Opinion: Cancel culture has its merits, but the left needs a better approach

It was almost exclusively the political right that complained about the amorphous specter of the culture of cancellation. Recently, at our Diversity and Inclusion Research Center, we noticed an intriguing shift in the zeitgeist: grievances are emerging on the left.

Whether it’s reproductive justice scientist Loretta Ross, pop star Lizzo As our own liberal students, we see a widespread desire on the left for a more constructive way of talking to each other about issues of identity – an approach that pushes people to communicate and improve rather than shutting down.

Unlike many critics of cancellation culture, we see value in some aspects of it. As psychologist Dolly Chugh points out, successful social movements need members who bring “warmth” and those who bring “light.” The first group stirs controversy with sit-ins, callouts, and strikes, and the second patiently explains. At best, these blunt, social media-based methods can shake people out of complacency and push leaders to implement systemic change. Especially when responding to crises such as police brutality against black Americans, this forced reckoning may be the only viable option.

But for those seeking to build a sustainable majority in support of progressive causes, this approach has significant drawbacks. This causes many would-be allies to be reluctant to speak out, feeling it is safer to sit on the sidelines than to venture back. Even worse, it makes some people go all out on the social justice project. In our work, we repeatedly encounter skeptics who sympathized with the inclusion efforts until they experienced what they believed to be excessive criticism. This could be a sign of too much heat or too little light.

Judging people for mistakes would be relatively safe if the perpetrators were a discrete group of bad actors. Yet we all make mistakes that can be offensive. We ourselves – unfortunately – used the wrong gender pronouns or confused students of the same ethnicity. A punitive approach in such situations does not encourage humility or growth. Rather, it creates situations where any sensible person would fear rejection because we all know we will make mistakes.

For this reason, social justice advocates must be instilled with a rehabilitative mindset that treats people as more than their faults. Instead of shaming someone for an offensive joke, an ally might say something like, “You’re a caring person, so what you said surprised me. Can you help me understand what just happened?” As psychologist Scott Plous points out, the person’s affirmation but questioning of the behavior sparks their “equal self-esteem,” which often leads them to resolve the dissonance through a behavior change.

Another disadvantage of the current discussion culture is that it does not really offer tools for improvement. It offers an important and necessary critique of the status quo, highlighting areas where institutions and individuals fail to meet the needs of marginalized people. Yet in ordinary conversation it offers little guidance as to what to do after one’s conscience has been awakened. This is a missed opportunity.

Navigating a rapidly changing social landscape requires skill, and that skill is highly learnable. This includes showing people how to build resilience when they want to hit and run, and how to cultivate curiosity instead of being judgmental. That means teaching people to respectfully disagree when they have a different perspective and sincerely apologize when they’ve hurt someone.

To be clear, the task of learning these skills should not fall to marginalized people who are the target of prejudice in a particular situation. Instead, we call on allies who are not directly affected by the behavior to step in and provide the perpetrator with insight and a path to avoid similar missteps in the future.

Does this approach enable criminals to avoid responsibility? We don’t think. Compassion and responsibility go hand in hand. When someone is ashamed of a mistake, they often try to justify the action. If they know they can maintain their integrity while admitting mistakes, they’re more likely to say, “You’re right. I screwed up and I’m sorry. Thanks for the information.”

As diversity and inclusion researchers, we’re optimistic that the conversation about cancellation culture can become more nuanced. At a dangerous political moment, a delay could draw more people from the sidelines to join the social justice movements we all desperately need.

Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow are Faculty Director and Executive Director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging at Netc Yorc YOUUniversity law school. They are co-authors of “Saying the right thing: how to talk about identity, diversity and equity.”