What do you think?
Rate this book
American Conspiracy Theories
We are living in an age of conspiracy theories, whether it's enduring, widely held beliefs such as government involvement in the Kennedy assassination or alien activity at Roswell, fears of a powerful infiltrating group such as the Illuminati, Jews, Catholics, or communists, or modern fringe movements of varying popularity such as birtherism and trutherism. What is it in American culture that makes conspiracy theories proliferate? Who is targeted, and why? Are we in the heyday of the conspiracy theory, or is it in decline?
Though there is significant scholarly literature on the topic in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and more, American Conspiracy Theories is the first to use broad, long-term empirical data to analyze this popular American tendency. Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent draw on three sources of original 120,000 letters to the editor of the New York Times and Chicago Tribune from between 1890 and 2010; a two-wave survey from before and after the 2012 presidential election; and discussions of conspiracy theories culled from online news sources, blogs, and other Web sites, also from before and after the election. Through these sources, they are able to address crucial questions, such as similarities and differences in the nature of conspiracy theories over time, the role of the Internet and communications technologies in spreading modern conspiracy theories, and whether politics, economics, media, war, or other factors are most important in popularizing conspiratorial beliefs.
Ultimately, they conclude that power asymmetries, both foreign and domestic, are the main drivers behind conspiracy theories, and that those at the bottom of power hierarchies have a strategic interest in blaming those at the top-in other words, "conspiracy theories are for losers." But these "losers" can end up having tremendous influence on the course of history, and American Conspiracy Theories is an unprecedented examination of one of the defining features of American political life.
Though there is significant scholarly literature on the topic in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and more, American Conspiracy Theories is the first to use broad, long-term empirical data to analyze this popular American tendency. Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent draw on three sources of original 120,000 letters to the editor of the New York Times and Chicago Tribune from between 1890 and 2010; a two-wave survey from before and after the 2012 presidential election; and discussions of conspiracy theories culled from online news sources, blogs, and other Web sites, also from before and after the election. Through these sources, they are able to address crucial questions, such as similarities and differences in the nature of conspiracy theories over time, the role of the Internet and communications technologies in spreading modern conspiracy theories, and whether politics, economics, media, war, or other factors are most important in popularizing conspiratorial beliefs.
Ultimately, they conclude that power asymmetries, both foreign and domestic, are the main drivers behind conspiracy theories, and that those at the bottom of power hierarchies have a strategic interest in blaming those at the top-in other words, "conspiracy theories are for losers." But these "losers" can end up having tremendous influence on the course of history, and American Conspiracy Theories is an unprecedented examination of one of the defining features of American political life.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 2014
7 people are currently reading
506 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
December 2, 2018
I'm all for tamping down narratives of conspiracy takeover, but this book seems fundamentally flawed in some pretty basic ways. The focus on New York Times editorials seems like an easy way to get a data set, but the authors make a poor case for why--in a historical conspiracy landscape of zines, USENET groups, and dark web forums--we should place so much emphasis on the most mainstream of imaginable sources.
Beyond that, the authors fail to distinguish between "conspiracy" and "propaganda"--creating a world where birtherism and the Declaration of Independence seem to fall into the same category. They prioritize the political parties in power in their analysis, but they almost wholly ignore issues like racism and racial conflict. I understand the impulse to de-hype the sometimes over-the-top rhetoric about conspiracy, but this attempt leaves far too many gaps to be of any pragmatic value.
Beyond that, the authors fail to distinguish between "conspiracy" and "propaganda"--creating a world where birtherism and the Declaration of Independence seem to fall into the same category. They prioritize the political parties in power in their analysis, but they almost wholly ignore issues like racism and racial conflict. I understand the impulse to de-hype the sometimes over-the-top rhetoric about conspiracy, but this attempt leaves far too many gaps to be of any pragmatic value.
November 12, 2017
A must read for those studying the evolution of conspiracist perception and presence in American history. Uscinski and Parent do an excellent job of using common language in order to convey their points, as well as analyzing the relation between the evolution of political platforms and their relation to the subjects of conspiracist phenomena.
October 22, 2024
Perhaps a bit too glib and breezy, a bit too satisfied with itself (at least the writing can come off as more noticeably annoying in the audiobook format), while making quite a few assumptions, that one might want to argue with, but still this is one of the first and best political science treatments of the phenomenon of conspiracy theories.
Their central argument - 'conspiracy theories are for losers', i.e., that conspiracy theories are a consequence of relative changes in the power dynamics and serve as a warning system/crutch for groups out of power - can be compelling, but also seems rather reductive: it has a hard time explaining the instances (even within the book's own admittedly US-centric scope) when the powerful (successfully) spread conspiracy theories (for their own goals), or when conspiracy theories serve other purposes (ideological, identity/community formation, in-group policing, and so on).
Their central finding of conspiracy theories being an equal preoccupation of both Republicans and Democrats is also striking: at once it is a well-made plea for recognition, that anyone and everyone, of all political persuasion, is capable of resorting to conspiracy talk. But at the same time, the argument seems strangely dated and a bit overblown, especially once they wheel out their examples, where unhinged racist birtherism is placed on the same conceptual plane as liberal critiques of corporate power.
Nowadays, 'the fossil fuel industry is fighting efforts to tackle climate change' vs 'secret rings of pedophiles control the US government' might both be conspiracy theories deployed by competing political parties, but only the first one has a basis in reality. Strictly speaking, they might both qualify as conspiracy theories per their definition, but they are not the same - or in other words, when two people do the same thing, it might still not amount to the same thing.
3,5/5*
Their central argument - 'conspiracy theories are for losers', i.e., that conspiracy theories are a consequence of relative changes in the power dynamics and serve as a warning system/crutch for groups out of power - can be compelling, but also seems rather reductive: it has a hard time explaining the instances (even within the book's own admittedly US-centric scope) when the powerful (successfully) spread conspiracy theories (for their own goals), or when conspiracy theories serve other purposes (ideological, identity/community formation, in-group policing, and so on).
Their central finding of conspiracy theories being an equal preoccupation of both Republicans and Democrats is also striking: at once it is a well-made plea for recognition, that anyone and everyone, of all political persuasion, is capable of resorting to conspiracy talk. But at the same time, the argument seems strangely dated and a bit overblown, especially once they wheel out their examples, where unhinged racist birtherism is placed on the same conceptual plane as liberal critiques of corporate power.
Nowadays, 'the fossil fuel industry is fighting efforts to tackle climate change' vs 'secret rings of pedophiles control the US government' might both be conspiracy theories deployed by competing political parties, but only the first one has a basis in reality. Strictly speaking, they might both qualify as conspiracy theories per their definition, but they are not the same - or in other words, when two people do the same thing, it might still not amount to the same thing.
3,5/5*
June 2, 2020
The idea sounds like a good one when you first hear it--treat conspiracy theories as a phenomenon separate from their contents. When do they proliferate? Who tends to believe them? How do they align with the political spectrum? Is there an objective way to evaluate them? Etc.
There are useful things to say in this context but in the end, like many results in the social sciences, it's never quite convincing. I want to say "not as convincing as a good conspiracy theory," for like a short story, a good one is a work of art. It's not an accident that they are often made into movies: e.g. Capricorn One, JFK, The Manchurian Candidate, or The Parallax View.
And though the authors make a case for letters to the editor of the Times as suitable data, I wonder if the true conspiracy theory consumer wouldn't rather read The National Enquirer.
One of the tests for evaluating a theory is to ask who benefits from the conspiracy. The conclusion that neither the left nor the right are more prone to conspiracy theories is the kind of result that benefits the authors of this book in that it makes them sound more objective in the end. And it's not the kind of result you'll see in ads for the book because it would scare away the readership hoping to have their beliefs confirmed.
2.5 stars rounded up to 3 so I sound more objective.
There are useful things to say in this context but in the end, like many results in the social sciences, it's never quite convincing. I want to say "not as convincing as a good conspiracy theory," for like a short story, a good one is a work of art. It's not an accident that they are often made into movies: e.g. Capricorn One, JFK, The Manchurian Candidate, or The Parallax View.
And though the authors make a case for letters to the editor of the Times as suitable data, I wonder if the true conspiracy theory consumer wouldn't rather read The National Enquirer.
One of the tests for evaluating a theory is to ask who benefits from the conspiracy. The conclusion that neither the left nor the right are more prone to conspiracy theories is the kind of result that benefits the authors of this book in that it makes them sound more objective in the end. And it's not the kind of result you'll see in ads for the book because it would scare away the readership hoping to have their beliefs confirmed.
2.5 stars rounded up to 3 so I sound more objective.
April 27, 2021
Loved this book! It was like a condensed academic research paper, which I wasn’t expecting but really enjoyed.
The book explores conspiracy theory beliefs. It doesn’t confirm nor refute any conspiracy theories. It just studies what they are, who typically believes them and why they believe them.
The book points out that most Americans believe 1-2 conspiracy theories which I thought was interesting. We think our conspiracy theories are valid while we quickly discount those of others.
I also found it interesting that the evidence showed that both political parties are equally prone to believe in conspiracies theories. These theories are a response to loss of power and vulnerability. So, in politics, the party out of power is more likely to believe conspiracy theories (Democrat’s with 9/11 conspiracies in the early 2000’s and Trump colluding with Russia in 2016/ Republicans with Obama not being a US citizen ten years ago and widespread voter fraud more recently).
May not be a book for everyone, but I really enjoyed it.
The book explores conspiracy theory beliefs. It doesn’t confirm nor refute any conspiracy theories. It just studies what they are, who typically believes them and why they believe them.
The book points out that most Americans believe 1-2 conspiracy theories which I thought was interesting. We think our conspiracy theories are valid while we quickly discount those of others.
I also found it interesting that the evidence showed that both political parties are equally prone to believe in conspiracies theories. These theories are a response to loss of power and vulnerability. So, in politics, the party out of power is more likely to believe conspiracy theories (Democrat’s with 9/11 conspiracies in the early 2000’s and Trump colluding with Russia in 2016/ Republicans with Obama not being a US citizen ten years ago and widespread voter fraud more recently).
May not be a book for everyone, but I really enjoyed it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 25, 2018
This is the best book on belief in conspiracy theories that I’ve read. My only gripe was with the rationale behind the data set employed as evidence base (letters to the editor for a newspaper), even if the work was empirically thorough. Recommended
April 27, 2020
Amerika Birleşik Devletleri gündemini meşgul eden komplo teorileri üzerine ilginç bir kitap. Aslında geniş kapsamlı bir çalışmanın detaylarını konunun kuramsal temelleriyle zenginleştirerek aktarıyor yazarlar.
Joseph Uscinski ve Joseph Parent 1890-2010 arasında iki farklı siyasi kanadı temsil edebilecek iki gazetenin editörlerine gönderilen 100 binin üzerinde mektubu detaylı bir şekilde incelemişler. Bu sistematik çalışma sayesinde Amerikan kamuoyunda dillendirilen komplo teorileriyle ilgili temsili bir örnek elde eden araştırmacılar zaman içinde komplo teorilerinin değişiminden farklı yerel parametrelerin komplo düşüncesine yansımalarına kadar çok değişik boyutlarda çıkarımlar yapma şansı bulmuşlar.
Komplo teorilerinin karakteristikleri, bunları yaygınlaştıran psikolojik etmenler ile kalıcı hale getiren sosyolojik koşulları çok farklı açılardan ele alan güzel bir kitap olmuş. Bu alanın meraklıları için çok güzel bir kaynak.
Joseph Uscinski ve Joseph Parent 1890-2010 arasında iki farklı siyasi kanadı temsil edebilecek iki gazetenin editörlerine gönderilen 100 binin üzerinde mektubu detaylı bir şekilde incelemişler. Bu sistematik çalışma sayesinde Amerikan kamuoyunda dillendirilen komplo teorileriyle ilgili temsili bir örnek elde eden araştırmacılar zaman içinde komplo teorilerinin değişiminden farklı yerel parametrelerin komplo düşüncesine yansımalarına kadar çok değişik boyutlarda çıkarımlar yapma şansı bulmuşlar.
Komplo teorilerinin karakteristikleri, bunları yaygınlaştıran psikolojik etmenler ile kalıcı hale getiren sosyolojik koşulları çok farklı açılardan ele alan güzel bir kitap olmuş. Bu alanın meraklıları için çok güzel bir kaynak.
December 20, 2022
Kirjan lähtökohtana on tutkimus, jossa on analysoitu yli 100000 salaliittoja käsittelevää lukijakirjettä vuosien 1890 ja 2010 välillä. Peruslöydös on, että salaliittouskomusten määrä ei kirjeissä merkittävästi muutu, vaan salaliittouskomuksia on aineistossa tasaisesti vuosikymmenestä toiseen. On hiukan harmillista, että kirjeitä analysoidaan suurelta osin kvantitatiivisesti, myös tarkempi sisältöanalyysi olisi ollut kiinnostava. Lähteiden käyttö on osittain horjuvaa, tärkeitä argumentteja perustellaan uutissivustojen lyhyillä artikkeleilla ja joskus lähde ei vastaa viitettä. Kokonaisuutena kuitenkin kiinnostava katsaus salaliittoteorioihin.
July 26, 2023
2.5 stars
This is a social science book that tries to examine how prevalent and impactful conspiracy theories have been in U.S. history. Much of Uscinki and Parent's data set is based on NY Times letters to the editor section from that paper's inception to the period of the book's release. Thus, the work is tied to a fairly flimsy data source to place into their reductionist categories. I would have appreciated more of a historical and cultural analysis to accompany the data. The book tried to explain social human behavior in a too simplistic framework.
This is a social science book that tries to examine how prevalent and impactful conspiracy theories have been in U.S. history. Much of Uscinki and Parent's data set is based on NY Times letters to the editor section from that paper's inception to the period of the book's release. Thus, the work is tied to a fairly flimsy data source to place into their reductionist categories. I would have appreciated more of a historical and cultural analysis to accompany the data. The book tried to explain social human behavior in a too simplistic framework.
August 9, 2020
I quit this one partway through.
For starters, it was published in 2014. That obviously isn't the author's fault, but there have been a fewww significant developments in American conspiracism since then. So it feels incomplete.
More importantly, I felt like the book's reasoning leaned too heavily on untestable just-so stories. After saying "you can't just...", or "but what about..." several times a chapter, I kinda lost hope that it was going to add up to a persuasive case in the end.
For starters, it was published in 2014. That obviously isn't the author's fault, but there have been a fewww significant developments in American conspiracism since then. So it feels incomplete.
More importantly, I felt like the book's reasoning leaned too heavily on untestable just-so stories. After saying "you can't just...", or "but what about..." several times a chapter, I kinda lost hope that it was going to add up to a persuasive case in the end.
January 5, 2022
An interesting and breezy read, but I felt there were some places glossed over and some important rebuttals ignored or minimized. I liked the sections that dissect the approach and how to research conspiracy theories and theorists.
July 19, 2020
A study on the psychology of conspiracy theories.
Fascinating!
Fascinating!
February 19, 2022
Interesting book and it gives you an objective opinion about past American Conspiracies. I would recommend reading.
June 9, 2023
Wry interesting. Wish this was update to reflect current events
September 24, 2021
This book provides an easy to read overview of conspiracy theories and how their prevalence is related to political power. Their argument is that the politically powerful do not need conspiracies as much as the politically weak because the weak are concerned about their vulnerability and threatened position. This can explain why conspiracies alternate with political power, communist plots may see seem scary if the democrats hold office, business conspiracies will appear if republicans hold power. Their most interesting claim is that democrats and republicans are equally conspiratorial and that party elites are not very influential at propagating conspiracies.
While this argument in practice is sometimes correct in my opinion, the rise of President Trump has highlighted an integral feature of populists which contradicts Usinski and Parent's claims. Populists once in office will spread conspiracies extensively as they reject other political actors claims as against the will of the people and instead attack institutions that threaten their power. This can be seen in Venezuela, Hungary and now America despite the Republicans control of Congress and the Presidency from 2016 to 2018.
It may be true that conspiracies about the legitimacy of elections follow the distribution of power but other conspiracies like pizza gate, Qanon and fears of world communism seem to come from elsewhere. Recent research has indeed found evidence that in America right wing citizens are more conspiratorial than their left wing counterparts perhaps explaining the prevalence of conspiracy theories even when the Republican party held control of the federal government.
While this argument in practice is sometimes correct in my opinion, the rise of President Trump has highlighted an integral feature of populists which contradicts Usinski and Parent's claims. Populists once in office will spread conspiracies extensively as they reject other political actors claims as against the will of the people and instead attack institutions that threaten their power. This can be seen in Venezuela, Hungary and now America despite the Republicans control of Congress and the Presidency from 2016 to 2018.
It may be true that conspiracies about the legitimacy of elections follow the distribution of power but other conspiracies like pizza gate, Qanon and fears of world communism seem to come from elsewhere. Recent research has indeed found evidence that in America right wing citizens are more conspiratorial than their left wing counterparts perhaps explaining the prevalence of conspiracy theories even when the Republican party held control of the federal government.
January 11, 2015
Uscinski and Parent make the case that conspiracy theories are "essentially alarm systems and coping mechanisms to help deal with threats." P131
Exhaustively researched and documented and well laid out. This works helps the reader to understand who would be more prone to conpspirital thinking and why some conspiracy theories take hold and some dont. The answers are grounded in data and surprising.
If you have any interest in the subject here would be a good place to start.
Exhaustively researched and documented and well laid out. This works helps the reader to understand who would be more prone to conpspirital thinking and why some conspiracy theories take hold and some dont. The answers are grounded in data and surprising.
If you have any interest in the subject here would be a good place to start.
October 22, 2015
A useful contribution to the literature.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews