Cancel culture permeates Smith conversations.
Every day, I hear the same political discourses circulating around campus. While the constant repetition of ideologies appears to show a general consensus on political perspective among students, I believe it is a product of self-censorship entrenched in cancel culture — the punitive approach of rejecting people with whom you disagree.
As a first-year international student, I find that class discussions and social media are overwhelmingly dominated by mainstream politics. Even the majority of ideological clashes remain within the politically correct left. I am not arguing against these notions, but rather focusing on how the lack of balanced exchanges results in homogeneous discourses and a segregation of students based on their position in relation to politically correct viewpoints.
Opening up to Smithies in private settings made me realize that I was not alone in my opinion. In fact, many of us felt uneasy articulating unpopular ideas and feared being ridiculed and rejected by the majority. It is important to note that this fear is not merely due to a fear of conflict and confrontation, but learned behavior from observing political interactions taking place at Smith.
On Sept. 8 2021, Nancy Pelosi was invited to our college to give a talk. Her presence led to a heated debate among the student body; some passionately welcomed her arrival and others condemned her hypocrisy for lack of action in implementing the Green New Deal, COVID-19 relief and Medicare for All. The addition of Trump supporters protesting outside John M. Greene Hall intensified the vitriol. On Instagram, there were several stories that extended that frustration towards those who attended Pelosi’s talk, with captions like “Everyone attending the talk tonight should be ashamed of themselves.” A friend of mine who shared a photo of Pelosi at the talk on her social media claimed to have received multiple messages questioning her political stance and some were even contemplating whether to end the friendship.
This instance highlights how quickly people are to judge and “cancel” different viewpoints without understanding where each individual is coming from. All attendees of the talk were either sorted into the category of politically wrong or politically insensitive. But the situation was more ambiguous than some may think. Many students, particularly international students, were simply excited to listen to a talk given by an American politician. Moreover, people’s tendency to extend their disapproval of someone’s opinion into a moral judgement is a major source of anxiety when engaging in political discussions. This leads to self-silencing or even the deliberate crafting of opinions that align with the majority that does not accurately represent the diverse opinions on campus.
For instance, during a department lunch gathering, I engaged in a discussion regarding the ongoing anti-CCP protests in Hong Kong. The dominating narrative expressed by many domestic students was that it was a battle of the brave Hong Kong left wing protesters against the oppressive Communist Party. They reinforced the notion that China is trampling on Hong Kong democracy and drew parallels between left-wing movements in Hong Kong and those of the West. Despite being brought up in Hong Kong and having a completely different political stance, I found it to be extremely difficult to articulate my thoughts. I was overwhelmed by the potential backlash I could suffer from considering how my opinion deviated from the norm expressed by other students. Instead, I succumbed to the social pressure of cancel culture and conformed to the ‘majority’ by engaging in self-censorship.
Cancel culture creates a hierarchy of opinions that is generated based on proximity to mainstream political ideologies, regardless of how they are formed individually. This creates an ‘us versus them’ mindset, automatically rejecting those that do not fit in the ‘politically correct’ sector. The invalidation of opposing ideas stifles open discussions and limits engagement with diverse viewpoints, which is counterproductive to a holistic education.
I argue that we put aside our obsession with classifying opinions into groups of “right” and “wrong,” and allow diverse ideas to freely interact, challenge one another and be understood empathetically from different perspectives. By doing so, we are drawing the line between call-in-culture and cancel-culture, engaging in the former and resisting the latter, and thus, creating space for new ideas to be generated.
As students of a leading liberal arts college that is praised for its inclusive, supportive and open-minded education experience, we should collectively work towards that goal by reforming the dynamics of our political sphere: Replacing fear, silencing and generalizing ideas with equal opportunity, a diversity of ideas and open minds.
