Cancel Culture, Diversity and Rectifying the Past: How do we Set the Record Straight?

Hollywood was in for a shock in 2017 when some of its most high-profile figures were discovered to have had a long history of sexual misconduct - Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, to name a couple. After various accounts of rape and other forms of harassment were leaked, they were, in the eyes of many, rightfully eviscerated by the public and incarcerated. Other celebrities were also outed for past wrongdoings, although they were subjected to lesser punishments. In 2020, Jimmy Fallon faced major backlash for having performed blackface in an SNL skit many years prior. In 2019, comedian Shane Gillis was fired from SNL after the resurfacing of clips in which he referred to Chinese people as “chinks” (Blackmon, 2019). In the face of varying degrees of criminality, culture critics like USA Today’s Dalvin Brown (2020) asks whether these revelations are “A force for good or a digital witchhunt?” The phenomenon he refers to is that of “cancel culture.” While this phrase is mostly used in reference to the public shaming of a person, it is highly tied to growing awareness of social justice. As New York Times reporter Jonah Bromwich (2018) describes it, cancel culture is a “total divestment in something.” 

Cancel culture and its close cousins - political correctness and diversity - have been constantly transforming visual culture and entertainment in America. (Merriam Webster defines “politically correct” as “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” The word “diversity” as used in relation to political correctness most often refers to race, ethnicity, and other forms of group identity.) While some instances of political correctness and cancelling are necessary to root out bad actors such as Harvey Weinstein, some people, like Brown, have pointed out that cancel culture can be taken too far. Here, I make the distinction between “necessary political correctness” and “tactful political correctness,” with the latter definition being the less favorable one. With this difference in mind, I argue in the first half of my paper that political correctness, diversity and cancel culture are not inherently “good” or “bad.” Rather, these ideas are part of a relatively young, nascent movement born in response to a long history of racial injustice. However, social justice can be performed, but not embodied. In particular, major brands and corporations who seek to participate in these initiatives may feign progressiveness by showing support for certain political movements and cancelling “problematic” celebrities. In reality, they may actually create an environment where it is difficult for people to learn from past mistakes and improve their understanding of issues of race and acceptance. As such, I argue in the second half of my paper that these performances of social justice allow for racism and other regressive ideologies to continue permeating visual culture. As America swings from its history of racism towards a period of cancel culture, one must remember to extract the best out of political correctness and integrate it into society such that people may still learn from their mistakes. 

Cancel culture, diversity and political correctness are inextricably intertwined. These phenomena are all part of the same movement that emerged in opposition to America’s legacy of racism and intolerance. Such racism is highly apparent in early 20th century films in the U.S. In her book Celluloid Indians: Native Americans and Film, Jacquelyn Kilpatrick explores how early American films caricatured and marginalized Native Americans in order to make way for White characters (1999). She details how authors such as James Fenimore Cooper (whose novels were adapted into film) essentially created his own version of Native Americans, rather than portray them based on anything grounded in reality. His Native American characters were either depicted as primitive, savage, or as hypersexual threats to civilized, White womanhood (1999).

Cooper’s stereotyping is certainly not a standalone occurrence in American film history. Various other racial groups can all be subjected, according to sociologist Stuart Hall, to “otherization.” Essentially, racial groups are arbitrarily divided along a binary - White and non-White - according to visible traits unique to the group. Such traits serve as a justification as to why non-White groups are inferior to Whites (1997). Through the practice of Othering, America erased the cultures of ethnic minorities, clearing the spaces they once inhabited in order to construct a White mainstream identity (Hooks, 1992). White America, as the argument goes, essentially appropriated and caricatured these cultures to assert their cultural dominance.

Merriam Webster’s definition of “political correctness” emphasizes the avoidance of behaviors or expressions that “offend political sensibilities.” Today, one can view these “political sensibilities” as anything reminiscent of the practices Hall and Hooks describe. Political correctness, in some ways, seeks to correct for the historical erasure and marginalization of oppressed groups through the avoidance of words or expressions that insinuate Othering. As a result, one might suggest that the political correctness subjected to such heavy fire by culture critics today is misplaced. After all, in response to America’s history of racist films, some form of social justice had to have emerged in order to rectify a past littered with othering and stereotyping. 

Towards the end of the 20th century, corporations around the world developed an inclination towards social justice. However, corporate interests simultaneously subjected ideas of diversity and multiculturalism to being watered-down. In the ninth chapter of his book Who We Be: The Colorization of America, Jeff Chang introduces the photographer and self-proclaimed “total anarchist” Oliviero Toscani, who rose to prominence in the 1980s (Chang, 2014, 159). Toscani lamented the state of corporate advertising - how brands spent so much money just for advertisements to convey that one product was better than another. So when hired by clothing company Luciano Benetton to photograph their products, Toscani attempted to create social commentary. One of his many controversial ads, which attempted to incorporate notions of diversity, featured a Black hand handcuffed to a White hand. The ad infuriated many groups in the U.S., including the NAACP, perhaps because it seemed to portray a White officer arresting a Black man. Toscani responded by suggesting that depending on one’s perspective, it might have been a Black cop arresting a White man (Chang, 2014). Toscani’s definition of “diversity,” it would seem, transcended mere notions of race and ethnicity. His definition also accounted for a multitude of perspectives and worldviews. Regardless of whether his ads may be interpreted as racist, or whether his attempt at commentary was even successful, it is crucial to consider the manner in which he shook the advertising world out of its complacency. His definition is a crucial part to any attempt at facilitating dialogue around notions of race and inclusivity. Despite the backlash he received, Toscani continued his work. 

The risks he took to (nominally) address themes of race are a luxury that many artists and entertainers today do not share, especially in the world of comedy. In 2019, comedian Shane Gillis was poised to host a new season of Saturday Night Live when he was promptly fired after the resurfacing of a clip from one of his podcast episodes, in which he used a racial slur to refer to Chinatown residents. On Twitter, Gillis later offered to apologize to anyone offended, adding “I am trying to be the best comedian I can be and sometimes that requires risks” (Romo, 2019). It was later revealed in an interview with a YouTuber, “Sneako,” that in the clip that led to his firing, he was attempting to satirize how a racist, White landlord might attempt to segregate housing in Chinatown (Sneako, 2019). Although the “risk” he claims to have taken seems to align with the risks that Toscani took decades earlier, there are still some valid reasons as to why Gillis’ “joke” was socially unacceptable. Yet his justification in his interview with Sneako arguably suggests that his comments, although highly ill-advised, did not hide ill will. SNL’s prompt firing is more in line with “tactful political correctness” than “necessary political correctness,” since there was no explanation of the context in which Gillis made those remarks. 

Regardless of whether Gillis was guilty of a racist act, major brands and corporations such as SNL find themselves in a situation where they cannot afford to give chances to public figures such as him. They must publicly voice their alleged opposition to racism and bigotry if they are to survive or remain profitable. In the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of a police officer in 2020, social media users and brands alike rushed to demonstrate support on social media by posting black squares. In the article “When did Instagram Go Dark?,” New York Times employees discussed the efficacy of such activism in a round table discussion. The women, skeptical of the intentions of brands who posted the black squares, noted how routine and disingenuous it seemed for them to suddenly show their “support” with a mere post on social media (2020). Today, companies, brands and celebrities must perform their activism and desire for social justice, lest they be accused of appearing as if racism does not concern them in the slightest. Comedian Dave Chappelle, in particular, chastised this notion during a show in Ohio after learning that CNN anchor Don Lemon had criticized celebrities who failed to make public statements about George Floyd’s murder. Exasperated, Chappelle reminds his audience that he had addressed issues such as police brutality his entire career; yet because he made no immediate public comment, his silence was deemed as complicity (Netflix Is A Joke, 2020). 

The activism espoused by brands, corporations and celebrities is often highly performative. Their politically correct decisions to display their sympathy for social justice movements do not necessarily align with their inner attitudes. When companies perceive pressure to cancel celebrities without further investigating the context in which they were at fault, they inadvertently help construct an environment where people are ostracized for honest mistakes and denied a chance to learn; meanwhile, racist ideologies may survive cancel culture through people who understand how to carefully filter their words and actions. 

Kilpatrick’s Celluloid Indians details how the cultures of Native American tribes were bastardized and appropriated by the American film industry during the early 20th century (1999). That practice of appropriation continued into 21st century film through whitewashing. The 2010 live-action adaptation of a fan-favorite cartoon, Avatar: The Last Airbender, featured an all-White leading cast in the roles of characters who were originally of Indigenous and East-Asian descent (Yang, 2020). More notoriously, Scarlett Johannson was casted as a Japanese character - Motoko Kusanagi - in the live-action adaptation of the cult classic Ghost in the Shell (Berman, 2017). The list goes on. However, the increased awareness of White-washing in Hollywood seems to have sparked a new phenomenon - people of color in White roles.

The Disney-led Spiderman: Homecoming and its sequel, Spiderman: Far from Home, ostensibly featured a diverse cast. Filipino American Jacob Batalon plays Peter Parker’s (the true identity of the titular Spiderman) best friend, Ned Leeds, who is White in the original comics. Zendaya Maree Stoermer Coleman, who is of mixed African, Scottish and German descent, plays Parker’s love interest, Mary Jane, who was also White in the original comics. While some may call these casting decisions a step in the right direction, others may point out how, as long as the main character is White, they can easily creep into the territory of tokenism. Peter Parker’s affection for his classmate, Liz Allen (played by Black actress Laura Harrier), and his subsequent crush on Mary Jane, also played by a Black woman, can be read by some as fetishization. One can also argue that Batalon, who acts as comic relief in both films, merely fulfills the stereotype of the quirky Asian sidekick. Meanwhile, despite the fact that there have been three iterations of Peter Parker in film since the release of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man in 2002, Parker - the most important character - is still played by a White person. This begs the question: Why is Whiteness essential to Peter Parker’s character, but not Mary Jane’s or Ned Leeds’? Some may suggest that this is because American film is still a White-led industry catering to a White audience that still sees White as the norm. Regardless, the decision to cast Zendaya and Batalon in White roles is still, to an extent, a demonstration of “tactful political correctness” that assuage audiences’ desire for more diverse casts. Because they play supporting roles that revolve around a White lead, Zendaya and Batalon are still, to a degree, subjected to stereotyped roles. 

The notion of people of color playing White roles may seem like diversity. However, these casting decisions also demonstrate a hint of performativity and, as aforementioned, calculatedness. Performative diversity is highly equivalent to an act of appeasement; a showy display of progressiveness so that a diversifying fanbase may momentarily feel as if their favorite movies and shows reflect their own values. YouTube channel Wong Fu Productions produced a short series titled Yappie, which featured an episode tackling the challenges of navigating interracial dating. During lunch, the group of Asian friends discuss the notion of “yellow fever” when Brett, the only White friend in the group, interjects by mentioning how much he is irked by guys who only date Asian women. When his friend comically reminds him that his current girlfriend is Asian, and that all his exes are also Asian, he is inundated with guilt upon realizing his complicity in the “yellow fever” stereotype. His solution is to hastily arrange a double date between him and his girlfriend, and his Asian friend Andrew with a White girl he has never met. “If I’m taking an Asian girl from them, they should get a White girl from us,” he explains (Wong Fu Productions, 2020). The resulting dinner date is awkward, where the four of them attempt to pretend as if there was nothing strange about the way Brett deliberately paired his Asian friend with a White girl. Brett’s actions mirror the attitude of film companies when it comes to notions of on-screen diversity. Brett, as well as White-led film companies, have come to terms with their alleged responsibility in perpetuating racial stereotypes. The way Brett attempts to draw attention away from his fondness of Asian women mirrors the manner in which film companies place people of color in White roles to distract audiences from the fact that their main characters are still overwhelmingly White. As a result, their attempts at political correctness seem highly disingenuous, however well-intentioned they may be. Both Brett and the White mainstream have tactfully performed political correctness in order to sanitize their image. 

The notion of re-imagining White characters as people of color complicates the issue of diversity. Showcasing a diverse array of ethnicities, sexualities and beliefs in film and media is a necessary component in reducing the prevalence of stereotypes born from practices of othering that Hall described. Doing away with these stereotypes, in many cases, requires pushing the boundaries of what can be considered normal and acceptable in the film industry, much like how Toscani pushed the boundaries of how “diversity” might be defined. The presence of historically marginalized peoples, as demonstrated by Zendaya’s and Batalon’s casting in Spiderman: Homecoming and Spiderman: Far From Home, is often necessary to help audiences re-imagine these groups as acceptable and welcome in mainstream society. However, White-led production companies have always re-imagined as well. In Celluloid Indians, Kilpatrick reminds us that America’s film industry, at one point, normalized the practice of re-imagining Native Americans as primitive and savage. She details how Native American culture was, as far as White filmmakers were concerned, a blank slate with which they could imagine themselves as the dominant over other racial groups (Kilpatrick, 1999). This disparity begs yet another question: is the act of re-imagining a person as another ethnicity inherently racist? Or is it only racist when White people re-imagine? 

Aside from notions of racism, the act of re-imagining, in many ways, is laziness on the part of the film industry. Jeff Chang’s claim that multiculturalism became a part of the “corporate monoculture”(2014, 160) also applies to the film industry’s practices of today. The meaning of “multiculturalism” and diversity has become so diluted that merely showcasing faces of color in film and media passes as “progressive.” However, very little diversity is actually achieved by just inserting people of color into supporting roles. White characters need not be re-imagined as people of color in films that have been rebooted several times. Rather, film industries should create new, original media and stories in which people of color are the lead characters. Understandably, there is little incentive for studios to invest money into such new projects when there is no guarantee of high box office returns. After all, remakes are highly profitable, even when they receive negative reviews (Makalintal, 2019). With this in mind, one might argue that in order to show a genuine desire to diversify American film and visual culture, studios must actually be willing to invest money into writing new stories that center around people of diverse backgrounds - not merely re-cast people of color into White roles. 

Cancel culture, diversity and political correctness intersect at every occasion when a person or organization wishes to quickly purify their public image without truly coming to terms with the implications of their actions. SNL’s firing of Shane Gillis follows the same thinking pattern employed by Disney’s casting of people of color in its Spiderman films. For lack of better solutions to correcting a history of racial and social injustice, these companies opted for ostentatious displays of progressiveness - by cancelling “racist” celebrities and casting people of color in historically White roles. On the other hand, as comedians like Dave Chappelle have pointed out, one can address issues of inequality behind the scenes, but still be labeled as indifferent to injustice if they fail to publicly express their opinions. The political correctness demonstrated by the film industry and other brands is therefore not entirely gratuitous. People need a sign that these highly lucrative industries are aware of how racial and social injustice still permeate everyday life. Cancel culture is, at the very least, an indication that these industries are coming to terms with their responsibility to push for progressive measures. Cancel culture and political correctness, therefore, aren’t inherently forces of “good” or “bad.” They only need to be practiced with more discretion so that people and industries alike go beyond the call of merely performing their progressiveness, and so that ostracized people like Gillis may be offered a chance at redemption.

Works Cited

Blackmon, M. (2019, Sept 16). "SNL" Has Fired Shane Gillis For His Racist Remarks Just Days After NBC Announced He Was Joining The Show. Buzzfeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/michaelblackmon/shane-gillis-racist-comments-snl 

Brown, D. (2020, Jul 17). Twitter's cancel culture: A force for good or a digital witchhunt? The answer is complicated. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/07/17/has-twitters-cancel-culture-gone-too-far/5445804002/ 

Bromwich, J. (2018, June 28). Everyone Is Cancelled. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/style/is-it-canceled.html 

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Politically Correct. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political%20correctness 

Kilpatrick, J. (1999). Celluloid Indians: Native Americans and Film. University of Nebraska Press. 

Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Sage Publications.

Hooks, B. (1992). Black Looks: Race and Representation. Routledge.

Chang, J. (2014). Who We Be: The Colorization of America. St. Martin’s Press. 

Romo, V. (2019, Sept 16). Comedian Shane Gillis Fired From 'Saturday Night Live' For Racist Remarks. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/761367838/comedian-shane-gillis-fired-from-saturday-night-live-for-racist-remarks 

Sneako. (2019, Dec 8). Talking to "Cancelled" Comedian Shane Gillis [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mUBtfbjKXc 

When Did Instagram Go Dark? (2020, June 2). The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/style/instagram-blackout.html 

Netflix Is A Joke. (2020, June 11). 8:46 - Dave Chappelle [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tR6mKcBbT4 

Yang, K. Choudhary, S. (2020, Aug 27). Revisiting ‘The Last Airbender’ (2010). The Stanford Daily. https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/27/revisiting-the-last-airbender-2010/ 

Wong Fu Productions (2018, July 11). Why is Interracial Dating so complicated? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GZPuLfAn-4 

Makalintal, B. (2019, July 11). People Don't Actually Like Remakes, but Studios Keep Making Them. Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kx4yz/people-dont-actually-like-remakes-but-studios-keep-making-them