We (Don't) Listen and We Judge—Exploring Cancel Culture, Polarisation, and Performative Activism

Hitesh M.
Oct 19
5 min read

In the wake of the assassination of right-wing podcaster, Charlie Kirk, it’s clear that there exists growing animosity between political camps, whether in the United States or elsewhere. We now find ourselves in an era where polarisation and tribalism dominate what are meant to be spaces of conversation and debate. In a world marked by intolerance and fear of being ‘cancelled’, how do we as a society find our voice?

Conceiving Cancel Culture

Cancel culture, gaining traction in the mid-2010s, sought to hold public figures accountable for their actions through public scrutiny or a boycott. We see this often within the sphere of social media; increasingly public figures shy away from expressing opinions online, specifically with regards to political engagement.

When the Mic Goes Silent

More and more celebrities brand themselves as advocates for social issues yet distance their personal lives from politics when the latter gets complicated and is mired with the former.

Take for example Chappell Roan, a rising pop star who made an appearance on a podcast hosted by influencer Alex Cooper. There, she expressed a wider frustration of the expectations of artists, questioning as to why her listeners turn to her to speak about global issues: “...why the fuck are you looking to me for some political answer? You think I have the fucking answer? I’m a pop star. I wish I had the answers”.

While her frustrations are valid, they’re an oversimplification of what it means to be an artist in the modern age. — Hitesh

Chappell Roan has intentionally positioned herself as a queer singer championing LGBTQ rights, but abruptly draws the line when personal and politics coalesce. Chappell’s frustrations were quickly met with criticism labelling her activism as performative and enriched with white privilege, treating it as a switch that can be turned on and off as and when she feels like it.

Another model of this is Taylor Swift. In a 2019 documentary, Miss Americana, Swift expressed her desire to be more outspoken in advocating for political issues. Six years on, she has since shied away from issues like the conflict in Gaza despite fans popularizing the ‘#SwiftiesForPalestine’ on social media platform X, pleas which rendered futile. So…does ‘cancel culture’ matter in cases such as these to discourage performative activism?

Accountability to Animosity: Which One Is It?

Whilst ‘cancel culture’ isn’t necessarily bad as it allows for accountability and reflection on the part of public figures, it’s a surface level tool at best intended to limit the chances of individuals to grow and learn.

Now you may be thinking: “But celebrities have got an entire team of PR experts to frame their public image appropriately, there’s no excuses”, and you’re absolutely right. But is our online disparagement of media figures an unadulterated effort for improvement, or one to fuel hate and division?

Cancel Culture As A Corrective Tool

The same cannot be said of everyone though. Take JK Rowling, currently infamous for her online presence of spewing anti-trans rhetoric, who was initially slammed in 2018 for liking a tweet which referred to trans women as “men in dresses”, to which the author cited a mistake and the incident being a clumsy accident. An initial testament to the value of cancel culture, Rowling has since done a one-eighty on the issue, expressing strong anti-trans sentiment. In cases such as this, it may be nearly impossible for public redemption, public figures have consciously doubled down on their beliefs despite widespread criticism, throwing away what could have been a moment of reflection into a deliberate act of defiance.

But take the case of Brittany Broski (aka the ‘Kombucha Girl’), famous for her podcast The Broski Report, who was ostracised when a leaked video of her Instagram ‘Close Friends’ displayed her frustration towards her audience pleading her to speak up on the Israel-Palestine conflict, calling it “absurd” and “dystopian”. Broski has since been more outspoken on the Israel-Gaza conflict on her social platforms as a result of ‘cancel culture’. So ‘cancelling’ people does end up working sometimes and yields positive outcomes.

Profiteering on Polarisation

Cancel culture’s harshness is less a cause than a consequence, born from the deep schisms running through our society. We’ve simply lost our ability to disagree agreeably. Mass polarisation caused by demonisation of people has led us to become a more ruptured society. Take the Youtube channel Jubilee for instance, known for hosting its infamous “Middle Ground” and “Surrounded” series where people with differing social or political views come together to confront their differences and aims to create understanding. Over the past year or so however, the series has been anything but a platform for mutual understanding and empathy and instead one of platforming hateful rhetoric whilst simultaneously emphasising ideological altercations.

The very first episode of “Surrounded”, where 15 people with similar political inclinations challenge one person holding an opposing viewpoint by scrambling to a seat to get a chance of debate, was Charlie Kirk debating 25 college students (1 Conservative vs 25 Liberal College Students). Ironically as an advocate for open debate, Kirk fed into the doctrine of polarisation by repeatedly demonising his political adversaries throughout the episode. The bottom line is, these surface level debates have resulted in further polarisation and simply a signal for media companies that see more clicks and are financially incentivised to churn out such formats of divisive media.

It is without a doubt that the rise of the internet and social media have contributed to polarisation and ‘cancel culture’. It’s a double edged sword: users sit idly behind screens, safeguarded by the digital cushions of anonymity to ‘cancel’ people so vehemently, whilst digital algorithms churn content which generate the most attention, notably those of hateful rhetoric.

Conclusions:

What should be our solution to such scenarios? Well, it would be beneficial to start viewing debate as a medium of understanding, not a reaffirmation of pre-existing belief. Striking a balance between compassion and criticism could be a useful start, and the best thing we could do as people living in a flawed world is to lead with understanding, not judgement. Yes, hateful ideologies should not be tolerated nor encouraged under the guise of ‘free speech’ as they don’t seek to encourage debate but to halt it. Constructive and respectful debate is the cornerstone of a properly functioning democracy, not one filled with hate and verbal violence.

Writer's Notes:

When the idea for this article came up, I knew it was one I had to write as my first for IGNITE. We see so much political discourse online, and especially as young people we’re incredibly prone to divisive rhetoric especially if you’re chronically online like me. But we’re also conditioned to celebrities and our idols being either silent on political issues or extremely passive. The examples I’ve given encompass all white women, which was something I felt compelled to emphasise. Political silence, while not always, is often seen amongst white celebrities practicing white feminism. These examples are not definitive and are simply the most popular examples I could think of within the past few years. Given that myself (and maybe most of you) are on our phones 24/7, I hope this piece gets us to think of how we can engage effectively with our media figures online instead of purely pedestalising them or purely degrading them, we can for sure strike a balance between the two.

Writer's Biography:

Hello! I’m Hitesh, a second-year studying Economics & International Economics who is often very frustrated with the state of the world right now. My interests are politics and media commentary, specifically post-colonial literature and how Southeast Asia needs to deconstruct neo-colonial attitudes that plague our culture, media, and attitudes within our society!