The Problem With Virtue Signalling
From Oxford Languages:
The action or practice of expressing one’s views or acting in a way thought to be motivated primarily by a wish to exhibit good character, social conscience, political convictions, etc., or to garner recognition and approval.
Chiefly in contexts of political and social justice issues.“It’s noticeable how often virtue signalling consists of saying you hate things. It is camouflage. The emphasis on hate distracts from the fact you are really saying how good you are.” [emphasis mine].
This brief article is another that began as a response to a comment directed at me on Medium. This one in particular has to do with the common tendency for people to seek public accolades or to build social capital by loudly asserting that they believe in this or that; or hate or are disgusted by this or that, usually because it may be popular in their socio-political circles to consider themselves a “feminist” et al.; or, to be insanely opposed to whatever the latest moral panic happens to be (“Sex trafficking needs to be stopped! And I think the guy on the corner of my block — the one who I’ve always hated— is involved in that!”).
And they do this while behaving badly or erratically, often while spouting claims for which there is no evidence to back them up, and not performing any actions that actually improves the lives of others. When people do this, it’s all about enhancing their social status in a world that is dominated by social media and where one’s “ranking” among the crowd is all-important.
In the past, what we used to call the “in” crowd were limited to the interior of your school, or the office where you worked, the walls of the bar you may regularly hang out at, or your circle of immediate friends and/or family. Thanks to the advent of social media, however, your “circle” can literally encompass millions of people, and we are ever-mindful of this in a world where social capital can be as important as the financial sort. This incentive to blend in is exacerbated by the fact that your standing at your job, or acceptance by your friends, or your status in whatever cherished organization you are seeking acceptance in may literally depend on what you think, what you say you believe in, and what happens to piss you off this week.
This type of performative outrage or declaration of vitriolic fealty to whatever you perceive to be popular in your circles is what is known as virtue signalling. It is also common to refer to the many people seeking social & political popularity and approval as surrounding themselves in Virtue Armor, though that is more specific to people who are feigning altruistic, noble, or caring motives to cover up what are actually examples of bullying, selfish venting, and pandering for self-gratification; or, for elevation of position at your job or in the eyes of whatever group you’re seeking approval from.
When you point this out in a given instance, a common refutation from these people is that you’re critiquing them for daring to have morals or virtues, i.e., trying to give such positive things a black eye. In reality, however, you are calling them out for spewing performative talk and disingenuous motives to shield their actual, much more self-centered agenda.
A critique of virtue signaling is not an implication that it’s silly or bad to have virtues and morals. I think the point of such criticism is that not everyone practices these virtues in reality, but instead believes that what they say or what they say they believe or think — most often in line with popular opinion, which is not always synonymous with actual virtue — is more important than how they behave in terms of deeds as opposed to just words or beliefs. Or even if there is any actual objective truth to whatever they claim to be against or for, or disgusted/pissed off about etc.
What would be an example?
If I wanted to consider myself a good Christian, and purport to live by the positive principles that are supposed to be central facets of Christian belief — e.g., forgiveness, caring for the sick, donating to charities, and actually helping those in need — that is one thing. But if I announce at the beginning of a debate that I’m a Christian and shove that in the face of the person I am debating with, and implying that I’m a superior person simply because I believe in the tenets of the scriptures without ever actually going out of my way to help people in need or follow them in any way… well, that’s another thing entirely. The same would be true if I routinely made a point to loudly announce on my social media posts that I’m a Christian, and expecting that alone to say something positive about my personal character or to suggest that my behavior towards others is charitable.
The same would hold true if I similarly proclaimed that I was a feminist, or a Democrat, or an American, or that I’m an “ally” of a marginalized group, or a BLM supporter, etc.
In actuality, how you behave and treat others both publicly and privately goes much further than, for instance, simply saying, “Wait, you don’t believe in God? Well, I sure do!”; or, “I happen to be a feminist, dude!” as if these statements automatically carry more weight than the way you act and the manner in which you conduct your dealings with others. Making such declarations of loyalty to a belief system, ideology, or school of thought doesn’t necessarily make you virtuous. It may simply mean that you are making boasts to acquire notches on your public record. Or, it may mean that you confuse morals with moralism, i.e., what you believe is more important than what you actually do.
I think that is what the critiques of virtue signaling are all about. They are meant to deride the boasters and holier-than-thou ideologues, not those who practice actual virtue by behaving well towards others and for putting principle over personal popularity.
Christofer, that is a fantastic explanation of behavior that is kind of bad, of which I have been guilty and for which I’ve been called out. Now, I understand what it is. Thanks for elevating my awareness!