Cancel Culture: Real Casualties vs. Misused Labels

Introduction: What Is Cancel Culture?

Much has been made of cancel culture, with many people decrying it as a toxic new trend — but cancel culture is neither toxic nor new. It is simply a new name for accountability.

For a term whose definition is highly debated, the basics of cancel culture are relatively straightforward. Once the public — usually through the internet — discovers something potentially offensive that a person has done, they use available resources, again usually the internet, to bring attention to the action and try to obtain consequences or redress for the behavior. However, the simplicity of the term obscures some of the nuance involved in its application. As a result, some of the things frequently discussed as "canceled" have not been canceled at all.

Aunt Jemima, Mr. Potato Head, Monopoly, and Dr. Seuss have all undergone significant changes in recent history, which many people have decried as cancellations. However, they have not been canceled. Not only are they still available — albeit with some changes — but those changes were also the result of internal decision-making. Better examples of how cancel culture actually works focus on people. J.K. Rowling, Ellen DeGeneres, Anna Wintour, Hilaria Baldwin, Jeffree Star, Kirstie Alley, Bryan Adams, and Abby Lee Miller are all celebrities who have been canceled because of bad behavior.

While the term "cancel culture" became increasingly popular in 2020 and 2021, many examples of things labeled as canceled are actually simply things evolving with changing cultural norms. However, holding people accountable for their actions and giving them consequences — which may make them unemployable — is a valid example of cancel culture.

Defining Cancel Culture and Its Origins

According to Wikipedia, the term "cancel culture" refers to a "modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles — whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those who are subjected to this ostracism are said to have been 'canceled'" (Wikipedia, 2021). While cancel culture seems like a modern phenomenon, it is actually an extension of the long history of boycotting products, people, or services — an effective way for consumers to exercise financial power throughout the history of capitalism. More recently, it is an extension of call-out culture, which refers to calling people out for negative behaviors and expecting them to be accountable.

The responses to being called out vary considerably. Many times, people who have engaged in negative behaviors are able to apologize and, while they may suffer temporarily, they recover. In other instances, people who have been canceled suffer such significant damage to their reputation, their income, and their ability to earn a living that recovery becomes extremely difficult. Many of the problems with cancel culture center on whether it is appropriate to make people suffer long-term for transgressions that may have been isolated or transient. On the flip side, others argue that bad actions have long gone without consequence, and that people who are canceled are not victimized but are simply held accountable for their behavior.

Whether one believes cancel culture is essentially a form of cultural boycott that pressures people to comply with evolving social norms, or a negative assault on people who embrace conservative social ideas, a few things are indisputable. First, cancel culture has developed a negative connotation — in some circles it is more socially objectionable to threaten to boycott a person, company, or product than it is to engage in objectionable behavior in the first place. Second, cancel culture has decidedly political overtones; while conservative groups regularly call for boycotts and have used this tactic for years, those boycotts are typically not treated as attempts to "cancel" their targets. Third, cancel culture gives power to groups that are traditionally low-power and low-status — such as everyday consumers — by allowing them to collectively achieve what they could not achieve as individuals. Finally, cancel culture leaves little room for growth, as it may actually disincentivize positive change.

Some early examples highlighted how canceling someone was a way for lower-status individuals to collectively exercise power in scenarios where they previously would have been powerless. James Damore, for instance, lost his job at Google after writing an internal memo suggesting that gender disparities in the workplace might have a biological basis. His position was seen as misogynistic, and Google did not want to be associated with it. Misogyny was also at the heart of the next wave of high-profile cancellations. Harvey Weinstein was famously accused of sexual abuse and harassment by several women in Hollywood, prompting the Me Too movement and similar allegations against several other prominent figures in the industry. Both cases illustrate how powerful and wealthy individuals were held accountable by people who had no formal power over them.

There have been numerous other incidents of people behaving poorly in public, being filmed, and facing real-life consequences. Influencer Melissa Rein Lively filmed herself having a meltdown in Target in which she destroyed a mask display, posted it on Instagram Live, and faced an intense backlash that led to her cancellation. Lively subsequently spent considerable time attempting to play the victim, but the mask tantrum was only one in a series of highly publicized negative behaviors, including repeated use of racial slurs.

It is also important to note that cancel culture is not limited to the powerful. When Amy Cooper threatened to call the police on a Black man in Central Park, she was called out on the internet. Her behavior resulted in real-life consequences, including losing her job. Many participants in the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol were identified through photographs taken at the event and found themselves jobless and facing legal consequences as a result. The owner of an auto body shop who dumped oil-covered pennies on an employee's driveway instead of providing a final paycheck also became a viral example of an everyday person facing the consequences of cancel culture.

When considering whether canceling a person is appropriate, it quickly becomes clear that the answer is not a simple yes or no. Even critics of cancel culture are likely to agree that some behaviors are so egregious they should be condemned. They may not agree, however, with canceling someone indefinitely. If the punishment for a transgression is lifelong ostracism, what incentive does a person have for change? This argument lands differently depending on who is being canceled. Harvey Weinstein being unable to work in Hollywood after serially abusing women seems just to most people, but Donald McNeil Jr. losing his job at The New York Times for using a racial slur within a quotation in a news story strikes many as an overreaction.

Brands and Characters Falsely Labeled as Canceled

Nowhere is the backlash against cancel culture more apparent than when the things being canceled are not people but fictional characters or even toys. To understand this phenomenon, it is important to look at four cultural icons that some people claim have been canceled: Aunt Jemima, Mr. Potato Head, Dr. Seuss, and Monopoly. What does being "canceled" mean for a fictional entity? Have these properties actually been canceled? What prompted the changes? And perhaps most importantly, if these things have not actually been canceled, why are so many people treating them as casualties of cancel culture?

Many people claim that Aunt Jemima has been canceled. For those unfamiliar, Aunt Jemima was a fictional character used as a logo for pancakes and pancake syrup produced by PepsiCo. The character was initially based on a minstrel show figure, and while some real African American women portrayed Aunt Jemima in promotional events and on product packaging over the years, there was never a real Aunt Jemima. Her original appearance coincided with mammy stereotypes, and though the company made attempts to update her image over the decades, the racist origins remained. In the wake of evolving national conversations about race following the murder of George Floyd, PepsiCo concluded that it could not adequately address the brand's racist history and chose to rename it The Pearl Milling Company — the name of the company that originally introduced the Aunt Jemima brand.

While the Aunt Jemima brand was retired, it does not appear to have been canceled in the true sense. The decision was prompted by evolving understandings of race and representation, not by a focused external campaign demanding the brand's end. Furthermore, the decision was made internally. Because the company's choice was nonetheless tied to a troubling history of racism, Aunt Jemima is frequently cited as a victim of cancel culture — and that framing highlights one of the biggest issues with how the term is used: it treats corporate decisions to evolve with social norms as acts of capitulation to mob pressure.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with Dr. Seuss. The estate of Theodor Seuss Geisel recently decided to stop publishing a small number of his books because of racial imagery the estate considered problematic. Those books had long been acknowledged to contain troubling portrayals of race, possibly reflecting some of Geisel's personal views — some of his adult work contained anti-Semitic content, and certain images depicted African Americans in dehumanizing ways. However, Dr. Seuss was in no way canceled. The decision not to publish those specific works was made internally by his estate. The books in question are not among the most popular in his catalog and represent only a small fraction of his total output. The decision will have no noticeable impact on his broader legacy or reputation.

The situation is much the same for Mr. Potato Head. Hasbro announced it would rebrand Mr. Potato Head's product line simply as "Potato Head," with the stated goal of making the brand more gender-inclusive. Crucially, the company planned to retain both the Mr. Potato Head and Mrs. Potato Head toys. While many people decried this as a cancellation, the only actual change was the name of the toy line — not the toys themselves.

It will take longer to determine whether concerns about Monopoly being canceled are similarly overblown. Hasbro announced a major overhaul of the classic game, though this is hardly unprecedented given that hundreds of variations on Monopoly already exist. According to the company, the classic game has become outdated — particularly its community chest cards, which reference concepts like holiday funds that many modern players may not recognize. Updated cards will focus on activities like animal rescue or recycling. Some feel the antiquated character of the game is part of its charm, but describing modernization as cancellation seems extreme. Hasbro also recently updated its game Clue to include additional characters and greater diversity among them — a change that occurred before "cancel culture" became a prominent conservative rallying cry and did not prompt nearly the same backlash as the proposed Monopoly revisions.

Conclusion: Accountability, Overuse, and the Stakes of Cancel Culture

It is very popular today to say that someone has been canceled or to call for cancellations. While there certainly have been, and will continue to be, efforts by the public to impact the reputation and livelihoods of people who have engaged in objectionable behavior, the overuse of the term has simultaneously created the impression that people are trying to cancel things that are not genuinely at risk, while also draining the term of its power.

Certain celebrities have been legitimately canceled — this has generally happened because they have revealed beliefs or behaviors seen as harmful to segments of the community, and usually because those beliefs are perceived as socially regressive. There are valid arguments about whether the threat of cancellation is ultimately positive or negative for society: the threat may encourage socially desirable behavior, but it also demonstrably chills free speech. However, there is no question that lumping things that have not actually been canceled into cancel culture discourse only muddies the water when it comes to discussing this genuinely important social trend.

References

Barrabi, Thomas. "Monopoly Getting 'Long Overdue' Socially Conscious Makeover, Hasbro Says." Fox Business News. FoxBusiness.com. 19 March 2021. Accessed 27 March 2021.

Mishan, Ligaya. "The Long and Tortured History of Cancel Culture." The New York Times Style Magazine. NYTimes.com. 3 December 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/t-magazine/cancel-culture-history.html. Accessed 27 March 2021.

Porterfield, Carlie. "Aunt Jemima Gets a New Name After Racism Backlash." Forbes.com. 9 February 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2021/02/09/aunt-jemima-gets-a-new-name-after-racism-backlash/. Accessed 27 March 2021.

Wikipedia. "Cancel Culture." Wikipedia.org. 24 March 2021. Accessed 27 March 2021.