Abstract.

The emergence of cancel culture as a group effort to ostracise, alienate and publicly shame any individual or group that acts in offence to said group, causes the identity of both online groups and individuals, to be placed in a state of chaos. With the ever-growing presence of cancel culture in a society that is using technology more frequently and consistently to interact with others, online identities struggle to be ‘genuine’. Regardless of whether the stray from ‘genuine ‘identity is minimal or maximal, the fear of becoming a victim to cancel culture causes assortments of individuals to adjust their online identity to better reflect current accepted cultural and societal standards. This conference paper, therefore, argues that online identities struggle to remain ‘genuine’ in the presence of cancel culture. By examining what having a ‘genuine’ identity means, according to Butler and Foucault, it can be theorised what causes identity to lose its ‘genuine’ factor. The affordances that networked publics provide online communities, create a strong, persistent bond amongst members, and form the foundation for the strength and impact of cancel culture. Cancel culture often provides a collective identity to be embodied by these online communities as they come together to shame the transgressing individual/group. By examining this through case studies of cancel culture, which exhibits strong group power and inflicted harsh consequences, it is argued that online identities struggle to remain ‘genuine’ when faced with cancel culture.

Introduction.

Online identities struggle to be ‘genuine’ with the existence of cancel culture. Identity is a concept that is consistently and forever trying to be understood and defined. Identity can be explored by many different approaches, including who we are in relation to ourselves and the outside world, how cultural, social, and political factors impact this, and how we choose to self-present ourselves (Hand, 2006). This paper focuses on the genuineness of individuals’ identity, what constitutes it to be ‘genuine’, and how this can be challenged. This conference paper will therefore argue that online identities struggle to remain ‘genuine’ when cancel culture exists. This will be argued by defining what makes an identity ‘genuine’, defining cancel culture, discussing the affordances of networked publics creating strong online communities, and the collective identities of these online communities that emerge from and against cancel culture. This will be examined alongside powerful and popular cancel culture examples, where individuals faced immense backlash, and experienced public displays of alienation and hateful retaliation.

What is Cancel Culture?

The emergence of cancel culture in contemporary social media dramatically impacts and influences how celebrities, communities, and individuals conduct themselves both offline and online. Cancel culture effectively “cancels” someone who violates and offends online communities’ social norms and standards. To “cancel”, is to alienate and ostracise the offender, leading to consequences that extend past online spaces, to offline. Consequences include a loss of public platform or career, belligerent messaging in the form of death threats and insults from individuals and communities, and complete isolation from acceptance in online spaces. The consequences are however not consistent across all instances of cancel culture and often are selective and case-to-case informed (Saint-Louis, 2021). The origin of cancel culture, however, exists in the offline world as a reflection of the enduring human phenomenon to differentiate between the good and the bad. Society ostracises the offender due to what it deems as incorrect behaviour, to strengthen and maintain societal norms. Therefore, cancel culture can be understood as an extension of this within an online space (Wong, 2022). The ramifications of speaking out against societal standards in online spaces raise the concern that the identities presented by users, struggle to maintain genuineness. Online users are forced to present themselves carefully and appropriately, to avoid expulsion from their online communities. This can be explained through the intensity of real-world examples of cancel culture inciting fear in online users so that they do not become the offender themselves. Florida resident Daniel Maples refused to wear a mask in Costco in 2020 when the coronavirus disease was declared a pandemic. A video emerged online displaying this, and less than a day later, his identity had been uncovered by users online. Maples lost his job and faced immense backlash online. His offline behaviour became an online spectacle through the posted video, causing ramifications for Maples as online individuals were outraged at his behaviour that was not reflective of community efforts of trying to minimise the spread of coronavirus (Saint-Louis, 2021). From this example, cancel culture does not only punish those who transgress online but also punishes unacceptable offline behaviours that become online property for anyone to access and view. To understand how cancel culture can cause identities to lack genuineness, it is crucial to understand what constitutes an identity to be ‘genuine’.

Theories of Identity.

Theories of identity must be discussed and explored to understand what makes identity ‘genuine’, and why this can be subject to challenges when considered in an online context. When applying Judith Butler’s theory of performative identity to how users present themselves and interact within online communities and spaces, it is apparent that identities are not fixed and genuine. Butler argues that both online and offline behaviours do not emerge from a true self or identity and that those behaviours are rather a performed presentation of a self. These behaviours and acts are informed by social standards applicable to the individual, such as stereotypes, and expectations (Cover, 2012). In a digital context, this is evident in examples such as pronoun choices on Instagram, sharing posts to align with a particular political party, or sharing a photo at a Taylor Swift concert. These behaviours all present a particular online self and a chosen performed representation. Butler also argues that identities are performed consistently, and are a combination of factors such as gender, age, or nationality, that make sense in relation to the other so that the self is represented and performed to be stable and familiar to others (Cover, 2012). On social networking sites, this is evident in a user’s construction of their profile, as they choose what photos to post, which users and celebrities to follow, and what content they should share, which all need to be consistent with their enduring online identity. This is informed by the content and media that users consume, as users learn what they should and should not be posting according to their echo chambers and filter bubbles. Both echo chambers and filter bubbles refer to online individuals only receiving content, information and perspectives that already align with their values and opinions due to the algorithm. From reviewing extremely similar content and perspectives consistently, users begin to align themselves more with their online communities found through these filter bubbles and echo chambers (Flaxman, Goel & Rao, 2016). The Post Marxist model of identity supports this notion that ideological systems form and shape our identities, and as they present in echo chambers and filter bubbles online, users therefore constantly receive social cues on what to think and how to interact, therefore influencing identity. Both Foucault and Althusser believe that identity is informed by current power systems and Althusser argues further that state power dictates the common ideas and beliefs of a society. This authority causes individuals living under state power, to agree and align themselves with these projected beliefs (Zake, 2002). When examining this in a digital context, authority and power can be held by systems other than the state. This is evidenced by influencers, celebrities, and communities holding power in the online world, causing individuals that occupy the same spaces to adopt their promoted beliefs. An example of this is TikToker Drew Afualo who calls out and addresses misogynistic remarks and statements made about women on the social media site TikTok (Samuel, 2022). Online users who are in an anti-misogyny filter bubble by interacting with a few of Drew’s videos, can become entrenched in her belief systems against misogyny. If an individual were to speak out against Drew, cancel culture could occur through Drew’s online community coming together through their collective identity against misogyny, and effectively cancelling the outspoken individual. Therefore, identities struggle to remain genuine online according to Butler and Althusser’s theories of identity, as identities in online spaces are performative and subordinate to what is expected from the self and others.

Online Communities.

Online identities struggle to remain genuine when cancel culture exists, as online communities become stronger and increase in influence and means to cancel. As technology evolves and provides spaces for online communities to emerge, many have been quick to criticise these changes in community. Traditional community is often romanticised and remembered fondly, in contrast to the rejection of communities created by new technologies, supported by Taylor Dotson’s belief that “networked individualism” is causing a decline in strong communities (Hampton & Wellman, 2018). Despite this belief in the decline of community, technology does provide new affordances that transform traditional communities. The World Wide Web (WWW) provides online spaces for individuals to interact, causing online communities to emerge that are much bigger and more diverse than previous communities, as space and time are no longer restrictive factors. These communities can be understood as networked publics according to Boyd (2010). She argues that networked publics are offline publics that have been broken down and reassembled so that they can function within networked technologies. Networked publics are the imagined collective of online users, that has occurred through the merging of networks, individuals, and the use of these online spaces (Boyd, 2010). These changes to the structural characteristics of communities can be explained through the affordances that digital technologies provide, including persistent contact and pervasive awareness. Persistent contact is afforded through digital technologies such as social media sites allowing for social connections to endure and last past normal offline circumstances, as people have 24/7 online access to their friends, families, and co-workers. This contact allows users to not have to put substantial amounts of time and effort into their relationships meaning they are able to maintain them even as significant life events such as leaving the country occur. Pervasive awareness affords users the ability to maintain contact with other online users, through sharing pictures or messages whenever and wherever they want, as online communities remain active always (Hampton, 2016). These affordances of persistent contact and pervasive awareness, allow online communities to always be active and conversational, meaning that shared values become established and strengthened very quickly. Through the active monitoring of these spaces by its users, when one goes against these shared values, disruptions and backlash emerge to put the offender back in line. The power online communities hold, can influence both existing and new members to act accordingly, and can impact their online ‘genuine’ identity (Hampton, 2016). The process of communities cancelling offenders growing from a small group of users to a large, globally stretching group, is crucial to understand in determining both how online communities can gain a collective identity, and how this impacts the way identities are presented within it.

Collective Identity in Online Communities.

Online communities can gain collective identities through multiple circumstances, including ‘cancelling’ an individual or group. Through examining social identity theory, collective identity emerges as it concerns itself with identity processes through group situations and dynamics. Collective identity is theorised to occur when individuals share common values and interests creating a sense of belonging. Online groups share a collective identity, feel connected to other members, and come together to create action and social change (Jasper, 2001). An example of this is Harry Potter author, J.K Rowling, who was cancelled by a community that came together in support of transgender rights when she tweeted transphobic comments that were invalidating transgender identities (Quatrini, 2022). J.K. Rowling received death threats from online users and had cast members of the Harry Potter movie series speak out against her comments, such as Daniel Radcliffe, Evanna Lynch, and Emma Watson, in support of transgender people (Lenker, 2020). The backlash that J.K Rowling received and continues to receive, is an example of what occurs if you make statements or remarks that are transphobic in online spaces that do not tolerate transphobia. Her full loss of platform is yet to occur however, but her reputation and idealisation have been tainted immensely. It is hard to equate this level of backlash for someone as famous and well-known as J.K. Rowling, to a non-famous online individual. Despite this, it can be theorised that Harry Potter fans may adjust their online identity to align more with transgender rights, in pursuit of not being ousted from their online fandom that has displayed a somewhat collective identity of supporting transgender rights. This adjustment of online identity can be further explored by examining the process of self-presentation and how this functions online. According to Papacharissi (2011), self-presentation is a constantly changing factor of identity, as it adjusts and evolves based on cultural, political, and social factors of the time. When individuals interact on online social networks, they are constantly self-presenting by having to create a personal profile with a description and photo of themselves, as well as having to choose whom to follow and friend request. What online individuals choose to post, and how they publicly interact and create content, cause both an individual and collective identity to be presented online (Papacharissi, 2011). However, both the individual and collective identity formed by online users, struggle to be considered ‘genuine’ as pressures from big-time data collating everyone’s online past and present, forces users to have to manage their identity so that they maintain a desired self-presentation online (Brusseau, 2019). This was also an offline occurrence before the digital age, as individuals presented the best version of themselves despite economic and political barriers, however, it has been extended to online spaces and has become a more intertwined and complex management of identity.

Counterarguments.

Online identities struggle to remain ‘genuine’ when cancel culture exists, evident finally by exploring how cancel culture can both silence and project different and controversial opinions and beliefs. The importance of examining this aspect of cancel culture lies in the counterargument it makes against this paper. This counterargument outlines that despite cancel culture existing, there are people who still speak out against the masses, and do not let the fear of being cancelled, stop them from using their ‘genuine’ voice and identity online. When examining cancel culture, two distinct perceptions arise. First, cancel culture is argued to be a silencer of free speech, and an effort to take the voice of the people, carried out by a mob rule with a collective identity (Saint-Louis, 2021). The second perception of cancel culture, regards it as a driver of social change and online advocacy, that places pressure on beliefs and opinions disagreed with. Cancel culture significantly impacts societal awareness and perceptions regarding social issues, therefore causing social change (Reddy & Andrews, 2022). This perception of cancel culture as a driver of social change is evident in the #MeToo movement, which prompted a huge shift in social awareness surrounding sexual abuse and harassment of women, as victims spoke out online against their abusers. It began with women coming forward in 2017 and accusing a very powerful man in Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein, of sexual harassment (Winchester, 2018). Since 2017, the #MeToo movement has led to social change evidenced by workplace anti-harassment bills being passed, more women coming forward against their abusers, and a shift in societies understanding regarding the reality of sexual abuse and harassment experienced by women (Corbett, 2022). Harvey Weinstein became a target of cancel culture and was ostracised and shunned from society. As Saint-Louis (2021) would argue, cancel culture created a huge backlash against Harvey Weinstein as more women began to come forward, leading to third parties such as state authorities, to act and send him to jail, therefore, enacting his cancellation. The #MeToo is an example of how times of pressure and social change, can challenge identities, such as causing users to promote this movement when they might not agree with it themselves, to fit into the norms of the current political landscape. Erving Goffman’s belief that individual consciousnesses is not solid, and is constantly changing depending on context (Elkin, 1958), can be applied to this example, by social movements like this causing identities to be reassessed and re-evaluated. Therefore, online identities struggle to maintain ‘genuine’ as cancel culture acts as a driver of social change and places online identities in a state of chaos as they adapt to reflect current social contexts and remain free from cancellation.

Conclusion.

Online identities struggle to be considered ‘genuine’ when cancel culture exists. As explored in this conference paper, cancel culture is a mass mobilised effort to rectify an offender’s actions or words that do not align with said group. By cancelling an offender, collective identities emerge within these groups, as they band together for a shared cause. This was demonstrated by discussions of J.K. Rowling, Daniel Maples, and the #MeToo movement. By examining these examples of cancel culture alongside theories of postmodernist identity, it is concluded that online identities struggle to be genuine, as cancel culture causes users to be alert, careful, and precise with how they choose to present their identity online. Identity, therefore, has been minimally or maximally altered to fit better into the contemporary social and cultural standards of the society and communities it exists in, and struggles to remain ‘genuine’ online.

List of References.

Boyd, D. (2010). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics. In Z. Papacharissi, A
Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (39-58). Taylor & Francis Group. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=574608.

Brusseau, J. (2019). Ethics of identity in the time of big data. First Monday, 24(5-6).
https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i5.9624

Corbett, H. (2022). #MeToo Five Years Later: How The Management Started And What
Needs To Change. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hollycorbett/2022/10/27/metoo-five-years-later-how-the-movement-started-and-what-needs-to-change/?sh=45803b605afe

Cover, R. (2012). Performing and undoing identity online: Social networking, identity
theories and the incompatibility of online profiles and friendship regimes. Convergence: The International Journey of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(2), 177 – 193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856511433684

Flaxman, S., & Sharad Goel, & Justin M. Rao. (2016). FILTER BUBBLES, ECHO
CHAMBERS, AND ONLINE NEWS CONSUMPTION. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(SPECIAL ISSUE: PARTY POLARIZATION (2016), 298-320. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44014621

Frederick, E. (1958). Socialization and the Presentation of Self. Marriage and Family
Living, 20(4), 320-325. https://www.jstor.org/stable/348253

Hampton, K., N. & Barry Wellman. (2018). Lost and Saved… Again: The Moral Panic
about the Loss of Community Takes Hold of Social Media. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 47(6), 643-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306118805415

Hampton, K., N. (2015). Persistent and Pervasive Community: New Communication
Technologies and the Future of Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(1), 101-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215601714

Hand, V. (2006). Operationalising Culture and Identity in Ways to Capture Negotiation
of Participation across Communities. Human Development 49(1), 36-41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26763867

Kurtri, P. 2020. The Canberra Times. Available from https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6889843/beware-the-sinister-dangers-of-cancel-culture/ (24/04/23).

Lenker, M., L. (2020). Every Harry Potter actor who’s spoken out against J.K. Rowling’s
controversial trans comments. Entertainment. https://ew.com/movies/every-harry-potter-actor-whos-spoken-out-against-j-k-rowlings-controversial-transgender-comments/

Papacharissi, Z. (2011). Conclusion: A Networked Self (Chapter 15). In Z. Papacharissi
(ed) A Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites. Routledge.

Polletta, F., & James, M., Jasper. (2001). Collective Identity and Social Movements.
Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283-305. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2678623

Quatrini, A. (2022). On J.K. Rowling’s Discourse on Transsexual Issues, An Analysis of
the Language Used on Rowling’s Twitter and the Sociolinguistic Implication of Hate Speech. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 8(2), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.18178/IJLLL.2022.8.2.328

Reddy, V., & Donna Andrews. (2021). Cancel Culture: Shrinking or Remaking
Narratives? (2022). Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa 106, 130-132. doi:10.1353/trn.2021.0026.

Samuel, R., E. (2022). TikTok Drew Afualo Knows Exactly How To Silence Misogynistic
Bullies. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tiktoker-drew-afualo-knows-exactly-how-to-silence-misogynistic-bullies_n_63124ad7e4b0902717944f84

Saint-Louis, H. (2021). Understanding cancel culture: Normative and unequal
sanctioning. First Monday, 26(7), 1. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i7.10891

Winchester, I. (2018). MeToo in an Educational Context. The Journal of Educational
Thought (JET), 51(1), 1-6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26873048

Wong, R., SC., (2022). Revisiting Cancel Culture. Contexts, 21(4), 69-73.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15365042221131087

Zake, I. The Construction of National(ist) Subject: Applying the Ideas of Louis Althusser
and Michel Foucault to Nationalism. Social Thought & Research, 25(1/2, Postmodernism, Globalization, and Politics (2002)), 217-246. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23250012