Possibilities of the unfinished sentences technique in the study of cancel culture

Abstract

In recent years, the unfinished sentences technique has become increasingly popular, especially for identifying everyday interpretations of concepts with ambiguous connotations (e.g., patriotism, heroism, etc.). The authors applied the unfinished sentences technique to study the phenomenon of cancel culture, which has been included in the scientific discourse relatively recently. The article presents different approaches to the definition and study of cancel culture, focusing on possible consequences of this phenomenon for society, and some concepts that are associated with cancel culture and can provide (albeit partial) explanation for it. The article describes the procedure and results of the exploratory study conducted by the authors and based on the unfinished sentences technique. Thus, respondents tend to define cancel culture as a means of influence used by society in case of unacceptable behavior. Respondents believe that no one is safe from “cancellation”, but decent people are less likely to be among the “cancelled”. Contrary to the media position, respondents more often associate cancellation not with media personalities (as its most likely objects) but with everyday immorality and stupidity; therefore, in general, attempts to cancel someone are perceived negatively based on the belief that cancel culture leads to emotional and social problems. As a rule, respondents consider actors with abnormal behavior (criminals, dishonest people, etc.) as deserving cancellation, thus, considering cancel culture as a means of protecting society from the destructive behavior of its members. If “cancellation” affects their personal interests, respondents would use the following tactics: in case of their “cancelling” respondents would prefer to correct their mistakes; if their loved ones are cancelled, respondents would focus on support and assistance; if the organization whose services respondents use is cancelled, they would rather be indifferent, since this situation does not directly affect their personality or self-perception.

About the authors

A. S. Savenkova

RUDN University

Author for correspondence.
Email: savenkova-ansr@rudn.ru
Miklukho-Maklaya St., 6, Moscow, 117198, Russia

M. V. Subbotina

RUDN University

Email: subbotina-mv@rudn.ru
Miklukho-Maklaya St., 6, Moscow, 117198, Russia

References

  1. Assman A. Zabvenie istorii — oderzhimost istoriey [Oblivion of History — Obsession with History]. Moscow; 2019. (In Russ.).
  2. Bespalova Yu.M., Kondakov V.A. Modernizatsionnye preobrazovaniya v Rossii [Modernization transformations in Russia]. Materialy IV Ocherednogo Vserossiyskogo sotsiologicheskogo kongressa. Moscow; 2012. (In Russ.).
  3. Boykina E.E. Ostrakizm i rodstvennye fenomeny: obzor zarubezhnyh issledovaniy [Ostracism and related phenomena: A review of foreign studies]. Psikhologiya i Pravo. 2019; 9 (3). (In Russ.).
  4. Bylevsky P.G., Tsatskina E.P. Fenomenologichesky analiz yavleniya “kultura otmeny” [Phenomenological analysis of “cancel culture”]. Vestnik MGLU. Gumanitarnye Nauki. 2022; 2. (In Russ.).
  5. Zhmurov V.A. Bolshaya entsiklopediya po psikhiatrii [The Great Encyclopedia of Psychiatry]. Moscow; 2012. (In Russ.).
  6. Zaykova O.N., Sokovikov S.S. Resentiment kak kontekstualnaya sreda kultury otmeny [Ressentiment as a contextual environment of cancel culture]. XIV Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya “Teoreticheskaya i prikladnaya etika: Traditsii i perspektivy — 2022. K 100-letiyu ‘Filosofskogo parokhoda’”. Otv. red. V.Yu. Perov. Saint Petersburg; 2022. (In Russ.).
  7. Kazakova A.Yu. Diskriminatsiya arendatora: ksenofobiya ili praktika bezopasnosti [Discrimination of the tenant: Xenophobia or safety practices]. Zhilishchnye Strategii. 2019; 6 (2). (In Russ.).
  8. Kotunova O.V. Kultura otmeny: etichesky analiz [Cancel culture: An ethical analysis]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 7: Filosofiya. 2022; 2. (In Russ.).
  9. Merton R.K. Sotsialnaya teoriya i sotsialnaya struktura [Social Theory and Social Structure]. Moscow; 2006. (In Russ.).
  10. Nabieva K.M. Problemy demografii Yuzhnoy Korei v XXI veke [Demographic problems of South Korea in the 21st century]. Koreevedenie v Rossii: Napravlenie i Razvitie. 2020; 1 (1). (In Russ.).
  11. Nietzsche F. K genealogii morali [On the genealogy of morality]. Sochinenya. Vol. 2. Moscow; 1990. (In Russ.).
  12. Noelle-Neumann E. Obshchestvennoe mnenie. Otkrytie spirali molchaniya [The Spiral of Silence. A Theory of Public Opinion]. Moscow; 1996. (In Russ.).
  13. Sikevich Z.V. Opyt primeneniya protsedury neokonchennyh predlozheniy v sotsiologicheskom issledovanii [An application of the unfinished sentences technique in sociological research]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Sotsiologiya. 2019; 4. (In Russ.).
  14. Surikov I.E. Ostrakizm v Afinah [Ostracism in Athens]. Moscow; 2006. (In Russ.).
  15. Tatarova G.G., Burlov A.V. Logicheskaya organizatsiya analiza dannyh, poluchennyh metodom neokonchennyh predlozheniy [Logical organization of the analysis of data obtained by the unfinished sentences technique]. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya. 1999; 8. (In Russ.).
  16. Tikhomirov D.A., Novitskaya K.V. Predstavleniya molodezhi Moskvy o gendernyh rolyah i kharakteristikah sovremennoy zhenshchiny [Moscow youth’s ideas about gender roles and characteristics of the contemporary woman]. Gorizonty Gumanitarnogo Znaniya. 2018; 3. (In Russ.).
  17. Trotsuk I. Diskursivnoe konstruirovanie sotsialnoy realnosti: kontseptualnye osnovaniya i empiricheskie priemy razoblacheniya “skvernyh” praktik [Discursive construction of social reality: Conceptual foundations and empirical devices for unmasking the “abominable” practices]. Russian Sociological Review. 2014; 13 (2). (In Russ.).
  18. Trotsuk I.V. Nespravedlivaya spravedlivost, ili kak sotsialny aktivizm razrushaet idei ravenstva i “khoroshego obshchestva” [Unfair justice, or how social activism destroys the ideas of equality and ‘good society’]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2022; 22 (2). (In Russ.).
  19. Trotsuk I.V. Spravedlivost v sotsiologicheskom diskurse: semanticheskie, empi-richeskie, istoricheskie i kontseptualnye poiski [Justice in sociological discourse: Semantic, empirical, historical, and conceptual challenges]. Russian Sociological Review. 2019; 18 (1). (In Russ.).
  20. Trotsuk I.V., Sokhadze K.G. Politkorrektnost, postmodern i neotraybalizm: so-tsiologichesky vzglyad na ideologiyu, instrumenty i posledstviya “vosstaniya menshinstv” [Political correctness, postmodernism and neotribalism: A sociological perspective on ideology, instruments and consequences of ‘the revolt of the minorities’]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2015; 3. (In Russ.).
  21. Trotsuk I.V., Subbotina M.V. “Yadro” i “periferiya” ponyatiy “schastie” i “spravedlivost”: metod neokonchennyh predlozheniy kak instrument validizatsii [‘Core’ and ‘periphery’ of the concepts ‘happiness’ and ‘justice’: Unfinished sentences technique as a means of validation]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2022; 22 (4). (In Russ.).
  22. Scheler M. Resentiment v strukture moraley [Resentment in the Structure of Morals]. Saint Petersburg; 1999. (In Russ.).
  23. Blitvich P.G.-C. Moral emotions, good moral panics, social regulation, and online public shaming. Language & Communication. 2022; 84.
  24. Clark D. Drag them: A brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture”. Communication and the Public. 2020; 5 (3–4).
  25. Dias N., Druckman J.N., Levendusky M. Unraveling a “Cancel Culture” Dynamic: When and Why Americans Sanction Offensive Speech. 2024. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4235680 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4235680.
  26. Dickson E.J. Men Always Win: Survivors “Sickened” by the Amber Heard Verdict. 2020. URL: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-verdict-metoo-trial-1361356.
  27. Hasinoff A.A., Schneider N. From scalability to subsidiarity in addressing online harm. Social Media + Society. 2022; 8 (3).
  28. Henderson R. The atavism of cancel culture. City Journal. 2019; October.
  29. Khosravi N.M. Social media critical discourse studies. Flowerdew J., Richardson J. (Eds.). Handbook of Critical Discourse Analysis. London; 2018.
  30. Narbut N.P., Trotsuk I.V. Neighboring countries’ images: Persistent stereotypes of the Russian student youth. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2017; 17 (3).
  31. Norris P. Cancel culture: Myth or reality? Political Studies. 2021; 71.
  32. Owens E. The Case for Cancel Culture. Washington; 2023.
  33. Shepherd T., Harvey A., Jordan T., Srauy S., Miltner K. Histories of hating. Social Media + Society. 2015; 1 (2).
  34. Suvakovic U.V., Narbut N.P., Trotsuk I.V. The youth of Russia and Serbia: Social trust and key generational problems. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2016; 16 (4).
  35. Trotsuk I.V. Complex concepts with varying connotations: In search for conceptual
  36. definitions. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2021; 21 (2).
  37. Trotsuk I.V., Subbotina M.V. Three questions to start the sociological study of
  38. heroism. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2021; 21 (1).
  39. Valdes I. El Congreso aprueba la ‘ley del solo sí es sí’, que consagra el consentimiento como clave de la libertad sexual. 2022. URL: elpais.com.
  40. Wong R.S. Revisiting cancel culture. Contexts. 2022; 21 (4).
  41. Yardi S., Boyd D. Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2010; 30.

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.


Copyright (c) 2024 Savenkova A.S., Subbotina M.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies