Recently there has been nothing but talk of Cancel culture. But what is it really? And to what practical consequences can the inappropriate use of the term refer to different social and cultural contexts lead?
If we think about it, nowadays nobody is really immune to the concept of 'erasure culture'. Just think of the superpower of social media after the events on Capitol Hill, which banned former US President Donald Trump. But the action of deleting someone from social networks, as Zuckerberg did with regard to Trump, is just one of the many examples where 'voices that do not agree with the chorus' are often confused and labelled a priori as deniers or conspirators, thus excluding them from the 'politically and socially correct community'.
In the general hypocritical illusion of indicating only one category of good and bad (i.e. politically correct and not), it is necessary to understand why there is such a fierce persecution of those who argue different opinions from the established mainstream.
The terminology of 'cancel culture', which is mobilizing public discussion everywhere in the last year of the pandemic, finds its peak right in the middle of the health and economic earthquake with the publication of an open letter in Harper's Magazine, written by legions of famous intellectuals, whose aim is to create a deep rift on the evolutionary meaning of the term 'censorship' in the time of Covid.
The defence of the preservation of "freedom of speech" is undoubtedly the central message of this letter, so that, as they stress: "it remains alive and well" and "is not crushed by the conformism of political correctness and opposition to those who are not aligned with the popular mainstream".
The letter on justice and the open debate
Since the publication of the famous letter by Harpers's Magazine on 7 July 2020, there have been many facts that have confirmed to date the sensitive issues of free speech, justice and open discussion expressed in their heartfelt appeal. We recall in particular the following fact among all:
Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro even being banned from major social networks.
On the issue of freedom of speech and open debate raised by Harper's letter and 153 intellectuals (including Noam Chomsky, JK Rowling and many others), the collective complaint highlights the dangerous attitude of the so-called "politically correct", in which the boundary of commitment and moral respect towards certain categories of people is rather blurred, when you do not want to take into account other opinions, not exactly aligned with the general thought.
As a result, the opposite fringe of the so-called 'politically incorrect', also labelled as reactionary supporters or demagogues of any right or left, also become the group not to be followed and therefore to be deleted from the same general ongoing debate. In the inauspicious guilt of not being aligned with the dominant single thought, those who decide to raise their voices against the conformist spectre, deviously nested in the galloping social and cultural context, are in turn recriminated of being anti-democratic and disrespectful, for not accepting the rules of a philistine exchange that considers only uniform and heterogeneous opinions.
Meanwhile, the famous letter points to the invisible divide between political correctness and censorship as follows: "Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to long-overdue demands for police reform, along with broader demands for greater equality and inclusion throughout our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy and the arts. But this necessary awareness has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to undermine our norms of open debate and tolerance of difference in favour of ideological conformity."
Historical revisionism and modern Damnatio Memoriae
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill
Over the past year, since the pandemic began, there have unfortunately been a great many regrettable incidents everywhere in the world, in which statues from the past have been targeted with acts of ferocious defacement, which are shaking public opinion to the core of the matter, with the growing popularity of erasing history and all the mistakes of the past, both in the Streets and in the Universities, (first) to reset everything.
The most striking cases are:
Winston Churchill's statue: the well-known statue of the British Prime Minister placed in Parliament Square in London's Westminster, has suffered two acts of vandalism with the same inscription of "Racist"; first by the protesters of the "black lives matter" movement and then by the activists of the "Extinction Rebellion" for climate change;
Gone with the Wind film: the 1939 film masterpiece that won eight Oscars, after the murder of George Floyd and countless protests, was even removed from the HBO Max platform, because it was considered offensive to black people. Then it was reinserted through a disclaimer highlighted by Variety Magazine, indicating that "the film denies the horrors of slavery".
Christopher Columbus statue: his monument is torn down during an anti-racist protest in Minneapolis, USA, because it is considered to be an advocate of white colonization in the States.
The action of erasure of history that is poured through the brutal and senseless acts of vandalism as above, recalls the already known condemnation to the memory of Damnatio memoriae, already present in Ancient Rome, in which all documents of a particular person were erased (just think of the fate of Nerone and Calligola); one therefore has the impression that the punishment inflicted by the ancient Romans has returned in present times in an updated mode, in which:
The traitor, is given an exemplary punishment with exclusion at the Social level, (thus away from the circle that counts);
As in the case of the statues of Churchill, Columbus and the film Gone with the Wind, the intention is to strike a blow at certain ideologies of certain historical periods, turning the bright and almost positive image of some into a negative one, namely that of mere enemies of the homeland and traitors to democracy, freedom and equality.
There is also another important point that should be quickly analyzed, which concerns precisely the iconoclastic and reckless tendency to blindly destroy and conceal evidence of the existence and role of human history.
Historical revisionism, which manifests itself as a further danger lurking between the erasure of culture and Damnatio memoriae, places the different ideologies and historical periods on the same level of debate, without considering the countless variables of time and space of the individual event examined (see for example: Communism, Fascism and Nazism). In the same cauldron of erasure, the understanding of facts is not analysed, but simply removed. Instead, history serves for the lucid comparison of events that are summarily similar, but vividly opposed, so that facts do not repeat themselves as in the past.
.
The educational role of Medias and schools
The free exchange of opinions is clearly at the heart of the whole issue in the Harper magazine letter. In our daily lives, we are constantly experiencing situations where we have to choose between 'being politically correct or not'.
If we find ourselves at the supermarket and someone appreciates our dog, and perhaps we tell them that we bought it rather than took it from the pound, the censure falls hard and direct on our heads, where words full of judgement echo: 'ah, dogs should be taken from the pound and not bought, because there are so many abandoned dogs who need it', and then taken by embarrassment or naivety, we often reply: 'but when they are born, everyone needs affection, even those bought.' The example given is just one among a million, to clarify two concepts that are easily verifiable, such as:
Being with people who judge with ostentatious repulsion the one who decides not to follow the thesis of the herd. The so-called gregarious, who accept to live passively in psychological comfort and total conditioning, see the other as a threat to their security and their accepted truth (see J.P.Sartre) ;
Feeling ready to defend some values with the heart and mind, is quite different from defending them all regardless; analysing in detail the implicit dynamics that led to that moment instead of accepting them unconditionally for shame of betraying the dominant group, is instead an uncommon attitude and out of the Gregarious Theory.
Schools and the Media have the responsibility and the duty to bring the individual out of the gregarious uniformity through an education and incentive to free thought and expression; while it is instead more and more tangible an increasing use of illiberal censorship and hypocritical conformism in recent times, which also increases the general confusion and the consequent passive acceptance of the facts.
knowledge history is to know ourselves
"The rare wild rhino on the brink of extinction is much more content than the calf that spends its short life in a tiny box, fattening up to produce tasty chops."
Yuval Noah Harari
Knowledge of history is, of course, an important element in overcoming the cognitive oblivion of false beliefs and the conformism of today's society. Where schools fail to train the future adults of tomorrow, it is up to the individual to make the difficult decision to understand through personal study of the history of mankind, before arguing about any event or person.
It has to be said that deciding to walk the road of knowledge is undoubtedly a brave warrior's decision. Therefore, the journey of discovery will be filled with doubts, questions and even more doubts. But in expanding our knowledge of history, we will at the same time learn about ourselves, our strengths as well as our weaknesses. Satisfaction will then be amply rewarded.
For those who wish to delve deeper, there is a book that takes up much of the premise made about the importance of history and that is found in "Sapiens, a brief history of humankind", written by Yuval Noah Harari, Pulitzer Prize on 1998; in the account of the three great revolutions of the human species (cognitive, agricultural and industrial), there is the intention to emphasize the central role of human creativity and its realization on earth. Absolutely worth reading.
Democratic inclusion based on open and civil discussion
It was with social media that the first seasons of the hunt for the deletion of users and groups deemed dangerous, as too non-conformist and therefore capable of triggering revenge movements began. Then, the two global movements born between 2018 and 2019, of #metoo and #everyblacklivesmatter, with the subsequent protests around the world, pushed on the one hand the desire for greater equality and inclusion of certain categories, and on the other, as expressed in the Harpers' letter, opened the door to new moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and tolerance of differences in favour of ideological conformism.
But who's really right? Certainly, it is a 'real' battle, which we fear is only just at beginnings, between :
those who fight for the discriminated against, mercilessly condemning all those who disagree;
and those who want to keep their place of untouchability in the role of "I say what I want" and therefore do not want to be contradicted, which is possible now.
In OP's view, the truth often lies in the middle, as:
whoever hinders another from expressing himself is to be considered an ideological conformist, even if with the highest possible expectations of inclusion. In practical terms, both are sides of the same coin, where one obstructs the other in different forms, but with the probable aim of having one's position prevail over the other.
In the distorted dialectic of the two communicators speaking the same language but not listening deeply to each other, we find all that blind illusion of having already understood everything about the other, judging him a priori, but never without trying to learn something new through listening, precisely. We might add that the suspicion of a growing single thought thus echoes on both sides, albeit with apparently distinct voices. The Cancel Culture is moving everywhere, and while before it only concerned the debates of intellectuals about Covid, every situation becomes an area of venting and protest, against those who do not think like us; and we immediately move away if the confrontation becomes harsh, without instead trying to weave a sincere and deep dialogue, in which the exchange of opinions should be an opportunity for both interlocutors and not a challenge to those who are totally right.
Civil disagreement as a new democratic frontier?
"I know that I do not know".
Socrates
There is no doubt that the boundary in which Cancel Culture moves is particularly blurred and dangerous, but it also offers interesting hints of light and shade, such as:
The involutional form of political correctness, is prophesied by those who go in total defence of certain categories, while excluding others if not outright rejecting them (as with the free expression of speech and thought of writers, artists and intellectuals in general);
A new desire for inclusion and deep dialogue is taking shape towards those minorities who were not even considered before, and who are now finally starting to make themselves heard thanks to the distinctive power of social networks.
What is good about both factions (if we want to call them that) is that they have the best intentions to make their position understood. But the absolute blindness and deafness in listening to the other is a difficult premise from which to establish a new meeting point. What is needed, then, is some parameters that can be shared by both sides, in which civil disagreement can become the place or democratic frontier, where dialogue is the only possible winner. Between the over-optimism of unrealistically creating an almost homogeneous and filtered society, as the social networks themselves often invoke, and the over-pessimism on the other side that leads to excluding any option, if not the worst one depending on the case, there is a middle way that provides some advantages, if we all start to recognize its potential, such as:
Dialogue understood as civil disagreement, accommodating the various nuances of the discourse undertaken;
Consideration of individual opinion but also of collective opinion, as the fruition of acceptance and not a priori censorship;
Putting oneself in the other person's shoes, which is always the best way to understand whether our point of view is externally influenced or whether it is simply "one's own spin";
Predisposition to bring all forms of dialogue towards a meeting point where the other can be understood and where our position can be understood and accepted at the same time.
Freedom of thought, promoted by the great philosopher Socrates, who was condemned to death for having freely divulged his ideas, is a first and fundamental point of reflection on the whole current issue of the culture of erasure, as well as censorship that on the possibility of a more piercing dialogue aimed at a particular group. Or in the exclusion of parts not conforming to the dominant thought, with a detail that will certainly not escape the wittiest: namely that the healthy and true knowledge, is a continuous search between doubts and false certainties, in which the only truth remains that of "knowing not to know". The ideal starting point, therefore, which serves to reason and thus free one's own freedom of thought and speech.
OutsiderPost recommends:
"Sapiens: a brief History of Humankind," by Yuval Noah Harari.