The cancel culture debate: A sign of our times?

If you already are up-to-date with this debate, skip to the next topic (MY TAKE) and read what I have to say about this.

If you already are up-to-the-gills with this debate, skip this blogpost altogether. You ain't missing nothin'.

So, then...

Apparently, there is quite some debate within the intellectual circles about whether we should cancel the cancel culture or cancel the cancellation of the cancel culture or...you get the drift. Here's what I feel. But first...

THE BACKGROUND

1. Some graduate students (with the help of some well-known personalities) tried to cancel Prof.Steven Pinker, himself a much-lauded as also controversial (but of course) man by writing an open letter to an obscure society no one had heard of until they wrote that letter. It caused, as they say in these rarefied circles, 'quite a flutter'.
2. Then, some real heavyweights (including Atwood, Rowling, Rushdie, and the champion of free speech, Chomsky) wrote against the cancel culture in Harper's (not to be confused with the glossy, fashionable, and easy-on-the-eyes, Harper's Bazaar).
3. Later, some signatories of the latter decided that they did not want their names in the same column-inch-space as some others (notably JK Rowling) because they rightly realised that agreeing with someone's specific opinion about a specific issue puts them (by the lay public, who couldn't care less to read more than 10 lines of prose in a sitting) in the same bucket as that person's every other opinion ever in their life, and they did not want to jeopardise their livelihoods, which are, somewhat fittingly for our times, dependant on their Twitter reputations.
4. In the meanwhile, other publicity-hungry people whose livelihoods also depend on their perception in the public eye, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, came out with their own quick, smart, and meme-worthy response, which basically said, "OK, Boomer" to the group consisting of, amongst other notables, the only man other than Bernie Sanders to have been consistent about everything since The Palaeolithic (because that is how old they are apparently), Noam Chomsky. <Side note: You only have to Google 'Harper's Pinker cancel letter' to get all the links and references you want. So, don't expect me to spoon-feed you.>
5. And now, there is a post by a fine young man (another graduate student), who is studying philosophy at the University of Notre Dame: Oliver Traldi, that I present here just as a sample of the latest in this 'feud'.

Now that you have a fair understanding of the latest on the leaderboard on this particular non-linear race to showing who is more intellectual than the rest, and who is more 'in touch with reality' than others, let me present to you...

MY TAKE

The truth is that there will always be critics and supporters of freedom of speech, and even within the supporters, there would be those that draw the line hither, and some thither. And there will always be those that draw it thither claiming that those that draw it hither are against freedom of speech, and in turn be accused of allowing someone to shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre. I think it is like the Overton Window and it shifts through generations left and right, never really staying in a place for too long, and never in the 'right' place for anyone at any point.

All we can do is decide where we draw that line. To argue that there isn't or oughtn't be one (like the critics of cancel culture are saying) is impractical and impossible to achieve. To claim that any line that is not their line is a line too far and that freedom of speech is concomitant on some sort of duty to say the 'right' thing based on the prevailing social, moral, ideological, or political zeitgeist (like the proponents of cancel culture are claiming) is specious and deceptive. The only wrong arguments in context of this line are that (a) it does not exist, or (b) is static and may be decided on in any objective manner whatsoever.

What is the solution? There is none. Because this isn't a solvable problem at all. And not just now. But since time immemorial. This debate is as old as the hills.

What do we do then? We simply choose a side and stay reasonably open to changing our minds. For example, how would you look at evolution or the genius of Darwin if it turned out he was a serial killer (he isn't, just in case you thought I was alluding to some secret only I am privy to!)? What about Thomas Jefferson, the slave owner? How about Gandhi the casteist sexual deviant? Or Karl Marx, the racist? Or the maker of Zyklon-B, Bayer? Or the industrial giant that made warplanes for Imperial Japan, Mitsubishi? Or the Nazi Volkswagen? Or Mohan Meakin (the makers of my favourite rum, Old Monk), a company started by the Dyer family (yes, of Jallianwallah Bagh fame)? And so on all the way to say, a Louis CK or a Kevin Spacey on whom allegations were made, but no convictions?

It is fine to feel OK about one while yucky about another. It is fine to separate the art/science and the artist/scientist. It is also fine to connect them. It is fine to stick to your guns and choose the hill to die on. It is also fine to change your mind and concede you now look at things differently. it is fine to apologise for your earlier views. It is also fine to claim they were right at that time and now that you know different, they (your changed views) are right as of now. It is fine to fight for one and against the other. It is also fine to try to persuade others of your point of view.

There is no absolute or objective right or wrong here. There is not truth that is divorced from the context it occupies. Society moves on. As it has for thousands of years. The lines keep being drawn, erased, and redrawn. You are sometimes this side of the line, sometimes the other. And sometimes, your friends, family, acquaintances, and even idols are on your side, or across that line.

And all I ask for is for you to feel comfortable standing on whichever side and take the consequences of how history judges you, by which I mean during your lifetime, for once you pass, as the social zeitgeist ebbs and flows, the more famous you have been in your time, or the more effect your life and its work has had on the world, whether in your lifetime or after it, the more you will be judged, possibly, going from hero, to rebel, to villain, to pariah, before finally sinking in obscurity. More importantly, you'll be dead, and so whatever your so-called legacy is, won't matter anyway to you. And that is all I say you should aim for.

P.S: For those who point to my privilege about being able to hold one point of view and not the other, I say that each one of us has some privilege about what one is able to (in some cases, even allowed to) think and what one is not. I accept that I have the privilege of being able to hold the above viewpoint, and regardless of how hard I try, I will never be able to put myself in the shoes of someone who does not have it. That does not make my point of view invalid. Nor theirs. It just makes my point of view, well, my point of view, with all the attendant baggage, privilege, and lived experiences I carry. You are free to disagree, and I shall respect you for it, and defend your right to do so. Till the point you do not cross that imaginary line I have set myself. Just as you have set one for yourself. Suffice to say, both lines are imaginary.