THE FOLLOWING POST IS FOR SCHOLARS AND THOSE INTELLECTUALLY INCLINED. ITS AN ERUDITE EXAMINATION OF THE LINGUISTIC DYNAMICS OF CONSPIRACY THEORY, AND WHY THOSE WHO MAKE THE PUBLIC AWARE OF PROBLEMS WITH OFFICIAL VERSIONS OF CONTROVERSIAL EVENTS ARE DOING THE WORLD A FAVOR. (this essay, THE UTOPIAN LIMITS OF CONSPIRACY THEORY JOURNALISM by Gary Walton, is not for everyone):Birchall suggests, however, that we consider that particular conspiracy theory narratives may be considered as examples of Jean-Francois Lyotards concept of the differend - that is, a differend would be a case of conflict between (at least) two parties, that cannot be equitably resolved for lack of a rule of judgement applicable to both arguments (72). In other words, we should not expect conspiracy theories to prove themselves using legitimizing rules that by definition exclude them. Moreover, Birchall argues, the very ambivalence and self-conscious undecidability that conspiracy theories evoke might force readers into considering that there is something dubious about the legitimizing process of all knowledge. This defamiliarization of information structures becomes increasingly necessary in a world in which we are flooded with information flows that seem to be taken over by the hyperreal and simulacra. Indeed, Birchall argues that popular knowledges like conspiracy theory provide paralogic moves which can help create dissensus (as opposed to consensus) which in the end will force athetic processes (a term Derrida used to suggest a process of moving beyond the current theory or position) to occur in society. Thus, when a reader is forced to make deliberate decisions about the knowledge she encounters, she is involved in an athetic process that in the end can result in a positive move forward - a process that can be described as a kind of politics (150). In the end, then, popular knowledge [including conspiracy theory]...[is] a discursive formation (although not a discipline) that is characterized by contexts that give rise to ideological formations (11). So, even if these discursive formations foment latent insurrection through dissensus, they are positive because they defamiliarize entrenched epistemic power structures and move society forward toward justice and freedom through athetic processes. One way to approach conspiracy theory is through its constituent narrative structures. Indeed, the formal structures of conspiracy theory narratives can be successfully compared to more traditional narrative structures. Mark Fenster in his paradigm work Conspiracy Theories (1999) expends considerable space comparing the structure of many conspiracy theories to classic mystery stories. Many readers are drawn into conspiracy theory narratives by the same elements that intrigue the readers of detective fiction, especially the presentation of enigma and the suspense created by the process of trying to solve the intrinsic mystery of the conspiracy. However, where fictional conspiracy theory narratives (or traditional murder mysteries or detective fictions) will foreground Roland Barthes proairetic code [2] - those aspects of the narrative concerned with plot (or in some cases give equal weight to both the proairetic code and the hermeneutic code - those aspects of the narrative that are concerned with the unraveling of mystery), the journalistic trope subordinates the proairetic to the hermeneutic. Thus, the sense of plot sequence in the process of the narrative is not nearly as important as the sense of uncovering or solving the enigma or mystery. (Of course, one might argue that this is true of the journalism trope in general.) In some cases, as with Barry and the Boys, the semic code (those aspects of the discourse that are concerned with the creation of character) will be foregrounded - this book can be seen as an enormous character sketch of the covert operative/drug runner Barry Seal, as well as an exposé on the governments secret operations in Mena, Arkansas during the Iran/Contra scandal. More importantly, the journalistic conspiracy theory narrative employs what Roland Barthes calls the reality effect [3] (Fenster 109); the journalist/narrator vies for credibility by using the weight of putative empirical evidence to assemble an alternative signified - an alternative vision of reality. Since controlling the reality effect or the legitimacy of knowledge in the public realm is at the heart of power/knowledge paradigm, it is not surprising that whenever any narrative challenges the consensus it is dismissed, sometimes virulently, especially by those who Gore Vidal has called Court Historians [4], apologists for the status quo. Yet, attacks on conspiracy theory come from many quarters. Birchall, for example, examines the arguments against popular knowledges, especially conspiracy theory, as coming from such notable figures as Jürgan Habermas, Umberto Eco, Elaine Showalter and Fredric Jameson. Although their criticisms differ in the particulars, all of these critics condemn conspiracy theory for not promoting consensus. Eco and Habermas fear that the flouting of Enlightenment rationalism invites the radical right (such as the National Socialists in Germany) to use irrational and emotional incitements in their bid for power. Showalter argues that conspiracy theory is a kind of hysteria that should be dealt with in private as individual psychological ailment rather than in public as social narrative reality(Birchall 70). Marxists such a Fredric Jameson fear that at best conspiracy theory is a diluted form of cognitive mapping, an identity defining process that is replacing Marxian concepts of class consciousness and real political praxis [5]. (More on this in a moment.) In fact, all these critics, including Mark Fenster to some degree, seem to demonize conspiracy theories as offering an overly simplified and irrational view of political and economic structures. Given these criticisms, any conspiracy theory narrative that is couched in the trope of journalism is obliged to establish its bona fide early. The authors of American Assassination do bring a certain amount of credibility to their work from the outset because of their academic credentials. Professor Jim Fetzer is McKnight Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, and Don Trent Jacobs holds a Ph.D. The authors need as much credibility as they can muster since their book attempts to argue that Senator Paul Wellstones death in a plane crash in 2002 was not an accident, that indeed his death was an assassination. Further, they argue that the evidence of their investigation point to the perpetrators as being from the highest levels of the US government. Since the public ramifications for such an argument are profound (not the least of which is that assassination undermines the publics faith in democratic processes), Fetzer and Jacobs set out early in their narrative to try to blunt criticism of their argument by creating a convincing bona fide [6]. Moreover, since the authors acknowledge the phrase conspiracy theory itself has become a signifier for any argument that should be approached with much skepticism, if not dismissed out of hand as being wacky or nutty, [7] they are adamant that their work to be seen in the context of Enlightenment rationalism and rigid journalistic standards. Thus, Fetzer and Jacobs frame their argument by stressing their mode demploi as an objective one: As university professors who have undertaken investigations into this case...both the authors of this book understand the necessity for careful consideration of alternative hypotheses and thorough consideration of available evidence. Indeed, among the most fundamental conditions of objectivity that govern scientific inquiries is that they must be based upon all the available relevant evidence. Evidence is relevant when its presence or absence (or truth or falsity) make a difference to the truth or falsity of the hypotheses, accident or assassination, especially by making them more or less likely, given that evidence. Violating this condition, which is known as the requirement of total evidence, leads to the commission of another fallacy, special pleading, [8] where evidence is intentionally selected to create a biased result. (xvii) The above statement is meant to reinforce the reality effect. More importantly, however, the authors want to give the impression that they are operating within the dominant or preferred code (Hall, Stuart Encoding/Decoding qtd. in Birchall 50). Thus, the authors hope to transcend the gulf in the readers mind between illegitimate narrative and legitimate narrative. The question of legitimacy is central to the credibility of their narrative project. Of course, one could argue that any consideration of narrative as journalism (or ultimately as history) is dependent on legitimacy and the concomitant reality effect. The fact that the reader believes that the narrative is being constructed from empirical evidence is vital to its effect on the reader as a conduit for truth. To that end, one strategic mode demploi that is seen in virtually all journalistic conspiracy theory narratives is the recurring trope of unanswered questions to be found in the official reportage of the event (Birchall 46). The purpose of this strategy is to confront the inherent contradictions found in the official account and thus come to more satisfactory conclusions (based in large part on the same, available evidence as the official narrative). The implication is that the initial investigation either did not delve deeply enough into the available evidence or that the investigators had ulterior agendas other than the one of purely seeking the truth. Consider the following statement taken from the introduction to American Assassination: [W]e have taken an independent and objective analysis of the available evidence in this case, using the pattern of scientific reasoning knows as inference to the best explanation. We do not simply believe as an article of faith (based on intuition or mere speculation) that Senator Paul Wellstones death was an assassination rather than an accident. In these pages we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the official account presented by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) cannot be logically sustained. Its findings are even contradicted by its own evidence. We have also proven that the likelihood of an assassination - which is an hypothesis the NTSB did not consider - is greater than the likelihood of an accident. The assassination hypothesis provides a better explanation than the alternative. [emphasis mine.] (Fetzer x) Here Fetzer suggests that NTSBs conclusions would inevitably be flawed since they eliminated assassination as one of the possible causes of the deaths at the outset of the investigation. Such a consideration would be outside of what Stuart Hall has called the preferred code of the legitimate narrative. Thus, according to the authors, the truth can only be approached by using the illegitimate method of the conspiracy theory narrative. Ironically, here the claim is made that it is the conspiracy theory narrative that will remain faithful to the ideal of Enlightenment rationalism by considering the evidence objectively and fairly, which the official narrative does not do. Moreover, since the conspiracy theory narrative as a journalistic trope is engaged in the Foucaultian power /knowledge struggle with the authoritative narrative (the received text of the public myth [9] as Roland Barthes would term it) for the credulity of the reader, an acceptance by the reader of the bona fide is a vital initial condition of the textual dynamic between reader and text. In this regard, it is probably worth remembering Hayden Whites distinction between historical theory and metahistory here: [I]n historical theory, explanation is conceived to stand over against interpretation as clearly discernible elements of every proper historical representation; whereas, In metahistory...the explanation and the interpretive aspects of the narrative tend to run together and be confused in such a way as to dissolve its authority as either a representation of what happened in the past or a valid explanation of why it happened as it did (White 52). In this instance, Fetzer and Jacobs are trying to convince the reader that what they are constructing is history not metahistory - that is, their text is not just another interpretive blurring of the facts, but is indeed a scientific inquiry moving toward the truth of historical fact. (Ironically, as White makes clear, in the postmodern world all history is metahistory - we cannot divorce the facts from the interpretation, the bona fide notwithstanding.) Yet, the faith in journalism itself as a purveyor of history is increasingly coming into question by the public. There are several reasons for this. One is the long line of scandals that have shaken the faith of the public in their official institutions. Indeed, there are several pivotal events, what Hollywood movie makers would call, plot points [10] (moments of crisis in a narrative that push the narrative along) in the post- World War Two era that seem to make the totalizing narratives of conspiracy seem reasonable. When looked at through the lens of conspiracy theory, recent history takes on the patina of metahistory, the metahistory of the conspiracy narrative in which a nebulous them seems to be manipulating public events. The first plot point that many commentators point to is President Eisenhowers admonition, We must guard against... the military-industrial complex given in his farewell address from office. (Here the amorphous them is given a name, although other groups including the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Bilderberger group et. al. have been associated with this amorphous signifier the military-industrial complex.) However, the Ur event in the post-World War Two conspiracy metanarrative is the assassination of President Kennedy. Perhaps the reason for this is that many baby boomers point to that event as when they lost their innocence toward the public mythos. Then in quick succession the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy assured the need for suspicion toward the authoritative narrative of history and invited the creation of the alternative conspiracy theory narrative. Moreover, with the advent of the Watergate scandal in the Nixon administration, the Iran/Contra scandal in the Reagan administration, the Savings and Loan scandal in the George Bush Sr. years, the White Water imbroglio under Bill Clinton and finally the controversy over the 2000 election and the bad intelligence and the lack of WMDs in the run up to the war in Iraq under George Bush II, it is not surprising that many myth consumers do not trust the official explanations to public events. In fact, Mark Lawson has written that because of the above series of scandals, as well as the increased commodification of news, there has been a collapse in editorial authority [11] (Birchall 52). Moreover, since the Bush administration seems obsessed with secrecy, and is increasingly caught in contradictions, if not outright lies [12] , as Jonathan Rabin has said Conspiracy theorizing is fast becoming a legitimate means of reporting on [such] a government (59). He goes on to say that, because the political climate [is] characterized by secrecy and security alerts...conspiracy seems more reasonable and less fringe. In addition, many information consumers see the corporate media, because of the consolidation of ownership [13] as well as their inherent profit-oriented, capitalist, and/or elitist world view, as homogenizing the news. The advantage that some readers see to books like Fetzers is that they can employ what Don Delillo has called dietrologia (the science of what is behind something [46]) to get behind the comfortable rationalization of events by the major media to the hard dirty facts beneath or behind those events. The corporate media does not want to delve into the many unanswered questions because the answers might be inconvenient or un-politic - worse they could create public anxiety about public events which is bad for business (if not public safety). According to Birchall, dietrologia not only circumvents the official medias complacency, but it pierces the veil of secrecy and cover-up which seems to surround many public events, as well as provides a kind of populist solidarity by dividing the world into them who are trying to keep us in the dark, and us who are trying to find the truth (46).... reconstruction.eserver.org/074/walton.shtml
Posted on: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 15:57:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015