How I see myself: Mild-mannered history professor who recognizes 2Pac

The conspiracy theories course wrapped up yesterday with a discussion about the differences between actual conspiracies and conspiracy theories and the students’ evaluation of the most influential conspiracy theories. We closed out by listening to songs by 2Pac and Green Day that contain conspiratorial allusions and claims.

Based on students’ reactions and my own observations, I think the course was a success. But does success equate to usefulness?

I think so, and Jeff Pasely’s post earlier this week explains why.* A reader of John Fea’s blog made the following comment about professional historians’ criticism of David Barton:

So that’s where I believe you, and your fellow professional historians and educators need to continue to focus your efforts. Keep teaching our children the actual history of America, and teach them about the scientific method and to think critically about history and historical evidence. Show them how to recognize a conspiracy theory when they see one, and that there are no short cuts in the quest for knowledge, no matter how convincing they may seem.

I am sure you are doing all of those things — though I would be interested to hear if there was a venue in college where professors can teach students (not just history students) about the likes of Barton and their duplicitous ways. Perhaps there is a place for offering a general course on skepticism and conspiracy theories given how prevalent they have become in America today (and not just in the field of history)?

How my students see me after taking the conspiracy theories course: Jeff Bridges in Arlington Road

Pasley’s response: “That is a good idea, though I can tell you students do not always like it when you rain on their moon landing hoax parade, or spend too much time on Antimasons.”

In my case, I think my conspiracy theories students have learned to think critically about the messages disseminated by the media (both formal and informal).**

* Pasley’s post addressed criticism of John Fea for not criticizing David Barton.

**And if they are convinced that Cumberland University, with its phoenix and Cordell Hull connection, is somehow connected to the Illuminati, then it was a wildly successful semester.

As far as I know, I am one of only four history professors in the U.S. to offer a course on conspiracy theories. Kathy Olmsted, Robert Goldberg, and Jeff Pasley are the other three I know of. Pasley even has a website devoted to his course. (Update: Sara Morris alerted me to Jonathan Earle‘s course on the history of conspiracies and paranoia at Kansas University.)

I’m not as ambitious as Pasley and certainly not as well known as he, Olmsted, and Goldberg. Regardless, I want to outline the structure of my course in case someone else is interested in developing his/her own.

Course Description

The course is a 300-level course, geared toward junior and senior history majors  but also any student in the humanities and social sciences. The course description reads:

Conspiracy thinking has been a part of American society from the colonial period through the present day. Americans have labeled as enemies numerous groups, including Catholics, Communists, Democrats, Jews, Masons, Mormons, Republicans, and women, to name just a few. They have accused leaders such as George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Franklin Pierce of working to undermine the American way of life, not to mention the various conspiracy theories about aliens, AIDS, and the One World Government.

This course will explore a sample of those theories in United States history. Using an array of written and visual sources (personal correspondence, newspaper articles, editorial cartoons, televised speeches, etc.), students will be exposed to the conspiratorial language used by Americans to explain the unexplainable. They will emerge from the course with a better understanding of the differences between conspiracies and conspiracy theories, the historical context for the belief in conspiracy theories, and the use of evidence and argumentation in critically analyzing conspiracy theories.

Course Readings

This semester, I’m using Donald T. Critchlow, John Korasick, and Matthew C. Sherman, eds., Political Conspiracies in America: A Reader (2008) and Robert Alan Goldberg, Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America (2001).

If you’re looking for alternate texts, there are several available. I’ve used David Brion Davis’ reader,  The Fear of Conspiracy: Images of Un-American Subversion from the Revolution to the Present) and Daniel Pipes’ Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From (1997). Also good would be Kathy Olmsted’s Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11 and David Aaronovitch’s Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History.

I’m also assigning several articles that address early U.S. history:

David Brion Davis, “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 47 (September 1960): 205-24.

Robert A. Goldberg, “‘Who Profited from the Crime?’ Intelligence Failure, Conspiracy Theories, and the Case of September 11,” Journal of Intelligence and National Security 19 (Summer 2004): 249-261.

Richard Hofstadter, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” in The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 3-40.

Elaine Frantz Parsons, “Klan Skepticism and Denial in Reconstruction-Era Public Discourse,” Journal of Southern History 77 (February 2011): 53-90.

Gordon S. Wood, “Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style: Causality and Deceit in the Eighteenth Century,” William & Mary Quarterly 39 (July 1982): 401-441.

Bertram Wyatt-Brown, “Honor and Theater: Booth, the Lincoln Conspirators, and the Maryland Connection,” Maryland Historical Magazine 104 (Fall 2009): 302-325.

Course Schedule

Course Assignments

Students’ first assignment is to read Hofstadter’s essay on the paranoid style and, in a thought piece, explain their understanding of the difference between an actual conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. This gives us a baseline from which to work as we progress in the course.

The second writing assignment asks students to analyze a novel by answering the following questions in their essay:

1. What is the conspiracy at the heart of the novel? How does it threaten American/human values?
2. Who are the villains? What traits do they possess? What are their goals? Why do you think they are identified as the villains?
3. Who are the heroes? What traits do they possess? What are their goals? Why do you think they are identified as the heroes?
4. What “truth” is the author trying to convey to readers in his/her presentation of the conspiratorial struggle between the heroes and the villains?

The list of novels I’m assigning this semester include:

James BeauSeigneur, In His Image (2003)

Glenn Beck, The Overton Window (2010)

Steve Berry, The Jefferson Key (2011)

Steve Berry, The Templar Legacy (2006)

Dawn Blair, America 2014: An Orwellian Tale (2004)

Larry Burkett, The Illuminati (1991)

Taylor Caldwell, Captains and the Kings: The Story of an American Dynasty (1983)

Orson Scott Card, Empire (2007)

Michael Crichton, State of Fear (2004)

Umberto Eco, Foucault’s Pendulum (1989)

Nelson George, The Plot Against Hip Hop (2011)

Stephen King, 11/22/63 (2011)

Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, Left Behind (1995)

Bob Larson, Dead Air: A Novel (1991)

Frank Peretti, This Present Darkness (1986)

Pat Robertson, The End of the Age (1995)

Joel C. Rosenberg, The Last Jihad (2002)

Dan Simmons, Flashback (2011)

Gore Vidal, The Golden Age (2000)

There are some other novels that might work, such as John Grisham’s The Pelican Brief and Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. I tried to avoid books that have been made into movies to head off the tendency of students to take shortcuts.

I’m also assigning two group projects. I don’t particularly like group projects, but I’m building in safeguards (I hope) to prevent slackers from sponging off of their colleagues.

The first project assigns groups one of several conspiracy theories: the MLK Jr. assassination, Area 51, the Antichrist, the Oklahoma City bombing, and 9/11. The second assigns groups a movie with a conspiracy theory or conspiracy thinking as its main theme: Arlington Road (1999), JFK (1991), Left Behind (2001), The X-Files (1998), and The Manchurian Candidate (1962 or 2004). There are other movies, such as Conspiracy Theory (starring Mel Gibson) and Enemy of the State (starring Will Smith), for example.

Groups are required to conduct research on their conspiracy theory and to analyze their movie. On their assigned day, they lead the discussion. I encourage them to use a mixture of approaches in leading the discussion, including lecture, surveys, film, Powerpoint, the Internet, music, etc. I am also requiring them to produce a two-page artifact to hand out to the rest of the class.

Other Course Materials

There’s a lot of pop culture material to interweave into this course. I’m plan to show an episode of Community (“Conspiracy Theories and Interior Design”), play some rap music (Dr. Dre, Mobb Deep), and view parts of documentaries (Spike Lee’s When the Levees Broke) and Internet productions (Loose Change). The real problem is finding just enough to stimulate discussion without spending the entire class passively absorbing the media.

Obstacles

The number one obstacle to offering this course is the suspicion of faculty and administrators. “What exactly are you going to teach in the class?” is the common question, with eyebrows raised suspiciously. The answer is that I am teaching students to think critically about historical rhetoric and evidence, with the objective of helping them be less susceptible to the paranoia that infuses U.S. politics and society.

In class, the major obstacle is student enthusiasm, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. This is the one course in which I’ve never had to encourage discussion.