"Globalism"
There is definitely a growing radicalization around the world. Mainly the driver of this is social media via the internet. Now, I'm not one to extoll the virtues of the "way it used to be"--in fact I'm largely against that kind of thinking. The internet is just a vehicle and the drivers are the problem...and the passengers for getting in these windowless vans.
The growth of conspiracism over the last few decades is both difficult to explain and simple. It's simple because back in the day, in order to be exposed to conspiracy theories you had to seek them out. Perhaps, you could have accidentally checked out the wrong book in the library, but you needed to be active. Today, I can just look at my facebook feed (my twitter feed has been aggressively curated to avoid certain ideas) and see conspiracy theories and false information being posted by my family members. They in turn, probably saw these ideas on their feed, and so the cycle goes until I block/hide/unfriend them.
It's difficult because explaining how they catch fire and spread is more of an enigma. Why do people want to believe these theories? Make no mistake, they have to want to believe them because they are unsupported by any kind of evidence and/or based on fallacious arguments. They require a great exercise of cognitive dissonance relying on a willful ignorance and straight up denialism of the objective factual world.
Conspiracy theories push emotional buttons which becomes an addiction. Like all addictions, a tolerance develops, and then the need for more overrides the previous emotional value that was once gotten out of merely disagreeing with someone you don't like. That's how the radicalization works.
In the 90s, the word "globalism" was a term used by ultra lefty anti-corporate socialist/anarchists to describe the World Bank, the WTO, and UN trade policies--which they disagreed with. This disagreement culminated in the 1999 WTO protest, the "Battle in Seattle" in which police, the Washington State National Guard, and protestors clashed. The protests were about free-trade, environmentalism, union labor, human rights, etc.
Whereas back then, the term was the domain of ultra left wing extremists, it's now a term for their polar opposite, ultra right wing extremists. The difference in usage is that it's much more nebulous as to what the term actually means. Generally speaking, it's sometimes used to identify that which is perceived to threaten American sovereignty, such as the conspiracy theory surrounding "Agenda 21" which in reality is about debt reduction and fair trade in the developing world. Sometimes the term is a code word for "Jew", in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that don't want to sound anti-Semitic. That's the history of the term and the history of the movement against in as short as I can make it without being incorrect.
The issue is that social media works on the older generation who didn't grow up with the cynicism of the internet (mine, I'm 40, was the first internet generation, and we adapted pretty quick to that cynicism) think that just because a meme has a picture of someone they respect on it that they should automatically dislike the thing it tells them to. With the younger generation people who find themselves out of place in the world can easily find groups and communities that will accept anyone. This last point is both good and bad. The bad part is that already radical groups are more than willing to accept new members, and will happily punch all the emotional buttons that the lonely individual needs.
Don't like your job? blame globalism. Don't like a particular politician? They're a globalist. It literally doesn't matter what the word means to most people, they will happily parrot it as long as it A) gives them special information that others don't have and B) provides some sort of excuse of responsibility. All conspiracy theories do this, they all appeal to those two notions to which I am very thankful that I wasn't that lonely/depressed (or perhaps that the best thing out there was a 14.4 kbps modem and I little patience) in high school to be sucked in to the groups--as I was a conspiracy theorist back then.
The problem is, that no matter what side you are on, it's an echo chamber of reinforcement and one-upman ship. Miller at al, (2015) argue this quite convincingly as does Cass Sunstein in his book "Conspiracy Theories and Other bad Ideas." Just putting like minded people in a room with no outside information will "upgrade" their ideas as each not only agrees with the other but also adds to it. Without a countervailing opinion radicalization is the end result. It's why the equal time law that Reagan repealed was both a good and bad idea. It offered both sides of an editorial the chance to say their piece, but it also legislated speech and that's not a great idea.
Conspiracy theories radicalize because not only is the other side dismissed but they are viewed as being part of the problem. If an anti-globalist (modern or old school) hears a pro-globalist they don't just disagree anymore, they think the pro-globalist is part of a problem that needs to be solved. This is why it's very important to deal with this kinds of ideas whenever they pop up.
The growth of conspiracism over the last few decades is both difficult to explain and simple. It's simple because back in the day, in order to be exposed to conspiracy theories you had to seek them out. Perhaps, you could have accidentally checked out the wrong book in the library, but you needed to be active. Today, I can just look at my facebook feed (my twitter feed has been aggressively curated to avoid certain ideas) and see conspiracy theories and false information being posted by my family members. They in turn, probably saw these ideas on their feed, and so the cycle goes until I block/hide/unfriend them.
It's difficult because explaining how they catch fire and spread is more of an enigma. Why do people want to believe these theories? Make no mistake, they have to want to believe them because they are unsupported by any kind of evidence and/or based on fallacious arguments. They require a great exercise of cognitive dissonance relying on a willful ignorance and straight up denialism of the objective factual world.
Conspiracy theories push emotional buttons which becomes an addiction. Like all addictions, a tolerance develops, and then the need for more overrides the previous emotional value that was once gotten out of merely disagreeing with someone you don't like. That's how the radicalization works.
In the 90s, the word "globalism" was a term used by ultra lefty anti-corporate socialist/anarchists to describe the World Bank, the WTO, and UN trade policies--which they disagreed with. This disagreement culminated in the 1999 WTO protest, the "Battle in Seattle" in which police, the Washington State National Guard, and protestors clashed. The protests were about free-trade, environmentalism, union labor, human rights, etc.
Whereas back then, the term was the domain of ultra left wing extremists, it's now a term for their polar opposite, ultra right wing extremists. The difference in usage is that it's much more nebulous as to what the term actually means. Generally speaking, it's sometimes used to identify that which is perceived to threaten American sovereignty, such as the conspiracy theory surrounding "Agenda 21" which in reality is about debt reduction and fair trade in the developing world. Sometimes the term is a code word for "Jew", in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that don't want to sound anti-Semitic. That's the history of the term and the history of the movement against in as short as I can make it without being incorrect.
The issue is that social media works on the older generation who didn't grow up with the cynicism of the internet (mine, I'm 40, was the first internet generation, and we adapted pretty quick to that cynicism) think that just because a meme has a picture of someone they respect on it that they should automatically dislike the thing it tells them to. With the younger generation people who find themselves out of place in the world can easily find groups and communities that will accept anyone. This last point is both good and bad. The bad part is that already radical groups are more than willing to accept new members, and will happily punch all the emotional buttons that the lonely individual needs.
Don't like your job? blame globalism. Don't like a particular politician? They're a globalist. It literally doesn't matter what the word means to most people, they will happily parrot it as long as it A) gives them special information that others don't have and B) provides some sort of excuse of responsibility. All conspiracy theories do this, they all appeal to those two notions to which I am very thankful that I wasn't that lonely/depressed (or perhaps that the best thing out there was a 14.4 kbps modem and I little patience) in high school to be sucked in to the groups--as I was a conspiracy theorist back then.
The problem is, that no matter what side you are on, it's an echo chamber of reinforcement and one-upman ship. Miller at al, (2015) argue this quite convincingly as does Cass Sunstein in his book "Conspiracy Theories and Other bad Ideas." Just putting like minded people in a room with no outside information will "upgrade" their ideas as each not only agrees with the other but also adds to it. Without a countervailing opinion radicalization is the end result. It's why the equal time law that Reagan repealed was both a good and bad idea. It offered both sides of an editorial the chance to say their piece, but it also legislated speech and that's not a great idea.
Conspiracy theories radicalize because not only is the other side dismissed but they are viewed as being part of the problem. If an anti-globalist (modern or old school) hears a pro-globalist they don't just disagree anymore, they think the pro-globalist is part of a problem that needs to be solved. This is why it's very important to deal with this kinds of ideas whenever they pop up.
Comments
Post a Comment