The Aesthetics of Exclusion

What Cancellation Culture Reveals About Our Need for Clean Boundaries

Consider, for a moment, the electrifying shudder that runs through a community when someone “steps out of line.” It might be a public figure’s ill-judged tweet, a controversial statement unearthed from years past, or a nuanced opinion that suddenly, catastrophically, becomes unpalatable. The response is swift, often brutal, and strangely ritualistic. A consensus emerges, a judgment is rendered, and an expulsion often follows. But what exactly is happening in these moments of collective indignation? Is it merely justice, or something deeper, more primal?

We often frame “cancellation culture” as a modern phenomenon, a product of social media’s relentless gaze and instantaneity. Yet, the urge to define, categorize, and cast out those who threaten perceived order is as old as human society itself. This isn’t just about accountability; it’s about the fundamental human need for boundaries, for cleanliness, for a collective sense of purity. It’s about the aesthetic satisfaction derived from restoring order, even if that order is brutally enforced.

The Ritual of Purity and Expulsion

Think about dirt. As anthropologist Mary Douglas famously observed, “dirt is matter out of place.” It’s not inherently evil, but its location renders it impure, threatening. A shoe on a dinner table. Mud on a clean floor. In human society, certain ideas, behaviors, or individuals can become “matter out of place.” They disrupt the established categories, challenge the collective self-image, or simply exist where they are deemed not to belong.

This is where modern political and social shaming morphs into something akin to a structural, quasi-religious ritual. It’s not just punishment; it’s a purification ceremony. The collective identifies the “pollutant,” meticulously outlines its transgressions, and then, with righteous fervor, sets about isolating it. The act of cancellation, therefore, isn’t just a consequence; it’s a performance designed to restore the ‘purity’ of the collective order. It’s a reassertion of shared values, an often-unspoken reaffirmation of who “we” are, by clearly defining who “they” are not.

Dirt is matter out of place.

— Mary Douglas

What drives this intense need for clean boundaries?

Perhaps it’s an evolutionary hangover, a tribal instinct to protect the group from internal threats. Or perhaps it’s a desperate attempt to impose order on an increasingly chaotic world, a way to simplify complex moral dilemmas into clear-cut binaries of good and evil.

The Architecture of “Matter Out of Place”

The fascinating, and often terrifying, aspect of cancellation culture is the fluidity of these boundaries. What constitutes “matter out of place” shifts with alarming speed. Yesterday’s edgy humor is today’s unforgivable offense. Yesterday’s widely held belief is today’s heresy.

This constantly re-evaluated aesthetic of exclusion forces individuals to perform hyper-vigilance. We scrutinize not just others, but ourselves, for any misstep that might render us impure. The criteria for exclusion are often implicit, learned through observation of others’ public downfalls. It’s a game played without a rulebook, where the rules are written retrospectively, in the ashes of someone else’s reputation.

The beauty of the “cancellation” for the collective lies in its clarity. Once someone is deemed “out of place,” they are neatly filed away, their influence diminished, their presence scrubbed. The collective breathes a sigh of relief. Order has been restored. But at what cost is this aesthetic order achieved?

The Performance of Righteousness

Consider the chorus of voices that emerge during a public shaming. Social media becomes a stage for performative denunciation. Individuals rush to declare their alignment with the “pure” collective, to articulate their condemnation of the “impure.” This isn’t just about moral conviction; it’s about signaling one’s own virtue, one’s own belonging.

The fear of being perceived as complicit, of being associated with the “matter out of place,” can be a powerful motivator. It creates a chilling effect, where silence can be interpreted as approval, and a nuanced perspective as moral weakness. So, we join the chorus, not always out of genuine conviction, but out of a desperate need to avoid becoming the next target of the collective’s purifying gaze.

The human mind, in its quest for order, often mistakes rigid boundaries for genuine morality, sacrificing empathy and complexity at the altar of pristine categories.

The Unseen Cost of Cleanliness

While the urge for clean boundaries is understandable, perhaps even inherent, its unchecked expression through cancellation culture carries significant risks. What happens to nuance when the world is divided into pure and impure? What happens to growth when mistakes are met with permanent expulsion?

The problem is not the desire for accountability, but the mechanism of achieving it. Instead of fostering dialogue, understanding, and the possibility of redemption, cancellation often prioritizes the aesthetic satisfaction of clean lines and swift judgment. It leaves little room for:

• Nuance: Complex issues are flattened into binaries.

• Growth: The possibility for individuals to learn and evolve is often denied.

• Empathy: The humanity of the “cancelled” is often stripped away, making them easier to dismiss.

• Forgiveness: The concept of rehabilitation struggles against the permanence of digital records and collective memory.

Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war and chants the litany of fear. Self-righteousness in the name of God is a dangerous thing.

— Frank Herbert

Is our obsession with “cleanliness” leading us to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Are we creating a society so hyper-vigilant about impurity that it becomes sterile, devoid of the messy, uncomfortable conversations essential for true progress?

Unlock deeper insights with a 10% discount on the annual plan.
Support thoughtful analysis and join a growing community of readers committed to understanding the world through philosophy and reason.

Conclusion

The aesthetics of exclusion, laid bare by cancellation culture, reveal a profound human truth: our deep-seated need for order, for belonging, and for clear moral boundaries. We seek to define ourselves through what we are not, to purify our collective by expelling what we deem “matter out of place.” This instinct, ancient and powerful, is now amplified by the instantaneous global echo chamber of the internet.

But perhaps it’s time to question the cleanliness we so desperately crave. Are the sharp, unforgiving edges of our current boundaries serving us well? Or are we, in our zealous pursuit of purity, simply building new walls, creating new forms of exclusion, and stifling the very dialogue necessary for a truly resilient and compassionate society?