Who Deserves To Be Canceled?
From Johnny Depp to Harvey Weinstein
Is cancel culture always wrong?
It is widely disliked, but so is Harvey Weinstein. And he was justifiably canceled after being exposed as an obvious predator. Many actresses did not want to work with him anymore, but they should have been free to.
That means canceling is not always unfair.
Johnny Depp’s case is different.
He was slandered by his ex, Amber Heard, as a domestic abuser. The media rushed to judgment, causing him to lose major roles and be painted as a villain. Later, the 2022 Depp v. Heard trial would clear his name.
His case proves the harms of cancel culture.
If cancel culture can go wrong, when does it?
It turns toxic somewhere in between the backlash against Weinstein and Depp. Scrutinizing public figures can be helpful, but it quickly turns into a witch hunt. The issue is when.
To find an answer to this question, we must define cancel culture.
When someone is “canceled,” they are excluded. The perceived faults in their character (e.g., manipulative, vindictive, abusive) have made them untouchable. People are still legally free to associate with them, but do not want to (in part because of the social backlash).
When this occurs on a massive scale, it isolates the person. He or she can no longer work and is banished from “polite society”.
Cancellation is a method of removing someone from the community: not legally, but socially.
Freedom of association guarantees the right to disassociate from others, but not without its downsides.
Free humans should not be forced to work or socialize with anyone, and the same goes for corporations. The problem is: this mechanism can be abused. Bad actors, like Heard, may use lies to defame others and ruin their lives.
They distort the truth and use cancel culture to their advantage.
First, a false allegation is made. Then, the mob madly rushes to support it (because they enjoy seeing someone fall from grace). The accused transforms from star to villain.
The “enemy” of the false accuser is now effectively taken out. He or she gets to play the victim, winning status in the public eye.
Toxic cancel culture is based on scapegoating.
In his book The Scapegoat, René Girard explains how it works.
Tensions create social instability within communities. To relieve these tensions, groups sometimes spontaneously gang up on one person. This scapegoat is then sacrificed, either through death or banishment.
It is a phenomenon that reappears in African tribes, Medieval witch hunts, and Aztec God-offerings. This underscores humanity’s common tendency to externalize blame by mobbing a single individual.
Sound familiar?
As long as we all gang up on Johnny Depp (and destroy his life in the process), we do not have to look in the mirror.
The trials of love, marriage, and sex are painful themes in the West. Given current divorce rates, it is fair to say they pose a struggle for many. It is easier to pearl-clutch over someone else’s mess than face our own.
When people scapegoat, they do not self-reflect (or self-improve). They lack self-awareness.
Toxic cancel culture is a symptom of a society’s sickness - and an unwillingness to recognise that sickness.
It allows groups to pretend all the evil is “over there”, not in the group.
But all humans have a capacity for good and bad. Therefore, scapegoating childishly oversimplifies things. It keeps people from taking responsibility for their lives, like adults would.
It is best left to cultures of the past.
The harms are obvious.
Cancel culture is not always wrong. But it can be incredibly toxic. Scapegoating may create stability in the short term, but in the long term, it only erodes society.
It is a slow poison.
Finding a common enemy may unite the community, but not for long.
Since it does not own up to its real problems, they do not get fixed. Scapegoating alleviates tensions within the group, but only for a while. Then, it will need another sacrifice.
The result: more cruelty, fewer solutions.
On top of that, banishing innocent people is always a loss.
If Depp had any predatory qualities, they remain unproven. But during the time of his cancellation, the world lost a beloved actor. When highly productive people are not allowed to contribute, everyone loses out.
Talent should not be so easily wasted.
Cancel culture should provide a pathway to redemption, but it usually does not.
Catholics allow for salvation through the confession of sins. The legal system gives criminals jail time, but after that, they may try again. But once marked “evil” by the cancel crowd, you cannot remove the label.
Your reputation is eternally sacrificed.
Emotion is prioritized over evidence.
Instead of assessing the facts, it attacks people on rumours, likability, or “vibes”. This makes it random. One day’s hero is the next day’s villain.
Random persecution is never fair.
Where did cancel culture come from?
Scapegoating has always existed across cultures. But recently, it has become more common in ours. That says something about where society is headed.
Why is cancellation on the rise?
It is in part technological.
Nowadays, anyone can spread their opinion about anyone on social media. Perceived wrongdoings can be called out instantly. If the mob is listening, they are mobilized in a matter of minutes.
The scapegoating mechanism just got a lot more horsepower.
It is also philosophical.
Since the 1960s, society has become more relativistic. Fewer people believe in one absolute truth, and instead, that each of us has their own. That means the truth of the accuser and the accused have equal value, no matter the evidence.
What matters is their “vibe”.
Last, it is spiritual.
Scapegoating (or: human sacrifice) has religious roots. It stems from a natural tendency in humans to cleanse the community of impurity. In Christianity, that practice was channeled through confession and involved less bloodshed.
However, Christianity is fading away in the West. But the impulse remains and must be channeled somehow.
Cancel culture is a modern way to channel rituals of old.
Social exclusion can be justified, but often not.
Disassociating from others (at least temporarily) has a purpose. Whoever wanted to stop working for Weinstein was in their right. But this social mechanism, while neutral in itself, can be exploited by bad actors.
That is where scapegoating comes in. Manipulators may shift blame onto individuals to absolve themselves from wrongdoing.
Then, the mob joins in, and cancellation turns toxic.
In modern society, this form of cancel culture is increasingly common.
This is caused by spiritual immaturity and facilitated by technological power. Rather than face the worst aspects of ourselves, we would rather point out others’ on social media. It keeps us from doing the emotional labour required to become better people.
Because it is dishonest, it disables communal well-being.
The great religions of old (Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism) encourage us to look within instead: set ourselves straight before we point towards others.
But that is an arduous path. Becoming a better human is no easy task. It takes wisdom, patience, and discipline.
Still, it is better to sacrifice our bad habits than the people who point them out.