Virtue signalling is a term that has garnered much attention and debate in recent years, particularly in the context of social media and political discourse. To gain a deeper understanding of this phenomenon, we turn to the insights of two prominent experts: Dr. Mark Milke, a public policy analyst and author, and Dr. Mira Sucharov, an associate professor of political science.
Defining Virtue Signalling
Dr. Milke provides a clear perspective on the nature of virtue signalling. “Virtue signalling, as it’s known, is immodest. If someone is doing something useful in life, it is always better to let someone praise you and not do it yourself, as the old proverb notes.” His critique underscores the performative aspect of virtue signalling, where individuals showcase their moral stance without necessarily engaging in substantive actions to address the issues at hand.
Dr. Sucharov, meantime, offers a nuanced view of virtue signalling, preferring the term “values signalling.” She explains: “I think of it as meaning that someone is communicating to the world that they are a moral/ethical person. The trouble with the phrase is that it is generally used pejoratively, especially in the age of social media. I prefer the term values signalling, which is to say communicating to the world what you care about.”
Her perspective highlights the intention behind virtue signalling: to communicate one’s values and ethical stance, though it often carries a negative connotation in public discourse.
The Role of Virtue Signalling in Public Policy
Milke elaborates on the distinction between moralizing and effective policy-making. He notes: “In terms of policy, there’s nothing wrong with wanting people to be virtuous and for governments to act justly. Abolitionists were right to moralize about slavery, but they also did something practical: Provided escape routes for slaves, campaigned against it in law and policy, educated the public, and much more.”
He argues that virtue signalling becomes problematic when it replaces thoughtful problem-solving. He cites the example of Indigenous poverty in Canada, pointing out that: “Much indigenous poverty in Canada today is not the result of historic racism but a simple fact of geography and institutions today… Thus all the pronouncement and guilt trips and ‘virtue signalling’ won’t change those geographical and anti-market realities.”
Milke emphasizes the need for practical solutions, such as improving education and career opportunities for Indigenous Canadians, rather than relying solely on moralistic rhetoric.
The Impact of Virtue Signalling
In terms of negative impacts, Dr. Sucharov addresses the potential downsides of virtue signalling: “The negative impacts are really in the use of the phrase – it conveys a cynicism about political action.” This cynicism can undermine genuine efforts to bring about change, as it may cast doubt on the sincerity of those advocating for important causes.
As for positive impacts, she acknowledges some benefits of virtue signalling: “It can lead to a tipping effect whereby a cause gets currency because people want to be seen as moral/ethical/virtuous. The chief beneficiaries in that case are the people in need of that support (consider women re: abortion/politics of reproductive choice; Palestinians in Gaza; Blacks in South Africa during the apartheid era, etc.).”
When many individuals publicly support a cause, it can amplify awareness and drive meaningful action, ultimately benefiting those in need.
Conclusion
Virtue signalling, or values signalling, is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. While it can sometimes be seen as performative or insincere, it also has the potential to raise awareness and mobilize support for important causes. As Dr. Milke and Dr. Sucharov suggest, the key is to ensure that our expressions of virtue are coupled with practical, effective actions that address the root causes of the issues we care about. —Noa Nichol
share:
Be the first to comment