Woke and Cancel Culture: A Cultural War Fought by Non-Partisans of the Cause 

In the age of political correctness and ‘woke-ness’, being offended in behalf of others has become normalized.  Woke culture that has perpetuated call-out culture or the normalization of publicly calling out individuals who say or do things that are deemed to be ‘problematic.’ In some cases, the consequences that follow are extreme. The said consequences can range from the simple malignment of said individuals to even damaging and life-altering consequences. 

 

The history of woke culture is rooted in the Black Lives Matter movement. It aims to fight against the oppression and systematic violence that African Americans experience in their everyday lives. An article written by Aja Romano (2020) traces the start of woke culture to the year 1923 when African American activist Marcus Garvey called on to African-Americans all over the globe to develop a social and political consciousness through the words: “Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!”. The term ‘stay woke’ also appears in the afterword of the recording of the 1938 protest song of Huddie Ledbetter’s Scottsboro Boys. Ledbetter wrote the song after meeting with the attorney of the nine accused Black teenage boys facing charges of raping two Caucasian females. In which the phrase was used in the same context as Garvey’s – to wake up black consciousness and become aware of the dangers that White America poses to the African-Americans. The phrase gained traction in 2014 during the birth of the Black Lives Matter movement sparked by the police brutality case that resulted in the murder of Michael Brown in Fergurson Missouri. In the rally for Brown, the catchphrase ‘stay woke’ was used as a cautionary phrase for people to become more vigilant in watching for police brutality and unfair political tactics used against African-Americans.

​

Since then, the term ‘woke’ has now progressively evolved to encompass social justice and political progressiveness as a whole. It has deviated from the original context and has been adopted by the mainstream media as a slang to identify staunch advocates of social justice and political correctness in contemporary political concerns. This has paved the path for the development of ‘cancel culture’ as a tool to enforce the ideology that woke culture now perpetuates. 

​

Another article written by Aja Romano (2020) states that cancel culture is the phenomena where public figures face the consequence of getting ‘cancelled’ or blocked from having cultural and public platforms as a consequence of offensive actions and sentiments. Through collective action driven by social justice and political progressiveness, the public individuals face the consequence of public backlash. These may take the form of boycotting and the public call for accountability for the offense that they may have committed against the public. The ironic thing about it is the fact that the term ‘cancel’ takes roots in a misogynistic jokes in media. Whereas artists like Lil Wayne and director Michael Barry Cooper, utilizes phrases like ‘cancel the bitch’. In 2014, the phrase began to take traction due to an episode of Love and Hip-Hop: New York, after a character told his love interest the lines “You’re cancelled” as a witty punchline. The term later evolved to calling out celebrities through Tumblr vlogs dedicated to pointing out problematic and toxic tendencies of celebrities. The criticism called out naturally escalated to the calling for public accountability in the later years. 

​

However, the evolution of cancel culture has led to a more extreme path. The evolution of the two aforementioned cultures has naturally paved the path for ‘outrage culture’ or the culture of people easily becoming outraged in the face of social injustice. It has allowed the culture of people being offended on behalf of others to perpetuate in the form of social justice. The invention of the internet and social media has allowed information to be easily accessible and call-outs now face more consequences for select individuals. Today, not only public figures can be called out and cancelled but also normal average people. There have been instances where private conversations were leaked onto public social platforms showing offensive tendencies of average people for the scrutiny of the public. It has led to the malignment, social ostracization, and cyber bullying that has led to mental and emotional distress for private individuals. Cases where public figures like J.K. Rowling were cancelled for offensive anti-trans sentiments have proven that cancel culture sometimes have non-long-lasting effects on big public figures. The case for smaller and average individuals with less power suffer more lasting effects in cancel culture. A news article written by Rachel Greenspan (2020) narrates the consequence of a racist Tiktok video posted by two Caucasian teenagers from Georgia. The information of the two teenagers spread throughout the internet, effectively causing them to become victim of cyber-bullying and their eventual expulsion from their highschool. 

​

One of the biggest platforms that perpetuate woke and cancel culture is the social media Tiktok. Tiktok has become one of the biggest social media platforms to date. Users are able to generate short videos that span up to sixty seconds for others to interact with. Interaction on the platform can be in the form of liking the video, commenting, reposting, and--depending on the settings of the creator’s account-- download and share the video on other platforms like messenger, twitter, etc. For reference of the population, Brandon Doyle (2023) states that Tiktok is available in over one hundred fifty (150) countries with over one billion users. The platform has generated over one billion active users per month—which in comparison to other social media giants like Facebook and YouTube with over 2.9 billion and 2.2 billion respectively—is actively and rapidly growing for an application that was only recently launched compared to the two aforementioned. 

​

Cases similar to the two teenagers from Georgia are pretty common today. Through the internet, woke culture and cancel culture has now become a reason to rage war against anything and everything that can be considered anything but politically correct. With the democratization of the internet that allows anyone and everyone to become outraged, it has been common for others to call out offensive behavior against a group even when they are not part of the said group themselves. Take for example the case of singer-song writer Beatrice Kristi Ilejay Laus or Beabadoobee. The Filipino songwriter was allegedly called out by a Caucasian Tiktok user for black-fishing or intentionally changing her appearance to look African-American. This controversy has been spread all over Tiktok, mostly fueled by content created by offended Caucasian Americans rather than those part of the ethnic group in question.

​

In an article published by CNN, Faith Karimi (2021) writes that black-fishing is a racist act parallel to blackface. It is rooted in the practice of non-Black individuals painting themselves to be Black for entertainment media such as plays and shows. The problem herein lies in the portrayal of the image of the African Americans as it was used to perpetuate stereotypes used against the race today. Blackfishing is the concept linked directly to cultural misappropriation where the African-American cultural artifacts are exploited and commodified by non-Blacks with out understanding the gravitas it has to the history and culture it represents. According to Karimi, black-fishing is inherently dangerous due to the African-American features and culture becoming aestheticized and thus only appreciated if other cultures adopt it thus effectively reinforcing the power dynamics that allow racism to perpetuate in society.  

​

Other Filipino creators on Tiktok have also been called out for black-fishing. Creators like Xenia Beatrix, a Filipina born with naturally dark curly hair, tan skin, and thick lips have been called out for copying the aesthetics of the African-Americans. Ms. Xenia posted a video of her putting on make up and the transformation from her bare face to the made-up image of her. To which a disgruntled Caucasian Tiktok user commented that Xenia was black-fishing. Other Filipinos have rallied to the defense of both Xenia and Beatrice but both instances stating that south east Asians naturally have features that may be similar to African-Americans. Some users even stated that the indigenous group of Aetas in the Philippines naturally have the features that a lot of internet users are quick to limit to only the African-Americans. 

​

The morality in terms of calling out these users lie in the moral sentiment that global users has now developed as a form of fellow-feeling for the African Americans in light of the Black Lives Matter movement. C. Jason Throop (2012) writes that moral sentiment, or the understanding of what is right and wrong, is fueled by emotions such as shame, passion, love, and sympathy. What is considered right and wrong depends on the emotions felt by an individual for another in the community. The fact that people able to witness the misery of others allows them to develop a fellow-feeling that propels them to act on their behalf. Given this, moral sense is developed through the interaction with society. Given that culture shapes social interactions and the lived realities of individuals, emotional response (and hence moral sense) is greatly shaped by the culture that people live in. 

​

The internet has basically formed a community that allowed people to connect and interact virtually. It has created a reality that effectively cultivates social interaction inside the realm of woke and cancel culture. The exposure of the global internet users to the plight of the African Americans in the Black Lives Matters has cultivated a fellow-feeling for the African-Americans. The moral obligation to become offended and hurt in behalf of the others in the community and therefore take action against what is perceived to be offensive is fueled by moral sentiment. Despite the lack of understanding regarding the Southeast Asian culture heritage, their emotions that fuel moral sentiment is the driving factor for what users consider is right in the face of the situation. 

​

However, this situation of moral sentiment proves similar to the problem outlined by Gayatri Spivak in her essay titled Can the Subaltern Speak (1994). Spivak outlines the problem of autonomy and authentic representation through the “liberation” of Indian women. Where the problem of autonomy lies in the type of liberation the Indian women were given by the European men who had “freed” them from the oppression of Indian men. The autonomy of Indian women was brought into question due to the degree of liberation given to the Indian women by the European men. Despite the concrete lived experience the women had, another actor totally unrelated and unfeeling for their reality took it upon themselves to liberate them from what the European’s reality deemed as ‘immoral.’ The problem herein lies the question of whether or not true liberation was attained due to the lack of authentic representation of the Indian woman voice in the fight. The European men had effectively spoken for the Indian woman and had taken it upon themselves to represent them in their problems. Instead of the oppressed speaking for themselves regarding their experience, they are spoken for by those who have not lived in their realities. Regardless of the intention to liberate them from oppression and to ‘free’ them, the type of liberation they are given come into question. Instead of liberation, the European men only enforced a different type of oppression upon the Indian women. 

​

The problem proposed by Spivak proves to be similar to the problem that woke culture is presenting now. Instead of the plight of minority coming to light, woke culture and cancel culture at its present state is only strengthening the hegemony in place. The power dynamics at play today only allow the more prevalent and powerful cultures to form affinity with those around the globe and therefore bring about moral sentiment for their cause. In the face of the Black Lives Matter movement that has gained traction over the years, the plight of the Southeast Asian take a backseat in the prioritization of a lot of global internet users. However, even the Black Lives Matter movement still face the same problem that Spivak pushes. A lot of the people who speak out about Blackfishing and Blackface are people who are not part of the race. A lot of those who are loud about it do not have the lived experience of the specific oppression the African-Americans experience now wield the power to speak for them. Like the Indian women whose voices are taken away in favor for the more powerful voices of the European colonizers who liberate them from the oppression of the Indian men, the voices of the African-Americans are distorted in favor for those who speak out for them on the internet. Even if liberation is given to them, it remains to be liberation that is not apt for their lived experience. In effect the representation of the minorities is not authentic and true but instead distorted and are spoken for by others in the community. 

​

In conclusion, getting offended in behalf of others and acting against the offense in behalf for them is immoral. In a sense it pushes back the fight that the minority group has fought for and pushes a different kind of oppression on them. Woke culture and Cancel culture are tools that only exacerbate oppression and violence in the community. Instead of perpetuating this, the society and community need to take a step back and evaluate the direction that woke and cancel culture is taking. Both pave the way for non-discussion of movements and social issues because of encouraging minorities to speak for themselves. Instead, the movements have now taken the form of vigilante justice acted upon by the more privileged who falsely believe a sense of obligation to act as protectors for a cause that is not theirs to fight. Though they are not excluded from it, privileged individuals who occupy a more powerful position should keep in mind that they are not the primary warriors of the war they want to fight. They are only supporters