Cover not available

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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

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
Published online: 1 December 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.98.04gar
Abstract
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 (40)
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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Bratich, Jack. 2008. Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall. 2005. “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 585–614. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butter, Michael, and Peter Knight. 2016. “Bridging the Great Divide: Conspiracy Theory Research for the 21st Century.” Diogenes: 0392192116669289.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byford, Jovan. 2011. Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charmaz, Kathleen. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheney-Lippold, John. 2017. We are Data: Algorithms and the Making of our Digital Selves. New York: NYU Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clarke, Steve. 2002. “Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorizing.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 32 (2): 131–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dentith, Matthew RX. 2016. “When inferring to a conspiracy might be the best explanation.” Social Epistemology 30 (5–6): 572–591. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fallis, Don. 2007. “Collective Epistemic Goals.” Social Epistemology 21 (3): 267–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma. Notes on the Management of the Spoiled Identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Keeley, Brian. 1999. “Of Conspiracy Theories.” The Journal of Philosophy 96 (3): 109–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Hongmei, and Sookeung Jung. 2018. “Networked Audiences and Cultural Globalization.” Sociology Compass, 12 (4): 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1982. “Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations”” Annual Review of Psychology 33 (1): 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, Graeme. 2010. Ordinary People and the Media: The Demotic Turn. London: Sage Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uscinski, Joseph E., and Joseph M. Parent. 2014. American Conspiracy Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vähämaa, Miika. 2013. “Groups as Epistemic Communities: Social Forces and Affect as Antecedents to Knowledge.” Social Epistemology 27 (1): 3–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varis, Piia. 2018. “Conspiracy Theorizing Online.” Diggit Magazine 12/05/2018 [URL]
. 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weinberger, David. 2012. Too Big to Know. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media & Society. 13. 788–806. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Musolff, Andreas
2025. An Unlikely ‘Traitor’ in the ‘War’ against Covid-19: Dr Anthony Fauci. Lingue Culture Mediazioni - Languages Cultures Mediation (LCM Journal) 11:2 DOI logo
Blitvich, Pilar G.
2024. Pragmatics, (Im)Politeness, and Intergroup Communication, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue