A specter haunts our times, like an elusive shadow that envelops the contours of our changing society: the culture of banishment, or cancel culture. Draped in the finery of virtue, it presents itself as a quest for moral purity, but reveals in filigree the deep fractures and contradictions that tear our civilization apart, oscillating between a tumultuous past and the uncertain promises of a future in gestation.
The bitterness of the exchanges during the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris set the virtual arena ablaze. Each camp, entrenched behind its certainties, engaged in virulent criticism of the other. The Republicans, often using acerbic parody, caricatured the Democrats as heralds of wokeness and the cancel culture. But isn’t it ironic that this accusation comes from a party favored by some states that, like the very Republican Florida, have enacted laws such as the Parental Rights in Education Act, which its detractors have renamed the “Don’t Say Gay Act”? This law, by restricting the teaching of sexuality, particularly on questions of gender identity and sexual orientation, reflects a puritanical vision of the United States. Isn’t this a tangible manifestation of this same cancel culturewhich the American right castigates so vehemently?
The edifying example of Bud Light’s advertising campaign featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney further illustrates this paradox. Following this partnership, a conservative fringe called for a boycott of the brand, which led to a significant drop in sales. By invoking the defense of freedom, these same actors are using the weapons they denounce, revealing a lack of introspection and a fragility of the collective ego.
Blaming others for the evils of which one is guilty oneself is evidence of moral blindness. Reacting vehemently and impulsively to the criticism of others, to the point of adopting the hated behaviors, reveals an inability to face one’s own contradictions. As ancient wisdom reminds us, one can fight the ego, but one cannot annihilate it. It is therefore imperative to cultivate humility and reflection to transcend these divisions.
Old dynamics of exclusion
The culture of banishment is not the monopoly of one ideological camp: it is a double-edged sword, brandished by all those who seek to erase what offends their sensibilities or contradicts their vision of the world. Like a modern Janus, it has a double face depending on who contemplates it. Some use it to purify public discourse of elements deemed offensive, while others use it to preserve values that they consider threatened.
Historically, censorship and exclusion are recurrent mechanisms. The dark hours of McCarthyism in the 1950s, when Hollywood was rocked by an anti-communist witch hunt, are a striking illustration. Long before that, dissident voices were ostracized, marginalized, even persecuted. Freethinkers, trade unionists, revolutionaries have often paid a high price for challenging the dominant orthodoxy. cancel culture contemporary society is only the digital heir to these ancestral dynamics of exclusion.
What has changed is the tool. Social networks have become the modern agora, an arena where every word, every idea is scrutinized, dissected, judged. The word, which once vanished into the ether, is now inscribed in indelible letters on the Web. A simple screenshot is enough to immortalize a fleeting thought, submitting it to the immediate and often merciless tribunal of public opinion.
We live in an era of instant outrage, where reaction trumps reflection. This technological ease has transformed public outrage and consternation into an omnipresent phenomenon, a faceless and unaccountable tribunal. Freedom of expression, that fundamental pillar of democratic societies, is colliding with the reality of global and instantaneous communication, where the slightest misstep can lead to permanent ostracism.
Are we, ultimately, the architects of our own misfortune? In a society governed by the laws of the market, the culture of banishment can be seen as an expression of the principle of supply and demand. A public figure who displeases sees his rating plummet, his sponsors withdraw, his platforms shrink. It is the economic sanction of an unpopular opinion, the reflection of a community exercising its consumer power. However, this mercantile logic collides with liberal principles that value the plurality of voices and contradictory debate.
Freedom of expression implies an acceptance of the risk inherent in the confrontation of ideas. There is a crucial distinction between freedom of speech and the absence of consequences: everyone is free to express themselves, but no one is exempt from the reactions that their words may provoke. The real question that arises is that of the moderation and justice in these reactions.
A mirror to the larks
While Republicans — many of whom confuse the notions of “liberal” and “woke” — proclaim themselves defenders of individual liberties, they supported the invalidation of the decision. Roe v. Wadeand thus restricts women’s fundamental right to control their own bodies. Ironically, by denouncing the cancel culture attributed to the left, they themselves contribute to the erasure of essential rights, dictated by a subjective interpretation of beauty, goodness and right. This paradox illustrates the instrumentalization of freedom of expression or tolerance by the different political currents, each invoking them when they serve their interests and flouting them when they thwart them.
This phenomenon thus acts as a decoy, reflecting the deep fractures of our society and the contradictions inherent in our discourses. It reveals a broader malaise: the difficulty in accepting complexity, nuance, divergence. In a world in search of certainties, the temptation is great to reduce the other to a caricature, to disqualify him rather than listen to him.
Yet it is precisely in the respectful confrontation of ideas that the richness of a living democracy lies. The plurality of opinions is not a threat, but an opportunity to broaden our horizons, to question our prejudices, to grow in humanity. To refuse this diversity is to condemn oneself to intellectual impoverishment.
Ultimately, to overcome the divisions that separate us, we must relearn the art of dialogue, of listening without prejudice, of accepting complexity. Recognizing that truth is sometimes plural, that it lies in the interstices of divergent opinions. And above all, understanding that, contrary to Sartre’s assertion, hell is not necessarily other people. The other is an open door to the unknown, a chance to question our certainties, to broaden our perspective.
By embracing this complexity, by celebrating the diversity of voices and thoughts, we can build a truly free and democratic society. A society where divergence is not seen as a threat, but as an inestimable wealth. A society that prefers building bridges to erecting walls, that chooses understanding over condemnation.