The Rise of Vice-Signalling: How Hatred Has Poisoned Political Debate
Over the past decade, the landscape of political discourse has undergone a radical transformation, deteriorating week by week into a more toxic environment. While the concept of virtue-signalling—performing progressive stances to enhance one's moral image—emerged in the early 2000s, its counterpart, vice-signalling, has risen as a far more sinister force. Unlike virtue-signalling, which aimed to systematise courtesy, vice-signalling involves breaking societal taboos to signal authenticity and courage, often through hateful rhetoric.
Defining Vice-Signalling and Its Origins
Vice-signalling is not merely the opposite of decency; it represents a deliberate escalation in political communication. The term gained prominence with figures like Donald Trump, whose 2015 campaign launch speech in Trump Tower included unplanned remarks falsely associating Mexican immigrants with crime and rape. This broke taboos against hate speech and racial stereotypes, signalling a willingness to defy establishment norms. Trump's recent video depicting the Obamas as apes continues this pattern, normalising racial hatred over more than a decade.
According to Ruth Wodak, emeritus professor of linguistics at Lancaster University, vice-signalling is an attention-seeking strategy used by the hard and far right to violate taboos, escalate conversations, and secure media coverage. It works for political insurgents like Trump and Nigel Farage by breaking down barriers to entry in terms of media attention. Even after gaining power, provocateurs like Silvio Berlusconi have continued with dog-whistle racism, as seen in his remarks about Barack Obama being "young, handsome, and tanned."
The Escalation of Misogyny and Racism
Misogynistic vice-signalling carries high electoral risks, yet it has surged recently, creating a cascade of radical sexism. Trump's "pussy-grabbing" comments opened the door for JD Vance to label the Democratic party as run by "childless cat ladies," which in turn led to Tucker Carlson's metaphorical "daddy's home" speech. This rhetoric has emboldened figures like US defence secretary Pete Hegseth, who reposted social media content suggesting voting should be by household, effectively disenfranchising women.
Tim Bale, politics professor at Queen Mary University of London, notes that such statements shape public preferences, creating a "trauma bond" where relief is felt when politicians like Trump refrain from threats. This dynamic normalises aggressive behaviour, making taboo-breaking seem acceptable.
Historical Context and Modern Intensification
Vice-signalling is not new; Wodak observed it in the 1980s with Jörg Haider of Austria's Freedom party, known for antisemitic and revisionist utterances. However, today's version is more intense and carries less political risk. Historically, figures like Enoch Powell faced establishment shunning after his 1968 "rivers of blood" speech, but this mechanism has weakened. Trump's rise as a Republican candidate despite hateful rhetoric highlights this shift, as does Boris Johnson's career despite Islamophobic comments about Muslim women resembling letterboxes.
In the UK, Nigel Farage has been accused of using antisemitic tropes like "Jewish lobby" and "globalist" government, breaking taboos while maintaining a media persona. The rightwing media, including print titles and broadcasters like GB News, have exacerbated this by competing for clicks and abandoning restraint around hate speech.
Consequences and Normalisation of Hate
Vice-signalling normalises hate, leading to "Empörung Müdigkeit" or fatigue at being angry, as Wodak describes. It disseminates antisemitic and racist slurs into everyday conversation, akin to the broken windows theory applied to hate speech. Examples include former Conservative MP Lee Anderson's Islamophobic insinuations about London mayor Sadiq Khan, which led to his defection to Reform without significant consequence.
This tactic creates a "heads I win, tails you lose" dynamic, characteristic of fascist strategies, where critique is welcomed as proof of defying the establishment. Bale points out that Trump's lies are seen as authenticity, shifting the political "centre of gravity" and influencing policies, such as Keir Starmer's immigration speech or Shabana Mahmood's AI surveillance proposals.
Impact on Progressives and the Future
Progressives struggle with vice-signalling, often debating whether statements are racist rather than condemning racism itself. Alyssa Elliott of the anti-Trump movement Indivisible notes that Democrats and similar groups are locked into outdated rules, failing to adapt to a reality where norms are broken. Each vice-signal, from Trump to Farage, reinforces that the rules are over, demanding a shift in response.
In summary, vice-signalling offers significant wins for its practitioners: attention, distraction from real issues, degradation of public discourse, fanbase creation, and incitement of violence. As political debate continues to sour, understanding and countering this phenomenon is crucial for preserving democratic integrity.
