The Real Birth Certificate

(this is a reblog of a post of mine from July 30, 2009)

Deflecting attention from health care and doing whatever it takes to undermine Obama's popularity are not surprising conservative political tactics.Pursuing an old theme, already debunked, and circulating primarily on the fringe is maybe a bit more surprising, particularly insofar as the claims are empirical ones that are easily disproved. So why does the birther conspiracy have legs?

The most obvious answer is racism. An African-American isn't really an American. Ergo, an African-American must be born in Africa. The birther conspiracy, then, expresses whites' sense of threat to their own identities as it seeks to shore up a line between one of us and one of them.

I don't think this answer is false, but I don't think it's compelling. It's not compelling because it doesn't account for why the story persists in the face of evidence to the contrary.

A better answer needs to account for this persistence. A better answer, then, has to take into account the decline of symbolic efficiency. The 'evidence' of the certificate of live birth, the birth announcement in the papers, doesn't register. It doesn't appear as or seem real. And it doesn't appear as Real because there is no functioning symbolic order that can legitimize or guarantee it. The problem of the decline of the symbolic is the loss of the Real.

Any certificate that is on the internet or reprinted in print media is of course a copy. To say that one has seen the certificate is to say that one has seen a copy. But what can make the copy Real, particularly if one disrupts all the mechanisms of verification. The rupture of the conditions of possibility of credibility prevents verification from guaranteeing any copy that might appear. Differently put, there is NO piece of paper or certificate that could assuage the birthers. Their skepticism goes all the way down; they lack the basic dimension of trust necessary for a statement to qualify as valid.

via jdeanicite.typepad.com

Comments

[Alain]

While I certainly think you are right that the decline of symbolic efficiency explains the lack of a common frame for evidence, I don't think it explains the persistency of this particular phenomenon. I would suggest that beyond race, there exists an ideology that some people have called "eliminationism." I take this to mean that one's political opponents are not just wrong, but are a threat to the very foundation of the country and must be eliminated. Now it may be the case that the decline in symbolic efficiency is a precondition for eliminationism to occur - but I don't think it is the same thing, nor can it be reduced to it. One is expected to do or say anything in the battle to defeat the enemy. You mix this with a witches brew of reality TV, 24 hr cable news and web 2.0 and you have the birther phenomenon.

[Jodi]

Really interesting point. I'm not sure if I buy it. I would think that if eliminationism, to make sense, would have to be violent (civil war, terrorism, genocide). If it operates in a political realm doesn't it have to come up against a limit? Also, the media environment that furthers it would no longer be part of it or accountable for it. So that seems to eliminate an essential condition of this birther business.

[Alain]

I think it has come up against the limit - just look at the horror of the Gabby Giffords shooting. Or the faulty bomb that didn't explode in Washington on MLK day, or dozens of other examples. There hasn't been one moment but hundreds of small ones. In some sense, the birther issue is the "peaceful" expression of eliminationist rage that has been expressed in multiple incidents since Obama was elected.

But I agree with your point that the media environment itself is a limit - but even here the violent rhetoric fuels the real life violence. Look at Sarah Palin's reaction after the Gifford's shooting - she was dumbfounded that anyone could associate her rhetoric and website with the actual consequences of taking her seriously. I would suggest we live in a times where the limit is constantly being challenged, and until the recent labor unrest in WI, there has not been counter vailing reply.

[Alain]

I just wanted to follow up with one more point - I think the US is on the verge of far greater civil unrest, on a scale not seen since the 1930's. It is clear that the elites are either unwilling or unable to address the current economic crisis, and its effects will linger for many years to come. As a result, there are millions of people, a people's army if you will, that will either start to manifest more spontaneous bursts of expression or will be organized into such expression. It is clear to me that this presents a real opportunity for those of a "leftist persuassion" but it remains to be seen if such a group will emerge. I think a reactive, proto-facist movement is more likely. In the near future, Trump and birtherism will seem cute by comparison.

[TheotheRShelley]

Hi Jodi. I've been trying to understand the phenomenon of conspiracy theories since watching the film Zeitgeist in 2008 and find your explanation quite compelling although I have only a passing familiarity with Lacan. I understand the concept but could you explain what you see as the primary cause(s) of this breakdown in symbolic efficacy?

[Jodi]

Capitalism (more specifically, communicative capitalism). But I don't think it's useful to try to think about complex systems in terms of simple cause and effect, esp since the dynamics of communicative capitalism also amplify symbolic decline.

[Jodi]

Hey Alain, unrest is the question of the summer. Who can organize and channel the discontent? Will right wing politicians stir it up as they battle for the Republican nomination? Will leftists get our act together? My sense is that unions are caught in the middle, generally making too many concessions but also still the largest organized group defending working people.