被谎言蒙蔽了双眼？阴谋论的综合定义

IF 4.7 1区文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION

Communication Theory Pub Date : 2020-10-07 DOI:10.1093/ct/qtaa023

C. Baden, Tzlil Sharon

{"title":"被谎言蒙蔽了双眼？阴谋论的综合定义","authors":"C. Baden, Tzlil Sharon","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtaa023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Despite widespread concern over the alleged rise of conspiracy theories, scholars continue to disagree whether it is possible to distinguish specific kinds of conspiracist accounts that can justifiably be denounced as objectionable. In this article, we review scholarship from multiple disciplines to develop a composite definition of “conspiracy theories proper” (CTP) that violate fundamental norms of democratic discourse. Besides referring to grand conspiracies to account for social phenomena, we argue, such conspiracy theories: (a) assume conspirators’ pervasive control over events and information, (b) construct dissent as a Manichean binary, and (c) employ an elusive, dogmatic epistemology. We discuss the operational potential and limitations of our definition using news user talkbacks on the U.S., British and German online editions of Russia Today (RT), a popular platform among proponents of out-of-mainstream political views. Identifying key operational challenges in the classification of natural discourse, we sketch avenues toward a more rigorous study of contentious political talk.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ct/qtaa023","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"BLINDED BY THE LIES? Toward an integrated definition of conspiracy theories\",\"authors\":\"C. Baden, Tzlil Sharon\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ct/qtaa023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Despite widespread concern over the alleged rise of conspiracy theories, scholars continue to disagree whether it is possible to distinguish specific kinds of conspiracist accounts that can justifiably be denounced as objectionable. In this article, we review scholarship from multiple disciplines to develop a composite definition of “conspiracy theories proper” (CTP) that violate fundamental norms of democratic discourse. Besides referring to grand conspiracies to account for social phenomena, we argue, such conspiracy theories: (a) assume conspirators’ pervasive control over events and information, (b) construct dissent as a Manichean binary, and (c) employ an elusive, dogmatic epistemology. We discuss the operational potential and limitations of our definition using news user talkbacks on the U.S., British and German online editions of Russia Today (RT), a popular platform among proponents of out-of-mainstream political views. Identifying key operational challenges in the classification of natural discourse, we sketch avenues toward a more rigorous study of contentious political talk.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48102,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Theory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ct/qtaa023\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa023\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 22

摘要

尽管阴谋论的兴起引起了广泛的关注，但学者们仍然不同意是否有可能区分出特定类型的阴谋论描述，这些描述可以被合理地谴责为令人反感的。在这篇文章中，我们回顾了来自多个学科的学术研究，以制定一个违反民主话语基本规范的“适当阴谋论”(CTP)的综合定义。除了提到大阴谋来解释社会现象，我们认为，这样的阴谋论:(a)假设阴谋者对事件和信息的普遍控制，(b)将异议构建为摩尼教的二元结构，(c)采用难以捉摸的教条认识论。我们利用美国、英国和德国在线版《今日俄罗斯》(RT)的新闻用户反馈来讨论我们定义的操作潜力和局限性。RT是一个在非主流政治观点支持者中很受欢迎的平台。确定自然话语分类中的关键操作挑战，我们概述了对有争议的政治谈话进行更严格研究的途径。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

BLINDED BY THE LIES? Toward an integrated definition of conspiracy theories

Despite widespread concern over the alleged rise of conspiracy theories, scholars continue to disagree whether it is possible to distinguish specific kinds of conspiracist accounts that can justifiably be denounced as objectionable. In this article, we review scholarship from multiple disciplines to develop a composite definition of “conspiracy theories proper” (CTP) that violate fundamental norms of democratic discourse. Besides referring to grand conspiracies to account for social phenomena, we argue, such conspiracy theories: (a) assume conspirators’ pervasive control over events and information, (b) construct dissent as a Manichean binary, and (c) employ an elusive, dogmatic epistemology. We discuss the operational potential and limitations of our definition using news user talkbacks on the U.S., British and German online editions of Russia Today (RT), a popular platform among proponents of out-of-mainstream political views. Identifying key operational challenges in the classification of natural discourse, we sketch avenues toward a more rigorous study of contentious political talk.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Communication Theory COMMUNICATION-

CiteScore

9.00

自引率

2.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Communication Theory is an international forum publishing high quality, original research into the theoretical development of communication from across a wide array of disciplines, such as communication studies, sociology, psychology, political science, cultural and gender studies, philosophy, linguistics, and literature. A journal of the International Communication Association, Communication Theory especially welcomes work in the following areas of research, all of them components of ICA: Communication and Technology, Communication Law and Policy, Ethnicity and Race in Communication, Feminist Scholarship, Global Communication and Social Change, Health Communication, Information Systems, Instructional/Developmental Communication, Intercultural Communication, Interpersonal Communication, Journalism Studies, Language and Social Interaction, Mass Communication, Organizational Communication, Philosophy of Communication, Political Communication, Popular Communication, Public Relations, Visual Communication Studies, Children, Adolescents and the Media, Communication History, Game Studies, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies, and Intergroup Communication. The journal aims to be inclusive in theoretical approaches insofar as these pertain to communication theory.