Whilst we should not be throwing the cognitive psychology / 'epistemic vices' baby out with the bath water, I think that there's insights to be had in looking towards the political (and I'd include Political Theology in this).
David Smail taught me to look at two big I's: Interest and Ideology to help understand people and institutions. Each of these needs a bit of unpacking because they are multi-dimensional and furthermore there's a degree of overlap (e.g. people have an Interest in not having their Ideology contradicted). But that doesn't need to be done here in order to make the link.
I think that interest/ideology (and ultimately power) connect to the idea of CTs as 'political objects'. So I'd speculate that a CT has embedded within it certain assumptions about:
A moral theory/order and/or
A theory of resource allocation and/or
An onto-epistemology or metaphysics... (perhaps some other things too)
And that one of the functions of a CT is to reinforces or defend these basic assumptions about how the world works in order to support a person's or group's fundamental Interests and Ideology.
The more I read up about it, the more « conspiracy theories » look like « terrorism »: a word that expresses moral condemnation for ideological reasons rather than an objective reality. Also I find it interesting that the word is almost always used by left-wingers against their opponents. There is a very good case to be made that « the patriarchy » in feminist discourse is a conspiracy theory, yet nobody seems to make it, probably because the concept is part of the left’s arsenal and hence not attractive to the right.
- "Conspiracy Theory" definitely can be used as a slur, but that doesn't mean there isn't a distinguishable categories of things which are, and are not, Conspiracy Theories
- Theorising about Conspiracy Theories is left-dominated, since theorising is often done in the academy, which is left-dominated.
- The case of patriarchy/feminism is a good one. Is it that leftist Conspiracy Theories are about ideologies, and rightist ones about elites? Leftist ones involve more magical thinking about the power of structures / ideas? Don't know, but I think following Cassam's defining features feminist conceptions of patriarchy don't come under the definition of Conspiracy Theory (not about individual intention (premodern), not amateur (or even directly related to an account of facts/events at all really), not really contrarian or speculative (but arguably esoteric and self-sealing, especially in the most lurid manifestations). Does this mean that Cassam's definition is inherently leftist, or that the category of Conspiracy Theory can't usefully be applied to feminist accounts of patriarchy?
It means that the theory is applicable only to the other end of the political spectrum. Apply Occam’s razor and the logical conclusion is that « conspiracy theory » is just a subdivision of « ideas I disagree with ».
To put it differently, can anybody think of a leftist conspiracy theory that would fit this definition? Unless you posit that left-wingers are inherently too smart to have any (and some people have produced « research » trying to correlate intelligence and left of center opinions) that is proof enough that the definition is worthless.
Ok but what’s the point of calling them CT instead of just inaccurate? Enraging those who hold them is not going to make them change their minds. It’s a fancy way of saying that someone is an idiot to believe in such nonsense.
There's no shame in being wrong, but there should be shame in indulging in Conspiracy Theories . So, yes, it is a fancy way of saying someone is an idiot for believing nonsense
Yes, this comes out really clearly in the Behind The Curve documentary. Cassam doesn't really dwell on the community elements of CTs (there's some discussion of "Conspiracy Entrepeneurs" and the economics of CTs in his chapter 3, which I didn't really cover in my post)
Whilst we should not be throwing the cognitive psychology / 'epistemic vices' baby out with the bath water, I think that there's insights to be had in looking towards the political (and I'd include Political Theology in this).
David Smail taught me to look at two big I's: Interest and Ideology to help understand people and institutions. Each of these needs a bit of unpacking because they are multi-dimensional and furthermore there's a degree of overlap (e.g. people have an Interest in not having their Ideology contradicted). But that doesn't need to be done here in order to make the link.
I think that interest/ideology (and ultimately power) connect to the idea of CTs as 'political objects'. So I'd speculate that a CT has embedded within it certain assumptions about:
A moral theory/order and/or
A theory of resource allocation and/or
An onto-epistemology or metaphysics... (perhaps some other things too)
And that one of the functions of a CT is to reinforces or defend these basic assumptions about how the world works in order to support a person's or group's fundamental Interests and Ideology.
The more I read up about it, the more « conspiracy theories » look like « terrorism »: a word that expresses moral condemnation for ideological reasons rather than an objective reality. Also I find it interesting that the word is almost always used by left-wingers against their opponents. There is a very good case to be made that « the patriarchy » in feminist discourse is a conspiracy theory, yet nobody seems to make it, probably because the concept is part of the left’s arsenal and hence not attractive to the right.
A few disconnected thoughts on this
- "Conspiracy Theory" definitely can be used as a slur, but that doesn't mean there isn't a distinguishable categories of things which are, and are not, Conspiracy Theories
- Theorising about Conspiracy Theories is left-dominated, since theorising is often done in the academy, which is left-dominated.
- The case of patriarchy/feminism is a good one. Is it that leftist Conspiracy Theories are about ideologies, and rightist ones about elites? Leftist ones involve more magical thinking about the power of structures / ideas? Don't know, but I think following Cassam's defining features feminist conceptions of patriarchy don't come under the definition of Conspiracy Theory (not about individual intention (premodern), not amateur (or even directly related to an account of facts/events at all really), not really contrarian or speculative (but arguably esoteric and self-sealing, especially in the most lurid manifestations). Does this mean that Cassam's definition is inherently leftist, or that the category of Conspiracy Theory can't usefully be applied to feminist accounts of patriarchy?
It means that the theory is applicable only to the other end of the political spectrum. Apply Occam’s razor and the logical conclusion is that « conspiracy theory » is just a subdivision of « ideas I disagree with ».
Of course there is nothing wrong with disagreement.
To put it differently, can anybody think of a leftist conspiracy theory that would fit this definition? Unless you posit that left-wingers are inherently too smart to have any (and some people have produced « research » trying to correlate intelligence and left of center opinions) that is proof enough that the definition is worthless.
I pick up this thought in the next post https://tomstafford.substack.com/p/radiation-laced-chapatis-as-a-test my main take away is that leftist (like me) should start calling out Conspiracy Theories from the left when they see them!
Ok but what’s the point of calling them CT instead of just inaccurate? Enraging those who hold them is not going to make them change their minds. It’s a fancy way of saying that someone is an idiot to believe in such nonsense.
There's no shame in being wrong, but there should be shame in indulging in Conspiracy Theories . So, yes, it is a fancy way of saying someone is an idiot for believing nonsense
Surprised by the absence of the social side of CTs, the community building is a major force driving these things...
Yes, this comes out really clearly in the Behind The Curve documentary. Cassam doesn't really dwell on the community elements of CTs (there's some discussion of "Conspiracy Entrepeneurs" and the economics of CTs in his chapter 3, which I didn't really cover in my post)
Very interesting