Usable properties of veridical statement. Conspiracy thinking and truth in public discourse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26485/PS/2023/72.4/3Keywords:
truth, conspiracy thinking, discourse analysis, revolutionAbstract
This paper presents and analyses the problem of veridical statement. It examines a specific kind of social action: telling the truth. Four usable properties of veridical statement are indicated: the preferred account as the only one possible, the simultaneity of description and valuation, the admissibility of saying anything and in whatever way, and the defensive-offensive nature. The examination of these four properties is based on the extended extract of talk broadcast in the weekly radio program “Wojna cywilizacji”. Interlocutors discuss a disastrous revolution that is said to be sweeping through Poland, Europe, and the entire world. They also indicate its putative sources and present symptoms. The way this talk unfolds could possibly suggest that participants are led by conspiracy thinking. This paper does not aim to downgrade such a psychological interpretation, it rather attempts to provide an alternative one. Firstly, it discusses some of the main characteristics of conspiracy thinking found in psychological studies on the topic. Secondly, it considers the possible limitations of a psychological notion of conspiracy thinking. Thirdly, it approaches the radio talk in terms of discourse analysis and develops the concept of veridical statement. Fourthly, it concludes with a discussion of the potential criticism of the analysis as being one based on a vicious circle logic.
References
Bennett Brian P. 2007. “Hermetic histories: Divine providence and conspiracy theory”. Numen 54: 174–209. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27643257.
Billig Michael. 1991. Ideology and opinions. Studies in rhetorical psychology. London, Newbury Park, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Billig Michael. 2004. Freudian repression. Conversation creating the unconscious. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bratich Jack Z. 2008. Conspiracy panics. Political rationality and popular culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Czech Franciszek. 2014. Teorie teorii spiskowych. Esej bibliograficzny. W: Struktura teorii spiskowych. Antologia. F. Czech (red.), 233–245. Kraków: Nomos.
Czech Franciszek. 2015. Spiskowe narracje i metanarracje. Kraków: Nomos.
Czyżewski Marek. 2010. W stronę teorii dyskursu publicznego. W: Rytualny chaos. Studium dyskursu publicznego. M. Czyżewski, S. Kowalski, A. Piotrowski (red.), 49–117. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
Douglas Karen M., Robbie M. Sutton, Mitchell J. Callan, Rael J. Dawtry, Annelie J. Harvey. 2015. “Someone is pulling the strings: Hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories”. Thinking & Reasoning 22(1): 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586.
Edwards Derek. 1997. Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
Edwards Derek. 1999. “Emotion discourse”. Culture Psychology 5(3): 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X9953001.
Featherstone Mark. 2001. “The obscure politics of conspiracy theory”. The Sociological Review 48(2): 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2000.tb03519.x.
Grzesiak-Feldman Monika. 2016. Psychologia myślenia spiskowego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Habermas Jürgen. 2015. Teoria działania komunikacyjnego, tom 1 i 2. Warszawa: PWN.
Heins Volker. 2007. “Critical theory and the traps of conspiracy thinking”. Philosophy & Social Criticism 33(7): 787–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453707081675.
Jefferson Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, G.H. Lemer (ed.), 13–23. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kofta Mirosław. 2001. Stereotyp spiskowy jako centralny składnik antysemityzmu. W: Stereotypy i uprzedzenia. Uwarunkowania psychologiczne i kulturowe. M. Kofta, A. Jasińska-Kania (red.), 274–294. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
Kofta Mirosław, Wiktor Soral. 2018. Dlaczego ludzie szukają spiskowych wyjaśnień zdarzeń politycznych? Mechanizmy psychospołeczne. W: Podzielony umysł społeczny. Polacy po ćwierćwieczu demokracji. M. Drogosz (red.), 147–168. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Stowarzyszenia Filomatów, Redakcja Liberi Libri.
Kofta Mirosław, Wiktor Soral, Michał Bilewicz. 2020. “What breeds conspiracy antisemitism? The role of political uncontrollability and uncertainty in the belief in Jewish conspiracy”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 118(5): 900–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000183.
Kołakowski Leszek. 2010. Herezja. Kraków: Znak.
Mills C. Wright. 1940. “Situated actions and vocabularies of motive”. American Sociological Review 5(6): 904–913.
Mitterer Josef. 1996. Tamta strona filozofii. Przeciwko dualistycznej zasadzie poznania. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa.
Nagel Thomas. 1986. The view from nowhere. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oliver J. Eric, Thomas J. Wood. 2014. “Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style(s) of mass opinion”. American Journal of Political Science 58: 952–966. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12084.
Ossowski Stanisław. 1967. O osobliwościach nauk społecznych. W: O nauce, tom IV, S. Ossowski, 125–316. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Pipes Daniel. 1998. Potęga spisku. Wpływ paranoicznego myślenia na dzieje ludzkości. Warszawa: BEJ Service.
Pollner Melvin. 1987. Mundane reason. Reality in everyday and sociological discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Popper Karl. 2006. Społeczeństwo otwarte i jego wrogowie, tom 2. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Potter Jonathan. 1992. “Constructing realism. Seven moves (plus or minus a couple)”. Theory & Psychology 2(2): 167–173.
Potter Jonathan. 1996. Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Potter Jonathan, Alexa Hepburn, Derek Edwards. 2020. “Rethinking attitudes and social psychology – Issues of function, order, and combination in subject-side and object-side assessments in natural settings”. Qualitative Research in Psychology 17(3): 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1725952.
Potter Jonathan, Margaret Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology. Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
Potter Jonathan, Margaret Wetherell. 1988. “Accomplishing attitudes: Fact and evaluation in racist discourse”. Text 8(1–2): 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.1-2.51.
Sacks Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation”. Language 50(4): 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243.
Soral Wiktor, Aleksandra Cichocka, Michał Bilewicz, Marta Marchlewska. 2019. The collective conspiracy mentality in Poland. In: Conspiracy theories and the people who believe them. J.E. Uscinski (ed.), 372–384. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stachowiak Jerzy. 2015. Nie-dualizujący sposób mówienia a rozstrzyganie kontrowersji. W: Horyzonty konstruktywizmu. Inspiracje, perspektywy, przyszłość, E. Bińczyk, A. Derra, J. Grygieńć (red.), 295–324. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
Stachowiak Jerzy. 2020a. „Czym jest «psyche» podwładnych dla jej znawców? Benjamin Lee Whorf, pojęcie sposobu rozpatrywania i problem uprzedmiotowienia”. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej 16(4): 18–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/1733-8069.16.4.02.
Stachowiak Jerzy. 2020b. Czynnik ludzki. O cywilizowaniu uprzedmiotowienia. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie SEDNO.
Stachowiak Jerzy. 2021. „Formalne własności wypowiedzi prawdziwościowej”. Przegląd Socjologiczny 70(3): 121–150. https://doi.org/10.26485/PS/2021/70.3/6.
Uscinski Joseph E. 2020. Conspiracy theories. A primer. Lanham, Boulder, New York, London: Owman & Littlefield.
Uscinski Joseph E., Joseph M. Parent. 2014. American conspiracy theories. New York: Oxford.
Winch Peter. 1993. Relatywizm etyczny. W: Świat przeżywany. Fenomenologia i nauki społeczne. Z. Krasnodębski (red.), 329–347. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
Wiggins Sally. 2017. Discursive psychology. Theory, method and applications. London: SAGE Publications.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
