Bintang Amanah Setiawan (19082018)

PBI A-Semester 6

Youtube Video Resoome

CANCEL CULTURE: Who's Afraid of the Online Mob?

Several ideas have captured the collective imagination of the internet in the past year or
so of “cancel culture” which is a form of boycott in which someone, usually a celeb, has shared a
dubious opinion, or again, has a so-called problematic behavior on social media. The person is
then "cancelled", which basically means they are boycotted by a lot of people, sometimes leading
to a massive drop in the person's fan base and career.

For the uninitiated, the broad idea is that the contemporary internet has become where
people can be hostile to each other and write things without filtering their sentences first leading
to divisions. Saying the wrong thing, or even the right thing but in the wrong way or at the wrong
time makes someone easily "cancelled" in the world of social media. This will certainly be very
influential considering that the angry online masses will not stop until this “troublemaker” loses
his job, friends, and even his family and makes him completely isolated from public life.

The debate about this phenomenon reached a boiling point in July 2020, when an open
letter entitled A Letter on Justice and Open Debate, written by The New York Times Magazine
journalist Thomas Chatterton Williams and signed by 152 journalists, writers, and academics,
appeared in Publications. America's Harper's Magazine. Although it does not use the phrase
"cancel culture" itself, but more or less the letter contains content that alludes to cancel culture,
essentially emphasizing that freedom of expression is becoming increasingly limited.

There are several points that are the cause of this cancel culture, namely the frequent
involvement of "mass" figures. The phrases "rule of the masses" and "the mentality of the
masses" often appear in opinions and articles discussing void culture. In fact, Rowan Atkinson,
the actor who played Mr Bean, Blackadder and Johnny English, told British magazine Radio
Times that 'what we have today is the digital equivalent of the medieval mob roaming the streets
looking for someone to approach. burn'. Where the word "mob" itself does not appear, the
broader idea certainly exists.

At the heart of what we call the “cancel culture” is the idea that we are all at constant risk
of unwittingly angering the online mass of ruthlessness and unrelentingly, faceless digital crowd
prone to whipping itself. frenzy and which knows no bounds the devastation it causes. In doing
so, proponents of the culture hypothesis fail to capitalize on the strong and ingrained notion of
culture. The “mass” and the idea that individuals in crowds have a tendency to lose all sense of
reason and become vulnerable to engaging in acts of extreme violence are longstanding tropes.

The notion of individuals getting drunk by the crowd and becoming prone to committing
unthinkable acts as part of the mob, which was first expressed by Le Bon, continues to have
considerable currency. And, this is a compelling thesis. The only problem is, as soon as we try
and apply it to any real-world example of what might be described as mass, physical or digital,
Le Bon's thesis is anything but waterproof.

In fact, Le Bon's work gained attention in Jon Ronson's 2015 book So You've Been
Publicly Shamed which, upon publication, sparked the first wave of anxiety over online
"cancellations." Ronson's book starts from the proposition that the early 2010s marked what he
calls 'the beginning of a great revival of public humiliation' and argues that contemporary
examples of Twitter's reaction to celebrities and ordinary people can be likened to the historical
practice of public punishment, such as stocks. Ronson's discussion of Le Bonian's crowd
psychology is complex.

On the face of it, it was especially critical. Drawing on an interview with psychologist
Stephen Reicher, Ronson puts forward the way in which what may initially appear to be a united
and frenzied mass of Twitter is, in fact, always very diverse. He wrote that 'to Gustave Le Bon
the crowd was just another great explosion of ideological-free madness—a single blob of violent
color without variation. But that's not Twitter. Twitter doesn't speak with one voice'. He
highlights that, within each Twitter reaction, people's specific complaints and the forms they take
—from constructive criticism to heartfelt pleas to outright harassment—varies greatly. Later in
the book, Ronson points out that he had abandoned Le Bon's ideas from his analysis of so-called
"public shaming" completely. However, as soon as his direct critique of Le Bon was over, many
of the same ideas, that digital crowds were irrational, that they were intoxicating to those who
were "swept away" in them and that they had an inherent tendency to collapse, quickly emerged.
crawl back.

Many other studies analyzing the so-called "masses" have found that, once we look at
them in their proper social and historical context and explain the specific reasons they came
together, Le Bon's ideas start to look ridiculous. In fact, Le Bon's suggestion that we ignore such
details in favor of viewing the crowd phenomenon itself as a kind of intoxicating drink and those
who find themselves in the crowd suffering from something akin to mental illness, is the main
reason. his work was embraced by his colleagues. The ruling class of the late 19th century did
not want to see the masses who so often tried to overthrow them as intelligent and rational
people and they certainly did not want to contemplate the idea that the revolutions, protests and
mass movements that had dominated the previous century might in any way constitute the result
of their own actions in creating a highly unequal society.
 On the one hand, it is entertaining enough to describe these events as just another
example of what Charles Mackey called 'the madness of the crowd'. After all, Le Bon's ideas
were politically useful. Because, ignoring the individual specifics of crowds, his work implies
that all crowds are essentially the same. This showed that, no matter how orderly and peaceful
the crowds were, they were always a potential threat that needed to be suppressed. We can see
how strong this idea was in its influence on the novelist Charles Dickens. Dickens, as anyone
with only a glimpse of his work would know, was deeply distressed by the poverty and
inequality that surrounded him. However, as evidenced in his 1859 book A Tale of Two Cities,
he feared that any mass movement seeking to end the suffering would lead to unrestrained
violence. In 1848, he went further as a volunteer policeman to help suppress a gathering of
Chartists who were campaigning for a more representative democracy.

Another person who has experienced cancel culture is JK Rowling, a famous writer with
the most selling novels in history. He was "cancelled" because of his transphobic views. There is
of course a more basic question to ask here about whether someone who, at the time of listing,
had the number one book on the New York Times Bestseller list could meaningfully be said to
have been "cancelled". However, in light of the debate that has arisen around the affair, the way
those who so often defend Rowling try to shift the conversation toward the broad notion of
"canceling culture" manages to tacitly discourage people from actually looking inside.

However, just as, when we look at specific examples of physical mobs, we find they are
much more complex than Le Bon suggests, usually having very clear grievances and goals, so a
closer look at each online counterattack example usually reveals deep disagreements. very
specific. On some occasions, we may feel that certain comments or actions are justifiable to be
challenged ; other times, we may feel as though someone is being an unfair victim . But
maintaining that nuance is important if we are to have meaningful conversations about how we
want our public spaces to operate.

It is therefore important, when assessing the discussion of “cancel culture” to consider

how the wider inequities between who is allowed to be seen as an individual and who is denied
the privilege may be tacitly informing the conversation. To approach this from the opposite
angle, we should also be skeptical of the idea that those who present themselves as completely
disconnected individuals are inherently and extraordinarily rational. For, the last few years seem
to have seen a rising tide of contrarianism in our culture. This is evident in the (often sadly
enough) attempts by some to get themselves "canceled" as a means of gaining attention and
sympathy. It also had some resonance in the formation of conspiracy theory groups.

The point is that in using technology that spreads so quickly and is so easy to apply like
in today's world, we have to be careful to think that this is always the case; sometimes some
cases arise for a reason behind it and what the "masses" do may sometimes have a point. We just
need to look at the positive side of every situation.