Conspiracism as Parody of Institutional
AnalysisPrevious | TOC | Print | Next
The conspiracist analysis of history has
become uncoupled from a logical train of thought. . .it is a non-rational
belief system that manifests itself in degrees. Conspiracism blames
individualized and subjective forces for economic and social problems
rather than analyzing conflict in terms of systems and structures of
power. Conspiracist allegations, therefore, interfere with a serious
progressive analysis--an analysis that challenges the objective institutionalized
systems of oppression and power, and seeks a radical transformation
of the status quo. Bruce Cumings, put it like this:
"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."28
Many authors who reject centrist/extremist
theory use power structure research, a systemic methodology that looks
at the role of significant institutions, social class, and power blocs
in a society. Power structure research has been used by several generations
of progressive authors including C. Wright Mills, G. William Domhoff,
and Holly Sklar.29 Some
mainstream social scientists, especially those enamored of centrist/extremist
theory, have unfairly dismissed radical left critiques of US society
as conspiracy theories.30
Power structure research is not inherently
conspiracist, but conspiracist pseudo-radical parodies of power structure
research abound. Examples include right-wing populist critics such
as Gary Allen, Antony Sutton, Bo Gritz, Craig Hulet, and Eustace Mullins.
Left-wing populist critics include David Emory, John Judge, and Danny
Sheehan of the Christic Institute. Conspiracism tarnishes the artistic
work of filmmaker Oliver Stone. A recent book by the respected left
analyst Michael Parenti, Dirty Truths, contains a very problematic
defense of conspiracism.31 There
are also a plethora of practitioners who have drawn from both the left
and the right such as Daniel Brandt and the late Ace Hayes.
Conspiracism blames individualized and
subjective forces for economic and social problems rather than analyzing
conflict in terms of systems and structures of power.32 Conspiracist
allegations, therefore, interfere with a serious progressive analysis--an
analysis that challenges the objective institutionalized systems of
oppression and power, and seeks a radical transformation of the status
quo.
The subjectivist view of conspiracist critics
of the status quo is a parody of serious research. As Lyons observes, "To
claim, for instance, that the Rockefellers control the world, takes
multiple interconnections and complex influences and reduces them to
mechanical wire pulling."33 As
one report critical of right-wing populist conspiracism suggested:
"There is a vast gulf between the
simplistic yet dangerous rhetoric of elite cabals, Jewish conspiracies
and the omnipotence of "international finance" and a thoughtful
analysis of the deep divisions and inequities in our society."34
Separating real conspiracies from the exaggerated,
non-rational, fictional, lunatic, or deliberately fabricated variety
is a problem faced by serious researchers, and journalists. For progressive
activists, differentiating between the progressive power structure
research and the pseudo-radical allegations of conspiracism is a prerequisite
for rebuilding a left analysis of social and political problems.
Previous | TOC | Print | Next |
Magazine
