Critical Literacy and the Conspiratorial Mind

The conspiracy theorist and the critically literate have something in common. They also have considerable differences, but let's start with the commonalities. Our environment is populated by signs and symbols, ranging from the obvious to the esoteric. There are deep connections between phenomena and events that aren't immediately clear; it may take several decades of careful study and scrutiny to find these connections and to satisfactorily explain them. The conspiracy theorist sees these connections. All of them - everywhere! Everything is connected somehow for the conspiracy theorist. We may wave the conspiracy theorist off as paranoid or delusional; almost always, this is the case. But the conspiratorial mind is just like any other mind: hungry for knowledge, hungry to know how the world works and to know its place in that world, however dark it may be.

The critically literate mind looks for connections too, because the connections between phenomena and events are not always clear. The critically literate mind seeks to break down the surface structure of facts, the events and phenomena as they present themselves, and dig deeper to find those connections that are often hidden beneath appearances. Empirical enquiry is the purpose of the mind; the mind only exists so that it may know. It's evolved that way. But where the conspiratorial mind sees causation, the critically literate mind understands correlation and the significant gap that exists between the two. The critically literate mind knows and can name the fallacies: post hoc ergo propter hoc; cum hoc ergo propter hoc. The critically literate mind also knows what empirical means. The burgeoning mind will take a moment to look the word up if it's not sure.

Being able to read and write is not empowering by itself, it actually makes one vulnerable. Basic literacy is a gateway to new ideas - but there is no guarantee that the ideas one comes across (especially in the formative years) are any good. Basic literacy makes us vulnerable to opinion and propaganda, and in the Internet age there is an abundance of both. The conspiratorial mind is a threat - as is the religiously zealous mind - but it, too, is vulnerable. Or, rather, it was vulnerable, but is now too late to save. Religious and conspiratorial mania (both related) evince the broad vulnerability of an open mind, particularly when it first starts to open and cannot withstand the indoctrination of those already equipped with language.

I say an open mind makes us vulnerable, and language is the tool which opens the mind, because it must be. Understanding the world requires that we be sensitive to it, as well as to the other human beings with whom we cohabit that world. The necessity of language, as a tool, is predicated on the existence of other minds; there would be no point in talking if there was no one to talk to. Language is needed to share the world with others, to make it ours. Language changes the world; it changes the world because it changes the perception of the world, and it changes the way in which it is shared by like-minded cohabiting individuals and groups. But language is not the world; it is, at best, an approximation, an abstract reorganisation, of the world. The world that language represents, therefore, is contestable.

It is in the world that language represents that the connections between disparate phenomena and events are made; it's where connections can be made, because language is essentially a metaphorical laboratory where ideas can be tested independently of physical facts. A "hypothesis," in the scientific sense, is simply that: its an idea to be tested. A critically literate mind, it is important to point out, also understands the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory." We hypothesise all the time; it isn't all that different to having an opinion. But hypothesising is not enough, and a hypothesis needn't be respected intellectually if it is not offered up for testing. The conspiratorial mind is filled with hypotheses - although we should call it speculation - but the laboratory is furnished with unsuitable instruments with which to conduct the proper experimentations of thought that are necessary to test them. The basic set of tools may certainly look suitable, everything may be in its place, but the quality of the tools is highly questionable. The tools may even be dangerous to handle.

Poor language skills are a source of major conceptual error, errors of expression and errors of logic. Basic literacy, the ability to read and write, comes with no guarantee of articulate expression or a grasp of logical relations. Logic and expression are related; if you can't articulate the logical relations of two conceptual objects then you can't be said to understand their relationship. There may be objections to this claim, but it should be remembered that language is a communicative tool: language represents the world, but this function is predicated on the existence of other minds with whom it is necessary to communicate.

Language requires other people for it to be meaningful, but language also makes us vulnerable to other people. The ability to analyse language, to understand grammar, rhetoric, and logic at the very least, is necessary to inoculate us against the contagion of bad thinking that is always incubating in the minds of others. The appearance of the right tools does not equate to a functioning laboratory - the tools themselves must be tested. That is the only way we can know if the language-user employing them is rigorous enough of mind to test their own hypotheses, let alone anyone else's. The conspiratorial mind is conducting experiments with inferior instruments, resulting in dramatic errors. It is the job of the critically literate mind to conduct its experiments in a rigorous fashion, in a way that is repeatable by other critically literate minds.