When too many unknowns chase too few equations, one encounters the ‘over-determination problem’: too many possible explanations for the same phenomenon. There is no objective way to choose among them. Conspiracy theories are analogous: too many unknowns for the few facts we observe.
In his recent piece Making Sense of Egypt: Part One, In Defence of Conspiracy as a Method, Ahmed Badawi defends the use of ‘conspiracy theories’ in political analysis by lowering the standard from ‘true’ to ‘plausible’:
The objective of political analysis is not to judge, as in a court of law, but to understand and put forward a plausible explanation. One therefore could, and should, worry less about the stuff of tabloid curiosity, the identity of the acting subject, and focus more on identifying plausible mechanisms and on understanding outcomes: who wins, who loses, and what are the implications of any political event for the equilibrium of power among the various players.
It is here that the assumption of conspiracy is most useful. When information is imperfect, it helps to complete the picture and to join the dots. It is a device, a method of explanation.
Lowering the standard, I’d argue, does not help much – it simply yields illusions.
- In a complex social system, the set of possible causes and their immediate interconnections and sequences – let alone the emergent properties – are never fully known. The search for the original ‘truth’ (causa causans) is a distraction.
- One need not know ‘the truth’ or even a ‘plausible truth’ in order to understand the implications of an event. We need not invent antecedents in order to hypothesise consequents (see Kafka and His Precurors by Jorge Luis Borges). Precursors are only interesting if they imply inevitabilities (like planetary motion). In historical processes, this is never the case.
Old-fashioned Marxism understood this: it did not bother with intent or personal responsibility, as individuals, according to its ‘scientific’ theory, were embedded in broad social forces that transcend individual agency. The ‘subjective’ role was of no import. Enemies of the people were liquidated on class-action grounds.
We have gone to the other extreme and scramble backward in search of original and ‘true’ individual intent. We believe in agency and personal responsibility. In practice, we end up with agents who are inherently ‘evil’ – Carl Schmitt and his (close to Manichean) school reflect this view. We liquidate enemies on tautological grounds.
I’m not sure that this is superior to Marxism. I’d rather be ‘evil’ as part of a group than be a social-Darwinist reject.
When truth can no longer be established, plausibility is the compromise – says Badawi – some would call it populist slander.
A better middle way might be to search for and understand the factors involved – necessary conditions all – but stopping short of establishing sufficient causation. This may not be enough for prophecies, but one can build thoughtful scenarios on it.
History appears when, among infinite possible future trajectories, contingence chooses just one. We’ll always be surprised by the eventual choice, but we may be somewhat prepared for it if we know the range of possibilities.
The post was first published on DeepDip.
Explore more of Aldo Matteucci’s insights on the Ask Aldo chatbot.
