Cancel Culture - Accountability or a Witch Hunt?

The recent phenomenon of ‘cancel culture’ has given rise to much disagreement about its validity in online dialogue, its controversy riding along both generational and political fault lines. While some may argue that cancel culture is a product of Leftist views and the increasing radicalization of American politics, others see it as a positive trend towards more accountability in modern conversation.

Perhaps the best way to dissect the spectrum of attitudes about cancel culture is through looking at the analogies attributed to the trend. One popular analogy used, often by those who feel victimized by the culture’s effects, likens cancel culture to a witch hunt. A recent article published by The Atlantic titled “The New Puritans” attempts to draw parallels between this trend and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter:

“Right here in America, right now, it is possible to meet people who have lost everything—jobs, money, friends, colleagues—after violating no laws, and sometimes no workplace rules either. Instead, they have broken (or are accused of having broken) social codes having to do with race, sex, personal behavior, or even acceptable humor, which may not have existed five years ago or maybe five months ago. Some have made egregious errors of judgment. Some have done nothing at all. It is not always easy to tell… Heeding public demands for rapid retribution, they sometimes impose the equivalent of lifetime scarlet letters on people who have not been accused of anything remotely resembling a crime.”

While the author bemoans the ‘merciless’ retribution that often follows controversial comments or actions, her description of their punishment merely resembles the accountability that should have been present much earlier in our society. When she describes that these people have ‘lost everything,’ it seems rather obvious that inappropriate actions will lead to repercussions with one’s relationships and career prospects.

Further, I take issue with how she writes with a sense of urgency to mitigate these consequences, depicting them as unfair because some have struggled to grasp the recently established social codes quickly enough. She is essentially pleading with the public to have mercy on those who are fixed in their ignorance, instead of calling it for what it is: consequences.

Yet, there is certainly something to be said for the binary nature of cancel culture, which eradicates any grey area in the modern moral code. One may infer that this stems from the short attention spans trained by increased usage of technology, which renders individuals less patient with the nuances of an argument, and more eager to categorize statements and behaviors as right or wrong.