Cancel Culture Is A Normal Part of Human Evolution

In today’s polarized social landscape, few topics evoke as much controversy and debate as “cancel culture.” While most will argue for or against it on the grounds of some form of virtue signaling, I would like to explain how it has a natural place in our society. The idea of cancel culture is so ingrained in our society that it seems to fit into a broader social pattern akin to social Darwinian evolution.

Darwin teaches us that everything evolves, mutates, and grows to reach a more perfect version of itself. This idea was later extended beyond biology through a concept known as social Darwinism, which applies the principles of natural selection to human societies. Social Darwinism posits that, just as in nature, the ‘fittest’ ideas, practices, or groups in society survive, while those deemed weaker or less valuable are gradually eliminated. Though historically controversial and sometimes misapplied to justify social inequalities, this concept helps explain how certain societal norms and values become dominant while others fade away. While we normally speak of Darwin’s teachings concerning physical traits, this same evolutionary process can be observed in how our society’s values have grown and adapted over time.

Just as physical skills like a chameleon’s color-changing give them an edge to survive in the harshness of the jungle, certain ideas and values in our society have persisted because they are more valued and others removed. For example, the ancient empires loved engaging in conflict to the point that it almost felt like their hobby. As the Greek philosopher, Polybius, said about the matter,

For it is not possible to live a life of total peace and tranquility, nor indeed would such a life be desirable for it would involve indolence and monotony. War, on the other hand, with its ups and downs, exercises a wonderful influence over the character.

The Romans would engage in full military campaigns simply for the glory of the individual. Imagine the absolute hellfire that would erupt if the president declared war on Mexico just so he could say that he won a war against Mexico. With time, we have grown to believe that war is wrong and should be avoided at all costs. We created the United Nations so the world can engage in meaningful communications to avoid another global conflict because

WAR = BAD

Similarly, our definition of morality has continued to evolve and has remained fluid. It competes with opposing points to create a more perfect definition but is never truly solidified. And, this competition is the heart of social Darwinism and cancel culture.

For this reason, I argued that canceling is not necessarily a good or bad thing, it’s simply a part of human societal evolution. It helps us to understand and categorize the world around us. Daniel Kahnemann would have referred to this as a part of our System 1 “Fast Thinking” process.

When Meghan Twohey, Jodi Kantor, and later Ronan Farrow, published their reports uncovering the misconduct of Harvey Weinstein, everyone agreed that Weinstein was a bad person and his base actions were inexcusable. Within days, he was fired from his company, expelled from the major industry societies, removed from numerous roles in movies, and had awards rescinded. Harvey Weinstein had officially been canceled by our society because his actions, as deemed by our society were negative. There was no misunderstanding about the feelings towards it and even further spawned the MeToo Movement.

Generations of negative reinforcement engrained into us that his actions were improper and indecent. It removed the “acceptance of sexual assault” from our social gene pool and left us with the situation at hand. Weinstein himself had been canceled, but the act of canceling was just another example of social Darwinism and negative reinforcement for his actions.

However, as I said earlier, these social values are competing. Certain values like in the case of Harvey Weinstein are established, however, some values still need to be solidified. Some values still compete for the top prize and have our society as the battlefield.

Take Dave Chappelle for example. Over his two comedy specials “Sticks & Stones” and “The Closer”, he made several jokes about the LGBTQ+ community, drawing criticism from many critics and viewers alike. Many viewers found his jokes offensive and condemned them for being transphobic and homophobic. However, not all were in agreement on the condemnation of the comedian. Others defended his jokes citing artistic freedom or provoking thoughts and discussions. I would be remiss in not mentioning that some who defended him simply did so out of genuine transphobia and homophobia.

At this moment, the consensus of the LGBTQ+ community is still being fought over. It’s not yet clear whether society considers acceptance of the community as the dominant view and whether it endures or falls to evolution and will be considered taboo in time.

In conclusion, although cancel culture is often viewed through the lens of controversy, it can be better classified as a natural extension of social evolution. Just as Darwin spoke of species adapting and evolving through a process of natural selection, so too do our societal values and norms. The swift condemnation of figures like Harvey Weinstein reflects the collective decision to reject certain behaviors that have no place in society. Conversely, the ongoing debates surrounding Dave Chappelle illustrate that not all social values are settled and they continue to compete and evolve.

I argue that rather than viewing cancel culture as inherently good or bad, it should be recognized as a mechanism through which society navigates the complex process of moral and ethical refinement. It acts as a filter by preserving the favorable values while discarding those that no longer serve the collective good. However, this process is far from complete. As our society grapples with issues of morality, identity, and freedom of expression, cancel culture will remain a powerful force, shaping and being shaped by the ever-evolving landscape of human values.