The Nature of Conspiracy Theories. Michael Butter
Читать онлайн книгу.
task of the social sciences, he therefore concludes, is to investigate these unintended consequences and, ideally, predict them.14
This interpretation of history and society is clearly diametrically opposed to that of conspiracy theorists. Significantly, Popper illustrates his general statements with the example of what he calls ‘the conspiracy theory of society’, in order to show that conspiracist thinking rests on a false understanding of social processes:
Conspiracies occur, it must be admitted. But the striking fact which, in spite of their occurrence, disproves the conspiracy theory is that few of these conspiracies are ultimately successful. Conspirators rarely consummate their conspiracy. Why is this so? Why do achievements differ so widely from aspirations? Because this is usually the case in social life, conspiracy or no conspiracy. Social life is not only a trial of strength between opposing groups – it is action within a more or less resilient or brittle framework of institutions and traditions and it creates – apart from any conscious counter-action – many unforeseen reactions in this framework, some of them perhaps even unforeseeable.15
Popper’s theoretical deliberations are borne out by history. Wherever a conspiracy enjoyed initial success, it invariably also had consequences that were in no way intended by the conspirators. For instance, the murder of Julius Caesar did not secure the continuation of the Roman Republic, but led instead to the Empire. The same could be said of ‘Operation Ajax’, in which the CIA and the British foreign intelligence service MI6 overthrew the Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 after he nationalized the country’s oil production. The coup immediately led to an Islamization of Iranian society, which eventually resulted in the revolution of 1979. The emergence of an anti-American religious regime was probably the last thing the Western conspirators had in mind. Thus, the experience of actual conspiracies shows that history is often impossible to plan even in the short term, let alone beyond.
For all the above reasons, no conspiracy theory has ever turned out in retrospect to be correct. However much this is claimed, it has never actually happened in the sense that a theory initially believed by many to belong to the realm of fantasy has subsequently been proven true. The assumptions of conspiracy theorists in terms of size and scope alone make this impossible. Thus, while it is perfectly conceivable that it will one day be proven beyond all doubt that a second gunman and others were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, such a straightforward scenario will never be enough to satisfy the conspiracy theorists. Instead, they postulate links to the highest levels of the CIA, government, the mafia, exiled Cubans – even Freemasons and the extra-terrestrials who allegedly also built the pyramids.16 The conspiracist tendency to link together disparate phenomena leads to assumptions that defy all probability.
Another example often cited in support of the claim that many conspiracy theories later turn out to be true is Watergate. Before the first arrests were made in that case, however, there were no suspicions at all, that is to say, no theories, surrounding Nixon or his staff. And once the inquiry was underway, all parties – from the members of the Senate Committee investigating the affair to the investigative journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein – were extremely careful not to voice suspicions that could not be proven. The well-documented revelations concerning this scandal are therefore a world apart from the still unproven claims of conspiracy theorists that the official version of events was either just the tip of the iceberg or a clever diversionary tactic. They connected Nixon with the mafia, saw him as the victim of a CIA plot, and regarded the whole thing as just one piece in a superconspiracy puzzle encompassing practically every event in recent American history.17
The Watergate affair thus provides further confirmation that the extensive scenarios put forward by conspiracy theorists are inconsistent with reality. If the American president – commonly dubbed the most powerful man in the world – cannot even spy on his political opponents at their party offices without it becoming public and leading to his eventual resignation, how can anyone be supposed capable of faking the moon landing, 9/11 or the refugee crisis and keeping it secret for years or even decades? Hence, conspiracy theories are indeed usually wrong. Any account of events that deems everything to be planned and leaves no room for chance, contingency and structural effects cannot adequately comprehend reality. Thus, as Quassim Cassam puts it, ‘Conspiracy Theories are implausible by design.’18
The term as a means of delegitimization
As we have seen, the term ‘conspiracy theory’ refers to a specific understanding of the world that assumes that everything has been planned, that everything is connected and that nothing is as it seems. At the same time, when people call something a conspiracy theory, they usually imply that it is wrong. The label thus denotes a set of specific characteristics, and it entails an evaluation. This duality has been inherent in the term since Karl Popper first used it in its modern sense. As Andrew McKenzie-McHarg has shown, the expression ‘conspiracy theory’ already existed in the late nineteenth century, but had a different meaning until Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies.19 Initially, a conspiracy theory was – along with suicide or murder theories – one of the possibilities considered by investigators whenever a body was found and the cause of death was unclear. In this context, the term simply meant that it was deemed conceivable that the victim had been murdered by more than one perpetrator, thus fulfilling the legal definition of a conspiracy. Since Popper’s openly derogatory statements on the ‘conspiracy theory of society’, however, it has been used to refer to the large-scale scenarios discussed above, in order to both capture their characteristics and to suggest that they are without substance. Thus, as Peter Knight stresses, ‘The term “conspiracy theory” often acts as an insult itself … Calling something a conspiracy theory is not infrequently enough to end discussion.’20
Consequently, it is always other people who articulate ‘conspiracy theories’. Nobody is more aware of the stigma attached to the term than those to whom it is most usually applied. Occasionally, they react by appropriating the concept and claiming that those branded conspiracy theorists by the mainstream are the truly enlightened ones. Or they may avoid it when it comes to their own suspicions, yet use it to discredit allegations directed against themselves or those who share their world view. This tactic is known as reverse labelling. You use the same label that others seek to pin on you, dismissing their accusations as conspiracy theories while at the same time presenting your own suspicions as justified and all but proven. ‘Who is the one spreading conspiracy theories here?’, the former German newsreader Eva Herman asks rhetorically in an article on the refugee crisis which draws on the conspiracy theory of the ‘Great Replacement’, i.e. the idea that an international financial elite is engaged in a plot to replace Europe’s Christian population with a Muslim one. To her and those who believe her, the answer to her question is of course obvious: the puppet politicians and the lying press are spreading conspiracy theories, while she is telling the truth.21
Similarly, the authors and commentators on the right-wing populist American website breitbart.com, whose former editor-in-chief Steve Bannon was one of President Trump’s top advisers for a time, have attempted ever since Trump’s election to dismiss as a conspiracy theory the well-founded suspicion that the Kremlin sought to influence the polls. At the same time, however, the site produces an endless stream of accusations of its own which others would call conspiracy theories. Users commenting on, for instance, an article of 12 December 2016 about the Russia affair agreed with the author that the whole thing was a conspiracy theory put about by the Democrats, yet many of them promptly went on to make counter-accusations – naturally without applying the term to their own case. Comments included an urgent call for Trump to investigate the billionaire George Soros, accusing him of undermining democracy in the USA with his ‘187 radical organizations’.22
Given its negative associations, it is hardly surprising that there is a conspiracy theory about the term ‘conspiracy theory’. If you google ‘origin term conspiracy theory’, you will find precious little about Karl Popper, but countless pages claiming that the CIA invented the term to discredit those