Search

This paper aims to discuss the antecedents and consequences of cancel culture and assess if brands can gain the forgiveness of consumers and mitigate the damages of social media firestorms, that usually evolve from online abuse (e.g. cyberbullying, harassment, and offensive talk). A quasi-experiment study was conducted through an online survey simulating the cancellation journey. Results show that cancel culture is triggered by ideological incompatibilities such as religion, racism, animal rights, LGBTQIA+ and environmental issues. After the scenario that simulated an ideological incompatibility related to racism, 178 respondents rated high levels of brand hate, negative WOM, brand avoidance, brand boycott, brand retaliation, and intention to cancel the brand. However, an 'apology' by the brand leads to brand forgiveness, a decrease in the intention to cancel the brand and an increase in purchase intention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In winter 2023, two events from the world of visual arts and literature spurred into intense debates on woke and cancel culture in Norwegian newspapers. The visual arts debate was related to a statement from the chief curator of the National Museum that they did not want to display a particular work due to it being colonial, and the literature debate was related to the Norwegian publisher of Roald Dahl’s books wanting to accommodate recent adaptions based on suggestions from sensitivity readers. Through these debates, the US originated phenomena of woke and cancel culture got fully exposed in the Norwegian public sphere. Managers, critics, scholars, journalists, artists, and politicians presented their views on the phenomena and their normative evaluations of their place within the cultural sector. In this article, I analyze the dynamics of the debate and seek to answer why the incidents created such a fury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Cancel culture" has gained tremendous attention in contemporary political discourse. On platforms like YouTube, reactionary ideological entrepreneurs often employ what Ng terms second-order discourses on cancel culture, that is, portraying call-out practices such as shaming public figures as left-wing censorship efforts stifling free speech. This article argues that such call-out practices, generally ascribed to progressive communities, also occur internally within reactionary communities where fans hold ideological entrepreneurs accountable for adhering to potentially extreme political canons. Adopting a fan studies perspective, this exploratory investigation used "close" and "distant" readings on 1.8 million comments from the now-canceled "The Alex Jones Channel" on YouTube (2017–2018). Focusing on Jones' recantation of the "Sandy Hook Hoax," the authors show that, akin to traditional fandom conceptions, radical audiences engaged in call-out practices demanding "character" and "narrative" fidelity. This contribution, theorized as "audience capture," emphasizes the bottom-up efforts of audiences to maintain the radical views of ideological entrepreneurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter highlights, platforms' affordances extend further than UI choices and content formats emphasized. Extant work addresses that political perspectives are implicated in the affordances of platforms; however, the notion of "ideology as/of affordance" requires more scholarly attention, namely, from a Black feminist position which grapples with the raced and gendered dimensions of how such shaping of affordances is understood and experienced in digital contexts. A Black feminist analysis offers a critical intervention that examines the dynamics between ideology, digital culture, and relational experiences of autonomy. Thus, our article outlines how "ideology as/of affordance" is a helpful intervention for illuminating the power relations by which both "cancel culture" and "platform affordances" are defined. Specifically, we explicate how white supremacist ideology underpins platform affordances, which in turn shape who is "canceled," and consider the key connections and disconnections between them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the antifeminist appropriation of cancel culture in South Korea, focusing on the controversy surrounding the finger-pinching motif, allegedly associated with Megalia, a now-defunct feminist online community. While cancel culture originated from marginalized groups challenging systemic injustices, it is now appropriated by dominant groups to reinforce social structures—in this case, to protect male privilege and undermine feminism. The study reveals how antifeminist canceling in the country has extended over the years beyond subcultural industries to companies, government agencies, and public institutions. Although both feminists and antifeminists engage in cancel practices, antifeminist canceling has led to the removal of numerous advertisements and the sanctioning of women and precarious workers, reflecting the fundamental gender power imbalance in South Korea. By examining social, public, and institutional responses, I argue that such institutional enforcement upholds and reproduces the antifeminist hijacking of cancel culture, further silencing marginalized communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper outlines a cultural critique of the Joe Rogan Experience. Framing the podcast as an adaptive cultural platform, I emphasize how it is ideologically informed by both the established infrastructure and dynamics of communicative capitalism and Joe Rogan's ethos as a comedian. The paper discusses three ways Joe Rogan and his format negotiate their relationship with platform infrastructures. The first is Rogan's relationship with Spotify and his interest in shaping "cancel discourses" and, subsequently, his own role as an embedded, "uncancellable" skeptic. The second is the combination of Rogan's roast universalism and pioneering speech-a-ton format, designed to establish an infrastructure for platforming his cohort of podcasting comedians on YouTube. The third is Rogan's relationship with platform-owner Elon Musk, whose communicative capitalist agenda has political implications. The paper establishes a theoretical connection between studies of platformisation and the under-studied cultural influence of podcasting comedians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis, this paper examines a sample of X hashtags supporting or criticizing Johnny Depp or Amber Heard in their 2022 domestic abuse/defamation trial, where in both cases there were calls to cancel each. The analysis explores how the acts carried out by the targets for canceling, along with concrete details of their personal circumstances, become set aside as what we call "trigger-ready" interest groups become activated by a perceived transgression in relation to their own more narrow and heterogeneous concerns. Hashtags become an entanglement of vaguely articulated discourses relating to matters including fandom, gender, abuse and conspiracy. These discourses stack up against the target and coalesce into growing outrage. The analysis suggests that intensity of canceling bares little relationship to any actual transgression but to the extent to which these "trigger-ready" groups become involved. This may be a characteristic of wider patterns in online cancel campaigns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancel culture claims, narratives and practices now play out in predominantly platformed spaces, spanning from progressive publics and accountability practices to reactionary/anti-woke/far right publics. We argue that platform affordances, architectures and cultures serve as a nodal point to bring together a disparate set of practices, discourses and ideological positions to facilitate polarized, reactionary, and or strategic networked publics in the context of digital politics and the (re)emergence of culture wars. Papers within this special issue speak to our argument in varying ways. They explore the mechanisms, sentiments, tolerances, and practices in local and global contexts. They consider how certain practices manifesting as social justice interventions apply to negatively impact marginalized groups, theorize the role of and power of platforms in propelling cancelations, and track the rituals associated with cancel culture on platforms. In doing so we encompass perspectives and case studies from the global majority to inform what has to date been a largely Western area of focus and scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How might we understand the forms of mediatized politics that are signified under the dreary heading of the 'culture war(s)'? This article addresses this question in the form of seven theses. Informed by a distinct theoretical reading of Laclau and Mouffe's concept of antagonism, I highlight the anti-political character of culture war discourses, particularly as amplified in a public culture dominated by the social media industry. The seven theses are prefaced by an overview of the category of 'cancel culture', in light of its recent prominence as an object of culture war discourse. I highlight the primary role of far-right actors in the normalization of culture-war conflicts that persecute different identities, but also critique the online left's entanglement in sedimented antagonisms that primarily benefit reactionary actors. The theses stress the repressive effects of culture war discourses on our collective political imagination. They redescribe some of the fault lines of a familiar terrain by thematizing the differences between a moralized and radical democratic understanding of political antagonism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through a series of in-depth interviews with 66 U.S. arts and culture journalists conducted in 2020, this study documents how these journalists perceive the influence of cancel culture practices and discourses in modern arts and culture journalism. Interviewees found positive power in calling out bad cultural actors and trends, protecting their audiences from harmful cultural content, contextualizing politics within popular culture and gatekeeping the actors and practices within this subfield of journalism. However, they expressed fear that cancel culture practices and discourses encourage journalists to create unnecessary boundaries regarding what they can and cannot cover and to dismiss perspectives with which they disagree. And they worry that these cancel culture practices and discourses may threaten some journalists' careers and professional legacies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that Slavoj Žižek's provocative speech at the Frankfurt Book Fair was a political event of the first order. Described as a major scandal triggered by Žižek's remarks on the Israel-Hamas war, the speech was much more than a deliberate provocation. It provides a window into a world that had become unhinged long before the conflict erupted anew. It offers an opportunity to observe the complex relationship between individuals, institutions, and society. It continues to be a cautionary tale that illustrates the thin line between courage and hypocrisy; and how difficult it is to practise diversity in a world gripped by the dangerous logic of evil. Thus, Žižek's opening address transcends its immediate context because it brings us up against one of today's defining questions: what does it mean, and what does it take, to practise diversity when facing the most divisive topics of our time? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Cancel culture" has become a prominent phrase in US political commentary, with supporters and opponents relying on different value-based arguments to express their views. At the same time, these camps often fall along predictable partisan political lines. What, then, are the real motivations for promoting and opposing behaviors sometimes labeled as "canceling" in contemporary American politics? We explore this question through survey data from Pew in 2020 and two original survey experiments, conducted on the 2021 CES and a 2023 online sample. We examine how Americans define the term "cancel culture," to what extent cancel culture is linked to both a range of core democratic values, and the role of partisanship in shaping support or opposition to specific behaviors. We observe a significant range of views about cancel culture and document connections to various political values. From our experiments, we find that partisanship is a potent driver of support for and understanding of cancel culture and that value-based framing has a weaker impact as compared to partisanship. Cancel culture provides an important case study of how Americans process conflicting norms and values, including free speech and political accountability, beyond the typical constraints of the formal political system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The two position papers, Presentism and History in Music Education: What Content for What Future? by Giuseppina La Face (pp. 1-2) and Necessità della storia della musica by Paolo Somigli (pp. 2-6), contextualize the reasons and cultural objectives of the meeting held in Catania in May 2023, Presentism and History in Music Education: What Content for What Future? In particular, they emphasise the need for historical perspective and knowledge of the history of art music as a heritage to be received and transmitted, and as a tool for understanding history and current events.

Objective: to study the concept of newsmaking criminology and its relevance in the current conditions of mass media development.Methods: the methodological basis of the work consists of general scientific, social, and special-legal methods of cognition. The conducted research is based on the dialectical method (in determining the general direction of the study), methods of formal logic (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy), system method (in comparing and generalizing the information collected for the research).Results: the functions of newsmaking criminology in its classical manifestation, as well as its additional functions in the study of mass media in the Internet, were revealed. It is suggested that with the emergence of the World Wide Web, the relevance of newsmaking criminology has increased: social networks, blogs and video hosting as alternative media have a strong influence on public opinion, while an unlimited number of people have access to content generation, contrary to traditional media. Many states understand the importance of interaction between mass media and law enforcement agencies and are actively implementing their methods of promoting newsmaking criminology online. This article points out the risks that arise in media coverage of law enforcement and crime. One of such risks is the cancel culture, which is spontaneous, unpredictable in nature, and may jeopardize the quality of life of the victim or business reputation and activity of organizations.Scientific novelty: the functions performed by newsmaking criminology in the study of traditional and alternative media were identified. So far, such doctrine has not been sufficiently researched taking into account modern forms of mass communication. Examples of interaction between law enforcement agencies of different states and the media were analyzed.Practical significance: the study contributes to understanding the correlation between criminological phenomena and modern media platforms. The Internet and social networks provide new channels of information exchange that differ significantly from traditional media such as printed media or television.

In recent years, the unfinished sentences technique has become increasingly popular, especially for identifying everyday interpretations of concepts with ambiguous connotations (e.g., patriotism, heroism, etc.). The authors applied the unfinished sentences technique to study the phenomenon of cancel culture, which has been included in the scientific discourse relatively recently. The article presents different approaches to the definition and study of cancel culture, focusing on possible consequences of this phenomenon for society, and some concepts that are associated with cancel culture and can provide (albeit partial) explanation for it. The article describes the procedure and results of the exploratory study conducted by the authors and based on the unfinished sentences technique. Thus, respondents tend to define cancel culture as a means of influence used by society in case of unacceptable behavior. Respondents believe that no one is safe from “cancellation”, but decent people are less likely to be among the “cancelled”. Contrary to the media position, respondents more often associate cancellation not with media personalities (as its most likely objects) but with everyday immorality and stupidity; therefore, in general, attempts to cancel someone are perceived negatively based on the belief that cancel culture leads to emotional and social problems. As a rule, respondents consider actors with abnormal behavior (criminals, dishonest people, etc.) as deserving cancellation, thus, considering cancel culture as a means of protecting society from the destructive behavior of its members. If “cancellation” affects their personal interests, respondents would use the following tactics: in case of their “cancelling” respondents would prefer to correct their mistakes; if their loved ones are cancelled, respondents would focus on support and assistance; if the organization whose services respondents use is cancelled, they would rather be indifferent, since this situation does not directly affect their personality or self-perception.

The article analyses linguo-pragmatic characteristics of cancel discourse, which reflects and develops cancel culture, considered to be public disapproval and rejection of a social subject who has committed an offensive and unacceptable act, causing intolerance and wide discussion in digital, network and real public space. Cancel culture in different spheres of social life, including academic area, is considered from various perspectives. Linguistic means of cancelling (deplatforming, blacklisting, trolling, cyber-bullying, boycott, ostracism, etc.) in on-line and off-line cancel discourse, its communicative situations and topics, discursive practices and strategies, intentions and outcomes of participants’ interaction are studied. The topics causing the most severe cancelling in the academia environment (racial, gender, religious, social discrimination, etc.) are identified. Different types of administrators’ responses to faculty and student cancelling practices are revealed. It is argued that emphasizing offensive facts and rhetoric in the name on social justice, political correctness, and tolerance has become the new norm of Western university discourse, generating restrictions of ideas and speech freedom, which have traditionally been values developed in academia in young people. The study indicates that the discourse of cancellation unfolds around the accusatory ascriptive, which is accompanied by ridiculing/mocking the opponent, belittling their status, discrediting and defaming them, attributing to them infernal characteristics, silencing or canceling their presence in the information space.

What should be the rules governing campus speech in a liberal democratic society? On one side are those arguing for maximal protections for campus speech analogous to the First Amendment in the United States. On the other are those promoting stricter regulation of speech through formal and informal speech codes. This paper aims to carve a new path in the conversation. Both sides agree that the mission of the university is the discovery and dissemination of knowledge and that achieving this mission requires tolerant and open-minded students, faculty, and administrators. However, neither side has explicitly connected its advocacy for specific speech policies with these shared goals. Our paper advances the conversation by proposing a series of empirically testable mechanisms for connecting speech policies to the desired outcomes. We also argue that focusing on these mechanisms opens the way towards new and more tractable conceptual and normative debates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Melbourne Cup is Australia's pinnacle horse racing event, attracting more than 80,000 physical attendees each year (pre-COVID-19), as well as numerous others watching via live broadcasts around the country and overseas. In recent times, however, there have been growing calls to boycott the event, following concerns over the treatment of horses. New hashtag movements lobbying against horse racing have also emerged, aided by the affordances of social media. However, very little attention has been paid to these digital movements in the animal-based leisure and recreation literature. In this study, we investigate one such growing movement, namely, #Nuptothecup. We explore how horse racing is framed by digital activists, revealing their moral, socio-cultural, and political objections. Our findings suggest a societal shift towards a strong animal ethics sentiment combined with a more generalised disdain towards the racing industry and its wider societal ramifications. We argue that if #Nuptothecup and related activisms continue to gain momentum, the Cup may eventually lose its social licence to operate. Further, we consider potential opportunities for managers to reinvent horse racing's image and practices, if it is to secure its survival as an Australian recreational institution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper suggests that the phenomenon of 'cancel culture' has significant pedagogical implications for teacher education. In particular, the analysis problematises the phenomenon of cancel culture, focusing on how issues relating to race, racism and structural injustice are framed in social media. It is argued that for teacher education programs wrestling with how to guide teachers to deal with cancel culture, it is not enough to emphasise critical thinking, media literacy, debate and free speech. It is also important to avoid reproducing social media's framing of cancel culture as an individualised and psychologised phenomenon, and urge teachers to pay attention to structural issues of race, racism and injustice. It is suggested that despite the political or other risks involved, teacher education programs can make a valuable contribution to public debates by engaging cancel culture in ways that nurture vigilance and restorative justice measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can we separate art from the artist who created it? This essay discusses the debate over art created by morally problematic men, especially those revealed through the lens of #MeToo activism as sexual abusers. From a historical perspective, how should we regard the pornography produced by men like Bob Guccione, whose Penthouse magazine reached millions of readers from 1965 on and became one of the most important texts shaping 20th-century post-war American sexual discourse? What are the ethics of engaging with media texts built on the objectification of women's bodies, and do we cause new injury by bringing those long-hidden historical publications into current discourse? I share my experiences studying Guccione's life and the magazines he published, emphasizing the case of Viva, a lushly photographed, high-end title that blended radical feminism with full-frontal male nudity in an adventurous 1970s magazine for women. Viva complicates the idea, drawn from contemporary cancel culture, that art produced by abusive creators should be ignored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis is the property of Amsterdam University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This research analyzes the phenomena of social criticism and cancel culture in the context of the Gisella Anastasia sex scandal, focusing on analyzing netizen comments on YouTube news channels. Foucault's discourse analysis is used to explore how comments reflect power dynamics on social media. These comments fall into four categories: social media shaming, slut-shaming, redemption support, and superficial praise. The research findings show mixed reactions from netizens about the Gisella Anastasia scandal, with social media backlash and slut shaming highlighting strong criticism of her behavior. On the other hand, redemption support illustrates support and forgiveness towards the celebrity's efforts to amend their actions following clarification or apologies. Shallow praise focuses on compliments that are not related to the main issue. The research reveals that social media shaming and slut shaming are the primary comment categories. Using a Foucauldian approach, it examines how these comments reflect systems of discipline and punishment, highlighting the complexities of cancel culture and its impact on interpretation and judgment in the social media age.. The analysis of netizen comments provides insights into how power and social control are manifested in online interactions and their implications on the reputation and public perception of celebrities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on shaping views on cancel culture on the Internet by researchers and academic teachers. This phenomenon has gained significance in scientific publications and social media, leading to various definitions and assessments. Research has shown that authors of publications often present extreme positions on cancel culture, resulting in a lack of scientific consensus on the issue. The article also emphasizes that both positive and negative opinions about cancel culture are present in the literature, which can mislead readers. [Extracted from the article]

The #MeToo movement and social media have increased public awareness of sexual violence, particularly when committed by high-profile celebrities. Presently, we are within a unique sociocultural space, often referred to as "cancel culture," in which perpetrators of sexual violence may face increased accountability. However, "cancelation" is not equally applied to all perpetrators. The purpose of this study was to explore the roles of perpetrator likeability and tactic (i.e., force and coercion) on the degree to which perpetrators are "canceled" (i.e., held accountable through personal, professional, and legal repercussions) for sexual assault. Among a sample of 238 participants, results of this experimental vignette study revealed that perpetrators viewed as unlikeable received more blame than those who were likeable or described in a neutral manner, with the survivors in the likeable perpetrator and neutral scenarios receiving greater blame. Moreover, perpetrators who used coercion were less likely to be blamed and be held accountable than those who used force, with the survivors in the coercive scenarios receiving greater blame. No interaction effects emerged between likeability and tactic, suggesting that the main effects operate independently of one another. Though the #MeToo movement and cancel culture have created cultural change in the United States, the findings from this study suggest that perpetrators continue to be held less accountable, so long as they are not unlikeable and do not use force. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Universities in many liberal democracies, such as the US, the UK, or Germany, grapple with a pivotal question: how much room should be given to controversial utterances? On the one side, there are those who advocate for limiting permissible speech on campus to create a safe environment for a diverse student body and counter the mainstreaming of extremist views, particularly by right-wing populists. On the other side, concerns arise about stifling the free exchange of ideas and creating an atmosphere of fear and censorship. The debate is further complicated by participants' occasional uncertainties about the legal norms relevant in the given context, such as when freedom of speech is an issue and when it is not. This paper addresses the question of whether universities should allow actors with primarily political (as opposed to scholarly) agendas to speak on campus. Focusing on German universities, we begin by discussing some of the potentially relevant legal norms. We then propose shifting emphasis from whether we should make room for public political discussions on campus to how such events must be organized so that they deliver the goods that their advocates emphasize while avoiding the dangers of which critics warn. Drawing on conflict management literature concerned with process design, we make several practical suggestions on how to organize an event that brings political discourse to the university campus without causing harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The essence of the phenomenon of “cancel culture” and the reasons for its relevance in contemporary cultural discourse have been uncovered. Its impact on the protection and preservation of national identity, politics, and intercultural relations has been characterized, and the potential risks of its spread have been considered. The practice of “cancel culture” elicits ambivalent attitudes – it is seen as an opportunity to draw attention to unfair actions, discrimination, and to encourage the protection of democratic values and human rights. However, “cancel culture” also acquires a negative interpretation as posing a potential threat to freedom of speech and constructive criticism. Achieving open dialogue and free expression of different opinions is crucial here. Discussions on “cancel culture” during the war reflect tendencies towards resistance and the protection of national self-identification. It’s not just about internal processes of combating Russia’s cultural expansion but also about efforts to represent Ukraine on the international stage. Sometimes, proponents of Russian culture try to dissociate it from imperial ambitions and contemporary war crimes. However, certain European countries are gradually beginning to reassess their stance on these issues, showing increasing solidarity with Ukraine by boycotting Russian cultural events and critically assessing its real impact in the contemporary world. Ukrainian cultural and art institutions, amidst the war, have lost a significant amount of talented youth who left Ukraine, but they adapt their current capabilities to conduct various events to psychologically support Ukrainians. Cultural initiatives allow promoting Ukrainian culture globally and reflecting the true realities of the war. Cultural exchanges during festivals, exhibitions, biennales, musical and theatrical tours play a significant role, aiming to promote Ukrainian culture in the world: Ukrainian artists are participants in the Frankfurt Book Fair, as well as the Maltese Biennale, where the Ukrainian pavilion was opened for the project “From South to North” by artist A. Kakhidze. Such events create a platform for discussing issues of memory, history, and cultural connections at the international level.

The article considers a little-researched topic - fundamentally contested classics: when canonical figures in the history of social thought are regularly placed at the center of intense discursive struggles that go beyond the boundaries of normal scientific criticism. First, the author mentions the ambivalent reception of M. Weber’s heritage as a basic element of the sociological canon due to its extremely fragmentary nature even within the positive perception of his ideas. Further, the article schematically reconstructs the long tradition of intellectual struggle with Weber personally and his ideas. The author believes that there is a gap in global Weber studies, which is anti-Weberianism as a significant intellectual and cultural practice that has not yet been explicitly reflected, and proposes an analytical scheme for systematizing permanent attacks on Weber at different levels (personal, discursive and institutional). The first critical strategy focuses on Weber’s personality, emphasizing the incoherence of his scientifictheoretical views and way of life. The second type of criticism focuses on Weber’s ideas, trying, under the guise of academic polemics, to refute the main provisions of Weber’s sociology as untenable for productive work within the current sociological research (as a rule, the leading motives of such a strategy lie outside scientific discussions). The third anti-Weber strategy is openly political/ideological in nature and aims not so much at exposing the scientific fallacy of his theses as at their ideological condemnation, formal ban or “cancellation” as harmful and dangerous for the goals of particular social movements. In conclusion, the author mentions some attempts to “cancel” Weber in Russia - both within the academy and by ideologically biased publicists and bloggers.

Copyright of Environmental & Social Management Journal / Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental is the property of Environmental & Social Management Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

'Contested heritage' and 'cancel culture' have specific meanings and points of reference in our culture today, but these are by no means new phenomena in the life of cathedrals. At the time of the Reformation and the Civil War, all evidence of traditional Catholic culture was considered fair game for iconoclasts, who systematically destroyed saints' shrines and tombs with their relics. In recent years, in association with the revival of the practice of pilgrimage and in unstated rejection of Reformation tradition, shrines of saints in many cathedrals have been restored, some including relics. It is unsurprising that saints and their shrines can be controversial, since saints themselves are 'signs of contradiction', those whose lives lived according to the standards of the kingdom of heaven challenge the values of earthly kingdoms and cultures. Norwich Cathedral is unusual among the ancient cathedrals of England in never having had a great saint enshrined within it. This study will consider the cases of two figures locally revered as martyrs, William of Norwich and Edith Cavell, whose lives and witness have been causes of international controversy and yet who still merit commemoration by Christians today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past few years, and in the aftermath of the #MeToo movement, increased attention has been devoted to the practice of “cancelling:” the withdrawal of support from someone whose values, action or speech are deemed unacceptable. While social justice advocates see cancelling as a tool advancing equality and inclusion, the pejorative term “cancel culture” has quickly earned a contested status and was used by opposers to warn against a “takeover” of “woke” values. The Joss Whedon fan community, centered around a creator celebrated for advancing feminist agendas in popular culture, is an intriguing site within this broader controversy. The aim of this study is to explore how fans navigate the ambivalences inherent in cancelling a previously-valued creator, and the tensions between promoting liberal values and protecting objects of fandom. Drawing on 20 in-depth interviews with Whedon fans and former fans, we propose a framework conceptualizing cancelling as consisting of three layers: cancelling the emotional relationship towards the creator, cancelling his works, and promoting cancelling as an ideological choice. The framework is helpful in understanding the broader tensions inherent in the practice of cancelling, in the context of culture and gender wars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Catalunya is the property of Fundacio Revista de Catalunya and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

What is the role of researchers in society? Can research be political? A heated debate in Denmark about activist research and pseudoscience raised many philosophical issues about the role of the scientist in society. In this article, we distinguish between different strands of this debate about activist research and the limits of academic freedom from the perspective of ethics and the philosophy of science. We begin by presenting some topics from the debate. Then we discuss perspectives from the ethics of science in relation to science and society, cancel culture, pseudoscience, demarcation, and academic freedom. Moreover, we analyze the ethical obligation of researchers to be public intellectuals as essential for ensuring the ethics and responsibility of science in democratic societies. Accordingly, we present the idea of the public intellectual proposed by Hannah Arendt as a justification for the protection of academic freedom and for the ethical responsibility of science in society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science is critical and thrives on discourse. However, new challenges for science and academic freedom have arisen from an often‐discussed cancel culture and an increasing demand for safe spaces, which are justified by their assumed protection against microaggressions. These phenomena can impede scientific progress and innovation by prohibiting certain thought processes and heterodox ideas that eventually result in new ideas, publications, statements, etc. In this paper, we use the approach of property rights ethics to shed light on these phenomena, especially in academia. First, we argue that microaggressions must be generally tolerated according to property rights ethics as the starting point for discussion. Then, we analyze cancel culture and safe spaces in academia. To this end, we distinguish between two basic cases in the educational system. We show that cancel culture and safe spaces seem justifiable in a private education system but have no place in public, tax‐funded universities from the perspective of property ethics. Our essay contributes, on the one hand, to the economic analysis of science and, on the other hand, to the ethical study of new phenomena in modern societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Annals of Social Sciences / Roczniki Nauk Społecznych is the property of Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL & Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawla II and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study explores possible reasons for cancel culture in higher education in the Arab world. Specifically, through Q methodology, it investigates the perceptions of twenty-one academics of different nationalities and from different backgrounds working in various universities in the Arab world as to the causes and their professional experiences of cancel culture. The aim is to contribute to a necessary discussion of cancel culture and its impacts on Arab higher education, with the hope of strengthening the region's academic freedom. The data reveal that several political and social issues engender cancel culture in Arab universities. In effect, results indicate that academics working in higher education in the Arab world embrace a 'culture of safetyism' to keep themselves, their students and the societies in which they live 'emotionally safe'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)