#PulpNonFiction: The amorality of morality marketing

You see I want to be quite obstinate about insisting that we have no way of knowing-beyond that fundamental loyalty to the social code-what is "right" and what is "wrong," what is "good" and what is "evil." I dwell so upon this because the most disturbing aspect of "morality" seems to me to be the frequency with which the word now appears; in the press, on television, in the most perfunctory kinds of conversation. Questions of straightforward power (or survival) politics, questions of quite indifferent public policy, questions of almost anything: they are all assigned these factitious moral burdens.

There is something facile going on, some self-indulgence at work. Of course we would all like to “believe” in something, like to assuage our private guilts in public causes, like to lose our tiresome selves; like, perhaps, to transform the white flag of defeat at home into the brave white banner of battle away from home. And of course it is all right to do that; that is how, immemorially, things have gotten done. But I think it is all right only so long as we do not delude ourselves about what we are doing, and why. It is all right only so long as we remember that all the ad hoc committees, all the picket lines, all the brave signatures in The New York Times, all the tools of agitprop straight across the spectrum, do not confer upon anyone any ipso facto virtue. It is all right only so long as we recognise that the end may or may not be expedient, may or may not be a good idea, but in any case has nothing to do with “morality”. ~ Joan Didion

Didion is a wonderful writer. She is also an excellent observer. As a professional observer myself, I appreciate anyone who is able to notice things as they are, not as we wish them to be.

The extract I have quoted above illustrates this point and illuminates one of my favourite topics to talk about (or perhaps, more accurately, preach about) with the brands and businesses I consult to. That is, the current un-separation of church (morality), business and the state. By conflating of virtue with value, brands and businesses place themselves in a no-win situation.

This is best illustrated by the current moral panic around social media platforms and censorship therein. By pandering to the public moral panic and consenting to “cancel” or “censor” unpopular (or unpolitically correct) groups, individuals and ideas, social media networks have found themselves become de facto arbiters of virtue and morality - acting as priests, judges and executioners of (social) justice. These powers, however, come with a price, and that price is alienating large swarths of their potential target markets. After all, the most contentious social and moral issues, the ones that cause the most outrange and demand the most action are the ones where there is little consensus - not the ones where the majority is already in comfortable agreement as to the social norm. This means the price of welding moral influence is, ironically, a decline in influence and credibility. Once you pick one side, you lose the trust and respect of the other.

Not only that, as Joan Didion points out. Morality is subjective, personal. In many controversial issues there is no single “right” point of view. And, morality wielded for a profit motive by a large company will never be accepted without cynicism.

Brand beware: morality marketing is a dangerous game.