I REALISE that I’m going to spend this week’s column having a pop at people for doing something I’ve done thousands of times myself – and will no doubt continue to do regardless – but I just can’t ignore that little voice in the back of my mind any longer.
The term “virtue-signalling” has been bouncing around social media for a while now, more ferociously in the last year following Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. For anyone unfamiliar, virtue-signalling is the act of vociferously expressing views and opinions that demonstrate good moral standing and righteousness on a particular issue. Social media, critics say, has become a virtue-signalling chamber as well as an echo chamber, and the greatness of a user’s character doesn’t extend much further than their keyboard.
Outraged I was, when I first saw the term cropping up all over Twitter and Facebook. How dare people question the depth of these heartfelt opinions I post for the world to see? What business is it of theirs to question my intentions? How dare anyone say this is about my ego? For crying out loud, what about me? And so I dismissed it. The social media police don’t know what they’re talking about, I thought, and are clearly trying to gloss over their own shortcomings on the major moral issues of our day.
But I couldn’t quite bat the thought away entirely, and now when I sit with my smartphone in my hands composing a tweet to lay out my position on something in 140 characters, I can’t help but wonder why I’m doing it, who it’s for and what I really think it’s going to achieve.
And if I notice it in my own actions, I observe it more than ever in others. Suddenly I feel irked by social media users who’ve perfected the most coherent, moral arguments, and instead of feeling inspired I’m sceptical of their ego-boosting ways.
One tweeter noted for her apparently noble and wise comments on everything is JK Rowling, an author I’ve always had a lot of time for. Despite some disagreement – particularly on previous comments she’s made about the Scottish independence movement – on wider social issues I’ve found that little separates us both.
However, one recent spat awoke that little voice in the back of my mind again. In the wake of the attack near Finsbury Park mosque, which left one person dead, Rowling posted a stream of tweets about the demonisation of the Muslim community and the part that elements of mainstream Britain play in radicalising dangerous right-wingers.
She aimed her ire directly at the infamous Katie Hopkins, prompting a response from Hopkins suggesting that Rowling was sexually thrilled by events in Finsbury Park.
The spat, if you can even call it that, was quickly picked up by online news outlets as a story. So here we were, in the aftermath of a murderous attack that will have left many members of the Muslim community shaken and frightened, and instead of all focus being on that, two white, non-Muslim women had managed to thrust themselves into the middle of the story.
Is it admirable that Rowling wants to bring attention to the issues she raised? Of course it is. It’s vital that good people speak up and raise their voices louder than those who spread hate and division. But should there be a point when we wonder if, in that moment and on that issue, we are really the ones who should be shouting loudest?
If you’re JK Rowling, and you know that countless media outlets will be sitting poised for the next controversy stemming from your Twitter feed, should you accept that yours may not be the most important voice to be heard and make a choice to step back?
Sometimes being a little quieter on an issue can be as much of a service to your chosen cause if it means more relevant voices can be heard, particularly when the Muslim community is so woefully underrepresented as it is.
It’s a hard pill to swallow when all you intended to do was the right thing, and when a sense of injustice is burning beneath your skin. But learning to step back occasionally may be the difference between virtue signalling and actually making a helpful contribution. Now, there’s a test of character.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here