Conspiracy Theory
Conspiracy theory is typically considered a vernacular discourse, one that speaks and thinks outside the oficial institutions of power about power's excess, about the crimes and obscenities hidden from and by power's public face. Critics fault conspiracy theorists for their amateurishness, considering them dabblers in a realm of expert knowledge who try to know what they cannot know, what they should accept on faith. They dismiss conspiracy theorists as autodidacts unschooled in rules of evidence and rational argumentation. They deride conspiracy theorists for their extra-institutional position, their lack of conventional expertise. These critics emphasize as wel the absence of the credentials necessary to speak in what is upheld as the public sphere. A language of infection tends to folow as the critic worries about the health of the public, the vitality of public reason. For critics, the overal unauthorize� character of conspiracy theory signifies the illegitimacy of the theories produced by those who look for and find evidence of conspiracies. They treat co.nspitacy theorists in al their questions and suspicions, accumulations of facts and amassings of evidence, as extremists, deluded denizens of the lunatic fringe so alienated from general society that they are compeled to resort to the most outlandish explanations to make sense of the world and their lives in this world.
Some critics find conspiracy theorists to be so outside the mainstream that they mar or insult true political memory. Accusing those involved in the 9 I 11 truth movement of insulting the police oficers and firefighters who raced into the burning towers of the World Trade Center (a strange, displaced insult that fails to grasp how the alternative explanations of September 11 hardly insult these workers but instead the government who allegedly caused their deaths and now covers its crimes in their heroism),
152
S IX