A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy Hardcover – April 16, 2019
https://www.amazon.com/Lot-People-Are-Saying-...0691188831
Top reviews from the United States
5.0 out of 5 stars A dangerous form of conspiracism
Reviewed in the United States on July 7, 2019
The author’s intent in writing this book was to offer an account to those who are confused and disturbed by what they call a malignant phenomenon that distorts public life and endangers us all.
It’s called the new conspiracism. We have had conspiracy theories around for a long, long time, so what’s new? Well, the new conspiracism is conspiracy without the theory. It has a new destructive impulse - to delegitimate democracy.
Classic conspiracism tries to make sense of the world, which is disorderly and complicated. It usually involves powerful people controlling things. It tries to make order out of that which defies standard or official explanation.
But the new conspiracism dispenses with the burden of explanation. So we have innuendo and verbal gesture or “a lot of people are saying.” It is not evidence, but repetition that validates. One example would be “the elections are rigged.”
These new conspiracists have two targets in mind. First, are the political parties or partisans, and second, are knowledge-producing institutions like the free press, university, and expert communities within government.
This new conspiracism appears to be primarily predominant on the ideological right. In the case of knowledge we see a weakening of the “legitimacy of sources of knowledge and their role in regular processes of legislation and administration.”
According to the author, it is “the pure face of negativity. Delegitimation is its product.” This is important, because delegitimation “poses a unique threat to democracy: it rejects the meaning, value, and authority of democratic practices, institutions, and officials.” Normally an alternative political ideology, such as communism, authoritarianism, theism, fascism will delegitimate democracy.
But Rosenblum notes that “Angry, sterile conspiracism does the work.” Two responses are identified as important to this conspiracism. Speaking truth to conspiracy and what is called “enacting democracy,” which means the scrupulous adherence to the forms and processes of public decision-making – a “deliberate pedagogical response to the process of delegitimation.”
It is important to note that these conspiracists are not trying to transform democracy into something else, be it authoritarianism or whatever. There simply is no coherent constructive political outcome.
It is just destructive and politically sterile. For example, in the case of Trump, he is not interested in the architecture of an organized political party or movement, but simply “a throng that assents to his account of reality.”
For the classic conspiracist, the internet is a source of connecting dots. It is information that fills in the narrative or that confirms their explanation of events. The new conspiracist directs all energy as repetition and affirmation.
We spoke of the concept of delegitimatization.
The author now defines legitimacy for us. It has two senses, philosophic and sociological. The former asks what kind of regime is worthy of support, while the latter asks whether the citizens view the political order as worthy of support. An example of delegitimation is given for us: “a cabal within the FBI and Department of Justice was attempting to bring the president down.”
This conspiracism with it artificial crisis offers angry minds immediate gratification – the equivalent of throwing verbal stones.
Another dangerous effect is disorientation. One thing that enables this kind of thing is the current broadcast technology that allows anyone to disseminate whatever they want without any intermediary and at no cost.
This kind of conspiracy works because one doesn’t have to be certain a belief is entirely false – it might be true, but that’s true enough.
This gives conspiracism the power to delegitimate. What is scary is something referred as “malignant normality.” This is where people become accommodated to distorted processes and inverted purposes. In other words, they make the malignant normal. This advances the momentum of delegitimation. In chapters four and five, the author takes a deep plunge into conspiracist delegitimation. The author now presents us with more information on the process of delegitimation. This involves attacks on opposition candidates and their party as a whole.
This is not just simple opposition, but viewing the opposition as a dangerous enemy not only to be defeated electorally but neutralized. The unfortunate consequence is “delegitimation of the defining institution of democracy and our system of representation.”
The author sees this conspiracist delegitimation aligned, in the more immediate near term, with radical conservatism. This is referred to as the “partisan penumbra.” Chapter five concentrates on the delegitimation of authoritatively produced facts – on knowledge. Examples would be vaccination and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This rejection of simple facts, knowledge-producing institutions, and the free press has the effect of degrading democracy unfortunately.
In chapter six, we get more detail on the experience of disorientation. This delegitimation of the process of creating, assessing, and correcting the universe of facts leads to disorientation.
This is the result of people being confronted with a steady stream of ungrounded conspiracist claims. We then experience a special form of anxiety, a contest over who owns reality. Could this spreading epistemic gap lead to an end to politics? The final section discusses defending democracy.
There needs to be a speaking of truth to conspiracy and a stanching of the delegitimation of democracy. Unfortunately, there are few responsible officeholders doing this. Some even affirm conspiracist claims themselves. This new conspiracism seems most evident in the United States, but the author fears its spread to other countries.
He sees a need to “enact democracy,” that is, “a strenuous adherence to the regular processes and forms of public decision-making. Democracy is enacted when officials explicitly draw attention to the importance of adhering to these forms and practices.” A sobering question: will future generation care about democracy itself?
https://www.amazon.com/Lot-People-Are-Saying-...0691188831
Top reviews from the United States
Quote:But the new conspiracism dispenses with the burden of explanation. So we have innuendo and verbal gesture or “a lot of people are saying.” It is not evidence, but repetition that validates. One example would be “the elections are rigged.”
5.0 out of 5 stars A dangerous form of conspiracism
Reviewed in the United States on July 7, 2019
The author’s intent in writing this book was to offer an account to those who are confused and disturbed by what they call a malignant phenomenon that distorts public life and endangers us all.
It’s called the new conspiracism. We have had conspiracy theories around for a long, long time, so what’s new? Well, the new conspiracism is conspiracy without the theory. It has a new destructive impulse - to delegitimate democracy.
Classic conspiracism tries to make sense of the world, which is disorderly and complicated. It usually involves powerful people controlling things. It tries to make order out of that which defies standard or official explanation.
But the new conspiracism dispenses with the burden of explanation. So we have innuendo and verbal gesture or “a lot of people are saying.” It is not evidence, but repetition that validates. One example would be “the elections are rigged.”
These new conspiracists have two targets in mind. First, are the political parties or partisans, and second, are knowledge-producing institutions like the free press, university, and expert communities within government.
This new conspiracism appears to be primarily predominant on the ideological right. In the case of knowledge we see a weakening of the “legitimacy of sources of knowledge and their role in regular processes of legislation and administration.”
According to the author, it is “the pure face of negativity. Delegitimation is its product.” This is important, because delegitimation “poses a unique threat to democracy: it rejects the meaning, value, and authority of democratic practices, institutions, and officials.” Normally an alternative political ideology, such as communism, authoritarianism, theism, fascism will delegitimate democracy.
But Rosenblum notes that “Angry, sterile conspiracism does the work.” Two responses are identified as important to this conspiracism. Speaking truth to conspiracy and what is called “enacting democracy,” which means the scrupulous adherence to the forms and processes of public decision-making – a “deliberate pedagogical response to the process of delegitimation.”
It is important to note that these conspiracists are not trying to transform democracy into something else, be it authoritarianism or whatever. There simply is no coherent constructive political outcome.
It is just destructive and politically sterile. For example, in the case of Trump, he is not interested in the architecture of an organized political party or movement, but simply “a throng that assents to his account of reality.”
For the classic conspiracist, the internet is a source of connecting dots. It is information that fills in the narrative or that confirms their explanation of events. The new conspiracist directs all energy as repetition and affirmation.
We spoke of the concept of delegitimatization.
The author now defines legitimacy for us. It has two senses, philosophic and sociological. The former asks what kind of regime is worthy of support, while the latter asks whether the citizens view the political order as worthy of support. An example of delegitimation is given for us: “a cabal within the FBI and Department of Justice was attempting to bring the president down.”
This conspiracism with it artificial crisis offers angry minds immediate gratification – the equivalent of throwing verbal stones.
Another dangerous effect is disorientation. One thing that enables this kind of thing is the current broadcast technology that allows anyone to disseminate whatever they want without any intermediary and at no cost.
This kind of conspiracy works because one doesn’t have to be certain a belief is entirely false – it might be true, but that’s true enough.
This gives conspiracism the power to delegitimate. What is scary is something referred as “malignant normality.” This is where people become accommodated to distorted processes and inverted purposes. In other words, they make the malignant normal. This advances the momentum of delegitimation. In chapters four and five, the author takes a deep plunge into conspiracist delegitimation. The author now presents us with more information on the process of delegitimation. This involves attacks on opposition candidates and their party as a whole.
This is not just simple opposition, but viewing the opposition as a dangerous enemy not only to be defeated electorally but neutralized. The unfortunate consequence is “delegitimation of the defining institution of democracy and our system of representation.”
The author sees this conspiracist delegitimation aligned, in the more immediate near term, with radical conservatism. This is referred to as the “partisan penumbra.” Chapter five concentrates on the delegitimation of authoritatively produced facts – on knowledge. Examples would be vaccination and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This rejection of simple facts, knowledge-producing institutions, and the free press has the effect of degrading democracy unfortunately.
In chapter six, we get more detail on the experience of disorientation. This delegitimation of the process of creating, assessing, and correcting the universe of facts leads to disorientation.
This is the result of people being confronted with a steady stream of ungrounded conspiracist claims. We then experience a special form of anxiety, a contest over who owns reality. Could this spreading epistemic gap lead to an end to politics? The final section discusses defending democracy.
There needs to be a speaking of truth to conspiracy and a stanching of the delegitimation of democracy. Unfortunately, there are few responsible officeholders doing this. Some even affirm conspiracist claims themselves. This new conspiracism seems most evident in the United States, but the author fears its spread to other countries.
He sees a need to “enact democracy,” that is, “a strenuous adherence to the regular processes and forms of public decision-making. Democracy is enacted when officials explicitly draw attention to the importance of adhering to these forms and practices.” A sobering question: will future generation care about democracy itself?
1
