>>69 When I compare critical theory and conspiracy theory I don't mean to be dismissive. But isn't it interesting that both emerged in the same place and time (Euro-American societies in the 19th and 20th cen) and both share some overlaps? And this tigrowing suspicion. What critical and conspiracy theory share is the idea of critique: using your own reason, being independent, questioning the foundations of things, everything must have a reason, unmasking myth and false truths to reveal what's really going on. So I'm not sure the conspiracy form is actually different to what you find in critical theory, maybe just a different more layman's everyday variety of it. There are a lot of aesthetic differences between the two.
Generally, we think that criticism stands in opposition to authority. The stated goal of theorists is to reveal authority and speak truth to power. But at the same time, its authority figures who teach us to do critique (don't talk to strangers, watch out for fraud, report suspicious persons, beware of propaganda, follow the money trail). Often, critique is demanded by political authorities (do you condemn Hamas? etc). And of course, you can't unmask or challenge an authority if authority doesn't exist while authority figures encourage critical attitudes for its own ends. So it seems like critique and authority go together in a strange way enabling each other. Since traditions rely on authority, this means there will always be some things you can say and some things you can't.
Maybe 'critique' is a bad thing? Because now we live in a world where everybody seems too critical, too suspicious, and every single thing has to be given a reason or people are asked to validate themselves etc. So I wonder if the problem is that we only have one generic model for thinking about things (criticism) that has pushed other ones by the wayside? So maybe its not that conspiracy theorists need to be more critical, but we need to be less critical and find other ways of questioning things that aren't trapped in this weird Kantian thing we call criticism as the only way to think through a problem.
When I compare critical theory and conspiracy theory I don't mean to be dismissive. But isn't it interesting that both emerged in the same place and time (Euro-American societies in the 19th and 20th cen) and both share some overlaps? And this tigrowing suspicion. What critical and conspiracy theory share is the idea of critique: using your own reason, being independent, questioning the foundations of things, everything must have a reason, unmasking myth and false truths to reveal what's really going on. So I'm not sure the conspiracy form is actually different to what you find in critical theory, maybe just a different more layman's everyday variety of it. There are a lot of aesthetic differences between the two.
Generally, we think that criticism stands in opposition to authority. The stated goal of theorists is to reveal authority and speak truth to power. But at the same time, its authority figures who teach us to do critique (don't talk to strangers, watch out for fraud, report suspicious persons, beware of propaganda, follow the money trail). Often, critique is demanded by political authorities (do you condemn Hamas? etc). And of course, you can't unmask or challenge an authority if authority doesn't exist while authority figures encourage critical attitudes for its own ends. So it seems like critique and authority go together in a strange way enabling each other. Since traditions rely on authority, this means there will always be some things you can say and some things you can't.
Maybe 'critique' is a bad thing? Because now we live in a world where everybody seems too critical, too suspicious, and every single thing has to be given a reason or people are asked to validate themselves etc. So I wonder if the problem is that we only have one generic model for thinking about things (criticism) that has pushed other ones by the wayside? So maybe its not that conspiracy theorists need to be more critical, but we need to be less critical and find other ways of questioning things that aren't trapped in this weird Kantian thing we call criticism as the only way to think through a problem.