What does the word "cancelled" mean to you?
I am not a native English speaker.
Because that word became prominent in recent years, with a meaning that is heavily disputed, dictionaries and encyclopedias are useless in determining how it should be interpreted.
Tildes has a good assortment of intelligent native English speakers. In that light, when applied to people and in the context of social discourse, what do words such as "cancelled" and "cancelation" mean to you? In your view, are there situations in which these are employed either correctly or incorrectly? Or are they multiple and fluid in such a way that they can be applied to a vast array of situations dissimilar from each other?
This discussion is about semantics and subjective interpretation. It's about how words are employed to convey meaning. If you find semantics or subjectivity irrelevant, boring, stupid, unnerving, or otherwise unworthy of discussion, please do not comment.
Like many modern and politically charged words, it's somewhat of a moving target, or often hypocritically used.
To me it's shorthand for any case where due to societal backlash someone loses or is affected in their professional career.
The caveat to this is that of course the line between "cancelled" and "had it coming, not a problem" or "violation of their speech or whatever" varies wildly depending on who you're speaking to.
I think "backlash" is the perfect choice of word here. I've seen some very frustrating exchanges elsewhere on the internet where someone uses the word "cancelled" as part of a wider point and someone else flatly cuts them off because whoever they're discussing still has some kind of platform - it's always felt like a denial of the nuance (and yes, inconsistency) in how the term is actually used.
Yeah that's why my definition is so wide. Lots of people have been "cancelled" who still have platforms/jobs/success. Being cancelled doesn't really have to much affect your situation, and that's before you get into all the people claiming so and so was cancelled when they don't even meet my already broad definition.
I don't think I've seen anyone add that "Cancel culture" is currently, and has potentially always been, somewhat of a political or ideological dog whistle for Conservatives. I don't want to generalize too much, because there is a lot of nuance here, but to give you a fuller picture of the term, right now that term is mostly used by Conservative Christians, who don't agree with people they like being "Cancelled." This is one of those times where not all vehicles are trucks, but all trucks are vehicles.
Just this last weekend I was at church and the pastor talked about how shameful it was that Harris Butker was cancelled for "Praising motherhood." This is kind of a perfect encapsulation of what I"m talking about.
I won't share all the details, since they're not pertinent to the bit of context I'm trying to give you, but if you want validation that this isn't just in my head, I can explain more.
But, like I said, it's actually still nuanced, and it's not just Conservatives who use the term, the scale is just weighted in their direction.
To add even more nuance, I'd say that's true of the term "cancel culture", but not "cancelled". The former is often (but not solely) used in the same kind of angry headlines/social media posts that would be using "woke" as a pejorative, but the latter I see often enough as general slang that it wouldn't put me on alert without further context cues - if I were forced to assume anything based only on someone using the word "cancelled" it'd be that they were gen z and discussing celebrity culture.
I used to hear canceled used in that way, And now I only hear it in association with cancel culture in the way you describe, like woke. I'll admit I've not heard Gen Z use it in a long time. But also genuinely not really seen it used by millennials in conversation either.
It always seemed more millennial to me anyway but also when Gen Z talks about people they just say all the bad stuff. I heard a teen explain who Mr Beast was to her mom and other than using "SA" for sexual assault, she actually gave a very good summary. Canceled never came up. (I work with Gen Z so I hear them at a lot)
Yeah I’m definitely thinking more social media than face to face conversation, which maybe skews things. I guess what I was trying to say is it’s culturally embedded enough that you’ll get people using it casually as a shorthand without deeper meaning, or potentially as bit of a self referential joke (similar to “millennials killed the … industry”), whereas “cancel culture” far more often seems to be invoked as something to be angry about.
You nailed it. It's a deliberately broad term so that it can tie a wide variety of dissimilar things into a simple endlessly-repeated narrative of "the left are a threat to free speech and to you". Any incidents that don't serve that narrative are ignored and therefore not labeled as cancel culture.
I'd say something like
Less firmly, I think it's more correct to use when this marginalization happens in a decentralized social/cultural/trend rather than by a powerful individual or coordinated group.
EDIT: forgot a big piece: the comments or actions in question are usually relating to social justice issues. I was reminded by @Eji1700's comment. they mention that whether someone was cancelled or 'had it coming' varies wildly; I think it varies depending on how someone feels about the social justice issue in question.
disclaimer double edit: iana linguist, this is just my understanding of the word after hearing it used throughout the west coast, midwest, and central east coast of the US and in the media. I don't have any value judgements on the term
I define cancellation as a process of removing a public figure from the public's attention. It typically, if not always, has three stages.
Stage #1: Awareness
Something a public figure has said or done becomes public knowledge. This usually happens due to investigative journalism, the public testimony of one or more witnesses to the speech or action, or a legal action taken by a local or federal agency: aka an arrest. At least one of the three must be present, but all three could happen at the same time or in combination.
Stage #2: Withdrawal of public support
While maybe not the best title, I would categorize the following things under this heading: loss of brand deals, loss of access to media distribution channels such as YouTube, cancellation of in-progress projects by partners, firing from employer or sponsor, and other visible, public, and primarily financial sources of support.
Stage #3: Loss of private support
Usually happens more quickly dependent on the severity of the speech or actions taken, hastened by widely-distributed evidence and proof of bad intent or poor excuses and/or lack of sufficient apologies. This 3rd stage happens internally within the public figure's fan base and is largely a product of each fan's moral compass compared to the degree to which the actions cross the line for them. Peer pressure definitely plays a role here as well when respected fellow fans publicly denounce the public figure.
Additional Notes
Awareness is always a pre-requisite to cancellation, and withdrawal of public and/or private support happens at a variable rate compared to severity.
Public and private support are always tied together, and if the private support continues despite the speech or actions, then public support will only shrink or change hands.
Since public support is generally financial, any loyal fans who are still willing to pay are prime real estate for new or old public support structures to exploit.
No one is truly cancelled who has a supportive fan base after public criticism.
There are ways to mitigate cancellation, once awareness has begun, but if allegations are true or mostly true, public and private support will generally shrink, as casual fans move their attention to someone less troublesome.
In some cases, it must be noted that cancellation is an utterly inappropriate term to use. Specifically when the awareness of speech or actions that would normally cause cancellation brings in even more public or private support because there are enough people and partners who discover the individual because of the extra momentary attention and wish to begin or continue their support because of their newfound awareness.
In this case, it is not cancellation, it is a likely unintentional marketing campaign.
It's a soundbite way to refer to someone or something that has been driven off from the common culture. Driven out. Forcibly removed by "common consent" of the culture (aka, the general unwashed masses).
The term's definition describes the goal. So in common usage, cancelling is usually referring to if we should, rather than we already have.
In the nature of humans, they disagree. When disagreement arises over cancellation, that usually just precipitates fresh rage and new cancellation targets. If some people don't agree to a cancellation, they're often targets for cancellation themselves just for not agreeing to the other cancellation. Which spreads like a chain reaction, one cancel becoming two, then four, and so on as the easy access online mob attempts to widen its scope enough to bully "everyone" into giving up and agreeing with the cancellations.
In the modern era, that's what social and cultural disagreements have gotten to; a remarkable lack of nuance or restraint. There's either "eh, whatever, you do you" or "fuck off kill it with fire die die die now now now". With a shocking lack of middle ground.
No one is really willing to admit, or allow for, how humans are humans and being human means you Fuck Up sometimes. That you will err, that you will offend, that you will sometimes manage to say or do things without thinking them through exhaustively. That things you might have said or done in the past, whether or not you thought them through, might have been acceptable then, but with changing mores and attitudes are more or less (usually less for the purposes of this discussion) acceptable now.
And because of this attitude, that no one's allowed to fuck up, the modern sentiment has become brutally intolerant. That's what cancelling generally means to most people. A complete, utter, total rejection of the very existence of a target. They want that target to feel pain and only pain. They want that person to be isolated, shunned, expelled. No middle ground.
Now if this cancellation was reserved for truly heinous and horrific crimes, deliberate crimes, there's a conversation to be had. But people trot out cancellation for things that are often, at worst, some sort of momentary lapse of judgement where no actual physical harm has really occurred. Situations where it's often just words, which could be apologized for, where some compromise or discussion could be had to come to some sort of understanding so we could all move forward.
But the modern mob mentality fueled by instant validation social media culture will not countenance allowing an apology as a way to balance the scales.
This is a decent example of what has often happened in the past decade or so. Online social media has magnified it. People used to have to physically form the mob for there to be a raging mob "demanding justice". People would have to physically get up, walk out of their comfortable homes, down to the town square, rabble-rabble-rabble with one another, and form that mob.
That was an important leavening factor. People had to decide "how much, really, do I care about this issue?" They might care enough to make a comment in passing, to someone on the next bar stool over or sitting across from them at the bridge game, but to really get up and go get involved? Less often.
Now it's as easy as "hey, everyone, there's a mob, this is the link!" and someone else is being threatened with cancellation just that easily. Everyone has a phone, is online 24/7/365, and the next bar stool over is right there constantly. They have to expend no effort at all to "get involved".
Worse, most people consider it sport. It's validating to them to join the mob, because when they pile on with their "cleverness" and "insight" to pound and ridicule this hour's target, the others in the mob cheer them. Pat them on the back, reward them for furthering the mob. The validation circle jerks upon itself, feeding like a hurricane, drawing more and more in to enjoy that dopamine validation hit that feels so good.
That's why cancellation is such a charged topic. There are people who feel there are a lot of valid reasons to cancel someone. And who resent that there are people who feel there aren't, and that society has gone way too far. Become far too zero tolerance for a disturbingly broad set of "offenses" that really don't merit being canceled. Who object to "kill it with fire, burn, die die die" as the only reasonable response.
And when people disagree in the modern era, they designate their foes Others. Which makes them eligible for cancellation. So you often have one incident, where people began to rabble-rabble-rabble for cancellation. When there's any pushback, at all, from anyone, those pushing back are targeted too. They push back on the push back, and it just spreads and becomes more virulent and nasty and inflammatory.
Until everyone's at least one other group's Other. Without a middle ground, without tolerance of any kind. Others must be destroyed. Expelled. Exiled. Exterminated.
Cancelled.
I want to add an important addition to what you've said, which I basically agree with in it's entirety.
Cancel culture became a thing for all the reasons you mentioned, but there was another catalyst alongside social media. Human culture spent years covering for each other and pretending it was "impolite" or that "Boys will be boys." Men covered for men constantly, women covered for men, men covered for women, and women turned a blind eye to other women. The reason this is such an important catalyst is because when someone "Apologizes," no one is inclined to believe it anymore, because it's just used as a PR tool. So, in the pendulum of change, we are most definitely swinging too far to the opposite side of there being no accountability for people in power. But I don't think it's fair to omit this detail, basically making the case that cancel culture cropped up out of no societal need, there was and is definitely a need. We just need to correct our over correction to the lack of accountability many of us grew up with, which is something humans have always had to do.
I think it's also very worth mentioning the other side of this coin: that humans have always been ostracizing each other. This has been a thing since prehistoric times (albeit with significantly different scale) and it's far from a rarity in recent history.
During the 40s and 50s, there were Hollywood blacklist against suspected communists. In the 1970s, Eartha Kitt made an anti-Vietnam War statement at a luncheon with the president's wife, and her career in the US was more or less over -- the CIA even built up a dossier on her and branded her a "sadistic nymphomaniac." Even more recently, the Dixie Chicks were boycotted when they said they didn't support the Iraq War in 2003. These things roughly fit the modern definition of being cancelled, demonstrating that it's far from a new phenomenon. Social media has only changed the speed and frequency at which we learn news like this about public figures, not how people respond to it.
On a more personal level, I know people personally who were ostracized by not only their peers, but their families for being queer. Sexual orientation and gender identity were only made protected classes by the Supreme Court in 2020 -- until then it was perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay or trans in much of the US. But this is never what people are talking about when they criticize "cancel culture," is it?
I think there are some criticisms of mob mentality and online anonymity and harassment that are really worth discussing. I've seen these discussions happen occasionally within leftist spaces online. There's a lot of nuance to these discussions, and there are a lot of real problems at play. Weaponizing mass harassment against (usually the most vulnerable) members of the community over what are ultimately petty disagreements or unrealistic standards of behavior is a thing I've definitely witnessed. But when actual good, nuanced discussions of these problems happen, if they use the term "cancelled" at all, it's with an explicit acknowledgement that most mainstream conversations criticizing cancel culture are gross and regressive defenses of bigotry.
If I hadn't learned enough from experience to know better, maybe I'd assume people criticizing cancel culture were interested in having nuanced discussions about these actual problems. But whenever people use the term "cancel culture" unironically, especially when they treat it like some fundamentally new and aberrant thing, time and again they're inevitably insisting that some one shouldn't suffer social consequences for something awful -- whether it's something bigoted they said or did, or sexual assault allegations, or whatever else. Ultimately the logic turns out to be the same as that of so-called "free speech absolutists". They want to be immune from social consequences for what they say and do. Much like it's impossible to have a constructive conversation about the First Amendment with a free speech absolutist, it's impossible to have a constructive conversation about online harassment with someone who rails against cancel culture.
(This is all how things have looked from my point of view and I recognise that any one person's perspective is incomplete and subject to bias)
Off the top of my head I have seen the following events described as "being cancelled":
I would say to be cancelled is to go viral in a negative way, but the label of "cancelled" is more likely to be used when the people doing the cancelling are perceived as being progressive/left-wing and therefore "social justice warrior" types. Otherwise it's just toxic online behaviour, shrug, what can ya do.
For example, a few years ago a website called Kiwi Farms, which had a notorious reputation for doxxing, swatting, and harassing people (to suicide, in more than one case), received major backlash from a Twitch streamer they swatted. Kiwi Farms is not, as far as I have seen, ever described as "cancelling" these people, in my opinion because the userbase is known for targetting LGBT people and are therefore not seen as progressive. When the backlash from a trans influencer took the site down, I saw people describe that as the site being cancelled, and go on to fret about the free speech implications, seemingly unconcerned about the free speech implications of the years of swattings etc. that had brought things to that point.
It's a long watch and pretty tough going in places but I'd strongly recommend Contrapoints' video on the topic for both a definition and a view from someone who has experienced it.
I find it interesting that it is used in the passive form. The implication is that unlike you cancelling an order, when a person is cancelled, they are the actor.
I wouldn’t call cancellation a backlash or boycott because I don’t see cancellation as a reaction, but rather it’s a tear in the social fabric your actions cause when you’re not adhering to the norms of your community. If someone’s show is cancelled, that is a reaction and could be a sign of cancellation of the person, but it’s not enough to prove that it’s societal.
I think it’s interesting that the attempts of some small group to cancel someone/something is what the news focuses on, but real cancellation is when the whole of society is involved and it’s not really all that controversial.
I’m pretty sure Diddy is cancelled permanently, but I’m also pretty sure Elon Musk is super uncancelled from the looks of things, despite many attempts. Kanye West, JK Rowling and Dave Chappelle are also clearly not cancelled despite attempts. Kevin Spacey was cancelled, but it looks like he’s coming back.
Cancellation is a part of the faux pas process, but people try to make it seem like a separate action.
The question is personal and subjective, so of course your interpretation is as valid as anyone else's, but this does seem closer to a dictionary definition than to the common usage I tend to see. I think that tying the meaning too firmly to specific outcomes is likely to cause misunderstanding of what the average social media post is trying to say when using the term in the wild.
[Edit] Typo
That is a very insightful response. Thanks ;)
I think some similar terms can help. Cancelled as applied to people has elements in common with being banished (from an informal group, not a political one) or being shunned.
Trying to be concise, Id call it a coordinated surge of negative publicity.
Negative consequences like getting fired are possible, but not necessary.
Aside from the dictionary definition, looking up "Cancel Culture" should give you some idea of the new use. Just be aware some see it as censorship and other see it as forcing accountability. In practice, it's caused both censoring people who a group just didn't like and forcing people to do what's right.
This looks like it might be good reading on it: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/
“Making a lot of money after insulting a lot of people.“
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
It’s a word rich, famous, powerful or shitty people (you know what kind of people) use to avoid any accountability and make power. It’s a term purposely affected in bad faith.