For the sake of argument, let’s say something called “cancel culture” exists as a 21st-century specific example of collective, reactionary shunning of an undesirable person or viewpoint, perpetuated by leftists, and primarily preying on right-of-center viewpoints.
Such behavior would be nothing new. Every culture is constantly trying to push its adherents to conform, and wielding its own specialized form of ostracism to enforce this conformity.
But if this “cancel culture” is reactionary, what is it reacting to? Isn’t being reactionary the traditional tactic (and duty) of conservatives who are, by definition, trying to “conserve” a unitary culture?
I would suggest here that “cancel culture,” is a reaction to an argumentative tactic for which I have yet to see a clear definition. For the lack of a better term, let’s call this tactic, to which “cancel culture” is a reaction, something appropriate to its nature: fence pissing.
Two examples may suffice. Please note that I am not attempting to describe “troll” or “wedge issue” or their many variants. This is something different.
Example 1:
Imagine you own a piece of property. Lucky you, right, in this day and age? You share a boundary with a neighbor. This boundary is marked by a physical fence. The fence doesn’t actually stop anyone from crossing; it serve chiefly as a marker and a reminder of the legal status of the two plots. This side is mine, that side is yours. You do your business there, I do my business here. A social-capitalist boundary. All is good.
Until one day you wake up, survey your domain, and note that the fence is soaked in piss. It stinks awful as it’s so saturated. The fence itself is largely ruined. Perhaps you could wait for the sun to dry it out. You tell your neighbor about this, knowing all the while that they pissed on the fence, and they smirk and only agree to help replace the fence if the fence is re-positioned a little further onto your property. After all, they argue, that’s where it should have been in the first place, and perhaps even claiming that the new proposed position reflects where it was originally.
Without much choice, you agree and the fence is replaced, and you have slightly less land than before.
The next day you wake up and the fence is soaked in piss again.
Example 2:
Let’s say “Steve” is prejudiced against transgendered people, and motivated to do something about it rather than keep such thoughts to himself. The reason for this prejudice is irrelevant. More important for this example is that Steve knows quite well that he cannot say his opinion about transgendered people aloud in most settings without negative consequences. He feels hemmed in and constricted. How dare society muzzle him? Whatever happened to freedom?
Steve notes, however, that there is a peripheral way to act on his prejudice that is far more socially acceptable; he can wax at length about how transgender athletes should not compete in women’s sports. This doesn’t attract as much ire because he can frame his objection through notions of fair play and equity for women, which are also legally protected and offer a strong counterargument. He can also gain allies for this argument that he would not have gained if he simply stated he doesn’t like transgendered people. Steve doesn’t really give a damn about the specific issue he’s chosen; it’s primarily a way for him to express his prejudice without much risk to himself and make life a little more difficult for those he dislikes – not just transgendered people, but the people who support them as people with rights like all others.
Note that everyone who expresses concern about transgendered athletes having an unfair sporting advantage does not necessarily share such a deep-seated bias; rather, I’m saying that the peripheral issue allows Steve a relatively safe outlet to express his prejudice as his bias is cloaked by the presence of those focused on the competitive aspects, who, again, may not be fully aware of the beliefs and motivations of their apparent allies such as Steve.
I’ve called the issue of transgender athletes a “peripheral” one because it sits at the boundary (or “periphery,” around the edge, much like, say, “cough” a fence) of more centralized and difficult issues of sex and gender; namely, what is a “man” and “woman,” who gets (or is allowed) to be called a “man” and “woman,” and what benefits, responsibilities, and complications are respectively attached to these concepts. Sport competition is important, but it’s only one way that those core issues manifest.
But Steve doesn’t want to participate in any core debate. For him, there is nothing to debate or discuss. So he pisses on the fence itself, the social boundary where differences are negotiated and society itself is held together. If anyone confronts him on what he’s doing, he cries foul, notes that the fence is technically intact, and he is a strong support of rights of women, even, and refuses to compromise unless he gains something from the exchange. For him, any rules of discourse are for fools, and a poisoned debate is an advantage.
But. What if. Back to Example 1.
Let’s say you choose to ignore Steve the fence-pisser instead of playing their loaded game. The fence, albeit rather smelly and damp, remains in place. The sun begins to do its important work.
Impatient with the lack of progress and attention, Steve makes a selfie of themselves pissing on the fence and posts it to social media. Or the new media equivalent. Perhaps he dumps a truck full of manure on the property line. Use your vivid imagination.
Other fence-pissers are suitably impressed. This is now pretty close to classic “troll” behavior. People with social investments in intact fences are outraged. Collective shame is applied, as no one with a good fence wants it ruined; to allow such behavior to go without comment is unthinkable. If an apology is extracted, fence owners rejoice. If it is declined, fence-pissers are emboldened to piss further.
Cancel culture, then, would be a reaction borne not of encroaching new ideas, but a defense of a preexisting boundary in the face of trolling.
Or is it? What if it’s the other way around?
What if the “left” is actually the side engaged in fence-pissing behaviors, pushing all sorts of newfangled ideas like the normalization of transgendered rights, and the right is… umm… cancelling…
Yep.
In any heated rhetorical dispute, either of these two tactics may be in use by any given side. They aren’t new 21st-century things, but behaviors that would arise in any complex community where people live close together and share some basic assumptions about acceptable behavior. The common denominator is the fence, the boundary area, the periphery where the struggle for meaning takes place. We’ve seen this play out many times before. Fence pissing is therefore a tactical maneuver to push the acceptable spectrum of opinion on an issue, sometimes referred to as the Overton Window, in a desired direction. However, it is an innately destructive maneuver, as it corrupts the nature of the boundary itself that could otherwise be changed peacefully through respectful negotiation. It makes the use of a given logical fallacy look halfway respectable.
Ideally, a careful dialectic would be the only behavior that takes place at the fence; two neighbors, talking with respect, keeping in mind that the legal boundary between their lands has always been a fiction, and making sure their zippers are firmly closed.
But if the opening gambit is to piss on the fence, to destroy the very arena of meaning for a momentary advantage, standing there and insisting on respectful dialectic is a tough sell. This has always been the weakness of systems of rhetoric and dialectic that insist on rules of conduct – anyone willing to break them has an advantage.
Think about your options for response to a soaked fence. The structure of society itself, perhaps, has been defiled. No one wants to stand there and be disrespected. That only leads to more of the same. A strong “fight” reaction seems appropriate. But the reaction is what the fence pisser wants. Attention and respect and a chance to move the fence. They are not building a fence, or planting a field, or raising a child. All they have to offer to society is a stream of urine.
The smart move is, if you can afford it, silence.
But maybe we can’t always wait for the sun to do its disinfectant work.
In some situations, maybe even more, a silent treatment reaction to fence-pissing is not enough, especially if shame has no effect.
A stronger reaction is needed. You pissed on my fence? Oh, look, your barn seems to be on fire. Try pissing on that. Conflict resolution via the Chicago way, as Sean Connery once put it.
Thus he effective strategy against fence-pissing is about the same as the winning strategy against a bully. Disregard if you can; fight like hell if you cannot. This principle scales up well. Ukraine is giving a class to the entire world on how the second option works, after years of Putin fence-pissing.
I’ll admit “cancel culture” as a term still has a bit of that new-car smell, but once that wears off, there’s a more familiar odor. That said, either side of “fence pissing” and “cancel culture” don’t neatly fit into the rhetorical systems I’ve seen, which tend to concentrate on fallacies, emotional appeals, and scapegoating when they do discuss “bad” rhetoric, if at all.