Is "Cancel Culture" Good For Philosophy?

“Cancel culture” is bad—say the critics—because it censors free speech and limits the free exchange of ideas. There shouldn’t be tariffs on unpopular opinions, and besides, who gets to decide what is and isn’t “toxic?”

Yet having a book pulled or an event cancelled is not the same as capital punishment, which was the original cancel culture that faced social critics for millennia (see Socrates’s Apology).

Leo Strauss notes that great philosophers write for two audiences. For one, they regurgitate the pieties (exoteric truths) of their time. For the initiates, they offer critical examinations of society (esoteric truths) concealed between the lines or placed in the mouthpiece of disreputable characters. Esoteric writing allows philosophers to reach beyond their immediate audience while avoiding a death sentence by the powers that be.

Given that a sense of mortal danger is the agitation that produces the pearl of creative—and multi-layered—thought, perhaps the sense that one can’t speak one’s unpopular opinions freely is a good thing.

Jesus taught in parables. Plato wrote in dialogue form. Maybe we should embrace these as our models, preferring to address different audiences in different ways, rather than writing one explicit, prosaic statement for everyone? Perhaps philosophers should prefer cancel culture as it will make them more deliberate in what they choose to say and how they choose to say it.

What’s your Straussian read of this post?

---

What is Called Thinking? is a practice of asking a daily question on the belief that self-reflection brings awe, joy, and enrichment to one’s life. Consider becoming a subscriber to support this project and access subscriber-only content.

You can read my weekly Torah commentary here.