Hypocrisy has been defined as "the tribute that vice pays to virtue." The question of who first defined it as such is a good one. The first three results that Google gives me are Grover Norquist, John le Carré, and Peter Singer. Since GK Chesterton was familiar with the sentiment I think we can answer "no" for all three. Quotes frequently become disconnected and float freely in the cultural ether, but this post isn't about that.
The term "virtue signaling" is generally thought to be a similar thing to this meaning of hypocrisy. But I think it's more insidious than that, which is why it bothers me. If what vice is paying tribute to is actually virtue then there's an ideal that's being held up, even if falsely. But―and recent events have strengthened this belief for me―I think that in virtue signaling the things that people want to attach their names to aren't really virtues. They're just things that society is promoting at the moment, and might actually be evils.
Of course this isn't new either, but it's important to see it for what it is.
2 comments:
That's a most astute observation. People who tend to become passionate about moral issues may be doing so in an effort to look good rather than doing good. Moral grandstanding in itself isn't too surprising but it's one of those facets of behavior that's pretty easy to identify and comment upon (or not) but at least usually rates some eye rolling among those who know the person exhibiting a 'holier than thou' stance in public.
The problem nowadays is that virtue signalling on social media amplifies questionable assertions. There are many examples but I especially liked this reaction to the current trend that John Michael Greer noted a few weeks ago:
“Woke” is in the past tense, which is why it’s the opposite of “awake.” The wokester movement is a great example of the kind of folly one gets from people who are convinced they already know the truth.
There's the actual phenomenon of passion and there's the public performance of passion. The former can lead to lapses of judgment in the micro sense even as it keeps one grounded in the macro. The latter is frequently intended to compromise the judgment and perceptions in other people. If I hear/read someone going holier than thou I'll feel better knowing there's someone besides me not taken in.
There are serious questions about what's right and wrong and what's valuable. Most of the answers currently in vogue don't strike me as very satisfying or healthy.
That Greer quote is from a comment on a post about Hermann Hesse. I've only read The Glass Bead Game so far. It probably went a little over my head but I'm curious to read more.
He (Greer, not Hesse) has another good quote on the topic:
"Alternative spiritual practices are far from the only targets for such accusations, of course; the entire woke phenomenon, for example, is primarily a way of taking words and attitudes that used to be acceptable, and weaponizing them in the no-holds-barred struggle for deck chairs on the Titanic."
Post a Comment