“The culture of narcissism is a culture of surface appearances, in which everything is done for show and nothing is done for its own sake. People are obsessed with projecting a certain image of themselves to the world, but this image is usually a hollow and superficial one. It is a kind of mask that people wear, to hide their true selves from others and from themselves. In this sense, contemporary society can be seen as a kind of carnival, in which people are always putting on a show for others, but never revealing their true selves.” “The Culture of Narcissism” Christopher Lasch (1979)
The term “virtue signalling” is often used to describe the act of conspicuously expressing support for fashionable progressive causes—race, climate, sexuality, and immigration among them. While many individuals may hold these beliefs as genuine convictions rooted in personal experience, for others, it’s little more than a way to don a cloak of moral superiority. In this context, “virtue signalling” becomes a kind of performative posturing, rather than a genuine commitment to or engagement with the issues.

Take, for example, the absurdity of celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio preaching about environmentalism while flying on private jets. It’s a glaring contradiction: advocacy for reducing carbon footprints clashing with personal actions that amplify them. Whether in the streets or on social media, people trumpet views that, in another era, might have gotten them arrested or shunned. Now, these views—once perhaps considered radical—have become mainstream, even glorified. Some describe this shift as “carnivalesque,” a fitting term for what appears to be a reversal of societal norms.
The Carnival of Society: A Moral Masquerade?
Carnival is a festival or celebration that traditionally occurred before the Christian season of Lent. In many cultures, carnival is a time when the usual order of things is turned on its head, it’s the upside-down world. a time when societal hierarchies are temporarily suspended, and the ordinary rules of behaviour no longer apply. During carnival, the poor might dress as the rich, men as women, children as their elders. It’s a brief period where the fool becomes the king, and vice versa. But what happens when this topsy-turvy world doesn’t end?
In the past, carnival served as a kind of “release valve,” offering the oppressed a temporary respite to mock the powerful and upend societal norms without lasting consequences. Yet today, the carnival seems unending—a perpetual inversion of values where the structures that once anchored society are increasingly eroded. What was once a temporary spectacle has become the new normal, and the consequences are far more serious than a hangover after a few days of excess.
In this “new” carnival, any protest against the prevailing progressive power dynamic is not just frowned upon but often demonized. Critics are “canceled,” dissent is portrayed as terrorism, and those who resist the dominant narrative are ostracized. The release valve no longer exists, and what was once a time for the powerless to speak truth to power has been replaced by a stifling atmosphere where opposition is not tolerated.
Nietzsche’s Insights: The Apollonian vs. the Dionysian
To better understand the cultural shift we’re experiencing, it’s worth exploring Friedrich Nietzsche’s theories in his work The Birth of Tragedy. Nietzsche identified two opposing forces: the Apollonian and the Dionysian. The Apollonian, named after the Greek god Apollo, represents order, reason, and rationality—the imposition of structure upon chaos. The Dionysian, named after Dionysus, is the opposite: it symbolizes instinct, passion, and the primal forces of life, characterized by emotional excess and the breakdown of individual boundaries.
Nietzsche argued that society in the early 20th century was overly Apollonian—too focused on reason and structure, stifling spontaneity and creativity. He advocated for a balance, urging society to embrace more Dionysian energy. However, if Nietzsche were alive today, he might argue that we’ve swung too far in the opposite direction. Society has increasingly embraced the chaotic, emotional, and irrational—excessive Dionysian qualities—at the expense of reason.
Today’s combination of unchecked emotion and social anarchy reflects Nietzsche’s warnings. Like the followers of Dionysus, who in their ecstatic frenzy mistook him for a sacrificial animal and tore him apart, we risk descending into chaos and self-destruction. The balance Nietzsche hoped for has been lost, and the result is a society veering toward collapse.

The Rule of Emotion: The ‘Emocracy’
This cultural shift has given rise to what some call an “emocracy”—a system where emotions, rather than reason or majority rule, dominate. In this new order, feelings matter more than facts, and those who can display the greatest emotional indignation wield the most influence. In this world, it’s not about being factually or semantically correct; it’s about being ‘morally right’, as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez famously said. This approach to governance and social discourse has seeped into law enforcement and public policy as well.
For instance, a recent draft proposal from the Justice Department suggests banning law enforcement from using crime statistics based on protected characteristics like race, ethnicity, or gender, even if such data might provide crucial clues in solving crimes. This is the triumph of emotion over logic: disregarding potentially useful information in the name of inclusivity, regardless of the practical consequences.
The Pendulum: A Coming Backlash?
History often swings like a pendulum, oscillating between extremes, a concept articulated by Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. He warned that after periods of intense repression or ideological fervor, societies tend to overcorrect, swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. This cyclical nature of history is not new, and it poses a real danger in our current cultural climate.

Today, we see a society entrenched in the Dionysian chaos of emotional rule, where feelings trump reason, and dissent is often crushed under the weight of progressive orthodoxy. Solzhenitsyn, who witnessed firsthand the brutality of ideological extremism in Soviet Russia, would likely caution that this cannot last indefinitely. Just as the Soviet regime overreached with its oppressive control and suppression of dissent, today’s cultural elites—by stifling free speech and demonizing opposing viewpoints—are creating the conditions for a powerful backlash.
When the pendulum swings back, as it inevitably does, the reaction could be just as extreme but in the opposite direction. Instead of emotional anarchy, we could see a return to a rigid, excessively Apollonian society where control, order, and suppression dominate. Solzhenitsyn saw this pattern in the Soviet Union, where the revolution promised liberation but quickly devolved into totalitarianism. He understood that the pendulum, once set in motion by unchecked ideological zeal, often swings with devastating consequences.
The danger lies in the possibility that the very forces now advocating for inclusivity, tolerance, and progressive ideals could find themselves the victims of the next wave of suppression. In an overcorrection, free speech might still be stifled, but under a different power structure. Civil rights and freedoms, hard-won over decades, could be rolled back in the name of restoring order or reclaiming conservative values. Rather than a return to balance, we could find ourselves in a dystopian landscape, reminiscent of the rigid, puritanical world portrayed in The Handmaid’s Tale.
Solzhenitsyn’s cautionary words remind us that true freedom lies not in swinging wildly from one extreme to the other but in finding a middle ground—a balance between reason and emotion, tradition and progress. Without this equilibrium, the pendulum will continue to swing, and society will remain trapped in a cycle of chaos and repression, each swing bringing a new set of oppressors and victims. The question is: Has the pendulum already swung too far?