Eric Randolph has an interesting note on recent conspiracy theories that takes a fresh look at their intellectual origins. Interestingly enough, he argues that conspiracist rhetoric is inherently neorealist:
"In [the conspiracist] narrative, 9/11 can only be the work of Westerners – it is too complex, too devious, too well-executed for the humble, little Muslim. Muslims, as I was repeatedly told, are “peaceful people”. In this view, they are not political beings, they are not the agents of change, they are merely passive receptacles – a faceless group of victims. ... Only the West are capable of acting rationally or purposefully when committing acts of violence. When a Muslim perpetrates an act of violence, he is a madman. ...The theoretical underpinning of all this is a neorealist conception of international relations as state-centric and working according to rational strategy-based models of decision-making. No room here for ideologies, ethics or subjective notions of justice and victory that might be seen as motivating jihadist violence. "
While I agree with his main argument that most 9/11 conspiracy theories presuppose a certain amount of racism (hence Randolph's entry title "Conspiracy Theories: A New Orientalism") I disagree about the idea of this stemming from neorealism. His first explanation (racism) is much more compelling. Many conspiracy theories unwittingly reproduce racist ideas or use them to dismiss contrary narratives. Second, most conspiracy theories are inherently domestic in scope--they concern the effort of a (fill in the blank) all powerful conspiracy to dominate the given country in which the conspiracy theory originates. This is a point that Richard Hofstader makes in his classic work on American politics.
This is less neorealism than simply a pathological narcissism. The conspiracy theorist disregards the Islamist because the Islamist is fighting for reasons extraneous to the domestic drama that the conspiracy theorist has set up as ordering framework. If the Islamist is a part of it, he is a dupe or tool. Lastly, most conspiracy theories also presuppose a kind of omniscient transnationally linked actor (the Illuminati, the Trilaterals) that is not a state actor but is behind state action. Although there is some debate on the subject, it's safe to say that this doesn't exactly match up with Kenneth Waltz.
Why are conspiracies important? They simply refuse to die. Despite being nearly completely illogical explanations of events in global politics, huge masses of people continue to believe in them. And so it is worth trying, as Randolph does, to get to the bottom of what underpins the craziness. One last note on conspiracies: the most interesting research on conspiracy theories and domestic politics that has been done lately looks at conspiracy theory as populist or transgressive element of domestic politics or as an consequence of a postmodern media landscape.
Comments