Anyone who engages critically with the phenomenon of conspiracy theories soon encounters a conundrum. Actual conspiracies occur quite regularly. Political assassinations, scandals and cover-ups, terrorist attacks and a lot of everyday government activity involves the collusion of multiple people in the attempt to bring about a desired outcome.
This poses a crucial question. How do we differentiate between genuine plots and conspiracies, and those that we usually associate with the term “conspiracy theory” – namely an erroneous or misguided way of thinking? How do we know, for example, when questions about the origins of coronavirus are legitimate concerns and when they should be dismissed as a conspiracy theory?
One approach is to rely on common sense. A precedent for this was set by the US supreme court judge Potter Stewart when, in 1964, he found himself having to define pornography. Faced with a tricky concept which lacks clearly defined parameters, and whose boundaries are abstract and disputed, Stewart simply said: “I know it when I see it.”
Another approach is to embrace an agnostic position towards all claims of conspiracy. This involves arguing that while some conspiracy theories may currently sound implausible, there is always a chance, no matter how slim, that they could be proved to be true at some point in the future. For that reason, the argument goes, we should treat even the conspiracy theories we don’t believe as unproven rather than untrue.
What actual conspiracies are like
More importantly, these conspiracies rarely work out according to plan. This is because between any one case of collusion and the wished-for outcome are all kinds of unforeseen and unforeseeable elements. It’s impossible to entirely prevent cock-ups, errors and betrayals. Or control the actions of other individuals and organisations with competing (and often concealed) goals and agendas. As the philosopher Karl Popper argued, the relevant question when explaining dramatic historical events is not “who wanted something to happen?” but “why did things not happen exactly in the way that somebody wanted?”.
How conspiracy theories differ
This is one reason why conspiracy theorists are notoriously poor at uncovering actual conspiracies. Throughout history, most revelations of illegal activities and cover-ups came to light as a result of solid journalism, official state-sponsored inquiries, or the actions of whistleblowers. The driving force behind many revelations about real conspiracies has been freedom of information acts – a key institution of political transparency.
In fact, conspiracy theorists are inherently ambivalent towards revelations about actual conspiracies. Conspiracy theorists see actual conspiracies as small and inconsequential, useful only as evidence that things are not as they seem and, therefore, as potential proof that a lot of other, much more sinister (albeit less plausible) claims might also be true.
On the other hand, the way that real cases of collusion are usually brought to light presents a problem for the conspiracy theorist. It undermines their overall argument, by providing evidence that politicians, large business corporations, or the intelligence agencies are not all-powerful and all-controlling. It highlights the importance in everyday life of mistakes and unintended consequences.
Approaches to evidence
Awareness of the differences between inquiries into real conspiracies and conspiracy theories is important because contemporary conspiracy culture thrives on the perception that somehow this distinction is fuzzy, or even non-existent. Yet the difference could not be more real – or socially and politically relevant.