TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
The good, the bad, and the canceled: Examining the perils of the digital guillotine
The world’s challenges no longer remain as distant abstractions but tangible realities that young minds are pushed to confront.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Introduction
With the rapid rise of technological development, today’s youth are gifted with the ability to study every nook and cranny of the world they inhabit. With a single click, they gain instant access to a never-ending buffet of stories and news from every corner of the globe that circulate at unprecedented speeds. The world’s challenges no longer remain as distant abstractions but tangible realities that young minds are pushed to confront.
However, such exposure to social media has instead wrought more harm than good. In a world increasingly defined by the digital, where it becomes almost unimaginable to conceive of society without it, there is a growing expectation for the youth to wield their platforms with purpose and give voice to the voiceless. Those who choose to remain silent on social issues swiftly find themselves the targets of public scorn, accused of complicity through inaction amid the struggles that surround them. But what force, precisely, could wield such pervasive influence?
The answer lies in cancel culture, a modern form of ostracism used to isolate individuals and render them “socially radioactive”. At the core of cancel culture is the idea that we are all at constant risk of provoking a ruthless online populace, quick to incite its fury and boundless in the havoc it can wreak. Post a single tweet and you risk being consumed by their untamable force, stripping away your job, relationships, and exiling you from public life. But if cancel culture truly was the fruit borne of our aspirations to raise awareness and rally support, how did its once hopeful aspirations devolve into something so terrifying?
Roots of cancel culture
Recent discussions on cancel culture are often intertwined with the age-old cliché of the mob: depicted as frantic, untamable and an inherent threat to social stability. This trope, as Eric Hobsbawm notes, is a product of the “dual revolution” of the late 18th and mid 19th centuries. First was the Industrial Revolution, which saw Britain as a pioneer in transforming predominantly agrarian, artisanal societies into ones centered around mechanized production. A notable impact of such dramatic change was the increased concentration of working-class people in urban societies, giving them the chance to unite through labor unions in pursuit of a better life. Next came the French Revolution, which Hobsbawm identifies as the second revolution and the infamous birth of the mob. Though the abolition of absolute monarchy in 1789 was largely driven by political maneuvering among royals, nobles, and clergymen, the revolution would likely have faltered had the Parisian civilians not stormed the Palace of Versailles, in a wave of “revolutionary hysteria,” to unite in physical presence and demand that their voices be heard. But at what point does the definition of a crowd dissolve into the chaos of mob mentality?
Social psychology credits this distinction to deindividuation and anonymity. When individuals merge into a group, they lose a sense of self-awareness and dissolve into the collective, even their emotions are amplified when witnessed in others. More importantly is the feature of anonymity, which is when individuals feel shielded by the masses, believing they won’t be held accountable for violent or immoral behavior because it is now diffused across the entire group. A pioneer on this subject, writer and polymath Gustave Le Bon, argued in his 1895 work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind that crowds are inherently dangerous. He stated, “By the mere fact that he forms an organized crowd, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization […] Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian.” While not directly using the term anonymity, this quotation implies a similar argument, that individuals, once part of a crowd, are more likely to commit harmful acts because they are shielded from facing any consequences.
In other words, even the most righteous of causes, once engulfed by the frenzy of the mob, will inevitably give way to chaos and irrationality. These same ideas remain deeply ingrained in contemporary thought, embodied in the relentless force of cancel culture that continues to plague our world.
Critiques of cancel culture
Trial by the press and the dangers of media-led justice
One of the central criticisms of public shaming on social media is that, often, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. In a society that prides itself on upholding moral values, it is ironic that cancel culture, in its haste to condemn, often lacks the nuance to distinguish between varying levels of harm. This court of public opinion operates on a false dichotomy, either you stand with the masses, or you stand against them. Such binary thinking absurdly lumps together those who’ve made regrettable statements with those guilty of heinous, undeniable wrongs. Either sparing those who should be held accountable, or imposing disproportionately harsh punishments on those undeserving of such severity. This disparity is exemplified by the equal ostracization of R. Kelly, a serial predator entangled in numerous criminal cases involving minors, and Kevin Hart, who, after a series of homophobic tweets in 2018, issued sincere and repeated apologies for his actions.
In a criminal justice system, concrete mechanisms and laws ensure justice, with fair punishments that fit the crime. The Indonesian legal system, for instance, upholds the principle of “presumption of innocence,” safeguarding the rights of the accused and requiring the prosecution to prove guilt through the bearing of proof. While not without flaws, such a system far surpasses cancel culture in its careful application of nuance. Cancel culture functions like a distorted replica of our judicial process: with scant regard for solid evidence, people are emboldened to “play judge” without the actual wisdom, discernment or respect for justice that the role demands. Protected by the safety of their screens as veils of anonymity, they instead shame others to no remorse. Social media, then, is hardly the proper forum for administering true justice.
The lifelong price of a temporary misstep
One of the most haunting comparisons drawn to today’s cancel culture is that of a witch hunt. Much like such historical persecutions, cancel culture often carries a ruthless finality. In the name of banishing sin or immorality, public shaming becomes a spectacle; a modern-day trial where the condemned are cast out permanently with no chance for redemption or self-defense.
Today, online shaming leaves little room for compassion, fixating instead on an archive of what could have been a fleeting lapse in judgment, and offering no room for the accused to apologize or be forgiven. A swift apology is dismissed as insincere, and a delayed one seen as coerced or untruthful. Such extreme shaming echoes the age-old concept of scapegoating: a means to rally an otherwise divided crowd against an “evil other”. This offers spectators the illusion of purity, imagining themselves spotless by comparison. But this sense of moral superiority is fleeting, for the cycle of shame remains merciless, waiting for its next victim. Hence, to those who are “canceled,” the experience is akin to being ambushed by the world at large, a public stoning in the digital square. And for those on the sidelines, there lingers the fear that one day, we, too, can become the target.
This pattern of thinking is problematic because, while mistakes should be seen as stepping stones to growth, admitting fault, apologizing, making amends and learning, cancel culture denies us this opportunity, creating a world devoid of grace and setting an example for our children that mistakes are unforgivable and growth futile. Children raised to fear mistakes are conditioned to chase unattainable ideals of perfection, leaving them paralyzed by fear to take risks and complete even the simplest tasks. So how else can we learn and grow if we’re not allowed the freedom to fail?
The cost of conformity, can we progress without plurality?
One of the most troubling consequences of cancel culture lies in its perpetuation of mob mentality. Akin to herds in peril that instinctively band together for safety, these keyboard activists move as a singular entity, their individual capacity for independent thought subsumed by the will of the group. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “If everyone’s thinking alike, then no one is thinking.” This quotation bears resemblance to the concept of an echo chamber, where confirmation bias drives individuals to interact solely with content that aligns with their views, serving only to reinforce their beliefs rather than exposing them to new ones.
Cancel culture has also spread beyond popular media, seeping into academic circles. Educational institutions have long served as sanctuaries for free inquiry, intellectual growth, and the cultivation of open-mindedness. Though celebrations of such intellectual diversity, knowledge can flourish, mistakes can be made, and vigorous debate can therefore refine ideas, that’s truly what science and journalism is all about! But ideological homogeneity has been gradually eroding these ideals, stifling the breadth of inquiry by declaring certain questions as “settled,” thereby discouraging further, critical examination. While the urge to shield our most deeply held beliefs is commendable, true learning demands that we acknowledge a crucial fact: as Karl Popper once proposed, knowledge is driven not by fixed truths but by a constant cycle of conjecture, revision and a willingness to confront the unknown.
This isn’t to condone tyranny or prejudice, nor to suggest embracing wrong in the name of open-mindedness. The point is, silencing voices we find unpalatable won’t ever bring the change we seek. The solution to ideological monoculture in academia is never to condemn other views, no matter how misguided, heretical or controversial they may initially seem. It’s through engaging with ideas we disagree with that we learn to understand the roots of our beliefs, challenge our assumptions, and more deeply value the principles we hold dear. Ultimately, we each possess unique beliefs, wounds, histories and simple biases. It’s the whole of all these parts that make us human.
Conclusion: The perils of extremism and reimagining accountability
In its finest form, social media becomes a refuge for the marginalized, granting them a voice to demand accountability where conventional systems of justice have failed to protect them. In its darkest form, it morphs into a modern-day colosseum, where virtual crowds mercilessly tear down their targets in a spectacle devoid of fairness or due process. The unyielding rigidity of cancel culture has swung the pendulum decisively toward its extreme opposite: anti-cancel culture, a reactionary stance framing cancellation as a perilous threat to fundamental freedoms. Supporters of this backlash often cast themselves as victims, branding those advocating accountability as an “overly soft,” vain mob, despite the fact that these calls for justice frequently come from marginalized communities. What once sought to champion social progress and equity now seems to be retreating into the past.
A glaring illustration of this shift is the 2022 Depp v. Heard defamation trial, which witnessed a slew of attacks against Amber Heard who was accused of faking her allegations of abuse. Heard was vilified for voicing her experiences, denigrated as a “skank”, “liar” and “whore”, while the undeniable proof of Depp’s abuse, both physical and verbal, was conveniently overlooked as a dominant belief in his innocence zealously persisted. The few voices offering solidarity to Heard were drowned by those who, mirroring Depp’s own contempt, mocked her emotional testimonies in cruel jest across social media. This stands in crisp contrast to the “societal reckoning” of the #MeToo movement, when survivors were finally afforded the platform to break their silence and fight for the social acceptance of sexual assault victims in society.
While many critiques of cancel culture abound today, extremism of any kind, whether in favor of or against cancel culture, can rarely ever yield positive outcomes. As evidence, the intensity of cancel culture has only borne rotten fruit: giving rise to an equally extreme ideology that rejects accountability altogether. Cancel culture is a tidal wave when a mere drop of rain would suffice. In other words, the original intent of cancel culture, to hold people accountable, regardless of their status, fame or wealth, is undeniably important. Yet true change demands more than shaming; it requires patience, persistence and a sincere understanding that progress does not happen overnight.
The writer is a winner of the 2024 Padjadjaran English Competition - Essay Writing category. This article is published in partnership with the Padjadjaran English Competition. The opinions here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jakarta Post.
