There's been another round of conversation in my industry about our divided society and "cancel culture" (a term that I have yet to see be used in a consist way) and, unsurprisingly, I am finding it frustrating as heck!
Annoying as it is, however, it has led me to another level of clarity on my view of the whole situation. Here is my latest interpretation:
Maybe it's not the people expressing their hurt and anger who are creating division, "cancelling", and ending conversation.
Maybe it's those in power who refuse to engage with those people that are creating the division, "cancelling", and refusing to start a conversation.
Reactively appeasing anger by burning it all down to save your own butt is not a quality I would seek in a leader, nor is stonewalling or ignoring criticism, even when it is delivered in a way that is hard to hear.
(This doesn't mean you don't sometimes fire someone, stop a book publication, cancel an event, or kick someone off your platform. It means that if you do, it's because you thought it through and aren't just putting a flaming bandaid on a dysfunctionally wounded situation because you're afraid to actually look at it or talk about it.)
So instead of focusing on controlling the "angry mob", maybe we could focus on what we expect of those who have taken leadership roles and whether we think those in power are doing their jobs.
Post a Comment