or humiliation on others” whereas, a psychopath is more extreme. It is “a person having an egocentric and antisocial personality marked by a lack of remorse for one's actions” who also possesses “criminal tendencies”.  

In an article written by Evita March and published by The Conversation, she expressed that “the most powerful predictor of trolling was sadism. The more someone enjoys hurting others, the more likely it is they will troll”.

When you think of a regular human being, we are usually fuelled to create a positive environment for those whom we surround ourselves with, which results in "typical" and positive social rewards. The difference with those who engage in the act of trolling, online shaming and cancel culture is just this.

Instead of pursuing the positive social rewards, individuals involved in cancelling are looking to attract a negative reaction, thus gaining "atypical social rewards". This not only creates a divisive environment and further isolates the perpetrator from society but it also propels the anti-social behaviour.

What makes trolling and negative behaviour online different is the anonymity. The detachment which the antagonist or troll has from their victim doesn’t allow them to see the real life impact they have on the individual. Due to this, feelings of remorse and guilt are less likely to arise as they are unable to fully comprehend their actions. 

Further, with cancel culture, people often forget that those in and with power are still humans. They wake up every day, have breakfast, lunch and dinner and go to sleep. However, cancel culture does not just apply to celebrities or well-known figures as it can affect anyone in society.

With that being said, why is it then so inconceivable when someone doesn’t agree with certain views?

In an article for The New York Times, Lisa Nakamura, a Professor at the University of Michigan, suggested that “cancel culture is born out of a desire to control”. This is evident as ‘cancellers’ consistently attempt to condemn and shut out any alternative viewpoints that do not align with their own. Fuelled by the desire to benefit their agendas, they create an 'us vs them' environment which can be toxic in society.

In doing so, trollers exert the agency they have to stand up and say, ‘we don’t accept you in society and we want you to disappear’. 

In some instances this is a necessity in order for a constructive change to be made. However, it remains challenging to understand who it is that decides where the line is drawn between right and wrong.

Generally, when discussing cancel culture, it is not just one individual going after another, rather it is organised groups. Hence, the concept of “mob mentality" applies, proposing that people are influenced by their peers into believing and behaving in a certain way.

With the rise of social media platforms, we are able to communicate and connect with others across the world. Thus, the social context in which we are surrounded by on a monthly, weekly and daily basis has the power to influence us significantly with the touch of a button

Dr. Caitlin Yolland, a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Centre for Mental Health at Swinburne University, explained this to us and helped contextualise it to the online world.

In doing so, the online community which we become part of has the potential of being considerably one-sided. This only exacerbates our beliefs and ideas and makes it hard to exert any form of critical thinking. As we are often unknowingly a part of these communities for prolonged amounts of time, the idea of changing our views or even allowing opposing thoughts to enter our mind is increasingly difficult. Especially when we are surrounded by limited perspectives.

Due to this and the nature of cancel culture, it is hard for our society, and for us as individuals, to progress forward in any way to make a positive change.

So next time you think to cancel someone, remember the worst thing you did. It may have been an act you committed, something you said, a like of a photo or a retweet. Simply ask yourself would you want your whole life to be reduced to that moment and how would you feel if you weren’t given a second chance?

Now let’s look into the philosophy aspect of cancel culture. 

Two significant factors are ethics and morals. While the two terms are used interchangeably, it is vital to understand their differences. 

The word ‘ethics’ originated from the Greek word ethos and the word ‘morals’ originated from the Latin word mores. Ethos meaning character, and mores meaning customs. 

A study by Professors Paul Walker and Terry Lovat published by The Conversation put it this way, “ethics is a more individual assessment of values as relatively good or bad, while morality is a more intersubjective community assessment of what is good, right or just for all.”

Ethics simply evaluate human actions through positive and negative judgements. For instance, if we say someone is ‘good’, we’re saying we trust the person to do or choose the right thing. 

In his book, Right and Wrong: A Practical Introduction to Ethics, Thomas I. White writes that many people are so used to saying ‘I feel’ when expressing both emotions and thoughts.

He emphasises the difference between thinking statements and feeling statements, and how we shouldn’t blend the two. 

“Thinking statements are very different from feeling statements,” writes White. “They communicate a position we hold for specific reasons— reasons we should be willing to make public.”

Ethics and morals are a core part of developing a foundation and guidelines for our behaviour and actions. How we behave and what we act upon ultimately determines the qualities within ourselves. 

So, when people choose to cancel a member of the public, it could say more about them than the individual being cancelled.

Cancel culture is basically a reaction to someone else’s actions. Often, immoral actions. 

The real question is: Can you truly cancel someone? 

Considering we are imperfect human beings, carrying flaws and mistakes, what is the basis of making such a societal decision? 

And if someone decides who gets cancelled based on their opinion and feelings, wouldn’t the same rule apply to them? 

Because if cancelling someone is merely based on what one person thinks of another, it wouldn't be a deliberate decision. 

Moreover, who has the power to cancel someone?

Power in human hands is often corruptive. People have free will to use their power for good or for evil. And with every action, every choice, every time we exercise that free will, we must face the consequences. 

But the consequences will differ depending on the action. 

For instance, if an individual murders someone else, the greatest cost is for the person who lost their life. But if the murderer lives somewhere where they have a death penalty, then their consequence is equal to their action. On the other hand, if the murderer does not get caught, they will have to live with an unrelenting sense of fear or guilt, or both. 

This could apply to cancel culture.

When an individual cancels someone, they are in a sense, not exempt from it themselves.

This can mean two things a) we are not exempt because we are likely to conduct an immoral act due to our nature, b) we are not exempt because the system we perpetuated will eventually outgrow our subjective moral bounds - which we initially placed on it, thinking it would never evolve beyond us - and will come after us and we’ll be cancelled.

In his thesis, Austin Michael Hooks covers the topic of call-out culture and cancel culture on social media. 

“Cancel culture is no longer part of a set of reactionary behaviours that seek to call-out someone for crossing burgeoning social boundaries,” writes Hooks. “But a methodological deconstruction of someone’s ethos (their relationship to their community) in order to culturally and socially blacklist them.”

But who determines what is right and wrong? 

Let’s look at law versus ethics. 

Ethics and law sound like synonyms, but what if they weren’t synonyms by practice?

We know that law serves many purposes such as protecting individuals’ rights, providing rules and framework to help resolve issues, and helps societies to keep things in order. 

It is also worth noting the fact that we have laws to comply with speaks volumes about our human nature. 

“The coercive power of the law may be able to tell us what we can or can’t do with impunity,” writes White. “But it cannot serve as a reliable guide to morality.” 

But why is that?

Laws differ from one country to another. What may be legal somewhere could be illegal in another. And legal doesn’t necessarily equal right. 

“Laws allow many actions that are morally offensive,” writes White. Actions such as manipulating others or lying to your friends. 

Reputation Rehab is a new show on ABC, hosted by Kirsten Drysdale and Zoe Norton Lodge where they talk to people who were cancelled. 

In an interview with them, I asked what was a common theme or experience the people shared. 

“It is a disconnect with how they see themselves and how they are portrayed in the media or how the rest of the world sees them,” said Drysdale. 

Remember, online actions can lead to online reactions, but they also have offline consequences. 

Now you've learnt all there is to know about cancel culture, take this quiz to see if you can avoid being cancelled.

https://admin.typeform.com/login/