CANCEL CULTURE AS A TOOL OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Abstract

Cancel culture necessitates a thorough examination for optimizing the efficacy of reputation management and societal influence. It’s essential to assess its effectiveness in driving social change, recognize ethical nuances, and pinpoint potential issues. Originally a value-driven phenomenon, it has evolved into a manipulative tool, amplifying societal emotions. Despite attempts at crisis communication, it often fails to alleviate the consequences for individuals or businesses subjected to «cancellation». The purpose of the study. The article explores cancel culture as a mechanism for social influence and activity, presenting it as an ambiguous phenomenon without clear positive or negative connotations. Methods. The study employed interdisciplinary and logical methods, incorporating systemic and functional approaches, to comprehensively analyze cancel culture. The logical-contradictory method characterized cancel culture as a neutral phenomenon. Content analysis of mass media, social networks, and other platforms was conducted to determine its impact on the public sphere. Results.The article delves into cancel culture within an instrumental context, scrutinizing its effects on influencers and the broader audience. It highlights trends in cancel culture and its significance in the media landscape. Examining its origins across historical contexts, from ancient Greece to Soviet denunciations, reveals cancel culture’s rise in popularity through internet influence. Its core aim is to attribute «violations» to individuals or their communicators, employing mechanics like mass negative reactions and imposing consequences such as boycotts, dismissals, and even death threats. Cancel culture introduces contradictions, resembling a «witch hunt» with the potential for unfair cancellations due to the presumption of innocence and challenges in proving guilt. It denies the right to make mistakes and impacts individuals differently across cultures. While effective on social media, cancel culture often shifts from broad campaigns to personal-level cancellations, capturing societal attention and influencing perceptions of canceled entities.Despite initial destructiveness, it can stimulate constructive discussion and shape public opinion, but risks include excessive sensitivity and the potential for aggression and psychological self-assertion. Cancel culture poses the danger of low personal responsibility, fostering manipulation and abuse. Sociocultural aspects involve the tolerance paradox and the influence of egocentrism on participants.Cancelling may become a tool for personal aggression rather than a quest for justice. Distinguishing real violations from exaggerated or outdated statements is crucial to avoid unjust sanctions. Despite its justice-seeking appearance, cancel culture often relies on emotions and subjective factors, emphasizing the need for careful case analysis. Conclusions. Cancel culture provides a space for discussion as it can serve as a tool for advocating social change and raises questions about the responsibility of influential individuals. However, it is manipulative and selective, and the examination of each cancellation case should consider potential bias and subjectivity. Another danger lies in the increasing sensitivity of audiences to content, which may lead to the perception of offensive material without considering the real context of events.