阴谋论者如何争论:QAnon社交媒体领域的认识资本

IF 1.5 Q2 COMMUNICATION Popular Communication Pub Date : 2022-03-17 DOI:10.1080/15405702.2022.2050238
D. G. Robertson, Amarnath Amarasingam
{"title":"阴谋论者如何争论:QAnon社交媒体领域的认识资本","authors":"D. G. Robertson, Amarnath Amarasingam","doi":"10.1080/15405702.2022.2050238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT What is the role of different epistemic modes in how authority is established in right-leaning conspiratorial narratives? This paper sets out to answer this question through a mixed methods analysis. The first section sets out a model for the analysis of epistemic contestations, using six epistemic modes. This is then applied to a data set of Telegram posts in which key terms are used to identify these epistemic modes. Two questions were then asked of the data. First, how is power related to different kinds of knowledge claims in the far-right conspiratorial milieu? Second, what is the role of these different epistemic modes in how authority is established in right-leaning conspiratorial narratives? How does the epistemology of QAnon influence how they argue? We found that while a broader set of epistemic modes could be identified, there were contestations internally also, particularly around moments of “failed prophecy,” and the role of Christianity and esoteric spiritualities.","PeriodicalId":45584,"journal":{"name":"Popular Communication","volume":"20 1","pages":"193 - 207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How conspiracy theorists argue: epistemic capital in the QAnon social media sphere\",\"authors\":\"D. G. Robertson, Amarnath Amarasingam\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15405702.2022.2050238\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT What is the role of different epistemic modes in how authority is established in right-leaning conspiratorial narratives? This paper sets out to answer this question through a mixed methods analysis. The first section sets out a model for the analysis of epistemic contestations, using six epistemic modes. This is then applied to a data set of Telegram posts in which key terms are used to identify these epistemic modes. Two questions were then asked of the data. First, how is power related to different kinds of knowledge claims in the far-right conspiratorial milieu? Second, what is the role of these different epistemic modes in how authority is established in right-leaning conspiratorial narratives? How does the epistemology of QAnon influence how they argue? We found that while a broader set of epistemic modes could be identified, there were contestations internally also, particularly around moments of “failed prophecy,” and the role of Christianity and esoteric spiritualities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Popular Communication\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"193 - 207\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Popular Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2022.2050238\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Popular Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2022.2050238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要:在右倾阴谋叙事中,不同的认识模式在如何建立权威方面扮演着什么角色?本文试图通过混合方法分析来回答这个问题。第一节提出了一个分析认识论争论的模型,使用了六种认识模式。然后将其应用于Telegram帖子的数据集,其中关键术语用于识别这些认知模式。然后对数据提出了两个问题。首先,在极右翼阴谋环境中,权力与不同类型的知识主张有何关联?其次,这些不同的认识模式在右倾阴谋叙事中如何建立权威方面起着什么作用?QAnon的认识论如何影响他们的争论?我们发现,虽然可以确定一套更广泛的认识模式,但内部也存在争议,特别是在“失败的预言”时刻,以及基督教和深奥的唯心主义的作用。
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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How conspiracy theorists argue: epistemic capital in the QAnon social media sphere
ABSTRACT What is the role of different epistemic modes in how authority is established in right-leaning conspiratorial narratives? This paper sets out to answer this question through a mixed methods analysis. The first section sets out a model for the analysis of epistemic contestations, using six epistemic modes. This is then applied to a data set of Telegram posts in which key terms are used to identify these epistemic modes. Two questions were then asked of the data. First, how is power related to different kinds of knowledge claims in the far-right conspiratorial milieu? Second, what is the role of these different epistemic modes in how authority is established in right-leaning conspiratorial narratives? How does the epistemology of QAnon influence how they argue? We found that while a broader set of epistemic modes could be identified, there were contestations internally also, particularly around moments of “failed prophecy,” and the role of Christianity and esoteric spiritualities.
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
Popular Communication
Popular Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Video game characters and transmedia storytelling. The dynamic game character, A big little fiction form: last decade of production and circulation of made-for-TV movies in Europe Unspooled: how the cassette made music sharable Mourning the greatest: “unforgivably black” and peacefully Muslim Muhammad Ali “Bones are life!” true-crime podcasting, self-promotion and the vernaculars of Instagram with Cult Liter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1