I’ve been thinking a lot about cancel culture in relation to quick responses to posts or headlines or people. Polarization. A lack of thorough reading or viewing. This kind of thing.
Two things recently made me want to dig deeper. First, I’ve been listening to The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling after it came highly recommended from Dr. Victoria Powell, writer of The Gallery Companion. WOW. Such a fascinating show about the way Rowling was first cancelled by certain groups especially afraid of or against witchcraft etc back in the 90s (and we get to go on some 90s rides, my fellow ‘older’ millennials…although a lot of it is pretty dark) and then from a variety of groups in response to her infamous trans tweets. However you feel about the tweets, I think you’ll find the show really compelling.
Then, on IG, I saw a post from Dr. Cornel West about an interview he did with Russell Brand called “Neoliberalism is Dying.” It had only been posted a few minutes before and already there were loads of comments about how dare he speak with the “devil”, with the anti-vaxxer, with a “right wing lunatic.” And maybe it was warranted; as Guardian writer George Monbiot says: “I once admired [] Brand,” but now he perpetuates “conspiracy theories” and uses dangerous strategies like “scapegoat[ing].”
Luckily, nobody seemed to be cancelling Dr. West, publicly at least, but they expressed disappointment in him. There was no way any of these people could have watched the video in those few minutes! And…the video, I thought, was actually super interesting and empathetic and…nuanced. The part about “wounded healers” vs. “wounded hurters” and their impact on society was especially poignant. It doesn’t mean I agreed with everything, but I found it thought provoking.
Nuance! We see so much black and white, this side or that side, kind of talk and media.
And is it the quick reactions, the ‘my way or the highway’ stuff that creates witch hunts? Are some witch hunts warranted? Should you listen to a ‘witch’? [I mean anyone - or news organization or political party - you feel you’ve done your research and decided you don’t like what they stand for…should you listen to what they have to say?]
Often I think: the internet has ruined us. We’re totally doomed. But then, hasn’t it always been like this? I used to teach Arthur Miller’s The Crucible about the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 alongside several texts concerning the McCarthy Era (Good Night and Good Luck, for example) as well as post-9/11 terrorist ‘witch hunts.’ These were all well before social media. Weren’t the various witch hunts over centuries types of extreme polarization? Is it just that the polarization is now more visible? That there are billions more people on earth who can quickly funnel around something?
So essentially, to what extent should we ignore opinions we disagree with? Should we engage with people who are known to have opposing views or make false claims? Should we listen to opposing media or subscribe to newsletters from “the other side”? Can we engage with multiple views in a single piece of writing/video/conversation? (I wrote a piece called “Be Your Own Devil’s Advocate” that speaks to such idea.)
I’m not making a coherent point or statement, because I want to hear what you think. Maybe you have answers, hope, further questions, examples, articles to read. Anything goes. Please just consider we probably/hopefully have a lot of different views and perspectives in the audience. That doesn’t mean we should self-censor, but we can show care in the way we may argue a point even with a silent reader in mind.
Thanks even just for thinking about these questions. That alone is bound to help. Little ripples. Sorry, this is a super long discussion thread prompt! Hope your weekend is starting well!
On the one hand I think about the golden rule and treating people with kindness and dignity no matter their beliefs. We’ve lost the ability to see the person and their humanity.
On the other, I avoid the man in town with the tattoo of a swastika on his arm and flags in his yard because I have no interest in hearing his views or need to talk to him.
Nuanced and facilitated conversations between stakeholders in an issue are woefully missing from a lot of political dialogue. But there are some bright spots. The House has a bipartisan committee on how to make Congress better that has lasted because they hired a facilitator after Jan 6 to help them rebuild their relationships with each other and it worked. One of their recommendations to Congress was more common places to meet and mingle and have lunch together (which you think exist but really don’t). I like that idea a lot.
I like building ways for us all to see each other’s humanity. But I won’t deliberately listen to podcasts or polarizing commentators from “the other side” to get to that. Life is too short. That’s not a requirement of being a good person. I’d rather listen to a friend or have coffee with a family member who I know disagrees with me and love them anyway.
Mar 25, 2023·edited Mar 25, 2023Liked by Dr. Kathleen Waller
I always listen to both sides, but whether or not I enter a debate or discussion really depends on whether there's a common basis as a starting point.
For example, if someone is driven by emotion to the extent that they cannot engage rationally, I don't see the point. For example, I recently watched a video in which students walked out of a talk, stating that the speaker was a Nazi. Her crime: saying that men and women are biologically different.
I also can't be bothered to engage with people who express strident views about things they have little knowledge or experience of. For example, to read the letters page of newspapers you could be forgiven for thinking that almost everyone is an expert in how to run a country during an unknown pandemic. (there is a word for such people: ultracrepidarians: see https://open.substack.com/pub/terryfreedman/p/beware-the-ultracrepidarians?r=18suih&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web).
Interesting. I was thinking about writing an article on my own small brushes with cancel culture. It's only a matter of time before we all get cancelled, unless the whole phenomenon implodes before then.
Great post, Kate. This is so timely, and something I think a lot about. I get that people have different points of view, but the ONLY way we can all move forward is to talk with each other with decency and respect. My old Pa who died last year had very different political views to me, but he always made me see a different perspective on an issue because we listened carefully to each other, and we respected the fact we could both bring something. I miss his thoughtful conversation. I don't think there's enough conversation between opposing sides any more, and the internet makes it anonymous and easy to grandstand. Here's another recommendation from me: BBC Radio 4's Encounters programme brings people with opposing views together in a mediated discussion on particular issues. By the end you see the guests moving towards each other, even if just to recognise the small things that they have in common: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09jmx6p
In the 1950's philosopher Michael Oakeshott said it was more important for a society to move together than for it to move quickly. In his 1970 book RULES FOR RADICALS, Saul Alinsky advised community organizers to "Polarize everything..... No one will be moved to action if they believe there is 52% good on one side, and 48% good on the other side. An organizer needs to make people believe the angels are 100% on our side, and the other side is made up 100% of devils." So Saul influenced a generation of activists to "polarize everything". It became a politically successful strategy that spread from politics into academics. Academic debating seeks to listen to and learn about the other side. Political debating seeks to vilify the other side, and shut it down. Academia in the social sciences embraced political debating .... and it replaced academic debating. Saul's advice led to political success for one side .... while sacrificing as though it was worthless...... the social fabric of listening to all sides. Saul himself admitted in his book that most issues were 52% good on one side, and 48% good on the other. He urged activists to invent cancel culture and "polarize everything" as though our disagreements are 100-0 good on one side, and evil on the other.
My brother and I seem to have wandered to opposing political positions, but we try to stay in conversation with each other by sending each other stuff we find persuasive or interesting. It’s been great for our relationship in that we both remain vulnerable to the legitimacy of the other’s opinion ... and that vulnerability keeps us from being oppositional. Isaac Saul’s newsletter Tangle https://www.readtangle.com/ has been a great tool for us to resist polarization.
Thanks for this post! I feel like I’m reticent to listen to both sides around things like anti-trans rhetoric (like that JKR spouts), especially now in the US with very real, harmful, and violent actions towards trans kids and adults being put into law using the same language and rhetoric she circulates. In cases like that, I don’t care to give people like JKR the benefit of a “both sides” argument. It’s interesting to think about how people may have “cancelled” her for witchcraft stuff a while ago, but for me now, it’s not so much “canceling” her or ideologically disagreeing with her: I’m putting a foot down and saying that anti trans hate isn’t acceptable. It can be hard for me to talk about this because I get so fired up (I love many trans people in my life), so I’m not interested in debating, but did want to share! Thanks!
Brilliant thinking and an outstanding piece of writing, Kathleen. The problem is rarely our different views, but a person's contentious nature and how they communicate and conduct themselves as a result of it.
For sure listen to both and all sides. Otherwise how can one be informed? Not sure why suddenly people are so ready to support or censure based on knee-jerk reactions to key words without looking into the nuance of any issue. The US is getting a reputation for constant "psychodrama" -- at root it's the wholesale rejection of information, frankly, and unfortunately it's very much going to affect out future.
Impossible to express the turmoil of feelings aroused. Sufficeth to say that at my ‘senior’ age I battle with more extreme feelings of love and rage for and against many changing attitudes and behaviours that I am struck dumb. All of this has a thread of cynicism woven throughout and for my own sanity I tend to retreat to the garden.
I think that civilized debate is the only way to achieve a civilized society, and unfortunately we don't see it very often. When watching a debate it is always the calm, reasoned speaker who gets my attention. If someone refuses to engage in rational debate I conclude that they have no argument, but I am always prepared to listen to those who can engage sensitively, respectful of the needs of others, to try to work towards a mutually acceptable end point. As a rule, I would rather hear all views, even if I find them abhorrent, as censorship can allow them to fester in dark places without being challenged. Great article, and brave.
Interesting discussion, Kate. I am sitting on the sidelines and reading through the many thought-provoking comments.
I am fascinated by the whole cancel culture ethos, though I don't indulge in any social media, as I find it frustrating and time-consuming. I listened to a wonderful conversation on 'Over the Rainbow' podcast a while ago https://open.spotify.com/show/3rJjUGdCL3HScbt18xYVYl
where a guest pointed out that simply cancelling those who were espousing confused ideas (in this case about members of the LGBTQ+ community) without engaging in conversation to encourage better understanding, was a lost opportunity. I have found myself 'educating' colleagues recently on similar issues, and have found that people are often genuinely keen to understand more. I just don't think that the online world is always the best place to engage, and sometimes it is just easier for one's own mental health to close down (cancel) such voices. In other words, I can appreciate that others have a totally different opinion to myself in theory, but I don't necessarily want to engage with them!
I genuinely don't believe that people can listen to Russell Brand speak about any topic at length and not at least get the impression that HE believes he's being compassionate and reasonable. And tbh (he often is.)
The problem that I often see vocalized (in secret amongst other left-wing people) is that it's very difficult for them to acquiesce, even to someone like Brand, because some of his opinions are then either spun or manipulated by someone else they disagree with more (or outright hate).
People don't want to live in the confused, gray, mostly liberal world of someone like Brand. They want to live in a more categorizable, group-friendly, and less needing of research version of liberalism. It's the same lazy white liberal attitude that MLK and Malcolm X talked about.
If you took Brand's more "controversial" opinions, it would be white middle class liberals screaming at him, not poor kids or minorities—they'd probably agree with him.
I generally try and be open to listening to other viewpoints other than my own and to try and remind myself that even people who I really disagree with have come to their views for many reasons, like me.
But I'm not always good at it! Sometimes I just find something too much or I shut down. I do think there's a line too - holding different views on how to run an economy is one thing, holding views that devalues a person's entire existence is another, and I don't think that should be treated with the same respect.
On the one hand I think about the golden rule and treating people with kindness and dignity no matter their beliefs. We’ve lost the ability to see the person and their humanity.
On the other, I avoid the man in town with the tattoo of a swastika on his arm and flags in his yard because I have no interest in hearing his views or need to talk to him.
Nuanced and facilitated conversations between stakeholders in an issue are woefully missing from a lot of political dialogue. But there are some bright spots. The House has a bipartisan committee on how to make Congress better that has lasted because they hired a facilitator after Jan 6 to help them rebuild their relationships with each other and it worked. One of their recommendations to Congress was more common places to meet and mingle and have lunch together (which you think exist but really don’t). I like that idea a lot.
I like building ways for us all to see each other’s humanity. But I won’t deliberately listen to podcasts or polarizing commentators from “the other side” to get to that. Life is too short. That’s not a requirement of being a good person. I’d rather listen to a friend or have coffee with a family member who I know disagrees with me and love them anyway.
A reader replied by email with some thoughts related to this podcast -- The Minefield
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3EBB3Oiiyly5WxRLa2ogZd?si=n2HUUKpqR1OBIMrvghBnNg
I always listen to both sides, but whether or not I enter a debate or discussion really depends on whether there's a common basis as a starting point.
For example, if someone is driven by emotion to the extent that they cannot engage rationally, I don't see the point. For example, I recently watched a video in which students walked out of a talk, stating that the speaker was a Nazi. Her crime: saying that men and women are biologically different.
I also can't be bothered to engage with people who express strident views about things they have little knowledge or experience of. For example, to read the letters page of newspapers you could be forgiven for thinking that almost everyone is an expert in how to run a country during an unknown pandemic. (there is a word for such people: ultracrepidarians: see https://open.substack.com/pub/terryfreedman/p/beware-the-ultracrepidarians?r=18suih&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web).
Interesting. I was thinking about writing an article on my own small brushes with cancel culture. It's only a matter of time before we all get cancelled, unless the whole phenomenon implodes before then.
Great post, Kate. This is so timely, and something I think a lot about. I get that people have different points of view, but the ONLY way we can all move forward is to talk with each other with decency and respect. My old Pa who died last year had very different political views to me, but he always made me see a different perspective on an issue because we listened carefully to each other, and we respected the fact we could both bring something. I miss his thoughtful conversation. I don't think there's enough conversation between opposing sides any more, and the internet makes it anonymous and easy to grandstand. Here's another recommendation from me: BBC Radio 4's Encounters programme brings people with opposing views together in a mediated discussion on particular issues. By the end you see the guests moving towards each other, even if just to recognise the small things that they have in common: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09jmx6p
In the 1950's philosopher Michael Oakeshott said it was more important for a society to move together than for it to move quickly. In his 1970 book RULES FOR RADICALS, Saul Alinsky advised community organizers to "Polarize everything..... No one will be moved to action if they believe there is 52% good on one side, and 48% good on the other side. An organizer needs to make people believe the angels are 100% on our side, and the other side is made up 100% of devils." So Saul influenced a generation of activists to "polarize everything". It became a politically successful strategy that spread from politics into academics. Academic debating seeks to listen to and learn about the other side. Political debating seeks to vilify the other side, and shut it down. Academia in the social sciences embraced political debating .... and it replaced academic debating. Saul's advice led to political success for one side .... while sacrificing as though it was worthless...... the social fabric of listening to all sides. Saul himself admitted in his book that most issues were 52% good on one side, and 48% good on the other. He urged activists to invent cancel culture and "polarize everything" as though our disagreements are 100-0 good on one side, and evil on the other.
My brother and I seem to have wandered to opposing political positions, but we try to stay in conversation with each other by sending each other stuff we find persuasive or interesting. It’s been great for our relationship in that we both remain vulnerable to the legitimacy of the other’s opinion ... and that vulnerability keeps us from being oppositional. Isaac Saul’s newsletter Tangle https://www.readtangle.com/ has been a great tool for us to resist polarization.
Thanks for this post! I feel like I’m reticent to listen to both sides around things like anti-trans rhetoric (like that JKR spouts), especially now in the US with very real, harmful, and violent actions towards trans kids and adults being put into law using the same language and rhetoric she circulates. In cases like that, I don’t care to give people like JKR the benefit of a “both sides” argument. It’s interesting to think about how people may have “cancelled” her for witchcraft stuff a while ago, but for me now, it’s not so much “canceling” her or ideologically disagreeing with her: I’m putting a foot down and saying that anti trans hate isn’t acceptable. It can be hard for me to talk about this because I get so fired up (I love many trans people in my life), so I’m not interested in debating, but did want to share! Thanks!
Brilliant thinking and an outstanding piece of writing, Kathleen. The problem is rarely our different views, but a person's contentious nature and how they communicate and conduct themselves as a result of it.
For sure listen to both and all sides. Otherwise how can one be informed? Not sure why suddenly people are so ready to support or censure based on knee-jerk reactions to key words without looking into the nuance of any issue. The US is getting a reputation for constant "psychodrama" -- at root it's the wholesale rejection of information, frankly, and unfortunately it's very much going to affect out future.
Impossible to express the turmoil of feelings aroused. Sufficeth to say that at my ‘senior’ age I battle with more extreme feelings of love and rage for and against many changing attitudes and behaviours that I am struck dumb. All of this has a thread of cynicism woven throughout and for my own sanity I tend to retreat to the garden.
I think that civilized debate is the only way to achieve a civilized society, and unfortunately we don't see it very often. When watching a debate it is always the calm, reasoned speaker who gets my attention. If someone refuses to engage in rational debate I conclude that they have no argument, but I am always prepared to listen to those who can engage sensitively, respectful of the needs of others, to try to work towards a mutually acceptable end point. As a rule, I would rather hear all views, even if I find them abhorrent, as censorship can allow them to fester in dark places without being challenged. Great article, and brave.
Interesting discussion, Kate. I am sitting on the sidelines and reading through the many thought-provoking comments.
I am fascinated by the whole cancel culture ethos, though I don't indulge in any social media, as I find it frustrating and time-consuming. I listened to a wonderful conversation on 'Over the Rainbow' podcast a while ago https://open.spotify.com/show/3rJjUGdCL3HScbt18xYVYl
where a guest pointed out that simply cancelling those who were espousing confused ideas (in this case about members of the LGBTQ+ community) without engaging in conversation to encourage better understanding, was a lost opportunity. I have found myself 'educating' colleagues recently on similar issues, and have found that people are often genuinely keen to understand more. I just don't think that the online world is always the best place to engage, and sometimes it is just easier for one's own mental health to close down (cancel) such voices. In other words, I can appreciate that others have a totally different opinion to myself in theory, but I don't necessarily want to engage with them!
I genuinely don't believe that people can listen to Russell Brand speak about any topic at length and not at least get the impression that HE believes he's being compassionate and reasonable. And tbh (he often is.)
The problem that I often see vocalized (in secret amongst other left-wing people) is that it's very difficult for them to acquiesce, even to someone like Brand, because some of his opinions are then either spun or manipulated by someone else they disagree with more (or outright hate).
People don't want to live in the confused, gray, mostly liberal world of someone like Brand. They want to live in a more categorizable, group-friendly, and less needing of research version of liberalism. It's the same lazy white liberal attitude that MLK and Malcolm X talked about.
If you took Brand's more "controversial" opinions, it would be white middle class liberals screaming at him, not poor kids or minorities—they'd probably agree with him.
This is tricky! Thanks for writing this Kate.
I generally try and be open to listening to other viewpoints other than my own and to try and remind myself that even people who I really disagree with have come to their views for many reasons, like me.
But I'm not always good at it! Sometimes I just find something too much or I shut down. I do think there's a line too - holding different views on how to run an economy is one thing, holding views that devalues a person's entire existence is another, and I don't think that should be treated with the same respect.
Infamous comments of Jk Rowling? How can any rational adult really believe that?