Respecting the Reality of Rage in the Deconstruction of Binary Thinking
These days if you do not know a friend or celebrity who has been canceled, or called out, then I’d probably commend you for your lifestyle choices. Social media has amplified the impacts and conversation around cancel culture. This social phenomenon occurs outside of social media as well. But what is cancel culture, and is it good for society?
Before answering that question, I’d like to mention that the arc of cancel culture predates the modern social media context. Publically canceling a person, entity, or group has existed for millennia. It has manifested in various forms such as dunce caps, public riots, and witch hunts. Throughout this article I will use the terms call-out and cancel culture interchangeably.
The original title of this article was “Call Out vs. Process Culture.” However, I realized this implied a false dichotomy between these approaches to conflict resolution. Our socialization around polarized thinking has caused enough unnecessary fragmentation and adversity in both our culture and individual communities. Like most frameworks of communication, there is a time and place for everything. Calling someone or an organization ‘out’ within a community has its time and place. Likewise, ultimatums can sometimes be useful in more intimate relationships. Lack of clarity on how to use these frameworks may lead to untethered rage or the spinning of our emotional wheels.
What is cancel culture?
Cancel culture, also known as call-out culture, can be defined as an attempt to hold a person, organization, or entity accountable for their offenses by a public withdrawal of support and/or shaming. Many deem cancel culture unproductive due to the one-way ostracization of the canceled by the canceller. There are alternatives to cancel culture as described within process-oriented transformative justice philosophy.
Transformative justice is a process of holding one accountable to their immediate community with a goal of collective healing.
Communities can use this as an alternative to social ostracization, calling the legal authorities, or punitive actions. This process largely evolved thanks to historically disenfranchised groups or groups that have been continuously failed by our larger socio-political structures, which are based in colonialism. These historically marginalized groups include but are not limited to people of color, indigenous nations, LGBTQIA+, woman identified, and environmentalists. I give thanks to two of my teachers, Starhawk and Pandora Thomas, for furthering my experiential education on transformative justice processing.
The intention of both transformative justice processing and cancel culture is to hold the offending party accountable for harm caused.
The term transformative justice has replaced the term restorative justice in recent years. The idea is that if a social dynamic or personal relationship is restored to the previous state, it will be in the same state that created the conflict to begin with.
With transformative justice processing, we aim to not only restore peace, clarity, and connection, but also to learn from the transgression and grow beyond the previous paradigm.
An analogy would be replacing the term ‘sustainability’ with ‘regenerative’ because it is a more accurate term for the lifestyle and cultural shifts required for life here on Earth. We cannot sustain the current relationship we have as a human species with the Earth. If so, we will not have an environment that supports much life. Integrating regenerative practices into our personal and social lives can rejuvenate the life systems that allow us to exist on this planet. This shift in logic is important because it deeply threatens the status quo, requires personal accountability, and is proactive.
Process culture may also include the mindset that people who cause harm or disruptions may require more support so that they can learn from the dysfunction- rather than being ostracized. In some cases, ostracization is likely to cause the person to repeat these patterns elsewhere and continue the harm. Process culture employs a foundation of empathy. It is based in an understanding that when humans cause harm, it is usually because they have been harmed themselves. It acknowledges that, somewhere, we must break this cycle of violence.
Many of us live via the internet now. The impersonal distance of interacting through screens eases the expression of things we would not express in person. There are positive and negative side effects from this current cultural reality. One side effect, though, is the evolution and exacerbation of cancel culture. It’s important to learn how these social communication processes work so we, as communities, can practice the healing process in a way that fosters freedom and safety in speech.
When is cancel culture appropriate?
An example might be if a person is causing disruptions within a community and others have repetitively tried and failed to support them. People often find it difficult to change their communication or behavior if they are not given feedback and support on how to do so. However, just because every person deserves empathy and a chance to heal in connection, does not mean one person or group is necessarily responsible for that process. Canceling said person may be a last resort used after other efforts have been exhausted. It may be appropriate to call out or cancel someone if they are blatantly disregarding community guidelines or are acting as a ‘disrupter’ to the group’s efforts.
We could consider cancel culture entirely appropriate for the bought and sold people orchestrating our current political system. The false dichotomy of the two-party system has created a distracting division amongst our communities which ultimately stalls us from working towards shared goals. I am wondering though, are politicians shielded from cancel culture by the very nature of their office which elicits controversy and division? Perhaps the two-party system is just one big echo-chamber of cancel culture in and of itself.
In Dholakia’s article, “What is Cancel Culture” in Psychology Today, they define cancel culture, or social canceling, as “the collective public rejection of a person, group, or organization for a perceived transgression that spreads through social media and is marked by strong negative emotional reactions and the pursuit of visible punitive actions.” The rest of the article goes on to describe in more detail this social phenomenon in a somewhat negative framework. I personally believe life is too complex to play into these polarizing topics, deeming one way ‘better’ than another. Both process and cancel culture have their places. There are many nuances within and between these options of response to conflict. Calling someone out may sometimes be an emotional reaction that escalates the social ‘trigger vortex’. However, the layers of our collective trauma run so deep that we must bring empathy to all sides.
Cancel culture should not itself be canceled because it is within the nuances of communication where we can glean more information.
If we move more slowly when conflict arises, we can support the interpersonal healing and progressive justice systems that must emerge from our current relational dynamic. In the words of Dr. Ido Cohen psychologist and psychedelic researcher, “when we slow down, things become more clear faster”.
Voices have been stifled, and entire cultures and peoples have been disrespected and dehumanized. Who are any of us to say these groups may not choose to utilize one of the most effective social strategies we’ve ever encountered- casting someone out? When one is cast out, or canceled, the message usually gets across clearly that a boundary has been breached. While the social strategy of shame has been normalized to a culturally debilitating degree, individual groups may use this as a last resort to bring about accountability.
How does cancel culture relate to our intimate relationships?
How we show up in relationship to society impacts and is impacted by our intimate relationship dynamics. If we are experiencing a chronic dysfunction within an intimate relationship- we may consider an ultimatum. In this example, an ultimatum is analogous to being called out or canceled.
Ultimatums are a private way of proposing cancellation.
Using ultimatums is appropriate when all other options have been exhausted. Ultimatums may be appropriate if you are getting overwhelmed or triggered due to unprocessed trauma or because of a direct boundary transgression. It can be impossible to heal a trigger if that part of you is continuously feeling unsafe. It can be very difficult to process if we are not feeling at least somewhat resourced. The term ‘resourced’ may refer to any internal or external support system. Resourcing examples might include our ability to internally regulate our nervous system or our ability to reach out to another loved one for support.
If you have a non-negotiable boundary that your partner is having trouble accommodating, it may work best for you to remove yourself from them immediately if you feel unsafe. However, if you do feel safe enough to work on the issue, give them several chances to re-learn this new dynamic of the boundary. They may be able to shift to your boundary or preference over time given reassurances, honesty, and clear communication. If they are not able to, then an ultimatum may be the next step.
Be sure to only use an ultimatum as a last resort if you are certain there is a firm boundary that must be respected.
If you share an ultimatum as a boundary you must be very clear that this is the last resort. If you do not stick to this ultimatum as a clear boundary, it may amplify any unclear communication or energetic confusion that is already happening.
Relationships are a constant balance of our personal boundaries between autonomy and connection and are ever-changing. People can generally change if we sincerely want to, however, if change happens at all it is incremental. When given gentle feedback from those we care about, most of us are capable of some measure of adaptation to the feedback.
Sometimes, however, we are not capable of changing something about ourselves for another’s comfort. The presentation of an ultimatum may be an impasse for both parties to navigate- hopefully with the intention to mitigate harm. We can strive to lift each other up even when our loved ones challenge us. This is not always possible though, and the mending of these deeper wounds may need much stricter boundaries and space in order to heal.
We never finish learning about boundaries; it is an ongoing process.
If you are in a place of considering an ultimatum within a significant relationship, consider talking to an unbiased professional so that you can deepen your own clarity before presenting it to your friend, lover, or family member. Alternatively, this could also be an opportunity for you both to reach out together for support from your family, community, or a professional.
We might experience rage if we continuously lack proper space or support to process our emotions or to truly be seen.
When we allow our personal sovereignty to be eroded or it becomes eroded due to no fault of our own, it is easy for rage or other reactionary feelings to emerge without warning. While we may easily judge those who have been slighted for yelling their fury from the rooftops, we must also consider that they are defending themselves and demanding accountability- both from those who have actively deprived them of their rights and from those who have stood by and watched it happen.
If you have ever raged, or been raged at, you may feel connected to this sentiment. As challenging as it may be, finding self-compassion around these intense moments is important. We can learn from them without being overly critical of ourselves or the other. For some, anger has never been a safe place to be, so that feeling might come out in strong bursts. Others may have experienced anger as the only normalized emotion to express. There is a myriad of reasons why many of us have an unbalanced relationship with stronger emotions like anger, grief, and passion. The introspective work of slowing down our nervous system while integrating this information can allow our capacity for these emotions to expand. Venting to a loved one- with consent– can act as a pressure release valve for some of our more challenging emotions.
Rage happens when there have not been appropriate outlets for feelings and impacts by others to be heard. Sometimes a public callout may actually feel like the only option, either because of past experiences, safety, or refusal by the other party to acknowledge the canceller.
“Hurt people hurt people” as the saying goes, and none of us are exempt from this life’s journey of healing. In other words, none of us as individuals will ever be done growing and we will never be perfect. I find this reminder to be both stress-relieving and humbling. Humans are inherently collaborative, and I have faith in our abilities to socially compost paradigms that are no longer serving us. Our capacity to empathize with each other is foundational to this exercise of deconstructing the mindset and culture of polarized-thinking. I call it an exercise because that is exactly what it is. We never finish, and it comprises much of life’s journey.
By Annie Boheler
Edited by Aiyana Deyoung