ABSTRACT Many now criticise the purported tendency to condemn, shame, or call for consequences for those we disagree with in public debate, suggesting these actions are the antithesis of democratic participation. In this paper, I situate these frequently critiqued forms of anti-dialogic expression within an emerging tradition that recognises the democratic value of these kinds of expression, and elucidate the democratic credentials of speech acts more commonly derided as a contemporary cancel culture. I argue that these kinds of anti-dialogic counterspeech are a route to empowerment for otherwise silenced voices in the public sphere, and a necessary disruption to patterns of domination and subordination that enable harmful speech to proliferate in the public sphere. Acts of public shaming, condemnation, and calls for consequences that both eschew and seek to frustrate public debate can bolster inclusivity in the public sphere and undermine the unjust patterns of exclusion to which democratic deliberation ordinarily adheres.
Read full abstract