LEXIA. RIVISTA DI SEMIOTICA

LEXIA. JOURNAL OF SEMIOTICS

-

Direzione / Direction

Ugo Volli

Comitato di consulenza scientifica / Scientific committee

Fernando AndachtKristian BankovPierre–Marie BeaudeDenis BertrandOmar Calabrese †Marcel DanesiRaúl DorraRuggero EugeniGuido FerraroJosé Enrique FinolBernard JacksonEric LandowskiGiovanni ManettiDiego MarconiGianfranco MarroneIsabella PezziniRoland PosnerMarina SbisàMichael SilversteinDarcilia SimõesFrederik StjernfeltPeeter ToropEero TarastiPatrizia Violi

Redazione / Editor

Massimo Leone

Editori associati di questo numero /Associated editors of this issueLuca Acquarelli, Elvira Arnoux, Cinzia Bianchi, Lu-cia Corrain, Giovanna Cosenza, Cristina Demaria, Ruggero Eugeni, Luis García Fanlo, Riccardo Fasso-ne, Jean–Marie Iacono, Tarcisio Lancioni, Francesco Mangiapane, Federico Montanari, Simone Natale, Paolo Peverini, Isabella Pezzini, Jenny Ponzo, Laura Rolle, Franciscu Sedda, Elsa Soro, Lucio Spaziante, Eero Tarasti, Stefano Traini, Patrizia Violi

Sede legale / Registered Office

CIRCE “Centro Interdipartimentaledi Ricerche sulla Comunicazione”con sede amministrativa pressol’Università di TorinoDipartimento di Filosofiavia Sant’Ottavio, 2010124 TorinoInfo: massimo.leone@unito.it

Registrazione presso il Tribunale di Torino n. 4 del 26 febbraio 2009

Amministrazione e abbonamenti /Administration and subscriptions

Aracne editrice int.le S.r.l.via Quarto Negroni, 1500072 Ariccia (RM)info@aracneeditrice.itSkype Name: aracneeditricewww.aracneeditrice.it

La rivista può essere acquistata nella sezione acquisti del sito www.aracneeditrice.itÈ vietata la riproduzione, anche parziale, con qual siasi mezzo effettuata compresa la fotoco-pia, an che a uso interno o didattico, non au-torizzata

I edizione: giugno 2016ISBN 978-88-548-9931-5ISSN 1720-5298-20

Stampato per conto della Aracne editrice int.le S.r.l. nel mese di giugno 2016 presso la tipografia «System Graphic S.r.l.» 00134 Roma – via di Torre Sant’Anastasia, 61

«Lexia» adotta un sistema di doppio referag-gio anonimo ed è indicizzata in SCOPUS–SCIVERSE«Lexia» is a double–blind peer–reviewed journal, indexed in SCOPUS–SCIVERSE

Lexia Rivista di semiotica

Lexia. Rivista di semiotica, –Complotto

Lexia. Journal of Semiotics, –Conspiracy

a cura diedited by

Massimo Leone

Contributi di

Andreas AntonUte Caumanns

Alessandra ChiapporiAmir DizdarevicJulius Erdmann

Maurizio FerrarisRayco González

Saman HamdiEva Kimminich

Evangelos KourdisVincenzo Idone Cassone

Massimo LeoneMari–Liis Madisson

Eduardo José Marcos CamiloMarta Milia

Peppino OrtolevaAlessandro Perissinotto

Jenny PonzoDaniele Salerno

Simona StanoMattia ThibaultFederica TurcoAndrea Ventsel

Ugo VolliEvripides Zantides

Jiang Zhang

Copyright © MMXVIAracne editrice int.le S.r.l.

www.aracneeditrice.itinfo@aracneeditrice.it

via Quarto Negroni, Ariccia (RM)

()

----

I diritti di traduzione, di memorizzazione elettronica,di riproduzione e di adattamento anche parziale,

con qualsiasi mezzo, sono riservati per tutti i Paesi.

Non sono assolutamente consentite le fotocopiesenza il permesso scritto dell’Editore.

I edizione: giugno

La ricerca che ha portato a questo volume è stata svolta presso il Dipartimento di Filosofiae Scienze dell’Educazione dell’Università degli Studi di Torino.

Indice / Table of Contents

Prefazione / PrefaceMassimo Leone

Parte ILa semiotica del complotto

Part IThe semiotics of conspiracy

Anti–Semitism (and Now Anti-Zionism) as Prototype of Con-spiracy Theory. A Theoretical and Textual ApproachUgo Volli

About Grounding, Courting and Truthifying. ConspiratorialFragments and Patterns of Social Construction of Reality inRhetoric, Media and ImagesEva Kimminich

Fondamentalismo, anomia, complottoMassimo Leone

Imposed Interpretation. Querying Contemporary LiteraryCriticismJiang Zhang

Il discorso del complottoAlessandro Perissinotto

Indice / Table of Contents

La inflación de la sospecha. El discurso de las teorías de laconspiraciónRayco González

Suspicion, Denunciation, Revolt. On Textual Particularitiesof Conspiracy TheoriesEduardo José Marcos Camilo

Parte IILe geografie del complotto

Part IThe geographies of conspiracy

Technological and Semiotic Code Structures of ConspiracistThinking Online. PI News from a Media-Related Point ofViewJulius Erdmann

Always the Same Old Conspiracy Story. On Jürgen Elsässer’sNarrative Voyage from Left to RightAmir Dizdarevic, Saman Hamdi

NWO Conspiracy Theory. A Key Frame in Online Commu-nication of the Estonian Extreme RightMari-Liis Madisson

Conspiracy as Politics of Historical Knowledge. Italian Ter-rorisms and the Case of Romanzo di una strage/Piazza Fontana:The Italian ConspiracyDaniele Salerno

Indice / Table of Contents

The Velopoulos–Liakopoulos Phenomenon. A Semiotic Viewof the Explosion of Greek Conspiracy Theories and UrbanLegends in the Economic CrisisEvangelos Kourdis

Cyprus and Conspiracy Theories after the Troika Levy inEvripides Zantides

Parte IIII temi del complotto

Part IIIThe themes of conspiracy

Vuotare il saccoMaurizio Ferraris

Performing and Communicating Conspiracy Theories. Stal-inist Show Trials in Eastern Europe during the Cold WarUte Caumanns

Storie di complotti e miti a bassa intensitàPeppino Ortoleva

Unreal Realities. An Approach to Conspiracy Theories Basedon Sociology of KnowledgeAndreas Anton

Political Potentiality of Conspiracy TheoriesAndreas Ventsel

“Tell Me What You [Do Not] Eat, and I Shall Tell You WhatYou Are”. Food, Health and Conspiracy TheoriesSimona Stano

Indice / Table of Contents

Upsetting National Events and Conspiracy Narratives in Con-temporary Italian LiteratureJenny Ponzo

Il misterioso Holden. Ipotesi semiotica per un complottoAlessandra Chiappori

Trolls, Hackers, Anons. Conspiracy Theories in the Periph-eries of the WebMattia Thibault

History as We Know It. Conspiracy and Historical Narrativethrough Deus Ex: Human RevolutionVincenzo Idone Cassone

«It’s all the President’s Fault». Tricks, Conspiracies, and Cor-ruption in the American TV Series Set at the White House:Homeland and ScandalFederica Turco

Il contagio cospirativo sui social media. Ebola e la narrazionedelle teorie del complottoMarta Milia

Parte IVRecensioni

Part IVReviews

Recensione di José Enrique Finol, La corposfera: Antropo–semiótica de las cartografías del cuerpoMassimo Leone

Indice / Table of Contents

Recensione di Sémir Badir, Épistémologie sémiotique — Lathéorie du langage de Louis HjelmslevMassimo Leone

Note biografiche degli autori / Authors’ Bionotes

Call for papers. Aspettualità / Aspectuality

Lexia. Rivista di semiotica, 23–24ComplottoISBN 978-88-548-9931-5DOI 10.4399/97888548993151pag. 11–16 (giugno 2016)

Prefazione / Preface

M L*

Between and , Rembrandt painted The Conspiracy of ClaudiusCivilis, depicting a story from Tacitus’s Histories also known as “theBatavian rebellion” (Fig. ).

According to the Roman historian, Civilis «collected at one of thesacred groves, ostensibly for a banquet, the chiefs of the nation and theboldest spirits of the lower class [. . . ] and bound the whole assemblywith barbarous rites and strange forms of oath». While acknowl-edging the superior intelligence (for a native) of the Batavian leader,Tacitus skillfully describes the assembly as a treacherous conspiracy:the secrecy of the reunion; the “barbarous” rites; the “strange” formsof oath; etc. In transposing into a painting this verbal imagery ofsecrecy and deviance, Rembrandt offers one of the first modern in-stances of visual conspiracy theory: the chromatic tonalities of thecanvas transmit the impression of a scene immersed in dim light,horizontally traversed by the luminous line of the massive table onwhich the “strange” oaths are being uttered. Reddle hues predominateall around, on the wall in the background as well as in the garments ofmany conjurers, presenting the viewer of the painting with an imagethat exudes the chromatic promise of blood to be treacherously shed.Figures of conspiracy, then, abound: surly gazes converge towardthe symbolical core of the scene, the crossing of blades initiated byCivilis, but all around and at the margins of the scene also cups of

∗ Massimo Leone, Università degli Studi di Torino.. Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn; Leiden, Dutch Republic (now the Netherlands),

July — Amsterdam, Dutch Republic (now the Netherlands), October .. Oil on canvas; cm × cm; Stockholm, Nationalmuseum.. Publius (o Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus; Gallia Narbonensis (currently South of France),

– — Rome, –.. Historiae, c. –.. .–; Engl. trans. W.H. Fyfe ().

Prefazione / Preface

Figure . Rembrandt (–) The Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis, oil on canvas, cm × cm, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum.

wine are raised, as though to hint at the inevitable intoxication ofconspiracy. One figure among all particularly stands out: followingTacitus’s physiognomy, which is meant to parallel the face of Civiliswith that of other rebels and enemies of Rome (Sertorius, Hannibal,etc.), Rembrandt directs all the topology of the scene toward thesinister mono–eyed face of the leader, immobile in an expression ofpoisonous resolution.

Rembrandt’s painting should be visually kept in mind by all thosewho share a concern (be it scholarly or political, or both) for conspir-acy theories. Since the Roman antiquity, and certainly even before, theplans of action of enemy forces have been described and depicted notsimply as plain prefiguration of acts, but as treacherous conniving, heldin secret and cemented by unknown, barbaric rituals. “Constructingthe enemy” often implies, through history, the projection and pro-paganda of an imaginary in which what is hostile is also dangerouslyand barbarically secret.

In his visual wisdom, Rembrandt could not overlook the symbol-ical importance of the detail handed down by Tacitus: the only eyethat Civilis opens on the scene of the conspiracy. What does this onlyeye mean? Certainly, it bestows a certain monstrosity on the face ofthe Batavian leader, thus contributing to depict him as an alien forcein society, as a traitor and as a conjurer. However, the only eye also

Prefazione / Preface

underlines that which the visual conspiracy theory sees in the sup-posed mentality of conspirators: the uni–directionality of their gazes;the fact that, unlike “normal” people in society, they do not look atthe whole of reality but select into it a single line, the project that willlead to their triumph and to the consequent disruption of society.

But again, is this mono–eyed character of conspiracies an intrinsic oneor is it rather the denigrating feature that an opposite ideology attachesto any collective project likely to engender it? Is the conspiracy in theonly eye of Civilis or rather in the only eye that Rembrandt’s painting,and Tacitus’s history before him, lends to the spectators, forcing themto perceive Civilis and his acolytes as a gang of dangerous conspirators?

One of the philosophically most interesting aspects of the area ofstudy tentatively called “conspiracy theories” is that it presents itselfas inexorably and paradoxically multi–leveled: there is the supposedconspiracy in history, such as that of Civilis who wants to overthrowthe Roman yoke and federates all allied forces around him throughbinding rituals; there is the supposed visual conspiracy theory, whichattributes a pernicious intention to the gathering of enemies, depict-ing it with monstrous and treacherous features; but there is also themeta–level of the scholar who, by analyzing Tacitus’s historical text orRembrandt’s visual rendering of it, considers them part of a broaderand more encompassing conspiracy, meant at discrediting an enemyfaction. However, why not complicating further this superposition,and surmise that scholars too are part of an even broader conspiracy,which surreptitiously aims at seeding doubt in the customary, pre-dominant account of history, a sort of revisionism that relativizes theperspective of the winner and revaluates, for political purposes, thegaze of the defeated ones, showing that they were not conspiratorsbut “freedom fighters”? Why, for instance, in recounting the history ofItalian Risorgimento — the historical process that led to the indepen-dence of the current Italian state — Italians do not talk of conspiracywhen dealing with “carboneria”, the secret insurgent movements thateventually defeated the Austro–Hungarian domain?

That is one of the main challenges that students of “conspiracytheories” must face: can we look at them with both eyes, and realize thatthey all share some intrinsic logical features, as the very first creatorsof the expression “conspiracy theory” (Popper, etc.) believed? Is therean inherently logical fallacy in conspiracy theories? Or, on the contrary,

Prefazione / Preface

are we doomed to look at conspiracy with one eye only, as we werethe symmetrical counterpart of Civilis, forced to see conspiracy orconspiracy theories every time that plans of actions, or the theoreticalaccount of them, does not align with our ideology and desires?

The essays collected in this monographic issue of Lexia do notcultivate the wild ambition to solve this riddle once and for all. Theyrather seek to cast a fresh look at the issue of conspiracy, conspiracythought, and conspiracy theories, through combining semiotics andother qualitative methods. Whereas the essays take distinct stancesas regards the logical sustainability of such or such theories, theyall share a common concern in trying to pinpoint the conditions inwhich conspiratorial thinking proliferates: financial and economiccrises entailing major disruptions of the labor market and massiveunemployment; the reconfiguration of social and communicativerelations though the rapid evolution of unprecedented digital media;the consequent shifting of political models; above all, the radicalchange of the meaning of social relations, not only those amongpeople but also those among facts: when the socio–semiotic system ofties that binds the elements of reality together and shapes them intoa more or less coherent semiosphere starts to disintegrate, the resultis often the emerging of a myriad of ideological contrapositions thatfeed, in their turn, the various levels and meta–levels of conspiratorialthought. On the one hand, anti–system political leaders promotethe emergence of a new representation of reality, in which occultconspiratorial forces are finally unmasked; on the other hand, pro–system agencies see a conspiracy in the conspiracy thoughts of theiradversary or denigrate them as mere illogical fantasies.

For instance, there seems to be no point of contact between thosewho believe that the importance of vaccines is artificially inflated byconspiratorial pharmaceutical companies and those who call thesetheories “conspiracies”, or even accuse them of being part of a politi-cal conspiracy aimed at subverting the democratic arena and takingpossession of it through heterodox and often violent rhetorical means.Nevertheless, the lack of this point of contact has not a logical but asemiotic nature. It is not through ‘scientifically’ demonstrating thatthe former are wrong and the latter are right, or vice versa, that thisdividing trend in society will disappear. It would be foolish to believethat people disagree and fight with each other because they believe in

Prefazione / Preface

discrepant conspiracy theories; on the opposite, one has often the im-pression that people believe in discrepant conspiracy theories exactlybecause they want to disagree. They want to somehow vehicle andalso give vent to the tension that underlies society, and that does notfind other semiotic frameworks of expression.

Therefore, if the work of semioticians on conspiracy theories hasa purpose whatsoever, is not that of indicating, from a supposedlysuperior vantage point, who is right and who is wrong, who is con-spiring and who is not, who is creating a fake conspiracy theory andwho is unveiling a dangerous social secret. The purpose of semioticsis, rather, that of indicating the discursive conditions that encouragethe proliferation of such conspiratorial or anti–conspiratorial think-ing, and simultaneously also the more difficult purpose of suggestinghow to reframe conflict in a different discursive framework, one thatdoes not simply create rhetorical conflict but casts the basis for socialaction. For example, the problem of conspiracy theories on vaccines,from a semiotic point of view, lies not in their supposed logical orscientific fallacy, but in the fact that they are a means to voice a so-cial preoccupation that would, otherwise, remain unexpressed, that is,anguish toward the increasing deconstruction of scientific and alsomedical knowledge in the new digital arenas. Semioticians and othersocial scholars should, therefore, operate not for the debunking ofsuch supposed conspiracy theories, but for the creation of a collectivespace in which the evident confusion of present–day digital scientificcommunication could be raised as a problem, discussed, and possiblyredirected toward more convenient solutions.

As it has been pointed out by art historians, Rembrandt’s canvascontains an odd detail. There is one more sword in the painting thanBatavians holding them. Rembrandt often introduced such bizarre,visually illogical clue in his paintings (for instance, the double “righthand” in The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, ) so as to stimulatea meta–reading of them. In this case, interpretation is quite open, butone direction for it could be the following: in depicting a famous con-spiracy, and in visually interpreting the historical conspiracy theoryof Tacitus, Rembrandt detached himself from it by visually suggest-ing, through the presence of this extra sword, that conspiracy oftencontains an element of violence that cannot directly and univocallybe attributed to an agent. We see the conspiracy with the mono–eyed

Prefazione / Preface

point of view that ideology, the Histories of Tacitus, and Rembrandt’spolitical clients lend to the viewer of the canvas; it is a mono–eyedpoint of view that mirrors the mono–eyed vision of the supposedconspirator ad infinitum. And yet, in these reflections of accusationsand hostilities, Rembrandt drops a puzzling semiotic clue: what if thiscontraposition was actually the result of a sword that is there but thatnobody holds; a sword that is a symbol of unnamed violence, circulat-ing through society and calling for conspiracies and anti–conspiracieswhile remaining completely anonymous? Such is, perhaps, the mostprecious suggestion that, with usual irony, Rembrandt offers for thestudy of the subject of conspiracy: do not look at who supposedlyholds the sword, but concentrate, rather, on the sword that nobodyholds, and that nevertheless remains there, in the center of the scene,instigating violence and counter–violence, conspiracies and accusa-tions of conspiracies, divisions and enmities, until someone (a painter,a semiotician) will be lucid enough to ask the fundamental question:“but really, why are we fighting?”

The articles of the collection are divided into three broad sec-tions, “Semiotics of Conspiracy”; “Geographies of Conspiracy”, and“Themes of Conspiracy”. Most of them were presented at the twosymposia that the University of Potsdam (Prof. Eva Kimminich) andthe University of Turin (Prof. Massimo Leone) organized respectivelyin March –, and June, –, . Our deepest gratitude goes toall those who took part in these events or contributed to their organi-zation. Our moved thoughts go also to Umberto Eco, who acceptedto participate in a roundtable at the end of the Turin event, and to givea lectio magistralis on conspiracy theories on the occasion of the laureaad honorem that was conferred to him on the same day.

Some other articles were received and selected through an inter-national call for papers. All contributions went through double–blindpeer–reviewing and editorial reading.

Both the volume and the symposia benefited from a DAAD grant,in the framework called “Hochschuldialog mit Südeuropa” (). Wethank the DAAD for such generous support, as well as the administra-tive staff of the Universities of Potsdam and Turin that so effectivelyworked for its management.