New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

[OnyxCollie]

20. I'm working on a Theory of Conspiracy.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they lack real theory.

Sunstein and Vermeule (2008) describe a conspiracy theory as “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have managed to conceal their role” (p. 4), a pejorative term which denotes a faulty epistemology, rumors, and speculation. Furthermore, it is asserted that such analysis overestimates the ability of government bureaucracies to carry out “sophisticated and secret” (p. 6) plans in an open society.

Alternately, Parenti (2010) quoting Karp (1973) suggested that:

When it can be established that when a number of political acts work in concert to produce a certain result, the presumption is strong that the actors were aiming at the result in question. When it can be shown that the actors have an interest in producing these results, the presumptions become a fair certainty- no conspiracy theory is needed.

Sunstein and Vermeule (2008) assume a well-intentioned government may decide to defuse conspiracy theories “if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so” (p. 15), yet they concede that governments themselves may be purveyors of conspiracy theories. Parenti (1993) suggested that the beneficiaries of said social welfare may be an entire class interest. Following this reasoning, conspiracy theories may be eliminated to prevent exposure of particular factions, or they may be furnished to enable a certain objective. According to Parenti (2010), the term conspiracy theory can be used to dismiss: “(1) the idea of a conscious design by policy makers; (2) a hidden, but knowing intent; (3) a secret plan; (4) a secret interest.”

Were the George W. Bush Administration rational actors who sought and obtained "power," i.e., an objective monetary incentive, resources, and security, by acting as surrogates on behalf of the petromilitary industrial complex, who have, in effect, "captured" government?

Was the Pentagon directed, upon advice from the Office of Legal Counsel, to begin an all-encompassing PSYOPS campaign, using "message force multipliers" bearing an undisclosed conflict of interest to influence the mass public to accept gross violations of law- domestic and international, statutory and natural?

It is these questions that pose a problem for analysis, as they rest on activity which infers collusion, deception, and fraud perpetrated by economic and political elites; in effect, a conspiracy. Parenti (1993) offers three options for analysis: The first option is the “conservative celebration,” whereby economic gains achieved by corporate entities would appear only as corollaries to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Profits obtained were simply the result of deft management skills and wise investments when opportunities were presented. The second option is the “liberal complaint,” a failure of an otherwise good system due to mismanagement through some flaw in human character. The third option is a more radical analysis that studies the structural mechanisms that exist between corporate and government powers which allow for the accumulation of wealth and power for a privileged class. It is these structural mechanisms, embodied in culture-producing institutions, which determine the laws and norms of society, and in turn, the life chances of those whom they affect. The third option will be used for this essay.

The use of such an analysis is not without its consequences. By using a radical analysis, one crosses an imaginary line into an area of uncomfortable potentiality, where widely-held and readily-accepted beliefs may be rendered invalid. Subsequently, a radical analysis must face challenges on two fronts, the first being the beliefs of those who accept the “official” conspiracy theory, and the second being the information provided by those in power to squelch any theories contrary to the status quo.

Before this analysis can begin, it is necessary to evaluate our investigative process. Let us begin by defining what is meant by a “theory.”

The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory (Waltz)

Theory obviously cannot explain the accidental or account for unexpected events; it deals in regularities and repetitions and is possible only if these can be identified.

A theory is a depiction of the organization of a domain and of the connections among its parts. A theory indicates that some factors are more important than others and specifies relations among them. In reality, everything is related to everything else, and one domain cannot be separated from others. But theory isolates one realm from all others in order to deal with it intellectually.

The social sciences do the same as the natural sciences. They collect factual material and then attempt to discover regularities, that is, to order and analyze the material data. That data falls into several categories. The first is the sum of daily experiences and observations that more or less everyone has at his disposal. Should one study social science by diving into such materials? No. For the unanalyzed facts are dumb. They are the result of many causes and many countervailing forces. They can be explained in very diverse ways. They are unmasterable as given. We need to consider them, divide them into their elements, and form a judgment regarding the function of each of these elements. That is to say, we must analyze and isolate the various sides of social phenomena. Only then can we begin to discover what is essential and what is incidental, only then does true scientific work that promises to produce valid knowledge begin.

~snip~

We have to dissolve phenomena into their elements and consider each of these elements. Only then do we see the otherwise invisible regularities. So, too, in the social sciences. That is called engaging in “theory.”

~snip~

Lastly, let the beginner keep in mind that any particular theory is never valid in itself, but is always a part of a theoretical structure and can only be understood as such. One cannot grasp a particular proposition outside of its theoretical framework and discuss it as such. One has to understand it in its relationship to the other links of the chain to which it belongs.

Schumpeter, J. A. (2003, March)*. How does one study social science? Society, 57-63. *Date of translation

So soon as we have realized the possibility of ideological bias, it is not difficult to locate it. All we have to do for this purpose is to scrutinize scientific procedure. It starts from the perception of a set of related phenomena which we wish to analyze and ends up-for the time being-with a scientific model in which these phenomena are conceptualized and the relations between them explicitly formulated, either as assumptions or as propositions (theorems). This primitive way of putting it may not satisfy the logician but it is all we need for our hunt for ideological bias. Two things should be observed.

First, that perception of a set of related phenomena is a prescientific act. It must be performed in order to give to our minds something to do scientific work on-to indicate an object of research -but it is not scientific in itself. But though prescientific, it is not preanalytic. It does not simply consist in perceiving facts by one or more of our senses. These facts must be recognized as having some meaning or relevance that justifies our interest in them and they must be recognized as related-so that we might separate them from others -which involves some analytic work by our fancy or common sense. This mixture of perceptions and prescientific analysis we shall call the research worker's Vision or Intuition. In practice, of course, we hardly ever start from scratch so that the prescientific act of vision is not entirely our own. We start from the work of our predecessors or contemporaries or else from the ideas that float around us in the public mind. In this case our vision will also contain at least some of the results of previous scientific analysis. However, this compound is still given to us and exists before we start scientific work ourselves.

~snip~

Now, so soon as we have performed the miracle of knowing what we cannot know, namely the existence of the ideological bias in ourselves and others, we can trace it to a simple source. This source is in the initial vision of the phenomena we propose to subject to scientific treatment. For this treatment itself is under objective control in the sense that it is always possible to establish whether a given statement, in reference to a given state of knowledge, is provable, refutable, or neither. Of course this does not exclude honest error or dishonest faking. It does not exclude delusions of a wide variety of types. But it does permit the exclusion of that particular kind of delusion which we call ideology because the test involved is indifferent to any ideology. The original vision, on the other hand, is under no such control. There, the elements that will meet the tests of analysis are, by definition, undistinguishable from those that will not or-as we may also put it since we admit that ideologies may contain provable truth up to 100 per cent-the original vision is ideology by nature and may contain any amount of delusions traceable to a man's social location, to the manner in which he wants to see himself or his class or group and the opponents of his own class or group. This should be extended even to peculiarities of his outlook that are related to his personal tastes and conditions and have no group connotation-there is even an ideology of the mathematical mind as well as an ideology of the mind that is allergic to mathematics.

Schumpeter, J. (1949). Science and ideology. The American Economic Review(39) 2, p. 346-359.

In an effort to be parsimonious a game analogy will be used whereby players compete according to a set of rules in order to achieve an objective. It is not synonymous with game theory and it is not intended to provide a probabilistic formula to determine action. Simply put, a player may secretly collude with another player to cheat and win, justifying their actions by providing false, but readily acceptable, explanations to other players (who may be operating under a limited understanding of the rules.) Actors escape punishment through evasion (failing to provide required information to an overseeing authority with full rule comprehension) or through avoidance (by affecting circumstances through bureaucratic procedures whereby the overseeing authority is effectively neutralized.)