Another bad effect is their use is an injustice to the people who are characterised as conspiracy theorists.įollowing the philosopher Miranda Fricker, we may call this a form of “ testimonial injustice”. One bad effect of these terms is they contribute to a political environment in which it’s easier for conspiracy to thrive at the expense of openness. Whenever we use the terms “conspiracy theory”, “conspiracism” or “conspiracist ideation”, we’re implying, even if we don’t mean to, there is something wrong with believing, wanting to investigate, or giving any credence at all to the possibility people are engaged in secretive or deceptive behaviour. But among psychologists and social scientists the assumption that they are false, the product of an irrational (or nonrational) process, and positively harmful is virtually universal. Outside the psychology and social science literature some authors will sometimes offer some, usually heavily qualified, defence of conspiracy theories (in some sense of the term). Stefano di Giovani, The Burning of a Heretic, circa 1423-1426. If, as I believe, the treatment of those labelled as “conspiracy theorists” in our culture is analogous to the treatment of those labelled as “heretics” in medieval Europe, then the role of psychologists and social scientists in this treatment is analogous to that of the Inquisition. In both cases these are terms of propaganda, used to stigmatise and marginalise people who have beliefs that conflict with officially sanctioned or orthodox beliefs of the time and place in question. It’s a function similar to that served by the term “heresy” in medieval Europe. Online conspiracy theorists are more diverse (and ordinary) than most assumeīut seeking a fixed definition of the term “conspiracy theory” may be an idle pursuit, since the real problem with the term is that, although it lacks a fixed meaning, it does serve a fixed function. It’s a striking feature of much of the literature on conspiracy theories, like much of the literature on terrorism, that authors assume they are referring to the same phenomenon, while a glance at their definitions (when they bother to offer them) reveals they are not. Conspiracy theories, like scientific theories, and virtually any other category of theory, are sometimes true, sometimes false, sometimes held on rational grounds, sometimes not. Thinking of conspiracy theories as paradigmatically false and irrational is like thinking of phrenology as a paradigm of scientific theory. Hence there can’t be anything wrong with believing conspiracy theories or being a conspiracy theorist. Given people conspire, there can’t be anything wrong with believing they conspire. Virtually all of us conspire some of the time, and some people (such as spies) conspire virtually all of the time. That is, they engage in secretive or deceptive behaviour that is illegal or morally dubious.Ĭonspiracy is a common form of human behaviour across all cultures throughout recorded time, and it has always been particularly widespread in politics. On the face of it, this is hard to understand. More than that, it implies people who accept that belief, or want to investigate whether it’s true, are irrational. To characterise a belief as a conspiracy theory is to imply it’s false. Wikimedia CommonsĮver since the philosopher Sir Karl Popper popularised the expression in the 1950s, conspiracy theories have had a bad reputation. Karl Popper: popularised the term ‘conspiracy theory’. These terms serve to herd respectable opinion in ways that suit the interests of the powerful. Indeed, the net effect of terms such as “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracism” is to silence people who are the victims of conspiracy, or who (rightly or wrongly) suspect conspiracies may be occurring. It’s reasonable to suppose many of the views that are now dismissed or mocked as conspiracy theories will one day be recognised as having been true all along. In the mid-1990s, journalist Gary Webb’s claims that CIA officials conspired with drug dealers bringing crack cocaine into the United States were dismissed by many as a prime example of a conspiracy theory. Yesterday’s conspiracy theories often become today’s incontrovertible facts. When whistleblowers are prosecuted, it has a chilling effect on press freedom in Australia But it was then revealed Australian Secret Intelligence Service agents had bugged East Timor’s cabinet office during treaty negotiations over oil and gas fields. Before 2012, if you had voiced suspicions that the Australian government had been anything but open and honourable in dealing with East Timor – its newly independent but impoverished neighbour – you would likely have been dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |