From products to people: How 'Boycott culture' could transform society

We are all familiar with the act of voluntary abstention from a product, commonly known as a 'boycott.' It has long been a tool for the public to protest against perceived distortions or injustices caused by a product or its manufacturing company.

Historically, boycotts targeted domestic companies or foreign nations, showcasing disagreement by refusing to purchase imported goods. In recent years, however, boycotting people has become a trend among netizens, mainly when legal actions are impractical or impossible.

Even the globally renowned South Korean boy band BTS wasn't immune, with member Suga facing the wrath of boycott culture after his drunk-driving incident on August 6th this year.

This sparked a controversial debate as rumors circulated on social media that Samsung might reconsider his position as their brand ambassador. Such incidents highlight the power of boycott culture, capable of shaking even the most prominent global stars.

This year, Rafsan the Choto Vai, a well-known food vlogger from Bangladesh who also launched an energy drink, faced a boycott from his followers and the general public.

The outcry stemmed from the discovery that his parents had taken a bank loan nearly a decade ago, but instead of repaying it, Rafsan allegedly bought a car worth nearly two crores. His newly launched products not only faced boycotts but also caught the attention of BSTI, which later uncovered unpleasant processing conditions.

July 2024 saw Bangladesh making history with the most casualties during protests, surpassing even the 1952 Language Movement and the toppling of the Ershad regime.

This turbulent time brought about significant changes, including a renewed focus on transparency and anti-corruption measures—visions many have long held for the country.

Young people who once sought to emigrate or find better jobs elsewhere came together, realizing that the responsibility to improve the nation lies with them. Boycotting has the potential to play a significant role in this initiative.

In Bangladesh, public boycotts have led many social media influencers to lose popularity, with once-prominent names fading into obscurity. The primary goal of boycotting is to depopularize these figures, leading to business contract cancellations and the loss of promotional opportunities.

So, how could this improve society? Anjum Islam Prome, a journalism student from the University of Dhaka, says, "Boycotting people is like an adult form of rebuking; it sets expectations for behavior and condemns misconduct."

Public reprimand can reduce the tendency to engage in misconduct and help bring the truth to light. The government may also feel pressured to bring offenders to justice and conduct thorough investigations. However, for boycotts to be effective, they must be sustained and strictly enforced.

Of course, some may argue that excessive boycotting could harm innocent people, as false accusations could damage reputations. However, the famous controversy of 2024, known as the 'Chagolkahini' (goat scandal), showed the value of thorough investigation. The twists and turns, in this case, were as shocking as they were amusing, with the public staying up late to witness how a 1.5 million taka-worth goat could bring so many people down. It was impressive to see how social media users, alongside the media and police, helped uncover hidden truths and dark secrets about the buyer, seller, and others involved.

In short, when a boycott scandal emerges, both the accuser and the accused have the opportunity to present their truths, creating a process akin to a media trial.

The student protests in Bangladesh demonstrated the transformative power of boycotting. Previously, when controversies arose, influencers often chose silence, avoiding any engagement with the issues. However, the probable threat of boycotts has shifted this dynamic. Influencers are now compelled to address controversial incidents publicly, many expressing solidarity and taking responsibility in the process.

This shift has eradicated the option of remaining neutral. As Desmond Tutu famously said, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." During the July protests, this quote circulated widely on social media, emphasizing that silence in the face of wrongdoing is no longer acceptable.

What should be normalized is a proactive stance against injustices, with individuals speaking out and holding themselves accountable.

While there are some drawbacks of the boycott culture, the public's resonance with better behavior and the desire to distance themselves from misconduct could lead to a better society. After all, the power of boycott culture is indeed formidable!

[email protected]