Why Accusations of Virtue Signaling Are Not a Valid Response: A Response to Kate Braestrup

virtue signaling: the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue. — Oxford

If you’ve never encountered accusations of virtue signaling in the wild, consider yourself lucky. Although the concept originated innocently enough, with an article by journalist James Bartholomew in The Spectator in 2015, the rhetorical utility of virtue signaling became apparent during the GamerGate controversy that was ostensibly about journalistic integrity but revealed its true colors in the harassment of and threats to women and other minorities who offered progressive criticism of the video game industry. Since then, it has been a staple of the political right, providing cover for arguments without having to actually argue.

Once you see it in action, it quickly becomes apparent why it’s nothing but a thinly veiled ad hominem argument. It assumes to know the internal motivations of people who are expressing an opinion. Thus, if I’m accused of virtue signalling, the person making the accusation is saying that, rather than caring about the issue at hand, I’m merely parroting a position to show off my moral superiority.

It’s the old trick of, “If you can’t beat them, slander them.” Rather than relying on your argument to sustain itself, a person who makes an accusation of virtue signaling is attacking the credibility of the person rather than relying on the merits of their position. So, if I’m opposed to, say, affirmative action, rather than arguing against affirmative action, I can simply accuse my opponent of virtue signaling as a distraction from the issue at hand.

The truth is that, while some people may indeed be virtue signaling, it’s impossible to know another person’s motivations for their beliefs unless they self-report such motivations. In addition, a person’s motivations for holding a belief have nothing to do with the truth of said propositions. This is why virtue signaling is the epitome of an ad hominem: a person’s motivations should not figure into an intellectual debate at all.

It’s the ultimate in distraction: if you can’t best your opponent intellectually, manufacture outrage at them instead. Anyone seeking an honest intellectual understanding of the issues should be automatically suspicious towards anyone who accuses others of virtue signalling.

I hoped I would never see accusations of virtue signaling used as a tactic by Unitarian Universalists, but recent events in our movement have led to many tactics from the political right being adopted. In a blog entry titled “Snob Faith,” Kate Braestrup identifies what she considers to be “luxury beliefs.” Quoting extensively from an article from the conservative online journal Quillette, Braestrup adopts the definition of luxury beliefs from article writer Rob Henderson:

Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on the lower class.

The idea that a belief can, in and of itself, confer status on a person sounds fishy to begin with. After all, why is a person’s social status relative to their beliefs even relevant?

The answer is simple: this is virtue signaling repackaged with a new name to make progressives and leftists sound out of touch and elitist. Henderson uses, as evidence, his experience of being a student from a lower socio-economic class background at Yale, and argues that, because the students at Yale were from higher socio-economic classes, then there is something elitist about their adoption of certain beliefs heavily implied to be progressive, liberal, or leftist.

Now notice the trick Henderson uses here: he did not make an argument against the beliefs. That would force him to make counterarguments. Instead, he infers that the beliefs are somehow flawed because of the elite socio-economic class of the people holding them. He infers that the lower classes are somehow more pure for not holding these beliefs. Virtue signaling in reverse.

And there are two very obvious responses to Henderson here:

1. The truth-value of a belief does not depend on the virtue, vice, or experiences of a person holding them. This should be obvious, that the entire thing is an ad hominem; even if every Yale student Henderson encounterd is as snobish as he makes them out to be, it has absolutely no bearing on the truth value of the beliefs in question.
2. But there’s a more sinister motive at work, I think.The implication that the poor and working class cannot share or even understand the beliefs of these Yale elites is not only insulting, but elitist in and of itself. I held many of the beliefs I do long before I had a college degree and I grew up in a poor home. Henderson confuses a correlation between his own political upbringing and beliefs and his socio-economic class for proof of causation that all poor and working class people must be equally free of the Yale students’ beliefs. This is not an honest or accurate look at the poor and working class and the reason many rural areas consistently vote red. The truth is a lot more complicated, as suggested by this Washington Post article.

I leave Henderson for now and turn to how Braestrup attempts to correlate his article to Unitarian Universalism.

As I mentioned earlier, I grew up in a poor, working class home. As such, the classism I have encountered in Unitarian Universalism has been readily apparent to me, from expectations around monetary pledging to the way General Assembly is only truly open to those who can afford it (or have expense accounts). My work in this area led me to write a thesis on countering classism in Unitarian Universlist congregations as well as serving on the advisory committee of UU Class Conversations in 2013. My speaking out about our classism did not earn me many friends in Unitarian Universalism and, in fact, led a former UUA president to accuse me on the UUA’s public Facebook page of being “preoffended” for pointing out some of our unacknowledged classism. All while I was still in seminary.

I give this background not to boast of my own work, but to point out that I am under no illusion that Unitarian Universalism is largely a faith of socio-economic elites. Mark W. Harris does an excellent job of pointing out our collective classism in his book Elite: Uncovering Classism in Unitarian Universalist History. I will not recount Harris’s arguments in full, but suffice it to say I accept his premise that we, as Unitarian Universalists, have a lot of work to do in regards to countering classism and economic inequality, both in our movement and in the wider world.

So, I find it very perturbing when Braestrup tries to connect the socio-economic backgrounds of the people in our pews and pulpits with the acceptance of so-called luxury beliefs which are, in fact, simply progressive beliefs held by lots of people, UUs and non-UUs alike:

Like the peacock’s tail, or the lunatic risk-taking behaviors of young men, a UU by being a UU is advertising fitness; social, financial, spiritual and educational. No wonder many more people will, when surveyed, identify themselves as Unitarian Universalists than actually attend our churches!

She suggests that Unitarian Universalsits who hold such luxury beliefs are doing so because they are higher on the socio-economic pecking order, rendering invisible people like me who did not grow up in class privilege. To some degree, I still don’t have class privilege because it is unlikely I will ever escape student loan debt. It’s also a way to try and pit the economically disadvantaged against other minorities.

Of course Braestrup suggests that, for some of these beliefs (the ones she agrees with), it is a good thing that they trickle down to the masses: beliefs like “that there was no hell or perhaps no afterlife at all; that women could serve as clergy; that foreign, exotic religions could be fascinating and valuable; or that an openly gay person should be welcome in the pews and (later) even in the pulpit.” Unitarian Universalism once adopted these because they were “luxury beliefs,” she thinks, and, now that they’re mainstream, we find ourselves in need of reinventing ourselves.

Her implication here that what makes us unique is our adoption of controversial (for that is what they were) beliefs is essentially an accusation of virtue signalling of all Unitarian Universalists throughout history. It fails to question whether our adoption of these beliefs might have been for genuine religious or intellectual reasons, and it fails to acknowledge we haven’t always done the right thing or been particularly radical.

I am not so cynical as to agree with Braestrup that our faith is dependent on adopting the mainstream-controversial flavor of the week to differentiate ourselves from mainline Christian denominations; I would have left long ago if that was the case. I have always, and continue, to believe that what makes Unitarian Universalism unique is our propensity to search for truth in many sources. It’s the reason a person like me who has been influenced by Christianity, Humanism, and Buddhism can find a spiritual home in our faith, and why so many flock to us: because we offer an alternative way of being religious.

The thrust of Braestrup’s article, though, isn’t really to complain about us going against the grain of mainstream thought. What she is really seeking to explain is why so many people are adopting beliefs she disagrees with.

This might explain why opinions that were once considered normal are now anathema for Unitarian Universalists. Barack Obama was on record as being opposed to same-sex marriage in 2008, and UUs gladly voted for him. Now, opposition to same-sex marriage is a sign of irredeemable evil.

(I pause here to question whether she really believes that everyone who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to same-sex marriage, or, at the very least, excusing Obama’s opposition to it. I hope she doesn’t since the UUA was already heavily engaged in marriage equality efforts by this time. She ignores the more probable explanation that most progressives, regardless of their views on marriage equality, found Obama to be a more progressive candidate in general than the other major candidate, John McCain. It’s transparent to me she ignores this more likely hypothesis because it doesn’t back up her thesis.)

The phrase “a woman is an adult human female” would not have struck even the most progressive Unitarian Universalist as controversial a mere five years ago. It is now morally imperative that you believe that a woman can have a penis because declaring your absolute adherence to this idea, along with ideas about open borders, loose sexual norms, or the malevolence of the police is like wearing a shirt with a little alligator on it. As Henderson puts it: When someone “uses the term ‘white privilege,’ they are engaging in a status display. They are trying to tell you, ‘I am a member of the upper class.’”

So what she is saying here is that people who are for marriage equality, open borders, and trans rights and understand ideas like white privilege are really just virtue signaling. Every one of us. Why does this matter? After complaining about UUs who are arrested in demonstrations, she writes:

…The demonstration isn’t about solidarity with the less-privileged (for whom getting arrested is a very different thing) nor the salvation of the planet. This is why there is no obvious connection between the demonstration (let alone the arrest) and the stated goal. The true goal is to let folks know that Unitarian Universalists are affluent. We’ve got time on our handcuffed hands, emotional energy to spare for vicarious outrage, and money to blow on airfare and fines. Rob Henderson’s [the author of the article] well-heeled, woke elite-college classmates (white, black or brown) are our target demographic, not the drug addicts, graduates of foster care or military veterans, whatever the color their skins might be.

Virtue signaling. We are all just virtue signaling with the goal of selling our faith to upper class elites. Braestrup instantly renders as invisible all the drug addicts, foster care alumns, and veterans in our congregations right now! I don’t know what her experience has been in Unitarian Universalism, but I’ve never served a congregation without them. They’re there, present, right now, agreeing with what we have to say. But, even more, her essential premise is we don’t really care about these people; we only care about looking good.

To say that this is insulting to the many UUs, both clergy and lay, who are out in the world doing good every day is an understatement. To say that it is an overgeneralization of lots of diverse people shouldn’t need to be said. To claim to automatically know the motivations of Unitarian Universalists, or people in general, is an ad hominem attack.

Could it simply be that Unitarian Universalism is a product of the progressive subculture we exist in and that, as beliefs have gained more traction in progressive circles, we have been forced to examine our prejudices towards them? To listen to Braestrup, we’re just adopting controversial propositions for the sake of being controversial. But the majority of UUs were not for LGBTQIA+ rights prior to Stonewall or even well into the eighties; many are still uncomfortable with transgender rights to this day. There was still opposition to female clergy well into the late twentieth century. Many UUs were not aware that third-wave feminists and critical race theorists were using terms like white supremacy in a very specific way forty years ago that has since become more mainstream with movements like Black Lives Matter and Showing Up for Racial Justice.

Is it really so hard to believe that, the more visible a progressive belief becomes in a person’s circle who is already predisposed to these beliefs, the more likely people are to examine their own beliefs and their prejudices? Should the fear of having to educate people about terms automatically mean we discard those beliefs out of hand, or that we, instead, do the necessary work of pushing progressive values forward?

There are many reasons for holding progressive beliefs. One of them, the reason I do, is because I genuinely believe and have been persuaded by them. And, unless Braestrup wants to call me and people like me liars or accuse us of being deceived by our own motivations, our existence in and of itself is a serious complication to Braestrup’s thesis. Even if there are Unitarian Universalists virtue signaling, it is impossible to know how many are and how many hold their beliefs for others reasons. That’s why she should be sticking to the truth-value of propositions rather than trying to fling dirt at other people’s characters.

So all that setup, and what’s the payoff? Braestrup tips her hand in the last paragraph:

So the next time a UU assures you that ours is a white supremacist organization, just picture her, him or Xher popping the collar on a polo shirt with an itty-bitty but very visible alligator embroidered just above the left breast.

All that for a quip about the concept of white supremacy. In other words, people who believe in the concept of white supremacist culture aren’t being sincere. Instead, they’re parroting controversial beliefs to seem progressive, to appeal to elites, to be morally superior. They’re virtue signaling.

And, as with all instances of virtue signaling, there is no evidence presented; the person making the accusation just claims to know what all people in a given group believe. It’s just as much an ad hominem as it ever was.

Why is it so hard for people to believe that a person sincerely holds the beliefs they say they do? I think there’s an element of shame in it: we all want to believe that we’re right, so the idea that someone within a group we belong to disagrees with us threatens to shatter our faith in our beliefs. So, rather than reexamining our own beliefs or trying to sincerely understand why someone disagrees with us, it’s easier to just assume they’re hypocrites and go on with our lives.

That’s essentially the message that Braestrup is sending anyone who agrees with the current Gadfly controversy (for that is her context): It’s okay to ignore those we disagree with because they’re all just a big bunch of phonies.

I suppose that, if she wants to believe that, it’s her prerogative, and nothing I say is going to change it. But, for a group that claims to want dialogue, it sure is a transparent way to shut down all communication. After all, why would you want to dialogue or even have a conversation with someone you believe is lying about their motivations?

I believe that Braestrup and Todd Eklof and everyone else I disagree with sincerely holds the beliefs they say they do. I disagree with them, but I don’t think they’re lying or expressing bad faith when they say they believe something. I don’t always believe they’ve fully examined the implications of those beliefs, but I would never claim that they are virtue signalling. So it is telling to me that they are beginning to resort to insults and character assassination with only one clear motive: to win the argument through dismissal of those they disagree with and make themselves feel better.

Yes, the tone of Braestrup’s entire piece is very much, “Don’t worry. We’re not as bad as THOSE people.”

So, yes, you have the right to believe I’m virtue signaling. Just don’t be surprised when I don’t have much more to say to you. After all, why bother trying to talk with someone who thinks you’re a liar about your motivations for or sincerity in holding a belief?

And if we continue to believe that the masses are so intellectually deficient that they cannot understand progressive and leftist values and arguments, we will continue to alienate them. Quoting a source from the right, it’s not surprising that they would paint all progressive values as being elitist; that’s a common argument of conservatives right now. For a person professing to hold progressive values to agree with them really just tells the masses that the conservatives are right.