Wouldnít it be great if you could demonstrate to the world what an amazing person you are
just by posting where you eatóor donít eatóon social media?
Given the current state of polarization in our society, it should come as no surprise
that something as simple as the opening of a fast-food restaurant has become not only
controversial, but also one of the quickest ways to share with the world your remarkable
example of "modern virtue."
In September of 2019 Chick-fil-A opened its first Toronto location. As has often occurred
when popular American chains venture north in an effort to tap into the Canadian consumer
market, Chick-fil-A was welcomed by long lines of eager customers. Many fried-chicken lovers
stood in line for twelve hours to sample the latest entry into Torontoís food scene.
However, not everyone was so welcoming. The grand opening was also met with protestors
wielding an array of grievances and serenading customers with cries of "Shame, shame!" The
protesters voicing their disdain for the U.S.-based chicken specialists claimed multiple motivations.
Jaymie Sampa, manager of anti-violence initiatives for the Toronto-based activist group "The
519," stated, "When we have an increasing global climate and rhetoric around hate-fuelled
values, this is about taking a stand against that" ("Grand Opening of Toronto Chick-fil-A
generates both excitement and anger," GlobalNews.ca, Sept. 5, 2019). The 519ís involvement is
in response to statements made by the Cathy family, owners of the poultry powerhouse,
concerning their support for the traditional family unit centred on the marriage of one
man to one woman. Animal rights activists joined in the protests, and some even tried
to paint the opening as against native rights. ("LGBTQ2, animal rights protesters overshadow
grand opening of Chick-Fil-A in Toronto," GlobalNews.ca, Sept. 6, 2019).
Such incidences of very public protests against retailers and businessesóshowy and filled
with an air of moral condemnationóare clearly on the rise. In an age when people post images
of their meals on Instagram and chronicle their every action on Facebook and Twitter,
everyday choices such as where to grab a chicken sandwich or buy a sweatshirt have become opportunities
to declare oneís superior moral stature. Former President Barack Obama describes one
part of the problem: "I do get a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is
accelerated by social media, that the way of me making change is to be as judgmental
as possible about other people and that's enough. Like if I tweet or hashtag about how
you didn't do something right, or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty
good about myself because: 'Man, did you see how woke I was? I called you out.'" (https://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-slams-call-out-culture-young-not-activism-2019-10)
Polarization is fracturing our society, with social media serving as the jackhammer. In
an age when it has never been easier to discover any individualís views, a single Tweet "outing"
someone for being on the politically incorrect side of an issue can result in immediate calls
for a boycott. When U.S. President Donald Trump announced his plans to attend a fundraiser
in Beverly Hills, Toronto-born actor Eric McCormack "advocated on Twitter for the Hollywood
Reporter to ëkindly report everyone attending this event, so the rest of us can be clear
about who we donít wanna work withí" ("Will & Grace stars backtrack calls to out and boycott
Trump backers in Hollywood," WashingtonExaminer.com, September 4, 2019). While McCormack later
backpedaled in the face of claims he was advocating a McCarthyism-style "blacklist," this type
of attack is increasingly common, and such behavior is found on both sides of the political
aisle. How many political conservatives in the United States tweeted their public declaration
that they would never buy another Nike shoe when the corporation chose controversial football
player Colin Kaepernick to promote its brand? The draw of using social media for such public
display is clear. "In a world where everyone is a one man/one woman P.R. department on
social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, ëmoral peacockingíóoutrage
on social media that is not combined with actionóbecomes convenient and costless" ("When
Do Consumer Boycotts Work?" NYTimes.com, February 7, 2017). It costs nothing and yet shows the
world what a virtuous person you areóaptly symbolizing what our society has come to value:
The appearance of good, rather than substance. What danger is there in such virtue signalling
and moral peacocking? The subtle temptation to believe that virtue is determined by which
chicken sandwich we prefer, instead of the far more difficult task of living a life of
honesty, integrity, and character. When we focus on which restaurants, clothing stores,
or sports teams to avoid, the weightier matters of character are likely forgotten.
Perhaps you've heard the popular phrase: "Choose your friends by their character and your socks
by their colour. Choosing your socks by their character makes no sense and choosing your
friends by their colour is unthinkable." These days it seems we are encouraged to choose
our socks by the character of the designer, the manufacturer, the retailer, the advertising
agency, and any other set of hands that may be associated with the socks before they find
their way to our feet. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong
with letting people know why you do or donít patronize a business. But we should consider
such stances or actions in a balanced manner, examining what they do and do not represent.
We should understand that avoiding or patronizing a particular chicken sandwich establishment
says very little about the protestorís and patronís actual moral values. And it does
risk causing us to fall for our own public relations efforts and forget that true virtue
has little to do with chicken sandwiches and much to do with how we live our lives on a
day to day basis and how we treat those around us.