I was absolutely fascinated by Knight's article on conspiracy culture; I have always had a sort of wry interest in conspiracy theories of various shapes and sizes, from secret cults and mysterious syndicates to alien abductions and the attack of the lizard men. (I may even have to change my final project to focus more on this subject... If it's still permissible at this juncture.) They've always seemed to be examples of fantastically imaginative attempts to fit facts with intuitions--all in all, no matter how far-fetched (and sometimes idiotic) they tend to be, they make the world a much more entertaining place. Sometimes I think I would prefer to live in a universe in which some conspiracy or another was indeed the "truth", and I would even dare to propose that many conspiracy theorists actually experience their quotidian existence in a much more compelling, urgent fashion. There is more orientation to their lives than the average nine-to-fiver's, because they have been vindicated by the discovery of a thrilling "truth" that helps them escape dull deception and hoodwinked complacency.

But then again, there is this word truth that keeps popping up in a periodic manner. It is integral to any discussion of conspiracy culture that employs its native vocabulary, and moreover it cannot be substituted by another term. Take, for example, the catchphrase of the popular 90s TV show X-Files: "The Truth Is Out There". It's the truth that's being sought, the whole deal--conspirators are not after an alternative explanation, nor are they trying to make corrections to a general scheme that is in general acceptable. They feel as though the public has been profoundly duped and that strenuous effort (going behind the rules and hijacking bureaucratic institutions) is necessary to save ourselves from The Man. It really isn't a very modernist or post-modernist-flavored project; conspiracy theorists tend to be highly idealistic, at least on my personal interpretation...

Or, at the very, least, they yearn for the opportunity to be idealistic, to seek the truth, in a world that has been gutted of universals. I speak here of the ironic stance that I myself adhere to in relation to conspiracy culture; in fact, this stance moves beyond a simple humoring, a kind of bemused smile at the entertainment value of imaginative explanations. Even the very propagators of conspiracy theories may sometimes engage in this kind of irony: they know that they are producing fanciful notions and promoting illusions, but at least this kind of illusion is more beautiful and creative than the official stories that are fed to the public through conventional outlets (these being obviously less-than-veracious, as there is a widespread agreement that politicians never disclose their real agendas, that Washington is strife with unsaids and confidentialities). The show X-Files embodies this sort of ironic approach: its creators infuse the show with wisecracks and tongue-in-cheek remarks that subtly parody its own genre of conspiracy but nonetheless the storyline is based on two FBI officers that routinely stumble across (and almost unveil) the ulterior agenda of the government. I believe that it is indeed possible--through this kind of ironic world-view--to subscribe to conspiracy theory as such, contra Knight's assertion... As just another explanation of events, a preferred explanation of events (the actual explanation of events being irrelevant).

This brand of conspiracy culture is a far cry from the paranoiac totalitarianism of Stalin and Hitler's regimes: it has nothing to do with shaping society in a certain way. It is not a vindictive demonology:instead it is an individual choice for aestheticisation of the world in a certain manner, a useful aperçu into various individuals'/groups' relations to their living conditions.

Other short notes on the article: I am tempted to say that it was feminism that promoted conspiracy culture, instead of the other way around. Because feminism was a movement that emphasized the covert, malicious nature of the patriarchal superstructure and sought to bring it to pubic attention--the importance and success of the movement thereby legitimated conspiracy culture of a sort, just as the unleashing of the Watergate scandal via investigative journalism showed the world that clawing for hidden political dirt wasn't just the work of vagrants spies and rag-mags--it could be a genuinely valuable watch-dog endeavor.

It seems that food/diet/health-interest groups sometimes subscribe to a kind of paranoid conspiratorializaton as well. Some vegans I know personally are good examples of this sort of thinking.

The uncertainly algorithm discussed today in class proved to be--despite kind attempts towards enlightening my insomnia-addled brain--very confusing.
On the one hand, this can take the form of an objective prediction based on an analysis of vast amounts of available data: say, polling figures for an upcoming election, stock-market trend speculation, and weather reports.
On the other hand, this could be some kind of super-computer that provides resolutions to questions that are fed into it: for example, how can one bring about the peaceful reconciliation of North and South Korea with the least amount of bloodshed and the maximum amount of smooth socio-economic integration?
The first kind is unquestionably something that already occupies a large part of our social consciousness--perhaps larger than many even notice. Due to its pretensions to objectivity (and thus its claim to inevitablity), such predictions have an extremely seductive power, for they are beacons of hope and certainty in a world that become ever more complex and clamorous. It has a kind of institution force, a sort of reliability that we crave and need--now that we have more options than ever, we would find it overwhelmingly difficult to choose to do anything had we no guidelines upon which to base our actions. Given that we are also (arguably) in a post-ideological age, one in which secular skepticism is also gaining steam, these "scientific" predictions become the firmest pillar we can lean on. In fact, our social consciousness is not just informed by such predictions, but actually formed by them: by seeing how things will happen, inevitably, we tend to slide to expect the category of prediction to show us how things ought to happen. We has in fact gotten an ought from an is; take a look at how economic analysts are not merely commentators, but are in fact the people who actually have the most impact on market trends--the snowball effect. Once stock market sages announce their hunches, everybody flocks to make their predictions a reality.
Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I tend to see film/book/culture critics as having similar roles in society. Their predictions are not only subjective opinions, but in fact do real work towards shaping the way in which certain works are received. The prevalent tendency to create "Top 10 Entrepreneurs" lists or "100 best vacation spots" may also have this kind of power: for they tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. The very fact that someone has been included in such a list will affirm their success and exposure rate--just as the list predicted!
The second type is, I believe, a completely different kind of mechanism. It involves a prior commitment to certain values, one is responsible for what one has undertaken to make manifest in the world (whereas my intuition is that it would be more difficult to blame someone for investing in a stock based on a trumpeting endorsement from a top analyst--if it tanks, he obviously suffers the consequences, but this is chalked up more to luck or extenuating circumstances than anything else). I am of the opinion that ethical action may still be possible with such a contraption. The question is whether it will be used to uphold ethical action or whether it will merely be used to enforce certain ulterior motives.