Chapter published in:
Conspiracy Theory Discourses
Edited by Massimiliano Demata, Virginia Zorzi and Angela Zottola
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 98] 2022
► pp. 71–98

Chapter 4
“Go ahead and ‘debunk’ truth by calling it a conspiracy theory”

The discursive construction of conspiracy theoryness in online affinity spaces

| University of North Carolina
| Swansea University

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.

Keywords: conspiracy theory, online affinity spaces, knowledge construction, identity
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.98.04gar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Benjamin, Max Engelbart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill, and David Krachwohl
1956 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
Bratich, Jack
2008 Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall
2005 “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 585–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butter, Michael, and Peter Knight
2016 “Bridging the Great Divide: Conspiracy Theory Research for the 21st Century.” Diogenes: 0392192116669289.Google Scholar
Byford, Jovan
2011 Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charmaz, Kathleen
2006 Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cheney-Lippold, John
2017 We are Data: Algorithms and the Making of our Digital Selves. New York: NYU Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Steve
2002 “Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorizing.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 32 (2): 131–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dentith, Matthew RX.
2016 “When inferring to a conspiracy might be the best explanation.” Social Epistemology 30 (5–6): 572–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fallis, Don
2007 “Collective Epistemic Goals.” Social Epistemology 21 (3): 267–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Barney
1978 Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss
1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1963 Stigma. Notes on the Management of the Spoiled Identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Inc.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Keeley, Brian
1999 “Of Conspiracy Theories.” The Journal of Philosophy 96 (3): 109–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Hongmei, and Sookeung Jung
2018 “Networked Audiences and Cultural Globalization.” Sociology Compass, 12 (4): 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John
2018 “The Flat Earth Phenomenon on YouTube.” First Monday. https://​firstmonday​.org​/ojs​/index​.php​/fm​/article​/download​/8251​/7693. DOI logo
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. https://​www​.tilburguniversity​.edu​/research​/institutes​-and​-research​-groups​/babylon​/tpcs
Schreiber, Rita, and Phyllis Stern
(eds) 2001 Using Grounded Theory in Nursing. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Swami, Viren
2012 “Social Psychological Origins of Conspiracy Theories: The Case of The Jewish Conspiracy Theory in Malaysia.” Frontiers in Psychology 3: 280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri
1982 “Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations”” Annual Review of Psychology 33 (1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Graeme
2010 Ordinary People and the Media: The Demotic Turn. London: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uscinski, Joseph E., and Joseph M. Parent
2014 American Conspiracy Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vähämaa, Miika
2013 “Groups as Epistemic Communities: Social Forces and Affect as Antecedents to Knowledge.” Social Epistemology 27 (1): 3–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Prooijen, Jan-Willem, and Mark Van Vugt
2018 “Conspiracy Theories: Evolved Functions and Psychological Mechanisms.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 13 (6):770–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varis, Piia
2018 “Conspiracy Theorizing Online.” Diggit Magazine 12/05/2018 https://​www​.diggitmagazine​.com​/articles​/conspiracy​-theorising​-online
2019 “Conspiracy Theorising Online: Memes as a Conspiracy Theory Genre.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 238. https://​www​.tilburguniversity​.edu​/research​/institutes​-and​-research​-groups​/babylon​/tpcs
Varis, Piia, and Jan Blommaert
2014 “Conviviality and Collectives on Social Media: Virality, Memes and New Social Structures.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 108. https://​www​.tilburguniversity​.edu​/research​/institutes​-and​-research​-groups​/babylon​/tpcs​/item​-paper​-108​-tpcs​.htm
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.Google Scholar
Weinberger, David
2012 Too Big to Know. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele
(2011) Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media & Society. 13. 788–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar