The Depravity of Cancel Culture

Cancel culture goes against the core American belief in self-reliant freedom.

Self-Reliant Freedom

The gensis of this piece is the recent “cancellation” of the Bachelor contestant that attended an antebellum themed frat party in 2018. I don’t follow or watch the Bachelor, but I know people (i.e. Morgan) that do who are fed up with cancel culture, even though they do not follow the day to day workings of politics, because of this recent Bachelor incident. I don’t know if this will be a tipping point that produces a meaningful backlash against cancel culture, but I do know that cancel culture is repugnant to a lot of average Americans because it cuts against an essential part of the American identity: self-reliant freedom.

What do I mean by self-reliant freedom? Really it is two beliefs that are different sides of the same coin. First, embedded in the DNA of the American identity is a belief that you, as an individual that is part of a larger, local community (family, church, neighborhood, etc.), are capable of making your own way in the world. I don’t think this is quite the same thing as the ole “pull yourself up by the bootstraps" saying that is now ridiculed by many. I think Americans, at their core, understand that people sometimes face situations that they genuinely need help through. However, they also understand that help should, and will, come from one’s community and are themselves usually willing to offer help when they personally know someone that needs it.

This self-reliance does not necessarily have to involve the material well-being of an individual though. It also manifests itself in the belief that an individual, again a part of a larger, local community, is capable of judging for themselves what is acceptable behavior or belief. This is central to the values of free speech, freedom of religion, and federalism. People can say whatever they want (minus incitement) and believe/preach whatever they want (minus incitement) because individuals within a community are capable of discerning for themselves what is true. Similarly, individuals within a community (in the case of federalism, a state) are self-reliant enough to decide for themselves what should or should not be regulated by the government.

Second, embedded in the DNA of the American identity is the belief that you, as an individual within a community, should be left alone to practice self-reliance. This does not mean that you are free to do whatever you want whenever you want to do it. Each individual is still bound by the values, mores, and customs of their communities to determine what behavior, speech, or belief is acceptable. If one does not agree with the standards set by the community, he is free to move to another community that better resembles his own values. Important in this point is that the standards for what is acceptable are set by people known by an individual and have the possibility of being altered through dialogue and the democratic process.

These two core beliefs are two sides of the same coin because if you believe people are self-reliant, then you are willing to leave them alone if you are not a part of the local community. Similarly, you do not allow people to practice and become self-reliant if you refuse to leave them alone to develop it.

Back to Cancel Culture

But, how does cancel culture go against self-reliant freedom? The widespread, national nature that cancel culture has taken I think is to blame. Essentially, technology has expanded our ability to communicate so broad that it has eliminated traditional communities and forced everyone into one, large community. Unfortunately, this “community” is full of strangers with incredibly different values, beliefs, and ways of behaving. As a result, it does not serve the same function as traditional communities as it is not much of a community at all.

This is important in understanding cancel culture because it is no longer people you know or understand that are telling you what behavior, speech, and belief is acceptable or not. As everyone knows, it is significantly easier to accept rebuke or have a discussion about appropriate standards with someone you have common understanding with because you give each other the benefit of the doubt. Cancel culture is essentially the opposite of this because it is complete strangers telling you what is acceptable while (almost always) assuming the worst about you. On top of that, there is no participating in democratic debate regarding whatever behavior, speech, or belief one is being cancelled for. Self-reliant freedom, in the American psyche, is only meant to be constrained by communities of people who know each other, not strangers. The larger, fake community that has developed due to technology is not and cannot be a substitute.

When someone calls for a cancellation in this fake community, people feel the same way they would if an outsider started to determine acceptable behavior, speech, or beliefs. Really, it’s not just acceptable or unacceptable, but what is unforgivable or not. In a real community with people you know, when an accepted standard is broken, a recognition of wrong and an apology from the culprit is usually forgiven. In this new, fake community, if an apology were enough, there would be no reason to cancel.

Cancelling strips people of their ability to determine for themselves (self-reliance) what is forgivable and what isn’t. A movie star you like made an unseemingly remark and apologized? Don’t worry about judging for yourself whether it’s a forgivable comment or genuine apology because they will never appear in another movie. We can’t trust you to make that decision for yourself. You think it is forgivable and still want to see them in a movie? Sorry, we have already taken away your choice (freedom).

Going against such a core American value as self-reliant freedom is the true depravity of cancel culture. At a gut level, Americans understand this and find it repugnant.

God Bless,

Hunter Burnett