The Politics of Cancel Culture
The phenomenon of Cancel Culture has always existed in some capacity, but with the invention of the internet, the common person now holds the power.
In the nineties, if you knew her name it was because of the tabloids. Now, in the twenty-twenties if you know the name, I suspect you are either a feminist, an intern on “The Hill,” or you listen to a lot of rap music. Either way, she is the woman who was patient zero to internet cancel culture — Monica Lewinsky. Her claim to fame was an affair with former president, Bill Clinton that occurred while Lewinsky was an unpaid intern at the white house, and he was married. She was just twenty-one, while Clinton was forty-nine. Embarrassed by the situation Lewinsky had confided in Linda Tripp, who subsequently illegally recorded their conversations and leaked it to the press. Unable to cope with the stress of her new-found hate, Lewinsky took to isolating herself from society. Despite being the younger, more impressionable party, Lewinsky took the brunt of the backlash. Painted as a young seductress, attempting an act of social terrorism. Clinton was the victim, being corrupted by a beautiful young woman. While she was blacklist from the industry, becoming a highly sexualized and sensationalized cautionary tale, Clinton stayed with his wife, was elected to a second term, and maintained his millionaire status. While the President had a team of publicists behind him, Lewinsky was left alone, unable to succinctly naviate the newfound industry of online press.
With this in mind, cancel culture has existed long before it was a condemnable cultural movement. Former President Donald Trump criticized it calling it a form of “tolerationism.” Ironically, cancel culture actually exists as a counter-force to the highly centralized press industry. Now, when anyone can get on the internet and express their thoughts on current events, people are allotted an unforeseen amount of cultural capital. Though I do not believe the movement is an inherently positive force, I believe it is important to acknowledge that these public figures screaming about the damnation of cancel culture is not in good faith, rather it is a mass panic surrounding the transfer of power from elite society to the average citizen. As consumers operating in a primarily digital market, the average person has never had more power over companies, and government officials. As per first amendment rights, the internet as provided a space for wide-spread communication, allowing for groups of people to stage protests and boycotts entirely from the comfort of their couch. In addition, in a world that now encourages cultural criticism, a situation like Lewinsky’s would have more push-back. Though there are now more eyes than ever, more people engaging with news, means more opinions and more nuance.
The recent uptick in outrage surrounding the movement, is in part because people opt to receive their news from social media. When people are able to share stories through word-of-mouth in the digital sphere, it inspires a more visceral reaction than reading it on an online publication. It also provides a space to share videos, that could be censored due to gore. When faced with the raw brutality, people understand the stakes, and are therefore more likely to abstain from a coffee from a problematic shop. This of course is scary for industry leads, because now corporations are not exempt from being held to an ethical standard, and now consumers have enough choices that they can withdraw support at any moment. When the public can hold you accountable for your actions, it is entirely different. Public figures who once were able to keep their actions, good and bad, in the dark, are now thrust into the court of public opinion; bribes, mistresses, and corruption is now brought to light, the only question that remains is if it inspires any change.
Which brings us to the weakness of cancel culture — one dimensionality. During a “cancelling” oftentimes the problems are explained in a flat manner. Complex, and nuanced issues with corporations, government officials, and public figures can be dumbed down for the sake of accessibility, and viralness. The pendulum swings so far this way, that people start to rebel. Hence why anti-cancel culture movements have gained mainstream support. The simplistic ethics that are applied in some respects can frustrate those who feel as if the situation was uncalled for or has spiraled out of control. There is a case to be made here, especially when other influencers profit from the cancellation of others.
One of the most sensationalized cases of cancel culture came from the YouTube beauty community when Tati Westbrook made an excessively long video exposing ex-protégé, James Charles. Westbrook titled the video “Bye Sister!” a play on Charles’ well-known intro to each of his videos. The video itself racked up tens of millions of views, being one of the most watched videos on Westbrook’s channel. Her subscriber account shot up, while Charles’ rapidly declined; many of his followers jumping on the trending bandwagon. The irony of the situation, though Westbrook divulges into personal gripes with Charles’ conduct with straight men, is that she made the video because Charles took a brand deal with Sugar Bear Hair, a rival to Westbrook’s own vitamin company. This behavior directed towards a twenty-year-old by a woman in her late thirties was undeniably petty, with a personal vendetta in mind. She weaponized the beauty community’s cult-like following to both take down a rival, and promoting her own vitamin company. She also capitalized on a teenage audience who were unable to negotiate the clear power-dynamics between Westbrook who met Charles when he was sixteen, and she was in her thirties.
Though I do believe that people should be able to withdraw support from influencers at any time, is participating in the highly scripted downfall of a creator any different than what was happening during Lewinsky’s time. People may make mistakes, but these highly personal matters do not need to be hashed out on the internet under the watchful eye of pre-teens. Despite his drop off, Charles still has more money in his checking than most people will see in their lives. So, is the cancelling of influencers entirely futile? There have been some influencers who were unable to come back from cancelling, Emma Hulu for example. But that only occurs when the influencer offends the community of who they profit off of.
Which brings us to the Influencer Blockout movement. It started when a TikToker, Haylee Baylee, lip synced to an audio with the famous (falsely attributed) quote from Marie Antoniette at the Met Gala. During the Met Gala, the war in Palestine raged on, with Rafah, the last safe place in the country, getting invaded. It was a sudden realization that these internet starlets are out of touch with reality, and that we the consumers pay their bills. The movement called for people to block celebrities who they feel have not been held to a proper ethical standard. For many, the silence on Palestine was their criteria, while others pointed to past problematic issues. Though people criticized aspects of the movement for being performative, I believe the silent act of blocking is more effective than simply spreading information condemning the rich and famous.
If we learn anything from Lewinsky’s situation, it is that the internet has the power to create and destroy. Instead of playing into influencer drama, and honing outrage condemning people for mistakes our own friends have made, we can make real positive change. Though it is unclear if cancel culture actually inspires public figures to do better, the financial threat of a digital boycott forces their hand and a good action, with bad intentions is better than before. However, for the public to be successful in using power in numbers, people have to think critically, and do not engage with pages. Death threats and hate comments only serve to delegitimize any valid point being made, regardless to if they are related to the original outrage. Regardless, cancel culture does not have any inherent morality attached to it, and is only a tool that can be used to inspire change, or harass undeserving people. It depends on the character of who uses it, but at this pivotal moment in American history, I ask that we as the citizens leverage this bit of power to change the system we were handed.