Cancel Culture: An Unproductive Form of Blame
| dc.contributor.author | Post, Boochie | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-02-07T18:53:23Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-02-07T18:53:23Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022-06-02 | |
| dc.description.abstract | In this paper I argue that Miranda Fricker’s account of blame in “What’s the Point of Blame? A Paradigm Based Explanation” can assist in explaining why cancel culture is ultimately unproductive. In particular, the phenomenon of cancel culture possesses pathological forms of blame. There are three specific pathologies outlined by Fricker that can be observed in cancel culture. They are as follows: cancel culture does not leave room for people to learn from their mistakes, it does not express its blame in the proper ethical register, and cancel culture allows for blame to fester and spread. In the first half of my paper, I will lay out the distinct aspects of Fricker’s paper that relate to cancel culture and a definition of the term cancel culture. In the second half, I will explore the real-life cancelation of actor Lea Michele so as to validate the presence of cancel culture in our society today. Furthermore, I will expand on three of Fricker’s pathologies that are present in cancel culture and refute a counter argument people may pose who are supportive of cancel culture. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.5399/uo/exanimo/2.1.4 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/27947 | |
| dc.language | ||
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Ex Animo | en_US |
| dc.rights | Creative Commons BY | en_US |
| dc.title | Cancel Culture: An Unproductive Form of Blame | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |