Labelling conspiracy theorists as irrational or dangerous can actually intensify polarisation. By ridiculing or excluding people, society can drive them towards like-minded individuals and create echo chambers. A more nuanced approach is needed, particularly among professionals who work with distrustful members of the public. This is the conclusion of research by philosopher Julia Duetz.
Conspiracy theories cannot all be tarred with the same brush
In the media, politics and sometimes academia, conspiracy theories are often lumped together. They are portrayed as irrational and dangerous ideas, while those who believe in them are regarded as naïve or mentally unstable. As a result, the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ has increasingly become a term of abuse.
In her research, Duetz concludes that this general perception is overly simplistic. ‘Conspiracy theories vary enormously: some are dangerous, others harmless, and some even turn out to be true,’ she says.
There were two main reasons for undertaking the research. The more Duetz explored the subject, the less convincing she found the prevailing alarmist narrative. In addition, her collaboration with the police, local authorities, the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration and the Public Prosecution Service brought her into direct contact with the practical realities of conspiracy thinking. These experiences showed that the reality behind conspiracy beliefs is often more nuanced than the picture presented in the media.
Stigmatisation can reinforce conspiracy beliefs
‘When a neighbour or colleague claims that a secret network controls the world, people may be inclined to dismiss them outright as “mad” or a “wappie” [a Dutch derogatory term for someone regarded as a conspiracy theorist or eccentric]. Yet that reaction can actually make the problem worse,’ says Duetz.
She continues: ‘The more strongly someone is condemned for their beliefs, the more likely they are to cling to them. This increases the distance between different groups and makes it increasingly difficult to have a constructive conversation.
‘People who are constantly ridiculed or condemned may also withdraw from public debate. They are then more likely to seek out like-minded individuals, among whom their beliefs are less likely to be challenged.
‘In this way, an echo chamber is created from the outside: not only through the beliefs of those involved, but also because others exclude them.’
Faulty reasoning is not unique to conspiracy theorists
One important conclusion is that conspiracy thinking cannot be considered separately from broader patterns of human thought. Duetz explains: ‘Behaviours often attributed to conspiracy theorists, such as dogmatically clinging to an idea, rejecting contradictory evidence or blindly following a guru, can also be found elsewhere in society. These characteristics are therefore not exclusive to people who believe in conspiracy theories.’
According to Duetz, this does not mean that all conspiracy theories are harmless or that they should not be criticised. Rather, it is important to distinguish between different beliefs and assess the risks carefully.
She therefore advocates an approach that allows differences to exist and embraces democratic pluralism. This means that people with different views should be able to coexist without necessarily having to agree with one another.
Professionals must keep talking to people with opposing views
Duetz’s research is relevant to the wider public, but it is particularly important for people who encounter conspiracy theorists in a professional capacity. These include police officers, local authority staff, employees of the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration, the Public Prosecution Service and the prison service, as well as journalists.
Duetz makes an important qualification regarding members of the public: ‘They are not obliged to build bridges with everyone who holds different views. The situation may be different for professionals, because their work brings them into contact with people from a wide range of backgrounds and with different beliefs.’
For this reason, Duetz has delivered presentations to various professional groups. She has also worked with the police to produce a guide to the so-called autonomous citizens’ movement.
‘My aim is to help professionals maintain contact with distrustful members of the public without inadvertently fuelling that distrust,’ says Duetz.
Political confrontation shows how dialogue can break down
Duetz points to an incident in 2022 as an example of the consequences of conspiracy rhetoric in public debate. The entire Dutch cabinet left the House of Representatives after Thierry Baudet accused a fellow politician of involvement in a conspiracy.
‘The incident illustrates how allegations of conspiracy can bring political dialogue to a complete standstill. In a deeply polarised society, this can further widen the divide between groups.
‘My research aims to contribute to ways of keeping conversations going despite mutual distrust. The objective is not to convince everyone that the other person is right, but to ensure that dialogue is not made impossible from the outset.’
Philosophical research combines analysis with practical experience
Duetz’s research is philosophical in nature and explores questions relating to knowledge, evidence and the meaning of concepts. Conceptual analysis is a key component: what exactly do terms such as ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘stigmatisation’ mean, and are the commonly held assumptions about them justified?
The researcher also examined the perspectives of people who believe in conspiracy theories. Rather than assessing their beliefs solely from an outside perspective, she studied books and media produced by conspiracy theorists themselves.
‘This approach made it possible to examine the evidence that believers themselves put forward in support of their convictions, without making a judgement in advance about whether that evidence is convincing or valid,’ Duetz explains.
Conversations with professionals, including police officers who deal with conspiracy theorists in their day-to-day work, also played an important role. Their practical experience helped refine the philosophical analysis.
The central conclusion of Duetz’s research is that challenging harmful beliefs does not have to mean excluding the people who hold them. To reduce polarisation, society must be able to scrutinise conspiracy theories critically without dismissing their proponents out of hand.