People take challenged each other'south views for much of human history. Merely the internet – particularly social media – has changed how, when and where these kinds of interactions occur. The number of people who can become online and call out others for their behavior or words is immense, and it's never been easier to summon groups to join 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 so referenced in moving-picture show and goggle box and after evolved and gained traction on social media. Over the past several years, cancel culture has go a deeply contested idea in the nation's political soapbox. There are enough of debates over what it is and what it means, including whether it's a style to concord people answerable, or a tactic to punish others unjustly, or a mix of both. And some argue that abolish civilisation doesn't even exist.

To better understand how the U.South. public views the concept of abolish 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 experience about the human activity of calling out others on social media. The survey finds a public deeply divided, including over the very meaning of the phrase.

Pew Inquiry Centre has a long history of studying the tone and nature of online discourse equally well as emerging internet phenomena. This report focuses on American adults' perceptions of abolish culture and, more generally, calling out others on social media. For this analysis, we surveyed 10,093 U.South. adults from Sept. 8 to 13, 2020. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center's American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.Southward. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.South. developed population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more most the ATP'south methodology.

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

Who's heard of 'abolish culture'?

Equally is frequently the case when a new term enters the collective lexicon, public awareness of the phrase "cancel culture" varies – sometimes widely – beyond 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 amount most the phrase, including 22% who accept heard a great deal, co-ordinate to the Eye's survey of 10,093 U.S. adults, conducted Sept. 8-13, 2020. However, an fifty-fifty larger share (56%) say they've heard nothing or non too much about it, including 38% who accept heard zip at all. (The survey was fielded before a string of recent conversations and controversies virtually cancel culture.)

Familiarity with the term varies with age. While 64% of adults under 30 say they have heard a peachy deal or off-white corporeality virtually cancel culture, that share drops to 46% amidst those ages 30 to 49 and 34% amid those 50 and older.

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

While discussions effectually abolish culture 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 to the lowest degree a fair amount almost the phrase (46% vs. 44%). (All references to Democrats and Republicans in this analysis include independents who lean to each party.)

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

How do Americans define 'cancel civilisation'?

As part of the survey, respondents who had heard nearly "cancel culture" were given the chance to explicate in their own words what they remember the term ways.

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 around accountability. Some 49% of those familiar with the term said information technology describes actions people take to concord others accountable:two

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

Some 14% of adults who had heard at least a off-white amount almost cancel culture described it as a grade of censorship, such as a restriction on gratis speech or every bit history existence erased:

A similar share (12%) characterized cancel culture as hateful-spirited attacks used to crusade others impairment:

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

At that place were some notable partisan and ideological differences in what the term cancel civilisation represents. Some 36% of conservative Republicans who had heard the term described it every bit actions taken to concord people accountable, compared with roughly one-half or more than 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 probable than other partisan and ideological groups to meet abolish culture as a form of censorship. Roughly a quarter of bourgeois 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 civilization every bit a way for people to cancel anyone they disagree with (15% say this) or equally an assault on traditional American society (13% say this).

Click here to explore more than 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 civilisation tin mean different things to different people, the survey also asked nigh the more general human activity of calling out others on social media for posting content that might exist considered offensive – and whether this kind of behavior is more than likely to hold people answerable or punish those who don't deserve information technology.

Overall, 58% of U.Due south. adults say in full general, calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people answerable, 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 – only just 22% of Democrats – believe this blazon of action by and large punishes people who don't deserve it.

Within each party, there are some modest differences past education level in these views. Specifically, Republicans who accept a high school diploma or less education (43%) are slightly more likely than Republicans with some higher (36%) or at to the lowest degree a available's caste (37%) to say calling people out for potentially offensive posts is holding people accountable for their actions. The reverse is truthful among Democrats: Those with a bachelor'south degree or more educational activity are somewhat more than likely than those with a loftier school diploma or less education to say calling out others is a course of accountability (78% vs. 70%).

Amid Democrats, roughly three-quarters of those nether l (73%) equally well as those ages 50 and older (76%) say calling out others on social media is more probable to hold people accountable for their actions. At the same time, majorities of both younger and older Republicans say this action is more likely 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 see calling out others on social media for potentially offensive content equally more than probable to exist either a class of accountability or punishment. We then coded these answers and grouped them into broad areas to frame the key topics of debates.

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

After all the responses were coded, similarities and groupings amid codes both within and across the two questions about accountability and punishment became apparent. Equally such, answers were grouped into broad areas that framed the biggest points of disagreement between these two groups.

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

  • 25% of all adults address topics related to whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful
  • 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior
  • ten% focus on whether free speech or creating a comfortable environment online is more than important
  • 8% accost the differing agendas of those who phone call out others
  • four% focus on whether speaking up is the all-time action to take if people find content offensive.

For the codes that make up 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 teaching moment that helps people acquire from their mistakes and practice better in the futurity. 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's mail or the intentions behind it into account earlier confronting 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, five types of arguments most commonly stand out in people's answers. A quarter of all adults mention topics related to whether people who phone call out others are rushing to guess or are trying to be helpful; 14% eye on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior or not; 10% focus on whether gratis speech or creating a comfortable environs online is more important; 8% address the perceived agendas of those who call out others; and 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to take if people find content offensive.

Are people rushing to judge or trying to exist helpful?

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

I-in-five Americans who see this type of behavior equally a form of accountability bespeak to reasons that relate to how helpful calling out others can exist. For example, some explained in an open-ended question that they acquaintance this beliefs with moving toward a improve gild or educating others on their mistakes and so they can do better in the future. Conversely, roughly a third (35%) of those who meet calling out other people on social media as a form of unjust punishment cite reasons that relate to people who call out others being rash or judgmental. Some of these Americans see this kind of behavior equally overreacting or unnecessarily lashing out at others without considering the context or intentions of the original poster. Others emphasize that what is considered offensive can be subjective.

The second near common source of disagreement centers on the question of whether calling out others tin can solve anything: 13% of those who run across calling out others as a class of penalization touch on this outcome in explaining their stance, every bit exercise 16% who see it as a form of accountability. Some who see calling people out as unjust punishment say it solves aught and can really make things worse. Others in this group question whether social media is a feasible place for any productive conversations or see these platforms and their culture equally inherently problematic and sometimes toxic. Conversely, there are those who encounter calling out others as a manner to concur people answerable for what they postal service or to ensure that people consider the consequences of their social media posts.

Which is more important, complimentary speech or creating a comfortable environment online?

Pew Research Center has studied the tension between costless speech and feeling condom online for years, including the increasingly partisan nature of these disputes. This debate also 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 speech on social media. By comparing, x% of those who see it in terms of accountability believe that things said in these social spaces affair, or that people should exist more considerate by thinking before posting content that may be offensive or brand people uncomfortable.

What'southward the agenda backside calling out others online?

Another modest share of people mention the perceived agenda of those who call out other people on social media in their rationales for why calling out others is accountability or punishment. Some people who meet calling out others as a form of accountability say it's a mode to expose social ills such as misinformation, racism, ignorance or detest, or a way to brand people face up what they say online head-on by explaining themselves. In all, 8% of Americans who come across calling out others as a manner to hold people answerable for their actions phonation these types of arguments.

Those who see calling others out as a course of punishment, by contrast, say information technology 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 phone call out others are being disingenuous and doing and so in an attempt to make themselves look good. In total, these types of arguments were raised by 9% of people who run into calling out others as penalty.


Should people speak upward if they are offended?

Arguments for why calling out others is accountability or penalisation also involve a pocket-sized merely notable share who debate whether calling others out on social media is the best course of activeness for someone who finds a detail post offensive. Some 5% of people who see calling out others as punishment say those who discover a post offensive should non engage with the post. Instead, they should take a different grade of activity, such as removing themselves from the situation by ignoring the post or blocking someone if they don't like what that person has to say. Still, 4% of those who run into calling out others as a form of accountability believe it is imperative to speak up because saying nothing changes nothing.

Beyond these five main areas of contention, some Americans run across shades of gray when information technology comes to calling out other people on social media and say it can exist difficult to classify this kind of behavior as a form of either accountability or penalisation. They note that there tin be neat variability from example to case, and that the efficacy of this approach is by no means uniform: Sometimes those who are being called out may respond with heartfelt apologies but others may erupt in anger and frustration.

Acknowledgments – Appendix – Methodology – Topline

Beneath, we have gathered a selection of quotes from 3 open-concluded survey questions that accost two primal topics. Americans who've heard of the term abolish civilization were asked to define what it means to them. Subsequently answering a closed-concluded question most whether calling out others on social media was more likely to hold people accountable for their actions or punish people who didn't deserve it, they were asked to explain why they held this view – that is, they were either asked why they saw it as accountability or why they saw it as punishment.