91原创 political scientist Scott Tyson studies how conspiracies and radicalization have entered the American mainstream, and what to do about it.
If your idea of conspiracy theories used to entail aliens, UFOs, governmental cover-ups at Roswell Air Force base, and the melody of 鈥攜ou were not alone. That was, indeed, the classic notion, says , an assistant professor of political science at the 91原创.
But over the course of the last five years, he noticed a watershed. For starters, the term 鈥渢heory鈥� no longer applied to the convoluted ideas spouted by today鈥檚 conspiracist groups such as QAnon, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, all of whom Tyson calls largely 鈥渢heoryless.鈥�
For example, Tyson, a game theorist whose research focuses on authoritarian politics, conspiracies, and radicalization, points out that those who believe erroneously that former President Donald Trump鈥檚 鈥渧ictory was stolen,鈥� usually do not believe that votes cast on that same ballot for successful Republican congressional candidates have been tampered with.
In the news
Scott Tyson and coauthor Todd Lehmann argue that radicalization has become increasingly common and offer ideas on what to do about it in .
鈥淭here is no elaborate theory behind the assertion that the last election was rigged. It鈥檚 just a bunch of assertions that don’t really fit together in a cohesive story,鈥� says Tyson.
Instead, he prefers the term 鈥渃onspiracism鈥� to describe what he sees as the current stream of misinformation.
According to Tyson, it鈥檚 this growing belief in conspiracist narratives that has led to the increased radicalization of average Americans.
鈥淚n order for people to commit violent acts you have to make it seem as if there鈥檚 some greater cause,鈥� says Tyson. You have to convince people that the political opposition is 鈥渋n cahoots as part of some crazy cabal, and that the greater cause is to overturn that cabal,鈥� which justifies extreme actions, including violence and breaking the law.
In a recent study, , Tyson鈥攖ogether with University of Michigan coauthor 鈥攍ooks at two common policy interventions鈥攅conomic and psychological鈥攄esigned to counter the growing radicalization among the US population. The duo finds that improving economic conditions reduces both radicalization efforts and dissent. However, the duo also finds that trying to render people psychologically less susceptible to radicalization can backfire and instead increase the efforts by radical leaders to influence and radicalize more followers.
While radical assertions of a 鈥渄eep state鈥� and 鈥渟tolen elections鈥� have long bubbled quietly underneath public discourse, Tyson says during the last five years, the ideas have moved into the mainstream discourse. That shift鈥攆rom fringe to center stage鈥擳yson argues, happened during the Trump presidency.
The January 6 storming of the US Capitol, Tyson says, was driven by such conspiratorial misinformation, as hundreds of American citizens attacked the seat of American democracy in order to reverse what they were led falsely to believe was an 鈥渦ndemocratic election鈥濃�攄espite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Q&A with Scott Tyson
What鈥檚 the nutshell definition of 鈥渞adicalization鈥�?
Tyson: 鈥淩adicalization鈥� is used interchangeably with 鈥渋ndoctrination.鈥� Essentially, it鈥檚 creating self-motivation among people to do certain things. You would call someone radicalized when those things that you would normally have to motivate someone to do鈥攜ou don鈥檛 have to do anymore because they鈥檝e become self-motivated. That鈥檚 where conspiracism comes in鈥攊t restructures the way that people perceive the social world around them. Radicalization involves an element of extremism and is fundamentally a political thought with an ecosystem to it: there needs to be a political group, or a set of political leaders who are trying to restructure people鈥檚 beliefs or their values in such a way that it helps their own political goals or causes.
How can radicalization be countered?
Tyson: The way to combat it is not to hope for the easy solution. It鈥檚 a false idea that we can just take out the leaders and it鈥檒l all go away, akin to simply cutting off the head off the snake. That doesn鈥檛 actually work. You have to go from the bottom up to start trying to siphon off radicalized people, and treat the organization more as a terrorist group, in terms of any hearts and minds policies.
Does leadership 鈥渄ecapitation鈥� work against a radical group such as QAnon?
Tyson: We looked in our research at what happens when you threaten leadership decapitation and found that you actually provide an incentive for leaders to increase their efforts to radicalize others. The reason is very simple: if we think of radicalized people as having the self-motivation to do things against the government鈥攚hether it’s protests, attacks, or to bomb things鈥攊f more people become radicalized the actual leaders are less important in these kinds of antigovernment actions. Our theory suggests that leaders are less important in the actual production of antigovernment actions, so that the government is essentially forced to divert attention from the leaders and toward these other threats. The leaders intentionally take away from their own control.
Why were conspiracies able to enter the American mainstream so pervasively?
Tyson: Trump was incredibly important in giving a megaphone to conspiracists who had been on the fringe beforehand until he became a political force and essentially weaponized a lot of those ideas. When Trump unleashed all these conspiracies on the public鈥攎any people didn鈥檛 know that they were really fringe ideas. One other reason they were able to spread so quickly is our so-called 鈥渕edia ecosystem.鈥� We have media outlets like Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax who are perfectly willing to spout conspiracies. When it all started back in 2015, the mainstream media wasn’t ready to deal with this kind of weaponization. That鈥檚 why conspiracists were able to misuse the mainstream media to essentially launder their claims: the conspiracists would make a bunch of unfounded assertions and accusations, which the mainstream media would pick up in turn to report on. Part of the debunking, however, was retelling the untrue story. That way a lot of these conspiracy narratives ended up reaching a much larger audience.
What role did the pandemic play in the spread of conspiracies and the radicalization of US citizens? Would this have happened without the pandemic?
Tyson: QAnon was around before the pandemic, and the radicalization campaigns of far-right groups were already under way beforehand. But it certainly accelerated these efforts and made them more effective. Because of the pandemic people were more isolated, which means they were talking to fewer people, and the echo chamber became narrower. That in turn, made people more susceptible to becoming radicalized. It鈥檚 very similar to how cults recruit people: they isolate them from their family and friends who are not involved in the cult. They keep new recruits in that echo chamber long enough until they鈥檝e been able to radicalize them. The number of QAnon members and radicalized people through other far-right groups today would be much, much lower if the pandemic hadn鈥檛 forced us all to isolate in the way that it did.
