_edited.png)
Cancel culture, at its core, began with a well-intentioned desire to eradicate the truly harmful individuals in our society. The idea was simple: hold people accountable for their actions, especially when those actions were predatory or dangerous. There are, without a doubt, individuals whose behavior warrants condemnation, and society’s efforts to call out and remove them from positions of power is, in many ways, a necessary evolution. However, over the past few years, it has become painfully clear that cancel culture has spiraled out of control, targeting individuals who, while imperfect, may not be the kind of figures who deserve our collective wrath. I have seen firsthand how cancel culture taps into our primitive psychological impulses, driving us to demonize and “witch hunt” people without fully considering the consequences. As a therapist, here’s why I believe celebrities like Johnny Depp and Justin Baldoni show us it's time to ultimately "cancel" cancel culture.
The Danger of Misguided Justice
While cancel culture has occasionally succeeded in removing genuinely harmful figures from the spotlight, such as Harvey Weinstein, it has also led to instances where people who did not deserve to be canceled were subjected to the same intense scrutiny and public shaming. This is the dark side of cancel culture—the rush to judgment that, more often than not, turns out to be a miscarriage of justice.
A recent example of this is the case of Justin Baldoni, an actor and director known for his role in Jane the Virgin. In December of the previous year, Baldoni was thrust into the public eye under allegations that had not yet been thoroughly examined or confirmed. The response was swift: within days, Baldoni was dropped by his agent, his podcast co-host severed ties with him, and he was cut from several high-profile projects. His career, in many ways, was over, all before the facts could be fully disclosed.
As the case evolved, it became clear that much of the initial accusations were either misinterpreted or completely unfounded. Despite this, Baldoni’s career was effectively decimated based on assumptions and knee-jerk reactions rather than a careful and rational investigation into the claims. This is where cancel culture shows its dangerous side—its rush to judgment doesn’t leave room for facts, due process, or second chances.
The Urgency of Our Responses
The overwhelming desire to “cancel” someone often emerges from a place of anxiety. The media, social networks, and even personal circles create an environment where we are constantly told that a predator lurks nearby. In the face of such uncertainty, it’s only natural that people want to act quickly to eliminate the threat. No one wants to associate with a villain, and even fewer are willing to tolerate the possibility that someone might be allowed to roam free with their harmful actions.
However, this sense of urgency is often irrational. Our need to “do something” leads us to bypass the essential checks and balances that exist to protect individuals from wrongful punishment. A cornerstone of democratic societies, particularly in the justice system, is the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” Yet cancel culture completely disregards this fundamental tenet of fairness and due process, acting on impulse rather than thoughtful reflection.
The eagerness to expunge someone from the public sphere without waiting for the facts or proper investigation undermines the very notion of justice. In a world that increasingly operates on rapid responses and instant outrage, cancel culture thrives by making people feel that they are participating in a righteous crusade. But the reality is that this knee-jerk mentality often leads to the destruction of innocent lives and reputations, with little to no regard for the long-term consequences of such actions.
Splitting and Black-and-White Thinking
At the psychological core of cancel culture is a primitive defense mechanism known as "splitting." Splitting occurs when an individual divides the world into two categories: good and bad, right and wrong. This tendency to view the world in absolute terms is common in early childhood, but as people mature, they learn to understand the complexity and nuance of human behavior. In fact, one of the most important aspects of psychological development is recognizing that good people are capable of doing bad things, and conversely, bad people can sometimes do good deeds.
However, many individuals never fully develop this ability to hold contradictory truths simultaneously. Instead, they remain trapped in the mindset of black-and-white thinking, where someone is either a hero or a villain, a savior or a sinner. This mindset is easy to slip into and is amplified by cancel culture, which thrives on the binary division between those who are deemed worthy of our admiration and those who must be exiled.
This all-or-nothing mentality, driven by splitting, fuels the mob mentality that defines cancel culture. It strips away the nuance of human behavior and reduces people to their worst mistakes or most controversial actions. It ignores the possibility of growth, learning, and redemption, assuming that once someone is deemed bad, they must be cast aside entirely. In doing so, cancel culture creates an environment where people are either idolized or vilified—there’s little room for middle ground or gray areas.
Gender and the Overwhelming Focus on Men
Another concerning aspect of cancel culture is its tendency to disproportionately target men. This is not to suggest that men are never deserving of scrutiny, as it is well-documented that men are more likely to commit violent crimes or engage in predatory behavior. However, this gendered focus can skew the way we view accusations and perpetrators.
In many cases, cancel culture has become a tool for attacking high-profile men who are accused of wrongdoing. The pattern is easy to spot: the public outcry, the media frenzy, the swift removal of men from their positions of power or fame. However, the problem with this is that it often only addresses overt, easily identifiable forms of toxic behavior—such as harassment, abuse, or violence—while ignoring the more insidious, subtle forms of social toxicity that can go unnoticed.
What happens when the harm is less visible or is not as clear-cut as physical abuse? What about the microaggressions, the manipulative behaviors, or the gender biases that persist in everyday interactions? These forms of toxicity are often harder to “cancel” because they require more nuanced understanding and cannot always be pinpointed in a single, dramatic incident. It’s much easier to target someone for an overt transgression than to address the systemic issues that allow subtler forms of harm to flourish.
A Therapist's Take on Justin Baldoni
Cancel culture emerged from a noble cause—to hold people accountable for their harmful actions. However, it has become a double-edged sword, cutting down not only the guilty but also the innocent or those who are simply imperfect. As we navigate this era of rapid judgment and social justice, we must ask ourselves: Is this really the kind of justice we want to uphold?
By embracing nuance, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, and prioritizing due process, we can move toward a more thoughtful approach to accountability. Instead of hastily “canceling” someone, we should allow for dialogue, growth, and, when appropriate, redemption. Only by canceling cancel culture itself can we create a more just, balanced, and empathetic society.
Comments