Editorial: Backlash or a bold new world?

Chennai

While naming and shaming has its roots in the #MeToo movement, an even more polarising concept is gaining traction. ‘Cancel culture’ which propagates the idea of ending someone’s career or boycotting their works is becoming the subject of heated debate. There’s no debating the increased need for accountability, but the question of who gets to play judge and jury in the decision to ‘cancel’ the offender is the more pertinent issue.

Acclaimed British author Roald Dahl was embroiled in a ‘cancel culture’ controversy regarding his purported anti-Semitic statements made in the early 80s. The late author’s family, who is in charge of his estate, recently tendered an apology of sorts to those hurt by his words. However, that the apology was made 30 years after Dahl’s death has left both admirers and detractor of the late writer scratching their heads.

Cancel culture refers to the act of withdrawing support or technically cancelling out an individual or even his or her body of achievements in the light of past or present revelations of an unsavoury kind. Recent recipients of this treatment include the likes of JK Rowling, the bestselling author of the Harry Potter books. Her perspectives on Twitter that came across as transphobic, sent the cultural multiverse into panic mode, as everyone from publishers to agents jumped on the bandwagon to defend the childhood icon of millions.

Last week, when the legendary South Korean arthouse director Kim ki-duk passed away in Latvia, netizens on Twitter brought forth a mixed bag of tributes and invectives as well. The reason was that Kim was accused of sexual misconduct in his home country and had seemingly fled to avoid persecution. It’s a contentious issue, no doubt about it, as both audiences and the general populace have constantly been torn between separating the individual as an everyman, flawed and at fault, and the individual as an artiste. But does that by any means invalidate the depth of Kim’s contribution to world cinema?

As a reprimand of sorts, back in July, a collective of world-famous authors including Salman Rushdie, Margaret Atwood, chess Grandmaster Gary Kasparov, political thinker Noam Chomsky and surgeon Atul Gawande came together to pen an open letter cautioning people on the perils of ‘cancel culture’ which brought public shaming and ostracisation back in vogue. Former US President Barack Obama had also spoken to youth activists last year and tersely urged them to get over the idea of a ‘perpetual purity and politically woke’ state and realise that the world is messy and that there are ambiguities. “People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids, and share certain things with you,” he added.

There might be an inherent logic to Obama’s words. Agreed, the world has gotten messier and the wheels of justice don’t spin as rapidly as one wants them to. But the idea of actually ending someone’s career through the power of public backlash is easier said than done. With very little follow-through and loosely structured rules of engagement, very few public figures have truly been ‘cancelled’ — and even fewer have actually been brought to book by the legal system for their misdeeds. To rise above petty allegations and personal agendas, it’s imperative to move beyond depriving people of their status and livelihood via social media, and instead, work towards establishing ethical and social norms with clear accountability and fitting penalty for when those norms are violated.