The culture that disguises intolerance in the guise of tolerance
The Cancel Culture is an offshoot of postmodern liberalism and activism. What it does is to identify people who have done 'wrong' or expressed an offensive belief and condemn, vilify and boycott them. It calls people out, typically on social media, who are then made to face severe public outrage. To me, this culture seems exceedingly misguided, unjustified and even dangerous. I have attempted here, to make a defense against the credibility of the Cancel Culture and its ethical propriety.
The subtleties and complexities of human speech and communication
One of the apparent characteristics of the cancel culture is to issue judgement upon a person’s language. Excluding from my argument the use of profanities, our culture today demonstrates an overwhelming intolerance towards supposedly ‘inappropriate’ or ‘insensitive’ use of language by way of symbolic representation, terminology and titles of reference. A commonly witnessed example would be the enormous emphasis that is placed upon the ‘politically correct’ use of pronouns in respect to the different genders during communication. In fact, we are being taught to use pronouns ‘appropriately’ without ‘misrepresenting’ anyone. Besides this, the culture also engages in mercilessly condemning and denouncing people who have used language inappropriately or used it to articulate a belief that is offensive to a particular group in society.
Here, one might question the need to find fault with this societal surveillance of speech and language at all, as I'm trying to do here. After all, isn’t it ‘civilized’ and ‘evolved’ to monitor human interaction to be accommodating of all differences? However, there are significant difficulties that arise in the face of such an unsparing scrutiny which cannot be easily dismissed.
First of all, communication is as essential and natural to human beings as breathing. Human interaction through communication is the essential building block or rudiment of society. Most often, conversation and dialogue are simply one aspect of social intercourse, that inevitable communion with our external environment which we are subjected to from birth in a seamless integration to which we very rarely direct any scrutiny or conscious awareness. Hence, we often do not give much careful thought to our speech and language, especially when the conversation is ongoing. It is not always premeditated and deliberate.
Consider your own speech and language in communication with others. Is every word that you speak or write tactful, sensitive and completely absolved of nuanced inflections that could be interpreted against your true objectives and desires?
The words and sentences that we use in live communication are not always necessarily reflective of our inner thoughts and intentions. Another cause for this is the tendency to articulate one's thoughts in the most promptly acquired language which is often ill-suited towards their proper expression. Besides, the thought process during such times is affected by the demands of time and a thought or reflection is often incomplete and unfinished in the mind of its origin and might thus evolve or alter in the near future, not having been the product of any long reasoning or deliberation. The statement issued by the person might not therefore justly comprise or reflect the entirety of his/her beliefs, perceptions and values.
To illustrate this, I myself for example have frequently observed myself saying something and then realizing almost immediately one of the following things- that I spoke too hastily and did not mean what I said, I had omitted from my statement a crucial part of my message without which its meaning and intention could be altered, that the language I used to convey my thought was flawed and could easily be distorted and misunderstood or that my assertion had been unwittingly offensive or impolite and should have been phrased differently.
We must also understand that communication always takes place within a particular social context, which when taken out of that context, can imply something entirely different to what was originally intended. The biases and perceptions of the listener too affect the judgement and description of what was communicated and simply cannot be trusted unreservedly.
The point I seek to make is simply that it is absurd and unjustified to place so much scrutiny and gravity upon words and communication. If one were simply to express an opinion on appropriate speech and encourage others to follow it, this monitoring could be tolerated, but the cancel culture goes far beyond that to condemn, berate and even incriminate the party in question (who deviate from their dictated prescriptions), without affording them any pity or understanding whatsoever.
Dissent does not equal dislike or disrespect!
There is an unfortunate notion ingrained in many of our minds that disagreement implies antagonism and hostility. But I do not see why this should necessarily be so. In fact, respecting and honoring a person does by no means necessitate that I agree with him/her on every single matter or in fact, on any at all. Articulating a dissenting opinion to a person with whom I have a desire of maintaining an amicable relationship with, is actually based on the favorable assumption that the person concerned is just and sensible enough not to let one aspect of my self-constructed identity dictate his/her entire perception of my 'self'.
We have unnecessarily and unjustly, inseparably intertwined an individual's personhood with his beliefs and opinions. They, although a significant and important part of his identity, do not automatically dictate and predict a person's outwardly manifested character, activities and interactions with others. To state a clear example, I can have a strongly held inner belief that it is morally wrong to enter into a romantic relationship with a person of the same gender. However that does not necessitate that I will behave discourteously or inconsiderately when I encounter such individuals. In fact, I can even have a strong friendship with him/her on the basis of various other qualities and aspects of their identity that I respect, share and admire. This example holds true even as the gay individual forms a cordiality with me, in spite of disagreeing with my beliefs. Thus, to reduce your evaluation of an individual to one or more points of dissension or disapproval, estimate their worth and your respect for them upon it and thus build your relationship with that person is exceedingly unfounded and short-sighted!
An individual's personhood encompasses multiple and varied facets or dimensions and cannot be so nonchalantly reduced to the sum total of their objectionable or questionable beliefs and values. Thus, an individual cannot be labelled a 'bad person' or a 'bigot' or 'scum' or any of those 'wonderful' words we like to call people now-a-days, simply because they hold an unpopular, politically incorrect or even possibly wrong opinion. Noone has the authority or right to condemn and incriminate any person simply on account of their beliefs or value-judgements as long as they do not in the course of their application, harm and endanger anyone's dignity or safety. As long as it remains a belief, it, even when expressed openly, is an entirely private and personal feature of the individual's identity and is in no circumstance answerable to the examination of the outer world. It is only when a belief turns into an action that harms somebody else, such as in the form of harassment, bullying, abuse etc, that the matter ceases to be confined to the person's free jurisdiction since it has affected or intruded upon another's freedom. Thus, it is only when our beliefs and opinions violate and obtrude another individual's beliefs that a restraining authority acquires sovereignty over us.
When all dissent and confrontation is dismissed as phobic or fanatic!
The Cancel Culture and the liberal discourse it defends has a remarkable strategy to avoid all discussion and objection and immutably silence their dissenters. Once any disagreement or opposition to a liberal belief or theory is raised, it is immediately branded and labelled as being 'bigoted', 'phobic', 'sexist' etc. This is in fact a very clever and convenient ploy to elude any careful examination or scrutiny of their arguments and propositions. If what they propound is truly reasonable and credible beyond doubt they should be willing to engage the protesters and their arguments in free and open discussion. Instead they dismiss and denigrate all opposition as being inherently illogical and prejudiced. If this is truly so, why not proceed to demonstrate the fallacies and incongruencies of the proposed dissension instead of using the advantageous power of sentiment to cloak dissent in a garment of sensitivity and delicacy, thus smothering its upsurges with a pretense of offense! While many years ago, people were burned at the stake for defying a religious authority, the cancel culture which ironically condemns such tyranny, burns people's reputations and liberty at the stake of their intolerance when they dare to question 'liberal' premises and theories.
The difference between belief and judgment.
One characteristic of the 'liberal' discourse of our present culture is the idea that people should be allowed to do what they desire to do, to live as they please without being questioned or judged. But in our obsessive preoccupation with the rights of the majority, we have robbed many others of their freedom to think and believe what they please. For example, there is a difference between saying 'It is not right to do that' and saying 'you should not do that'. In the first statement you are merely expressing your evaluated conclusion on the moral proprietary of an action while acknowledging that person's freedom of will. But in the second you are absolving the subject of his/her right of choice and self-determination and therefore placing a judgement upon him/her. Thus, to judge is to irrevocably envelop the individual's character with the derived result or moral consequence of that action, it is to use the opinion to place a verdict upon the individual. But a belief does not mandate a verdict, it can exist simply to guide the existence and actions of its holder.
A just evaluation of societal reality shows us that the 'moral police' of our time do not simply condemn 'wrong' judgements (perceived so by them) in the form of harassment, bullying, hatred etc. but also beliefs which hold no malevolent intent. I will cite an example. J.K Rowling, author of the best-selling Harry Potter series came under fire for supporting a friend who was dismissed from her job for her 'gender critical' views. Subsequently she was hounded and deplored on social media for her blunt and vocal expression of an unfavorable opinion regarding transgender women and gender conversion therapy, her books were boycotted and there was a widespread campaign of hate vented against her. She did not personally attack or humiliate anyone, her beliefs were backed by civil and sensible arguments and she did not attempt to intrude upon anyone's liberty. Yet, she was cast aside, denigrated and cancelled by the very society which once exalted and applauded her. This, of course would be a different matter if her friend or herself had harassed or harmed anyone because of their beliefs. But Rowling simply held a strong personal belief about gender that did not accommodate the views of the majority. Simply holding an unpopular or even erroneous belief, whatever it may be does not harm anyone and it is absolutely misguided and unjust to incriminate someone for it! And this is certainly not an isolated incident. Numerous people have been ostracized, incriminated and labelled as 'bigots', 'phobic', 'chauvinists' etc., only for expressing a belief or opinion that was 'offensive' to a particular group in society. They have lost jobs, their reputation and faced condemnation, mockery and loathing from 'netizens' and the public all for articulating an unpopular belief in the form of a social media post, a tweet etc. And my theory of the separation between belief and judgment certainly goes both ways. If you encounter someone who holds and professes an opinion which is offensive to the popular liberal discourse, you can express your disapproval of that belief but it is simply unjustifiable to accuse and attack him/her for it.
Intolerance in the name of tolerance and suppression in the guise of liberty!
Do we even realize what is actually happening here? We have elevated some vastly endorsed and applauded beliefs and theories to the status of an untamperable creed or dogma that should not and cannot be questioned without enormous public outrage. Thus, in the very cause of protecting these beliefs we have absolved its dissenters of their liberty, tainted all disagreement with the stain of bigotry and 'immorality', and canceled and eliminated the potential deliberation and accommodation of any kind of objection.
Since when did the ideal of liberty require that some sacrifice their freedom for those of others or that the voices of some be suppressed to protect the freedom of the rest? The liberty that is propagated and endorsed today is highly deceptive and superficial, it is a distorted form of its true ideal, one that rose on the tides of the many popular 'rights' movements of the recent years which assimilated and absorbed within it the hatred and hostility that its activists and propounders had towards their adversaries. In the great zeal and heat of their battle, a battle that they never realized they won, they have forgotten that all objection and disagreement does not carry malevolent intent. In their continuing delusions of persecution, they have unwittingly turned themselves into the perpetrators and aggravators. The 'bigots', the 'haters', the 'chauvinists' that they cancel and condemn are in fact their victims who are forced to lay down their liberty on the altar of their intolerant fanaticism and the deity they must appease is the merciless vilification that is thrust upon them!
The pleasure of 'righteous' anger!
According to the psychology of group identification, one of the means to intensify solidarity is to identify a common enemy one can despise. With the internet, social media offers the perfect platform for people with common beliefs to assemble and find a target to villainize. Once a person who 'deserves to be called out' is pinned down, their anger and condemnation is unleashed upon him/her for their wrongdoing, an anger which in its multitudinous strength of numbers is fueled by the pleasure of righteousness, the feeling of deep self-satisfaction that caters to our desire to feel 'good', fighting the evil wrongdoers. It might be advisable, in such situations to remind ourselves that we are all imperfect and guilty in myriad ways, that the person we blame cannot be very much more flawed than we ourselves are and that one day, we might just find ourselves at the receiving end of that fire. Like Shakespeare said, "How can you expect mercy, rendering none?"
Conclusion
The Cancel Culture, at its best, is a misguided attempt to root out social evil and injustice by holding people accountable for their words and actions. And at its worst, it is a twisted and delusional propaganda that feeds upon the insatiable mob feeling of self-righteousness and 'justified' indignation, unleashed against a common enemy.
Perhaps one of the more unfortunate characteristics of this culture is the way it holds people captive to its corrupted conception of morality so that they are held in a controlling dread of appearing on the wrong side of its narrative that expounds intolerance, ruthlessness and mercilessness. Or perhaps it is the way it slanders and condemns anyone who refuses to compromise their personal beliefs to suit and accommodate the ideological dispositions of its liberal discourse. Thus, both the ideological arguments and the practical operations of the Cancel Culture are ultimately self-defeating for it ironically 'cancels' the most fundamental of its ideals, namely liberty, in the course of its application.
Absurdly, the recognition and acceptance of human imperfection is an important dynamic of the liberal discourse. For being the offshoot of a postmodern culture that on one hand celebrates flaws and denounces judgement, the Cancel Culture certainly exhibits a paradoxical or contradictory obsession with publicizing and condemning all wrongdoing. Not only is the surveillance of this culture built on a deplorable presumption of self-righteousness, the control exerted on the external masses and the obedience it elicits is counterfeit and superficial since their adherence is not a result of personal conviction or belief but a blind and utilitarian decision to avoid confrontation and conflict.
The actions of an individual reflect their inner beliefs and dispositions and through its authoritarian monitoring, the Cancel Culture can attempt only to control the outward behavior of a person, while it thoroughly fails to tamper with or transform his/her private and personal views or perceptions. A famous celebrity could proclaim all day long that he respects women simply to guarantee social approval but treat his wife unkindly while another could oppose feminism vehemently and yet give his wife the utmost love and respect. What I seek to prove is that the 'morality' upheld by this culture to justify its policing is no such thing at all for morality comes from the heart and is free of external coercion! The 'moral' justifications of the Cancel Culture to explain their authoritarianism is simply an example of the way despotisms have historically utilized ethical dictates to control a population.
If we do not subdue the extremism and severity of the Cancel Culture, it will eventually culminate in a cancelation or destruction of the very essence of our humanity. For the finest distinction of its nobility lies in the compassion and sympathy that we know to bestow upon each other. Stripped of this essence we will consequently leave our posterity with an inheritance of a heartless and powerful sanctimony.
No human being is above falling into any sort of wrong. The act that we condemn another for today, could easily be committed by us the next day, perhaps in some other form. The mercy that is afforded towards us then, will depend in some measure on that which we extend towards others when they are caught at fault. Besides, the remorseful and contrite heart of a person who has been convicted and condemned, is in truth, far more humble and pure than the self-righteous spirit of his/her accusers since it is free of illusions of uprightness. Therefore, I conclude with a plea: let us be slow to blame and slander and quick to mercy and understanding. Realizing that we do not see into the hearts of men, let us withhold hasty judgement, giving to others the same forgiveness that we ourselves would desire.
No comments:
Post a Comment