Honor and Shame?
“Cancel culture” has always seemed to be one of those terms that everybody uses differently. Ask ten people what it means, and you’ll get ten different answers. This coupled with the fact that many examples of canceling seem happen to celebrities and/or public figures, I’ve never really given too much thought to cancel culture. This book changed my mind. This book made me sit and up pay attention.
In The Canceling of the American Mind: How Cancel Culture Undermines Trust, Destroys Institutions, and Threatens Us All Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott analyze society’s shift toward “speech policing” and “ideological discrimination.”[1] They liken our current era to the Red Scare of McCarthyism in the 1950s when colleagues and neighbors were encouraged to denounce each other for unpopular views.[2] They also point out that cancel culture is a “natural extension of call-out culture: going from pointing out a problem to calling for the head of the one who caused it.”[3]
Two chilling examples helped me understand the extent to which cancel culture is a threat to objective truth, reason and free speech. The first is the firing of Professor Richard Taylor from St John’s University in New York. His offense was to ask his class a nuanced question about trade, which included grappling with the reality of slavery.[4] As far as I understand, he in no way expressed support for slavery, but rather he was doing his job by making students analyze and think critically about historical events.
The second striking example happened at Stanford Law School. Stuart Kyle Duncan, U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judge, was invited to speak but effectively shouted off the stage by disrupters.[5] In this case a legal professional who certainly would have had something valuable to contribute to the education and understanding of the protesters, law students, was threatened and silenced to the point of being escorted from the event by federal marshals.
These two examples call to mind Lukianoff and Schlott’s words: “It’s clear by now that both the left and the right can perpetuate cancel culture. And the only way out of this sticky situation is for both sides to adopt an attitude that allows for people in our society to have radically different points of view on any number of issues.”[6]
The more I learn about cancel culture, the more I’m convinced of an idea that’s been rattling around in my head for a while now. Bear with me as try to work this out, and please don’t cancel me if you disagree. I see American culture moving away from its traditional guilt-based framework and becoming a more shame-based culture.[7] At the risk of making sweeping generalizations, we seem to be increasingly concerned with how our words and actions will be perceived than with their objective right-ness or wrong-ness. I hear people talking about “the optics” or “the message we’re sending”. The facades we put up on social media, in other words showing only the best parts of our lives, play into this cultural shift as well. We are increasingly hyper-aware of how we are perceived by others, whether they think well or think poorly of us. Lukianoff and Schlott connect this to cancel culture in describing a common American’s “fear that saying the wrong thing could change your life forever.”[8]
From an anthropological standpoint, shame-based culture is not better or worse than guilt-based culture. However, we’ve probably all seen ways in which this cultural shift has caused individual harm and wreaked havoc on various pockets of society. In the wake of these seismic cultural shifts, what can be done to restore a little sanity and respect to public life and discourse? Lukianoff and Schlott offer a number of ideas:
1. When we find ourselves in a contentious discussion, address the argument and not the person (or any aspect of the person’s identity or any past actions or stances taken by the person).[9]
2. Fight against the “erosion of civility in discourse.” Let’s abandon tactics like shouting down our opponents or moral grandstanding. Let’s get better at listening and reasoning together.[10]
3. Make your dissent known. “Reform has to come from within. The right has to reform right and left has to reform left…Ingroup moderates have to find their voices.”[11]
I’m curious, which one of these suggestions is the most challenging for you? Or maybe there’s another aspect of this that you find more challenging? For me it’s often difficult to make my dissent known, because I truly want to be sensitive to others’ feelings and viewpoints. However, this book has helped me understand the value of speaking up instead of letting myself be silenced.[12]
________________________________________________
1 Lukianoff, Greg & Rikki Schlott. The Canceling of the American Mind: How Cancel Culture Undermines Trust, Destroys Institutions, and Threatens Us All. NY: Simon and Schuster, 2023. Chapter 3.
2 Ibid., Chapter 1.
3 Ibid., Chapter 1.
4 Adam Goldstein, “Professor removed by St. John’s for asking history question files lawsuit” February 8, 2021. https://www.thefire.org/news/professor-removed-st-johns-asking-history-question-files-lawsuit
5 Sabrina Conza and Alex Morey. “Stanford Law students shout down 5th Circuit judge: A post-mortem” March 13, 2023. https://www.thefire.org/news/stanford-law-students-shout-down-5th-circuit-judge-post-mortem#:~:text=On%20Thursday%2C%20U.S.%20Fifth%20Circuit,by%20dozens%20of%20protesters%20who
6 Lukianoff, Greg & Rikki Schlott. The Canceling of the American Mind: How Cancel Culture Undermines Trust, Destroys Institutions, and Threatens Us All. NY: Simon and Schuster, 2023. Chapter 7.
7 I was first introduced to the concept of guilt, shame and fear-based cultures through the work of Roland Muller, specifically his book Honor and Shame: Unlocking the Door, but there are many other sources that deal with the topic, notably anthropologist Ruth Benedict and missiologist Paul G. Hiebert.
8 Lukianoff, Greg & Rikki Schlott. The Canceling of the American Mind: How Cancel Culture Undermines Trust, Destroys Institutions, and Threatens Us All. NY: Simon and Schuster, 2023. Chapter 9.
9 Ibid., Chapter 6.
10 Ibid., Chapter 7.
11 Ibid., Chapter 7.
12 This week, more than most, I found myself with much more to say than 750 words allows. I can’t end without a nod to these two articles from Christianity Today that deal with different aspects of cancel culture in relation to our faith. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/august-web-only/old-testament-calls-out-cancel-culture.html and https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/november-web-only/john-calvin-martin-luther-reformation-cancel-culture.html
About the Author
Kim Sanford
9 responses to “Honor and Shame?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Kim,
You wrote, “However, this book has helped me understand the value of speaking up instead of letting myself be silenced.”
Tim Clark wrote that he has preached about “loving the alien amongst us.” He took a stand on Deut 10:18 (orphans, widows and the afore mentioned alien). He mentioned that he would to be cancelled for that sermon. Still he stands by the biblical mandate.
I wrote to him and expressed my fear that “immigration” was being cancelled by politicians and pundits on both sides of the political aisle.
It might have been nice to be be white, but I am a Chinese/Filipino balding male who identifies in Christ.
When we stand up in that identity, God applauds.
P.S. It would also be nice to have hair.
Selah….
Kim, I have an answer to your question, and then I have a question for you.
First, the “make your dissent known” is the hardest thing for me personally (especially in settings where I’m not exactly sure if trust has been established, perhaps especially in structures within my own theological or even organizational context). Rather than speaking freely or speaking my mind, I often hedge around what I might disagree with, and this is probably because I fear unknown ramifications. I want to get better at that. I think when I was younger, I was prone to dive into conflict (sometimes recklessly, too), but as responsibilities have increased over the years I tend to “self-censor.”
And now my question — How does self-censorship play out in a French context? I would imagine there’s nuance to “cancel culture” in your cultural setting, even though you are in a “Western” country and cancel culture is ubiquitous. But I’m curious if you see the same degree of shame in a French context that you are wondering about in other contexts?
Interestingly, cancel culture hasn’t taken over in France like it has in America, although it might be coming. Wokism is gaining ground in some circles, but I’ve also heard loud and widespread calls against such ideology. I think there are two major things to note. First, debate and reasoning is so highly valued in French culture that I don’t think cancel culture will ever manifest itself here like it does in America. If it does become more prevalent it won’t look the same. Secondly, the one topic that French people avoid discussing it’s religion because of that concept we discussed last semester – laïcité or secularism. In French culture, religion is something you’re supposed to keep private. You can imagine it makes our vocation rather tricky.
Kim, You wrote or asked this question: “Bear with me as try to work this out, and please don’t cancel me if you disagree. I see American culture moving away from its traditional guilt-based framework and becoming a more shame-based culture.”
I am very curious: Do you not see this in European culture? How do you compare it?
That’s a great question. I can’t speak for other European countries but in France the culture is quite shame-based, having nothing to do with recent shifts toward cancel culture. Motivation by shame has long been part of the culture, and we see it showing up most clearly in the education system. For example, when teachers hand back tests they will typically announce each student’s grade in front of the class.
“It’s clear by now that both the left and the right can perpetuate cancel culture. And the only way out of this sticky situation is for both sides to adopt an attitude that allows for people in our society to have radically different points of view on any number of issues.”
I love this quote Kim, Scott pulled it out as well in his posts. Its worth sharing. I like how this book discourages the “Us verses Them” mentality and that “the line between good and evil runs through every human heart.” Thinking on that really dissolves this tribalism we naturally default into by nature. Most people (in the middle) are reasonable and are not as far from the other as the media would have us believe. Great posts!
Hi Kim-
First, I definitely struggle in the “make your dissent known” area. I think that my reluctance to stick my neck out may make the problem worse.
Question for you: have you thought about the overlay of cancel culture and the concepts presented in Culture Map. In other words, do certain cultures attract a canceling practices more than others?
What a great question. I don’t recall the exact terms that Meyer uses, but they overlap closely with the widely accepted labels that Geert Hofstede uses, so I’ll use those. As I’ve thought about it, theoretically I might anticipate that a culture that tends toward high-context communication, collectivism and high power distance would be likely to cancel quickly. However, American culture is the opposite; American culture is considered one of the most low-context, individualist and low-power distance countries out there. Clearly there’s something else at play that I’m missing. I’m going to keep thinking about it. Thanks for the question.
Hello Kim, as usual good questions. When I read in the book,”Reform has to come from within. The right has to reform right and left has to reform left…Ingroup moderates have to find their voices,” I thought, wow, that’s a great idea. I tend to think the right has to reform the left and vice versa but I like this idea and I will eventually use it as I think through what is the best way to help my friends on both sides to educate or reform their side only. This really stuck with me and I’m looking forward to helping my friends wrestle with this concept.