Wednesday, November 20, 2024

Book Review: ‘James,’ by Percival Everett - The New York Times

Book Review: ‘James,’ by Percival Everett - The New York Times

Fiction

‘Huck Finn’ Is a Masterpiece. This Retelling Just Might Be, Too.

“James” takes Mark Twain’s classic tale and places the enslaved sidekick, Jim, at its center.
By Dwight GarnerPublished March 11, 2024Updated Sept. 16, 2024
Buy Book ▾

When you purchase an independently reviewed book through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.

JAMES, by Percival Everett

“Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” the critic Lionel Trilling wrote, is “one of the world’s great books and one of the central documents of American culture,” in part because it grows with its readers. Mark Twain’s 1884 novel is a catapulting adventure story when one is 10, but its amplitude is grasped only in adulthood.

Here is a question Trilling did not pick up: What about the 10-year-old Black reader who wishes to be catapulted, too, but is too young to understand that the novel’s language, with its 219 uses of the N-word, derives from Twain’s writerly fidelity to the vernacular speech of the American South in the 1830s or 1840s, when the novel is set? This has long been an implacable and racking issue.


Finished this book and can’t stop thinking about it? (Or just want to know how it ends?)



Listen to our book club episode of the Book Review podcast, where our editors discuss how Percival Everett reshapes Twain’s classic, what’s so striking about this adaptation and, of course, spoilers.



Paul Beatty, in his novel “The Sellout” (2015), wrestled with this conundrum. One of his characters decides to read “Huckleberry Finn” aloud to his grandchildren. He does not get far. Then he gets an idea.


Although they are the deepest-thinking, combat-ready 8- and 10-year-olds I know, I knew my babies weren’t ready to comprehend “Huckleberry Finn” on its own merits. That’s why I took the liberty to rewrite Mark Twain’s masterpiece. Where the repugnant “N-word” occurs, I replaced it with “warrior” and the word “slave” with “dark-skinned volunteer.”

Percival Everett’s majestic new novel, “James,” goes several steps further. Everett flips the perspective on the events in “Huckleberry Finn.” He gives us the story as a coolly electric first-person narrative in the voice of Jim, the novel’s enslaved runaway. The pair’s adventures on the raft as it twisted down the Mississippi River were largely, from Huck’s perspective, larks. From Jim’s — excuse me, James’s — point of view, nearly every second is deadly serious. We recall that Jim told Huck, in Twain’s novel, that he was quite done with “adventures.”


AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENT




Everett’s James is indeed a warrior, of a humane, frazzled and reluctant sort. By the time this novel is finished, he will have killed men and freed fellow slaves and set fire to a particularly dismal plantation. He will be whispered about, a legend. What’s more, Everett has rendered him an ambitious reader, one who instantly grasps, for example, that the Bible is a tool of his oppressors, and who has extended internal dialogues with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire and John Locke, sometimes about slavery. James is literate, and he is taking notes. These notes are costly. Another slave who pilfers a pencil stub for him is lynched for the act.
More on Percival Everett
Book Club: Let’s Talk About ‘Erasure,’ by Percival Everett


Because this is a Percival Everett novel, we are not surprised that he tears down and rebuilds a cultural landmark. In addition to his publishing-industry satire “Erasure,” which became the Cord Jefferson film “American Fiction,” this prolific writer has issued novels that take on the complicated legacies of historical figures. These include Sidney Poitier, in “I Am Not Sidney Poitier” (2009), which is one of the funniest novels I have ever read, and the prune-faced South Carolina segregationist Strom Thurmond, in “A History of the African-American People (Proposed) by Strom Thurmond, as Told to Percival Everett and James Kincaid” (2004).

Because this is a Percival Everett novel, too, it luxuriates in language. Everett, like Twain, is a master of American argot; he is the code switcher’s code switcher. In “James,” he puts his skills to incandescent use. His narrator runs his every public utterance through what he calls his “slave filter,” to make himself sound ridiculous and gullible, to pacify the truculent white people around him. Here is that practice in action, as James explains to a group of enslaved children in a cabin, including a girl named February, how to survive:


The children said together, “And the better they feel, the safer we are.”
“February, translate that.”
“Da mo’ betta dey feels, da mo’ safer we be.”
“Nice.”

And here is James, finding himself in Judge Thatcher’s library:


I had wondered every time I sneaked in there what white people would do to a slave who had learned how to read. What would they do to a slave who had taught the other slaves to read? What would they do to a slave who knew what a hypotenuse was, what irony meant, how retribution was spelled?

What sets “James” above Everett’s previous novels, as casually and caustically funny as many are, is that here the humanity is turned up — way up. This is Everett’s most thrilling novel, but also his most soulful. Beneath the wordplay, and below the packed dirt floor of Everett’s moral sensibility, James is an intensely imagined human being. Ta-Nehisi Coates, in “Between the World and Me” (2015), wrote that slavery is not “an indefinable mass of flesh” but “a particular, specific enslaved woman, whose mind is active as your own, whose range of feeling is as vast as your own.” Everett more than lives up to that prescription.

Image


He is not scoring easy points. He is evoking and critiquing the American experiment, circa the middle of the 19th century, from a wised-up slave’s point of view. Huck talked a lot about feeling lonesome in Twain’s novel. Everett’s James, at certain moments, seems like the loneliest man who ever lived.


AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENT




Everett mostly sticks to the broad outlines of Twain’s novel. He is riding the same currents; the book flows inexorably, like a river, yet its short chapters keep the movement swift. James is on the run, of course, because he has learned that Miss Watson plans to sell him to a man in New Orleans. He will be separated from his wife and children. Huck is on the run because he has faked his own death after being beaten by his father. They find each other on an island in the Mississippi, and their flight begins. The reader slowly discovers that their bonds run deeper than friendship.

There are familiar large scenes, like Huck and James’s separation in a fog, and their encounter with the deadly con artists, the Duke and the King. But smaller moments are reproduced as well, such as James’s suffering after a rattlesnake bite and Huck’s need to dress like a girl to disguise his identity.

Other scenes drop out, and Everett shifts the setting forward two decades or so, so that we glimpse Union soldiers marching south. New scenes are inserted. I will mention only one, because it is so extraordinary and so deft. At one point James is bought by the Virginia Minstrels, a blackface singing troupe. (They really existed; Twain was a fan.) They need a new tenor, and they’ve heard him singing for his brutal new owner. Because no Black man can appear on a stage, James must himself put on blackface. The moment is ludicrous and terrifying. The troupe includes 10 white men in blackface, “one Black man passing for white and painted black, and me, a light-brown Black man painted black in such a way as to appear like a white man trying to pass for Black.”

In these scenes, Everett makes potent use of the era’s songbook. He also delivers this unforgettable moment, when James in disguise is allowed, for the first time, to stare into the eyes of his oppressors:


White people came out and lined the street, smiling and laughing and clapping. I made eye contact with a couple of people in the crowd and the way they looked at me was different from any contact I had ever had with white people. They were open to me, but what I saw, looking into them, was hardly impressive. They sought to share this moment of mocking me, mocking darkies, laughing at the poor slaves, with joyful, spirited clapping and stomping.

My idea of hell would be to live with a library that contained only reimaginings of famous novels. It’s a wet-brained and dutiful genre, by and large. Or the results are brittle spoofs — to use a word that, according to John Barth, sounds like imperfectly suppressed flatulence — that read as if there are giant scare quotes surrounding the action. Two writers in a hundred walk away unscathed.

“James” is the rarest of exceptions. It should come bundled with Twain’s novel. It is a tangled and subversive homage, a labor of rough love. “His humor and humanity affected me long before I became a writer,” Everett writes of Twain in his acknowledgments. “Heaven for the climate; hell for my long-awaited lunch with Mark Twain.”

Everett does not reprint the famous warning that greets the reader at the start of “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”: “Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.” Motives, morals and plot are here in abundance, of course. And Everett shoots what is certain to be this book’s legion of readers straight through the heart.

JAMES | By Percival Everett | Doubleday | 303 pp. | $28



Dwight Garner has been a book critic for The Times since 2008, and before that was an editor at the Book Review for a decade. More about Dwight Garner
Posted by at No comments:

The new Adelaide University: an equaliser of opportunity and a catalyst for change | Adelaide University: Opening 2026 | The Guardian

The new Adelaide University: an equaliser of opportunity and a catalyst for change | Adelaide University: Opening 2026 | The Guardian




View image in fullscreen


Adelaide University: Opening 2026


The new Adelaide University: an equaliser of opportunity and a catalyst for change





When two leading universities combine their DNA, what is the result? A new, future-shaped place of learning.





Paid for by
About this content


Mon 11 Nov 2024 14.40 AEDT
Share






At the new Adelaide University, the esteemed University of Adelaide and the enterprising University of South Australia are becoming one.

Prof Jessica Gallagher, the deputy vice chancellor of international and external engagement at Adelaide University, and a member of the leadership team charged with overseeing the creation of the new university, says the merger presents a once-in-a-lifetime shot at transformation.


“We have a unique opportunity to realise a new brand, reimagine our curriculum, redefine the student experience, reshape our research activities and reinforce our partnerships to create Australia’s newest major university this century at incredible scale,” she says.

Equaliser of opportunity

When it opens its doors in 2026, the university’s campuses will be spread across South Australia, but its ambitions extend well beyond the state’s borders. It hopes to become the largest online educator in the nation, and a differentiated member of the prestigious Group of Eight (Go8) universities, attracting talent and collaborations from around the world.
View image in fullscreen

Prof Jessica Gallagher, deputy vice chancellor of international and external engagement, Adelaide University

It strives to be a place of both excellence and equity, to level the tertiary education playing field and create a place of learning and discovery that whole communities can feel part of.

“We want access to quality education to be a reality for more students,” Gallagher says. “This means students who are first in their family to study at university, along with regional and rural students, online learners, knowledge seekers from highly urbanised to growing economies, students who have experienced educational disadvantage, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.”

This future-embracing approach to learning is reflected in the embedding of Aboriginal ways of knowing, being and learning into curriculums and research. “We are also proud to be the first university in Australia to have provision for an Aboriginal name in its founding legislation,” she says.
Building impact through size and scale

With its legacy of two parent universities, Adelaide University will have the country’s largest domestic student population: about 70,000. “In Australia, scale matters,” Gallagher says.

Combining more than 180 years of teaching, resources and research will unlock the scale and investment to have a real-world impact. “We will be a globally competitive institution,” she says.

The university will inherit links with 150 countries through its 400,000 alumni, a legacy that will help attract a diverse community of students, researchers, innovators and entrepreneurs to the university.
View image in fullscreen

The challenges of a future world will demand very different graduate attributes, Gallagher says. Beyond developing technical knowledge and skills, students will be encouraged to be curious, brave, and ethical leaders, equipped to become strategic problem solvers.


As well as setting its sights on being top in Australia for student employment outcomes, Adelaide University also aims to offer a flexible and satisfying study experience. Through a digital underpinning, the university aims to meet the needs of modern learners in an inclusive and dynamic way. In some cases, the traditional lecture format will be redefined to include a mix of self-paced learning modules that include digital content and interactive activities such as online polls, simulations and gamified elements.
View image in fullscreen

Japan Bhatt, nursing student, University of South Australia

The opportunity to study digitally and build his own learning calendar was a major drawcard for 20-year-old University of South Australia nursing degree student Japan Bhatt, who plans to continue his studies with a postgraduate course at Adelaide University in 2026.

Bhatt says he and his friends are most excited about the rich and connected curriculum on offer, and Adelaide University’s approach to career-integrated learning that goes beyond the classroom.

“I know Adelaide University is aiming to become the most connected university in Australia,” he says, “and this bridge between the university and the employers will open up many opportunities for internships, and employment after graduation.”
Catalyst for change

As the new university builds on its existing 3,000 global partnerships, exciting prospects are already emerging, such as working with NASA on the Artemis III mission, which aims to put the first woman and the first person of colour on the moon.


Closer to home, the goal is to be a leader in research and technological innovation in areas where South Australia has an edge: societal health, green energy transition, agriculture and wine, and the creative industries.

Gallagher says: “Adelaide University will have the scale to become a global research powerhouse and to solve the multigenerational challenges ahead of us, like tackling climate change.

“South Australia is already a leader in renewables, and we will look to leverage this further and faster than ever before. Through the power of collaboration with industry and global partners we will achieve our ambitions with impact that will transcend borders around the world.”
Goldilocks city

Educational benefits aside, studying in Adelaide has become an attractive proposition in itself. The city’s recent recognition by Architectural Digest as the world’s most beautiful city has come at an opportune moment, though Gallagher says the natural advantage of place and reputation was already part of the university’s vision.

“Adelaide is a Goldilocks city – it’s just right,” she says. “Our home is not only one of the most beautiful cities in the world, it’s also one of the most liveable. This creates an unrivalled student lifestyle and a great place to do business. Adelaide strikes the right balance between urban renewal and community life.”

Gallagher believes the new Adelaide University represents a key moment for South Australia and for generations to come. “We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform how we choose to show up and contribute to creating brighter futures for more Australians and global citizens.”

Learn more about Australia’s new university for the future.
Explore more on these topics
Adelaide University: Opening 2026
advertisement features
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, November 15, 2024

Cancel culture - Wikipedia

Cancel culture - Wikipedia


Cancel culture

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms
Attributes
Social
Religious
Ethnic/national
Manifestations
Policies
Countermeasures
Related topics

Cancel culture is a cultural phenomenon in which an individual thought to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner is ostracized, boycotted, shunned, fired or assaulted, often aided by social media.[1][2][3][4] This shunning may extend to social or professional circles—whether on social media or in person—with most high-profile incidents involving celebrities.[5] Those subject to this ostracism are said to have been "canceled".[6][7][a]

The term "cancel culture" came into circulation in the late 2010s and early 2020s and has mostly negative connotations.[7] The term "call-out culture" is used by some for the same concept.

Some critics argue that cancel culture has a chilling effect on public discourse: unproductive; does not bring real social change; causes intolerance; amounting to cyberbullying.[8][9] Others argue that the term is used to attack efforts to promote accountability or give disenfranchised people a voice, and to attack language that is itself free speech. Still others question whether cancel culture is an actual phenomenon,[10] arguing that boycotting has existed long before the origin of the term "cancel culture".[9][11][12]

While the careers of some public figures have been impacted by boycotts—widely described as "cancellation"—others who complained of cancellation successfully continued their careers.[13][14]

Origins

The 1981 Chic album Take It Off includes the song "Your Love Is Cancelled", which compares a breakup to the cancellation of TV shows. The song was written by Nile Rodgers following a bad date Rodgers had with a woman who expected him to misuse his celebrity status on her behalf. "Your Love Is Cancelled" inspired screenwriter Barry Michael Cooper to include a reference to a woman being canceled in the 1991 film New Jack City.[15] This usage introduced the term to African-American Vernacular English, where it became more common.[16]

By 2015, the concept of canceling had become widespread on Black Twitter to refer to a personal decision, sometimes seriously and sometimes in jest, to stop supporting a person or work.[15][17][18] According to Jonah Engel Bromwich of The New York Times, this usage of the word "cancellation" indicates the "total disinvestment in something (anything)".[3][19] After numerous cases of online shaming gained wide notoriety, the use of the term "cancellation" increased to describe a widespread, outraged, online response to a single provocative statement, against a single target.[20] Over time, as isolated instances of cancellation became more frequent and the mob mentality more apparent, commentators began seeing a "culture" of outrage and cancellation.[21]

Conversations about "cancel culture" increased in late 2019.[22][23] In the 2020s, the phrase became a shorthand nom de guerre employed by spectators to refer to what they perceived to be disproportionate reactions to politically incorrect speech.[24] In 2020, Ligaya Mishan wrote in The New York Times

"The term is shambolically applied to incidents both online and off that range from vigilante justice to hostile debate to stalking, intimidation and harassment. ... Those who embrace the idea (if not the precise language) of canceling seek more than pat apologies and retractions, although it's not always clear whether the goal is to right a specific wrong or redress a larger imbalance of power."[25][26]

"Call-out culture" has been in use as part of the #MeToo movement.[27] The #MeToo movement encouraged women (and men) to call out their abusers on a forum where the accusations would be heard, especially against very powerful individuals.[9]

An article written by Pippa Norris, a professor at Harvard University, states that the controversies surrounding cancel culture are between those who argue it gives a voice to those in marginalized communities and those who argue that cancel culture is dangerous because it prevents free speech and/or the opportunity for open debate. Norris emphasizes the role of social media in contributing to the rise of cancel culture.[28] Additionally, online communications studies have demonstrated the intensification of cultural wars through activists that are connected through digital and social networking sites.[29] Norris also mentions that the spiral of silence theory may contribute to why people are hesitant to voice their minority views on social media sites and fear that their views and opinions, specifically political opinions, will be chastised because their views violate the majority group's norms and understanding.[30]

In the book The Coddling of the American Mind (2018), social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argues that call-out culture arises on college campuses from what they term "safetyism"—a moral culture in which people are unwilling to make tradeoffs demanded by the practical or moral concerns of others.[31][32][33] Keith Hampton, professor of media studies at Michigan State University, contends that the practice contributes to political polarization in the United States but does not lead to changes in opinion.[34] Cancel culture has been described by media studies scholar Eve Ng as "a collective of typically marginalized voices 'calling out' and emphatically expressing their censure of a powerful figure".[35] Cultural studies scholar Frances E. Lee states that call-out culture leads to self-policing of "wrong, oppressive, or inappropriate" opinions.[36][37] According to Lisa Nakamura, University of Michigan professor of media studies, canceling someone is a form of "cultural boycott" and cancel culture is the "ultimate expression of agency", which is "born of a desire for control [as] people have limited power over what is presented to them on social media" and a need for "accountability which is not centralized".[3][38][39]

Some academics have proposed alternatives and improvements to cancel culture. Critical multiculturalism professor Anita Bright proposed "calling in" rather than "calling out", in order to bring forward the former's idea of accountability, but in a more "humane, humble, and bridge-building" light.[40] Clinical counsellor Anna Richards, who specializes in conflict mediation, says that "learning to analyze our own motivations when offering criticism" helps call-out culture work productively.[41] Professor Joshua Knobe, of the Philosophy Department at Yale, contends that public denunciation is not effective, and that society is too quick to pass judgement against those they view as public offenders or personae non gratae. Knobe says that these actions have the opposite effect on individuals, and that it is best to bring attention to the positive actions in which most of society participates.[42]

Former US Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia wrote in a 2021 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy article that cancel culture is a form of free speech, and is therefore protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to Scalia, cancel culture can interfere with the right to counsel, since some lawyers would not be willing to risk their personal and professional reputation on controversial topics.[43]

The Bud Light boycott is an example of cancel culture and consumer backlash with real world consequences. It is a cautionary tale for publicists, at least.[44][45]

Ng defines cancel culture as "the withdrawal of any kind of support (viewership, social media follows, purchases of products endorsed by the person, etc.) for those who are assessed to have said or done something unacceptable or highly problematic, generally from a social justice perspective especially alert to sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, racism, bullying, and related issues."[46] There are different perspectives on the morality of cancellations. On the one hand, there is the view that cancel culture imposes punishments that are not proportional to the offenses or alleged offenses.[47] This is closely related to John Stuart Mill's criticism of public shaming: he argued in On Liberty that society "practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."[48] Martha Nussbaum similarly says that cancel culture represents the "justice of the mob," but this alleged justice is not "deliberative, impartial or neutral."[49] On the other hand, there are those who defend the value of shaming as constructive, if done right; people who defend this view maintain that cancel culture often shames people counter-productively but that it can be tweaked or altered in order to be a valuable tool for people's improvement.[50] For instance, holding people accountable for things that they have done wrong can be a powerful way of correcting bad behavior, but it has to be paired with a belief in the possibility of redemption.[51] People who take this approach often agree with Plato that shame is an important feeling that can lead to moral improvements.[52] Everyone in this debate agrees that it is important to avoid what Nussbaum calls a "spoiled identity": to have a spoiled identity is to have the public image of someone who is irredeemable and unwelcome in a community.[53]

Reactions

The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is used in debates on free speech and censorship.[24][54]

Criticism

In July 2020, former U.S. President Barack Obama criticized cancel culture and "woke" mentality on social media, saying: "people who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids and, you know, share certain things with you."[55] Former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized cancel culture in a speech in July 2020, comparing it to totalitarianism and saying that it is a political weapon used to punish and shame dissenters by driving them from their jobs and demanding submission. He was subsequently criticized as being hypocritical for having attempted to cancel a number of people and companies in the past himself.[56] Trump made similar claims during the 2020 Republican National Convention when he stated that the goal of cancel culture is to make decent Americans live in fear of being fired, expelled, shamed, humiliated, and driven from society.[30]

Pope Francis said that cancel culture is "a form of ideological colonization, one that leaves no room for freedom of expression", saying that it "ends up cancelling all sense of identity".[57][58][59] Patrisse Khan-Cullors, the co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, states that social activism does not just involve going online or going to a protest to call someone out, but is work entailing strategy sessions, meetings, and getting petitions signed.[9] UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak included cancel culture, where one group "are trying to impose their views on the rest of us", among the contemporary dangers of the modern world.[60]

Philosopher Slavoj Žižek states that, "cancel culture, with its implicit paranoia, is a desperate and obviously self-defeating attempt to compensate for the very real violence and intolerance that sexual minorities have long suffered. But it is a retreat into a cultural fortress, a pseudo-'safe space' whose discursive fanaticism merely strengthens the majority's resistance to it."[61]

Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan, describes cancel culture as "a cultural boycott" and says it provides a culture of accountability.[3] Meredith Clark, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, states that cancel culture gives power to disenfranchised voices.[9] Osita Nwanevu, a staff writer for The New Republic, states that people are threatened by cancel culture because it is a new group of young progressives, minorities, and women who have "obtained a seat at the table" and are debating matters of justice and etiquette.[62]

Open letter

Main article: A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

Dalvin Brown, writing in USA Today, has described an open letter signed by 153 public figures and published in Harper's Magazine as marking a "high point" in the debate on the topic.[24] The letter set out arguments against "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty".[63][64][65]

A response letter, "A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate", was signed by over 160 people in academia and media. It criticized the Harper's letter as a plea to end cancel culture by successful professionals with large platforms who wanted to exclude others who have been "canceled for generations". The writers ultimately stated that the Harper's letter was intended to further silence already marginalized people. They wrote: "It reads as a caustic reaction to a diversifying industry—one that's starting to challenge diversifying norms that have protected bigotry."[66][67]

Criticism of "cancel culture" as a concept

A number of professors, politicians, journalists,[68][69][70] and activists have questioned the validity of cancel culture as an actual phenomenon.[14] Connor Garel, writing for Vice, states that cancel culture "rarely has any tangible or meaningful effect on the lives and comfortability of the cancelled".[13] Danielle Kurtzleben, a political reporter for NPR, wrote in 2021 that overuse of the phrase "cancel culture" in American politics, particularly by Republicans, has made it "arguably background noise". Per Kurtzleben and others, the term has undergone semantic bleaching to lose its original meaning.[71]

Historian C. J. Coventry argues that the term is incorrectly applied, and that the label has been used to avoid accountability for historical instances of injustice.[72][b] Another historian, David Olusoga, made a similar argument, and argued that the phenomenon of cancellation is not limited to the left.[12][c] Indigenous governance professor and activist Pamela Palmater writes in Maclean's magazine that, "cancel culture is the dog whistle term used by those in power who don’t want to be held accountable for their words and actions—often related to racism, misogyny, homophobia or the abuse and exploitation of others."[11]

Sarah Manavis wrote for the New Statesman magazine that while free speech advocates are more likely to make accusations of cancel culture, criticism is part of free speech and rarely results in consequences for those in power who are criticized. She argues that social media is an extension and reincarnation of a longer tradition of expression in a liberal society, "a new space for historical power structures to be solidified" and that online criticism by people who do not hold actual power in society tends not to affect existing power structures. She adds that most prominent people who criticized public opinion as canceling still have highly profitable businesses.[10]

Consequence culture

Some media commentators including LeVar Burton and Sunny Hostin have stated that "cancel culture" should be renamed "consequence culture".[73] The terms have different connotations: "cancel culture" focusing on the effect whereby discussion is limited by a desire to maintain one certain viewpoint, whereas "consequence culture" focuses on the idea that those who write or publish opinions or make statements should bear some responsibility for the effects of these on people.[74]

American public opinion

A survey conducted in September 2020 on 10,000 Americans by Pew Research Center asked a series of different questions in regard to cancel culture, specifically on who has heard of the term cancel culture and how Americans define cancel culture.[75] At that time, 44% of Americans said that they have at least heard a fair amount about the new phrase, while 22% have heard a great deal and 32% said they have heard nothing at all.[75] 43% Americans aged 18–29 have heard a great deal about cancel culture, compared to only 12% of Americans over the age of 65 who say they have heard a great deal.[75] Additionally, within that same study, the 44% of Americans who had heard a great deal about cancel culture, were then asked how they defined cancel culture. 49% of those Americans state that it describes actions people take to hold others accountable, 14% describe cancel culture as censorship of speech or history, and 12% define it as mean-spirited actions taken to cause others harm.[75] It was found that men were more likely to have heard or know of cancel culture, and that those who identify with the Democratic Party (46%) are no more likely to know the term than those in the Republican Party (44%).[75]

A poll of American registered voters conducted by Morning Consult in July 2020 showed that cancel culture, defined as "the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive", was common: 40% of respondents said they had withdrawn support from public figures and companies, including on social media, because they had done or said something considered objectionable or offensive, with 8% having engaged in this often. Behavior differed according to age, with a majority (55%) of voters 18 to 34 years old saying they have taken part in cancel culture, while only about a third (32%) of voters over 65 said they had joined a social media pile-on.[76] Attitude towards the practice was mixed, with 44% of respondents saying they disapproved of cancel culture, 32% who approved, and 24% who did not know or had no opinion. Furthermore, 46% believed cancel culture had gone too far, with only 10% thinking it had not gone far enough. Additionally, 53% believed that people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, such as those that may be construed as deeply offensive to other people.[77]

A March 2021 poll by the Harvard Center for American Political Studies and the Harris Poll found that 64% of respondents viewed "a growing cancel culture" as a threat to their freedom, while the other 36% did not. 36% of respondents said that cancel culture is a big problem, 32% called it a moderate problem, 20% called it a small problem, and 13% said it is not a problem. 54% said they were concerned that if they expressed their opinions online, they would be banned or fired, while the other 46% said they were not concerned.[78]

A November 2021 Hill/HarrisX poll found that 71% of registered voters strongly or somewhat felt that cancel culture went too far, with similar numbers of Republicans (76%), Democrats (70%), and independents (68%) saying so.[79] The same poll found that 69% of registered voters felt that cancel culture unfairly punishes people for their past actions or statements, compared to 31% who said it did not. Republicans were more likely to agree with the statement (79%), compared to Democrats (65%) and independents (64%).[80]

In a January 2022 Knight-IPSOS Study involving 4,000 participants, most Americans surveyed said that some speech should be prohibited. Specifically, they stated that "a variety of private and public institutions should prohibit racist speech". However, most also noted that these same institutions should not ban political views that are offensive.[81]

A March 2022 New York Times/Siena College survey of 1,000 Americans found that 84 percent of adults said it is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism. The survey also found that 46 percent of respondents said they felt less free to talk about politics compared to a decade ago, and that only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely.[82][83][84][85][86]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Merriam-Webster notes that to "cancel", in this context, means "to stop giving support to that person".[6] Dictionary.com, in its pop-culture dictionary, defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive."[7]
  2. ^ "While I agree that the line between debate and suppression is one that occasionally gets crossed by the so-called left wing, it is almost invariably true that the real cancel culture is perpetrated by those who have embraced the term. If you look through Australian history, as well as European and American history, you will find countless examples of people speaking out against injustice and being persecuted in return. I can think of a number of people in our own time who are being persecuted by supposedly democratic governments for revealing uncomfortable information."[72]
  3. ^ "Unlike some on the left, I have never doubted that 'cancel culture' exists ... The great myth about cancel culture, however, is that it exists only on the left. For the past 40 years, rightwing newspapers have ceaselessly fought to delegitimize and ultimately cancel our national broadcaster [the BBC], motivated by financial as well as political ambitions."[12]

References

  1. ^ Munro, Ealasaid (August 23, 2013). "Feminism: A Fourth Wave?". Political Insight. 4 (2): 22–25. doi:10.1111/2041-9066.12021. S2CID 142990260. Archived from the original on December 10, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2020.
  2. ^ Sills, Sophie; Pickens, Chelsea; Beach, Karishma; Jones, Lloyd; Calder-Dawe, Octavia; Benton-Greig, Paulette; Gavey, Nicola (March 23, 2016). "Rape culture and social media: young critics and a feminist counterpublic". Feminist Media Studies. 16 (6): 935–951. doi:10.1080/14680777.2015.1137962. hdl:2292/30994. S2CID 147023782.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Bromwich, Jonah Engel (June 28, 2018). "Everyone Is Canceled". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on August 13, 2019. Retrieved July 24, 2020.
  4. ^ Yar, Sanam; Bromwich, Jonah Engel (October 31, 2019). "Tales From the Teenage Cancel Culture". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on June 1, 2020. Retrieved July 4, 2020.
  5. ^ McDermott, John (November 2, 2019). "Those People We Tried to Cancel? They're All Hanging Out Together". The New York Times. Retrieved August 3, 2020.
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b "What It Means to Get 'Canceled'". Merriam-Webster. July 12, 2019. Archived from the original on June 18, 2020. Retrieved July 4, 2020.
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b c "What Does Cancel Culture Mean?". Dictionary.com. July 31, 2020. Retrieved August 19, 2020.
  8. ^ McWhorter, John (September 2020). "Academics Are Really, Really Worried About Their Freedom". The Atlantic. Retrieved July 30, 2021.
  9. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e "Cancel Culture Top 3 Pros and Cons". ProCon.org. September 27, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2022.
  10. ^ Jump up to:a b Manavis, Sarah (July 16, 2020). "'Cancel culture' does not exist". New Statesman. Archived from the original on July 17, 2020. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b "The entitlement of Canadian politicians – Macleans.ca". Maclean's. Retrieved January 6, 2021.
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b c Olusoga, David (January 3, 2021). "'Cancel culture' is not the preserve of the left. Just ask our historians". The Guardian. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b Garel, Connor (July 9, 2018). "Logan Paul Is Proof That Problematic People Are Never Truly Cancelled". Vice. Retrieved August 16, 2020.
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b Hagi, Sarah (November 21, 2019). "Cancel Culture Is Not Real—At Least Not in the Way People Think". Time. Retrieved March 12, 2021.
  15. ^ Jump up to:a b McGrady, Clyde (April 2, 2021). "The strange journey of 'cancel,' from a Black-culture punchline to a White-grievance watchword". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 10, 2021.
  16. ^ Webster, Elizabeth N. (December 24, 2021). "Cancel Culture Will Not Be Canceled". AfroSapiophile. Retrieved March 3, 2022.
  17. ^ Mishan, Ligaya (December 3, 2020). "The Long and Tortured History of Cancel Culture". The New York Times. Retrieved April 10, 2021.
  18. ^ Romano, Aja (August 25, 2020). "Why we can't stop fighting about cancel culture". Vox. Retrieved April 10, 2021.
  19. ^ D. Clark, Meredith (2020). "Drag Them: A brief etymology of so-called "cancel culture"". Communication and the Public. 5 (3–4): 88–92. doi:10.1177/2057047320961562.
  20. ^ McDermott, John (November 2, 2019). "Those People We Tried to Cancel? They're All Hanging Out Together". The New York Times. Retrieved July 29, 2021.
  21. ^ Douthat, Ross (July 14, 2020). "10 Theses About Cancel Culture". The New York Times. Retrieved July 29, 2021.
  22. ^ Romano, Aja (May 5, 2021). "The second wave of "cancel culture"". Vox. Retrieved July 29, 2021.
  23. ^ Reddy, Vasu; Andrews, Donna (2021). "Cancel Culture: Shrinking or Remaking Narratives? (2022)". Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa. 106 (1): 130–132. doi:10.1353/trn.2021.0026. ISSN 1726-1368. S2CID 239855465.
  24. ^ Jump up to:a b c Brown, Dalvin (July 17, 2020). "Twitter's cancel culture: A force for good or a digital witchhunt? The answer is complicated". USA Today. Archived from the original on July 24, 2020. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  25. ^ Mishan, Ligaya (December 3, 2020). "The Long and Tortured History of Cancel Culture". T. Archived from the original on December 4, 2020.
  26. ^ "Cancel culture: Have any two words become more weaponised?". BBC News. February 18, 2021. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  27. ^ Mendes, Kaitlynn; Ringrose, Jessica; Keller, Jessalynn (May 1, 2018). "#MeToo and the promise and pitfalls of challenging rape culture through digital feminist activism". European Journal of Women's Studies. 25 (2): 236–246. doi:10.1177/1350506818765318. hdl:2381/41541. ISSN 1350-5068. S2CID 149646504.
  28. ^ Ng, Eve (July 26, 2020). "No Grand Pronouncements Here...: Reflections on Cancel Culture and Digital Media Participation". Television & New Media. 21 (6): 621–627. doi:10.1177/1527476420918828. ISSN 1527-4764. S2CID 220853829.
  29. ^ Bouvier, Gwen; Machin, David (April 15, 2021). "What gets lost in Twitter 'cancel culture' hashtags? Calling out racists reveals some limitations of social justice campaigns". Discourse & Society. 32 (3): 307–327. doi:10.1177/0957926520977215. ISSN 0957-9265. S2CID 233279610.
  30. ^ Jump up to:a b Norris, Pippa (August 11, 2021). "Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality?". Political Studies. 71 (1): 145–174. doi:10.1177/00323217211037023. ISSN 0032-3217. S2CID 238647612.
  31. ^ Haidt, Jonathan; Lukianoff, Greg (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. New York City: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-0-7352-2489-6. OCLC 1007552624. For safetyism, see Lukianoff, Greg; Haidt, Jonathan (September 4, 2018). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin Press. pp. 30, 158, 235, 268, 329. ISBN 978-0-7352-2490-2.
  32. ^ Campbell, Bradley; Paresky, Pamela (June 1, 2020). "Safetyism Isn't the Problem". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  33. ^ "Safetyism Isn't the Problem". Association for Psychological Science. June 15, 2020. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  34. ^ Agence France Presse (July 22, 2020). "La "cancel culture", nouvelle arme des anonymes et facteur de polarisation". Le Journal de Montréal (in French). Archived from the original on July 27, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020.
  35. ^ Ng, Eve (July 26, 2020). "No Grand Pronouncements Here ...: Reflections on Cancel Culture and Digital Media Participation". Television and New Media. 21 (16): 621–627. doi:10.1177/1527476420918828. S2CID 220853829. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
  36. ^ Lee, Frances E. (September 17, 2017). "'Excommunicate me from the church of social justice': an activist's plea for change". The Sunday Magazine. CBC Radio.
  37. ^ "Why I've Started to Fear My Fellow Social Justice Activists". Yes!. Retrieved July 28, 2020.
  38. ^ Velasco, Joseph (October 2020). "You are Cancelled: Virtual Collective Consciousness and the Emergence of Cancel Culture as Ideological Purging". Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities. 12 (5). Conference: 1st Rupkatha International Open Conference on Recent Advances in Interdisciplinary Humanities. doi:10.21659/rupkatha.v12n5.rioc1s21n2. S2CID 230647906.
  39. ^ Wei, M. L.; Bunjun, Benita (October 21, 2020). "'We are not the shoes of white supremacists': a critical race perspective of consumer responses to brand attempts at countering racist associations". Journal of Marketing Management. 36 (13–14): 1252–1279. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2020.1806907. ISSN 0267-257X. S2CID 226315082.
  40. ^ Bright, Anita; Gambrell, James (2017). "Calling In, Not Calling Out: A Critical Race Framework for Nurturing Cross-Cultural Alliances in Teacher Candidates". In Jared Keengwe (ed.). Handbook of Research on Promoting Cross-Cultural Competence and Social Justice in Teacher Education. IGI Global. pp. 217–235. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0897-7.ch011. ISBN 9781522508977. Retrieved August 28, 2020.
  41. ^ Matei, Adrienne (November 1, 2019). "Call-out culture: how to get it right (and wrong)". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved August 31, 2020.
  42. ^ Stein, J. (August 13, 2015). "I'm making the case for public shaming-unless you publicly shame me for doing so". Time. Retrieved March 8, 2021.
  43. ^ Scalia, Eugene (2021). "John Adams, Legal Representation, and the 'Cancel Culture'" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 44 (1): 333–338 – via ProQuest.
  44. ^ Chee-Read, Audrey; Schanne, Alex (April 2024). "One Year Since Bud Light's Marketing Blunder: What Did We Learn?". Retrieved September 3, 2024.
  45. ^ Liaukonyte, Jura; Tuchman, Anna; Zhu, Xinrong (March 20, 2024). "Marketing: Lessons from the Bud Light Boycott, One Year Later". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved September 3, 2024.
  46. ^ Ng 2020: 623. Ng, E. 2020. “No Grand Pronouncements Here… Reflections on Cancel Culture and Digital Media Participation.” Television & New Media. 21(6): 621-627.
  47. ^ See Norlock, Kathryn J. 2017. “Online Shaming.” Social Philosophy Today 33: 187-197.[1] See also Thomason, Krista. 2021. “The Moral Risks of Online Shaming,” in Carissa Véliz, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 145-162. [2]
  48. ^ Mill 1991: 9. Mill, J.S. 1991. On Liberty and Other Essays. Edited by Gray, J. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  49. ^ See Nussbaum 2004: 234. Nussbaum, Martha. 2004. Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  50. ^ See Campbell 2023. Campbell, Douglas R. 2023. "Cancel Culture, Then and Now: A Platonic Approach to the Shaming of People and the Exclusion of Ideas," Journal of Cyberspace Studies 7 (2):147-166.[3]
  51. ^ See, again, Campbell 2023.
  52. ^ Plato's Gorgias is a key text in this case. See Tarnopolsky, C (2010). Prudes, Perverts, and Tyrants: Plato’s Gorgias and the Politics of Shame. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  53. ^ See Nussbaum 2004: 230, 239.
  54. ^ "Where Did Cancel Culture Come From?". Dictionary.com. July 21, 2020. Archived from the original on June 30, 2020.
  55. ^ Bostock, Bill (October 30, 2019). "Obama laid into young people being 'politically woke' and 'as judgmental as possible' in a speech about call-out culture". Business Insider. Archived from the original on July 23, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
  56. ^ Daniel Dale (July 7, 2020). "A list of people and things Donald Trump tried to get canceled before he railed against 'cancel culture'". CNN. Archived from the original on July 28, 2020. Retrieved August 1, 2020.
  57. ^ Pope Francis (January 10, 2022). Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (Speech). Vatican.va.
  58. ^ Kington, Tom (January 11, 2022). "Cancel culture is rewriting the past, warns Pope Francis". The Times. Archived from the original on January 11, 2022. Retrieved January 11, 2022.
  59. ^ Rocca, Francis X. (January 10, 2022). "Pope Francis Denounces 'Cancel Culture' and Antivaccine 'Ideology'". The Wall Street Journal.
  60. ^ Sunak, R., PM speech on security: 13 May 2024, accessed 26 May 2024
  61. ^ "Ethics on the Rocks". Project Syndicate. November 22, 2022. Retrieved February 8, 2024.
  62. ^ Nwanevu, Osita (September 23, 2019). "The 'Cancel Culture' Con". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved March 4, 2022.
  63. ^ "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate". Harper's Magazine. July 7, 2020. Archived from the original on July 23, 2020.
  64. ^ "JK Rowling joins 150 public figures warning over free speech". BBC. July 8, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
  65. ^ Chiu, Allyson (July 8, 2020). "Letter signed by J.K. Rowling, Noam Chomsky warning of stifled free speech draws mixed reviews". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 24, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  66. ^ Schuessler, Jennifer (July 10, 2020). "An Open Letter on Free Expression Draws a Counterblast". The New York Times. Retrieved July 12, 2020.
  67. ^ Roberts, Mikenzie (July 13, 2020). "Harper's letter and response signed by Northwestern academics". The Daily Northwestern. Retrieved July 18, 2020.
  68. ^ "Letters to the Editor: It's not 'cancel culture.' It's finally holding privileged people accountable". Los Angeles Times. July 15, 2020.
  69. ^ Mishra, Pankaj (July 15, 2020). "No, cancel culture isn't a threat to civilization". ThePrint. India.
  70. ^ Fine, Duncan (March 4, 2021). "Dr Seuss not cancelled. Old stereotypes are being made redundant". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved March 12, 2021.
  71. ^ Kurtzleben, Danielle (February 10, 2021). "When Republicans Attack 'Cancel Culture,' What Does It Mean?". NPR. Retrieved March 12, 2021.
  72. ^ Jump up to:a b Coventry, C. J. (November 21, 2020). "A New Birth of Freedom: South Australia, slavery and exceptionalism". Humanities Commons. Modern Language Association. Retrieved October 27, 2022.
  73. ^ Fung, Katherine (April 26, 2021). "LeVar Burton defends cancel culture, says it should be called 'consequence culture'". Newsweek. Retrieved October 27, 2022.
  74. ^ Schwartz, Molly (March 5, 2021). "Roxane Gay says cancel culture does not exist". Mother Jones. Retrieved October 27, 2022.
  75. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Vogels, Emily A.; Monica; Erson; Porteus, Margaret; Baronavski, Chris; Atske, Sara; McClain, Colleen; Auxier, Brooke; Perrin, Andrew (May 19, 2021). "Americans and 'Cancel Culture': Where Some See Calls for Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment". Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  76. ^ Lizza, Ryan (July 22, 2020). "Americans tune in to 'cancel culture' — and don't like what they see". Politico. Archived from the original on July 23, 2020. Retrieved July 22, 2020.
  77. ^ Morning Consult; Politico (July 2020). "National tracking poll, July 17–19, 2020". Politico. Archived from the original on July 22, 2020. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  78. ^ Manchester, Julia (March 29, 2021). "64 percent view 'cancel culture' as threat to freedom: poll". The Hill. Retrieved April 27, 2021.
  79. ^ Schulte, Gabriela (November 8, 2021). "Poll: Overwhelming majority say cancel culture has gone too far". The Hill. Retrieved November 10, 2021.
  80. ^ Schulte, Gabriela (November 9, 2021). "Poll: 69 percent say cancel culture unfairly punishes people for past actions, statements". The Hill. Retrieved November 10, 2021.
  81. ^ "Free Expression in America Post-2020". Knight Foundation. Retrieved January 18, 2024.
  82. ^ "What's Really Behind America's 'Free Speech Problem'". NPR. April 4, 2022.
  83. ^ Howell, Jordan (March 18, 2022). "New York Times survey shows bipartisan agreement on host of free speech issues". www.thefire.org. Retrieved December 7, 2023.
  84. ^ "84% Say Americans being Afraid to ExerciseFreedom of Speech is a Serious Problem – Siena College Research Institute". scri.siena.edu. Retrieved December 7, 2023.
  85. ^ The Learning Network (April 21, 2022). "What's Going On in This Graph? | Free Speech". The New York Times. Retrieved December 6, 2023.
  86. ^ "New Siena College poll finds respondents worried about "cancel culture" backlash to free speech". WAMC. March 21, 2022. Retrieved December 7, 2023.
  87. ^ Mathews, Liam (October 11, 2018). "South Park Just Trolled The Simpsons Really Hard, but Why?". TV Guide. Retrieved December 31, 2018.
  88. ^ Andrews, Travis M. (October 17, 2018). "How 'South Park' became the ultimate #bothsides show". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 31, 2018.
  89. ^ Edwards, Chris (November 20, 2018). "Post-outrage TV: how South Park is surviving the era of controversy". The Guardian. Retrieved December 31, 2018.
  90. ^ Joho, Jess (October 12, 2018). "Why the latest season of 'South Park' feels like a total game-changer". Mashable. Retrieved December 31, 2018.
  91. ^ Parker, Ryan (October 10, 2018). "'South Park' Goes After Roseanne Barr, 'Simpsons' Apu Character". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved October 11, 2018.
  92. ^ Barsanti, Sam (October 9, 2018). "South Park will somehow tackle both Brett Kavanaugh and The Problem With Apu simultaneously". The A.V. Club. Retrieved October 10, 2018.
  93. ^ "Concerning Consent, Chappelle, and Canceling Cancel Culture". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved October 19, 2020.
  94. ^ Eubanks, Alex (February 25, 2022). "Netflix's 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' is laughably bad… but that's why it's good". The Miami Hurricane.
  95. ^ Graham, Adam (February 18, 2022). "'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' review: You cannot cancel Leatherface". The Detroit News.
  96. ^ O'Neal, Sean (February 18, 2022). "The New 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre': They Came, They Sawed, They Didn't Cut It". Texas Monthly.
  97. ^ Goldberg, Michelle (October 21, 2022). "Finally, a Great Movie About Cancel Culture". The New York Times.
  98. ^ Chang, Justin (January 25, 2023). "All the 2023 best picture Oscar nominees ranked, from worst to best". Los Angeles Times.
  99. ^ Graham, Jennifer (December 8, 2023). "Perspective: Is Hollywood courting or mocking the right in 'Dream Scenario'?". Deseret News.

Further reading

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)