039: on thinking u can cancel anyone

today’s material: john galliano’s first interview following his antisemitic remarks and subsequent rehabilitation.

i first came across this interview researching old galliano and dior by galliano shows. i keep thinking about the way it begins.

before anything about fashion in the conventional sense, charlie rose explains his work. one day he’s talking about politics, another day he’s talking about a scientific discovery, and today he’s sitting down with john galliano. he frames his work as something rooted in curiosity about the world and human conditon, which immediately shifts the register of the conversation.

that framing places this interview outside the fashion industry and inside something broader. this isn’t a designer speaking to fashion media about clothes, legacy, or relevance. it’s a human being being spoken to as a human being, stripped of brand, symbolism, or anything that needs to be performed or represented. it doesn’t read as a cautionary tale or a comeback story, and that distinction matters.

if this were about re-entering fashion, the obvious move would have been a fashion publication like vogue or harper’s bazaar, a controlled and invested environment. but fashion media is interest-based by nature, and this space wasn’t. charlie rose’s platform, at least in that moment, was inquiry-based. someone else chose to extend the space, and the ball was not in galliano’s court.

that choice sets the tone for everything that follows.

what stands out most in the interview isn’t what galliano says, but what he doesn’t do. he doesn’t defend himself or minimize the harm. he doesn’t rush redemption, ask to be liked again, or frame himself as misunderstood. instead, he does something much braver, accepting that his words caused harm, that creativity became entangled with pain, and that forgiveness is not his to request.

when he says, “i can’t ask for forgiveness… i think that’s something that’s bestowed to you,” the entire conversation shifts. forgiveness stops being an outcome to negotiate. it becomes something outside of anyone’s control, regardless of intent or effort.

later, when he talks about atonement, he frames it as work rather than reward.

fashion has a way of collapsing people into symbols, legacies, and aesthetics, and this interview refuses that. it strips everything back to speech, silence, and time, where accountability feels personal, consequence remains real, and grace is no longer something spectators get to administer on behalf of others.

this is where the conversation opens up for me.

the motive of “canceling” often turns complex human situations into binary teams, and once something becomes a side, nuance disappears. flattening harm into “for or against” might feel decisive, but it has a way of stopping the world from moving forward. participation, or the refusal to participate, becomes confused with morality. buying or not buying turns into a proxy for ethics, and everything difficult gets simplified into something performable.

this isn’t about whether someone continues to engage with one’s work or never touches it again. it’s not about liking galliano or disliking him, and it’s not even about fashion. it’s about how harm, accountability, and time are metabolized without turning human situations into spectacle or weapon.

once something is framed as human, it’s no longer ours to flatten into a side.

there will occasionally be the oscar de la renta who will give you a chance. galliano on having the opportunity to come to the de la renta house and still be used: “i had a panic attack when i arrived… i wanted to meet the ateliers because they’re the family i lost at dior and galliano… [but] i ran into the bathroom and said the serenity prayer, then i came outside and I went into the workroom and introduced myself to all those lovely ladies. the tailors, and the seamstresses, and their white coats. then it was fine… i sat with oscar and he would ask what i thought about things.”

people can choose whether to listen, whether to forgive, or whether to disengage. those decisions are personal. but treating erasure as the only acceptable outcome feels less like progress and more like stagnation.

i’ve noticed brands and cultural figures where symbolism tied to harm or violence is embraced, defended, and sometimes intensified through loyalty. at times the support feels almost conspiratorial, as if saying, “you just don’t understand them the way i do.” it feels like a swing from one extreme to another, and i find myself wondering where a healthy equilibrium fits into all of this.

but returning to the material at hand, this interview works because it was held in the correct register. it feels sober and appropriate, not because it resolves anything, but because it doesn’t try to. i tend to think nature self-corrects, allowing accountability to exist without entitlement and consequence without theater. maybe that’s all some conversations are meant to do as well.

these days, i’m more selective about what i let pull my energy. outrage travels fast and often has little to do with what’s actually shaping my immediate life. i have interests, responsibilities, and curiosities that demand more of me than whatever is meant to make the next person angry. rage bait doesn’t move me the way it once did.

xoxo, vc