Poststructuralist conspiracy theories?

[Par]

Is anyone aware of any 9/11 conspiracy theorising that grounds itself in poststructuralism? By “poststructuralism”, I’m broadly referring to anything that openly exhibits any of these characteristics:

• Pure epistemological relativism or epistemologically relativist anthropology: Objective truth does not exist. The external world is shaped by the preconceptions, prejudices, traditions, etc. of either individuals or cultural groups.
• Extreme epistemological scepticism: Objective truth may or may not exist. Unfortunately, even if it does, we are permanently doomed to never be able to access it.
• Anti-rationalism and anti-science: Objective truth does exist. However, science and reason are insufficient or inappropriate tools with which to access it. Thus, we need employ irrationalist means of some sort or another.
• Deconstructionism: The official reports contain subconscious and metaphorical representations of the “inside job” that they seek to conceal.

Of course, much conspiracy theorising will rely upon one of more of the above elements, at least as motivation or an unstated premise, but rarely are they made explicit.

I’m thinking of something fairly similar to – yet less metaphorical than – Jean Baudrillard’s “The Gulf War Did Not Take Place”.

Poststructuralism would seem to provide extremely fertile soil for these kinds of conspiracy theories in two ways. Firstly, it would provide the epistemological framework necessary to theorise free from the otherwise prohibitive factors of implausibility, lack of evidence and contradiction by counterevidence. Secondly, it would seem to offer a generally politically sympathetic audience. In light of this, I’m rather surprised that I’ve not come by any such material as of yet.

Probably the closest I’ve witnessed comes in the form of the “text” of our own Max Proton. His gambit seems to be that when it comes to 9/11, the military have managed to alter the ways in which we can know about the world (that is, the fundamental relationships between reason, observation and evidence on the one hand and truth on the other); thus our only hope is to relinquish our reliance upon these methods and instead place our faith in a prophet or saviour: Max himself. This particular strain of conspiracy theory fits the bill in three ways: Firstly, it contains an apparently relativistic (or extremely epistemologically sceptical) element. Secondly, it relies heavily upon obscurantism, by shrouding itself in a collage of jargon on the one hand and by playing extremely fast and loose with scientific and philosophical concepts on the other. Thirdly, it is seemingly irrevocably ensconced within the world of theory, thus lending itself to practically no empirical testing, or at least none that could distinguish it from a non-conspiratorial sequence of events.

Even so, it also misses the mark in a couple of important respects. It offers to “save” us from the apparently hopeless uncertainty by proposing a solution that is more dogmatically cultist than relativist as such. Further, Max is merely a forum member here; I’m more interesting in something from a publication of some kind; I’m using his theories (or perhaps these rather caricatured versions of them) simply as a working example.

So, is anyone aware of any such intellectually murky business?

 

[DC]

the Official Theory`?

 

[jhunter1163]

Par, are you getting paid by the syllable?

 

[Kage]

Wouldn't a poststructuralist theory deny the CTist the smug self satisfaction of believing themselves to be right in an absolute sense?

Actually, I've seen what they do with physics. It probably wouldn't stop them. We can count ourselves as lucky that they don't know what half of the words you used mean.

 

[Myriad]

Hi Par,

I think this might have been more the case a year ago, when there were still intellectually diverse newcomers among the ranks of the truth movement, and theories involving video-composited planes were the subject of earnest (if misguided) inquiry rather than troll fodder. I'm not so sure that it has any relevance now.

I'd be curious to know if you think my musings on this thread are relevant, or at least congruent: 9/11 as Performance Art.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Childlike Empress]

Stahlbad Des Funs.

 

[beachnut]

Pure epistemological relativism or epistemologically relativist anthropology: Objective truth does not exist. The external world is shaped by the preconceptions, prejudices, traditions, etc. of either individuals or cultural groups.

• Extreme epistemological scepticism: Objective truth may or may not exist. Unfortunately, even if it does, we are permanently doomed to never be able to access it.
• Anti-rationalism and anti-science: Objective truth does exist. However, science and reason are insufficient or inappropriate tools with which to access it. Thus, we need employ irrationalist means of some sort or another.
• Deconstructionism: The official reports contain subconscious and metaphorical representations of the “inside job” that they seek to conceal.

These fit all the truthers in the movement. The truth movement members/believers never use facts or evidence, just pure hearsay and fantasy. Although not what you are after, I can broadly place each truther here and out there in one of these categories instead of calling them fact less, lack of knowledge, mantra parrots of 9/11 truth.

These categories are way too intellectual (for me) to place most of them. (they do not know they fall into these groups) But it is way too much thinking to categorize people you can just stick into eh lack of knowledge bit bucket.

 

[Gazpacho]

His gambit seems to be that when it comes to 9/11, the military have managed to alter the ways in which we can know about the world (that is, the fundamental relationships between reason, observation and evidence on the one hand and truth on the other);

I think you'll find that the Patriot/tax protest movement in the US is rife with such thinking. The conspirators haven't just gained control of the government, you see, they've also subverted language, typography, and vexillology in their efforts to enslave us.

Specifics:
http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp

 

[Edmund Standing]

I haven't seen anyone citing poststructuralist authors - yet - but, just looking at people in the field of Religious Studies who are on the patriotsquestion911 list, we see a number of academics very much enamored with postmodern irrationalism and 'pluralist' relativism:

David Ray Griffin is the author of Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration.

Rosemary Radford Ruether is the author of Interpreting the Postmodern: Responses to "Radical Orthodoxy".

John B. Cobb, Jr. is the author of Postmodernism and Public Policy: Reframing Religion, Culture, Education, Sexuality, Class, Race, Politics, and the Economy and his Christ in a Pluralistic Age used what he called 'the post-modern pluralistic method'.

Carter Heyward's work is informed by 'Queer Theory' (postmodern gender/sexuality theory).

John Milbank's book The Word Made Strange: Theology, Language, Culture was gushingly reviewed by AKM Adam of Princeton Theological Seminary as a 'profound articulation of postmodern theology'.


Others take a very relativist and pomo-like approach to their (Christian) faith.

For example, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki's book Divinity and Diversity argues against 'the exclusivist claim that there can be no relationship with God apart from the church, and the inclusivist idea that Christianity is the highest expression of the search for God, with other religions possessing in part that which Christians possess in full'.

 

[Nick Terry]

The issue of postmodernism and poststructuralism's relationship with CTs came up apropos Holocaust denial; it was frequently alleged in the early 1990s that PoMo created the conditions for ultra-skepticism and thereby contributed to HD. On closer inspection, however, Holocaust denial was totally incapable of intellectualising at that level; Faurisson may have been a literature professor and aligned with New Criticism, but made no references to anyone in the post-structuralist vein whatsoever.

I think 9/11 Truth is no different; one can certainly see the 'deep structural' fit between post-structuralism and da twoof, but there is no practical link.

Griffin may be a sometime postmodern theologian, but his work clings to an illusion of scientism, even if it is pushed to the level of absurdity - just read the introductory chapter of Debunking 9/11 Debunking, which essentially boils down to NO U when it comes to who is more or less scientific.

The celebrated Sokal Hoax highlighted how PoMo theorists ripped scientific terms out of context; 9/11 Twoof shows how scientific terms are simply ignored in favour of personal incredulity and made-up phrases. Plus the absolute literalism of 9/11 Truth, ignoring metaphor and simile, makes it virtually the opposite of postmodernism.

 

[Edmund Standing]

I think the issue is more that postmodernism/poststructuralism, with their obsessive focus on questioning 'dominant discourses' open the door to this kind of irrationalism. Postmodern approaches frequently embrace a kind of conspiracy type thinking, in the repeated attacks on 'hegemonic' thought which is said somehow to be constructed to support an 'establishment' view and to silence 'the Other'.

For example, in another of my papers at Butterflies and Wheels, 'Postmodern Approaches to Gender, Sex, and Sexuality - A Critique', I note that in her 'queer theory' work Judith Butler 'frequently presents "heterosexuality" in a conspiratorial and personified form. Here, heterosexuality is seen to be a monolithic and malignant power that "acts", "desires", and opposes, almost as if "it" had some existence of its own independent of humans'.

'9/11 Truth' thinking is very much the antithesis of postmodern thinking in that it tries to supplant one objectively true 'narrative' (the 'Official Story') with another ('the Truth'). However, I would argue that the often unwarranted level of 'scepticism' (read cynicism fuelled by ideological motives) found in much academic thought since the '80s (with the popularisation of deconstruction) has created a cultural climate in which, almost by default, many people are inclined to the assumption that anything supported by large institutional bodies is intrinsically suspect (see especially the postmodern attacks on mainstream science and rationality).

 

[Nick Terry]

I think the issue is more that postmodernism/poststructuralism, with their obsessive focus on questioning 'dominant discourses' open the door to this kind of irrationalism. Postmodern approaches frequently embrace a kind of conspiracy type thinking, in the repeated attacks on 'hegemonic' thought which is said somehow to be constructed to support an 'establishment' view and to silence 'the Other'.

For example, in another of my papers at Butterflies and Wheels, 'Postmodern Approaches to Gender, Sex, and Sexuality - A Critique', I note that in her 'queer theory' work Judith Butler 'frequently presents "heterosexuality" in a conspiratorial and personified form. Here, heterosexuality is seen to be a monolithic and malignant power that "acts", "desires", and opposes, almost as if "it" had some existence of its own independent of humans'.

'9/11 Truth' thinking is very much the antithesis of postmodern thinking in that it tries to supplant one objectively true 'narrative' (the 'Official Story') with another ('the Truth'). However, I would argue that the often unwarranted level of 'scepticism' (read cynicism fuelled by ideological motives) found in much academic thought since the '80s (with the popularisation of deconstruction) has created a cultural climate in which, almost by default, many people are inclined to the assumption that anything supported by large institutional bodies is intrinsically suspect (see especially the postmodern attacks on mainstream science and rationality).

Actually the impetus goes back to the masters of the "hermeneutics of suspicion". It's not without some significance that Popper effectively labelled Marxism unfalsifiable, nor that Marxists have been prone to adopting a monolithic conspiracy theory of their own. Butler's rhetoric, in common with much other PoMo babble, echoes this legacy and inheritance.

It requires a lot of self-criticism on the part of the broad left to accept that they too have been prone to conspiraloon thinking. From Sartre denying the existence of the Gulag to Chomsky to the high priests of antiwar.com, there has rarely been a shortage of absolute idiocy out there. And in the case of Chomsky, there is very little connection with the climate of post-structuralism in the university; he is anti-postmodern.

 

[Par]

Hi Par,

I think this might have been more the case a year ago, when there were still intellectually diverse newcomers among the ranks of the truth movement, and theories involving video-composited planes were the subject of earnest (if misguided) inquiry rather than troll fodder. I'm not so sure that it has any relevance now.

I'd be curious to know if you think my musings on this thread are relevant, or at least congruent: 9/11 as Performance Art.

I hadn’t realised that there could be a relevant aspect to the “Fake TV Footage” stuff. Thanks for pointing that out. Further, I remembering having seen the title of that thread but cannot have realised exactly what it was about. Interestingly, I notice that you mention Sokal. While I had wanted to post something like the above for some time, it was only after finishing one of his books that I actually did so.

 

[Par]

The issue of postmodernism and poststructuralism's relationship with CTs came up apropos Holocaust denial; it was frequently alleged in the early 1990s that PoMo created the conditions for ultra-skepticism and thereby contributed to HD. On closer inspection, however, Holocaust denial was totally incapable of intellectualising at that level... I think 9/11 Truth is no different; one can certainly see the 'deep structural' fit between post-structuralism and da twoof, but there is no practical link.... The celebrated Sokal Hoax highlighted how PoMo theorists ripped scientific terms out of context; 9/11 Twoof shows how scientific terms are simply ignored in favour of personal incredulity and made-up phrases. Plus the absolute literalism of 9/11 Truth, ignoring metaphor and simile, makes it virtually the opposite of postmodernism.

I see. Presumably though it is not so much that Holocaust denial is incapable of intellectualising at that level, but rather that Holocaust deniers have thus far been unable or unwilling to do so. As you say, there is a structural fit, but I would have thought that the lack of a practical link is incidental. That is, very few postructuralists are politically inclined to start indulging in Holocaust denial, and very few Holocaust deniers are intellectually inclined to postructuralism. However, with what I perceive to be something of a rise in anti-Semitism and the ongoing anti-Israelism and anti-Americanism amongst the harder elements of the Left, there’s always the possibility that could change. Of course the same – to some degree – could be said for “9/11 Truth”.

Incidentally, your post reminded me of something that could perhaps be considered to be the prototypical stages of postructuralist conspiracy theory: “On 9/11, New Yorkers Faced the Fire in the Minds of Men” by Slavoj Žižek.

Recall August's alert and the thwarted attempt to blow up a dozen planes on their way from London to the US. No doubt the alert was not a fake; to claim otherwise would be paranoiac. But a suspicion remains that it was a self-serving spectacle to accustom us to a permanent state of emergency. What space for manipulation do such events - where all that is publicly visible are the anti-terrorist measures themselves - open up? Is it not that they simply demand too much from us, the ordinary citizen: a degree of trust that those in power lost long ago? This is the sin for which Bush and Blair should never be forgiven.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/11/comment.september11

That said, I do realise that you answered my question, so thanks for that!

 

[Par]

Also, thank you Edmund for your input. It probably deserves a reply in its own right, but hopefully much of my reply to Nick above is of some relevance.

 

[Nick Terry]

I see. Presumably though it is not so much that Holocaust denial is incapable of intellectualising at that level, but rather that Holocaust deniers have thus far been unable or unwilling to do so. As you say, there is a structural fit, but I would have thought that the lack of a practical link is incidental. That is, very few postructuralists are politically inclined to start indulging in Holocaust denial, and very few Holocaust deniers are intellectually inclined to postructuralism. However, with what I perceive to be something of a rise in anti-Semitism and the ongoing anti-Israelism and anti-Americanism amongst the harder elements of the Left, there’s always the possibility that could change. Of course the same – to some degree – could be said for “9/11 Truth”.

Incidentally, your post reminded me of something that could perhaps be considered to be the prototypical stages of postructuralist conspiracy theory: “On 9/11, New Yorkers Faced the Fire in the Minds of Men” by Slavoj Žižek.

That said, I do realise that you answered my question, so thanks for that!

I think the fear that post-structuralists might suddenly engage in selective conspiracist scepticism of whatever kind, whether of 9/11 or the Holocaust, is a little overblown. To the extent that any postmodernist has descended into the nihilism necessary to sustain a CT in the face of the evidence, then they have reached an end-state that places them beyond comprehensibility and impact. Much the same can be said for the twoofer nihilists we see here today.

There are some interesting cases where postmodernists have discussed Holocaust denial; yet they have largely been unsatisfactory or shown up an aporia in the intellectual's thought. One article was entitled 'Fish Takes The Bait', discussing Stanley Fish taking up the challenge of what to say about HD; he really stuck to the level of calling the discourses a separate 'language-game', i.e. was able to maintain an essentially meaningless relativism. Lyotard thought similarly; that the discourse of negationism was incompatible with conventional historical discourse, therefore one shouldn't even bother trying to refute them as they were playing an entirely different language game.

This is more insightful, and there is some validity to this stance, as CTists usually end up babbling to themselves incoherently in the corner, ignored by the rest of the world because nothing they say makes any sense to anyone but themselves. They truly are playing a different language game to the rest of us, and since they are unable to express themselves in a fashion that allows them to take part in the grown-ups' language game, they are dismissed as childish retards.

Hayden White, meanwhile, went for the sweeping-dismissal approach - stating very simply that deniers were idiots and not to be taken seriously. They were not 'doing history', he claimed. In one sense this is a variant on Lyotard's point, in that he claimed that Holocaust denial was not part of the "genre" of history, and did not obey generic conventions.This is in the context of defending his narrativist philosophy of history against charges of relativism.

He could have developed a very simple point, which has been filled in by more epistemologically-oriented philosophers of history, backwards reprobates that they are, namely that no form of denial or negationism, or conspiracy theory, offers a truly plausible coherent narrative of its own. Narrative has a certain cognitive and explanatory value in and of itself. Even narrativist admirers of White such as Frank Ankersmit argue similarly, but White himself does not.

Denial and CTs are forms of counternarrative, i.e. they aim to disrupt an existing narrative explanation with various 'awful questions', but mainly also by totally disorganising the conventional forms of chronology, geography and other meters used in narrative as guide-rails. This is perhaps more apparent with Holocaust deniers, who regularly fall for the chronological fallacy, than with the microanalysis of 9/11 Twoof.

But I suspect if we analysed the narrative representation of the events of 9/11 in a Truther version, we would find basic narrative incoherences, whether these are unexplained events, shifting explanations or sheer ignorance of the facts. We already know they have logic backwards, and prefer deduction to induction or abduction; e.g. deducing that there must have been controlled demolition from one stray particle of evidence, while ignoring the absence of what to sane people are deemed quite crucial pieces of evidence.

I try and avoid watching Twoof videos as much as possible, maybe someone can think of examples where basic narrative coherence has been deliberately derailed?

 

[Par]

Nick,

You have my apologies for the considerable tardiness of this reply. In truth, I had forgotten about this thread altogether. The fact that it quickly fell over the front page didn’t help.

Thanks for your further comments; they are insightful, especially the part about conspiracy theorists playing a “different language game”. I’ve often been struck by something similar myself, but haven’t been aware its significance. Some truthers seem to become irritated that we won’t “play fair”, in a sense; they, however, call it being closed-mind, as if, in disallowing unintelligible narratives, we’re not being artistic enough for their tastes.

Moreover, I hadn’t realised that the lack of a coherent narrative would cause conspiracy theorists much of a problem in a poststructuralist context. But now you mention it, it makes a lot of sense.