Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously

This highly informative volume fully justifies its title. The origin of the notion of conspiracy theory goes back to reactions to the official report on the assassination of JFK, and was coined by the CIA as a rhetorical device to discredit those who questioned the official line. As such, it has been extremely effective, and is represented in this volume by what is called the generalist approach, whereby conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorists can be generically dismissed out of hand as credulous and irrational. By contrast, the particularist view insists that each case should be assessed on its merits and in relation to the evidence. The editor shows that the standard view of social scientists, and indeed journalists, is generalist and pejorative, illustrating this with an article submitted to Le Monde, to which he and his colleagues responded. This had to do with the so-called 'conspiracy mindset' and culture as by definition intellectually suspect, a view generally and understandably promulgated by governments. As is also the case with parapsychology, social scientist sceptics are interested in researching the psychosocial profile of such people.

However, governments do routinely engage in deception and conspiratorial or clandestine activity through their intelligence services. A good definition of conspiracy theory comes from an otherwise flawed article by Sunstein and Vermeuken (p. 183): "an effort to explain a situation by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role (at least until their aims are accomplished)." The editor tellingly observes that the use of the expression conspiracy theorist is the modern equivalent of heretic. In this respect, it is interesting to read about the treatment by the press of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney year after 9/11 when she questioned whether the Bush administration had prior warning of the attacks. As the author of this article points out, she made no assertions but did pose suggestive questions and on that basis was vilified as a dangerous and irresponsible conspiracy theorist.

As long-term readers of this journal may recall, I have reviewed the many books by the philosopher of religion David Ray Griffin on 9/11, where he also observed that the official account is also technically a conspiracy theory, although not in a derisive rhetorical sense - his work is not cited in this volume. The editor mentions (p. 221) that 'the results of these investigations [into 9/11] are contentious and, despite claims from both sides that the case is settled, the various competing theories persist.' However, this observation requires further analysis into specific issues, and for me the knockdown incident is the freefall collapse of WTC 7, which the official account insists must have been due to fire and not, despite all appearances, to controlled demolition. Interested readers can consult comparative videos online. One can only hope that this book will be widely read and act as a timely corrective to pejorative dismissals of conspiracy theories on specious a priori grounds.