The Conflict Of Cancel Culture: Is It A Catch-22 Situation?

Among the most pressing quandaries of 21st-century existence is social media and the clutter it brings. Clutter that is essentially digital but has the capacity to manifest intellectually, theoretically, sometimes even physically. And where that leaves us is entirely questionable. A recent exhibit came when British funnyman Rowan Atkinson, or Mr Bean as the television-watching world knows him, made certain remarks that haven't sat well with many on the internet.

Talking to Radio Times, Atkinson denounced "cancel culture," likening it to a "medieval mob roaming the streets looking for someone to burn." If you can believe the irony, Atkinson is now the prime target of precisely what he has decried, with a section of keyboard warriors calling for him to be "cancelled." One cannot make this stuff up.

In recent times, with the dominance of social media, cancel culture has emerged an increasingly common trend that focuses on calling out problematic views and asking for their metaphorical (maybe even literal) "cancellation" from the online social-verse. Some believe this "woke" phenomenon, in a way, is a form of the very extremism it seeks to challenge. Because it is essentially founded upon the idea of shunning a thought or individual you don't agree with. The dilemma arises when you realise that cancel culture has much of its motivations in social causes, equality, and subverting oppression. What does one do then? Stop fighting for social justice? You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's a catch-22.

Also Read: Queer Media And The Comfort They Bring: Top Shows And Reads Of 2020

Celebrities Taking The Heat Of Cancel Culture?

Celebrities, especially, given their prominent social media presence and surrounding high-glare have been the objects of cancel culture's ire, with JK Rowling headlining the list. But the Harry Potter and Mr Bean creators, accused of transphobia and right-wing ideology respectively, aren't the only ones supposedly defending the freedom of speech from the clutches of cancel culture. In July last year, a bunch of revered authors and academics (including Rowling, Salman Rushdie, Margaret Atwood) came together to issue an open letter on the toxicity and supposed danger of cancel culture. In December last year, singer Dua Lipa echoed this sentiment too.

Over in India, actor Richa Chadha's upcoming film Madam Chief Minister is caught in a controversy over a poster that displayed a supposedly Dalit woman wielding a broom. Social media critics instantly took the poster head-on, bringing to Chadha's notice how the stereotype of handing a Dalit woman a broom (thereby negating her other merits) reinforced caste hierarchy. Chadha, saying she disagreed on aspects of cancel culture, stood her ground.

Am so sorry to have failed your woke agni-pariksha. Sorry to disappoint you, that me of all people can disagree with you on certain aspects of cancel-culture. Again, watch the film or at least the trailer? For we do become what we hate quite easily sometimes... https://t.co/lyNqGP3ZaZ

— TheRichaChadha (@RichaChadha) January 5, 2021

Also Read: Selena Gomez Calls Out Facebook For Distributing Inaccurate COVID-19 Information

In Chadha's case, the arguments brought up by people - many of whom are Dalits themselves - against the film's poster is valid and cannot be so easily dismissed. If the visual of an underprivileged person - especially one who belongs to a community that has faced years of oppressive stigma - is a trigger, then perhaps better decisions could have been made on what to display. But is cancelling Chadha as an ally to caste annihilation, terming her casteist, the answer? Will calling for certain art to be censured change things? Inversely, should Chadha have responded more sensitively to the concerns being heaped on her?

And what if someone finds arguments on both sides to be compelling? Easy. Cancelled both ways.

The Problem With Cancel Culture

That is perhaps the chief predicament of the cancel culture: Who decides? Whose horse is on the higher moral ground to gallop towards an entire individual's cancellation? What gives a purportedly well-meaning junta the authority to veto on the value of another person's opinions? All morality is driven by created concepts of social structure. Everything, in essence, is a view that relies on objectiveness and will always elude a larger judgment of "rightness" and "wrongness." How then do we choose which cancellation is acceptable and which isn't?

In the West, so many - from Taylor Swift to Ellen DeGeneres and Cardi B - have borne the brunt of cancel culture. It sure hasn't resulted in their omission from public platforms, but the issued threats alone paint an alarming picture. In India, when the Tanishq jewellery ad showing an interfaith marriage was literally "cancelled" by right-wing extremists, the support it garnered from those defending communal harmony and free speech was immense.

Also Read: Madam Chief Minister Trailer Releases Amidst Backlash On Poster For Stereotypical Representation Of Dalits

The most visible and dangerous pitfall of cancel culture is the silencing of any and all opposing viewpoints. Cancellation of something or someone, no matter how inherently "wrong," creates a vacuum of discourse and dialogue that endangers some of the most fundamental human rights.

Must we then stop fighting for other rights that are equally fundamental: for social justice, for equality, for feminism? No. Only, the keyword is 'dissent,' not 'cancellation.'

Views expressed are the author's own.