There is more and more talk about " cancel culture ",  a concept that, in people's minds, mixes denunciation, boycott, illegitimacy trials, witch hunts, investigation of the dark pages of history, call for the replacement of the visibility of the dominant by the forgotten, " name & shame ",  hashtivism...

In short, it is difficult to find our way between a case of the removal of the statue of a Confederate soldier, a call for the resignation of a personality who has things to reproach himself for or friends with a sulphurous reputation, the collective movements for freedom of speech on social networks,   urban poster campaigns aimed at highlighting women who are victims of the Matilda effect, bad buzz that targets a brand, etc.

Cancel culture is a bit of all of these things at the same time, but most often, when we talk about it, it is to invite caution about the actions of activist movements of minorities or discriminated groups who would choose, in order to be heard, to play on reputational effects rather than resort to the avenues proposed by the rule of law. But does this advance the " cause " ? We take stock of the arguments for and against.

When you don't make yourself heard, make noise !

"Cancel culture " is expressed, among certain groups or movements that act in favor of equality, in the form of the public denunciation of what is " silenced ".  We don't want to hear about racism, sexism, homophobia, fatphobia, the condition of people with disabilities or illnesses, discriminatory violence, sexual violence, etc. ?

Never mind, we're going to do a punchy action, most often symbolic, so that the subject is finally put on the agenda ! The media, politics and the business world are forced to take an interest in it from one day to the next. For the action in question to make noise, it must obviously threaten interests and produce shock waves.

The case #MeToo is interesting to analyze in this respect: women from all over the world denounce sexual violence, but some of them do so by naming their aggressor. This changes everything in the approach to the problem by a certain number of institutions : as long as you see a phenomenon denounced (sexist and sexual violence), it is easy to rally to action ; But if it directly involves a person with whom you work, with whom you have networking or friendship ties, whose skills are recognized, who has a key position in the organization, right away, you're less comfortable.

However, the voice of public opinion (possibly amplified by social networks) is already calling for the " annulment ", i.e. concretely the resignation or dismissal of the person designated and the official dissociation from the institution that has so far supported him.

This is an embarrassing situation that many governance bodies have not been able to resolve by declaring that " we must distinguish between the work of the man " because this obviously cannot satisfy internal stakeholders (employees, to begin with) and external stakeholders (partners, for example), who are increasingly attentive to the meaning and coherence of organizations' commitments.

This is what makes the method of " cancel culture " frighteningly effective : by loudly demanding that one or more heads be knocked off, it challenges the organizations that employ the incriminated individual(s) and it confronts an entire system that authorizes, that " covers ", that preserves habits and prefers the benefits of conformism to respect for higher values. In short, cancel culture is " moving " !

When " cancel culture " tenses...

" Cancel culture " is moving... It topples the statues of historical actors who have distinguished themselves by their participation in colonialism or slavery. It undoes the reputations of women, men, institutions, brands that have (had) reprehensible practices (on a legal and/or moral level).

It replaces street signs honoring the names of those who fought wars with plaques that highlight the names of those who contributed to human progress. It thus intends to cancel (perceived as) undue prestiges that are incompatible with the respect for the values defended by the groups that advocate it. In short, it deconstructs landmarks...

And this is not without producing tensions. Here, there is concern that there is a desire to " rewrite history " for ideological reasons, at the risk of moving away from the search for truth. There, they are concerned that this form of self-justice weakens the rule of law, denies the presumption of innocence and breaks the republican principles that underpin citizens' trust in institutions.

Elsewhere, people are wary of the collateral effects of a " name and shame " campaign, when, for example, when facts of sexual harassment are revealed in a company, all the employees of the company can be affected in their professional pride and the functioning of the work group can be permanently damaged. Or again, we don't see the point of sacrificing the memory of great men to increase the number of women who have been pantheonized or statufied ...

The list of arguments of the discourse hostile to cancel culture is not exhaustive here, but if we had to synthesize what makes it particularly annoying for some, it is the feeling that it stems from a form of aggressiveness.

As if cancel culture was a revenge to be taken and was based on the idea that in order for some to no longer be victims (of discrimination, invisibility, etc.), others had to be designated guilty and pay the bill.

If we put ourselves in this perspective, the " cancel culture " approach may seem counterproductive, or even downright a contradiction: how can we convince people of the merits of inclusion, which precisely wants everyone to be able to take their place and have a voice in the matter by working through banning ? How can we lift the invisibilization and self-censorship of some by asking for the gagging of others ? Can we really defend the singularity of each person in all their diversity by definitively disqualifying an individual because of a part of who he or she is, what he or she defends, what he or she (has) done ?

What if " cancel culture " was the very opposite of censorship ? 

There is indeed a paradox in cancel culture, but perhaps not the one that appears to us at first glance. The paradox is not to exclude in order to include ; it is to bring to light what is announced that it wants to disappear.

Call out the honors paid to a slaver or sexual abuser, challenge the privileged position of incompetents or questionable characters, cast opprobrium on a brand and boycott its products, and you instantly shine a spotlight on those individuals or institutions.

Not for the better, it's true. Cancel culture casts a harsh light, it forces us to look at what we do not see, whether it is out of avoidance, ignorance or comfortable habit of regularly passing by this statue without asking ourselves who it represents, of seeing personalities in the media without questioning their possible contradictions, in short, to find our way in daily life as well as in society from what is in place without having to question everything all the time.

And suddenly, thanks to a (bad) buzz, it is no longer so trivial to meet in the street that bears the name of an individual who collaborated with the Vichy regime, it is no longer obvious to trust the intellectual or the journalist whose private behavior is inconsistent with his speeches, It is no longer so light to laugh at the jokes of the comedian whose inappropriate behavior with women we discover, it is no longer so innocent to buy a product whose polluting value chain we know or to use a service whose economic model is based on unfair working conditions...

Cancel culture does not silence, on the contrary it puts on the agenda subjects that seem urgent to discuss.

Moving from the action of " cancel culture " to productive conflict on issues of inclusion

There remains the question of the content of the discussion, closely linked to the positions of the parties involved. Let's be warned, it's not going to be easy.

The actors' cartograhia presages more trench warfare than a polite debate: on the one hand, activists impatient for the foundations of a socio-cultural system accused of producing invisibilizations to be deconstructed; on the other hand, actors in a position rather legitimized by this system and who have every interest in its preservation.

Predictable culture shock! With this, intersecting prejudices are just waiting to be expressed in all their caricature potential: fluid young against old idiots, " rabid feminists" against " dominant white men", ambitious outsiders against unaware insiders that their position owes only part of their position to merit.

And then, we will have to sequence the subjects : what is disturbing is the method (which is willingly part of civil disobedience or comes close to it), it is the purpose (to stop honoring controversial figures and to highlight more actors of human progress), it is the philosophical challenge (what morality can say who is " good " and who is not), It is the impacts (what damage to the existence of an individual targeted by an attack on his reputation and what consequences for his loved ones ?

What effects does the banning of a brand have on a company's economic prospects and, in a cascade, on employment ?), is it the relationship to history (is it science and/or narrative ?), it is the place of the social contract (when citizens seem less confident in justice and representative institutions to guarantee equality than in the coagulation of individual mobilizations emulsified by networks owned by digital multinationals)? 

The " cancel culture " is there. She gives voice. It produces debate. She carries the subjects of inclusion (but not only...). So, all these questions will have to be put on the table and orchestrate the dialogue that is audible and directed towards the solution acceptable to the parties involved. In other words, it is the possible breeding ground for a productive conflict, mediated by a third party who is admissible because he or she understands the objectives of each person, the blockages of each other, points of agreement from which to create ways for each person to express his or her uniqueness and belongings, interests and values.

And if this third party was each of us, ultimately less concerned with forming an opinion " for or against " cancel culture, but driven by the wish that those who contribute to bringing the diversity of points of view to life can exist without having to fight for it, To express themselves with as much hearing as their message is comfortable to our ears or forces them to tense up to better understand, to contribute to the transformations of society in the optimistic spirit of the healthy debate of ideas ?