Chapter 4
“Go ahead and ‘debunk’ truth by calling it a conspiracy theory”
The discursive construction of conspiracy theoryness in online affinity spaces
To help fill in the research gap on conspiracy theorizing online (Varis 2019), this chapter addresses two research questions: the discursive construction of conspiracy theoryness in online affinity spaces (Gee 2005) and the extent to which these discursive constructions are aligned with those previously identified by extant literature, which has traditionally taken a top-down, macro-level perspective, as defining of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are essentially social constructs (Butter and Knight 2016). To our knowledge, research to date has not examined how notions of what counts as a conspiracy theory are shaped in a bottom-up manner as knowledge, identities, and associated practices that are subjected to discursive struggle. Online affinity spaces, such as those provided by Reddit and YouTube and in which conspiracy theories are regularly discussed, give us unprecedented access to this process. Our analysis shows how the discursive construction of knowledge is crucially related to the concept of truth and how, contrary to common representations, conspiracy theories are seen – from an emic perspective – as stemming from rationality, reasoning, and deployment of an (albeit sui generis) scientific method. Although committed to knowledge activism, conspiracy theories in our data display a manifest proclivity for eudaimonic and social variables and lean strongly towards the depiction of the agents’ identity (both human and non-human) against whom conspiracy theorists relationally construct who they are.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theorising in and about conspiracy theories
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1Framework
- 3.2Data
- 3.2.1Data selection and collection
- 3.2.2Data analysis
- 4.Results
- 4.1Constructing knowledge about conspiracy theories
- 4.2Factual-conceptual knowledge
- 4.3Procedural knowledge
- 4.4Meta-cognitive (identity) knowledge
- 5.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References
Anderson, Lorin, and David Krathwohl
(eds.) 2001 A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
Androutsopoulos, Jannis
2013 “
Online Data Collection.” In
Data Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications, ed. by
Christine Mallinson,
Becky Childs, and
Gerard Van Herk, 236–250, London: Routledge.
Angouri, Jo
2016 “
Online Communities and Communities of Practice.” In
The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, ed. by
Alexandra Georgakopoulou, and
Tereza Spilioti, 323–337. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bale, Jeffrey
2007 “
Political Paranoia v. Political Realism: On Distinguishing between Bogus Conspiracy Theories and Genuine Conspiratorial Politics.”
Patterns of Prejudice 41 (1): 45–60.
Bloom, Benjamin, Max Engelbart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill, and David Krachwohl
1956 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans.
Bratich, Jack
2008 Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture. New York: SUNY Press.
Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall
2005 “
Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach.”
Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 585–614.
Butter, Michael, and Peter Knight
2016 “
Bridging the Great Divide: Conspiracy Theory Research for the 21st Century.”
Diogenes: 0392192116669289.
Byford, Jovan
2011 Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Charmaz, Kathleen
2006 Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cheney-Lippold, John
2017 We are Data: Algorithms and the Making of our Digital Selves. New York: NYU Press.
Clarke, Steve
2002 “
Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorizing.”
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 32 (2): 131–150.
Dentith, Matthew RX.
2016 “
When inferring to a conspiracy might be the best explanation.”
Social Epistemology 30 (5–6): 572–591.
Fallis, Don
2007 “
Collective Epistemic Goals.”
Social Epistemology 21 (3): 267–280.
Gee, James Paul
2005 “
Semiotic Social Spaces and Affinity Spaces.” In
Beyond Communities of Practice Language Power and Social Context ed. by
David Barton, and
Karin Tusting, 214–232. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, Barney
1978 Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss
1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Goffman, Erving
1963 Stigma. Notes on the Management of the Spoiled Identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Inc.
Hofstadter, Richard
1966 “
The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” In
The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, ed. by
Richard Hofstadter, 3–40. New York, NY: Knopf.
Keeley, Brian
1999 “
Of Conspiracy Theories.”
The Journal of Philosophy 96 (3): 109–126.
Li, Hongmei, and Sookeung Jung
2018 “
Networked Audiences and Cultural Globalization.”
Sociology Compass, 12 (4): 1–12.
Livingstone, Sonia, and Peter Lunt
1994 “
The Mass Media, Democracy and the Public Sphere”. In
Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate, ed. by
Sonia Livingstone, and
Peter Lunt, 9–35. London: Routledge.
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
2021 “
I was hoping I didn’t need to clarify – that was typed in sarcasm font’ – Norms and Knowledge Construction in the /r/conspiracy theories Affinity Space.” Panel on Im/politeness norms in online affinity spaces organized by Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, and Marta Dynel. IPrA Conference, June 27-July 2, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Mendoza-Denton, Norma
2002 Language and Identity. Wiley-Blackwell.
Paolillo, John
2018 “
The Flat Earth Phenomenon on YouTube.”
First Monday.
[URL].
Procházka, Ondřej, and Jan Blommaert
2019 “
Ergoic Framing in New Right Online Groups: Q, the MAGA Kid, and the Deep State theory.”
Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies,
paper 224.
[URL]
Schreiber, Rita, and Phyllis Stern
(eds) 2001 Using Grounded Theory in Nursing. New York: Springer.
Swami, Viren
2012 “
Social Psychological Origins of Conspiracy Theories: The Case of The Jewish Conspiracy Theory in Malaysia.”
Frontiers in Psychology 3: 280.
Tajfel, Henri
1982 “
Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations””
Annual Review of Psychology 33 (1): 1–39.
Turner, Graeme
2010 Ordinary People and the Media: The Demotic Turn. London: Sage Publications.
Uscinski, Joseph E., and Joseph M. Parent
2014 American Conspiracy Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vähämaa, Miika
2013 “
Groups as Epistemic Communities: Social Forces and Affect as Antecedents to Knowledge.”
Social Epistemology 27 (1): 3–20.
van Prooijen, Jan-Willem, and Karen M. Douglas
2018 “
Belief in Conspiracy Theories: Basic Principles of an Emerging Research Domain.”
European Journal of Social Psychology 48 (7): 897–908.
van Prooijen, Jan-Willem, and Mark Van Vugt
2018 “
Conspiracy Theories: Evolved Functions and Psychological Mechanisms.”
Perspectives on Psychological Science 13 (6):770–788.
Varis, Piia
2018 “
Conspiracy Theorizing Online.”
Diggit Magazine 12/05/2018
[URL]
Varis, Piia
2019 “
Conspiracy Theorising Online: Memes as a Conspiracy Theory Genre.”
Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies,
paper 238.
[URL]
Varis, Piia, and Jan Blommaert
2014 “
Conviviality and Collectives on Social Media: Virality, Memes and New Social Structures.”
Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 108.
[URL]
Varis, Piia, and Tom van Nuenen
2017 “
The Internet, Language, and Virtual Interactions”. In
The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society, ed. by
Ofelia García,
Nelson Flores, and
Massimiliano Spotti, 473–488. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weinberger, David
2012 Too Big to Know. New York: Basic Books.
Zappavigna, Michele
(
2011)
Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter.
New Media & Society. 13. 788–806.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Blitvich, Pilar G.
2024.
Pragmatics, (Im)Politeness, and Intergroup Communication,
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.