Short abstract:

Based on anthropological research of climate denialism in rural North Carolina, this paper explores the 'conspiracy theory' as a proxy concept for the epistemic 'Other'. As such, it is able to capture symmetrically the mutual mistrust between both institution and public, 'affirmer' and 'denier'.

Long abstract:

This paper argues that conspiracy theories represent more than an analytical preference for cover-up stories, but describe a class of thinking defined not by its substance but by its structural marginality to sanctioned (typically technoscientific) ways of knowing. Thinking symmetrically, narrating people instead by the concerns and logics they DO articulate often yields a more coherent representation. When political or epistemic authorities fail to take them seriously, it is they who assume the role of conspiracy theorist.

I illustrate this claim with anthropological research conducted in rural, conservative North Carolina; a community chosen for its characterisation by surveys and climate advocates as ‘in denial’ about the reality of climate change-induced sea-level rise threatening to overwhelm it. The research finds ‘denialism’ an impoverished term that fails to capture diverse political and environmental identities, and reveals more about climate change’s affirmers than its putative deniers. Grounding analysis instead in actual localist concerns (e.g fishing culture, political independence, and local heritage) suddenly casts regulatory science, federal government, and liberal environmentalists as the subversive Other.

The paper explores conspiracy theories as a recurring instrument of knowledge politics that shapes the performance of political participation and truth-making. It also offers an example of symmetrical research design for a discipline still lacking a distinctive methodological tradition.

I anticipate this presentation taking 20 minutes to deliver. It will respond to the open format by indulging in a style of ethnographic portraiture involving metaphor, photography, and figurative language typically avoided in academic communication.