One passage that really stuck out in my mind was this:
"What’s the real difference between conspiracists and a popularized, that is a teachable version of social critique inspired by a too quick reading of, let’s say, a sociologist as eminent as Pierre Bourdieu (to be polite I will stick with the French field commanders)? In both cases, you have to learn to become suspicious of everything people say because of course we all know that they live in the thralls of a complete illusio of their real motives. Then, after disbelief has struck and an explanation is requested for what is really going on, in both cases again it is the same appeal to powerful agents hidden in the dark acting always consistently, continuously, relentlessly" (pg. 228-29).
I think this largely summarizes not only what we have worked on in this course, but more specifically what we have talked about in the last few weeks with global warming/climate change. Often times I think we view scholars and academia as information to believe- the right information. The example used in this passage is Bourdieu. In academia, we see Bourdiau as a sociologist, not as a conspiracy theorist. The topics he writes on are backed up by other theorists, making it more believable and more credible to readers like ourselves. An example of this is State of Fear. Crichton uses and manipulates statistics in a way that makes it very believable. He uses "real" statistics that most readers would believe, because we grow up in a society where the statistics are always "right".
On the contrary, conspiracy theorists are viewed much more negatively. I think back to the Greenpeace vs. Heartland debate, and I see both those organizations as conspiracies. They both present one-sided arguments, and lead people to become suspicious of the world around us. A lot of people either strongly agree or strongly disagree with each of those organizations immediately based on prior beliefs. I feel like the rhetoric used by conspiracists is a lot less convincing than scholars because the extreme views are more apparent right away.
In conclusion, scholars and conspiracy theorists are often times saying the same information, just with different rhetoric. Conspiracy theorists are seen as much more extreme, but scholars seem more knowledgeable, and, to most people, more believable. Scholars are more subtle in their beliefs, and that is done on purpose to make it seem more believable. But, in both cases, as the passage states disbelief is struck at some point. Generally, with conspiracists this disbelief happens sooner than with scholars because with scholars, more conscious thought and decoding of the rhetoric is needed to realize the true motives that they have. But, in the end, disbelief happens either way and there is suspicion of the "facts" and motives. The comparison between State of Fear and Greenpeace/Heartland I think is a good example of what Latour talks about in his passage because SoF is seen as more acadmic, more backed up, where Greenpeace/Heartland seems more conspiracy- like. Regardless, they both have motives that they want readers to believe.
I really loved the part in your post where you draw the comparison that scholars and conspiracy theorists are often saying the same thing, just with different rhetoric. This is a prime example of how everything in our "reality" can just be spun as bullshit from either party advocating on opposite sides of the fence. It is so true that often times conspiracy theories are written off due to the negative connotation simply associated with the word "conspiracy" which is really unfair because it essentially labels it as being an untrue theory, not worthy of looking into.
ReplyDelete