The Dark Side of Positive Causes

Said plainly, I feel some of these social initiatives have become a means by which some individuals assert their moral high ground onto others. It is not uncommon to see the demonising of people, judged to have been inactive in supporting certain causes or social movements. There is an old phrase, ‘if you are not with us, then you are against us.’ This might seem simple enough until you cross reference the same idea with an age-old adage, ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend.’ These two concepts merged together create for a smelting pot of animosity and confusing loyalties. My concern is that the level of reflexive aggression from groups purportedly claiming to be good, might indeed be causing unnecessary enemies and destruction. To my mind it seems a bridge too far to assume that people who are not actively supporting a cause are therefore positioned as enemies to that cause. It seems like a good way to create unnecessary adversaries. It certainly doesn’t seem like a survivable strategy when we consider there are no shortages of social issues. Afterall, utopia doesn’t (and won’t) exist. There will always be room for improvement in any social construct. It behoves us to ensure that the systems we apply for determining friend from foe are refined enough to provide longevity to our causes. Just because someone is not investing their time and resources towards a specific goal, does not mean they are against it… Yet here we are, surrounded by narratives and messages that demand action for causes determined to be of high priority. A determination made by someone else with their own bias, ambitions, and perspectives. The problem is when everything becomes high priority, nothing is high priority (by definition). At any one time, we have limited provision of resources. Discernment requires that we individually prioritise our resources towards initiatives which demonstrate potential for the highest impact and effect.

Conformity, guilt, and fear

It seems certain segments of society are overshadowed by an ominous cloud characterised largely by guilt and shame. As part of my profession, I have invested significant time towards researching and investigating what makes people tick. My synopsis is there appears to be two emergent camps: Those which believe people are primarily influenced by incentives/rewards vs those which feel people’s behaviours are influenced by fear. I sit in the ‘fear’ camp. In doing so, I acknowledge nobody is one or the other, and instead it is characterised by a gentle leaning towards one or the other. I feel that people’s behaviours (particularly seemingly unusual behaviours) can most often be linked back to fears and insecurities. With fear as our frame, we can start to see how virtue signalling might have emerged. I feel some people have adopted the behaviour as a means of preventing undue judgement or public criticism. A behaviour anchored in ‘double narrative logic’, i.e. the prevention of a criticism as opposed to the reinforcement of a positive action. In my own observations this is most often seen when a new social movement emerges:

• STEP 1: Most often linked with a contentious social event which pulls into debate the morality, ethics, and values associated with somebody’s decision. The event triggers a social response. The social response often forces public discussion (often devoid of context). The popular discussion then rapidly forces people to make a public choice: Do they sit in camp A or camp B?
• STEP 2: What happens next is the dangerous step towards rationalisation, and it looks like this: If someone is leaning towards camp A they must then hate everyone in camp B. For someone to be in camp B, they must then hate everyone in camp A.
• STEP 3: This realisation then triggers confirmation bias i.e. the collection of information/evidence that would prove camp A OR camp B are incorrect. Now, knowing that we are ‘right’ and they are ‘wrong’ (reinforced by all our aggregated evidence) we then choose to guilt the other group for siding with the wrong camp.

It is very rare that people consider there is a third group (camp C) characterised by ‘I don’t yet know’ or ‘it depends.’ This group might concede that situations of this nature are largely characterised by context, whereby the intricacies of each individual situation are relevant and applicable. They might also concede that they don’t have enough information to make an informed decision. Their discernment in this regard is the trigger which drags them above the public detection threshold. What is interesting is the relationship between both camp A or B, in relation to camp C. In a weird twist, camp C becomes the ultimate enemy. They fall into the ‘if you aren’t with us, you are against us’ category. Someone saying I don’t know is immediately counter attacked with ‘well, you should know – you are part of the problem.’ When this occurs, a dangerous plot twist occurs for society. Not having an opinion is worse than picking the wrong side. At a societal level, it means we are encouraging people to throw context to the wind and pick sides prematurely to protect themselves. This is all overshadowed by an air of guilt and shame. It is a somewhat subtle mechanism of coercion prompted by an unhealthy social pressure. History has no shortage of examples where this does not end well. Some of the worst examples of collective group behaviour (group think) have been prompted by this approach: First They Came - Martin Niemöller

First they came for the Communists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out for me

Moral high ground and social superiority

As far as I can surmise, this topic appears to be linked with moral superiority insofar that supporting specific societal initiatives allows certain individuals to lord pretentions over others. I have thought long and hard about whether this is a deliberate attempt at control or power, and I have concluded in the most part that I don’t think it is. Instead, I believe it is a learned behaviour of survival, contextually anchored in an environment which forces people’s hands. They either pick a side and deal with either camp A or camp B, or they stall and risk having to simultaneously fight camp A AND camp B. Not an exciting prospect particularly when your heart might not be in the fight in the first place. One of the sounder definitions of culture I have stumbled across is: ‘Our culture is comprised of the behaviours we reward.’ It is such a simple explanation for a complicated concept. If one must ask why we (as a collective) are doing something, then trace the reward system/structure, or the associated fears (reference my earlier observations). This topic prompts us to ask some deeper questions:

• Why is the moral high ground so valuable?
• Why are we encouraging this behaviour?
• What are the long-term implications?
• What does it say about our society, which is purportedly founded on values and attributes such as inclusiveness, freedom of speech, and the pursuit of truth?
• Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?
• When did context become a dirty word?

In my observations, the trajectory does not bode well. If we genuinely believe the message is worth sending, then we should subscribe to sending it correctly. Sending it correctly surely means:

• Ensuring our message is based in reality.
• Encouraging people to get behind a cause based on its value, not the fear associated with inaction.
• Including the requisite context so that it may be seen as applicable and balanced in its delivery.

Societal implications

The societal implications of virtue signalling are significant in my estimation. If our society’s motivations are driven in significant part by fears associated with saying the wrong thing, or not overtly supporting trending causes, then there must be a long-term price to pay.

• If our behaviours are being forcibly shaped by others then surely our actions have less meaning?
• Are we not encouraging people to do good deeds only for the purposes of social validation and acknowledgment?
• Are we encouraging people to only be seen doing good things as opposed to actually doing them?
• If our language is being shaped by others, then surely what we choose to say risks being interpreted as disingenuous or forced?
• Once the lines become blurred, then who and what can we truly trust?

If taken to the end of its logical conclusion, it seems like a precursor to compelled or censored speech. In extreme cases history has shown the destruction caused by language of this nature, coupled with binary and low-resolution modes of thinking (good vs bad, right vs wrong, them vs us). Spoiler alert, it leads to cliques, cults, and devastating conflicts.

The balance

We must be careful unpacking this topic. We do not want to scare people away from positive action. The world needs people to ‘find a need, and fill a need.’ It requires people to be passionate about their causes. Virtue signalling although bad, would not be a touch on the damage caused if people were to subscribe en mass to other models such as anarchy or nihilism. If we had to pick between people feeling the need to demonstrate virtue via signalling, vs feeling no need to demonstrate any virtue at all – I’ll pick the first the option. We all know people demonstrate vastly different behaviours when they are held to a code or framework vs handing the reigns over to an ideology akin to lord of the flies. Nonetheless, we must be careful about the consequences of whatever path we choose. Everything has a price, and most things only work when they are implemented in suitable balance and with forethought understanding.

Moving Forward

Don’t be so quick to create unnecessary enemies. The world is quite legitimately full of unending issues requiring attention. Issues which left unchecked will result in unnecessary and undue misery in our fellow citizens. We do not need to add salt to the wounds by creating unnecessary conflict and tension in support of those social initiatives. Moreover, we must bite our own pride and pretentions and concede that what is a priority to us, is not necessarily a priority for others. This is something I have personally had to come to terms with over the years as I have advocated for veterans, disaffected youth, and the development of certain commercial business models supporting underrepresented groups within society. Just because someone does not see the same level of urgency as I do, does not make them my enemy. Just because other people are not standing on street corners and social platforms advocating for a cause, does not mean they are positioned against it. This isn’t high school, this is real life. People are fighting their own battles. Their observations of the ills of society might sit in different proportionality and conclusions to our own. Moreover, they might be investing their time and effort into causes which they deem to be more impactful or important. In the worst case, they might not be supporting anyone other than themselves, which is still not reason enough to go head hunting them (in my opinion). Our communication, is comprised of both intent and delivery. If a message is worth sending, then it is worth sending right. One could reasonably argue that ‘sending the message right’ might mean advocating for a cause without the unnecessary creation of enemies who would otherwise have gone about their business. It might also mean doing the right thing even when nobody is watching. ---- If you enjoyed this article, you might also enjoy other articles written at Eighth Mile's blog.