Am I getting canceled for this?
Boycotting, defined in the Cambridge dictionary as refusing to buy a product/s or take part in activities to express strong disapproval, is a form of protest that sounds familiar now more than ever. Several companies have fallen under the “boycott list” due to their sociopolitical and economic impact. While it is true that this practice is effective to a certain extent, I don’t think there is a need to crucify those who don’t participate.
Whether boycotting is effective or not is debatable. It can hurt businesses like McDonald’s, whose CEO Chris Kempczinski stated in a letter posted on LinkedIn is “experiencing a meaningful business impact due to the war and associated misinformation,” following its alleged support for Israeli military personnel. While I say it does work, I don’t mean revenue-wise; rather, at least in increasing awareness towards social issues. On the other hand, it is difficult to sustain as consumers rely heavily on accessible products like Nestlé which is accused of contributing to the suffering and death of infants by advertising baby formula as reputedly superior to breastfeeding. It may be easy not to use their brand of all-purpose cream this Christmas, but they also produce Koko Krunch, Nescafé, Magic Sarap, and much more.
This brings me to the actual point of my article. We should stop canceling—defined in the Merriam-Webster as removing support in response to objectionable behavior or opinions—other people for not participating in boycotts, because, as it turns out, boycotting is a privilege that not everyone can afford. As mentioned by Ramon P. De Gennaro in the American Institute for Economic Research, certain corporations have few choices of alternatives that can compete in time, money, and quality. In fact, monopolies have no competitors by definition. It’s hard to blame someone for buying Milo (also a Nestlé product) when their nearest sari-sari store does not sell other options.
Moreover, Northeastern Global News Cody Mello-Klein noted how easy it is to post on social media to boycott something versus how hard it is to reduce dependency. Coca-Cola for example, written as profiting from the Israeli occupation of Palestine, has become a staple in many people’s fridges. Before you say there are a lot of other beverages to choose from, some of these are still under the brand such as Royal, Sprite, Minute Maid, and Wilkins. I can’t really blame others for not knowing all this because honestly, if journalism wasn’t part of my interests, I wouldn’t even know how to get all this information.
Though I do think we should hold people accountable for not joining these movements, individuals aren’t the enemy. I’ve met some who have been joining #BoycottMcDonald’s but have no clue why it’s being boycotted in the first place. I’ve also met some who have been vocal about their stances but lack accessible alternatives to fast food in their places. The fear of getting canceled outweighs having actual substantial information about the problem. If our first instinct is shaming and ridiculing others, then we’re aiming at the wrong target.
At the core, we need to remember that we’re mad at abusive, insensible, and discriminatory capitalists. We shouldn’t be too condemnatory towards others.
Judgment doesn’t solve ignorance.
The goal is to explain why it’s happening, suggest alternatives, and pass the knowledge on. If they’re privileged enough and know about the problem but still choose not to participate, then we can cancel them. Jk?
Originally published in Heraldo Filipino Volume 39, Issue 1
