Virtue signalling and cancel culture are well intended. We signal because we are morally inspired. We cancel because we are morally offended. We are not always right, but we mean well.
The cynical reader may perceive a problem with this benevolent narrative. We may accept social activism. We may accept that individuals campaign in good faith for a cause. But when power embraces the same cause, our suspicions are aroused. Do we really believe that those in authority are motivated by the moral well-being of their subjects? Of course not: we would infer an ulterior motive. In the hands of the establishment, virtue signalling and cancellation are a form of control. They are a mechanism for the exertion and maintenance of power.
But the pursuit of power is not inconsistent with moral intent. Indeed, a key motivation for power is the creation of a world in our own image and this entails the imposition of our moral views on others. Hence the preservation of authority is often a moral imperative.
Over time, this imperative becomes a cause in its own right. The powerful person grows accustomed to an elevated position. They come to believe it is rightfully theirs. They are fortified in that view by those around them. So the person perceives a real question of principle: just as any individual feels entitled to their personal property, the influential individual feels entitled to their power.
That entitlement spawns its own narrative and tradition. Power is said to have accrued through divine right. Status is said to reflect the exceptional characteristics of the exalted individual. The community is invited to celebrate this remarkable person. The dissenter is warned to stay silent. In short, power spawns its own form of virtue signalling and cancel culture. And like every other cause, there is a genuine perception of moral principle because we are protecting the correct order of things.
This perception is deluded but necessary. The elevated person lacks the modesty and self-awareness to concede the role of opportunism or luck in their rise to power. There must be a greater calling. And so the person purports to find that calling in morality. This is not conscious sophistry for a political purpose. It is an unconscious internal search for personal meaning.
When the person in authority engages in virtue signalling and cancel culture, they are driven by two kinds of moral intent. First, they usually have a passion for an existing cause and wish to propagate it. But even if the person were amoral, the maintenance of power becomes a moral cause in itself.
For these reasons, the authority campaign conforms with our premise that all virtue signalling and cancel culture has moral intent.
Isamu Drayya, October 2022
NEXT
isamu drayya 