Cancel Culture Through History: From Ancient Greece to Social Media

This study examines the historical and structural origins of what is commonly called “cancel culture” or “canceling". It conceptualizes this practice not as a novel digital artifact of the 21st century, but as a persistent socio-genetic mechanism deeply embedded in the evolution of human culture. By employing methods of historical-philosophical deconstruction and sociological analysis, this study traces the evolution of social exclusion from primordial Biblical narratives to the ritualized practices of Greco-Roman antiquity, the symbolic excommunication of the Middle Ages, and the horizontal mobilization of the digital era. The research argues that if human society requires collective cohesion and shared normative frameworks to function, then the mechanism of the "scapegoat", the ritualized exclusion of the "other" to restore internal group order, remains an anthropological constant. This study examines how the media of execution have shifted from physical banishment and state-led purges to the decentralized, peer-to-peer mobilization enabled by contemporary information technologies, which bypass traditional judicial systems.

The "New Ethics" as a Manifestation of Ancient Archetypes

In the contemporary information field, the term "cancel culture" has become a central and emotionally charged concept. While frequently associated with the "new ethics" and the immediate social media mobilization that targets public figures such as celebrities, politicians, or academics, such a perspective often underestimates the historical anchoring of this practice. According to historical and sociological records, "canceling" is a manifestation of ancient cultural archetypes where an individual or a group is excluded from social, professional, and symbolic circles as a form of moral censure.

If a society is defined as a group of people living together whose relationships are governed by established rules and laws, then it necessarily requires sanctions for the violation of those norms. Throughout human history, one of the most popular and effective forms of sanction has been banishment or exile from the community. To understand the current climate of decentralized digital "cancellation," it is essential to analyze the institutionalized and ritualized precedents that have governed human communities for millennia. This evolution reveals that while the technical means of exclusion have changed, from clay shards and stone inscriptions to hashtags and viral videos, the underlying structural logic of purging "impurity" to solidify group identity remains constant.

Primordial Narratives and the Socio-Biological Roots of Banishment

The history of humanity, as framed by foundational cultural texts, effectively begins with an act of "primordial cancellation." According to Biblical tradition, the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden serves as the ultimate symbolic precedent for social exclusion. This narrative establishes that human history began with an act of banishment as a tool for defining the boundaries of a community and maintaining its moral order.

From a sociological and anthropological perspective, this mechanism is further explained by the "scapegoat mechanism" formulated by the French thinker René Girard. Girard theorizes that communities periodically accumulate internal mimetic tension and aggression that, if left unaddressed, could lead to the collapse of the group through internal conflict. To prevent this, societies discharge this tension by uniting against a single victim, the "scapegoat". In the Judaic tradition, this was ritualized during Yom Kippur, where a goat (Azazel) was symbolically laden with the sins of the entire nation and cast out into the wilderness.

According to Girard, the joint experience of such a ritual, the feeling of involvement in a collective act of exclusion, strengthens the bonds between the remaining members. This creates a "total boycott" of the excluded individual, restoring the community’s moral equilibrium. This mechanism suggests that the "sacrifice" of an individual for the sake of group cohesion is a fundamental part of social nature.

The Classical Paradigm: Ritual Purification and Political Ostracism

In Ancient Greece, specifically within the Athenian polis of the 5th century BC, the practice of exclusion took both ritualistic and institutional forms. During times of collective crisis, such as plague, famine, or military defeat, the Greeks practiced the pharmakos ritual. This involved selecting a marginal individual, often a slave, a pauper, or someone with physical defects, to be ritually expelled or even sacrificed to "purify" the city. The pharmakos was viewed as a vessel for the collective "impurity" of the community; by "carrying out" the source of evil beyond the city walls, order was believed to be restored.

clay shards (ostrakons)

Parallel to this ritual was the political institution of ostracism in Athens, established to protect the democratic order from potential tyranny. According to historical records, the procedure involved a formal vote in the popular assembly. Citizens wrote the name of a figure they deemed dangerously influential on clay shards (ostrakons). If a quorum of at least six thousand votes was reached, the individual who received the most votes was banished from the city for ten years.

A crucial feature of this "political cancellation" was that it did not necessarily imply that a specific crime had been committed; rather, it was a preventive measure to maintain political equilibrium and prevent any single individual from accumulating too much power. Notable historical figures, including the historian Thucydides and the statesmen Themistocles and Aristides, were subjected to this form of exclusion. Although the banished individual retained their property and citizenship rights, the physical removal from the polis was a severe punishment, as outside the walls an individual was severed from political life and legal protection, a state often viewed as more terrifying than death.

The Roman State: Legal Exile and the Erasing of Memory

In the Roman context, "cancellation" transitioned from an act of communal purification to a sophisticated tool of state management and propaganda known as damnatio memoriae ("condemnation of memory"). This was a formal legal decree issued by the Senate to erase a "bad" emperor or a public enemy from the historical record.

According to archaeological and historical evidence, the statues of emperors such as Nero, Caligula, Domitian, and Commodus were destroyed, their names scoured from official inscriptions, and their portraits altered or removed. This "reputational execution" aimed to wipe the individual from the collective memory of the state, ensuring they would have no place in posterity. This practice demonstrates that true exclusion requires the manipulation of history and the visual trace of the person’s existence.

In addition to the erasure of memory, the Roman legal system utilized various forms of physical exile as an alternative to the death penalty:

• Relegatio: A milder form where an individual was ordered to move to a specific location without the loss of citizenship or property.

• Interdictio aquae et ignis: A more severe form involving the symbolic "denial of water and fire," leading to the loss of citizenship and confiscation of property.

• Deportatio: Forced exile to a remote island or isolated territory, effectively isolating the individual for life.

These Roman practices were not spontaneous reactions of a crowd but formalized mechanisms of state power used to demonstrate authority and eliminate ideological or political dissenters.

The Medieval Paradigm: Ecclesiastical Excommunication and the Total Boycott

The Middle Ages introduced a shift toward symbolic isolation through the institution of excommunication (anathema). Formally organized in Western Christianity by the 9th to 11th centuries, excommunication did not always require physical expulsion. Instead, the excommunicated person, unless they were a monk, often remained physically within the community but was spiritually and socially severed from it.

In a society where religious affiliation dictated legal, professional, and social status, excommunication resulted in a "total boycott". According to ecclesiastical law, the faithful were forbidden from communicating, trading, or even dining with the excommunicated person. The individual became a pariah, denied participation in the sacraments and all forms of social support. This form of exclusion aligns closely with modern "canceling" because it targets the individual's "symbolic capital", their reputation and standing within a community of like-minded peers.

By the 13th century, excommunication was also utilized as a powerful geopolitical tool. A notable instance occurred in 1076, when Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV during the Investiture Controversy. This act effectively stripped the monarch of his political legitimacy, leading to his symbolic penance at Canossa in 1077 to seek the removal of the sanction. Such cases illustrate that symbolic exclusion could effectively paralyze even the highest centers of power by isolating them from their base of support.

The Transition to Modernity: Urbanization and Social Atomization

The effectiveness of community-led exclusion changed fundamentally with the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. As populations migrated from small, tight-knit villages to anonymous, growing cities, the threat of social banishment weakened. In a small traditional community, where "everyone knew everyone else," exile or public shaming was a social death sentence. In a modern metropolis, however, an individual who was "canceled" in one professional or social circle could simply find anonymity in another.

This process, termed social atomization, involved the breaking down of traditional community bonds in favor of individualized and transactional relationships. As horizontal social control weakened, the state began to rely more on formalized legal procedures and centralized judicial systems rather than community-driven boycotts to enforce norms. However, the archetypal drive for collective exclusion did not disappear; it merely waited for a new medium through which it could manifest with its original intensity.

The 20th Century: State-Led Vertical Cancellation

The 20th century saw the return of large-scale "cancellation" through state-sponsored purges and blacklists. This era was characterized by "vertical" cancellation, punishment delivered from the top down by a powerful state apparatus to silence dissent and enforce ideological conformity.

In the United States, the McCarthyism era of the 1940s and 1950s, frequently described as a "witch hunt", led to the creation of the "Hollywood Blacklist". Artists, directors, and intellectuals suspected of communist sympathies or refusing to cooperate with government investigations were effectively "canceled" from their professions. Notable figures such as Albert Einstein (labeled a "communist spy"), Robert Oppenheimer (stripped of his security clearance), and director Orson Welles were subjected to this form of professional exclusion.

Similarly, in the USSR, the state functioned as the primary actor of cancellation through reputational and physical exile. A prominent example is the poet Joseph Brodsky, who was subjected to a public trial and "canceled" for his "parasitic" lifestyle and poetry that did not fit the state-approved ideological framework. The crucial distinction between these 20th-century practices and modern cancel culture is the source of the initiative: earlier cancellations were mandated by centralized institutions of power, whereas the current culture is driven by decentralized, horizontal mobilization.

The Digital Era: Horizontal Mobilization and the Return of the Scapegoat

The current era of "cancel culture" is defined by a paradigm shift from vertical, institutionalized punishment to horizontal, peer-to-peer mobilization facilitated by digital networks. Today, the number of digital network users, numbering in the billions, allows for the real-time monitoring of social behavior. When an individual is perceived to have violated a moral or social standard, the "collective mind" of the network can bypass official legal systems to initiate immediate boycotts.

This modern iteration is governed by several critical mechanisms:

1. The Spiral of Silence: According to the theory developed by Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, individuals have an innate fear of social isolation. If they perceive their opinion to be in the minority, they often suppress it to avoid becoming the next target of exclusion. As this "spiral" tightens, the dominant narrative promoted by a vocal and mobilized majority appears to be the only socially acceptable viewpoint, leading to widespread self-censorship.

2. Horizontal Decentralization: Unlike the McCarthyist blacklists or Roman decrees, modern cancellation often lacks a clear "person at the helm". It is driven by autonomous, highly mobilized groups of users who substitute themselves for official institutions of authority. This decentralized nature makes it significantly harder for the "canceled" individual to seek legal redress or rehabilitation, as there is no single entity to negotiate with.

3. Character Assassination at Information Speed: The speed at which news and accusations travel in the digital sphere means that a reputation can be destroyed in a matter of days or even hours. Studies indicate that modern digital "cancellation" often outpaces any formal due process, leading to a "presumption of guilt" where individuals lose contracts, platforms, and their symbolic capital before any evidence is fully investigated.

Sociological Functions of Modern Cancellation

Despite its often unjust outcomes, "cancel culture" persists because it continues to fulfill the same sociological functions as the ancient rituals described by René Girard. By uniting against a "culprit" or "scapegoat," a digital community can discharge internal tension and solidify its collective identity. The joint experience of participating in a collective act of exclusion, even if only through liking or sharing a critical post, creates a feeling of involvement and agreement among the remaining members.

Furthermore, modern cancellation acts as a "culture of consequences". According to proponents of this strategy, excluding certain individuals from the information field is a necessary tool to fight against discriminatory myths and enforced stereotypes that were previously unaddressed by the state or legal systems. In this sense, "canceling" is viewed as an extreme measure of social regulation used by those who feel they lack traditional power.

The Persistence of the Mechanism of Banishment

The phenomenon of "cancel culture" remains a critical "litmus test" for the state of social cohesion and political stability in the 21st century. While the technical medium has changed dramatically, from the Greek clay shards (ostrakons) and Roman stone inscriptions to digital hashtags and viral videos, the underlying structural logic has remained consistent for millennia.

If human society requires collective order and shared norms to survive, then the "cancellation" of those perceived to threaten that order is an inherent byproduct of social evolution. The challenge for the future is not whether this ancient mechanism will disappear, but whether society can establish rules for its use that respect proportionality, evidence, and the possibility of rehabilitation. Banishment, in its many forms, remains a fundamental anthropological constant, reflecting the persistent human need to define the boundaries of the "self" through the exclusion of the "other".

Bibliography

1. Abstracts of the 8th International Conference: Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art. Moscow/St. Petersburg: NP-Print, 2018.

2. Documentary Drafts and Analytical Reports on Cancel Culture. 2022-2024.

3. Chugrov, S.V. (2022). Cancel Culture in World Politics: Historical and Philosophical Roots. Polis: Political Studies, No. 5, pp. 88-98.

4. Kozhoridze, D.G. & Kozhoridze, G.G. (2024). The Origins of the Cancel Culture Phenomenon. Society: Philosophy, History, Culture, No. 4, pp. 97-102.

5. Rustamova, L.R. & Adrianov, A.K. (2023). Cancel Culture: Conceptualization of the Term and Its Use in Foreign Policy. Polis: Political Studies, No. 4, pp. 37-53.

6. Kuznetsov, G. & Stupko, M. (2022). Cancel Culture: History and Modernity. SocioDigger, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, pp. 40-44.

7. Ovchinnikov, A.V. (2024). Corporate Cancellation: The Odyssey of the "Myth of 922" between Academic and Ideological Discourses. Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies, No. 1.

8. Panteleev, A. (2018). On “Decorative” and “Religious” Statues: Boundaries between Artistic and Religious Components in Graeco-Roman Paganism and Judaism.

9. Zintchenko, S.A. (2018). “Cross-Cutting Images” in the Artistic Cultures of the 1st Millennium BC: Problems of Interpretation.

10. Oganov, A. (2022). Cancel Culture is a Lack of Culture and Intolerance. SocioDigger, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, pp. 29-35.