Cancel Culture has become sort of a buzzword and, admittedly, has become quite a cliché. Many intellectuals, celebrities, and other various Twitter blue-checkmark accounts on both the right and the left have denounced this phenomenon, though many do still deny the existence of, or in some cases even support Cancel Culture. Articles espousing such ideas have been published in the New York Times and other mainstream publications. Either way, the discussion has become stale, yet the occurrences do not seem to fade away. Just recently, the Left has tried to cancel both Ricky Gervais and Vince Vaughan for a comedy routine and a handshake, respectively. As people’s livelihoods and good reputations are at stake, this is not a discussion that should be fading away. To remedy this staling, I would like to introduce a new lens through which to view Cancel Culture, inspired by Catholic thought, yet applicable to secular consideration as well – that of the angelistic fallacy.
Mortimer Adler, a philosopher and public intellectual of the 20th century, coined the term ‘angelistic fallacy’ to encompass the range of issues that arise if we equate human beings and angels. According to him, “an angleistic fallacy consists in attributing to man attributes or powers that belong only to purely spiritual substances – to minds without bodies and not associated with bodies that are somehow their own.” While derived from a Catholic understanding of angels as pure intellect – a religion in which it is held that such beings truly exist – religion of any kind is not required to apply this concept. You need not believe that a being of pure intellect actually exists to consider the implications for such a being if it did.
A being of pure intellect is not hindered in its understanding like we, as corporeal beings, are. We apprehend through our senses and thus know things imperfectly, no matter how much study we apply to any one thing. However, a being of pure intellect, as it comes to know something (though the process by which such a being would come to know something is another story and would not fit into an article of this size) knows that thing perfectly – it is not limited in its knowledge by materiality.
This epistemological fact provides us with a difference in ethics between the two types of beings: corporeal and incorporeal. We humans, as corporeal beings, always act with an imperfect understanding of our actions and their repercussions, though that understanding can be more or less informed. For instance, a Catholic who is well read in Catholic Morality can still succumb to temptation and fall into sin as they lack full knowledge of the gravity and consequent repercussions of their offense. Intellectually, he may be able to say why it is morally reprehensible and perhaps make an educated claim concerning the degree of it severity, yet he lacks the full grasp of its true gravity and its true repercussions - knowledge he will always lack. However, because we always lack full knowledge of our actions, human fault invites forgiveness. Forgiveness is an acknowledgement of human weakness, of our inability to fully understand our actions.
Incorporeal beings of pure intellect know their actions and their respective repercussions perfectly. Because of this perfect knowledge, there are no unforeseen repercussions, no consequences that being did not fully intend to reap. For this reason, such beings cannot be forgiven. They have no weakness in understanding and forgiveness cannot apply. Again referencing Catholic theology, Lucifer had perfect knowledge of his actions and their impact before the fall, and due to this perfect knowledge, God will not forgive him for his sins.
I know this has been kind of abstract, and you would rightly ask how this applies to Cancel Culture. Perhaps you’ve even forgot this article is ultimately about Cancel Culture.
Cancel Culture does not permit forgiveness. It finds a fault and seeks permanent blacklisting, ostracization, of another. It is not the goal of Cancel Culture to reconcile the canceled with society at large. Think back to the incident with Kevin Hart over a year ago, where he was forced to abdicate his position as host of the Oscars over a few off-color, “homophobic” tweets – tweets that were years old. This episode not only reveals the bloodthirsty desires of the cancel mob to ruin careers and reputations, but also the permanence and totality they ascribe to relatively incidental factors. So the tweets were offensive, but they were also almost a decade old and held no bearing on the current day (not until the cancel mob drudged them up and forced them back into the popular discourse, that is). The truth is, Kevin Hart’s career was not built upon the content of those tweets, nor did it reflect ideals even somewhat similar; there is nothing he has done which would tell us he holds similar views today. Yet, as it goes with Cancel Culture – a sin can never be forgiven.
More recently, the cancel mob has found a new target: Joe Rogan. What did Joe Rogan do? He endorsed Bernie Sanders. In his podcast, he revealed, “I think I’ll probably vote for Bernie… He’s been insanely consistent his entire life…And that in and of itself is a very powerful structure to operate from.” This looks just like any other celebrity political endorsement – a routine occurrence. Look again, my dear reader, because Joe Rogan is a bigot! Not shy of a politically incorrect joke, or controversial guests on his podcast, and perhaps more egregious to the left, reasonable and well-informed right-wing guests (see Ben Shapiro, Stephen Crowder, etc.), Rogan is not the typical outspoken lefty propped by conventional media. But, to call him a bigot is an utter fallacy. Nonetheless, the accusation has been levied, notably by prominent canceller, journalist Carlos Maza, who tweeted, “Bernie’s campaign cutting a campaign ad with Joe Rogan f***ing sucks. Rogan is an incredibly influential bigot and Democrats should be marginalizing him.”
Such a tweet makes clear the goal of Cancel Culture – to “marginalize” those who go against the mainstream, leftist mob. To marginalize them no matter the severity of the crime, the relevance of the crime, nor the actual character and values of the cancelee. It is important to note that both these examples of “bigotry,” and a large portion of the “bigotry” in cancel scandals, are examples of humor, not genuinely held political and social views, yet in most cases (though notably excluding Joe Rogan and the Sanders Campaign) the "perpetrator" apologizes. However, apologies do not sate the mob as there is no room for forgiveness. The minor is made major, the insignificant is made significant, and the easily rectifiable is made unforgivable.
If Cancel Culture acts as though humans should not, and even cannot, be forgiven for their actions, then it must assume that humans have perfect knowledge of their actions. If it assumes that humans have perfect knowledge of their actions, then it must assume that humans are beings of pure intellect. It must assume we are incorporeal. It must assume that we are angels. Or if we have offended the cancel mob – fallen angels. This denies part of our very human substance - materiality.. In a world where abortion is supported after a child is born, it is no surprise to see popular leftist culture, once again, deny the humanity, and the intrinsic dignity that comes with such a substance, of others.
Now, this is not to suppose that all the bad actions of an individual can and should be whisked away with merely an apology. Murder, rape, theft, and a host of other serious crimes cannot be rectified by a mere apology. Duly, the perpetrators of these crimes serve jail time as an extension of justice in retribution for their offense. However, still the criminal justice system presupposes that a person can make recompense for their crime, or at least begin to in the limited time we have in our lives. Cancel Culture wants a complete termination, with no hope for redemption. So, yes, serious crimes must face retributive justice, but the actions of many of these celebrities are not serious crimes. They are off-color jokes, or offensive tweets, generally years old. An apology tweet is more than sufficient as penance for their “crimes.” The punishment fits the crime.
However, this entire article, I’ve been throwing the cancel mob a bone, presupposing that their gripes with these various celebrities are legitimate. Often times, the infraction in question does not even necessitate an apology. Should Joe Rogan apologize for taking a fairly common, legal, political action? Should Bernie Sanders’s campaign apologize for accepting a political endorsement? Should any host of comedians apologize for their jokes that twitter-happy people deem offensive? I hope you'll find the answers to these questions to be quite obvious.