‘Cancel Culture’ Isn’t New. And It’s Not Going Away.

Shaming people into compliance is as old as America itself.

By
115

In March 1787, Founding Father Benjamin Rush already had his mind on the corrosive effects of “cancel culture.”

“Ignominy is universally acknowledged to be a worse punishment than death,” wrote Rush in “An Enquiry Into the Effects of Public Punishments Upon Criminals, and Upon Society.”

“It would seem strange, that ignominy should ever have been adopted, as a milder punishment than death, did we not know, that the human mind seldom arrives at truth upon any subject, till it has first reached the extremity of error,” he wrote.

Rush, a Declaration of Independence signatory, was talking primarily about punishments subjecting individuals to public embarrassment—being held in stocks in a town square, public labor, etc. But he could just as easily be talking about modern day cancel culture—subjecting individuals who speak in violation of woke scripture to public harassment.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
115
By
Comments (115)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    OnceAnEastCoastLiberal?

    I heard someone use the term "consequence culture" recently, which is a good retort for the left to use to reframe the debate. But one person's fair "consequence" is another's unfair "cancelation." It's still about where the lines are drawn and who draws them. Yes, we'd all (probably) agree Harvey Weinstein should be canceled (with or without criminal charges and a full trial), but what about Al Franken? Aziz Ansari?

    Collapse
  2. Brett

    Maybe my #1 criticism of the Dispatch at this point is the continual downplaying of the effects of cancel culture. If you are going to sing about unquantifiable magic miracles and the general goodness that abounds when you have liberal capitalism (ahem, Jonah) then you have to accept that when speech is chilled to the degree it presently is that you will have a similar magnitude in the other direction of missed economic opportunities and development and general badness.

    Collapse
  3. John H

    My observation is that the apparent intent is not to intimidate by "shaming" as much as to intimidate by destroying livelihoods.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    David Chen

    A few points in no particular order:

    1) Criticizing the authors of the Harper letter for being rich and powerful people defending their own interest misses the point that they are also defending the interests of everyone else. Their defense makes a bigger difference for everyone else than themselves, as many of them were never at risk of truly being 'canceled'. And even if canceled, many are rich enough to be able to weather any boycott and not have to worry about destitution. Most of us are not so lucky, and nobody would care if Harper printed a letter signed by 150 random blokes.

    2) I do not like Lebron James. I didn't care for the guy before, but I especially don't like him after he gave a mealy mouthed dodge when asked about China's human right's history. I do not think he is not a role model. He is also not a monster. He's just some guy who throws a ball good and sells sneakers. I will not buy his sneakers for myself or my kids if I had any, but I also don't want him to be put out of a job or be branded for life. I'm obviously willing to say this on an internet comment section and I'll be happy to tell him to his face, but that's because I'm a nobody and he's Lebron James. I would think twice if I was his boss and I would definitely think twice if I was the POTUS because I don't think politicians should go after private citizens in 99.9% of cases. Proportionality and power differences matter.

    3) If Lebron James said he renounced his comments and condemned China’s human rights history tomorrow, I would be willing to forgive him. I still wouldn’t buy his merchandise cause I don’t care about ball throwing, but I would buy some if China mobilized a boycott against him just to stick it to the CCP. Room for grace and growth matters - as well as giving the finger to authoritarian regimes.

    4) Either way, I wouldn’t punish my kid for wearing Lebron’s jersey because I don’t want politics and activism to bleed into everything. I WOULD punish my kid for caring about basketsballs and not professional Starcraft – a real sport for real men. It is known.

    - They really need to put an 'edit' function in comments -

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Victor Clairmont

      Amen to the edit function.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      Correction: I do NOT think he is a role model. But I also don't know a lot about the guy so maybe the totality of his life is inspiration and admirable. The point is I'm not going to damn him over one interview and I don't ever want to be damned over one stupid thing I've said - and I've said way more than one stupid thing.

      They really need an 'edit' function.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    There is something we can do about it. Speech uttered outside the capacity of official business can be protected just like religion or sexuality.

    IE: you say something in the office or on air representing a company, they can whack you for it.

    You something as a private person, you can’t be fired. No matter how offensive.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    "The letter—signed by luminaries such as J.K. Rowling, Malcolm Gladwell, Noam Chomsky, and Salman Rushdie—noted recent episodes of public shaming, such as when a New York Times editor lost his job for publishing an op-ed by a sitting U.S. Senator, "

    You guys are always complaining about elitists (aka Democrats) making fun of real Americans because they're not cool. You reference a letter written by REAL elitists published in a very elitist magazine saying people are being mean to them.
    Harry Potter are great childrens books. But if no one ever buys another one, Rowling and her family will be just fine for generations. What's the point of being a billionaire if you can't say ehat you want and not care what people think?

    Collapse
  7. Zack

    The relevant distinction in cancel culture isn't left vs. right - both have long histories of shaming and ostracizing those with unpopular views. Whether the views in question are 'blasphemous' in a traditionally religious sense or 'problematic' in the language of the new secular religion, the effect is the same.

    As the author suggests, the solution is for people to be courageous in their defense of a liberal society, one which encourages the free exchange of ideas. Most of these fundamentalist types are paper tigers. Each of us can play a part in rendering them inert.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    Absolutes are bad, and absolutism is a disease !!

    I have not really cared about "cancel culture" to be honest. So reading here, and there and bit of somewhere, here is what I think I think.

    A. Cancel culture is like the 23rd most important issue in America today. Really folks, like duh. sorry but there are 22 more important vital things to the average American and human being to be worked on and improved.

    B. Where there is smoke there is fire. For certain, some folks get their support "cancelled" with greatly earned justification.

    C. Where there is smoke, it doesn't mean the house is burning if you are just having a cookout. Not every individual of course is deserving of losing their job or support for their statements and actions. But in the free market of hiring - and yes, I can talk at length of mangement and at-will employment and unions - point is - private companies have to right to now have their revenue harmed by employees insulting customers. Or even perceiving to insult customers. Customers << That is a real important thing.

    D. Life is not, and has never been fair. I want equal opportunity, but the human race has never aspired to fairness as a universal goal. In case you are asking, "unfair" is different than "being harmed"

    E. I found this counterpoint by Jessica Valenti of merit: https://gen.medium.com/cancel-culture-is-how-the-powerful-play-victim-e840fa55ad49 . Ms. Valenti:

    "I could go on. The point is that a good number of the people attached to the letter — which presents itself as an objective defense of free speech — are those eager to excuse their own bad behavior and bigotries."

    "The truth is that we are in a political moment when free speech is in danger, just not in the way this letter outlines. Americans have watched as thousands of protesters have taken to the streets to demonstrate against racist police violence — only to be tear-gassed and beaten. Video after video shows journalists, clearly identifying themselves as such, being hit and dragged, knocked over and arrested. The most challenged book in American libraries last year? A children’s book about a trans child.
    Where is the free speech outrage, the letter signed by powerful thinkers, over these injustices?
    The only speech these powerful people seem to care about is their own: They want to be able to say whatever they want without consequence and to paint themselves as the victims even as they wield more institutional and systemic power than anyone criticizing them. As the Washington Post’s Karen Attiah put it, “This is about whose ideas, opinions and expressions are worth protecting.”
    At the end of the day, “cancel culture” is a term full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

    And that is what I think about that..

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Ms Valenti is right. People really only care about their OWN freedom of speech, not others.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Logical

      Tempest in a teapot.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Adam

    "Like coronavirus, America will have to live with them for a long time, and the only vaccine is public disinterest."

    Going to go ahead and guess that there's a lot of overlap between the anti-vax and cancel culture crowds. Just pulling that metaphor along for ya.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Don’t forget scientific racism that dehumanized black people! It’s where the racist term “gorilla”, sprouted from. The apex of human evolution was the chimpanzee (white) while the lesser intelligent gorilla was well...you get the racist idea from back then.

    Sometimes humans are just gonna human because they hate their fellow humans for no good reason, and use ideologies to fit their terrible interest.

    See the majority of intellectuals in Germany at the university level for the holocaust, and also the intelligentsia of Russia to support Stalins Gulags and communism.

    Collapse
    1. Jaybrown

      You are wrong and being (I assume purposely) misleading about the origin of the term "gorilla." To call it a "racist term" is just the same old same old of calling everything you don't like "racist."

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        Actually I am not. Before Darwin’s book, typically racism was just calling others an ape. After Darwin’s book, gorilla is used in publications and scientific journals more.

        Because Darwin in his books promoted it.

        I will save you a bit of reading. Jump to paragraph 5:

        https://sites.williams.edu/engl-209-fall16/uncategorized/the-dark-side-of-darwinism/

        Also, if you would like more scholarly reading on the marriage of scientific racism and religion, I recommend the work at the University of Michigan (also deals with miscegenation laws in the US)

        https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=mjrl

        So no. I am on very solid written grounds.

        I am happy though you didn’t challenge the other statement o made, with intelligentsia being responsible for a lot of the 20th century massacre’s brought about by Germany and Russia.

        Happy reading.

        Collapse
        1. Jaybrown

          According to a very cursory search, the word "gorilla" stems from the 5th century BC. Somewhat before Darwin. I fear your current cultural extremism blinds you to a true reading of history.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            So you didn't do the reading for in-depth analysis and study and opted for good old cursory search.

            Ok fine, you go your way I will go mine.

            And no, cultural extremism is something I am not, I am just open to counter prevailing facts on narratives. Scientific racism and the term gorilla have a long history, as does religion on using racism in other forms also. That doesn't mean someone in the past hasn't used gorilla, but until Darwin you find "ape" used far more in literature.

            Readings there if you want it.

            Collapse
Load More