Cancel Culture

I was listening to William Hague talking about tackling Cancel Culture on being appointed Chancellor of Oxford University. It got me thinking.

In recent years, the term cancel culture has become a lightning rod in cultural and political debates. It’s often portrayed as a mob-like phenomenon where individuals or organisations are "called out" and face consequences—whether professional, social, or economic—for their actions or views. However, the opposition to cancel culture, particularly from right-wing commentators, has become just as prominent. While framed as a principled defence of free speech, this opposition often reveals significant contradictions, raising the question: is it truly about free speech, or is it selective outrage?

Cancel culture is, at its core, a form of social accountability. It occurs when people, collectively or individually, reject certain actions, behaviours, or views deemed harmful, offensive, or unethical. Its proponents argue it is a necessary tool to challenge harmful rhetoric and systemic oppression. Critics, especially on the right, see it as overreach—a form of censorship that stifles free expression and diversity of thought.

Yet, cancel culture is not a new phenomenon. Societies have always "cancelled" individuals or ideas they found unacceptable, whether by ostracism, boycotts, or other means. What’s different today is the scale and speed enabled by social media and the heightened scrutiny of public figures and corporations.

Opposition to cancel culture is particularly strong among right-wing commentators and politicians, who often position themselves as champions of free speech. Their rhetoric centres on the idea that cancel culture:

• Censors dissenting voices, especially those expressing conservative or traditional views. 
• Promotes a culture of fear, where people are afraid to speak openly. 
• Embodies "wokeness" run amok, stifling anything that challenges progressive orthodoxy. 

This framing resonates with those who feel alienated or frustrated by rapid cultural shifts and the rise of progressive activism. But the opposition to cancel culture is not just about protecting free speech—it’s also a political and ideological weapon.

One irony of anti-cancel culture rhetoric is that it often amplifies the very speech it claims to defend. Public figures who are "cancelled" frequently receive even greater platforms after the backlash. For instance:

• Individuals criticised for offensive statements are rebranded as martyrs for free expression. 
• Controversial ideas are thrust into the spotlight, gaining traction in the name of resisting "censorship." 
• Fringe views are normalised as part of mainstream discourse under the guise of defending open dialogue. 

By opposing cancel culture, right-wing voices often succeed in shifting the Overton Window—the range of ideas deemed acceptable for public discussion. This can make previously taboo or marginalised views seem more mainstream, even if they remain harmful or discriminatory.

The anti-cancel culture position has also become a symbolic battleground for broader ideological conflicts. At its heart, it aligns with key right-wing themes:

• Individualism over collectivism: The right often portrays cancel culture as an infringement on personal freedoms by a collectivist mob. 
• Opposition to progressive norms: Cancel culture is framed as part of a broader "woke agenda," making it a convenient foil for right-wing critiques of feminism, anti-racism, and LGBTQ+ activism. 
• Traditionalism vs. modernity: Anti-cancel rhetoric frequently appeals to those who feel nostalgic for a time when certain views were less scrutinised. 

Rather than engaging with the nuances of accountability, the right often uses cancel culture as shorthand for opposing progressive values wholesale.

While decrying cancel culture, the same figures and groups often engage in their own forms of "cancellation." This hypocrisy is striking:

• Boycotts: Right-wing campaigns frequently call for boycotts of brands, companies, or media they perceive as "too woke" (e.g., Nike, Disney, Bud Light). 
• Book bans: Efforts to remove books discussing race, gender, or LGBTQ+ issues from schools are a form of cultural cancellation. 
• Silencing dissent: Conservative politicians and pundits have sought to restrict discussions on critical race theory, climate change, and other progressive topics. 

These actions mirror the very dynamics they critique in cancel culture, revealing that their opposition is often not about free speech but about controlling which ideas dominate public discourse.

The hypocrisy becomes clearer when examining whose speech is defended. When a right-wing figure faces consequences for harmful comments, anti-cancel culture warriors rally around them, claiming "free speech is under attack." But when progressive activists, educators, or organisations advocate for inclusivity, these same warriors are quick to call for bans, boycotts, or silencing. This selective outrage suggests that the opposition to cancel culture is less about protecting freedom of expression and more about maintaining ideological dominance.

By opposing cancel culture, right-wing commentators aim to protect their own speech while discrediting progressive movements. However, this strategy has its pitfalls:

• Legitimising harm: In defending controversial speech, they risk enabling genuinely harmful rhetoric or actions. 
• Polarising discourse: Their rhetoric often reduces complex issues to an "us vs. them" binary, making constructive dialogue difficult. 
• Revealing contradictions: Their own participation in cancel-like behaviour undermines their credibility and exposes their arguments as opportunistic.

To move beyond the polarisation of cancel culture debates, we need to:

• Focus on accountability, not punishment: 
• Encourage growth and redemption, rather than permanent ostracism. 
• Distinguish between harm and discomfort: Not all criticism is censorship, and not all speech deserves protection. 
• Acknowledge the universality of cancellation: Both the left and right engage in this behaviour; the debate should focus on consistency and fairness.

In conclusion, the right-wing opposition to cancel culture often reveals itself to be less about protecting free speech and more about ideological positioning. By amplifying controversial speech, creating cultural martyrs, and engaging in their own cancellations, anti-cancel culture warriors expose their selective outrage and contradictions. If we truly value accountability and dialogue, we must reject hypocrisy and focus on fostering a public sphere where ideas can be debated constructively without perpetuating harm.

One danger of cancel culture is moral certainty. Similarly, the danger of anti-cancel culture is moral certainty. I'm certain about that....