The article by Max Lacour argues that cancel culture is a real and pervasive phenomenon that stems from a cultural concern for the “vulnerable” and a disregard for other values. He claims that cancel culture is not a deliberate conspiracy, but a result of many individuals acting on their moral judgments in different contexts. He also suggests that cancel culture is a form of authoritarianism that needs to be resisted with courage.
An alternative point of view could challenge some of the assumptions and implications of Lacour’s argument. For example, one could question:
The definition and scope of cancel culture. Lacour seems to use the term broadly to refer to any form of social or professional ostracism or criticism that targets someone for their views or actions. However, this could obscure the differences and complexities of various cases and contexts. For instance, is it fair to compare the experiences of Helen Joyce, a journalist who faced backlash for her views on trans issues, with those of Harvey Weinstein, a producer who faced legal and social consequences for his sexual misconduct? Are they both victims of cancel culture, or are there different degrees and reasons for holding them accountable? How do we distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate forms of cancelation, and who gets to decide? The role and responsibility of the “canceled”. Lacour portrays the canceled as passive and innocent targets of a moralistic mob. However, this could ignore the agency and accountability of the canceled themselves. For example, did they do or say something that was harmful, offensive, or inaccurate? Did they acknowledge their mistakes and apologize, or did they double down and dismiss their critics? Did they engage in dialogue and debate, or did they avoid or silence dissenting voices? How did they contribute to the polarization and intolerance that they complain about? The nature and value of the “vulnerable”. Lacour implies that the concern for the vulnerable is a misguided and exaggerated moral sentiment that overrides other important values. However, this could overlook the reality and diversity of the vulnerable groups and individuals in society. For example, who are the vulnerable, and why are they vulnerable? What are the sources and consequences of their vulnerability? How do they express and cope with their vulnerability? What are their rights and needs, and how are they met or ignored? How do they relate to and interact with the non-vulnerable? Is the concern for the vulnerable a sign of compassion and justice, or a form of pity and patronization? The possibility and desirability of alternatives. Lacour implies that cancel culture is a form of authoritarianism that needs to be overcome with courage. However, this could assume that there is a clear and simple opposition between cancel culture and freedom. However, this could be a false and misleading dichotomy. For example, what kind of freedom are we talking about, and for whom? Is freedom absolute and unlimited, or does it have boundaries and responsibilities? How do we balance freedom with other values, such as equality, security, and truth? How do we resolve conflicts and disagreements that arise from different views and interests? How do we foster a culture of dialogue, respect, and tolerance, rather than a culture of cancelation, condemnation, and silencing?
