Cancel Culture: Europe’s New Theatre of Moral Panic
Europe likes to imagine itself as a bastion of debate – a continent that survived revolutions, world wars, authoritarian censorship, and still emerged clinging to the idea that speech is a cornerstone of democracy. Yet in the 2020s, a new form of social control has crept in through the side door: cancel culture. It presents itself as justice, as accountability, as a necessary correction to old social imbalances. But more often, it functions as a digital guillotine, where nuance is irrelevant and public shaming is the currency.
Cancel culture isn’t unique to Europe, but Europe has given it a unique flavour. The continent prides itself on intellectual debate, yet we now see EU academics self-censoring, politicians avoiding controversial topics, and students demanding speakers be banned not because they are dangerous, but because they are inconvenient. What used to be disagreement is now treated as moral failure.
As writer Jonathan Rauch put it, “The great enemy of truth is not error but intolerance.” Europe is discovering that intolerance doesn’t only wear a uniform. Sometimes it wears hashtags.
The Rise of the Digital Mob
Cancel culture thrives on two powerful conditions:
- Instant outrage
- Zero verification
Before, making accusations required courage – you had to stand by your statement. Now, a single tweet, often out of context, can destroy reputations faster than courts can establish facts. European institutions and brands, terrified of public backlash, often cave instantly.
Consider the 2023 incident at the University of Amsterdam, where a lecturer was suspended after a student posted a 12-second clip accusing him of “cultural insensitivity”. The full recording later showed the lecturer explaining stereotypes as part of a lecture against racism. But by then, the damage was done.
The lesson?
Facts arrive second. Emotion arrives first.
Cancel culture is not about justice that arises from careful reflection – it is justice outsourced to algorithms favouring escalation.
Accountability vs Cancellation
A common defence is, “It’s not cancellation, it’s accountability.”
A comforting idea – but not accurate.
Accountability requires:
- proportionate consequences
- verified facts
- possibility of redemption
Cancel culture demands:
- immediate punishment
- public humiliation
- permanent exclusion
This is why even some of the European left, once proponents of social correction, now criticise the excess. French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy called cancel culture “a new form of ideological puritanism that seeks purity instead of progress.”
Europe has historically changed through argument – the Enlightenment, the birth of parliamentary democracy, and the European Union itself. Cancel culture, however, changes nothing; it only frightens people into silence.
The EU and the Weaponisation of Opinion
The European Union routinely speaks about combating disinformation – but cancel culture complicates that effort. When citizens fear expressing opinions, they retreat into closed spaces where misinformation spreads more efficiently.
Paradoxically, cancel culture can strengthen extremist voices.
Why?
Because every time mainstream society attacks someone for a poorly phrased opinion, anti-establishment groups gain fuel.
We saw this during the migration debates: some Europeans genuinely confused or concerned about integration were labelled xenophobic simply for asking questions. Instead of opening dialogue, cancel culture shut it down – and fringe parties filled the vacuum.
In a political union defined by compromise, cancel culture is uniquely dangerous: it treats disagreement as hatred, and democratic systems cannot function on that principle.
The Psychological Drive: Morality or Performance?
Social psychologists argue that cancel culture is powered more by status than morality.
Public outrage becomes a performance, an opportunity to signal virtue rather than pursue truth.
Studies from the London School of Economics show that users who participate in online pile-ons often do so not because they are offended, but because their peers are rewarding the behaviour. In other words, moral outrage becomes a social currency.
We are no longer asking:
“Is this right?”
We are asking:
“Will this make me look righteous?”
European political discourse can’t withstand that shift.
The Loss of Context
Cancel culture operates on fragments – a quote, a screenshot, a 10-second video. It disregards:
- tone
- intent
- historical context
- growth
- explanation
Someone who apologises is treated as “proof of guilt”. Someone who clarifies is accused of “making excuses”. This leaves no room for education, which should be the cornerstone of progress.
Europe used to believe in rehabilitation, from criminal justice to social policy. Cancel culture believes only in exile.
The Cultural Cost
Beyond politics, the cultural cost is real. Authors, filmmakers, comedians across Europe now avoid risk not because they lack creativity, but because a misinterpreted joke could mean career suicide.
The result?
Art becomes safer.
Discussion becomes shallower.
Society becomes more fragile.
J.K. Rowling’s situation, whether one agrees with her or not, shows how polarised public perception has become. In many EU countries, simply mentioning her name triggers instant hostility. When an entire population becomes afraid to engage with ideas, they stop developing their own.
Europe’s Challenge: Can We Disagree Without Destroying?
Europe does not need a culture where “anything goes,” but it desperately needs a culture where people are allowed to be wrong, to learn, to change, to be clumsy, to question.
This is not a defence of harmful speech.
It is a defence of human imperfection.
As Václav Havel warned during the democratic transition of Eastern Europe,
“The moment we forbid imperfection, we create tyranny.”
Cancel culture is not tyranny in the classical sense.
But it is slowly becoming the self-imposed censorship of a fearful society.
Conclusion
Cancel culture, at its core, is an illusion of progress.
It punishes without teaching.
It destroys without rebuilding.
It silences without persuading.
Europe has overcome far darker threats than online mobs, but only because it held onto one principle: the belief that dialogue, not intimidation, moves society forward.
If Europeans cannot express opinions – even imperfect ones – then the continent will lose the very mechanism that has driven its greatest advances:
The freedom to disagree.