By this definition the Iraq War “Weapons of Mass Destruction” argument was a perfect example of a conspiracy theory. Yet somehow it doesn’t seem to fit as an example in this article?
I believe conspiracy does constitute a theoretical outlook, albeit not a very sophisticated one. I think the most important tool is to practice both paranoid and reparative reading at the same time: to simultaneously show how paranoid readings can be more sophisticated than typical conspiracy, and how there can be different possible interpretations of the same event. By immanent critique you can show how the theory is actually ambiguous and you can’t draw the clear conclusions you thought.
Veldig fin tekst!
By this definition the Iraq War “Weapons of Mass Destruction” argument was a perfect example of a conspiracy theory. Yet somehow it doesn’t seem to fit as an example in this article?
I believe conspiracy does constitute a theoretical outlook, albeit not a very sophisticated one. I think the most important tool is to practice both paranoid and reparative reading at the same time: to simultaneously show how paranoid readings can be more sophisticated than typical conspiracy, and how there can be different possible interpretations of the same event. By immanent critique you can show how the theory is actually ambiguous and you can’t draw the clear conclusions you thought.