Introduction by Matthias Smalbrugge

Cancelling, the word once concerned appointments, lectures, meetings. You cancelled a thing, meaning you skipped an appointment or a meeting. Once it was skipped you had some time off and were free to do whatever you wanted with this newly acquired spare time. Those were the times cancelling still concerned matters. You cancelled ‘it’. Now, however, we cancel persons, opinions, views and convictions. And as opinions are voiced by people, this all comes down to cancelling persons.

Why? Because they represent views others consider to be harmful, discriminating and offensive. People are cancelled because their ideas do not match the fundamentals of social justice, hence they cannot be allowed to participate in the public debate. Their views are at odds with the essential criteria we should apply when it comes to a public debate. They are held accountable for a lack of social justice, which, unfortunately, they refuse to acknowledge. Now, by cancelling these persons and their opinions, there is at least this moment of freedom. Those who defend a certain form of social justice, feel released from oppressing dynamics. 

Freedom, social justice, accountability, these are the terms that come to mind when we speak about cancel culture. But also terms such as identity policy, intolerance, power struggle, undemocratic. People have been cancelled who in former times would have suffered a defeat in a debate. People have been cancelled because their view was less politically correct than was thought acceptable. Now, this is something that in particular in academia is highly problematic. Academia sees itself as the place where different opinions must lead to an open debate, where diversity is the key concept of every social and intellectual exchange. But suddenly, it is confronted with the idea that all this is nothing more than ignoring the immense lack of social justice inside its own walls. Suddenly it is confronted with the thesis that all these academic debates are hiding places of a power struggle. Admittedly, people are silenced. But they are silenced by those who for long, long times have been silenced themselves. People, therefore, who demand to be heard. Now.

Though it may seem jumping to conclusions, one of the things we can already argue for is that this whole debate on cancelling makes it clear that academia has definitely become part of the societal frictions and fractures. The divisions our society is struggling with have entered academia and it is far from evident that we can bridge these fractures inside academia. Yet, this round table is meant to discuss openly the different aspects of the cancel culture. Indeed, it is not only about the right to speak out. It is also about the paradox that if you hold someone accountable for a lack of social justice, the element of accountability precisely demands you are willing to engage in a dialogue. Being held accountable is listening and answering. Holding someone accountable implies speaking and listening. To end with, all this for the sake of getting released from structures harming freedom and equality.