Send message to Author

Short abstract:

During the corona pandemic, heterodox viewpoints on the pandemic have been discarded as dangerous forms of disinformation. Drawing on ethnographic research in the Netherlands, I show how these people resisted this foreclosing of alternatives by critiquing prevalent techno-medical solutionism.

Long abstract:

During the corona pandemic, different and often conflicting views have emerged about the virus and how to best deal with it. Such epistemic, societal, and economic criticisms have generally been dismissed as dangerous forms of conspiratorial disinformation that should be (and have been) excluded from the realm of reasonable political discussion. However, since these critiques of emerging hegemonic knowledge and policies often involve complex questioning of epistemic and political claims, and since corresponding plausibilities change over time, such clear distinctions between correct scientific knowledge and foolish, fraudulent, and/or dangerous conspiracy theories are not easy to draw. In fact, they can be considered political acts in these epistemic disputes.

By contrast, I interrogate these societal fights over truth symmetrically following knowledge controversy research traditions in Science & Technology Studies. How is the disinformation or conspiracy theory label used in public discussions about the SARS-COV-2 virus? And how do heterodox experts and their (conspiratorial) supporters resist the foreclosing of alternative views by orthodox experts and supporters. I draw on my ethnographic fieldwork during the corona pandemic in the off- and online worlds of people labeled as conspiracy theorists in the Netherlands, which includes the media they consume, share and produce. I show how those going against hegemonic knowledge positions invoked precautionary measures (living healthy) and a broader conception of health (including sociality and happiness). They resisted the techno-medical solutionism advanced by mainstream experts, and as such critiqued the hegemonic political economy of global public health, including the role of large philanthropic organizations.