Cancel culture & polarization without identification

No one denies the polarizing times we live in. But let's talk some second-order effects of polarization.

Over the last year, we had multiple scandals coming to forefront. Women spoke bravely about the sexual harassment they faced at workplace, and in their lives. The MeToo campaign was a resounding success. There was a string of celebrities involved for various issues - R Kelly, C K Louis, Kevin Spacey and the biggest, starting of them all - Harvey Weinstein. The removal of Harvey from his company and the subsequent conviction was a medal of success for the movement. However their moment of vindication was not permanent. Louie was off-air for about only 10 months before returning to the stand-up comedy scenes. His shows still managed to sell out.

But it didn’t stop there. The public outcry manifested into demands for justice and ‘cancel’ that person. It was not a legal but rather a cultural cancellation.

But what is cancel culture? There is no strict definition that captures it fully. To give you a sense, it is the public outcry against anyone and demanding their removal from any public platform or their employment. Ideologically dominated by the progressives, cancel culture has spread like wild-fire. Some even call it mob-justice. Unlike the institutional form of justice, this one is swift, brutal and ruthless in its take-down. But somewhere along the line, it went too far. From an outburst of accumulated yearning for justice and people coming out to speaking against their harassers, it has become a touchy, belligerent and hyper-sensitive phenomena. Sue Schafer from Washington Post was a victim of this over-correction (perhaps?). Schafer had gone to a party with a black-face to mock Megyn Kelly, on the backs of black-lives matter protests. When the Post ran a story naming her, she quickly lost her job. No fellow-reporters came to speak on her behalf. It was not just firing, but an alienated, ruthless push without any support. For her fellow-reporters, Schafer’s case a high-voltage wire. Anyone even thinking of touching it, could be persecuted. Persecution by Association. Doesn’t this remind you of McCarthy period? Some say this phenomena goes as far back as 2014 when Rosetta scientist Dr Matt Taylor was asked to apologize over a ‘controversial’ shirt he wore for a press-meet.

Such incidents raise several questions. For starters,

Why did this cancel culture come up?

How did it go from #MeToo to Sue Schafer?

Is it morally ambiguous?

Does the punishment in cancel-culture fit the crime?

What I want to talk about is not the history of cancel-culture but rather how does a polarized-culture sustain? How does the behavior of ideologically extreme groups ensure polarization does not fizzle out? And eventually can it also help us understand how we might be able to break this vicious chain? I must caveat all this by saying - I am not a sociologist and I have no research to back most of my points. You could say these were developed through observation, much like stand-up comedy. So in some sense this could be laughable too.

Extremism has an evil head - it is a dissent suppressing further dissent. What I mean is, in a polarized scenario there is no center or moderation. There is no calm consideration. You’re either on my side or you’re my enemy. As we progress to this rigid dichotomy, the left of center, for example, is pulled to far-left and similarly the right of center gets pulled far-right. Any polarization will sustain only in so far it has members powering it. You can think of it as an organism that gobbles members to sustain. Extremism ensures it sustains by not letting anyone take a different stance. It is either A or B. Which is why, you’re either left or right. There is no center. If you think welfare-programs are a burden on tax-payers, welcome to the Friedman family. If you think government should not be bailing out big-banks with taxpayer money, welcome to Trotsky family.

But how does this pull to extremes happen? Thanks to all MIT, Harvard, IIT graduates tinkering up algorithms in Facebook, Google, Amazon, the news that comes to you on social media probably plays a bigger role in defining your team than you may think. As algorithm throttles what information comes to you, the second it sniffs a political leaning, it starts to serve news that reinforce that leaning. Little by little, you get engulfed in a digital environment where you’re surrounded by people who agree with your ideology, content that reinforces your ideology (and let’s face it, far-left & far-right have better clickbait headlines and sensational stuff than actual well researched articles). To some extent, I think the most of us unwillingly and unknowingly take sides simply because we explored and were curious about our leaning. You might relate this to the Cambridge-Analytica scandal that broke out with Trump’s election and then died down because something more fun happened.

With a method for polarization to self-sustain and social-media essentially feeding it heaps of carbohydrates, it is not surprising how we managed to get where we are. So far, we have a method for this to sustain and grow. We have a feeding mechanism and social media to ensure constant supply of nutrition. But how did this stop becoming just a frenzy and got legitimized? How did this transition from a Facebook argument to something real?

Friends, meet Capitalism. It plays a very interesting role in the whole game and probably more important one than you may think. Companies have never been quicker to respond to an allegation or a social media outburst (Funny how they take more time to give salary bonuses or hire more people). Recently, Niel Golightly, communications chief at Boeing had to step down for an article he wrote 33 years earlier on why women should not join the army. Yes, 33 years earlier. When even the government changed their stance on homosexual marriage only 10 years ago in US. In some sense, we can look at it this way - mob-justice is the judge & jury, while companies are the executioner. What capitalism ensures is there is no due diligence and investigation but instead converting allegations to convictions with no due process. It legitimizes mob-justice because let’s face it - progressive values are the best branding tools in vogue.

The progressive values are great for writing blogs but in the real world (we still do not know what this mysterious real world is), you absolve your sins before the brand is affected. By doing so, they become the de-facto executioner in this process. But is that all? By responding quickly, they ensure the blame is pinned solely on the person before any one gets to scrutinize their operations or policies. Before anyone looks at how systemic incentives lead to behaviors. For the uninitiated, this is called a win-win solution. Mob wins because someone heard their wails and cries. Company wins because no one cared to look deeper.

In a very twisted way, this can be linked to a movement kick started few years back when the billionaires decided to take it up on themselves to solve society problems. We see impact investing, social bonds these days, and my personal favorite for-profit social companies. I have not had so many oxymorons fit into one word. We do not have analysts, associates or VPs anymore. We have thought-leaders. What was once the responsibility of government has been snatched by corporations to solve. Goldman Sachs once ran a social bond where it stood to make profits if the recidivism in state penitentiaries went down. Such initiatives, for starters, ensures self-preservation of power. By being the champion of those problems, you dictate how the problem is framed, analysed and solved. That is essentially building moats to your castle. As a side benefit, it also helps attract talent. There is no question about the criticality of the problems they solve but as Anand writes in his book Winners take all, every organization wants only market-friendly solutions to problems plaguing our society. A solution which benefits people, solves the problem as far as it does not threaten their power or wealth.

Back to our story, we have companies not particularly championing the cause but rather legitimizing the mob-justice. While the outcome could be favorable, the mechanism definitely is not. What would have just remained a social-media outcry is now sanctioned upon thus reinforcing the minds of activists that we can short-circuit the judiciary process in delivering justice. This has gone too far as the activists started to look everywhere for transgressions, however minor. Among other things, this has tempered the thinking process and dialogue in many institutions. We are not able to ask difficult questions on the off-chance, we end up offending someone or a group. I would argue, to some extent, the bellicose ways of ‘cancel-culturists’, has led to a certain de-radicalization in our times. While their justice, punishes the transgressor, it does little to create a systemic change. And without systemic change, there can not be a solution that serves all. And if we are not working towards a solution that serves everyone, how is this culture even democratic in its current shape and form?