What is Virtue Signalling?
a wee primer on this very common social media condemnation
Reader, today I want to talk about Virtue Signalling. By definition Virtue Signalling is insincere, it’s done to gain social approval or appear morally superior, or to support a cause without genuine concern—as such it’s a form of hypocrisy.
Virtue Signalling is the currency of politicians, whose craft and trade is pretty much hypocrisy. It’s also frequently the currency of identity-based activists, whose craft and trade centres heavily on exploiting virtue and misusing it to promote a political identity.
Here are some common examples of Virtue Signalling from the current Canadian political discourse:
Activists and progressives who purport to oppose homophobia and who militantly espouse gender ideology, which is a sex denialist ideology predicated upon gender stereotypes.
Elbows Up activists who claim to promote a pro-Canada stance because they oppose Trump whilst also tacitly supporting the UFWD infiltration into Canada and whilst also an endorsing pro-PRC stance.
Feminists who militantly defend gender identity activism and support rapists serving their prison sentences in female prison.
Politicians who express and promote a Buy Canadian activism agenda whilst they support America sponsorship of endeavours such as Pride and continue to use American platforms such as Xwitter and Google and Meta to promote their political agenda and messaging or for their personal use.
Paper straws and plastic cups at Starbucks smacks of Virtue Signalling.
Let’s break it down, shall we, reader?
Virtue Signalling. phrase which denotes or describes an action. unflattering term. meant as an insult or character attack. often deployed for the purposes of condemnation in response to a statement made or an argument advanced.
Signalling is the use of a gesture, action, sound, verbal expression to convey information or instructions—it’s often employed to control or dominate or redirect communication.
Virtue is moral goodness.
Therefore Virtue Signalling would be the use of expressions of moral goodness to signal one’s goodness of character, ie to demonstrate to everyone watching that they (the virtue signaller) are a good people.
How can we tell the difference between Virtue Signalling and genuine expression virtue? Often context can tell us or at least give us clues.
We cannot know for certain anyone’s intention or motive. Often we can surmise them.
Here’s a recent example of virtue signalling from Canadian politics:
Olivia Chow, mayor of Toronto, recently told an audience to buy Canadian when she was expressing disappointment that Home Depot, an American company, dropped its sponsorship for Pride Toronto. It’s widely known that Olivia Chow has met with organisations affiliated with the United Front of the Chinese Communist Party. She was quoted in a Canadian newspaper as deeming it a necessary evil to publicly indulge a group believed to be a part of foreign interference by a hostile foreign power.
That’s a Virtue Signal.
Why is it a Virtue Signal? The empty virtue and hypocrisy loaded in her message.
1. Telling people buy Canadian and endorsing groups perpetrating foreign interference in Canada on behalf of a hostile foreign power. All because apparently Orange Man Bad.
2. Expressing disappointment that an American company stopped sponsoring Pride Toronto whilst telling people don’t shop American because Orange Man Bad.
Those who Virtue Signal don’t believe in the virtue they express, therein lies the hypocrisy. Those who Virtue Signal do so as a means to indulge themselves in the course of a debate, often about political issues.
Examples of Virtue Signalling from the pro-Palestinian political camp —
Hijacking every post a Jewish person makes to mention dead babies in Gaza and to mention Netanyahu’s corrupt politics.
Hijacking every post where Zionism is mentioned to express a hostility towards Netanyahu and the Israeli regime and the activity of the IDF.
Hijacking any post about the October 7th massacre with mentions of Palestinian hardship and the suffering Gazans.
These are common examples of Virtue Signalling in the pro-Palestinian camp. They espouse empty virtue because they’re exploitive. By design they demonstrate a lack of genuine concern for Palestinians by using them as a human shield in an ideological verbal diarrhea session to show some kind of empty virtue. They exploit the Palestinian cause to advance hatred of Jews and Israel. They conflate Hamas and Islamic extremism and terrorism with pro Palestinian resistance. They exploit the pro-Palestinian cause to promote radical leftwing hatred of the west, including hatred of Canada, the USA, and the UK.
Examples of Virtue Signalling from the pro-Israel political camp —
Claiming to want the war in Gaza to avenge October 7th victims like Vivian Silver, whilst also holding the position that Israelis like her had it coming.
Claiming to be opposed to antisemitism and then calling leftwing pro peace Jews Kapo Jews.
Claiming to want the war on Gaza for the sake of hostages, when we know the hostages are harmed and killed by Hamas/PIJ in retaliation for that military aggression.
Opposing mass murder collective punishment of Jews whilst advocating for the mass murder collective punishment of Palestinians.
Claiming to oppose terrorism and then endorsing Kahanism, which is an extremist ideology that inspired terrorism.
These are common examples of virtue signalling in the pro-Israel camp. They espouse empty virtue because they’re exploitive, hypocritical, and duplicitous. They exhibit a lack of genuine concern for Israeli victims of the October 7th Massacre and Hostage-Taking by using their injury, captivity, and death to justify and advance war whilst opposing and deals that would free the hostages and bring an end to violence in the region. They claim to care about the hostages whilst advocating for measures that will harm and kill them. They claim to care about stopping terrorism and extremism whilst endorsing an ideology that espouses these things.
Geoffrey Miller wrote a book about Virtue Signalling. Here’s an excerpt, from an essay published by Quillette in 2019.
On the one hand, there’s what economists call “cheap talk”: signals that are cheap, quick and easy to fake, and that aren’t accurate cues of underlying traits or values. When partisans on social media talk about political virtue signaling by the other side, they’re usually referring to this sort of cheap talk. Virtue signaling as cheap talk includes bumper stickers, yard signs, social media posts and dating app profiles. The main pressure that keeps cheap talk honest is social: the costs of stigma and ostracism by people who don’t agree with your signal. Wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat doesn’t cost much money, but it can cost you friendships.
On the other hand, there’s virtue signaling that’s costly, long-term, and hard to fake, and that can serve as a reliable indicator of underlying traits and values. This can include volunteering for months on political campaigns, making large, verifiable donations to causes, or giving up a lucrative medical practice to work for Doctors Without Borders in Haiti or New Guinea. The key to reliable virtue signals is that you simply couldn’t stand to exhibit them, over the long term, if you didn’t genuinely care about the cause. — Geoffrey Miller, in Quillette, 2.9.2019
So, interestingly, Miller sees Virtue Signalling as inevitable to human civilisation. Miller, an evolutionary psychologist, takes a broad view of Virtue Signalling. He says that it represents the best and the worst human instincts. In his essay Miller includes a mention of signalling theory. Signalling theory describes and explains the ways humans use various signals to convey information to one another. It has applications in Economics, in Biology, and in Human Behaviour.
Whilst I appreciate Miller’s scholarly approach to the discussion of Virtue Signalling, I think the narrow definition I opened this essay with has more utility when it comes to analysis of political discourse and social media behaviour.
In Ethics Saga, Steven Mintz makes the distinction between Virtue Signalling and Virtue Ethics. Virtue Ethics refers to character, as measured by behaviour and actions. In contrast, Virtue Signalling refers to the manner in which people express their viewpoints in an effort to influence others’ perceptions of their moral goodness. Signalling refers to words and Ethics refers to actions.
In a 2015 Spectator article British journalist who coined the phrase Virtue Signalling, James Bartholomew, wrote the following.
To my astonishment and delight, the phrase ‘virtue signalling’ has become part of the English language. I coined the phrase in an article here in The Spectator (18 April) in which I described the way in which many people say or write things to indicate that they are virtuous. Sometimes it is quite subtle. By saying that they hate the Daily Mail or Ukip, they are really telling you that they are admirably non-racist, left-wing or open-minded. One of the crucial aspects of virtue signalling is that it does not require actually doing anything virtuous. It does not involve delivering lunches to elderly neighbours or staying together with a spouse for the sake of the children. It takes no effort or sacrifice at all. — James Bartholomew, Spectator, 2.10.2015
Reader, here’s the crux of the matter, for me—the notion that Virtue Signalling requires no effort, it doesn’t demand we do anything virtuous. “One of the crucial aspects of virtue signalling is that it does not require actually doing anything virtuous … It takes no effort or sacrifice at all.”