One thought on the “Cancel culture at UVA!” op-ed that the NYT should never have published:
It’s a great example of how, once it’s out in the world, a diagnosis like “cancel culture” quickly starts shaping, rather than just reflecting, reality and individual experiences.
It’s a great example of how, once it’s out in the world, a diagnosis like “cancel culture” quickly starts shaping, rather than just reflecting, reality and individual experiences.
Forget about the question of whether or not cancel culture is actually a thing: “cancel culture” – a specific diagnosis, a claim about the world widely perpetuated not just on the Right, but pretty much across the political spectrum – most definitely is having a massive impact.
In so many ways, what is described in the piece is “normal,” for lack of a better word: common experiences of adjusting and adapting to a new social / cultural / professional environment, being confronted with differing perspectives, figuring out how to navigate a wider world.
We all experience this in our lives, all the time. And we have to make sense of what we are experiencing. We are a story-telling species – most importantly, we have to tell ourselves stories that help us make sense of the world and our place in it.
This is where the “cancel culture” (the claim/diagnosis, not the “thing”) comes into play: Since it has become so pervasive in the social, political, cultural discourse, it is out there as a constant offer of how to make sense of our own (bad) experiences: Am I being canceled?
It is actually an enormously attractive frame of reference: If you accept it, an opinion that provoked pushback is immediately legitimized, an unpleasant experience is instantly dignified. You’ve become a character in a major societal and political struggle for “free speech.”
And you’ll soon find out: There is a massive platform for anyone who was “canceled” (or really: worries they might get canceled – not that anything actually happened, not even a less-than-stellar grade… but it might! And isn’t that outrageous?). The incentives!
This is generally true for all such political, societal, or cultural diagnoses. As soon as they are out there, they will shape our perspective on the world, the way we make sense of our own experiences – they create and construct, rather than just reflect, reality.
Which is why it’s so absolutely crucial to ask: Is the diagnosis actually sound? What’s the empirical basis? Should we actually provide a platform and help perpetuate it? Because, again, if we do, it will have a far-reaching effect shaping experienced reality going forward.
That dynamic is now going into overdrive: “I’m getting so much pushback!” - “See, you’re being canceled!” - “See, I’m being canceled!” - “Come talk about how you’re being canceled!” – “I’m being canceled!”… Shame on everyone involved in this cancel culture nonsense.
The “cancel culture” discourse obscures the fact that there are always established norms of what is and what is not acceptable as public speech, and that is has traditionally been the prerogative of elite white men to determine those boundaries.
Some more thoughts here:
Some more thoughts here:
https://twitter.com/tzimmer_history/status/1501634139451183110
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
