Is the Malcom X Theory a CT, UCT, or Neither?


In this paper, I will evaluate the proposed explanation of Malcolm X’s death. I will identify whether or not this theory meets the criteria of Brian L. Keeley’s definition of a conspiracy theory. In the first section of the paper, Keeley’s definition of a conspiracy theory and unwarranted conspiracy theory will be thoroughly laid out. Then I will explain the difference between warranted and unwarranted. In the second part, the Malcolm X theory will be fully explained and the official story will be briefly explained. Finally, I will match each part of the theory with each criterion and evaluate whether it meets the “requirements” of the definition.

1. Keeley’s Definition of a Conspiracy Theory
According to Keeley, a conspiracy theory is a proposed explanation of some historical event (or events) in terms of the significant causal agency of a relatively small group of persons, the conspirators, acting in secret. Keeley believes that a CT is an explanation of something, which is why it is called a theory. The theory also proposes reasons why an event occured. He notes that the conspirators do not need to be powerful, they just need to play a pivotal role in bringing about the event. As you can see, Keeley’s definition has a secrecy condition and a size condition. By Keeley’s definition, there are no good conspiracies; every conspirator has nefarious intentions or else they would not be acting in secret. He specifies that the group of conspirators must be small, but it cannot be the actions of a lone agent. However, it is still unclear what he means by small.

2. Keeley’s Definition of an Unwarranted Conspiracy Theory
Not only does Keeley define warranted conspiracy theories, but he definies unwarranted conspiracy theories as well. (1) A UCT is an explanation that runs counter to some received, official, or obvious account. (2) The true intentions behind the conspiracy are invariably nefarious. (3) UCTs typically tie unrelated events together. The unifying aspect is part of the CTs explanatory strength. This is one of the main reasons why conspiracy theories are aesthetically pleasing. (4) The truth behind events explained by CTs are well guarded secrets, even if the perpetrators are well-known public figures. (5) The chief tool of unwarranted CTs is errant data. Errant data can be in two different forms. The data can be unaccounted-for data or contradictory data. Errant data is unaccounted-for when it goes unexplained by the received account. If it was found that the errant data was true, then this data is contradictory data.

3. Distinguishing Between Warranted CTs and Unwarranted CTs

Keeley believes that we are warranted to believe some conspiracy theories, but not the ones that are unwarranted. The unity of UCTs explanations is “at too high a cost.” Because we have an imperfect understanding of the world, no theory should be able to explain all the data. UCTs put tons of emphasis on small sets of data that are not supported by the official story, and they also are unfalsifiable. The problem does not come directly from the unfalsifiability, but the fact that there is an “increasing degree of skepticism required by such theories.”

4. The Malcolm X Theory

Malcolm X died on February 21 of 1965. The FBI was accused of being involved in the killing of Malcolm X. One of the directors in the FBI “kept close tabs on Malcolm’s every move through the use of informants and agents.” X was a threat to the FBI and the police; he was on the way to becoming a powerful civil rights activists, one who advocated for the use of self-defense by blacks. On July 5th of 1964, about a year before X was killed, FBI member Edgar Hoover sent a telegram to the New York office instructing them to “do something about Malcolm X enough of this black violence in NY.” (CNN). Many people still wonder what that “something” was. On the day of X’s killing, there were not dozens of police like there usually were. There were only “two uniformed officers in the building” and they “remained in a smaller room, at a distance from the main event area” (CNN). When the shooting occured, the guards in the front of the stage did not move to help X, but they moved “to clear out of the way” (CNN).
In order to fully assess Keeley’s definition of a conspiracy theory, we need to discuss the “official story.” In the generally known story, Malcolm X publicly left the Nation of Islam, and soon after Malcolm X was killed by a member of the Nation of Islam: Talmadge Hayer. There were two others involved with the killing too, but Hayer claims that they are innocent.
When Keeley described a conspiracy theory, the first thing he said was that it must be a proposed explanation for some historical event. As you see above, Malcolm X’s theory tries to explain the death of Malcolm X, by listing reasons. The second criteria is that the event must be the result of a small group of persons. In this theory, it is not specifically stated how many police officers or how many FBI agents were involved with the planning and executing of Malcolm X.
When Keeley described an unwarranted conspiracy theory, he stated that it must run counter to the official story. The official story is that the Nation of Islam killed Malcolm X; the theory is that the FBI and local officials killed Malcolm X. Therefore, the theory does run counter to the official story. Since it is said the FBI and local officials killed Malcolm X, it can be assumed that there intentions for this said event were nefarious. This theory does not seem to tie unrelated events together because the evidence used to propose the theory correlates with what the theory is trying to prove. (1) That there were not dozens of police, but there usually were. (2) The two officers that were at the event, were in a smaller room located away from the main event. (3) The security guards did not do their routine search all of the people coming into the event. (4) The guards in front of the stage did not move to help Malcolm X, they moved to get out of the way. All of these events tie together with the theory that the FBI and local officials killed Malcolm X. The theory should be considered a well-guarded secret because the FBI is still protecting it to this day. If it weren’t a secret, the public would know and accept this theory as the official story. The last criteria of an unwarranted conspiracy theory states that the theory must use errant data. As said before, errant data is data that is unaccounted for by the official story or data that contradicts the official story. This theory states that the amount of police officers that are usually at the events dropped significantly the day of X’s death. This fact is unaccounted for by the official story. Therefore, the alternative explanation explains this data in terms of the new casual agency.

5. Is this theory warranted, unwarranted, or neither?

Keeley did not specify whether each criterion is a necessary condition for it to be considered said theory. But the Malcolm X theory had bumps in the road for each theory. This theory did not meet all the criterion for the warranted conspiracy definition because we do not specifically know how many FBI agents or how many local officials were involved. This theory also did not meet all the “requirements” for the unwarranted definition either because given the information that I have, the theory has not tied unrelated events together. Since, all the criteria by this theory did not successfully meet Keeley’s definition of a CT or of a UCT. This theory will just be a theory.

id
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License