The distinction between community and government virtue signalling and cancel culture.
We all have an image of the stereotypical campaigner. We perceive an activist individual with a cause and a flag. They are forever offended. They are not shy about sharing their views. They are usually accompanied by a loyal coterie of supporters. From a sympathetic viewpoint, we admire this person for their passion. From a critical viewpoint, we observe they have a lot of time on their hands. But either way, we perceive the moral campaign as originating from the individual or a social group.
But activism has another source: it can also arise through formal institutional process. While the organic campaign is driven from the grass roots, the authority campaign is imposed from above.
The authority campaign arises in any situation where a dominant party requires the moral compliance of a subordinate. The government requires compliance from the governed, the employer requires compliance from the employee, the school requires student compliance and so on.
In each case, the dominant party invests substantial energy in fostering the right kind of culture. Flags and parades instill a suitable sense of pride. Education campaigns explain the appropriate values and expected behaviours. Honours and monuments recognise and commemorate commendable individuals. All of this occurs at scale, particularly where the state is concerned. Despite our perception of the virtue signaller as the activist individual, the most prolific signaller is government itself.
But the authority campaigner has other methods at its disposal. Where inspiration fails, our campaigner has an extensive array of coercive tools to ensure that non-compliance is punished and a suitable message of deterrence sent to the community. Again, government is the lead actor in this area. Despite our perception of a cancellation culture driven by individual outrage, our most active cancellation forum is the criminal justice system.
The authority campaign is an imposition from above. By contrast, the organic campaign reflects the natural tendency for society to regulate itself. Even in the absence of any hierarchy, we would continue to extol certain behaviours and condemn others. We would make our own flags. We would have our own celebrations. We would find ways to isolate and punish the offender: mob justice has long preceded institutional justice.
While their origins differ, the organic and authority campaign often converge. Government has a natural incentive to cater to every constituency. It is motivated to involve itself in popular causes and to enact laws against things that cause popular offence. In this way, the authority campaign follows the organic campaign.
But the reverse may also be true. Government signalling may be sufficiently powerful to inspire spontaneous and organic celebration. Government may articulate a case for cancellation so effectively that the populace is persuaded to censor itself. In both cases, the real level of voluntariness is questionable since a fearful or deferential populace has practical reasons for acquiescence. However, we cannot eliminate the possibility that the authority campaign genuinely drives a sympathetic organic response.
So virtue signalling and cancel culture have more than one source. They can come from authority. They can come from community. They may come from a combination of both. The persona of the moral busybody takes many forms.
Isamu Drayya, October 2022
NEXT
Social control: the ulterior motive for virtue signalling and cancel culture
isamu drayya 