Canceled Windows

An observation: By moving to shut down what are construed by some as trivial signs of disrespect, "Cancel Culture" mirrors the "Broken Windows Theory" of community and law enforcment first articulated in The Atlantic in 1982.

Both Cancel Culture and Broken Windows methods of policing seek to signal that social monitoring is high and that social norms will be rigorously enforced. The goal is to convey the message that more serious infractions, whether they be overt social bias or major criminal activities, will be detected, defended against and punished. Both rely on a high degree of discretion in their enforcement, which means that many incidents that would otherwise fit the definition are allowed to go unsanctioned. Accordingly, in each case, persons committing minor acts they see as harmless or victimless feel that they are being singled out for overly severe punishments and marginalization, which, in turn, is taken as a signal to the community that is attempting to maintain cohesion and control that these people are outsiders who do not care for the community's members and their well-being.

People with a low tolerance for perceived disorder tend to favor immediate and harsh interventions that, in turn, make other people feel unsafe, because they feel that the power being called upon to intervene is unpredictable, and maybe either capricious or partisan. Those sanctioned, therefore, often feel that the stated goals of maintaining norms and reducing disorder are simply covers of score-settling and persecution of difference. And if they feel that people have been lead to support such policies by dishonest brokers, they tend to respond to the sensitivities of those with low disorder tolerance with mockery, which increases the perception that they are hostile to the community and its concerns.

In the end, both Cancel Culture and Broken Windows can be tied to notions of civility, which can be seen as a means of informal social control, enforced in communities by the community itself; and has often been criticized as a means of maintaining a status quo that benefits those who currently enjoy advantages at the expense of others. While supporters of both postures may say that they should be free from sociopolitical biases if "implemented properly," there tends to be a dearth of people who are ready, willing and able to watch the watchmen to enforce such "proper implementation," so long as their own oxen are not the ones being gored by improper action.