Virtue Signalling; What it is and What It Is Not.

Virtue signalling. Is that a thing? Yes, apparently so. And we are all either doing it, or accusing others of doing it. 

In April 2015 British author James Bartholomew of The Spectator used the term "virtue signalling" to describe "public, empty gestures intended to convey socially approved attitudes without any associated risk or sacrifice." The Guardian and the Boston Globe challenge this as the first use of the phrase, but agreed Bartholomew had popularised it, carrying the meaning above.

It is used wrongly, and indeed against its original meaning, when used as a pejorative descriptor of those who go on protest marches, travelling considerable distance and incurring expense to do so. Dismissing the human concern and moral responsiveness of others as "virtue signalling" jumps on a recent rhetorical and morally reductionist bandwagon and endangers the seriousness of moral discourse which should include engagement with, but not pre-judgement of, the motives of those who protest political acts they believe to be wrong.

Legitimate moral and political protest is an essential of democracy, and an important conduit of public conversation. It would be good if those using the phrase "virtue signalling" actually checked its meaning before doing their own virtue signalling by rubbishing other people's genuine moral concerns.

And yes, there is such a thing as virtue signalling, but it should not be confused with virtue displayed in character, publicly acknowledged moral responsibility, ethical discourse and behaviour as a key component of social capital, nor with other essentials of civic health such as concerns for freedom, justice and care of others.