When we are irritated by virtue signalling and cancel culture, we attack these things with enthusiasm. The resulting narratives are predictable and used wherever we are unhappy with righteous campaigning.
The stock criticism against the virtue signaller is empty signalling, a criticism which impugns the integrity of the signaller in two ways. First, we say the signaller is an opportunist. They do not really believe what they are signalling: they are merely seeking to curry favour with peers by demonstrating amenable values. Alternatively, we say the signaller is an intellectual lightweight: they are sincere, but simply following the flock because they are incapable of original thought.
The motivation for opportunistic signalling is undeniable. Since the popular cause nearly always draws approval, it is inevitable that it will be exploited for political and commercial purposes. This danger is inherent in any mainstream cause. There is a lesson here for all humanity, if we choose to heed it.
The lightweight signaller is more genuine in their support, but their comprehension of the cause is largely superficial. They know the brand. They know the slogans. They perceive they are engaged in the pursuit of right. That is the limit of their understanding.
Oddly, the lightweight signaller often maintains their shallow position with real moral conviction. They are moved to tears by the cause. They would be genuinely offended if their commitment were questioned. This paradox arises because morality is instinctive rather than rational: we can experience deep loyalty to a cause without engaging with it at any cerebral level.
The most notorious example of lightweight signalling is the ‘rent-a-crowd’ aspect of social justice activism. But other examples are legion: how else would we describe the sudden appearance of fair-weather supporters during Super Bowl week or the surge of patriotism during events of national significance. Lightweight signalling occurs in relation to every cause. There is a lesson here for all humanity, if we choose to heed it.
Just as the narrative of empty signalling is used to attack virtue signalling, the narrative of cancellation is used to attack cancellation. The circularity of the latter argument normally escapes the notice of those using it. The person censored complains of censorship. The person cancelled complains of cancellation. These observations are self-evident, yet they are pronounced with the gravity of an important contribution to the discourse.
The implication is that cancellation and censorship are inherently wrong, a position which should not be taken at face value. Our critic cannot literally mean that the murderer and the rapist should go unpunished: presumably some level of cancellation is acceptable. The real complaint must be excessive intolerance or an undue preoccupation with imposing one’s views on others.
History has shown that every cause is prone to such intolerance: there has been no almost cause without bloodshed . In the present era, there is no cause without an activist minority who feel justified in making sinister threats and occasionally carrying them out. Protecting a cause always means a certain degree of intolerance and inevitably some individuals go too far. This is a lesson for all humanity, if we choose to heed it.
The narratives of empty signalling and intolerance have a dual character. First, they are trite. They are the stock criticism against any campaign we dislike. They are used by the person with no insight into their own complicity in the same conduct.
But these concerns are also valid: every campaign has some element of posturing and intolerance. Our critic usually has some basis for their complaint. Their error is not in identifying these problems, it is in failing to understand they apply to every cause.
Isamu Drayya, November 2022
Next: Progressive virtue signalling and cancellation under attack
isamu drayya 