Conspiracy theories are really interesting. But wait... before you pass judgment, I'll clarify what I mean. I find it most interesting how the social and technological conditions that determine how widespread their persuasive power spreads. Perhaps it is just the scenes I have been hanging around with too uch lately, but conspiracy theories about 9/11 seem to be running rampant. I remember gatting some wingnut emails just weeks after the event from the "9/11 Truth Committee", but now I think they have really gone mainstream. Now, I'll acknowledge that this might be due to the very strange political climate America is in right now, especially for people on the left. They feel the way the world has been working lately is both irrational and outright wrong (more than usual), but know they have failed to change anything substantial about the situation. Plus they feel cheated, as groups consistently out of power constantly must to keep the spirit alive. However, there is something more to the 9/11 theories. Surveys show that most people outside the US think the US government was complacent in the attacks, or actually planned and carried them out independently.
I am not especially captivated in the merit or specific truths that the theories espouse, but I find the persuasive format of a video like Loose Change (which popped up on Google Video almost a year ago) to be most interesting. Almost no viewers have the capacity to confirm or refute the facts and arguments made in that film... and that is the usual basis for conspiracy theories in general. But the overall superstructure of the argument sounds plausible to those looking for something else they want to believe. Conspiracies of this nature are nothing new. Such things ran rampant on battle fields before the speed communication caught up with them. We all remember The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, right? These arguments rely on the existence of a highly identifiable, yet somewhat secretive group of devious and morally corrupt individuals. Still, I believe the most important condition today is the general fragmenting of the way people see the world. It was possible fifty years ago in America to accurately predict with high confidence not just the voting patterns of people in a specified area, but also their lifestyles (beliefs, consumer habits, values, etc.). Today, even with much improved data sources, this task has become much more difficult.
What magnifies the effects of social fragmentation, however, is the explosion of information we have seen in the past decade or so. Anyone with access to the Internet can present to the world any information on any matter they feel like. This has led to the fragmenting of a our social and historical narratives. There are not just a handful of explanations for why people do the things they do or why the world looks the way it does today, there are probably hundreds for any given subject. However, the process of weeding out the BS has become more difficult. Our high quality information sources have not kept up and have not really become much more accessible over the same time period. So, people turn to what is most easiest to find, even if there is nothing close to a definitive finding on a matter. We accept confusion about the world around us as a general consequence of post modern life. I have no idea how I will explain the last ten (or 50!) years of history to my children in a definitive sense like my parents could. And I think that is a distinct loss in many ways. What are the implications? My kids will probably care even less about understanding the world because ignorance is only marginally worse than confusion. I know a lot of people will say that this is and has been the predominant mindset in America. Whether or not this is so, I am unwilling to abandon my concern that it will further worsen as ambiguity continues to grow.
