首页 | 主题 | 图库 | 问答 | 文摘 | 原创 | 百科

历史 | 地理 | 人物 | 艺术 | 体育 | 科学 | 音乐 | 电影 | 信息技术 | 世界遗产

 开放、中立,源自维基百科

Personal tools

Conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Conspiracism)
Jump to: navigation, search

A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes. Historians often take conspiracy theories "as actual theory, i.e., the viewpoint with the greatest explanatory value and the greatest utility as a starting point for further investigation, explanation and problem solving."[1]

Contents

Terminology

The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end."[2] However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.[citation needed]

The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates to the year 1909. Originally it was a neutral term; during the political upheaval of the 1960s the term acquired its current derogatory sense. [3] It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary as late as 1997.[4]

In an early essay by Daniel Pipes "adapted from a study prepared for the CIA", Pipes attempts to pin down what beliefs distinguish 'the conspiracy mentality' from 'more conventional patterns of thought': appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money, and sex account for all [5].

The term "conspiracy theory" is frequently used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws.[6] The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.[citation needed]

Conspiracism

A world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history is sometimes termed conspiracism. The historian Richard Hofstadter addressed the role of paranoia and conspiracism throughout American history in his essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, published in 1964. Bernard Bailyn's classic The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967) notes that a similar phenomena could be found in America during the time preceding the American Revolution.[7]The term conspiracism was popularized by academic Frank P. Mintz in the 1980s. Academic work in conspiracy theories and conspiracism presents a range of hypotheses as a basis of studying the genre. Among the leading scholars of conspiracism are: Hofstadter, Karl Popper, Michael Barkun, Robert Alan Goldberg, Daniel Pipes, Mark Fenster, Mintz, Carl Sagan, George Johnson, and Gerald Posner.

According to Mintz, conspiracism denotes: "belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history":[8]

"Conspiracism serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America and elsewhere. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology".[9]

Throughout human history, political and economic leaders genuinely have been the cause of enormous amounts of death and misery, and they sometimes have engaged in conspiracies while at the same time promoting conspiracy theories about their targets. Hitler and Stalin would be merely the most prominent examples; there have been numerous others.[10] In some cases there have been claims dismissed as conspiracy theories that later proved to have some basis in facts. (for examples, see below "Verified conspiracies")[11][12] The idea that history itself is controlled by large long-standing conspiracies is rejected by historian Bruce Cumings:

"But if conspiracies exist, they rarely move history; they make a difference at the margins from time to time, but with the unforeseen consequences of a logic outside the control of their authors: and this is what is wrong with 'conspiracy theory.' History is moved by the broad forces and large structures of human collectivities."[13]

The term conspiracism is used in the work of Michael Kelly, Chip Berlet, and Matthew N. Lyons.

According to Berlet and Lyons, "Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm".[14]

Criticism of conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the subject of broad critique by academics, politicians, and the media.[citation needed]

Testing the validity of conspiracy theories

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of a conspiracy theory is the problem of settling a particular theory's truth to the satisfaction of both its proponents and its opponents. Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case:

  • Occam's razor - is the alternative story more, or less, probable than the mainstream story?
  • Methodology - are the "proofs" offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
  • Whistleblowers - how many people—and what kind—have to be loyal conspirators?
  • Falsifiability - Is there any research demonstrating that specific claims of the theory are false?

Some of these tests can have a downside as well. For instance, overeager application of "Occam's razor" can lead to acceptance of oversimplified views of history. Likewise, research that does disprove specific claims of a theory can lead to rejection of other claims which may be true.

The US academic Noam Chomsky contrasts conspiracy theory as more or less the opposite of institutional analysis, which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behaviour of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, e.g. scholarly documents or mainstream media reports, rather than secretive coalitions of individuals.[15][16]

The "Rationality Theorem"

One criticism of conspiracy theories is that they rely on a certain worldview which may or may not be correct. Graham Allison, a political scientist, developed this argument in his book, Essence of Decision, and informally named it the "rationality theorem".

Basically, Allison argued:

  • Many theories - including conspiracy theories - rely on the assumption of rational expectations. Under this assumption, events and decisions are explained by the rational responses of groups and individuals.
  • However, Allison pointed out that groups and individuals do not always act in a rational manner.
  • Allison argued that by using rationalistic thinking, individuals automatically take a "black box" approach to problems, meaning that they concentrate on data that was available and the results, but failed to consider other factors, such as bureaucracy, misunderstandings, disagreements, etc.
  • Finally, Allison argued that rationalistic thinking in general violates the scientific law of falsifiability, as according to the rationality theorem, there exists no event or groups of events that cannot be explained in a rational and purposeful manner.

Although Allison primarily studied the Cuban Missile Crisis, in Essence, he illustrated the rationality theorem by making reference to the Attack on Pearl Harbor, specifically the theory that U.S. decisionmakers must have purposefully allowed the attack to be pulled off.

Allison argued that, for this specific conspiracy theory to hold, analysts must first make the assumption that officials act in a rational manner, and that these officials had full access to all information that indicated the attack was imminent.

However, by examining additional internal evidence, Allison argued that while, from a black-box perspective, the U.S. had enough evidence of the Pearl Harbor attack, a combination of bureaucracy and misunderstandings was the real reason why the attack succeeded. For example, Allison noted that evidence of the upcoming attack was scattered among different governmental departments, and was not immediately combined to create an entire picture. Likewise, some decisionmakers misinterpreted the data at hand - on December 7, 1941, the base at Pearl Harbor actually was on alert, but the alert was for possible Japanese sabotage, not an all-out aerial attack.


Controversy

Aside from controversies over the merits of particular conspiracy claims (see catalog below), the general discussion of conspiracy theory is itself a matter of some public contestation.

Usage

The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim without examination, and a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.

Given this popular understanding of the term, it is conceivable that the term might be used illegitimately and inappropriately, as a means to dismiss what are in fact substantial and well-evidenced accusations. The legitimacy of each such usage will therefore be a matter of some controversy. Disinterested observers will compare an allegation's features with those of the category listed above, in order to determine whether a given usage is legitimate or prejudicial.[citation needed]

Certain proponents of conspiracy claims and their supporters argue that the term is entirely illegitimate, and should be considered just as politically manipulative as the Soviet practice of treating political dissidents as clinically insane. Critics of this view claim that the argument bears little weight and that the claim itself serves to expose the paranoia common with conspiracy theorists. In any case, it's worth noting that the term "conspiracy" itself well predates the term "conspiracy theory," which point illustrates the fact that conspiracy is and long has been a very real human behavior, while the legitimacy of the very recent concept of "conspiracy theory" remains much more open to debate.[citation needed] A similar complication occurs for terms such as UFO, which literally means "unidentified flying object" but connotes alien spacecraft, a concept also associated with some conspiracy theories, and thus possessing a certain social stigma.

The term "conspiracy theory" is itself the object of a type of conspiracy theory, which argues that those using the term are manipulating their audience to disregard the topic under discussion, either in a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth, or as dupes of more deliberate conspirators.[citation needed]

When conspiracy theories are offered as official claims (e.g. originating from a governmental authority, such as an intelligence agency) they are not usually considered as conspiracy theories. For example, certain activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee may be considered to have been an official attempt to promote a conspiracy theory, yet its claims are seldom referred to as such.[citation needed]

Further difficulties arise from ambiguity regarding the term theory. In popular usage, this term is often used to refer to unfounded or weakly-based speculation, leading to the idea that "It's not a conspiracy theory if it's actually true".[17]

Verified conspiracies

Languages
AD Links