The Two Cultures Of JFK Research
7 February 1999

    Recently, one of the students in my JFK class at the University of Rhode Island asked why the conspiracy theorists in the class couldn't just understand that the evidence so obviously showed that a lone gunman did it. To the student it was completely clear that there was no conspiracy. To most of the others in the class, however, it was very much the opposite—conspiracy was the obvious explanation.
    That little exchange reminded me of my years in the Flemish section of Belgium, a country wracked by tension between the Flemish-speaking Flemings to the north and the French-speaking Walloons to the south. They have been at each others' throats for many decades, with no end in sight. People in Belgium live in a permanent state of linguistic tension. For much of my two and one-half years there, I wondered why the Flemings and the Walloons didn't just get over it. How could language separate people so? Why couldn't they just accept each other's speech and move on? Then I began to realize that the Flemings and the Walloons were separated by far more than language. Broader differences of entire cultures were the real culprits. After being in Belgium for a while, I gradually became aware that the Walloons represented the local aristocracy—the old money and the high French culture, whereas the Flemings were the working class struggling to climb the ladder and be recognized as equals. The Flemings were working harder than the Walloons (at least in the Flemings' eyes), getting ahead more, and gaining in number fast enough that they were about to become the majority of Belgians.
    As more time passed, I came to realize that the cultural differences between Flemings and Walloons went deeper still. Belgium was literally the meeting ground for the great northern European culture, represented by the Flemings, and the great southern European culture, represented by the Walloons. The northerners—Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians, etc.—were quieter, more formal, and harder-working. The southerners—French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.—were less formal and more enjoyed the life of the present. The cultures met and clashed along an invisible line through the middle of Belgium.
    So it is in the JFK research community, I believe. Even after 35 years of trying, neither the conspiracists nor the nonconspiracists have been able to convert the other because far more than conspiracy/nonconspiracy is involved. The two views are really minor manifestations of much deeper differences than meet the eye, and perhaps even of a great philosophical divide. The nonconspiracists are the literalists, the realists, the scientists, the data-driven, the conservatives, the modernists, the absolutists—call it what you want. The conspiracists, by contrast, are the humanists, the liberals, the postmodernists, the relativists, etc. The nonconspiracists tend to hew more to the actual data of the case and are loath to wander too far in their search for truth. To them, nonconspiracy is more the default position, and they require solid evidence to switch sides. The conspiracists, however, place less faith in evidence because they fear they consider it limiting and probably tampered with anyhow. They freely reach far and wide in their search for the truth, with their default being some version of conspiracy. How do they know the truth when they find it? As one person wrote to me recently, it just "feels right." The conservative nonconspiracists, by contrast, tend to accept interpretations that make rational, logical sense. Feelings are less important to them.
    I have also come to believe that a person's position on the JFK case has as much to do with their basic personality and their background as it does with the case itself. For example, I have been struck by how JFK conspiracists also tend to be conspiracists in the RFK and MLK cases, quite independent of the details of those other cases. A number of authors have written books on two of these cases. Every time I open one of those other books, I see the same basic arguments being presented, with only the names and the places changed. Those writers have a basic conspiracist outlook that they bring to other cases. (Of course, they would say the same about the nonconspiracists.) Listen to conspiracists or nonconspiracists discussing current events, and you will frequently be able to pick out their basic orientations in minutes. Thus, much of one's position on the JFK case comes from deep predisposition—we view this case through the lens of what we are. I hope to use a separate essay to explore the source of predisposition and the role of predisposition in JFK research.
    It doesn't help that few JFK writers begin by laying out systematically how they view evidence and how they reason. That would bring light to the dark, murky world of current JFK research. Two writers who have tried are Jim Marrs ("Crossfire") and Gerald Posner ("Case Closed"). Neither, however, went far enough to be of much help to the reader. The first chapter of every book on the assassination should present a detailed exposition of how its writer reasons and deals with evidence.
    Thus we should not be surprised that nobody can win an argument about the JFK assassination, because what is at stake is not just an argument, but the whole orientation of the persons debating. To lose an argument, especially one on fundamentals, is to have one's whole outlook on life repudiated. Who can stand that? Very few of us, indeed. Thus our whole approach to discussing and debating this case is flawed and needs to be overhauled. What should take its place? I see only one way—revealing the real sources of the disagreement by laying bare the fundamentals inside each of us; that is, our predispositions and their causes as well as our basic attitudes toward evidence and reasoning. Am I driven by intellectual principles or by feelings? Am I basically restrained by the evidence or do I wander from it when I think it necessary? Do I hew to a consistent pattern of thinking or do I adapt my ways to different circumstances? Do I think there is one way to the truth of the assassination or many ways? Only when we understand what we really are can we move to the second level of questioning—do I truly understand the other basic way of reasoning and how it approaches the assassination? This in turn will allow us to reach the third level and ask the critical third question of whose way is better for understanding the assassination. Until we experience these initial steps, we as a community can never expect to understand our differences or begin to resolve them.