Wednesday 24 July 2019

The Cancel Culture - the loss of the right to be erased.

A law professor of Yale University, Stephen L. Carter, has written a sobering and thoughtful article entitled “Michael Jackson and cancel culture’s dilemma.”

Stephen defines “cancel culture” as this: -

“At its heart, the term refers to editing one’s own awareness of the world of popular culture, to eliminate from active consciousness the works of those who have been credibly accused of doing terrible things to other people - particularly when they have faced few or no legal consequences.”

Now, I can understand why there is the urge to do this, that is, to erase from digital consciousness those who have committed heinous crimes like sexual abuses against defenceless victims without facing legal consequences for their actions because of the lack of evidence, private settlements or their passing away before the trial could commence. 

From their perspective, the victim’s cry for justice may justify the offender’s obliteration. One journalist, Ms Amanda Marcotte wrote: -

“We can’t make them go to jail, the thinking goes, but we can take them off our screens and out of our headphones. It’s an attempt to assert control over a situation where victims and their allies often have none.”

But in today’s article, after all considered, Stephen felt that this is an individual choice and the same cannot be applied across the board. 

He wrote: “Can the Music of Michael Jackson and R. Kelly be cancelled?” This cancel culture at its best: an appeal at once to the individual’s conscience and aesthetic sensibility. The effort is not to force anyone’s judgment on anyone else; rather, the effort is to discipline the self to set aside an affinity for that which is now tainted.””

He added: “History teaches that “no one should have access to the things I hate” is a dangerous claim. Better by far to leave the choice to the individual.””

Lesson? One. 

Personally, I still listen to some of Michael Jackson’s songs, especially “You are not alone”. That song carries much nostalgia for me. 

When I was in London more than 20 years ago, separated from my future wife, that song kept alive the bond we had at that time. It refreshed the passion when it was played. In other words, it kept a longing and aching heart beating steadfastly until we met again. 

Michael Jackson was not perfect, and for some, he was a sex offender. But his works have given much comfort and strength to many all over the world. 

Black or white, Billie Jean, Man in the Mirror, Earth Song and Heal the World are compositions that have defined a pop cultural era and even remade the world of music and art as we know it. The lyrics together with the music inspired many, emboldened their spirit and transformed hearts. 

Stephen wrote this about MJ’s iconic album Thriller: “The song and the video not only rescued a moribund music industry but arguably brought black music back firmly into a mainstream that was in the process of shoving it to the margins.”

“We can choose never again to listen to his music, but it would be a terrible wrong to pretend that his influence was less than it was.”

Stephen added: “I’m not arguing for a particular solution to the problem of who should watch or listen to what. I’m arguing only that we leave the judgment to individual fans - in that sense, that we let the market decide.”

Alas, it is important that we think for ourselves as a rational, soul searching individual. Technology may influence us, nudge us or challenge us, but it would be wrong to allow it to think for us.

When it comes to the works by tainted artists, are their works tainted too? Is there nothing redeemable about their works? 

Is this then a case of the Midas touch working in reverse, whereby whatever they have touched, their music, their films, would likewise not see the light of day? Have we considered that by boycotting their works, we may be throwing the bathwater out with the baby? 

I feel that it is always justified for those the artist had gravely hurt to edit him and his works out of their mind and sight. I sincerely respect their choice. 

I can never imagine the pain they have to go through even when the offender, however talented, has passed on. That may just be the victims’ way of dealing with an injustice that has sadly lost her way. 

And that is why Amanda (the journalist) said that the appeal of the cancel culture (albeit “an incoherent and inadequate response to sexual abuse”) lies in the lack of alternatives. “People turn to it because real justice is elusive.”

But talent does not mean perfection. If a good song or film is composed/directed by a human being, you can always expect him (or her) to be far from perfect. 

If you take Harvey Weinstein, for example, his tainted creative fingerprints are everywhere, which included Pulp Fiction, Shakespeare In Love, and the movie I loved, Good Will Hunting. 

Should I then denounce and ban them just because a credibly guilty sexual abuser had produced and financed those films?

Well, ultimately, Stephen is right. It is up to the individual, up to me. I have to decide. I have to make up my mind. My consult is with my conscience and my decision with my conviction. 

As a professed rational, soul-searching individual, I should never allow the indiscriminate erasure of the cancel culture to mentally lobotomise me. Maturity in thought is about having the courage to think not just out of the box, but away from the blind and unhinged forces of the crowd. 

I know in today’s social media culture, this may be a genuine struggle. Technology aims to manipulate us, exploit our differences, polarise us, and promise us a mental rose garden of carefree thinking by doing the heavy mental lifting for us. 

But that is what we are called to fight against, that is, the uniformalising and levelling forces of technology, which strives to make each of us a standard issue. 

By reason of the above, the urgent call to own and take responsibility for our autonomy, conscience and conviction will be the new battleline in our modern society. 

And I hope we will be able to resist its indiscriminate flow for the quiet stream nearby where we can not only be ourselves, but to critically think for ourselves too. Cheerz.

No comments:

Post a Comment