The Surprising Origins of the “Conspiracy Theorist” Label (text version)
And other dissident descriptors
Who doesn’t love a good conspiracy theory? Whether they’re true or not there’s something empowering about having "forbidden" knowledge, holding a secret that those who are conspiring don’t know you have. Or perhaps conspiracies make our lives feel more exciting than they are—a yearning for the feeling of excitement tainted by too many action movies.
There are a number of psychological explanations for why people are attracted to conspiracy theories. For example, we as humans crave to understand things we don’t know–we love certainty, ambiguity is our enemy, especially when it comes to the big stuff. It’s the reason religion exists, why we have scientists and engineers—oh and let’s not forget about pesky know-it-alls who started all this thinking nonsense to begin with, the philosophers. No, not that thing from that movie with the wizards and the cubby hole under the stairs, I’m talking about the thinkers, the thoughtful ones—the ones who at certain points in history have been killed for speaking against the status quo. There are also biases and psychological comfort, social identity reasons, a sense of belonging, confirmation bias and distrust in authority. I’m sure there are many other reasons as humans we can get complicated (oftentimes through our own doing).
There are of course some theories that turned out to be true and there are those that will never be true no matter how hard their proponents try to wish them into being. We’re not here to argue the truthfulness of specific theories in this article, no, we’re here to discuss the history of conspiracy theories. Where did they originate? What were conspiracy theories (or theorists) called before the term came into existence? Let’s just dive in!
First I suppose it would be prudent to start with a definition of what a “conspiracy theorist” is. I could just whip out a Merriam-Webster, but that’s a bit boring, a bit played out, isn’t it? Let’s instead do some juxtapositioning. If you asked a self-confessed “conspiracy theorist” how they view themselves, or how do they define themselves, what do you think they would answer with?
Well for one thing I don’t think they would refer to themselves as a conspiracy theorist—more likely they would use terms such as “skeptic” and “critical thinking” maybe even “fact finder” when describing what they are, from their perspective. They would view themselves as someone who is distrustful of the government and don’t take things the government does at face value.
Even when presented with “evidence” they will be prone to remain skeptical of any government narratives. It’s not just limited to governments, their skepticism would extend to other entities such as corporations and so on. From their point of view they are fighting for truth, justice and will always back David if paired up with Goliath in a fight. The little guy should win.
Here are some other terms they may label themselves with:
Truth Seekers
Independent Researchers
Whistleblowers
So then, if “government” was a person, how do you think they would view “conspiracy theorists”? As you can imagine it’s likely they wouldn’t see the conspiracy theorist in a favourable light, given their skepticism of government and all. The language the government use would be more along the lines of, “misinformation spreader”. They would see them as a potential threat to “public order” and “societal trust” and believe their views to have been “debunked” or against the established consensus.
Here are some terms the “government” may use as reference:
Fringe Theorists
Denialists
And of course we should reiterate the contempory original—Conspiracy Theorist
Where did the term even come from? Why was it created to begin with? Is it effective at its purpose? What terms predate “conspiracy theory I theorist”? How were they used and in what contexts?
Where The Term Came From
Broken down we have
{conspiracy} {theory}
Conspiracy {English} → conspire {English} → conspirare {Latin} → conspiratio {Latin}
What's it all mean? conspiratio means “blowing” or “breathing together” whereby “con-” means “with, together” and “-spirare” is “to breathe”—spirit derives from spirare. Conspire originates from the 14th century and is generally associated with a negative meaning—especially in the modern era. On the flip side we have “inspire”—though I don't think many people consider this word automatically when talking about conspire. At least I didn't although it makes sense.
Why Though?
There is a common misconception that the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) were the ones who originally coined the term, “conspiracy theory”. Ironically, this in itself is a conspiracy theory! I’m sure the CIA get a big kick out of this and I'm almost certain it's an ongoing joke and included in their day-one training materials. The story goes that after JFK was killed. the CIA invented the term “conspiracy theory” in order to give less credence to people valiantly discussing how he died. It’s simply not true, as we discussed earlier the term has some pretty old roots. I’m not sure where this particular theory originated, however estimates online speculate it would have been during the 1980s or 1990s. The claim is also easy to debunk. All you have to do is fire up Google Books, search for the term “conspiracy theory” with the most liberal date settings applied and voila! Here’s one I prepared earlier down below.
little further
keep going
almost there
As you can see, the earliest entry was from 1832. A few years prior to the JFK assassination.
To make things a little “simpler” and for the sake of brevity we can refer to the overarching concept of conspiracy theorists as people with dissenting beliefs—which, essentially is what they are. “Dissenters” have existed throughout history and if it wasn’t for them, many of the societal advancements, revolutionary ideas, and pivotal changes we take for granted may never have occurred.
These were what helped us challenge ourselves to rethink, evolve and grow. Dissenting beliefs are those which go against the established norm. A norm is not a static thing, it’s something that evolves over time. It’s also not necessarily 100% “correct” or morally right—in fact it rarely is (100%). It simply means what is accepted by the group as the status quo is the norm. There are many elements to this. One example of how norms are not static might be workplace attire. The norm in this day and age is much less formal than it was say 50 years ago. Obviously this depends on the industry and the job but overall the expectations on employees are much more relaxed these days. It takes time for these changes to occur and it all begins with one dissenter.
Not all changes are for the better—some afford us more convenience or other benefits and as with anything that changes, there is a cost or at the very least some counter effect that isn’t always immediately obvious. The point is that we can appreciate what a norm is—think of it as an established baseline for society.
Is It Effective?
Before we can really ask ourselves this question we should come to a consensus about a definition. Because times, they are a changin’, or have changed, or something—gimme a break, okay? It’s late. The point is, we are contemporary theorists in a contemporary world. Don't worry I'll do the consensusing so you just sit there on your pretty little behind, I got this. One thing we can probably credit the CIA with (or not—who knows, I could be creating a conspiracy now right before your very eyes!) is how we view and define the term in this wacky ol’ contemporary world we live in. At the very least, the CIA (and no doubt others with similar job titles) haven't exactly dissuaded people from spreading the term in such negative ways. What am I talking about? Well I think we can all agree (all except that dissenter—don't think I don't see you there, just make you hit that ‘like’ button on your way out and a restack wouldn’t hurt either!) that the term conspiracy theorist—or more accurately, the people who get slapped with the label, get the very raw end of the stick. A bum rap. It’s almost as though the moment someone has this label attached to them, they are branded like cattle. Shunned. Excommunicated from the mainstream. Seemingly no one will listen to them or take anything they say seriously any longer. To answer the question—yes I think it does a pretty bloody good job, it serves its contemporary masters—oh, umm, that is to say its purpose well. What purpose again? I think I missed it. The purpose of painting someone into a Kafkaesque corner whereby societal doubt and mistrust is maximised. It’s used to cast doubt on individuals as well as groups and to discredit—tainting everything they say until the end of time. At least that’s the plan. Seemingly anyone who questions or goes against mainstream narratives or has the cojones to propose alternative explanations to the “official” stories are in turn labeled conspiracy theorists by the very people they speak against—how very beautifully ironically poetic, isn’t it? The label comes before any refutations—the cart is pulling the horse. Yes. I do believe it’s quite effective at its purpose—just for the record. Damn heretics.
We Weren't All Conspiracy Nuts
Once upon a time, the term conspiracy theorist didn’t exist Even though the terms may have been different, the intent behind the meaning was essentially the same. The dissidents, the feather rufflers, the critical thinkers. What then were they referred to as? I already gave you one in the previous section, let’s list a few:
heretic
speculator
radical
Heretic, hailing from around the 12th century, has close ties to religion—specifically Catholicism. Branching out from its French and Latin roots (and Greek / Welsh) refers to someone who doesn’t strictly believe what an established doctrine states. It’s not that they are wholly against the entire belief system or school of thought, rather they may have a specific bone to pick—maybe a verse here or there from the holy book. For example, if someone decided one day to interpret sections of the bible differently than what the established interpretation was, you would have been considered a heretic. There were (are?) varying degrees of heresy. This depends on how strict the interpretations and how established the rules and definitions for relevant sections or doctrines. A person may be “guilty” of approaching heresy. I suppose this would have been used as a warning for any young whipper snappers getting any funny ideas about stirring the pot of holy water. Breaching into full-blown heresy isn’t recommended if you want to keep your place in the church. You see it is regarded as quite the sin as the virtue of Christian faith is being actively destroyed through heresy. You would likely be excommunicated. After this article I will be well-equipped to rewatch Father Ted again and understand the humour to an even greater degree.
Spectacles? Spectral spirit? Spanking? Spandex? No, speculator—one who speculates. Somebody who contemplates and forms theories, observes, conjectures and spies. The modern world connects these folks with money. They speculate on bubbles, crashes, stock prices and so on. Though anyone can make a speculation—it’s basically making a prediction about something prior to knowing all the facts. I believe that for the most part speculating with any seriousness and to any great detail is a fool’s errand. No one can predict the future with any real accuracy, and anyone claiming to be able to do so is after your money or the money of those around you. “Predictions” that happen to align with reality are a mix of coincidence, conformation bias and ignoring all the red flags you were presented with. Think of a speculator as the person trying to sway your mind toward heresy of reality itself. If you fall for the speculators ruse you have become a heretic to yourself
Radical, dude! Uh uh, different radical. Radical can basically be a synonym for extreme. If we think about anything that exists on a spectrum, the radicals would occupy either end. The spectrum of every opinion, political or otherwise would have radicals populating the extreme left and extreme right of the spectrum, with most others (think status quo) occupying the center.
Radicals favour extremes—whether it’s extreme changes to policies or legislation, or whether it’s just extremes views on certain subjects. If it is considered to be far enough from the norm, you may just be considered a “radical”. Although it is subjective, when you encounter someone with a radical viewpoint, you’ll know it when you see it.
Hopefully you enjoyed this brief history about the term conspiracy theorist / theory. I at least enjoyed reading about it!
That's it for now, as always, good luck, stay safe and be well!