'Conspiracy Theories' - Who
invented this Crap?:
There are frequent and varied uses of this 'Concept' to challenge and
undermine alternative ways of perceiving and understanding people,
institutions & systems and to explain strange, or otherwise
inexplicable events.
This 'concept', or perhaps it is better described as a 'put down', has
become a generalised way of 'dismissing' anything that challenges
conventional thinking, or provides an alternative perspective on an
unresolved, or inadequately resolved problem. Fear and self interested
are the biggest motivator in using this term, in this way, these days.
I am not sure how genuine the original 'concept' was. There is certainly
a tendency for people to explain things by some means, whenever they
can. When 'learned' theories and explanations prove inadequate (as they
often do - it is their nature), people tend to assume, or develop their
own theories. These can be evidenced based, or flights of fancy. They
are often interesting and can carry some significant element of truth,
even when fed by some measure of paranoia.
It is in the nature of human beings, since they started to 'think', as we
know it, to develop belief systems to explain the unexplained and the
inexplicable. This is how philosophy developed and then science. It is
also how we manage our day-to-day problems, etc. We all establish
'hypotheses' of a kind and test these out and then build up a loose theory of what
is happening and try out in the world. Complex conversation would be
impossible without this verbalised, intuitive process.
Some of these belief systems are seriously 'evidence based' and
quite rigorous, some are clearly not in any way, and some don't even pretend
to be. They are just beliefs of cause and effect - they are 'intuitive
and inform us well about issues, events & coincidence, even if not so well about causation.
So, where did the idea of 'Conspiracy Theory' come from? Does it have
valid roots or, is there a Conspiracy Theory about Conspiracy? Lets check
it out:
It is all a 'conspiracy
theory', many ordinary people will say; having studied the newspapers;
listened to learned politicians and discussed it with their mates down
the pub, or in the supermarket. Professionals are a little more
cautious, having burned their professional fingers more than twice, but
many of them too, will privately suggest the problems are exaggerated.
Dismissing the 'emotional' arguments of people who have been abused, or
badly treated, as
being of the 'conspiratorial' and rather paranoid kind.
Very sensitive of the
professionals (some in mental health), not understanding the slight
level of paranoia that could be evident in someone who has been secretly
'screwed' by a parent, family friend, or raped by a Professional, or
abused, or stolen from by Carer. Even more 'paranoid' and perhaps a little 'manic', as a result of
being dismissed and possibly additionally physically, psychologically,
or intellectually abused, by the next
professional and then; treated for paranoia, or schizophrenia (or both), by the
next (based upon multiple recorded evidence).
No wonder some professionals
can be a little defensive, including the police, who can be accidentally complicit in
abuse, or dismissive and neglectful when it has been disclosed and is
problematic to prove. Look, I am not having a go at all, individual
professionals, but you all know that the system is defensive, and
expends much of its resources, protecting the institutions & its
managers from 'litigation', in the name of protecting the individual.
You largely comply with this, sometimes against your better judgment.
You have little choice, most of the time. Its a tight ship.
Think about the expansive
Policy Documents that you magically have to know by heart, and the
extensive writing up you are required to do. I will just ask you this;
If you work with children, vulnerable adults, or the elderly. What
proportion of your time is taken up with paperwork and administration?
If it is less than 50% you are doing well. Otherwise you are some of the
best paid administrators in the service you provide. Has abuse reduced.
No. It has increased and is more sophisticated. The managerial argument
I constantly here is that society has become more complex - It has;
there are more forms and procedures making it so.
You do take your eyes off
the ball. You are distracted form seeing the person's problem in their
own terms. You do re-write the evidence they give, within prescriptive
formats, designed by the institution, geared to give the impressions of
covering everything in the institution's legal terms. You are
increasingly required to do this as a 'officer of the state', with
accountability to the institution and the Law, and less 'real' focus on
the needs, wishes and 'actual & normal risks' of the individual. It
is all convincing argument, but it is dishonest, we know that. The
balance is all wrong and the wastage now is worse than pre-commercialisation.
This 'protection of
resources of the community' is often the principle required
practice, even where it is clearly against the interests of your client /
patient, as guided by your code of ethics and Government edicts towards
good practice (underwritten by Human Rights Legislation). This, in turn will
increasingly, 'supposedly' protect the society, but at the expense of
individual liberty (especially, as more enlightened Managers' describe
it, if 'they' live in 'social housing'). Wake up professionals, where
is this described in your Social Work, Nursing and Medical Theory, or
your Code of Ethics. Can you see where this is going?
Well, 'sexual abuse' does have
a 'conspiracy' element, identified by international police forces, as
'Child Pornography' and 'Paedophile' networks, or rings. No surprise
then, ordinary people, as well as professionals, can be wrong.
There are Conspiracies. The biggest problem, though, are the 'informal' networks & 'self
protecting' interests
of individual's, within undefined networks, individually and publically,
dismissing the problems as 'minimal', if not exceptional. This is true
of the our institutions also, the comparison is quite fascinating and
possibly significant (No careful, no Conspiracy Theory here).
Survivor Networks
and Individual Survivors of abuse, didn't propose that there is a
'conspiracy'. Defensive professionals and the Abusers themselves (Quite
separately I am sure) coined
this 'conspiracy' idea, to 'dismiss and devalue the disclosures being
made, which had both put a spotlight on Abusers and highlighted (in the
after glow), the incompetence of Service Managers in recognising abuses
the were clearly evident, in the community and within their services.
This is fact, I was there when it happened. I also happened with 'Elder
Abuse'.
Like in
the case of so many individually and collectively reported
injustices; slavery, genocide, commercially induced poverty &
environmental damage, and lots more. It is the defenders of poor
practices who invent and put forward the 'conspiracy theories', or else
'dismiss' the individual reports and disclosures as being the result of
'paranoid', 'Conspiracy Theories'. It is emotionally unattractive to
think of such things and it takes skill and insight to recognise and
separate our the 'paranoia', from the 'reality', of distressed people
disclosing such events.
Acknowledgement of serious &
potentially
litigious, problems, costs institutions and their insurers (where they
can get them). No self respecting, Executive Manager, seeking to make a
name for themselves and develop their career in the
quasi-entrepreneurial development of 'people services', is going to 'risk'
the consequences of acknowledging the following:
"There may be a bigger
problem than we realised, when we put in the Funding Proposal. We are often culpable for shortfalls and
failings, staff have sometime identified where these are but we tended
to ignore this as 'conspiracy theory'; attempts to do less work, by
getting more staff than we needed. We are therefore not geared up to deal
with the real extent of the problems, even if we fully understood them, so we have to be seen as
doing something instead; Writing it all down, adjusting services and needs
to 'fit' resources we have, and covering our backs, sticking our
heads in the sand and sticking arses in the air, so that some
Authoritative Agency can come and kick them". Well, are they?
So, hopefully we have made
it clear. We don't collectively aspire to the 'conspiracy theory' idea,
you do. We aspire to the; "They are all stupidly and selfishly going
about their business, using the same old tried and tested ways that have
always got them what they want, and relying on the relative ignorance
and disbelief of ordinary people and trusting systems to keep them from
being found out as lacking moral fibre". Oh yes - and quoting
'conspiracy theory' if anyone should 'intelligently' suggest that we
have failed in any significant way. The perpetrators of abuse copy this
& are doing the same kind of thing. They have good teachers :-).
The rest of us more
intelligent observers, know it is in the nature of some people, and the
institutions they manage, to defend themselves in this way, without
necessarily a word having to be spoken between them. They sing from the
same hymn sheet and use the media subtly. They work on predictable
models of behaviour, well researched and in 'positive' daily use by
professionals. Describing them as 'conspiracies' suggests more
intelligence and cooperative skills than most of Managers could muster.
The only time people
really 'conspire' is when they get 'greedy' and seek to share and swap
information on their victims, or share to find new ways to rip people
off, or to do the 'big one', which needs lots of people cooperating. What were loose collections of people in
the know, become identifiable as groups. This is their downfall. There
are still individuals doing their own thing in secret, or more openly
under the cover of social masks (working in the caring professions, or
being everybody's friend).
Conspiracy my ass, who
needs a special 'meeting' of conspirators, in what has for centuries been a
largely abusive society with very 'defensive' and relatively ineffectual
institutions. Abusers could be doing any job and have any
role in the community, including my own. They have done and always will. In fact, they often gravitate
to powerful positions. In the worst cases, their front is often
impeccable in many respects. They work hard to cover their real
character, operating individually, bringing the innocent along with
them, by clever persuasion and slight of hand, not by discussing their
real intentions amongst people who may let things slip.
The conspiracy argument is a
bad joke; used by those who carry a measure of the guilt, or fear, for
active participation, or of culpable neglect in doing their duty, having
seen some evidence and ignored it; Wishing to absolve themselves of
responsibility for not recognising, or disclosing 'any' abuses of power,
resources, or individuals that have been identified. It is in human
nature, as cooperating groups and requires no thought, or word to
another. It is almost necessary part of 'institutions' and why they must
be regularly 'checked' by external bodies.
When any abuse, of any kind,
is identified by someone with insight, or hindsight, it is their
responsibility to disclose and to persist in presenting any available
evidence, or highlighting the evidence that has been miss-interpreted,
until the the facts and risks are fully assessed and made public. At
that point, all responsible practitioners should consider that evidence
and compare it with what evidence they have. They should then proceed
with required correction, until the culprit(s), who are instigating
abuse, are appropriately taken to task .
See also:
Paranoia &
Conspiracy
Authors Note:
Conspiring takes up to much effort, requires dynamic organisation
and quite sophisticated thinking. It is unlikely to ever happen
in health and social care. MOST OF WHAT I DESCRIBE ABOVE IS COCK
UPS AND SELF DECEPTION. The consequences are the progressive result of too many
promises with too little insight and little realistic commitment, matched by
allocating resources to protect the institution and the 'body professional', at
the expense of the Service User, in the pretence that it in the Service Users
best interests CRAP, CRAP CRAP - Conspiracy, my arse - blind ignorance is more
like it. :-) |
NOTE:
This Document is still at some stage of
development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its
logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see
its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary.
I thank you, in advance, for any
contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in
any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is
also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and
individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate
activities.
Copyright:
Although you will see very few reference
to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to
the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and
clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this
rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading.
If any content of this document
describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where,
(prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I
acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for
financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to
retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have
made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a
past influences.
Other than this, I invite you to share
and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of
individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for
constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing.
Should you wish to use any material
presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web
site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current
Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory
(unless stated otherwise).
This 'Reading Date' may be an important
part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will
be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those
following up on such a reference at a later date.
Thank you for your cooperation.
TRC. eMail:
terry.couchman@visitweb.org
|
