Thoughts on Cancel Culture: ‘Faming’, ‘Shaming’, and Wokeness

The mass uprising over racist police violence, and the rise of the BLM movement, is one of the most significant political developments of the past thirty years. The extent to which it translates into an organized and effective social movement producing substantive, systemic, and structural change remains to be seen. In the interim, there is no doubt that we now have a vigorous anti-racist movement with widespread support among the US population.

While I do not want to downplay the importance of this level of social acknowledgement of the deep-seated racism that permeates American society, it has taken one form that I believe is ultimately counterproductive. This has been described most recently as “cancel culture”. This term has many meanings and is applied to many different politically motivated actions. Here is one definition: “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.”

As a strident left-wing democratic socialist who takes pleasure in exposing the dysfunctions, irrationality, and hypocrisies of both the operation of the capitalist system and the actions of its functionaries, I can certainly sympathize with the intrinsic motives fueling the desire to call people out and cut them down to size. But my own need to destroy the ideological position and arguments of my adversaries is tempered by a larger commitment to the principle of freedom of thought, speech, and expression.

It is along these lines, in the midst of the recently heightened level of cancel culture activity, that the practice of cancel culture received widespread critical attention in the form of a Harper’s magazine letter signed by a large number of writers, political commentators, and public figures – including the unlikely bedfellows of David Brooks and Noam Chomsky – admonishing those who engage in this behavior. The objection to the practice was based largely on the broad principles of free speech, expression, and tolerance for open debate which they view as the “lifeblood of a liberal society.”

As one who shares with my students the University of Chicago statement that takes a strong position on the need for free expression on the college campus, I would be a hypocrite to object to the Harper’s letter. Generally, I agree with the spirit of that letter. On the other hand, I think it is an error to equate in any way the shaming/canceling actions by groups and organizations on social media with the institutionalized forms of state/corporate sponsored censorship, silencing and prosecution of whistle-blowers and journalists, and criminalizing protests and boycotts. Canceling from below is not the same as canceling from the top.

But my critical comments on cancel culture, pertain primarily to the practice as a political strategy. I think that politically it is not terribly productive and in some ways is counter to what we would like to emphasize and achieve as a progressive movement.

When we constantly make reference to racism in the anti-racist movement as systemic and structural, but we have people spending their time canceling individuals for verbal transgressions or insufficient acknowledgement of oppression, we are engaged in the “bad apples” logic -- reducing the problem to certain individuals and their attitudes and behavior. Changing or canceling these bad actors, or bad apples, will not address the source or the most pernicious aspects of a system generating racial oppression.

Further, it seems that many of the cancelled victims are often trivial figures that are not really in any position to translate their personal dispositions into any substantive negative consequence. At the same time we have lots of powerful individuals who have promoted racist, regressive, reactionary, neoliberal, neoconservative domestic and foreign policy that continue to play a role in government agencies and administrations, both Democratic and Republican, who deserve to be exposed for not what they say, but what they have done.

But lately, all that seems to be required to avoid getting canceled is merely are representative gestures and expressions of “wokeness”, or what is more generally described as “virtue signaling”.

On this count, I have noticed two reactions. There is what I call “woke faming” in which performative expressions of wokeness award people, organizations, or corporations with accolades for what are purely symbolic gestures independent of actions or policies (e.g. Wells-Fargo, AT&T Nike etc). This is come to be known as “woke-washing” – just another corporate Potemkin Village.

Then there is “woke shaming” for those who fail to express the desired or expected endorsement or acknowledgement. They are the victims of cancel culture.

All this reminds me of commentary by the political scientist Adolph Reed on Democratic Party liberals who, he argued, are always willing to “bear witness to the suffering” of various marginalized and oppressed groups, but never seem to be willing to put in place the policies that would meaningfully alleviate or eliminate that suffering. (Ironically, Reed himself was recently “deplatformed” when a NY chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America cancelled his appearance on a panel for his published piece on race and “disparitarianism”).

Finally, there is a reason that this form of woke anti-racism is so easily embraced and accommodated by corporations and the elite – it does not in any way threaten the institutions and structures on which their class privilege and domination rest. Expanding wokeness does not deduct from their wealth or property. They are more than happy to bring in the consultants such as Robin DiAngelo to train their employees on white fragility. But raising wages, sharing profits, or allowing workers to organize a labor union? That is a bridge too far.

I would hate to see cancel culture substitute for a more radical political movement and agenda that includes demands for defunding and demilitarizing the police, putting an end to policing, decriminalization of poverty, and public investment in community services. That will just play into culture war politics and do little to benefit marginalized and working class populations.