Conspiracy Theory
none
August 1995
By Michael Albert
NOW ADAYS, WHEREVER they go, leftists encounter many questions from newly political folks about
this or that political episode--the October Surprise, the BCCI scandal, Irancontra, David Duke--with
an emphasis on who did what, when, and with what knowledge and intent. They field far fewer
questions about the systemic causes of trends and events. People study the membership of some
rogue group. They ignore the structure of government and corporations. How did this "fashion"
come about? Where is it taking us?
Conspiracy Theory
A CONSPIRACY THEORY is a hypothesis that some events were caused by the intractable secret
machinations of undemocratic individuals. A prime example is to explain Irancontra as the secret
rogue actions of Oliver North and co-conspirators. Likewise, another conspiracy theory explains the
hostage-holding in Carter's last presidential year as the machinations of a "secret team" helping
.
Reagan win the presidency A conspiracy theory of Karen Silkwood's murder would uncover the
names of people who secretly planned and carried out the murder. Bending usage, we could even
imagine a conspiracy theory of patriarchy as men uniting to deny women status, or a conspiracy
theory of the U.S. government as competing groups seeking power for their own ends.
Conspiracies exist. Groups regularly do things without issuing press releases and this becomes a
e
conspiracy whenever their actions transcend of "normal" behavior. W don't talk of a conspiracy to
win an election if the suspect activity includes only candidates and their handlers working privately to
. e
develop effective strategy W do talk about a conspiracy if the resulting action involves stealing the
.
other team's plans, spiking their Whiskey Sours, or other exceptional activity When a conspiracy
cause's some outcome, the outcome would not have happened had not the particular people with
their particular inclinations come together.
Conspiracy theories may or may not identify real coteries with real influence. Conspiracy theories:
(a) Claim that a particular group acted outside usual norms in a rogue and generally secretive
fashion.
(b) Disregard the structural features of institutions.
Personalities, personal timetables, secret meetings, and conspirators' joint actions, claim attention.
e
Institutional relations drop from view. W ask, did North meet with Bush before or after the meeting
between MacFarlane and Mr. X? Do we have a document that reveals the plan in advance? Do phone
conversations implicate so and so? How credible is that witness?
Institutional Theory
IN AN INSTITUTIONAL theory, personalities and personal motivations enter the discussion only as
results of more basic factors. The personal actions culminating in some event do not serve as
explanation. The theory explains phenomena via roles, incentives, and dynamics of underlying
institutions. An institutional theory doesn't ignore human actions, but the point of an institutional
explanation is to move from personal factors to institutional ones. If the particular people hadn't
been there to do it, most likely someone else would have.
An institutional theory of Irancontra and the October surprise would explain how and why these
activities arose in a society with our political, social, and economic forms. An institutional theory of
Karen Silkwood's murder would reveal nuclear industry and larger societal pressures that provoked
her murder. An institutional theory of patriarchy explains gender relations in terms of marriage, the
church, the market, socialization, etc. An institutional theory of government emphasizes the control
and dissemination of information, the dynamics of bureaucracy, and the role of subservience to
class, race, and gender interests.
Institutions exist. Whenever they have sufficient impact on events, developing an institutional theory
makes sense. However, when an event arises from a unique conjuncture of particular people and
opportunities, while institutions undoubtedly play a role, it may not be generalized and an
institutional theory may be out of place or even impossible to construct.
Institutional theories may or may not identify real relationships with real influence on the events they
explain. Institutional theories:
(a) Claim that the normal operations of some institutions generate the behaviors and motivations
leading to the events in question.
(b) Address personalities, personal interests, personal timetables, and meetings only as facts about
the events needing explanation, not as explanations themselves.
Organizational, motivational, and behavioral implications of institutions gain most attention.
Particular people, while not becoming mere ciphers, are not accorded priority as causal agents.
The Difference
TO SEE THE operational difference between conspiracy theory and institutional theory we can
compare a smattering of the views of two currently popular critics of U.S. foreign policy, Noam
Chomsky and Craig Hulet. Here is an indicative passage from each.
HULET: "This isn't about Kuwait. This isn't about oil. It has nothing to do with those things. And it
certainly doesn't have anything to do with reinstalling a legitimate government [in Kuwait] when for
the first time we're trying to install a legitimate government which is a non-military despotism listed
by Amnesty International as committing the same heinous crimes against his people [as Hussein]...
What I am suggesting is that for the first time we're going to expend American lives to put in a tyrant
of only a smaller stature because of the size of his country ...there is a foreign policy that is being
orchestrated in violation of U.S. law, international law, and the U.S. constitution. Should that surprise
anyone after W atergate, the Kennedy assassination?...
"Why should Americans die to restore a dictator invaded by another dictator? First it was to protect
Saudi Arabia. Everybody now knows he [Hussein] had no intention of going any further than Kuwait.
So they dropped that as a reason. They came up with the next one, that this is about oil. Then all of
a sudden oil prices, right in the midst of the war, drop to $21 a barrel, which was where it was before
the war. So it obviously can't be about oil. So it can't be our vital interests at stake. Is it about a
legitimate government? If it's about a legitimate government, then we're putting back in power a
despot under the Breshnev doctrine, not the T ruman doctrine. The Breshnev doctrine being that we
treat all nations as sovereign equalities regardless of how despotic they are, and we keep them in
power. So for the first time George Bush is now acting out the Breshnev doctrine rather than
power. So for the first time George Bush is now acting out the Breshnev doctrine rather than
installing a free republic or keeping a free people free. [There follows a long discussion of the U.S.
holdings and influence of the Al Sabah ruling Kuwaiti family, followed by listener questions primarily
focused on the efficacy of impeaching George Bush to which Hulet's response is:] It's going to be up
to the public whether or not George Bush--and I agree, it's a ruling Junta--is impeached. It won't be
just up to Senators and Congressmen to make this decision. They won't make the decision unless
public opinion supports this kind of action." [emphasis mine, M.A.]
:
CHOMSKY "If we hope to understand anything about the foreign policy of any state, it is a good idea
to begin by investigating the domestic social structure: Who sets foreign policy? What interests do
these people represent? What is the domestic source of their power? It is a reasonable surmise that
the policy that evolves will reflect the special interests of those who design it. An honest study of
history will reveal that this natural expectation is quite generally fulfilled. The evidence is
overwhelming, in my opinion, that the United States is no exception to the general rule--a thesis
that is often characterized as a `radical critique'...
"Some attention to the historical record, as well as common sense, leads to a second reasonable
expectation: In every society there will emerge a caste of propagandists who labor to disguise the
obvious, to conceal the actual workings of power, and to spin a web of mythical goals and purposes,
...
utterly benign, that allegedly guide national policy any horror, any atrocity will be explained away as
an unfortunate--or sometimes tragic--deviation from the national purpose....
"Since W ar
orld W II there has been a continuing process of centralization of decision-making in the
.
state executive, certainly with regard to foreign policy Secondly, there has been a tendency through
much of this period toward domestic economic concentration. Furthermore, these two processes
are closely related, because of the enormous corporate influence over the state executive..."
THE COMMONALTY OFTEN evidenced in these two thinkers is distaste for U.S. foreign policy The .
difference is that Hulet generally understands policy as the preferences of particular groups of
people--in this case, "a junta" and the Al Sabah family--barely referring to institutions at all.
Chomsky always understands the policies as arising from particular institutions--for example, "the
state executive" and corporations.
For Hulet, the implicit problem is to punish or "impeach" the immediate culprits, a general point
.
applicable to all conspiracy theory The modis operendi of the conspiracy theorist therefore makes
sense whenever the aim is to attribute proximate personal blame for some occurrence. If we want to
prosecute someone for a political assassination to extract retribution or to set a precedent that
makes it harder to carry out such actions, the approach of the conspiracy theorist is critical. But the
conspiracy approach is beside the point for understanding the cause of political assassinations to
develop a program to prevent all policies that thwart popular resistance. Conspiracy theorizing
.
mimics the personality/ dates/times approach to history It is a sports fans' or voyeur's view of
.
complex circumstances. It can manipulate facts or present them accurately When it's done
honestly, it has its place, but it is not always the best approach.
.
For Chomsky, the problem is to discern the underlying institutional causes of foreign policy The
modus operandi of the institutional theorist would not make much sense for discovering which
individuals conceived and argued for a policy, or who in particular decided to bomb a civilian shelter.
o
T understand why these things happen, however, and under what conditions they will or will not
continue to happen, institutional theory is indispensable and the motives, methods, and timetables
of the actual perpetrators are beside the point.
Take the media. A conspiracy approach will highlight the actions of some coterie of editors, writers,
.
newscasters, particular owners, or even a lobby An institutional approach will mention the actions of
these actors as evidence, but will highlight the corporate and ideological pressures giving rise to
those influences. A person inclined toward finding conspiracies will listen to evidence of media
subservience to power and see a cabal of bad guys, perhaps corporate, perhaps religious, perhaps
federal, censoring the media from doing its proper job. The conspiracist will then want to know about
federal, censoring the media from doing its proper job. The conspiracist will then want to know about
the cabal and how people succumb to its will, etc. A person inclined toward institutional analysis will
listen to evidence of media subservience to power and see that the media's internal bureaucracy,
socialization processes, and interests of its owners engender these results as part of the media
succeeding at its job. The institutionalist will then want to know about the media's structural features
and how they work, and about the guiding interests and what they imply .
The conspiracy approach will lead people to believe that either:
(a) They should educate the malefactors to change their motives, or
(b) They should get rid of the malefactors and back new editors, writers, newscasters, or owners.
The institutional approach will note the possible gains from changes in personnel, but explain how
limited these changes will be. It will incline people
(a) Toward a campaign of constant pressure to offset the constant institutional pressures for
obfuscation, or
(b) Toward the creation of new media free from the institutional pressures of the mainstream.
The Appeal of Conspiracy Theory
NATURALLY CONSPIRACY THEORY and its associated personalistic methodology appeals to
prosecutors and lawyers, since they must identify proximate causes and human actors. But why
does it appeal to people concerned to change society?
There are a many possible answers that probably all operate, to varying degrees, on people who
.
favor conspiracy theory First, conspiracy theory is often compelling and the evidence conspiracy
theories reveal is often useful. More, description of the detailed entwinements become addictive.
One puzzle and then another and another need analysis. Conspiracy theory has the appeal of a
mystery--it is dramatic, compelling, vivid, and human. Finally, the desire for retribution helps fuel
continuing forays into personal details.
Second, conspiracy theories have manageable implications. They imply that all was well once and
that it can be okay again if only the conspirators can be pushed aside. Conspiracy theories therefore
explain ills without forcing us to disavow society's underlying institutions. They allow us to admit
. e
horrors, and express our indignation and anger without rejecting the basic norms of society W can
even confine our anger to the most blatant perpetrators. That government official or corporate
. e
lawyer is bad, but many others are good and the government and law per se are okay W need to
e
get rid of the bad apples. All this is convenient and seductive. W can reject specific candidates but
not government, specific CEOs but not capitalism, specific writers, editors, and even owners of
e
periodicals, but not all mainstream media. W reject some vile manipulators, but not society's basic
e
institutions. W can therefore continue to appeal to the institutions for recognition, status, or
payment.
Third, conspiracy theory provides an easy and quick outlet for pent up passion withheld from targets
that seem unassailable or that might strike back. This is conspiracy theory turned into scapegoat
theory .
Where Are Conspiracy Theories Taking Us
IT WOULD BE bad enough if endless personalistic attention to Irancontra, the October Surprise,
Inslaw, etc., were just attuning people to search after coteries while ignoring institutions. This was
the effect, for example, of the many Kennedy Assassination theorists of past decades. At least the
values at play would be progressive and we could hope that people would soon gravitate toward real
explanation of more structural phenomena.
But the fact is, the values inspiring conspiratorial ways of trying to explain events are beginning to
drastically diverge from progressive values. Even some sectors of left activists have become so
hungry for quick-fix conspiracy explanations they are beginning to gravitate toward any conspiracy
claim, no matter how ridiculous.
Thus the field of conspiracy theorizing has become attractive and new entrants are no longer always
progressive and sometimes even tilt toward reaction or downright fascism. The presentation of
conspiracy theories has moved from little newsletters and journals to large audience radio talk
shows and magazines and, at the same time, from identifying "secret teams" of CIA operatives to
all-powerful networks of Arab financiers and worldwide Jewish bankers' fraternities.
There is an ironic analogy here to some recent analysis of national Republican Party politics. In that
arena, many journalists now claim that the Republican Party's manipulations of race in prior years
paved the way for David Duke by reacclimating the public to racial stereotyping and increasing its
appetite for more. In somewhat the same way, isn't it plausible that the relatively huge resources
thrown into progressive conspiracy writing, organizing, and proselytizing over the past decade is now
coming home to roost? Of course, the changing times are partly responsible for growing public
interest in conspiracies, but doesn't past behavior by progressives bear a share of responsibility as
well?
o
What T Do About It
o
LEFTIST INSTITUTIONALIST theorists generally ignore conspiracy theorists as irrelevant. T confront
their arguments is to enter a miasma of potentially fabricated detail from which there is no escape.
Nothing constructive emerges. But perhaps this view needs some rethinking. When Holly Sklar,
Steve Shalom, Noam Chomsky or any of many other left analysts talk about events, even about
Irancontra or the October Surprise, they pay attention to proximate facts but also the institutional
context. That's as it should be, but apparently it's no longer good enough. Now, those who have an
institutional critique may have two additional responsibilities. First, perhaps they should point out the
inadequacy of left conspiracy theory, showing that at best it does not go far enough to be useful for
organizers. Second, perhaps they should debunk and castigate rightist conspiracy theory, removing
its aura of opposition and revealing its underlying racist and elitist allegiances.
Likewise, when progressive radio talk shows and left journals and magazines invite people to
communicate with their public about world and national events, it is good to be sure the guest is
coherent, has effective speaking or writing style, talks about the issues, identifies actors accurately,
.
and knows about the relevant history But it isn't enough. Fascists can fulfill these standards and still
spout made-up statistics as if they were facts, disgusting allegations about social groups as if they
were objective commentary, and nothing at all about real institutional relations, passing this whole
mess off as a useful way to look at the world to understand and affect social events. Left media,
even strapped as it is, should take responsibility for its offerings. People expect that if
commentators appear on our shows and in our publications they have a degree of integrity,
. e
honesty, and sensitivity W should not lend credence to right-wing garbage, whether it is blatant or
so well concealed as to be civil but malicious. Even regarding progressive and left conspiracy theory,
while it often uncovers important evidence, left activists ought to indicate its limits and augment it
with institutional and contextual analysis.
From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/conspiracy-theory-by-michael-albert