2020-02-01_Fortean_Times

SDSDSVDSVS

54 FT389

NOELROONEYtakes

issuewiththeprejudices

underlyingacademic

approachestoconspiracy

theoryandtheorists.

I

first became interested

in conspiracytheoryin

the early 1980s,andmy

introduction to the subject

waseasilyweirdenough to

get me hooked straightaway. Iwas

working as an outdoor messenger

forafirm of lawyers, and spent a

good deal ofmytimewandering

around thevarious inns and

courts in and around Fleet Street

and ChanceryLane. One day, as

Iwalked past the RoyalCourts

of Justice on the Strand,Isaw a

set of placards, eachastallasan

average outdoor messenger.The

placards laid outacomprehensive

(and franklybonkers) theory

about theJesuits havingrecruited

afamousNorthern Irish politician

of the time,theReverend Iain

Paisley, andsundrymembers of

the Britishroyalfamily, into a

plot to destabilise the kingdom in

readinessforaVaticancoup d’état.

Twothings particularly struck

meabout thisexperience: first,

theextraordinarylevel of (albeit

mad) detail that the laboriously

hand-painted placards contained;

and second, that the person

standing next to me,reading

with equalfascination,wasthe

tallest individualIhadever

encountered.WhenIasked,my

Ethiopian companion (for suchhe

was) told me hewas7ft 2in tall. I

copied the whole diatribebyhand

intomynotebook,and thus began

an interest that has persisted to

this day.

Isoon began to lookforbooks

and articles on conspiracytheory;

at that time, andforsomeyears

afterwards,Imostlyfoundmyself

reading booksofconspiracy

theoryrather than books or

articlesonthe subject.Idid

findacopyofHarper’smagazine

with the now-famous articleby

RichardHofstadter,TheParanoid

Style in AmericanPolitics,^1 and

eventually foundmywaytoKarl

Popper’sTheOpen Society and

its Enemies,^2 wherethephrase

‘conspiracytheory’ wasfirstused

as ahandlefortheliteratureIwas

nowavidlyreading.

Then came the 1990s,andthe

explosion of conspiracist material

online,andfollowing closely

on its heels, the beginning of

aburgeoning field ofresearch

into conspiracytheory. From

the early 2000s, thenumber

of booksandarticles on the

topicgrewexponentially, and

conspiracybegan to be seen as

afieldofacademic, andeven

scientific,study. Twopointsof

viewdominated these books and

articles,andthey continue to do

so today: first, that conspiracy

theoryrepresentsathreatto

democracy; and second, that

conspiracytheoryappeals to a

particular type of person–that

thelabel ‘conspiracytheorist’ is,

in somerespects,adiagnosis.

Thefirstpoint of view(which

wemightamiablycallthe

conspiracytheoryofconspiracy

theory)isunderstandable,and

largelywrong.Itisstill trotted

outregularly(seeALot ofPeople

AreSaying^3 foranup-to-date

version)byacademics and public

commentatorswho seem to view

Western democracyasafragile

construct, liable to collapse at the

drop ofatin foil hat. However,

most of the conspiracytheorists

Ihave read claim (andIsee no

reason to disbelieve them) that

theyare defending democracy,

not attacking it.

Thewrongnessof thesecond

viewpoint is ofarather different

order.Itisperhaps easiest to

understand ifweconsider a

couple of questions that appear

in alarge proportion of the

literatureonconspiracytheory.

With minorvariants,these

questionsare:what kind of person

believesin/constructs conspiracy

theories? And: what makes

aperson believe that(insert

conspiracytheoryofchoice ordu

jour)istrue or plausible? On the

face of it, these seemreasonable

questions to ask, but behind them

lurksaset of prejudices that are

somewhat questionable.

Let’sbroaden our perspective

briefly.Assuming (asIthink

most of us do) that conspiracy

theoryis, or at least incorporates,

abelief system,thenwemight

ask whether,instudies ofother

belief systems (communism,

capitalism, Christianity,Islam,

environmentalism) these same

questions arequite soregularly

asked. Theanswerturns out

to be no; while thereare,of

course,studies of the psychology

of religious and political

belief,these arenot especially

prominent in the studyofthe

systems themselves.To put it

anotherway, imaginethatevery

timeyouread something on

Christianity,theauthor asked:

what type of person becomes a

Christian? Or,whatwould make

aperson believe theChristian

story? Infact, whenwasthe last

Suspicious types

FORUM

BRIDGET BENNETT

/A

FP

VIA GETTY IMAGES

ABOVE:The tin foil hat brigade:athreat to Western democracy,orits staunchest defenders?

Hofstadterwas

borrowinga

clinicalterm for

other purposes