Definition of Cancellation Culture

Karina Mora Mendoza
PhD in History

Although the specialized literature has not necessarily delved deeply into the conceptualization of this social practice of "cancelling" another whose opinion or act it considers reprehensible, there is a more or less agreed idea that the cancellation culture has to do with using social networks and the communication proposed therein to point out and reject an act or thought that they consider inappropriate, offensive and generally taken as negative even when such act does not result in a violation of the law or is classified as crime.

Texeira de Silva indicates that the practice of cancellation would not be effective if it were not for the power of social networks (RR.SS.) where the possibility of carrying any signaling up to the media lynching is a reality thanks to the speed of communication, the massive influx and I would add, to the barrier of screens that allow judgments and accusations to be launched with the safeguard of the real ignorance of the people who comment, attack and undermine the accused in shift.

However, the beginning of this practice to make visible such reprehensible acts began with the intention of evidencing the injustices emanating from groups of power and of public officials who, in the absence of an ethical practice and sheltered in certain privileges that freed them from the legal consequences meritorious to their acts, social and public disapproval fulfilled the function of pressuring and punishing what was not possible through legal and administrative processes suitable. In this sense, the visibility of minorities that, as I have said before, have been subject to attacks and historical disadvantages, found a path new to externalize and show the world the disadvantaged position in which they could find themselves and from there, act to transform their conditions of life.

margins of debate

We are at a moment in the history of humanity that is quite complex to elucidate, not only for those of us who walk in the present moment, but also for those who have the desire to understand themselves in the future. We live in a world where human rights and those of the modern citizen guarantee, at least in the norms stipulated in the legal-political texts that regulate social life, the authentic and genuine right to freedom. However, violence and insecurity have found a way to settle in our lives, not only by threatening our physical integrity, but also prowling thought and ideas, in a crusade for ideological domination whose purpose is that thinking is also something surrounded by fear.

This violence does not emerge from dictatorial forms or vertical impositions, it is not expressed in an imperative manner, and yet it controls everything. Cancellation, which has been called part of culture, since it emerges from human social expressions and, therefore, is part of it, is a tendentious way of monitor and punish free thought, appealing to everything politically correct expressed through oral, written, pictorial, graphic, auditory and even performative language.

The subject is lurid, but it is no less urgent for that. It is important to highlight that, without denying social minorities or groups that have historically been subject to endless forms of violence such as mistreatment, abuse, repression, physical violence and undignified living conditions, this has been transposed to multiple areas of the thought. The will must now be "one" as well as collective and constrain itself to a single way of seeing everything and everyone, understanding that beyond the safeguarding of the rights and guarantees of human beings, there are issues, topics and topics that should be socially reprehensible for everyone and at any circumstance.

When and when not?

The complex part of the culture of cancellation is that it has been taken to areas where everything can be subject to signaling for someone who, without having as flag defending the rights and guarantees of men and women or disadvantaged groups, use this form of social control to interfere in the reputation of a individual. The opinion emanating from the signaling is radicalized without attending to the parties involved in equal circumstances, since that the one that allows the creation of a signaling and, therefore, the one that makes possible the lynching of the accused, goes viral. This chain process often ends in the destruction of a person's working life or censorship and banishment from public life permanently.

In that order of ideas, the public appreciation in RR.SS. about a topic in question, for example, the choice to wear clothing from prestigious brands or considered luxury, are sometimes enough to talk about the lack of empathy that a person can feel towards complex social problems such as structural poverty or the objectification of bodies that for years has commodified thought capitalist. This can undoubtedly be a statistical indicator, but it cannot be considered an absolute condition to affirm that all the people who carry a high-priced item -without considering that "high" will depend on the socioeconomic condition of each individual- are unconscious and apathetic to the problems of their surroundings, nor does it limit them from being or becoming subjects of social change in the face of the mentioned problems. It should be noted that sometimes the accusations are launched from places that are not consistent with what they so categorically disapprove of and where assume that accused persons, especially in past acts, had the same information and knowledge that was available at the time present.

So?

The possibility of appealing to acts of injustice should not be confused with the demand to maintain the same ideas, beliefs and judgments as the only way to live collectively. The coincidence of opinions, tastes or ideas is not necessary as long as they do not affect someone physically, emotionally, legally or at work. Let each one find a way to dress, talk, color, have fun or relate better as long as it does not incur in acts of injustice that can be clearly observed from broader forums such as those proposed by the law. To this I would add that, if an indication is found repeatedly in dissimilar contexts, but read continuously, it would be better to use the full force of the language and communication to establish a precedent that allows the defense of all victims and not only those with convening power in networks social.