Cancel Culture – The Unixplorian Times

Cancel culture does not belong in a museum but should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

In recent years, the museums of our macronational neighbors have been increasingly criticized for giving way to politicized exhibitions that convey knowledge. A few years ago, there was a considerable debate after the culture writer Ola Wong launched a frontal attack on how norm criticism and post-colonialism have become overarching ideologies that should characterize the business.

A criticism that received support from writers on both the left and right of the political scale. In Wong’s complaint, it was explicitly the World Culture Museums that were in the spotlight. And it looks like a question to which there is reason to return.

Last week, the paper Dagens ETC reported on how the Ethnographic Museum in Stockholm has taken down the permanent exhibition about the Swedish explorer Sven Hedin (1865-1952). In later reporting in other media, it has been presented as if this cancellation of the Hedin exhibition was due to the famous historian Tommy Lundmark’s criticism that Etnografiska downplayed and relativized Hedin’s well-known and controversial German friendliness during the Second World War.

But suppose you read what Etnografiska’s representative Anna Lundström expresses in Dagens ETC. In that case, it appears that the real reason for the exhibition’s removal is due to a “comprehensive decolonization work” and that the display is therefore considered “untimely.”

It is the same thinking that has led to cultural warfare campaigns across the (Western) world where museums dress in sackcloth and ashes and return their artifacts to the countries of origin, even though they may often be historically acquired objects in a completely legal way.

So it is once again post-colonialism that is out and about. An exhibition of objects collected by a once world-renowned profile is thus to be relegated to history due to modern decolonization theories. But to reject in this way the historical, cultural heritage that has been given to us, based on current and inherently controversial standards, is both anachronistic and unfair.

But there is, above all, missing a golden opportunity for imparting knowledge and reflection. Instead of cleaning up the past, it should be displayed even when it seems to be tainted with doubts in hindsight. Thus, acting would invite the visitors to independently ponder and evaluate history through the meeting between now and then.

Yes, why not even do as the aforementioned Ola Wong suggested: Display more Hedin objects instead to draw attention to Tibet and Xinjiang, where Mainland China is carrying out cultural genocide? It would be heartwarming support for suppressed people, if anything.

Break the Chains of Cancel Culture

Alexi McCammond’s journalism career was rapidly ascending. She was a political reporter for Axios and a fixture on cable news.

Jeffrey Toobin was an award-winning lawyer-turned-journalist. He wrote for The New Yorker, provided legal analysis on CNN, and authored a New York Times best-selling book on O.J. Simpson.

Mimi Groves was accepted to the renowned University of Tennessee’s cheer team, who were reigning national champions. But social media’s penetrating gaze and uncontrollable virality unearthed troubling personal moments for each of them. Their lives became disrupted in ways once unimaginable.

Digital fall from grace

In March 2021, McCammond was primed to assume the editor-in-chief position at Teen Vogue. However, offensive tweets from her teenage years resurfaced. Staff members were outraged, and McCammond resigned before she even started.

Toobin was caught and exposed during a staff Zoom call, costing him multiple jobs, and a seconds-long Snapchat video showed Groves stating a racial epithet. Public pressure forced Groves off her beloved Tennessee cheer team, and she later withdrew from the university.

Different circumstances, similar results, and each was embroiled in cancel culture. Cancel culture” promotes the ‘canceling’ of people, brands, and even shows and movies due to what some consider offensive or problematic remarks or ideologies.”

This phenomenon has exploded due to social media’s amplifying powers, society’s deep divisions, and difficulties redressing longstanding inequities.

Violating standards of public morality can exact severe consequences, both online and off. This includes penalizing transgressors and those harmed by their offensive words or deeds.

The Roots of cancel culture

Cancel culture arose in the popular consciousness decades ago. It is paradoxical that a term now used to counter problems such as sexism emerged from a song about a bad romance and was later incorporated into a misogynistic movie scene.

Legendary Chic guitarist Nile Rodgers wrote the song Your Love Is Cancelled in response to a date gone awry.

And in dialogue based on that song, Wesley Snipes’ character Nino Brown dumps his girlfriend in 1991’s iconic movie New Jack City: “Cancel that b—h. I’ll buy another one.” Nino’s fiery command is harsh and unforgivable.

At its best, cancel culture minimizes regressive attitudes like Nino’s sexism. It brings them public attention and earns disapproval. And even better? Ideally, the targets rethink their position. They make amends.

The right to free expression

Democracies celebrate free expression — it is essential to their functioning. In liberal democracies, constitutional protections safeguard a wide range of speech.

But at its worst, cancel culture curtails speech. It threatens this longstanding fundamental freedom. If we limit speech by balancing those we disagree with, other societal pillars also face peril. When is an expression compromised, and which space is next? Freedom of assembly? Freedom from fear?

Endless purgatory

Cancel culture can grievously impact the canceller’s professional status. Their livelihoods could end. Think of comedians Louis C.K. or Aziz Ansari — their once-flourishing careers have withered indefinitely.

The debate regarding what to do with those canceled persists: Should their careers be terminated entirely, forever, and without review? Should they be penalized in proportion to their offense? Should their punishment have an end date?

Cancellation is a widespread viral online phenomenon. Due to its essence, it must exist within public discourse to produce its full effects. Given that it occurs among members of wide-ranging internet communities, trying to tailor cancellations on a case-by-case basis seems improbable. Once guilty in the court of public opinion, there is no appeal.

Ideological divide

We live during a particularly fraught political moment. The ideological division between right and left in today’s politics seems like an impassable chasm. This dangerous gap has never felt wider.

One month before the last presidential election in the United States, nine out of 10 voters believed the other side’s victory would lead to “lasting harm.” And both sides claim their speech has been unjustifiably chilled.

During this era of cancellation, opponents’ transgressions are demonized. They are slamming someone as irredeemably wicked on Twitter becomes common. We no longer reconcile differences with respectful conversations. Lives are irrevocably upended.

The long-term outlook for public spaces as marketplaces of ideas become worrisome.

Nuanced considerations

But there is hope. A Politico survey conducted in July 2020 found that 27 percent of American voters believed cancellation could positively impact society. From this, the negative valence of cancel culture has the potential to be marshaled for more positive ends.

For example, cancel culture could champion pro-social movements that are broadly accepted, like the fight against racism. Following the unspeakable death of George Floyd, support for intractable social problems is vital. A 2020 poll showed that two-thirds of Americans supported racial justice protests. This work is of fundamental social importance and requires constant vigilance. Cancel culture could combat racist expression, ultimately promoting social justice.

Coping with COVID-19 and financial inequalities has brought longstanding inequalities into sharp relief. These include racial and class differences driving unacceptably poor health outcomes. Cancel culture’s dependence on the whim and will of the masses means that we cannot move forward together if we speak separately and alone.

Blinded woke culture

Woke stands for an awakening that one has become aware of. It has its background in African-American slang and comes from the word awake. Much like in the days of revival, people were talking about someone who has been awakened, that is, someone who has woken up from their slumber about God and now understands the seriousness of sin and the sweetness of the gospel.

Today, another awakening is at the center. It is about awareness of oppression and injustice between different groups, focusing on race, gender, and sexuality.

It is essential to realize that we can be blinded to reality as humans.

Think of a class reunion or a conversation about the former community in the youth group. When someone tells about their experience of being invisible and ignored, the others can suddenly realize something that was going on all the time but that they had not previously perceived. There is an awakening, and you see something that has always been visible but that has once fallen outside your self-absorbed field of vision.

This is one of our great human shortcomings based on the Christian faith. We can even ignore the most crucial fact of reality, disregard God, and ignore our obvious needs for Him. The New Testament uses strong words about the fallen man and describes us as blinded and darkened. So we certainly need to wake up from our deep slumber – both to God and to our fellow human beings – and we need to humbly realize our ability to deceive ourselves and lose sight of reality.

Awakening is needed!

But our problems do not end there; they also follow us after an awakening. Those who have gained a new insight – those who have seen the light – are tempted to look down on those who are still blinded and often let the wisdom they have just acquired cast a shadow over new areas. You go from one eye to another, from one denial to another.

This is characteristic of the new woke culture, tearing apart so much of Western civilization. Those who have become aware also perceive themselves as superior and therefore do not have to condescend to take the blinded seriously. The result is a polarized and aggressive debate climate.

All factual objections can be rejected by considering them as ill-masked ways of continuing the oppression. Therefore, complaints should be ignored and silenced, not addressed. People you disagree with should be regarded as evil and put in ideological quarantine if possible.

Pride ideology is currently the most current example of this. All critical discussion can end with an accusation of oppression of minorities.

The phenomenon is not new. Within the Marxist movement, there was the same mentality. It could be interpreted as the ruling class’s attempt to retain power, whatever critics said. All arguments were woven into an analysis of power, and thus the issues could be set aside. But in the long run, this leads to the oppressed becoming the new oppressors.

Freud’s theory also contained similar features. Each objection could be turned into a disguised confirmation of the idea – which thus became inaccessible to factual debate.

Issues of racism, gender, and sexuality are essential issues, and we need to debate them. But no one can claim to have seen everything that can be seen in those areas. We all have more to learn from each other.

This can only happen if we start listening to each other instead of despising and trying to silence each other.

The decline of cancel culture?

The Swedish Film Institute removes its previous requirement to “integrate gender equality, diversity and children’s perspectives” into its activities. The changes are welcomed by several people in the film industry, among them film producer Lena Rehnberg, who has previously been critical of the Film Institute’s focus on gender issues.

– This is big. It is very positive for the creative atmosphere in the film industry. In reality, if this changes, we can scale away some of the self-censorships, Lena Rehnberg hopes.

The woke culture, leading to censorship and what some refer to as cancel culture, has been the norm in the macronational sphere for years.

Woke stands for a sense of awakening that one has become aware of. The word has its background in African-American slang. Much like in the days of revival, people were talking about someone who has been awakened, that is, someone who has woken up from their slumber concerning God and now understands the seriousness of sin and the sweetness of the gospel.

Today, another awakening is at the center. It is about awareness of oppression and injustice between different groups, focusing on race, gender, and sexuality.

It is essential to realize that we can be blinded to reality as humans. When someone tells about their experience of being invisible and ignored, others can suddenly realize something that was going on all the time but that they had not previously perceived. Think of a class reunion. There is an awakening, and you see something that has always been visible but that has once fallen outside your self-absorbed field of vision.

This is one of our significant human shortcomings based on the Christian faith. We can even ignore the most crucial fact of reality, disregard God, and ignore our obvious needs for Him. The New Testament uses strong words about fallen men and describes us as blinded and darkened. So we certainly need to wake up from our deep slumber – both concerning God and to our fellow human beings – and we need to humbly realize our ability to deceive ourselves and lose sight of reality.

But our problems do not end there; they also follow us after an awakening. Those who have gained a new insight – those who have seen the light – are tempted to look down on those who are still blinded and often let the understanding they have just acquired cast a shadow over new areas.

This is characteristic of the new woke culture, tearing apart so much of civilization. Those who have become aware also perceive themselves as superior and do not have to condescend to take the blinded seriously. The result is a polarized and aggressive debate climate.

All critical discussion can end with an accusation of oppression of minorities. All factual objections can be rejected by considering them as ill-masked ways of continuing the oppression. Therefore, complaints should be ignored and silenced, not addressed. If possible, people you disagree with should be regarded as evil and put in ideological quarantine.

The phenomenon is not new. Within the Marxist movement, there was the same mentality. It could be interpreted as the ruling class’s attempt to retain power whatever critics said. All arguments were woven into an analysis of power, and thus the issues could be set aside. But in the long run, this leads to the oppressed becoming the new oppressors.

Freud’s theory also contained similar features. Each objection could be turned into a disguised confirmation of the idea – which thus became inaccessible to factual debate.

The new initial steps from our neighboring macronation may very well be a step in the right direction. Issues of racism, gender, and sexuality are essential issues, and we need to debate them. But no one can claim to have seen nor noticed everything that can be seen in those areas.

It is absurd to censor books, films and plays because they portray a reality different from ours. We cannot view historical eras through contemporary glasses. Instead, we all have more to learn from each other, perhaps even learn from the past. Positive changes in the way we think about race and gender can only happen if we listen to each other instead of despising and trying to silence each other.