People take challenged each other's views for much of homo history. Merely the net – particularly social media – has changed how, when and where these kinds of interactions occur. The number of people who tin go online and call out others for their beliefs or words is immense, and it'south never been easier to summon groups to bring together the public fray.

The phrase "cancel civilization" is said to have originated from a relatively obscure slang term – "cancel," referring to breaking up with someone – used in a 1980s song. This term was then referenced in pic and television receiver and after evolved and gained traction on social media. Over the past several years, cancel culture has go a securely contested idea in the nation'southward political discourse. There are plenty of debates over what it is and what it means, including whether it's a way to hold people accountable, or a tactic to punish others unjustly, or a mix of both. And some argue that cancel culture doesn't even exist.

To better understand how the U.S. public views the concept of cancel culture, Pew Research Center asked Americans in September 2020 to share – in their own words – what they think the term means and, more broadly, how they feel nigh the human action of calling out others on social media. The survey finds a public deeply divided, including over the very meaning of the phrase.

Pew Research Center has a long history of studying the tone and nature of online discourse as well equally emerging net phenomena. This report focuses on American adults' perceptions of cancel culture and, more generally, calling out others on social media. For this analysis, we surveyed 10,093 U.S. adults from Sept. viii to 13, 2020. Everyone who took part is a member of the Eye's American Trends Console (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This manner nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP's methodology.

This essay primarily focuses on responses to three different open-ended questions and includes a number of quotations to help illustrate themes and add nuance to the survey findings. Quotations may take been lightly edited for grammer, spelling and clarity. Here are the questions used for this essay, along with responses, and its methodology.

Who'south heard of 'cancel culture'?

As is often the case when a new term enters the collective dictionary, public awareness of the phrase "cancel civilization" varies – sometimes widely – across demographic groups.

In September 2020, 44% of Americans had heard at least a fair amount about the phrase 'cancel culture'

Overall, 44% of Americans say they accept heard at least a fair corporeality most the phrase, including 22% who have heard a cracking deal, co-ordinate to the Eye'south survey of 10,093 U.S. adults, conducted Sept. 8-13, 2020. Still, an even larger share (56%) say they've heard nothing or not as well much about information technology, including 38% who take heard nothing at all. (The survey was fielded before a string of recent conversations and controversies about abolish civilization.)

Familiarity with the term varies with historic period. While 64% of adults nether 30 say they take heard a great deal or fair amount about abolish culture, that share drops to 46% among those ages thirty to 49 and 34% among those l and older.

There are gender and educational differences as well. Men are more likely than women to exist familiar with the term, as are those who have a bachelor's or advanced degree when compared with those who accept lower levels of formal education.1

While discussions around cancel civilisation can be highly partisan, Democrats and Autonomous-leaning independents are no more probable than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase (46% vs. 44%). (All references to Democrats and Republicans in this analysis include independents who lean to each political party.)

When accounting for ideology, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are more likely to have heard at least a fair amount about cancel civilization than their more moderate counterparts within each party. Liberal Democrats stand out as nigh likely to be familiar with the term.

How do Americans define 'cancel culture'?

Equally office of the survey, respondents who had heard about "cancel culture" were given the chance to explain in their own words what they think the term means.

Conservative Republicans less likely than other partisan, ideological groups to describe 'cancel culture' as actions taken to hold others accountable

The most common responses by far centered effectually accountability. Some 49% of those familiar with the term said information technology describes actions people take to concur others answerable:two

A small share who mentioned accountability in their definitions besides discussed how these actions can exist misplaced, ineffective or overtly cruel.

Some 14% of adults who had heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture described it as a class of censorship, such as a restriction on free speech or as history beingness erased:

A similar share (12%) characterized cancel culture as mean-spirited attacks used to cause others harm:

Five other distinct descriptions of the term cancel culture also appeared in Americans' responses: people canceling anyone they disagree with, consequences for those who have been challenged, an set on on traditional American values, a mode to call out issues like racism or sexism, or a misrepresentation of people's actions. About one-in-ten or fewer described the phrase in each of these ways.

In that location were some notable partisan and ideological differences in what the term abolish civilization represents. Some 36% of bourgeois Republicans who had heard the term described it every bit actions taken to hold people accountable, compared with roughly half or more of moderate or liberal Republicans (51%), bourgeois or moderate Democrats (54%) and liberal Democrats (59%).

Conservative Republicans who had heard of the term were more than likely than other partisan and ideological groups to come across cancel civilisation equally a form of censorship. Roughly a quarter of conservative Republicans familiar with the term (26%) described it as censorship, compared with 15% of moderate or liberal Republicans and roughly 1-in-ten or fewer Democrats, regardless of ideology. Conservative Republicans aware of the phrase were also more than likely than other partisan and ideological groups to define cancel culture as a way for people to cancel anyone they disagree with (15% say this) or as an attack on traditional American society (13% say this).

Click hither to explore more definitions and explanations of the term cancel culture.

Partisans differ over whether calling out others on social media for potentially offensive content represents accountability or punishment

Given that cancel culture can mean dissimilar things to different people, the survey also asked about the more than full general deed of calling out others on social media for posting content that might be considered offensive – and whether this kind of beliefs is more probable to hold people accountable or punish those who don't deserve it.

Overall, 58% of U.Due south. adults say in general, calling out others on social media is more probable to concord people accountable, while 38% say it is more likely to punish people who don't deserve it. But views differ sharply by party. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that, in general, calling people out on social media for posting offensive content holds them accountable (75% vs. 39%). Conversely, 56% of Republicans – but but 22% of Democrats – believe this type of action by and large punishes people who don't deserve it.

Within each party, there are some small-scale differences by education level in these views. Specifically, Republicans who have a high schoolhouse diploma or less teaching (43%) are slightly more than likely than Republicans with some college (36%) or at least a bachelor's degree (37%) to say calling people out for potentially offensive posts is property people answerable for their deportment. The reverse is truthful among Democrats: Those with a bachelor's degree or more instruction are somewhat more likely than those with a high school diploma or less teaching to say calling out others is a form of accountability (78% vs. seventy%).

Among Democrats, roughly three-quarters of those nether 50 (73%) as well as those ages l and older (76%) say calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people answerable for their actions. At the same fourth dimension, majorities of both younger and older Republicans say this action is more probable to punish people who didn't deserve it (58% and 55%, respectively).

People on both sides of the issue had an opportunity to explain why they run across calling out others on social media for potentially offensive content as more likely to exist either a form of accountability or punishment. Nosotros and then coded these answers and grouped them into wide areas to frame the cardinal topics of debates.

Initial coding schemes for each question were derived from reading though the open up-concluded responses and identifying common themes. Using these themes, coders read each response and coded up to three themes for each response. (If a response mentioned more than three themes, the commencement three mentioned were coded.)

After all the responses were coded, similarities and groupings among codes both within and across the two questions about accountability and penalisation became apparent. Every bit such, answers were grouped into broad areas that framed the biggest points of disagreement betwixt these ii groups.

We identified five key areas of disagreement in respondents' arguments for why they held their views of calling out others, broken down as follows:

  • 25% of all adults address topics related to whether people who phone call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful
  • xiv% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior
  • 10% focus on whether free spoken language or creating a comfortable environment online is more important
  • eight% address the differing agendas of those who phone call out others
  • iv% focus on whether speaking up is the all-time action to have if people notice content offensive.

For the codes that make upwardly each of these areas, meet the Appendix.

Some 17% of Americans who say that calling out others on social media holds people accountable say it can be a educational activity moment that helps people acquire from their mistakes and do better in the future. Among those who say calling out others unjustly punishes them, a similar share (18%) say it's considering people are not taking the context of a person'due south postal service or the intentions backside it into account before against that person.

Americans explain why they think calling out others on social media for potentially offensive posts is either holding people accountable or unjustly punishing them

In all, 5 types of arguments about ordinarily stand out in people'due south answers. A quarter of all adults mention topics related to whether people who telephone call out others are rushing to guess or are trying to exist helpful; 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior or not; ten% focus on whether free voice communication or creating a comfortable environment online is more than important; 8% address the perceived agendas of those who call out others; and 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to accept if people discover content offensive.

Are people rushing to approximate or trying to be helpful?

The nearly mutual area of opposing arguments about calling out other people on social media arises from people'southward differing perspectives on whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or instead trying to be helpful.

One-in-five Americans who see this type of beliefs as a form of accountability point to reasons that chronicle to how helpful calling out others can exist. For instance, some explained in an open up-ended question that they associate this beliefs with moving toward a better society or educating others on their mistakes so they can practise better in the futurity. Conversely, roughly a 3rd (35%) of those who encounter calling out other people on social media as a form of unjust penalization cite reasons that relate to people who call out others being rash or judgmental. Some of these Americans meet this kind of beliefs as overreacting or unnecessarily lashing out at others without because the context or intentions of the original poster. Others emphasize that what is considered offensive can exist subjective.

The 2d most common source of disagreement centers on the question of whether calling out others tin can solve anything: 13% of those who come across calling out others as a form of penalisation affect on this result in explaining their stance, every bit do 16% who see information technology as a form of accountability. Some who meet calling people out as unjust punishment say it solves nothing and can really brand things worse. Others in this grouping question whether social media is a viable identify for whatever productive conversations or encounter these platforms and their culture as inherently problematic and sometimes toxic. Conversely, there are those who run into calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for what they post or to ensure that people consider the consequences of their social media posts.

Which is more than important, free voice communication or creating a comfortable surround online?

Pew Research Heart has studied the tension between free oral communication and feeling safe online for years, including the increasingly partisan nature of these disputes. This contend as well appears in the context of calling out content on social media. Some 12% of those who see calling people out every bit punishment explain – in their own words – that they are in favor of free oral communication on social media. By comparison, ten% of those who see it in terms of accountability believe that things said in these social spaces matter, or that people should exist more considerate by thinking before posting content that may be offensive or make people uncomfortable.

What'due south the agenda behind calling out others online?

Another pocket-size share of people mention the perceived calendar of those who telephone call out other people on social media in their rationales for why calling out others is accountability or punishment. Some people who encounter calling out others equally a form of accountability say it's a way to expose social ills such as misinformation, racism, ignorance or hate, or a way to make people face what they say online head-on past explaining themselves. In all, viii% of Americans who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for their actions phonation these types of arguments.

Those who see calling others out every bit a grade of punishment, by contrast, say it reflects people canceling anyone they disagree with or forcing their views on others. Some respondents feel people are trying to marginalize White voices and history. Others in this group believe that people who call out others are being disingenuous and doing and so in an try to brand themselves look skilful. In total, these types of arguments were raised by 9% of people who see calling out others equally punishment.


Should people speak upwards if they are offended?

Arguments for why calling out others is accountability or penalisation too involve a small but notable share who argue whether calling others out on social media is the best class of action for someone who finds a particular post offensive. Some 5% of people who see calling out others equally punishment say those who observe a mail offensive should non appoint with the post. Instead, they should take a different course of activeness, such as removing themselves from the state of affairs past ignoring the post or blocking someone if they don't similar what that person has to say. However, iv% of those who meet calling out others as a form of accountability believe information technology is imperative to speak up because saying zip changes nothing.

Beyond these five main areas of contention, some Americans come across shades of grey when information technology comes to calling out other people on social media and say it can exist difficult to classify this kind of beliefs equally a form of either accountability or punishment. They note that at that place can be great variability from case to case, and that the efficacy of this approach is by no means compatible: Sometimes those who are being chosen out may answer with heartfelt apologies but others may erupt in acrimony and frustration.

Acknowledgments – Appendix – Methodology – Topline

Below, we have gathered a pick of quotes from 3 open up-ended survey questions that address ii key topics. Americans who've heard of the term abolish culture were asked to define what information technology ways to them. After answering a closed-ended question nearly whether calling out others on social media was more probable to agree people accountable for their deportment or punish people who didn't deserve it, they were asked to explicate why they held this view – that is, they were either asked why they saw information technology as accountability or why they saw it equally penalty.