Illustrator unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Everyone enjoys a good conspiracy theory. They tickle the brain, provide a novelty that taps those dopamine sensors.
An alternative perspective, a new way of looking at things. Open, honest questioning.
But there are risks.
Playing in the ocean is fun, something you can do with the whole family, but you must be cautious to not wander in too deep.
For some, even making such a metaphor may close them off. How can you get too deep on seeking out the truth?
I will not pause to bog myself down with disclaimers and qualifiers but simply proceed, and the reader may make of the following what they will. Of course with the invitation to read charitably.
We are not concerned here with the content of this or that particular conspiracy theory. Or even the potential fact that the CIA invented the phrase "conspiracy theory" to disqualify ideas deemed detrimental to national security.
It is rather the posture and structure in those who engage in the conspiracy theory as a way of life.
But of course what do I mean by this phrase here: conspiracy theory.
I take it to mean a certain interpretation of events or a state of affairs that by necessity can only be held by a fringe minority and not by the general population at any given time.
This definition of course may differ from many out there as this entails that a viewpoint is a conspiracy relative to the general consensus at that time (whatever that may mean). That is the intent, and something I want to describe in broad strokes.
Let perhaps try to articulate this through the lens of Jean Jacques Rousseau.
In his famous and not uncontroversial Discourse on the Origins of Inequality Rousseau paints a picture of how humanity arose out of a state of blissful innocence in the wild without the cares and burdens of modern life, and through the corruptions of civilization have entered this state of turmoil. It's a romantic narrative that is no stranger to the classroom or popular media.
The conventional reading of Rousseau frames the origin of inequality through the invention of private property, the idea that this is "mine".
But on a closer, more nuanced reading, the invention of property is in fact downstream from a more fundamental vice that had already been born: amour-propre. Self-love, vanity, a love of one's own. In a layman's sense, the ego.
Where does amour propre come from?
It emerges at the conjunction of two other inventions: the village and fire. In Rousseau's telling, as the pre-corrupted village gathers together to make music, singing and dancing around the fire at night, it is there that this vice is born.
For it is when one dances in front of others, when one dances for others there is born this radically powerful desire for recognition. That my dance is better than yours. I want to be seen as higher than the others who sing and dance. Look on me with envy.
What originally was an innocent activity for the community becomes the ground zero of a new passion, a new desire upon which all civilization and inequality is built: a love for self that demands recognition from those around you.
A new individual posture is born that distances and elevates oneself with respect to the community, or more precisely, a subset of competitors.
Regardless of whether one buys into Rousseau's general narrative of original innocence and the "noble savage", I think there is something to be said for the fundamental, operative role of vanity in human relationships and behavior.
Those who sink an inordinate amount of time into books or research or other studies can instinctually birth in themselves this kind of pride.
It is a pride founded upon the sense that a hidden knowledge or special expertise grants you an authority that places you above the common opinions of the mainstream around you. In some sense the feeling links one's existential worth to what one knows, always in contrast to what the proverbial man on the street knows.
That your acting upon a certain desire for "truth" places you in a position to condescend to others. To break the rules of politeness, and even to offend those simply not on your level.
This behavior of course extends far beyond the "conspiracy theorist", but it is that kind of personality that most concretely captures the mold of what we are talking about.
For the thing is that the hypothetical person we refer to as a "conspiracy theorist" does not constrain themselves to one particular theory often times.
They require a steady production, accumulation, or modification of such theories. Always uncovering something new. Going down one rabbit hole after another.
The most immediate defense is that this is simply the practice of the scientific method: test your hypothesis and modify.
But again what makes a conspiracy theorist is not the content of what they believe but the posture and means by which they hold such views.
For many have vested their self-worth in this idea that they hold a special key to the hidden knowledge of the conspiracy. Whether through independent research, or much more commonly through podcast consumption, they have found a mechanism to grant themselves a superior status.
This manifests itself in the antagonistic tone in which such conspiracy theories are communicated through the language of being hidden, covered up, the omnipotent malevolent forces at play but who always let their mask slip just an inch for those alert enough to question the narrative.
That is not to say that cover up simply does not exist, but rather that the tone betrays the operative pride in the detective work and forensic sleuthing.
Look at what I have found to prove the billion dollar entity wrong. Me. See me dance by the fire.
The problem is that if their view does become mainstream, as we have seen plenty of these past five years, they are not gratified by the mass onboarding of a populace on to what was previously a fringe opinion. They simply reposition themselves to new esoteric knowledge that the rest of the people simply do not believe. When it comes to that old view, there can be a kind of snide condescension. Well, took them long enough. They didn't go the mile I did. They should have agreed with me sooner.
It is a subspecies of contrarianism that is more fundamentally predicated on living on a different order of thought than the mainstream.
It is the same reaosn that poverty by virtue of being relative can never be abolished. One can only be poor or rich with respect to the common populace.
One is a conspiracy theorist with respect to what the average person of the community (whatever that is taken to be) believes. They must always be outside, on the fringe.
Else their self-identity dissipates. They do not wish to share their dance outside their niche community.
What is the effect of such a posture?
Ironically, those who fall under this category who purport activist or agenda-based ends do more to obstruct action than advance it.
The proclamation of "hidden truths" that can only be accepted at an extremely small scale before it loses its vanity-boosting value, inhibits anything actionable from this knowledge.
Foaming at the mouth, but still constrained by a chain and post of one's own making. All bark, no bite.
For there is an express interest to optimize the dissemination of the information but also limit its general acceptance, if one is motivated by pride than by a desire for outcomes.
And if this hidden knowledge about universal history or global events can only belong to you and a few hundred other believers, no matter how much rock solid the forensic reasoning, of what use is the knowledge? It becomes a rhetorical tool to position oneself, but a dud on the level of change.
It channels the energy of those most disillusioned with conventional narratives and the party line away from political organizing or mass communication and toward do-nothingism.
That is the risk at least.
The conspiracy theory finds its antecedent in Gnosticism.
A dissociation of mind from body. A secret knowledge that brings one to heaven, removing you from the world.
You need not need do anything if you hold the right knowledge in your head.
That is why it must be conspiracy theory.
Theory deprived of action or ethic. No practical consequences. No development of one's character through knowing this or that fact.
It is a mental habit of self-distancing and alienation form those around you, and that is why it can be dangerous when one allows themselves to become consumed by it.
They fancy themselves the rejected prophet, though they possess no genuine mission to help manifest the implications of the message. To do the work that one learns from it.
The seer who can speak only in trances. The shaman whose special power is constrained to their exclave.
That living out in the woods with what you know grants you a special status, regardless of how you hold yourself in relation to others.
Again these are broad strokes. Some who engage in the talk and style of "conspiracy theories" are themselves engaged and active as whistleblowers or activists against injustice in some capacity.
But so many more participate simply as noisemakers. Tooting their own horn. Resting on the laurels of searching the right podcast keyword.
And it is the pride that is born out of that which is not healthy for anyone in particular or society as a whole.