Are conspiracy theories necessarily unreasonable?

by Kate Whitaker

What is a conspiracy theory?

In 1964, the case Jacobellis v. Ohio was argued before the Supreme Court. This case concerned a movie theater owner, Jacobellis, accused of displaying obscene material in a movie they screened called Les Amants. This film was ultimately deemed not obscene on First Amendment grounds and the prior ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio prosecuting the movie theater owner was overturned. After the case, Justice Potter Stewart wrote a concurrence with the ruling in which he would utter the phrase ultimately written as an epitaph on his grave. He asserted that only “hardcore pornography” should be considered extreme and prosecuted, but when considering what could reasonably be called “hardcore pornography,” he struggled to define it. Justice Stewart finally settled on the “theory” of a definition, that he would “know it when [he sees] it.”

Such is the categorization of a conspiracy theory in the eyes of Richard Hofstadter, a historian who proposed defining conspiracy theories not as a particular thought, but as a “style” of explanation. A couple distinct features characterize this style, namely, moral absolutes, unfalsifiability, and anti-intellectualism (Brotherton).

Much conspiracy theorizing happens in a world of “high stakes and moral absolutes” where the conspirators are the devil incarnate and those fighting the conspiracy are doing the work of God (Brotherton). Take, for example, QAnon, which holds that President Trump is or was doing battle against an elite cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who drink babies’ blood. There is no room in many conspiracy theories for moral nuance, ordinary evil, or benign secrets: everything is life and death, salvation or damnation.

Another characteristic Hofstadter identifies with conspiracy theories is the notion of unfalsifiability. For many theories, nothing can be said to disprove it in the minds of the theorist. The origins of this epistemological differentiation can be found in Karl Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery, which states that the difference between science and pseudo-science lay in the ability for an experimenter to logically falsify a claim. For example, the scientific theory of gravity would be disproven if things were to suddenly stop falling to the ground with no other explanation. However, the pseudo-science of astrology cannot be disproven in the eyes of its adherents, even if Mercury’s retrograde caused no relational damage. In a similar way, the believers of a conspiracy theory such as the moon landing being faked cannot be moved by convincing arguments such as the direct testimony of Buzz Aldrin (who could be lying) or alternative picture angles (which could be doctored).

The third notable attribute of a conspiracy theory style of communication is a strain of anti-intellectualism or anti-elitism. By nature, conspiracy theorists reject the official story of an event, one often touted by “experts,” in favor of one which goes against the establishment. If the government or whoever is propagating the conspiracy leans on official intel to corroborate their story, such as studies showing the effects of climate change, conspiracy theorists must position themselves in opposition to that intel. A strong strain of grassroots individualism runs through conspiracy theory spaces, as a David and Goliath story takes hold: a tale of the average Joe against the powerful, monied, educated (read: brainwashed) forces that control our society.

What role does doubt play in conspiracy theories?

All three attributes, particularly the last one, point to a general distrust in the minds of conspiracy theorists. In fact, that distrust plays a crucial role in the nature of conspiracy itself. It might seem obvious, but conspiracy theories require a conspiracy, a coverup, someone or a group of people being deceptive. Often, for conspiracy theorists, it is enough to believe that they are not being told the truth for them to construct elaborate explanations.

Notably, it is not the alternative explanations themselves that are crucial here, but the doubt that generated them. Belief in one conspiracy theory correlates with belief in others and this stays true even when the two theories are mutually exclusive. Those who were convinced that Osama bin Laden died before his officially declared death in 2011 were also more likely to think that he survived the raid that supposedly killed him (Wood and Douglas). Essentially, disbelief in the official story plays a larger role in the mind of many conspiracy theorists than belief in a certain conspiracy.

However, mistrust must have a culprit, so it is necessary to examine who or what conspiracy theorists doubt in order to understand them.

Who or what do conspiracy theorists doubt and why do they mistrust these groups?

We’ve all heard the crazy conspiracy theories that Jews possess lasers to control the weather or that Catholic presidents want to subordinate the United States to Rome (if only!). The first common targets of conspiracy theories are small groups that people perceive to be powerful or backed by powerful forces. An interesting tension arises concerning the status of these groups as insular or integrated. For example, one of the oldest conspiracy theories of Jewish deicide, the belief that Jews were the sole culprit for Jesus’ crucifixion, was spurred on by this tension.

In Ancient Rome, Jewish communities were both joined with and distinct from the Roman state. They were subject to Roman governors and the emperor, having to pay a “Jewish tax” in order to practice their religion, but they also had their own high priests and leaders that wielded great power within the Jewish community. As a religious minority, they had a tenuous relationship with the dominant group and were thus mistrusted by Romans and later Christians alike.

Both this shaky relationship and mistrust has remained in many Jewish-gentile interactions. Being an ethno-religious identity, Judaism is seen as impenetrable to many outside of it. Additionally, in America, Jewish people on average are much wealthier than people of other religions, which creates additional insularity compounded by class differences.

On the topic of wealth, semi-insular communities, and conspiracies, another common target is the Catholic Church. Since its inception, Christianity has been disruptive towards other powers, which invites rampant conspiracy theories. When it really started gaining momentum in the Roman empire, it was one of the main sources of that state’s downfall, because it taught the citizens to prioritize the Church over the state, which before had been under a polythestic national religion. Roman writers circulated many conspiracy theories about Christians, including that they engaged in incestuous orgies, ate babies, and worshipped the penises of their priests (Minucius Felix). Additionally, the organization of the Catholic Church is the subject of much speculation, as it exists outside of the state and, like all other hierarchies, has participated in its fair share of corruption and misconduct. Furthermore, the massive amount of wealth that the Church receives and distributes draws suspicion, as people are (rightfully) skeptical of the abuses that can occur when so much money is changing hands.

Though, as we’ve seen, this can coincide with conspiracy theories about certain religious minorities, a group of suspicion is often the wealthy and powerful. But unlike Jewish deicide, blood libel, or incestuous Christian orgies, the mistrust of this group has been proven entirely legitimate time and time again. Constantly, we see wealthy people, often working in tandem with the government, cover up anything from distasteful to downright horrific activities. Americans, disproportionately those that are poor and non-white, have endured widespread sex crimes, false flags, experiments from the government on their own citizens, and many more atrocities. These have moved from merely conspiracy theories to admitted conspiracies. Yet still, those who believe the government or the wealthy elite could be engaging in such behavior as they have before are seen as the same level of crazy as those who believe that Christians are eating babies.

What is the difference between legitimate and illegitimate conspiracy theories?

It is not only a mistake to conflate the two types of conspiracy theories (outlandish and grounded in reality), but a dangerous distortion. To draw an inane comparison, as Michael Wood and Karen Douglas did by grouping the conspiracies of the witch trials with the idea that governments lie and cheat in order to maintain power, further cements the role of the “free” press as a lapdog of the state. Too often, media figures and academics walk in lockstep to confirm blatant lies propagated by the government because of the hiring process and subtle incentives present in our media landscape (Herman and Chomsky).

It is not unreasonable to assume that the government is lying to us. Even one of the oldest books on political philosophy in Western history, Plato’s Republic, advocates for the government deceiving its own citizens with so-called “noble lies.” However, because of the government’s role in very real conspiracies, it is advantageous for them and many in the media to maintain that all conspiracy theories are at the same level of unbelievability. For example, they might invest in disinformation campaigns which place legitimate concerns in close proximity to illegitimate ones or state legitimate concerns with preposterous framing.

Since its taping in 2015, InfoWar’s founder Alex Jones’ rant about “chemicals in the water turning the freaking frogs gay” has been widely circulated as an object of mockery. However, less than a year later, a study was published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety found that hormone levels in the water, likely caused by the disposal of hormonal birth control, has led to sex changes in fish throughout New England (Iwanowicz et al.). However, to extend the metaphor, the well has already been poisoned: millions of people already believe the idea that chemicals might be affecting the sex lives of aquatic creatures to be ridiculous.

So there are those who disregard both legitimate and illegitimate conspiracy theories. However, people who believe only the illegitimate conspiracy theories also exist. More than a few Americans subscribe to more outlandish premises, like the Jewish space lasers, over more legitimate conspiracies. Alternatively, many believe legitimate conspiracies (the government does not have our best interests at heart) due to illegitimate reasons (because they are lizards). I believe that this is due to a lack of institutional analysis causing the well-founded cultural malaise people feel to be misdirected into backwards and often bigoted conspiracy theories. The solution is not to dismiss these people out of hand, but instead understand the entirely reasonable doubt they are expressing and redirect it into more legitimate outlets. Doubt is not absurd, as many would have you believe. In fact, it is even more naïve to believe that everything is fine.

Resources

Brennan, William J., Jr, and Supreme Court of The United States. U.S. Reports: Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184. 1963. Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep378184/.

Brotherton, Rob. Suspicious Minds. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015. Accessed through Canvas.

Herman, Edward S. and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.

“How income varies among U.S. religious groups.” Pew Research. October 11, 2016. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/.

Iwanowicz, L. R., Blazer, V. S., Pinkney, A. E., Guy, C. P., Major, A. M., Munney, K., … & Kubiak, T. J. (2016). Evidence of estrogenic endocrine disruption in smallmouth and largemouth bass inhabiting Northeast US national wildlife refuge waters: A reconnaissance study. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 124, 50-59.

Minucius Felix, Marcus. Octavius. 197.

Wood, Michael and Karen Douglas. “Online communication as a window to conspiracist worldviews.” Frontiers in Psychology, 2015

Plato. The Republic. Book III. 375 BC. Translated by me.

Popper, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1959.