Who gets to represent certain issues and how, is determined through complex social processes. By representing a ‘progressive’ cause, the spokesperson will also come to public attention and can bask in the light of ‘progress’. This is why the audacious display of progressivist virtue signalling is in a sense similar to conspicuous consumption, – it comes to signify one’s belonging to a more ‘refined’ social class.
Representing certain issues functions as a signifier of class distinction because those issues are formulated according to class interests. If social problems are presented as originating from the prejudices of individuals rather than as deep-seated structural issues, questions about systemic problems can be avoided. Virtue signallers do exactly this job: they suggest that problems can be solved by raising people’s morale i.e. by making them more tolerant and humane. They can then claim authority over a universal humanity that grants them the special role of civilizing others.
Not all issues are ‘worth’ representing to the same extent. Some issues are presented as the cutting edge of human rights struggle and hence get more media attention and funding. Nancy Fraser’s analysis about how different groups (e.g. blacks, women, homosexuals) are situated with respect to matters of redistribution as well as of recognition, help to explain why groups experiencing more recognition- than redistribution-related injustices have become increasingly central to the human rights discourse of recent decades. Such issues can be more easily presented as mere questions of tolerance and humanity and therefore have more potential to be instrumentalised while legitimizing the current socio-political system.
