Cancel culture often does more harm than good

'You're cancelled'. It doesn't sound like the right thing to say to a person. We cancel appointments and dinner dates, not people. Yet whenever someone, particularly a celebrity or somebody prominent in the public eye, voices an opinion deemed unacceptable it has become ever so easy to block them out on social media and call into question everything they have ever done or said. It is possible to come back from being cancelled, but the indiscretion will never be forgotten. It is a cloud shadowing the glory of their former achievements. In a world where everything can now be documented and filed away ready to be dragged out into the light at any random point in the future, it simply feels unsafe to voice a controversial opinion. 

At this point I feel I should clarify what I mean by cancel culture. There is a difference between a genuine criminal being prosecuted for their misconduct and a public figure on Twitter making a stupid thoughtless comment. Harvey Weinstein cannot be equated with J. K. Rowling; he is a remorseless sexual predator and rapist, she is an author who needs educating on some outdated and problematic views. I do not wish to equate the actions of these two individuals, nor to justify them either. But I do think we need to understand that being 'cancelled' by the law and by social media are not the same. We do not need to cancel those who legitimately break the rules because there are legal systems set up in place which (hopefully) do this for us. Hate speech is itself a crime. Bearing this in mind, I think it is right to say that cancelling someone is actually not helpful. It does not solve the problem; it does not allow that person to apologise or explain their actions or indeed avoid making that same mistake again. It creates a bigger divide in society and politics, and hinders rather than helps the goal of equality and harmony. 

What we sacrifice by cancelling someone is an opportunity to bridge the gap and educate people in the problems with what they have said. Some people hold opinions we find distasteful or even downright offensive, yet if we hold ourselves to a higher moral standard then surely it is our duty to show them why they're wrong, or at least point them in the direction of better resources? It must be tiring for certain communities to constantly feel like they must explain themselves to the uninformed masses, yet it is certainly preferable than putting up more barriers between ourselves. An issue that resonates here is Brexit - some Leave voters clearly voted that way because of their xenophobia, but does that mean we should ignore the valid concerns that some people voiced about staying in the EU? If we want to get Trump out of the White House, his less ardent supporters are not going to be won over by us associating them with being thoughtless bigots. We need to be asking why they voted for him, and how can it be stopped next time. 

There is a bigger question lurking underneath - does a person's prejudice undermine the good they have done in the world or the talent that they have? It's a thorny question without a clear-cut answer: it must depend on certain factors, the seriousness of what they have said or done and whether or not it can be defined as blatant ignorance or something more sinister. Michael Jackson was an extraordinarily influential and captivating musician. He was also almost certainly a paedophile. This is not necessarily the best example - he is dead and can no longer answer for his crimes, but it still leaves us feeling a little uneasy over whether we should enjoy Billie Jean as much as we used to. What about somebody like Woody Allen*, who seems to have the backing of half of Hollywood but famously had an affair with his much younger stepdaughter while he was still married to her mother? On the one hand, they appear to be now happily married. On the other, she may have been groomed and sexually abused. He continues to make films but there are more question marks over him now than ever before. Judging by previous musings in this article it should be up to the criminal courts to cancel him, but this would require hard evidence and possibly a damning testimony from his victim/wife that she may not feel accurately represents her relationship with her husband. So is it within our rights to cancel him instead?

The court of public opinion often judges far more harshly than a court of law. Sometimes this is right - there are some crimes no one should be able to come back from. Yet people need to be allowed to make mistakes, learn from them, and move on, otherwise none of us would be where we are today. Let's be honest with ourselves, if every single one of our careless drunken remarks was recorded and put out into the world we would all be in trouble one way or another. We live in a society where it is now valid to question the status quo and form our own opinions about the world rather than mindlessly accept what is fed to us by the powerful elite. One of the fundamental pillars of that freedom is being entitled to agree or disagree, to have these debates, and by doing so we can show each other the best way to get along and include everyone. The fascists will ultimately be weeded out and dealt with, but in the meantime let's recruit for the cause rather than adopting an us-and-them mentality. Everyone has something to say, and sometimes we need to let them feel heard. 

*It should also be noted that Woody Allen has been accused of sexual abuse by his daughter Dylan Farrow so this should perhaps be taken into account when deciding whether he is cancelled....