What Is Cancel Culture? (Part 2 of 3)
Three key differences between cancel culture and a traditional boycott.
Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.
This essay is the second installment of a three-part series titled “What Is Cancel Culture?” Part 1 addressed the question of when firing someone for their political views constitutes standard business practice and when it crosses into an example of cancel culture. This essay, Part 2, explores what sets cancel culture apart from a traditional boycott by examining their very different aims.
About the Author
Julian Adorney is the founder of Heal the West, a Substack movement dedicated to preserving and protecting Western civilization. You can find him on X at @Julian_Liberty.
Some commentators who want to dismiss fears of cancel culture suggest that cancel culture is just a new form of the traditional boycott. For example, Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan, describes cancel culture as “a cultural boycott.” While acknowledging its flaws, she also argues that it fosters a “culture of accountability” and represents the “ultimate expression of agency” for people who have been historically marginalized.
Boycotts are an essential feature of capitalism. From the Montgomery bus boycott to boycotts of Nike over their use of sweatshops in the 1990s, boycotting has been a powerful tool for consumers to band together to exert prosocial pressure on companies or individuals who behave badly. By suggesting that cancel culture is just another form of boycott, scholars like Nakamura lend it a veneer of legitimacy that it does not deserve. In this article, we’ll identity three key differences between cancel culture and a traditional boycott.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Reality’s Last Stand to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.