Cancel Culture is a phrase that gets adrenaline flowing because of the passion it ignites. The passion is heightened because the distinction between rational/reasoned accountability and “cancelling” is both a matter of degree and without a shared definition or standard. This third post in a a series on grace, accountability and cancel culture will briefly explore “cancel culture” and its cousin “Do Nothing.” We need to understand how proponents and opponents of actions seek to label both accountable (just) and extreme (unjust) actions as “cancel culture” in a manner that “like minded” people on both sides of a debate are expected to simply accept.
Reasonable Response
The two previous posts explored the importance of responding to acts in a manner that is “equal and opposite” the act. The appropriateness of a response is determined by severity of the act and the consequence that is necessary to maintain a healthy organization. Figure 1 illustrates the how the continuum of severity of acts is mirrored by a continuum of responses. When the chosen response is not opposite the severity of the act, the plank becomes out of balance. A child leaving a bike out in the rain warrants a far different response than a crime such as murder. And who defines what responses are appropriate? Appropriate responses are calibrated by the standards set by the society itself, through philosopher, religious and ethicist teachings, codes of conduct and laws. When more and more responses fall outside of the norm, society becomes unbalanced and destabilized.
What is Cancel Culture?
“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” (pop culture by dictionary.com). It can also be viewed as “de-platforming” or removing or making it more difficult for someone to have a voice in the public square. At times it is applied by those on both sides of the political aisle who demand their beliefs be recognized and celebrated while denying the same for those with different beliefs, backgrounds or religious faith.
The weight of a true “cancelation response” does not land opposite an action in Figure 2, but to the right of the act—opposite air—upending the balance of our plank. What makes this an effort to “cancel” rather than merely a harsh, out of balance response, is an effort to portray the act as more egregious than it is, justifying the harsher response.
Perhaps the best recent example of Cancel Culture is the San Francisco School Board’s 6-1 decision, now put on hold, to change the name of 44 schools named for historic American figures who helped establish and lead our nation since its founding. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Paul Revere were three such individuals whose past actions were deemed unworthy for San Francisco children to celebrate. This sweeping action was so extreme that it drew extensive criticism from the right and left of the political divide. Declaring that Abraham Lincoln, the man who kept our Union together and signed the Emancipation Proclamation, is unworthy of celebration while keeping Malcolm X as a school name, even with his controversial early life, represent a clear double standard. The choices of names they voted to remove and keep demonstrate that individuals and groups on the far left of the political spectrum seek to define what character traits we will value and celebrate based solely upon today’s political sensitivities and perceived “correctness,” with disregard for historical context and national impact of the namesakes. The school board will revisit the renaming after full-time in person learning has resumed.
False Cries of Cancel Culture—Trying to Avoid Accountability
On the opposite side of the Cancel Culture coin are claims of “cancelation” that are equally unfounded as the renaming of George Washington High School in San Francisco. Opponents of accountable responses attempt to minimize an act in order to justify a “do nothing” or “do little” response. The cry of “cancel culture” here is actually an attempt to escape accountability by asking us to believe the “act” is on the left side of the plank’s continuum, thus redefining what is equal and opposite. Changing the language like this does not change where the act actually rests. Figure 3 illustrates the sought after lenient response that upends a healthy society.
First among these unmerited claims is the one from individuals and organization who want to stop the renaming of United States military installations currently named for Confederate soldiers. The renaming will ensure our present military members are no longer forced to celebrate and honor those who led Confederate forces against the United States during the Civil War. Military members swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” I had never considered the names of Army installations until assigned to Pope Air Force Base, next to Fort Bragg. I did not understand why the United States military continued to honor Bragg, a Confederate General who was actually relieved of command by Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States, for his poor leadership and general ineffectiveness in combat. We have so many other men and women who have served the United States with great distinction who are far more worthy of such national honor. For example, when renaming Ft Hood, Texas, two native Texans who won the Medal of Honor in World War II and Vietnam respectively, First Lieutenant Audie Murphy and Master Sergeant Roy Benavidez, are certainly worthy namesakes to consider.
Removing Bragg’s name, as well as those of other Confederate Generals, will not eliminate these men from our history, nor from studies of all Civil War military leaders or engagement. Nor does it mean we will not recognize and respect effective military leadership, battlefield strategy and tactics that existed with the Confederate forces. It also does not mean we can’t recognize and acknowledge any post-Civil War work or thought leadership that was healing and otherwise useful to the nation. It merely means we will no longer celebrate these men’s military leadership by naming our Army bases for them. It ensures all servicemen and women know today’s military leaders do not, and will not, celebrate rebellion against the United States, nor the practice of slaver the Confederate States fought to preserve. Renaming the forts is accountability (we won’t celebrate leaders of the rebellion) rather than cancelation (removal of their names and stories from national and military history books).
Coming to terms with the legacy of the Civil War can be difficult, especially when balancing accountability, love of family, and concepts such as “cancel culture” for families whose ancestors fought for the Confederate States. One of my thrice great grandfathers, James T. Poe, served as a Major in the 11th Arkansas Regiment of the Confederate Army. My family history in America has been traced back to Samuel Poe Sr, who migrated from England to Pennsylvania somewhere between 1675 (his birth) and 1695 (his marriage). Reconciling James Poe’s service to the Confederacy, his subsequent brief stint as a state legislator and role as a family patriarch has been a lifelong journey. His life was not stagnant and did not end at the conclusion of the war. I do not celebrate Poe’s service to the Confederacy, but I recognize it and preserve its record alongside other family history. I don’t seek to “cancel” his life, but to understand its lessons. Life and heritage can feel complicated. We must not let life’s feeling and complications be an excuse to drop our eyes away from living a life based on positive principles and values, such as respect.
Do Nothing
Politically, a great irony is that extreme wings of our political parties defend the lowering of their internal standards. Failing to hold members of our organizations accountable is the reverse extreme to cancel culture—do nothing—and can be equally damaging. When a party withholds accountability, it often explains it away by blaming the opposite party for not maintaining their standards, just as I tried to blame others for my wrongs a child. For political parties this argument essentially claims the ends (winning) justifies the means (accepting or embracing actions otherwise outside of the organizations professed standards).
Michael Gerson, a lifelong conservative and a Christian, recently observed that our citizens have begun to elect politicians whose platform and preference is to fight the other party rather than work to govern the country. When we focus on fighting our opponents, we become unwilling to sideline a “fighter” on “our” side who has clearly acted counter to our expressed values. We have seen instances when candidate or party loyalty is deemed more important than standards and philosophy expressed by the party itself. Each party has, to some degree, tolerated conduct that falls well outside their stated beliefs. To “do nothing” when society norms warrant accountability and corrections, as in Figure 3, lowers the standards for all those supporting your and provides the excuse for those who oppose your views to do the same. It is another race to the bottom.
Our Response
Your comments, questions and discussions really drive me to consider what I believe and value, and how to express it fairly and accurately. Accountability and the Cancel Culture is a great example of how movement up and down the continuum of acts and responses shapes how our society defines standards of acceptable conduct. Accountability within our families, churches and organizations we support defines the standards of behavior that we cannot expect any others to exceed.
The historic teachings of religions and philosophers suggest our response to others should not merely be based on the eyes of the beholder. Truth is not really in the eye of the beholder. Truth is truth, and we need to pursue it. Accountability should match one’s conduct, regardless of an individuals affiliation.
So how do we respond?
- By listening—carefully and critically to all sides.
- With respect.
- With humility.
- With fairness and firmness.
- With accountability—for ourselves, those we are closest to and our broader communities.
- With grace—for all.
There are countless individuals and organizations characterized, perhaps imperfectly, by the aspirational list above. They recognize and strive to stand firm on their foundation of principles. Others can be persuaded to join those standing firm and strengthening our communities. It simply takes people like you and me to practice accountability and grace—values that last.
1 thought on “Cancel Culture and Do Nothing: Obstacles to Accountability”
Tim- this is really great. I am going to have to unpack this one for a while.