I was surprised to hear that article I mentioned above is still behind a paywall since it is now so old. Thanks for the heads-up on potential copyright issues though, wouldn't want that!
I thought I'd just share a bit about it here, what most strikes me in it, if that's of any interest, b/c it's probably not worth paying for!
The authors compare the 3 principles they see as being part of both conspiracy theory and New Age or 'alternative' spirituality. "a) nothing happens by accident, b) nothing is as it seems, c) everything is connected. They conclude that conspiracy theory is male-dominated, conservative and pessimistic and concerned with current affairs while the 'holistic milieu' (New Age) is female-dominated, optimistic and focused on the self and personal growth and relationships. They say this is a web movement primarily with only a modest presence in 'real life' and has diffuse leadership and constantly shifting areas of interest.
"Conspirituality appears to be a means by which political cynicism is tempered with spiritual optimism. It curbs the belligerence of conspiracy theory and the self-absorption of the New Age."
The authors spend a bit of time looking at the "history" and the "first generation" and "second generation" and talks about such forerunners as David Icke, Alex Jones and Steven Greer, also Ron Paul and how there was a great uptake of the movement after 9/11. Ground Zero, Project Camelot and Red Ice are also considered to be in this first generation. They also state that most folks come to conspiracy theory through the mainstream media. They go on to discuss the key themes of a 'paradigm shift', unification and Oneness. They state that "Conspiracist beliefs are now commonplace."
What struck me when I first read this article was simply to see these topics covered in this journal. I also thought the term was clever and catchy. I do respect these authors for putting it together and expect they most likely got some pushback from their peers.
What also struck me is a repeat of what I see so much of with academics covering these topics: they provide very little context, if any and they make some sweeping assumptions I see as wrong or at least short-sighted. While there are many pages of notes and references the focus on this as a purely modern phenomenon and holding solely in the realm of the web is misinformed. It is written as an academic work by scholars yet there is no academic work cited, it's primarily, maybe even exclusively, current pop-culture, with no serious work discussed and focusing on the last decade or so, with only one mention of any history pre-JFK. I find this to be oddly deceptive. When they speak of NWO conspiracies they mention Pat Roberts but not Carroll Quigley, an actual scholar whom directly influenced Bill Clinton according to Clinton's own words. There is no mention of secret societies, only a pop-reference to the Illuminati. How on earth can you cover conspiracies or spirituality without looking at Masonry and the many others. The study of secret societies of course has a very long history with many serious scholars having contributed to that field. No mention of one of the greatest conspiracies with a long history, whether fake or real, which is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which has been covered extensively by such prolific authors as Umberto Eco. So they leave out all the historical context as well as the literary history. What about Goethe, what about Hoffman, brothers Grimm, what about the surrealist movement, what about Hesse and the whole 'lodge movement'?! The 'lure of the arcane' defines conspiracy theory at its very core and this has been of interest to folks since the beginning of civilization. I just don't understand how there can be a good interpretation of a modern movement that ignores completely this fact.
The authors of this article act as if this 'conspirituality' sprung up like mysterious stalagmites in the deep caverns of the internet. For that, they should be raked over the coals, metaphorically-speaking, of course. :)
The Emergence of Conspirituality by Charlotte Ward & David Voas
Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 26, No 1, January 2011, 103-121