Cancel culture is a phenomenon that has existed in our society since the rise of social media in the early 2000s. The efforts to “cancel” an individual or a company can be attributed to the desire to hold people accountable for their actions. But in practice, it can create a culture of hate, where people are constantly searching for inconsequential actions that would allow us to deem someone “canceled.”
Merriam-Webster defines cancel culture as “the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure.” In this context, cancel means “to withdraw one’s support for (someone, such as a celebrity, or something, such as a company) publicly and especially on social media.”
A Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2022 concludes that 51% of adults in the United States say that calling people out on social media holds people accountable. In contrast, 45% of U.S. adults say that calling people out on social media punishes people who don’t deserve it.
Social psychologists have created explanations for the actions of the “canceled” and the “canceler” when it comes to cancel culture. According to an article by Collin May, a lawyer and adjunct lecturer at the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary, the “cancelers” typically take action to seek guilt or an apology from the individual being canceled, which often manifests in the target responding in the desired manner, even if they don’t believe they need to.
Compliance by the target can be explained by the criminal law psychology of false confessions, according to May. Citing Saul Kassin, Ph.D., distinguished professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, May explains that two of the types of confessions outlined in criminal law psychology can apply to cancel culture: Compliant False Confession and Persuaded False Confession.
The former involves a brutal interrogation, sometimes with misrepresentation of evidence and threats, that causes the accused to reach a breaking point and confess, even though he knows he is innocent. The latter involves the accused initially believing he is innocent, but results in him beginning to doubt his innocence and experiencing internalized guilt after a brutal interrogation.
In the context of cancel culture, the interrogation component is exhibited by the pressure and public attacks by the media. The false confession is represented by an apology or statement provided by the individual being “canceled.” Additionally, because of the fast-paced nature of content sharing on social media, details about the accused individual’s alleged actions travel at a rate that prevents the individual from being able to address every allegation directly. As a result, most individuals resort to providing a public apology to defuse the situation, even if they don’t believe their actions warrant an apology.
Cancel culture can be explained by several factors, including anonymity, lack of accountability and dehumanization. On social media, individuals can hide behind an account that doesn’t have to give any insight into who they actually are, allowing them to stay anonymous. Consequently, individuals are not held accountable for what they say on social media because other users do not know who they actually are. Additionally, being able to hide behind a computer screen creates a detachment from other users and a sense of dehumanization. The absence of a face-to-face personal connection creates a lack of empathy as users don’t recognize a real-life human on the receiving end of their comments, and also don’t immediately and directly observe the personal and emotional effects of their words.
In application, there are many examples of cancel culture in our society, from the canceling of brands to the canceling of celebrities and influencers. But the question that arises is whether these situations of “canceling” an individual or a company are justifiable.
Monica Lewinsky is said to have been on the receiving end of one of the first situations of modern cancel culture. After her affair with former President Bill Clinton was revealed, she received significant backlash from the media and society because her actions were perceived as morally wrong. As a result of the societal response, Lewinsky experienced mental health struggles. While her experience occurred decades before the actual use of the term “cancel culture,” it involved the use of the internet to spread backlash and hate, which is indicative of the evolution towards modern canceling through social media. However, people also claim that her “canceling” was not justified, as her situation involved an unbalanced power dynamic between her and Clinton.
In a recent example, Sydney Sweeney has received significant backlash after a collaboration with the company Dr. Squatch, which involved a new men’s body soap created from Sydney Sweeney’s actual bathwater. Critics claim that Dr. Squatch’s product sexualized Sweeney, in turn normalizing the sexualization of women in society.
The validity of Sweeney’s “canceling” is called into question, however, when you learn that a year ago, a similar product line involving a candle called “Jacob Elordi’s Bathwater” was created shortly after the release of the movie “Saltburn,” in which Elordi starred. The comparative social response to these two products — significant backlash for Sweeney and no negative response for Elordi — begs the question of whether cancel culture results in the picking and choosing of its victims.
There are instances where individuals or companies should be held accountable for their actions, but people should consider the context before publicly shaming someone on social media. The psychological effects of cancel culture are detrimental, and its actual application does not hold people accountable to the extent that we want it to. Instead, we should approach issues with grace and the understanding that everyone makes mistakes and that maybe these mistakes can create an opportunity for individuals to learn and grow.
Sienna Reinders, FCRH ‘28, is a political science and journalism double major from San Carlos, California.
