In recent years, a confluence of events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, increasing economic instability, global warming, and political corruption, have merged into a nested crisis. This tumultuous landscape, rife with uncertainties, is deeply unsettling. As the mainstream falls short in explaining these events, many people turn to alternative narratives in an attempt to understand what is happening. Social media, with its pervasive reach and its ever-growing presence in our lives, has become a fertile ground for such narratives to proliferate. The combination of accessibility and rapid dissemination of information, often bereft of critical evaluation, has catalysed an environment in which conspiracy theories thrive and tend to drown out more measured analysis.

The proliferation of conspiracism on social media serves as a backdrop to my engagement in online debates. My endeavours to challenge conspiracist narratives are frequently misinterpreted as dogmatic acceptance of mainstream views. Consequently, with this short article, I seek to dispel this notion and clarify my objective is not to negate unconventional ideas, but to advocate for sound epistemology and open critical enquiry which acknowledges understanding is fluid and evolving and encourages thinking beyond conventional norms, albeit in a formalised scientific manner. This leads me to introduce systems thinking, a subject I have been studying now for more than three years, which, contrary to the reductionist linear and deterministic simplicity usually found in conspiracist thinking, is a holistic, non-linear approach that considers the complexities and interconnections that form a comprehensive and continuously evolving picture of the world.

Before delving into how systems thinking provides a more balanced and insightful analytical framework than conspiracism, it is necessary that I first address two critical points. Firstly, adopting a systems analysis doesn’t mean denying the existence of conspiracies. It should be pretty evident that politicians, corporations, media, police, and others conspire. Events like the COVID-19 PPE scandal or the misinformation about the effects of climate breakdown on corporate profit are illustrative examples. Secondly, I want to give an unequivocal definition of precisely what I am critiquing in this article and also when I engage in online debates of this kind: it is conspiracism (or conspiracist ideation), by which I mean the cognitive predisposition to attribute events or phenomena to hidden plots orchestrated by powerful entities, coupled with a reflexive rejection of mainstream consensus, regardless of how probable that consensus might be, and in the absence of anything approximating a robust counter framework to support such claims.

To understand why systems thinking offers a superior form of enquiry than conspiracism (as defined above), let’s explore some key differences between them:

1. Complexity and Interconnectivity vs Simplicity: Conspiracism often relies on simplified explanations, where a small, secretive group is held responsible for the world’s problems. On the other hand, systems thinking understands that the world is made of complex, interconnected systems where numerous elements and their interactions contribute to the state of affairs. While conspiracism attributes almost all control to a select few, systems thinking highlights the distributed nature of influence across systems.
2. Emergent Behavior vs Central Planning: Conspiracism presupposes that outcomes result from elaborate plans by hidden forces. Systems thinking emphasises emergent behaviour — outcomes arising from the interactions within the system, which are not controlled or planned by any single entity. This notion recognises that many global trends and events are consequences of systemic interactions rather than the machinations of any clandestine group.
3. Feedback Loops vs Linear Causality: Systems thinking introduces the concept of feedback loops, where changes in one part of a system can feed back into itself, causing further changes. This non-linear approach starkly contrasts the linear causality often found in conspiracism, which generally proposes a direct action-and-response relationship.
4. Adaptive Systems vs Static Control: Systems thinking understands that systems are adaptive and evolve. In contrast, conspiracism assumes a static form of control, where the alleged conspirators are always in control and unchanging in their methods. The adaptive nature of systems acknowledges that change is constant and that systems evolve through learning and adaptation.
5. Leverage Points vs Exposure: Conspiracists typically advocate for exposing the hidden forces as a means to resolution. Systems thinking identifies leverage points in a system — areas where small changes can lead to disproportionately large shifts in the system. This approach emphasises strategic interventions as opposed to merely unveiling secrets.
6. Data and Analysis vs Hidden Knowledge: Conspiracism often hinges on hidden or exclusive knowledge. Systems thinking relies on data, evidence, and rigorous analysis to understand the underlying structures and patterns of systems. This makes systems thinking a more accessible and transparent way of understanding the world, compared to the esoteric nature of conspiracism.
7. Inclusive Us vs Them Narrative: Conspiracism often creates an ‘us vs them’ narrative, which can be divisive and exclude certain groups or ideas. Systems thinking recognises the interconnectedness of all parts and promotes an inclusive approach, understanding that changes in one part of the system can have far-reaching effects.
8. Systemic Objectivity vs Bias and Prejudice: While conspiracism can sometimes be laced with prejudices and biases, systems thinking strives for objectivity. Focusing on the structure and behaviour of systems minimises personal biases and seeks to understand the reality of how systems operate.
9. Understanding Multipolar Traps vs Assigning Blame: Systems thinking acknowledges the concept of multipolar traps, wherein multiple agents, acting in their self-interest, collectively contribute to a negative outcome, despite it being against the best interests of the group. In contrast, the conspiracist mindset typically assigns blame to a singular entity or group, often ignoring the collective dynamics that may lead to an unfavourable situation. Acknowledging multipolar traps enables a more nuanced understanding of complex issues where multiple factors and interests contribute to the problem.
10. Recognising Conspiracies as Symptoms and Perpetrators of Structural Issues vs Seeing Them as Isolated Events: Systems thinking understands that conspiracies can be both symptoms and perpetrators of underlying structural issues. On the other hand, the conspiracist mindset tends to view conspiracies as isolated events orchestrated by a few without considering how these actions may be embedded in or even driven by broader systemic structures.

While conspiracism can sometimes provide enticing narratives, it lacks the robust analytical frameworks needed to understand the complex nature of phenomena. Systems thinking offers a more comprehensive approach that considers the interconnectedness, feedback loops, and adaptation of systems. It encourages evidence-based analysis and promotes understanding and collaboration. By embracing systems thinking, I contend society can develop a culture of essential critical thinking, inclusivity, and evidence-based decision-making necessary for addressing our time’s most complex challenges.

Recommended reading: The Conspiracy Theory Handbook, by Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook. A short pamphlet which explains why conspiracy theories are so popular, how to identify the traits of conspiratorial thinking, and what are effective response strategies.

Credit: I want to acknowledge Dr John Molyneux’s work as the inspiration for this piece. His enlightening essay analysing conspiracism through a Marxist lens prompted me to craft a parallel analysis using systems thinking. John sadly died in December last year. As a former student of his at the University of Portsmouth, while our perspectives differed, I miss him greatly and respect his scholarly insights and commitment to solving society’s most pressing concerns.