Secondo la Treccani, la cospirazione è "Unione segreta di più persone che s’accordano per conseguire uno scopo comune, per lo più di natura sovversiva, contro lo stato, le sue istituzioni, o in genere contro chi detiene il potere". In teoria queste persone possono anche essere dei "normali" cittadini. Nella pratica è molto difficile mettere insieme molte persone e assicurarne il segreto, quindi questo gruppo deve essere necessariamente formato da pochi elementi, ma molto potenti. Nella storia ci sono stati congiure, complotti, cospirazioni, alcune andate "a buon fine", il Cesaricidio, altre (molte) fallite, dalla congiura dell’harem contro Ramses III, nel 1155 a.C. [1] alla congiura dei paggi contro Alessandro Magno, nel 328 a.C [2] per citarne due delle più datate. Veniamo agli ultimi cento anni, a quel capolavoro di perfidia di Stato che fu l'incendio del Reichstag [3]. Il Partito Nazionalsocialista veniva dalla sconfitta elettorale del novembre del 1932 (i metodi violenti e poco ortodossi avevano generato reticenze anche presso la borghesia tedesca), ma con l'incendio del palazzo del parlamento, Hitler accusò i comunisti e ne trasse enormi vantaggi politici tanto da stravincere le successive elezioni [4]. Il resto, purtroppo, è ben noto. La cospirazione, in questo caso, non era "contro chi detiene il potere" (Hitler era già Cancelliere), ma per avere "pieni poteri". Poi c'è la cospirazione "preventiva", quella per "evitare" di perdere il potere. La strategia della tensione [5] ne è un tragico esempio. Mi fermo qua non essendo questo il luogo adatto per discuterne, invito solo chi ne ha voglia ad approfondire. Nella storia, recente o passata, c'è quasi sempre la risposta ai nostri interrogativi. In fondo, l'essere umano, da Ramses in poi, non è mica cambiato di molto ;) Antonio [1] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congiura_dell%27harem [2] http://www.tuttostoria.net/storia-antica.aspx?code=1030 [3] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendio_del_Reichstag [4] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elezioni_federali_tedesche_del_1933 [5] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategia_della_tensione_in_Italia On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:52 PM Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it> wrote:
The greatest conspiracies are open and notorious — not theories, but practices expressed through law and policy, technology, and finance. Counterintuitively, these conspiracies are more often than not announced in public and with a modicum of pride. They’re dutifully reported in our newspapers; they’re bannered onto the covers of our magazines; updates on their progress are scrolled across our screens — all with such regularity as to render us unable to relate the banality of their methods to the rapacity of their ambitions.
The party in power wants to redraw district lines. The prime interest rate has changed. A free service has been created to host our personal files. These conspiracies order, and disorder, our lives; and yet they can’t compete for attention with digital graffiti about pedophile Satanists in the basement of a DC pizzeria.
This, in sum, is our problem: the truest conspiracies meet with the least opposition.
[...]
It took years — eight years and counting in exile — for me to realize that I was missing the point: we talk about conspiracy theories in order to avoid talking about conspiracy practices, which are often too daunting, too threatening, too total.
[...]
In democracies today, what is important to an increasing many is not what rights and freedoms are recognized, but what beliefs are respected: what history, or story, undergirds their identities as citizens, and as members of religious, racial, and ethnic communities. It’s this replacement-function of false conspiracies — the way they replace unified or majoritarian histories with parochial and partisan stories — that prepares the stage for political upheaval.
Especially pernicious is the way that false conspiracies absolve their followers of engaging with the truth. Citizenship in a conspiracy-society doesn’t require evaluating a statement of proposed fact for its truth-value, and then accepting it or rejecting it accordingly, so much as it requires the complete and total rejection of all truth-value that comes from an enemy source, and the substitution of an alternative plot, narrated from elsewhere.
[...] Jesse Walker, an editor at Reason and author of The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory (2013), offers the following categories of enemy-based conspiracy thinking:
- "Enemy Outside," [...] - "Enemy Within," [...] - "Enemy Above," [...] - "Enemy Below," [...] - "Benevolent Conspiracies," [...]
Other forms of conspiracy-taxonomy are just a Wikipedia link away [...]
I find things to admire in all of these taxonomies, but it strikes me as notable that none makes provision for truth-value. Further, I'm not sure that these or any mode of classification can adequately address the often-alternating, dependent nature of conspiracies, whereby a true conspiracy (e.g. the 9/11 hijackers) triggers a false conspiracy (e.g. 9/11 was an inside job), and a false conspiracy (e.g. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction) triggers a true conspiracy (e.g. the invasion of Iraq).
Another critique I would offer of the extant taxonomies involves a reassessment of causality, which is more properly the province of psychology and philosophy. Most of the taxonomies of conspiracy-thinking are based on the logic that most intelligence agencies use when they spread disinformation, treating falsity and fiction as levers of influence and confusion that can plunge a populace into powerlessness, making them vulnerable to new beliefs — and even new governments.
But this top-down approach fails to take into account that the predominant conspiracy theories in America today are developed from the bottom-up, plots concocted not behind the closed doors of intelligence agencies but on the open Internet by private citizens, by people. In sum, conspiracy theories do not inculcate powerlessness, so much as they are the signs and symptoms of powerlessness itself.
This leads us to those other taxonomies, which classify conspiracies not by their content, or intent, but by the desires that cause one to subscribe to them. Note, in particular, the epistemic/existential/social triad of system-justification: Belief in a conspiracy is considered “epistemic” if the desire underlying the belief is to get at “the truth,” for its own sake; belief in a conspiracy is considered “existential” if the desire underlying the belief is to feel safe and secure, under another's control; while belief in a conspiracy is considered “social” if the desire underlying the belief is to develop a positive self-image, or a sense of belonging to a community.
From Outside, from Within, from Above, from Below, from Beyond...events, systems, superconspiracies...shallow and deep heuristics...these are all attempts to chart a new type of politics that is also a new type of identity, a confluence of politics and identity that imbues all aspects of contemporary life. Ultimately, the only truly honest taxonomical approach to conspiracy-thinking that I can come up with is something of an inversion: the idea that conspiracies themselves are a taxonomy, a method by which democracies especially sort themselves into parties and tribes, a typology through which people who lack definite or satisfactory narratives as citizens explain to themselves their immiseration, their disenfranchisement, their lack of power, and even their lack of will.
Tratto da https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/conspiracy-pt1 (da visitare con le dovute precauzioni... ;-)
Giacomo _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa