Guest post: They pull the lever anyway

Originally a comment by Artymorty on Signals.

I think the term “virtue signalling” can be susceptible to overuse in something like the way “critical race theory” is. Signalling virtue in itself isn’t a bad thing, because virtue isn’t a bad thing; “virtue signalling” as a pejorative is meant to refer to a cynical or vacuous performance of a kind of artificial morality. Likewise, critical academic analysis of race in itself isn’t a bad thing, but “critical race theory” is a specific strand of academic theory which is a hot mess. The terms’ lack of clarity make them susceptible to being co-opted or misunderstood.

Nevertheless, I like the term “virtue signalling.” I like the juxtaposition of the two words. Virtue is supposed to evoke deep, rich and meaningful morality, but signalling suggests tinny pings of morse code. The idea of virtue as something to be merely signalled is, to me at least, always a little jarring, a little perverse. I like the sting it gives.

But yeah, not unlike the way Republicans have co-opted “critical race theory” to stop any academic discussion of race happening at all, rather than trying to ensure that it’s done well, “virtue signalling” has the potential to turn people against any displays of moral goodness, rather than simply trying to ensure there’s thought and meaning behind them. Which is going the wrong way.

The sting of “virtue signalling” is supposed to punish people for cheapening morality. But it could create disincentive for people to outwardly display any morality at all. Maybe it’s too cynical.

But we definitely need some kind of term for the phenomenon we’re seeing everywhere, which is that the relationship between incentive and moral behaviour has been warped. Everywhere I look, I see examples of people choosing to signal their allegiance to various groups or causes in ways that actually harm them. A thousand Trolley Problems, and everyone’s pulling the lever to drive the trolley over the victims because it gives the lever-pullers a short-term dose of social credibility.

People make a big show of embracing gender extremism because they want to appear aligned with gays and lesbians, even after we show them that it’s harmful to gays and lesbians. People make a big show of saying “trans women are women” because they want to appear as though they’re on the cutting edge of women’s rights and breaking gender stereotypes, even when it’s crystal clear that trans-identifying males are gutting women’s rights. People make a big show out of supporting ayurveda and other pseudoscience because they want to make a big show of how racially and culturally open-hearted they are, even though “alternative medicine” hurts many of the very people they’re signalling their allegiance with.

On and on. They pull the lever anyway.

We need a pithy, venomous term for that kind of incentive-reversal moral-cowardice-disguised-as-virtue that’s going on everywhere, something more precise than just “virtue signalling.”

Hmm. I’ll try to think of some ideas.

Comments are closed.