A coroner’s report following the tragic death of a young Oxford University student has highlighted the devastating consequences of cancel culture. In recent years, despite claims to the contrary, cancel culture has been spreading. It has left a trail of lost livelihoods, damaged reputations, betrayals and abandoned friendships in its wake. However, the loss of a young man, in his prime, with his whole future ahead of him, evokes a particularly poignant sense of loss and despair. It also brings this destructive phenomenon into sharper focus.
There has been much coverage in the press and media about the circumstances surrounding Alexander Rogers’s decision to take his own life: a sexual encounter, an expression of “discomfort”, the sharing of information with mutual friends who then distanced themselves from him. At his inquest, the Oxfordshire coroner’s court heard that Alexander appeared “distraught” following a conversation with his friends who told him he had “messed up” and that they wished to distance themselves from him. He died the next day. According to the Times, Coroner Nicholas Graham said Alexander’s decision to take his life had likely been influenced by the “isolation he felt” after being ostracised.
Ostracism is a painful experience – not just psychologically but physically. To be cast out and no longer ‘belong’ provokes a strong emotional response. This can prove tough for even the most resilient of adults. For young people, in the first flush of youth, whose brains are still developing, and who are learning about how the world works, it is a very tall order indeed. Perceived transgressions often lead to a ‘witch-hunt’ where information is shared via chat groups or on social media. Persecution and shaming of the ‘target’ can easily escalate here to an online mobbing. Those carrying out the ‘witch-hunt’ may believe they are the virtuous ones, protecting minority groups from harm. However, this behaviour is described by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt as “vindictive protectiveness“. It is associated with self-censorship and with a narrow view of speech as either ‘safe’ or ‘dangerous’.
Identity politics has undoubtedly provided fertile ground for cancel culture to flourish. Again, Lukianoff and Haidt provide a useful explanation. The belief that life is a battle between good people and evil people is an example of ‘all-or-nothing‘ thinking. It can also lead to tribalism. Social psychologists warn of the dangers of dividing people into in-groups and out-groups. When you are in the ‘favoured’ group, you see the out-group as a threat. Take this a step further and it becomes easy to exclude and demonise those who don’t ‘belong’ to your group. Even those in the favoured group have to adhere to certain speech codes and behaviours or they will also find themselves excluded.
Add to this ‘concept creep‘ and the lowering of thresholds for transgressions, to the extent that even raising an eyebrow can be seen as racist, and you see how people can soon find themselves excluded, dehumanised and labelled as ‘bad’. As a result, we find ourselves living in an increasingly harsh, intolerant and unforgiving world.
On university campuses this presents a serious challenge for students. Two students, writing anonymously in the Times, explain that “Oxbridge has become an especially potent microcosm of the culture war”. One comments: “I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that as a student there I lived in fear of being cancelled. We all did. It was a subtle, low-level fear, but it was constant.” Another says: “I know more people than I can count who have been ostracised. It’s something that students now have to learn to navigate.”
What kind of society have we become when a university education requires students to navigate ostracism? Universities themselves have undoubtedly created an environment that has enabled cancel culture to take hold. Too many are preoccupied with imposing Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policies rather than encouraging academic excellence. Students are encouraged to report microaggressions, leading them to seek evidence of offence in every encounter. Overprotection, safetyism and trigger warnings only serve to perpetuate anxiety and avoidance. If students are to flourish at university, the culture on campuses has to change.
It has not helped that the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson decided to stop commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. Perhaps she will reconsider her decision when she receives a letter from Nicholas Graham, the Oxfordshire coroner who conducted Alexander Rogers’ inquest. Graham has written to the Department for Education requesting that its officials “address the prevalence of cancel culture in university settings”. Could this be a turning point for university campuses?
Hopefully this may be the case, but it is not just students who are negatively affected by cancel culture. Academics such as Kathleen Stock and Jo Phoenix have spoken of the impact cancellation has had on their lives and their mental health. Every week the Free Speech Union reports on members of the public whose worlds have been shattered by accusations of racism, sexism, transphobia or some other offence. Regrettably, there have also been other deaths related to cancel culture. Peter Newbon, a U.K.-Jewish academic, took his life after being “remorselessly bullied” on social media and accused of antisemitism. Richard Bilkszto, a highly regarded Canadian educator, also took his life after being falsely accused of racism during a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion training course. Psychologists rightly advise against attributing a single cause to suicide. However, psychologists should also be concerned about the increasing number of cases where cancel culture appears to be a contributory factor in a person’s decision to end their life.
Cancellation and ostracism is clearly a major problem in society today. Yet the needs of those who find themselves at the receiving end are often overlooked. Instead, they are labelled ‘privileged’ and, because they belong to the ‘wrong’ group, are not considered deserving of help.
It is important to understand the experiences and needs of people who have been cancelled. For this reason, Save Mental Health, in collaboration with the Free Speech Union, plans to carry out research into the effects on mental health of experiencing cancellation. We will ask members of the FSU to take part in an exploratory study. The information gathered will provide information about how people are affected, what kinds of challenges they have faced and what helped them to cope. If you are a member of the FSU, and you have been cancelled, please do consider taking part in this study. Further details will follow.
With condolences to Alexander Rogers’s family.
Dr. Carole Sherwood is a Clinical Psychologist. She is the founder of Save Mental Health, a Co-Director of Critical Therapy Antidote and member of the Advisory Panel for Don’t Divide Us.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.