If you’ve heard the phrase recently, it’s most likely being used according to his definition. Taking the example of someone who proclaims “I hate 4x4s!”, he says “It’s noticeable how often virtue-signalling consists of saying you hate things. It is camouflage. The emphasis on hate distracts from the fact you are really saying how good you are. If you were frank and said, ‘I care about the environment more than most people do’ or ‘I care about the poor more than others’, your vanity and self-aggrandisement would be obvious.”
In other words, virtue-signalling is making a statement because you reckon it will garner approval, rather than because you actually believe it. It’s a form of vanity, all the worse because it’s dressed up as selfless conviction. When we’re defining ourselves and our core beliefs, vanity is generally not something we want contaminating the brand. Saying someone’s opinion is driven by self-regard is a powerful putdown.
“Virtue-signalling” is also a neat, pithy phrase, with – and this is the killer, really – a social-sciencey air, as though it’s a phenomenon recorded by behavioural economists and factored into nudge-unit projections of how many men pee standing up. (As of January 2016, however, a Google scholar search for the term yields only a handful of citations related to the work of a single religious studies academic.)
In informal political discussions – that is to say, down the pub, across the internet and on talk shows – the phrase serves two functions: to make your opponent look shallow, while at the same time (the irony) signalling your initiation into a more sophisticated level of discourse.
That’s not to say that there’s nothing in Bartholomew’s idea. Sometimes people do take positions to curry favour, or to burnish their reputations. But that’s hardly new. “You’re only saying that to make yourself look good” sums it up pretty well, it’s less pretentious, and still leaves 90 characters for the rest of your tweet.
There’s another danger in the the way the phrase is being deployed (and it’s being deployed a lot). Anyone who makes an argument that casts them in a good light can be accused of “virtue-signalling”. Anyone. That’s an awful lot of babies at risk of being thrown out with the bathwater.
In many cases, the thinking goes like this (with the left a frequent target):
Bill is saying something right-on
Virtue-signalling is when you say something right-on just to sound good
Therefore Bill is virtue-signalling
But 3. is not justified by 1. and 2. You can argue for something that happens to make you look virtuous because you genuinely think it is the best solution. That’s the case, for example, with most religious beliefs. Do we really think the pope is just virtue-signalling?
What started off as a clever way to win arguments has become a lazy put down. It’s too often used to cast aspersions on opponents as an alternative to rebutting their arguments. In fact, it’s becoming indistinguishable from the thing it was designed to call out: smug posturing from a position of self-appointed authority. I’m not saying we should eradicate “virtue-signalling”. But maybe it’s time to get vaccinated.
It's Not Politically Correct To Say, But People Who Say "It's Not Politically Correct To Say, But . . ." Are in most cases generally the type who say they are not political....
What, exactly, do people mean to signal when they preface a comment with "I know this isn't politically correct to say, but . . ."? in my experience the person who says they are non political really means that they are not prepared to challenge the status qua either in themselves or in others. They accept things the way they are and moan about those who do not.
What does it mean to make a group non political? Does it let the admin off the hook ? Does it mean not upsetting someone? Does it mean that there is a common sense that is agreed at all times and at all places.? Or does it mean that there are questions and issues that should not be raided? The personal is always political .I am so fed up with those who want an easy life and to be liked for everything they do. That's not what being political is..it is moral cowardice The personal is most political.........
The meaning of the phrase goes further to say that all the choices we make, even the ones that seem totally apolitical and personal, have political implications. The choice to wear particular clothes or not, to watch TV or not, to eat this or that to use a bank or not, and so on, is personal, but it is also political.
The "personal is political"- meaning that personal outcomes are largely a product of systemic relations and of structures beyond each individual that need to be addressed-came to mean, instead, that all political phenomena arise from the accumulated personal choices of individuals, so that what needed to be addressed to win better circumstances was primarily people's personal choices.
People who say they are not political raise certain questions. It is boasting? "Please acknowledge that I am brave, a rebel, a nonconformist, by being willing to say the following in defiance of social convention." Is it special pleading? "I recognise that the following may be considered rude, but please pretend that it is not because I have acknowledged it.""You can treat this as not-rude because I have pre-announced that it could be seen as rude. "Nobody would actually be offended by what I'm about to say, but I'm going to pretend that some people will in order to paint them as ridiculous." Is it self-serious cross-climbing? "Contemplate, for a moment, how I will suffer for being willing to share great truths with you."
There are plenty of interesting issues embedded here. Is there some sort of social or moral convention that requires us to keep unsolicited messages private?
But let's carve out just one issue: what does it mean by saying with "I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect"? I don't see anything to admire about it. It smacks of "I sense on some rudimentary level that this will likely annoy you but I'm going to say it anyway, so deal with it" Or perhaps it means modern norms of discourse annoy me and I shan't
abide by them and I find it necessary to announce my defiancem
Saying it strikes me as strengthening the argument that the communication is rude, or uncouth, or aggressive.
Norms about courtesy and rudeness change. Do you disagree with the changes? Are you trying to resist and push back against the changes? Fine. Speak, and let the chips fall where they may. But ask yourself: what are you trying to accomplish by such a statement in any particular communication
It's Not Politically Correct To Say, But People Who Say "It's Not Politically Correct To Say, But . . ." Are in most cases generally the type who say they are not political....
What, exactly, do people mean to signal when they preface a comment with "I know this isn't politically correct to say, but . . ."? in my experience the person who says they are non political really means that they are not prepared to challenge the status qua either in themselves or in others. They accept things the way they are and moan about those who do not.
What does it mean to make a group non political? Does it let the admin off the hook ? Does it mean not upsetting someone? Does it mean that there is a common sense that is agreed at all times and at all places.? Or does it mean that there are questions and issues that should not be raided? The personal is always political .I am so fed up with those who want an easy life and to be liked for everything they do. That's not what being political is..it is moral cowardice The personal is most political..........
The meaning of the phrase goes further to say that all the choices we make, even the ones that seem totally apolitical and personal, have political implications. The choice to wear particular clothes or not, to watch TV or not, to eat this or that to use a bank or not, and so on, is personal, but it is also political.
The "personal is political"- meaning that personal outcomes are largely a product of systemic relations and of structures beyond each individual that need to be addressed-came to mean, instead, that all political phenomena arise from the accumulated personal choices of individuals, so that what needed to be addressed to win better circumstances was primarily people's personal choices.
People who say they are not political raise certain questions. It is boasting? "Please acknowledge that I am brave, a rebel, a nonconformist, by being willing to say the following in defiance of social convention." Is it special pleading? "I recognise that the following may be considered rude, but please pretend that it is not because I have acknowledged it.""You can treat this as not-rude because I have pre-announced that it could be seen as rude. "Nobody would actually be offended by what I'm about to say, but I'm going to pretend that some people will in order to paint them as ridiculous." Is it self-serious cross-climbing? "Contemplate, for a moment, how I will suffer for being willing to share great truths with you."
There are plenty of interesting issues embedded here. Is there some sort of social or moral convention that requires us to keep unsolicited messages private?
But let's carve out just one issue: what does it mean by saying with "I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect"? I don't see anything to admire about it. It smacks of "I sense on some rudimentary level that this will likely annoy you but I'm going to say it anyway, so deal with it" Or perhaps it means modern norms of discourse annoy me and I shan't
abide by them and I find it necessary to announce my defiancem
Saying it strikes me as strengthening the argument that the communication is rude, or uncouth, or aggressive.
Norms about courtesy and rudeness change. Do you disagree with the changes? Are you trying to resist and push back against the changes? Fine. Speak, and let the chips fall where they may. But ask yourself: what are you trying to accomplish by such a statement in any particular communication?
No comments:
Post a Comment