This semester, I am teaching an Honors seminar on the history of conspiracy theories. I find that what I teach influences how I frame my day job, ombudsing/mediation/conflict resolution. When I teach about jazz history, I focus on conflict resolution as a collective improvisation. When covering video games, I consider the ludic aspects of a conflict. Alternate history, and it is all about our power to ask “what if?”
Teaching about conspiracy theories now, I can’t help but reflect how often we interpret events at work or school through a lens that, when examined dispassionately, has marked similarities with conspiratorial thinking.
First, some defining is in order. Here, I am relying on political scientist Michael Barkun’s A Culture of Conspiracy to provide our theoretical framework. Barkun describes conspiracy beliefs that posit an organization of people “acting covertly to achieve some malevolent end (3).” While conspiracy theories are nothing if not eclectic, Barkun finds one chief commonality among their adherents: a central belief that we inhabit “a universe governed by design rather than randomness,” expressed in three principles: nothing happens by accident (things happen because someone consciously planned them, not random chance); nothing is as it seems (things that appear to be innocent are actually sinister, and vice versa); and everything is connected (multiple apparently unrelated phenomena are, in fact, linked by a common guiding purpose) (3-4).
Let’s consider how common workplace problems might be interpreted as Barkun-esque conspiracy beliefs.
Scenario One: You have ordered an important piece of equipment that you need on a deadline for a project that is crucial to your continued employment. The shipper emails you proof that the equipment was delivered to your organization, but your mail center is unable to locate the package.
Conspiracy Belief: Someone in another office made a comment about my work being unimportant. I heard that they have a relative working in the mail center, so it makes sense that they asked them to “lose” my package (everything is connected). It is impossible for an organization as sophisticated as mine to misplace a shipment (nothing happens by accident). When I talked to a supervisor, she explained that this happens a few times a year, but there is no way that can be true; she is lying to cover up the deliberate sabotage of my work (nothing is as it seems).
I am not trying to make the subject of the above scenario sound paranoid or illogical; the key thing about conspiracy beliefs is that they string together data points to make logical, if unlikely, connections.
Scenario Two: You run a weekly meeting, and you notice that one of your co-workers is consistently late. Their late arrival causes a minor disruption to your meeting’s flow.
Conspiracy Belief: The tardy co-worker was a rival candidate for a promotion that you were awarded. You’ve never noticed them being late for meetings that other people run; in fact, they are early when your supervisor is in charge (nothing happens by accident). They apologize for being late (nothing is as it seems), but you know the truth: they are doing this to make you look bad. If your supervisor has proof that you can’t run the meetings effectively, they can demote you and give your rival your position. The fact that they haven’t publicly rebuked your rival for being consistently late is proof that they want to see you undermined (everything is connected).
There are a host of other possible explanations here: maybe the meetings remind the rival that they didn’t get the position so, consciously or not, they are avoiding them. Maybe they just feel sour grapes about not getting the job and this is their passive aggressive resistance. And it is totally possible that the supervisor has already counseled the rival about being late; public shaming is rarely considered the most effective way to change bad behavior. This way of thinking also ignores most pertinent negative, that the supervisor thought enough of the subject to hire them instead of the rival.
Scenario Three: You are enrolled in a course with a mandatory lab component. Your instructor refuses to let you arrive late, even though it takes you time to get across campus from another course.
Conspiracy Belief: Your instructor claims the attendance policy is because state licensing guidelines mandate a certain number of hours for certification, but you know the real reason that the instructor is so strict with you (nothing is as it seems). You had a disagreement with an instructor in another course when you pointed out an error in the textbook. That put you on their bad side, and they told your new instructor Other classes have a grace period. This one doesn’t because your first instructor warned your current instructor about you being disruptive (everything is connected), and they are using this policy as a pretext to punish you (nothing happens by accident).
It may seem silly to read these; you might be scoffing at how illogical these people’s reasoning is. But I can confirm that, every day, intelligent, thoughtful people present similar scenarios. If we reflect earnestly about our own thought processes, we can probably find times when we’ve strung together connections that seem perfectly valid to us, but might not make sense to others.
What, then, can we do to prevent ourselves from falling into conspiratorial thinking? The first step is to recognize that we are doing it. Psychologists Robert Brotherton and Silan Eser sum up conspiracy thinking as that which is less plausible than other explanations and is “ultimately unfalsifiable” (1). In essence, if your scenario involves intricate hidden connections or ignores more obvious but less satisfying explanations, it may involve conspiracy belief. And if there is no proof you would accept that could convince you otherwise, it is unfalsifiable, a second indication of a conspiracy belief.
I am simplifying a bit, but a quick conspiracy thinking test might be this:
- Is there a simpler, more plausible explanation for this situation?
- Is it possible for anyone to disprove this scenario?
If the answer to the first is yes and the second is no, congratulations! You may be the owner of a conspiracy belief.
Once a conspiracy belief is identified, we can think critically about our answers to those questions, focusing on explanations that may be more likely and productive, that lead us to solution-seeking rather than doom-mongering. Freeing ourselves from the trap of self-reinforcing conspiracy thinking, we can now think more clearly about what we are up against and how it can be managed. We can reflect, imagine, and act.
So until next time, expect the unexpected, stay informed, and I’ll stay informal.
30
