issue 20// vol 47 opinions // no. 19 Cancel culture or performative activism? » An artist's views are important to us, until the world turns against them CJ Sommerfeld Staff Writer We is your favourite artist? Maybe they are a cartoonist, a director, or some musician. What are their political ideals? What sort of clothes do they wear? What do they stand for? Iam sure everyone has someone who they have a cult-like obsession with. Whatever it was that lured you in was probably just the beginning. Likely, it was related to something superficial like the aesthetic of their art or blatantly, the way they looked. Their belief systems were some things which you probably later adopted or accepted even if they veered from one that you held previously. Artists are gods in some people’s eyes, as they assist us out of a hard time or encourage us to do better. Some of us gain a sort of artificial, one-way relationship with those we look up to, ingesting bits of information via interviews or articles, analyzing their lyrics or biases. Personally, I find myself more likely to adopt a new political ideal or even just a way of being if it was presented by or spoken about by someone whose art I enjoy. An example is what some could pejoratively label as the “white trash” lifestyle exhibited in Townes van Zandt’s documentary Be Here to Love Me. This lifestyle previously presented by The Simpson's Cletus (among other stereotyped characters), made me run from something that was quite close to my own upbringing. However, seeing it presented by someone whose music I admired made me doa double take. In his documentary, Zandt notes his music goals were not to make hits, but instead to create something raw and real; living a low-key life aided in him acquiring this. In the doc, he expressed that he never planned on making it to the Grand Ole Opery—a heaven of a performance venue for country singers, as it was not made for minor keys, like those which his songs were comprised of. (Minor keys produce more melancholic harmonies than that of a major key, invoking solemnity opposed to something exciting that you could two-step to.) He rebelled from a norm that would have provided him with more financial success than he ever wound up receiving. Instead, he stayed true Illustration by CJ Sommerfeld to his art. Zandt passed away in 1997, prior to the cancel culture movement. Would my obsession with him have ceased if his record label would have dropped him for propagating an image that went against their political views or something of the like? Now, do not get me wrong, cancelling someone has many times been appropriate. Anything related to sexual abuse or sexual coercion is demented—goodbye Harvey Weinstein and Woody Allen. | think saying racist slurs and divisive comments also justify this social mutiny—goodbye Cosmo Kramer and Don Cherry. Frankly, I think a lot of what people have been cancelled for is a good reason. But what happens if an individual is cancelled due to something that had already been known about them; something that had not stopped individuals from interacting with their art previously? Let us take Ariel Pink, for instance. After what seemed like a slow grave digging, in January 2021 he was dropped by his music label Mexican Summer. Attending the Capitol Hill protest (not storming the White House) was the cherry- on-top which ultimately encouraged his label to drop him. This happened despite him having been overtly pro-Trump for a long while. If you continue to listen to his music, are you worse off a person than you were prior to him being cancelled? Or are you a better person if you jump on the bandwagon and similarly snub him, despite being aware of his right-wing extremist stance previously? Marilyn Manson has also recently been repudiated after his ex-wife Evan Rachel Wood has accused him of abusing her. His record label Loma Vista as well as TV shows American Gods and Creepshow both dropped him following these allegations. In an interview following this, singer-songwriter Phoebe Bridgers criticizes all those who have cancelled him in saying that they were aware of the abuse previously; the move was simply performative activism. At what point is boycotting performative activism? Where does the line blur between cancelling someone due to your own will, and doing so to be a part of some social movement? Is the value of ‘agreeing to disagree’ lost? » The hurdles in achieving agreeability in the current political climate Janis McMath Editor-in-Chief he numerous protests, violent clashes, and calls to destroy biased media from both sides clearly speak to the political polarization of our generation. In a 2017 study of thousands of Americans, nonpartisan think tank Pew Research looked to answer the question of how polarized the public has become. Pew Research found that only 32 percent of people expressed a mostly equal number of liberal and conservative stances; in 2004, nearly 50 percent of people had a balance of liberal and conservative views. The same study found that, previously, Republicans and Democrats experienced more of an ideological overlap. On their 10-question survey, Pew Research asked a range of questions to gage how conservative or liberal a person is (e.g., “Government regulation of business does more harm than good” is a Republican answer and “Government regulation of business is necessary to protect public interest” is a Liberal answer). Their 1994 study found that just 64 percent of identified Republicans were answering in a more conservative way than the average Democrat—and 7o percent vice versa. Now, however, the average Republican is 97 percent more conservative than the Democrat; the average Democrat is 95 percent more liberal. It seems Americans are becoming more politically predictable and in line with the stereotypical values of their two big parties—and Canadians are no different. A McGill University study found that Canadians did not make significant distinctions in their views of politicians from the opposite party and their followers; this is significant as it shows that “polarization does not just influence people's opinions about the parties, but also how they view ordinary Canadians.” This study also argues that the polarization witnessed stems from the rising trend of intense party loyalty. Clearly the population has become estranged politically—and these feelings of resentment and distaste often go so far as to destroy family life and friendships. Political arguments pop up in every sphere of life now—and seeing how we are more politically distant now, how can we get along? Obviously, it’s easy to hang out with people you're aligned with—but that luxury cannot always be afforded. Additionally, it becomes too easy to stagnate in your echo chamber of those you're aligned with, and that is frankly terrible. School, work, volunteering, and social engagements usually force you to meet, work, and collaborate with people you disagree with. And it is necessary for these places to allow different ideologies; for example, a workplace or a school cannot succeed without multiple perspectives and talents contributing to it. This is where the concept of “agreeing to disagree” holds value; without a degree of agreeability, one cannot meaningfully navigate debates (and life at whole). Agreeing to disagree is predicated on the belief that those who think differently likely have something valuable to contribute that you cannot contribute yourself. This optimistic belief is essential for success if we are all to live in this incomprehensibly diverse world. Of course, agreeing to disagree with someone with destructive values is not encouraged. Each individual needs to develop their own sense about how far to go with accepting different perspectives—but the obvious need for balance is looming. It has become too easy to “other” those that are misaligned with us, and that results in crap for all of us. Our shared struggles only grow if we don't strive to be cordial in our debates and discussions for solutions.