COVID-19 Conspiracies?
"COVID-19 conspiracies creating a 'public health crisis' in Canada..." reads the headline in a CBC article (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-19-conspiracy-theories-1.5672766).
While the ideas and behaviours in the article are alarming, the media - including in this piece - do their own part in contributing to such dysfunction.
The devaluation of language in the media and popular culture has long been a serious issue. An example is the indiscriminate use of the words 'Nazi' and 'fascist' in contexts where strictly speaking, neither of those words are the correct choice. The result is a numbing or 'shock immunity' that creeps in, leading to an arms race of ever-more extreme terms to achieve the same impact. (or in the case of "Nazi/fascist," simply complete exhaustion because where do you go after that?).
'Conspiracy theory' as used in the CBC article, is on that slope. A conspiracy is a conspiracy only when it is a conspiracy; the word does actually have a meaning. Without a conspiracy behind the theory, it isn't a conspiracy theory. What it often is, if we are going to be transparent about it, is a passive/hidden form of name-calling. The behaviour or belief might be rooted in confusion, sloppiness, thoughtlessness... but it isn't strictly speaking, a conspiracy.
The anti-mask question, is a great example. There are some elements of the debate about mandating masks in public, private, and commercial spaces, that are driven by conspiracy theorists. But a lot of the debate is driven simply by an understandable lack of clarity. When a country as modern and technologically advanced as Holland questions the value of masks, what are people supposed to make of that? This is just a more serious version of the way in which all of us trying to figure out how guilty we should be feeling about a glass of wine when the media report non-stop back-and-forths in the medical community telling us one day wine is good for us and the next day it isn't.
Are the people who continue stubbornly to drink their daily glass of wine conspiracy theorists? If they are, give me the bottle, because rationality has already left the room.
To label everyone questioning an orthodoxy as being a conspiracy theorist does nothing to re-elevate the debate. In fact, it does the opposite.
The CBC article quotes Alison Meek, a history professor at Western University: "People are dying because of these conspiracy theories and we've got to stop them," Meek said. "We've got to somehow figure out how to challenge them."
Any historian of human behaviour can tell you how not to challenge them: demonizing the holders of those theories by calling them things like conspiracy theorists.
The answer to challenging dangerous positions starts with separating conspiracy theories from unfounded beliefs. They are not the same thing. Next, it lies in a complex mess of nudges, facts, kindness, patience, empathy, repetition, and time.
Categorizing humans is a dangerous practice at the best of times, but being sloppy about it while we are trying to elevate the conversation when people's lives are at stake, it is irresponsible. I would like to see more journalists and more media take the time to get past the temptation of click-bait and dive into the messy complexity of all of this.