The Construction of ‘Other’ in the Information Age - The Mechanism of American Bioweapon Conspiracies in the Pandemic of COVID-19

The Construction of ‘Other’ in the Information Age

The Mechanism of American Bioweapon Conspiracies in the

Pandemic of COVID-19

MA Thesis

University of Amsterdam

Master of New Media and Digital Culture

Supervisor: Marc Tuters Referencing: APA 6th edition

Table of Contents

Table of Contents...2

Abstract...3

Introduction...4

Chapter 1 Theoretical Framework...14

1.1 The Genealogy of the Conspiracy Theory...15

1.1.1 What Counts a Conspiracy Theory? ...15

1.1.2 The Mechanism of Spread...18

1.2 The Promotion and Circulation in the Information Age...23

1.2.1 Entering the Actor-Network Theory...23

1.2.2 Affordance as an Actor...27

1.2.3 Algorithms as an Actor...28

1.2.4 Censorship - In the Specific Chinese Context...30

Chapter 2 Methodology...33

2.1 Foundation: Conducting an Empirical Research with Digital Methods...34

2.2 Disclosing the Content: Critical Discourse Analysis...37

2.3 Reusing the Actor-Network Theory: Network of Circulation...40

Chapter 3 Analysis...44

3.1 The Circulation of American Conspiracy Theory as a Phenomenon...44

3.2 The Inner Logic of American Bioweapon Conspiracies – Why to Believe?...55

3.3 Penetration in the Information Age – Circulating It as a Network...71

Conclusion...81

Abstract

The rise and popularity of digital platforms widely increase the visibility of conspiracy theories, which also change the dynamics of conspiracies dissemination. Meanwhile, people’s perceptions of the culture of conspiracism are altered accordingly. Using US bioweapon conspiracies, a typical conspiracy theory popular in China’s online environment, as the case study, this thesis focuses on understanding how the new forces and actors in the information age influence audiences’ reaction to conspiracy theories. Enrolling actor-network theory as both theoretical framework and methodology while combining it with literature and methodology featuring new media platforms, my work tries to give new insight to the question of ‘why people create and circulate conspiracy theories’ and find its location in the field of media studies.

Through conducting a series of empirical research and analyzing the data critically, this thesis argues that the diverse actors on media platforms formulate a shifting network of relationships that generates the new dynamics of conspiracy theories circulation. With such a new assemblage of power, the opposition and antagonism to ‘the rival other’ are constructed, or even strengthened, which considerably affect audiences’ perception of conspiracy theories.

Introduction

An outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) that was first reported from Wuhan, China has received close attention around the globe in recent months and has gradually bloomed into a global “pandemic” deeply influencing millions of people in the following days (Wetsman, 2020). This thesis mainly surrounds COVID-19 pandemic and sets the focus on those discussions about its origin appearing on the Internet. As there are distinctive hypotheses arguing ‘where does the novel virus come from’, diverse conspiracy theories attributing to the powerful forces with private deliberation have also emerged on different platforms. One of the most widespread and influential conspiracies in China’s online environment, which is also the main target of this thesis, is American bioweapon theories. Circulated and stressed by China’s foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, the US bioweapon theory is a typical conspiracy theory proposed and spread in the level of national government which attains its impact on the domestic cyber discussion.

In this thesis concentrating on this specific conspiracy theory directly relating to two powerful countries as a case study, I would like to start form the basic question of “why do people believe and spread conspiracy theory” and narrow it down with the specific context of current information age. Since the popularity of conspiracy theories has gradually made it become an important issue both in several academic fields, including media studies, it is worth to notice its new circulation forms and influences to understand its mechanism today, the era of digital media. In addition to the theory itself, the materiality of medium and diverse actors on the mediums all contribute to the spreading and penetration of conspiracy theories. Thus, this thesis will introduce

actor-network theory (Latour, Callon and Law, 1980s) as both theoretical framework and methodology to examine diverse actors in such a circulation network.

Besides, working with other methods in the field of media studies, I will combine actor-network theory with critical discourse analysis to conduct an empirical research to disclose the spread mechanism of American bioweapon conspiracy. Through exposing the circulation process of this typical conspiracy on different platforms in detail, I try to argue that diverse actors participating those processes generate a network facilitating the construction of ‘other’ and antagonism, which influences audiences’ perception on conspiracy theories to a large extent. Researching these basic points provide a possible solution to answer the large ‘why’ question I mention before in specific context and also give insight to understand the new dynamics where conspiracies grow and develop.

The thesis will start from the basic information of this event and go deep into the object of ‘conspiracy theories’ and my specific case of ‘American bioweapon conspiracies.’ Further details will be mentioned in the introduction part to the structure of the thesis.

The World Under COVID-19 What is Covid-19?

At the end of December, the World Health Organization was informed by public health officials from China that this unknown, novel virus causing pneumonia illness in the city of Wuhan (WHO, 2020). In the statement from WHO posted on the 9th of January, this virus was identified as a coronavirus, which comes from the same viral family as SARS but appears as an entirely new virus that has never been encountered before

(Boseley, Devlin & Bealm, 2020). Diagnosed with a laboratory test, it can be spread from person to person, which may be severe and even cause death (Sauer, 2020). As of now, researchers have known that the new coronavirus is spread through droplets released into the air when an infected person has symptoms of cough or sneezes (ibid). Other symptoms include fever, sore throat, shortness of breath, muscle aches, unexplained loss of taste or smell, headache.

Due to its severity and infectivity, WHO has already declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic, which means it can be regarded as an epidemic that is spread over several countries or continents and affects a large percent of the population (Citroner, 2020). In addition to China, the fast-moving and highly transmissible virus have infected more than six million people around the world.

How does Covid-19 influence our lives?

Being a villain with global ambitions, there have been about six million confirmed cases of coronavirus in 185 countries as it continues to spread. However, there are still no vaccines to protect the body against this enemy. As of June 5th, health officials have confirmed at least 386,000 people have died, according to the data from BBC news (2020). Only in the US, there have been more than 100,000 deaths. Many of those who have died had underlying health conditions, which the coronavirus complicated. The rising death toll still increases people’s anxiety and uncertainty about their health conditions. Regarding the slow progress of vaccine development (Morris & Reuben, 2020), preventions become the important rules under such circumstances. One of the widely recognized prevention methods is practicing social distancing, which

recommending citizens of different nations to stay at home. Thus, COVID-19 presents a global image in which people across the continents have all lived the life in quarantine (Ansberry, 2020). People upload their stories, pictures and vlogs about how they are living during the coronavirus pandemic on several social media, news websites, which indicates how this virus has influenced our daily lives in different ways.

As French President Macron said, “this period will have taught us a lot.” It is a war against an invisible enemy, and everyone in the global village is starting to draw lessons (Wintour, 2020). Except for the life issues, global citizens should also consider the economic and political consequences of “a distant peace.” In the past five weeks, over 15% of the national workforce – more than 26 million Americans have filed for unemployment in the US (Sherman, 2020). Daniel Victory, a 42-year-old bar owner in New Orleans, Louisiana, told the reporter, “the outbreak totally shut me down. The threat is real.” How to survive becomes a real issue for those micro business owners not only in America but also in China and other countries. Meanwhile, politicians and scholars also worry about the problems in the field of politics. Sigmar Gabriel, the former German Social Democratic party foreign minister has lamented that the next generation will be less naïve about globalization (Sims, 2020). The popular author Yuval Noah Harari (2020) posed the question in his new article, “humanity needs to make a choice. Will we travel down the route of disunity, or will we adopt the path of global solidarity?”

Accordingly, the post-coronavirus world order is seen as a hot term that is called for global concern, “rulers must prepare now to the transition”, said by Henry Kissinger, the US secretary of state under Richard Nixon (Wintour, 2020). Politicians should

concern about that the new relationship between the biggest power may appear in which communities and individuals are involved in and influenced. Competing ideologies, power blocs, leaders, and systems of social cohesion are being stress-tested in the court of world opinion in the daily combat between nations (Wintour, 2020). On the contrary, the out-group hate, discrimination, xenophobia, racism, and attacks are highlighted in countries and regions. In a news report on COVID-19 and human rights, the UN expressed concern on the frequent use of phrases such as “foreigner’s disease” in several countries (Wintour, 2020), which leads to the rising xenophobic antagonism and nationalism.

The Rise of Conspiracies

With the emergence of a global cacophony of voices that communicates conflicting and politicized information about the COVID-19, the organic spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories from different actors in this pandemic has also been amplified (Graphika, 2020). Being such a notable and dramatic global event, the significance of COVID-19 drives people’s concerns and eagerness to understand, consumer, and share updates on the coronavirus in a time of mass uncertainty. One of the most popular and widely discussed topics is its origin, which probably helps people in doubt and insecurity sort out the way of control. Except for the scientific possible origin proposed by the professional, the discussion about “where it comes from” also becomes the ground where the conspiracy theories emerge and grow.

The conspiracy theory is “the alleged explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by powerful actors and sinister that normally rivals the common received

views, often political in motivation” (Clarke, 2002, p.147). In the discussion about COVID-19, although health officials are still tracing the exact source of this novel coronavirus, early hypotheses thought it may be linked to a seafood market in Wuhan, China. The academics mainly recognized the virus is not the deliberate human-made productions while the investigations are ongoing to understand how this virus originated and spread from which creatures (Ansberry, 2020). Since there is no official certain explanation on the cause of this new damaging virus, conspiracies have appeared to revolve around the origin of the outbreak. As a research report about the global conversation surrounding the coronavirus pandemic (Graphika, p.21) showed, coronavirus conspiracies around the origin often by tapping into existing theories about the “new world order.” There are several hypotheses targeting “the powerful evil force” on different social media platforms across the globe.

Antagonism Between Chinese Virus vs. American Virus

For instance, the popular hypothesis that attributes to China including referring to the virus as “Wuhan Virus”, “Chinese Virus” (Tyler & Liu, 2020) and claiming the virus was part of a Chinese biological weapons program by a laboratory in Wuhan (Broderick, 2020). Rush Limbaugh, a conservative political commentator, alleged on the most-listened-to radio show in the US that the virus probably “a ChiCom laboratory experiment” and the Chinese government were weaponizing the virus with the political purpose (Kassam, 2020). In the early stage, COVID-19 was identified by some conservative influencer as the political weapon created by China to harm Donald Trump. “Xi Jinping’s political agenda may turn out to be a root cause of the epidemic”, said American Magazine Foreign Policy (2020). These discourses with high conspiratorial

orientation are popular in the public speech around the world, especially on the platforms such as Twitter, 4Chan, and Reddit, which largely instigate racism, outgroup hostility and outrage to China while also increase the sense of nationalism.

On the contrary, as another powerful actor in the global stage, China also has its “alternative explanation” - which is the main concern in this thesis – the American bioweapon theory. As Wintour (2020) said, “indeed, China is already on a victory lap of sorts, believing it has deftly repositioned itself from the culprit to the world’s savior.” There is also very strong rhetoric constructing “the other” as the enemy to muddy the waters around where the virus originated. On 12 March Zhao Lijian, the foreign ministry spokesman, tweeted “It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan” and suggested the relation of coronavirus to the Military World Games (Tyler & Liu, 2020). Along with Iran and Russia, China has been using the COVID-19 crisis to launch a propaganda and disinformation onslaught against the United States (Wintour, 2020). The main point of the strategy has disavowed the idea that “the virus comes from China” while reckons it as an American bioweapon that helps the U.S. scoring political points off the crisis.

Both of these two angles rival with the received view of coronavirus is not made by human and believe there is a powerful force planning the outbreak, and these widely circulated conspiracies have huge impact on both sides of the earth. In China, as the contents of American bioweapon conspiracies are produced and pronounced by the official spokesman and circulated through state-run media outlets and official accounts (Wintour, 2020), it has the very broad and collective response among the Internet users. Several Chinese citizens have begun to spread this typical conspiracy theory voluntarily

in different social platforms with nationalist passion and xenophobia outrage (Tyler and Liu, 2020). “The kind of undeclared cold war that had been brewing for some time shows its true face under the harsh light of COVID-19” (Wintour, 2019) that can be revealed by such huge speech estrangement in the current online environment, which driven me to start to think about how have the conspiracy theories been linked to the hate and antagonism? Also, how do conspiracies as one type of ideological tool participate in current information warfare and the competition in ‘the new world order’? To understand this issue, we should go back to the broad conspiracy theories question, to examine the basic mechanism of how can they attract and convince the believer and in what way they circulate in contemporary society.

Thesis Structure

Here, as I mentioned above, focusing on the case study of American bioweapon theory, this thesis mainly deals with the basic question of “why do people believe and spread conspiracy theories” by selecting the Chinese online environment as the research target. I aim at unveiling the hidden power relationships behind the constitution and dissemination process of coronavirus conspiracy theories with the involvement of diverse actors in current information age, especially when such circulation process is in the specific time and context. Referring to Latour, Callon and Law (1980s) actor-network theory as both theoretical framework and methodology, I try to find the dynamic of conspiracists’ promotion strategy based on original researches focus the offline context and offer new insight when dealing with the online environment. The thesis will be divided into three main chapters.

The first chapter is about the theoretical framework of the entire thesis, mainly outlines the genealogy of the definition and mechanism of conspiracy theories. I will present various explanations from different disciplines and fields to demonstrate what kinds of discourses can be regarded as conspiracy theories in this COVID-19 pandemic and to identify American bioweapon theory with the definition I refer to. Meanwhile, after pointing out abundant academic work on explaining people’s epistemic approach when believing in conspiracy theories I will mainly apply Andrejevic (2013) and Fenster (1999) with specific discourses on media platforms to investigate the construction of “the big other” in the circulation process. Regarding the specific case of American bioweapon conspiracies, actor-network theory (Latour, Callon and Laws, 1980s) will be added to tell the circulation process and illustrate the impact of digital platforms and political elements on the creation and circulation of conspiracy theories.

Then, in chapter two, I will introduce the methodology of my analysis. Conducting both the discourse analysis and empirical research to collect the data I need, my concern mostly focuses on the post about American bioweapon conspiracies on Weibo, WeChat, and Douyin, three mainstream social media in China. I will choose the most popular post on each platform as the predominant content to closely examine while keeping an eye on the response, data, and frequency of other posts. Besides, the data addressing conditions and degree of popularity of American bioweapon conspiracies will also be collected and presented both textually and visually. Not only as a theoretical reference, but the actor-network theory also can be regarded as a method to help us sort out the inner relationship between different actors in the whole process, which will also be mentioned in this chapter.

All data collected by these three methods serve the need for chapter three, the analysis chapter. In this chapter, the theories in chapter one will be integrated with appropriate data to both give an overview of the circulation process of US bioweapon conspiracies in China and the inner mechanism of its popularity and attractiveness to normal Chinese citizens from social psychological and psychoanalytic views. However, those two parts are not complete enough to explain why do conspiracies theorists work successfully in the information era. Thus, following the logic of the actor-network theory, I try to regard the whole circulation process as a network and to examine the role of different actors play on shaping audiences’ perceptions and behaviors. To sum up, this thesis tries to consider the involvement of several factors in the production and spread process of conspiracies theories online, and to argue how does the assemblage of them accelerate conspiracists’ faith and dissemination through the construction of ‘the rival other.’

Chapter 1

Theoretical Framework

Alter (1997, p.47) has argued that “we live in an age of conspiracism”, as there is nearly no significant event in the current society that does not generate a flutter of conspiracist speculation (Byford, 2011). Except for the system of ideas, conspiracy theories are said to construct a distinct culture – conspiracism – which comprises both a specific system of knowledge, beliefs, values, practices and rituals and the groups of people around the world who share them (Pipes, 1997; Barkun, 2006). Communities of historians, political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and psychologists as well as journalists, commentators have sought to explain the enduring appeal of the conspiracy culture (Byford, 2011). As Billig (1987, p.4) claimed, the thread of continuity that drives the culture of conspiracy theories is “to speak of conspiracism not just as an explanatory style, but also a tradition of explanation.” Such tradition and a corpus of ideas, ‘facts’, ‘revelations’ and arguments to the alleged world plot it contains are referred to, quoted, and perpetuated by successive generations of conspiracy theorists while also addressed by scholars from different fields who want to examine it.

This chapter, firstly, tries to sort out the genealogy of the conspiracy theory, asks what counts as a typical “conspiracy theory” and introduces the definition across aspects and disciplines. Although several versions will be introduced, my focus will mainly narrow down in the specific definitions that I want to refer to analyze the US bioweapon theory. Then the discussion will turn to the mechanisms of “why people produce and spread conspiracy theories”, giving a smattering of work in diverse subjects on the causes of

theorizing. After introducing the explanations from fields to disciplines, the selective one will combine with the theory of actor-network theory to be emphasized further to supplement how does the mechanism generate in current digital age, and also in China’s context. Most discussions will be located in the area of media studies, and mainly concentrate on new media theories dealing with ‘the materiality of medium’, which means that literature concerning other actors, such as affordances, algorithms, and censorship of diverse online platforms, will also be demonstrated in the following contents.

1.1 The Genealogy of the Conspiracy Theory 1.1.1 What Counts a Conspiracy Theory?

The word ‘conspiracy’, derived from the Latin conspirare, means ‘to breath together’, which signifies the joining together of two or more individuals and their acting in collusion to accomplish a desired outcome (Byford, 2011). Normally, it is regarded as “an explanation, either speculative or evidence-based, which attributes the causes of an event to a conspiracy or a plot” (Keeley, 1999, p.101). In the academic field, different scholars among disciplines have their own concerns and focus on depicting the definition. As Jodi Dean (2000) noted, when it comes to identifying conspiracy theory, “some focus on its style, other on it preoccupation with plot, still others on its pathological motivations.” I will outline a number of typical definitions that cover distinctive highlights and, then, narrow down the one works in this thesis as a basic framework of analysis.

common features of the conspiracy theory as “makers of a distinct explanatory or rhetorical ‘style’ of ‘paranoid’.” There is a long tradition to put the conspiracy theory in relation to the mental illness or single irrationality (Sunstein and Vermeule, 2009), which indicates that the emergence of these plots is the result of or written in the style of paranoid. Although this correlation still maintains its vitality, nowadays, scholars have tended to identify the conspiracy theory in other perspectives, especially in the angle of power relationships. For instance, Fenster and Bratich (2008, p.9) have pointed out that conspiracy theorizing is perceived “not just as crazy, paranoid or absurd but also as politically suspect and antithetical to ‘proper’ democratic politics.” In addition to this specific explanation which is based on Western society, others also identify its connections with power in a more universal way.

Generally, the conspiracy theory can be counted as such “if it is an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role”, according to the political philosophers Sunstein and Vermeule (2009, p.203). In their opinions, conspiracy theorists often attribute extraordinary powers to certain agents, who can plan, control others and maintain the secrecy of the whole conspiracy. Dean (2000) also mentioned this feature, conspiracy theory is, as she put it, “the information assemblage linking lines of power... and possibilities for agency... along the axis publicity/secrecy.” Conversely, tagging certain idea as ‘conspiracy theory’, on the one hand, signposts the false and unsubstantiated nature of the rival explanation to the large scale, dramatic social and political events; on the other hand, also excludes its exponents from “the imagined community of reasonable interlocutors” (Husting and Orr, 2007, p. 127). Andrejevic (2013, p.117) labeled the salient characteristics of identifying a conspiracy theory as well, one of them

is “a populist tendency to ‘other’ the alleged conspirators.” From this point of view, the framing of conspiracy theory serves to legitimize the competing one as “official”, reasonable and evidence-based as the conflict (Coady, 2003, p.198). The construction of “other” is one of the basic power relationships in the identification process.

Besides, there are other fundamental features that make conspiracy theories recognizable to scholars. In Andrejevic’s (2013, p.117) work, the “subjectivization” of structure, which shows the conspiracy in a structural form of conflict with tales of deliberate, intentional machinations, is also important to spot the conspiracy. As for Coady (2003, p.197), conspiracy theory is an “evaluative term with significant pejorative connotations”, except for the deliberation, it is also based on insufficient evidence, superstition, or prejudice. Additionally, a conspiracy theory should be pitched against a dominant received view in a falser and more harmful way (Clark, 2007; Sunstein and Vermeule, 2009), since a causal account is unlikely to be labeled a ‘conspiracy theory’ if it is believed to be true.

To sum up, the conspiracy theory, as an action intending with subjectivization and insufficiency, is deliberately used to marginalize rival explanations, eliminate them from the realm of rational discourse. The pathology of it does not lie in the content of the theory, the form of alternative, subordinated, but “in the subjective investment that renders it, among other things, non-falsifiable” (Andrejevic, 2013, p. 212). This thesis will emphasize more on the importance of power in the labeling process, and attempt to link different actors in the power relationship with the help of actor-network theory. As the label of conspiracy theory depends mainly on whether it has been endorsed and sanctioned as an ‘official’ and ‘authoritative’ account of an event (Byford, 2011), who

is the ‘official’ and who is the ‘other’ are the significant point here. I try to combine all the definitions above together, to see a “typical” conspiracy theory as the production by the ‘falser’ competitor who against the dominant received view through deliberately attributing to the more powerful agents. And this conclusion will be the principle to examine the characteristics of American Bioweapon conspiracy theory I address and whether specific discussions on the Internet fit into the category.

1.1.2 The Mechanism of Spread

From Andrejevic’s (2013, p.211) view, the conspiracy theory can be considered to “signify a broad array of social controls.” The academic analyses to it have been read and debated at high levels of government and business, and it appears to have affected discussions about policies (Sunstein and Vermeule, 2009). The significance of conspiracy theory attracts scholars from diverse fields not only to define it but also to explain its mechanism of work. Why do people make and spread the conspiracy theory? What forces and factors drive them to do so? What are the other elements that play a role in the decision process? These questions all give rise to abundant research and explanation. This section will present a quick introduction to how scholars across disciplines discuss these issues and focus on the one dealing with the construction of “other.”

There are various works of literature in social psychology, economics, and other disciplines concerning the spread of rumors, the epistemology of groups and social networks. One early conclusion was stated by Brian Keeley (1999), who has argued that it is the “pervasive effect of fundamental attribution error” that makes conspiracy

theorists have an irrational tendency to continue to believe in conspiracy theories (Keeley, 1999, p.101). In his opinion, conspiracy theorists are “typically victims of a form of cognitive failure” because their attributions are highly dispositional which full of their intention to make conspiracies occur and act on their motivations. On the contrary, the received view that conspiracies rival with is more like the situational explanation rather than dispositional. His argument was criticized by other scholars as “inadequate”, then. Clarke (2002, p.147) believed that although “the fundamental attribution error may have survived in the human population because in most cases it was not particularly harmful”; and he supplements, “because the opposite error of overestimating situational factors to the exclusion of dispositional factor was very harmful indeed.” Clarke’s criticism pointed out the incompleteness and inadequacy of the explanation of “fundamental attribution error”, which gave Keeley’s followers on epistemic causes of conspiracies more room to keep on.

Similarly, starting from the epistemology of human beings, Sunstein and Vermeule (2009, p.203) refuted the explanation of conspiracy theory as mental illness of simple irrationality. Instead, they suggested that it is a result of “crippled epistemology”, and in the form of a sharply limited number of informational sources. As people are suffering from such “crippled epistemology” (ibid, p.202), in the sense that they know very few things; it is much easier of them to believe in rumors and speculation which not only offer the plausible explanation but also provide “a primary emotional urge” to make them relief. Meanwhile, the conspiracy cascades including information, reputation, availability, and emotions cascade effects also increase the snowballing of conspiracies in certain states when an important event happens and triggers public discussion. They also mentioned the influence of group polarization and selection

effects on the construction and proliferation of conspiracy groups (ibid, p.211). There are strong effects of conspiracy cascades and the groups’ self-insulating quality that makes conspiracy believers secure in their ideological convictions. They (ibid, p. 227) finally concluded, “most people lack direct or personal information about explanations for terrible events, and they are often tempted to attribute such events to some nefarious actor, in part because of their outrage.”

The idea of Sunstein and Vermeule (2009), can be seen as a supplement to Keeley’s since they both concentrate on the epistemic reason while dismissing the process of conspiracies theorizing as inherently flawed (Birchall, 2006; Knight, 2003). Yet the criticism of this epistemic approach more likely to understand conspiracy theorizing as “pop-sociology”, which can be regarded as a popularization of certain academic methods with accuracy and methodology (ibid). Birchall (2006) depicted conspiracy theory as “a form of popular knowledge or interpretation”, which suggests the legitimate modes of knowing in the thinking process of conspiracy theorists. As the relationship between legitimate and illegitimate knowledge conspiracy theories contain is “closer than common dismissals of conspiracy theory contend” (ibid), there is no “failure” and “crippled epistemology” for conspiracy theorists themselves.

Except for the political philosophers, social psychologists also have given the supplement to the epistemic reason of conspiracy theorists. Douglas, Sutton and Cichocka (2017) stated the basic epistemic motives for those who believe in conspiracy theories in their article, which does also not see the cognitive process as a “failure” or “cripple” but an instinct to understand one’s environment. As the famous social psychologist Heider (1958) said, “finding causal explanations for vents is a core part of

building up a stable, accurate, and internally consistent understanding of the world.” A related property of conspiracy theory can provide a plausible explanation for those who do not accept the “received views” while also protect their cherished beliefs and values.

Meanwhile, they also analyze the motives from another two angles: existential and social. Existential motive means the conspiracy theory as the causal explanations serve the need for people to feel safe and secure in their environment and to exert control over the environment as autonomous individuals and as members of collectives as well (Douglas, Sutton and Cichocka, 2017, p.538). Being a form of cheater detection, conspiracy theory recognizes untrustworthy and dangerous individuals as the threat which reduces and neutralizes the crisis and promises people safe and secure. Social motive is similar to the reputation cascades and group polarization in Sunstein and Vermeule’s article (2009), including the desire to belong and to maintain a positive image of the self and the in-group. This social-psychological taxonomy offers a useful heuristic method to classify the motives associated with conspiracy beliefs.

All these explanations to the mechanisms of conspiracy theory are based on the erosion of belief in “grand narratives” and the “truths” to which they have recourse (Andrejevic, 2013). No matter there is a failure in epistemic logic or pop-sociological mode to think and critique, “the adjudicating between competing and multiplying narratives” (ibid, p.234) still contributes to the construction of “other,” which remains a question of what drives people here. In Bruno Latour’s opinion (2004, p.226), the conspiracy theory to some extent cater to certain significant factors of the method of “critique” in humanities. The theorists have their affective register and particular rhetorical style to start their motion of “seeking to debunk.”

As Mark Fenster (2008, p.82) described, “the basic unit of investigation in the discursive practices of conspiracy is the individual who is distrustful of the collective.” Conspiracy theorists usually debunk the original power relations in the received view when they believe and spread the conspiracies they create. The conspiracy theory, is the “other of the other”, according to Andrejevic (2013, p.217). The distrust of the big Other, the order of the original symbolic fictions, relies on the construction of and belief to “there is an ‘Other of the Other’”, another obscene, invisible power structure behind the symbolic efficiency. Andrejevic (ibid, p.224) called such an approach that debunks to the ideological alibi of power and embraces the default to “the demise of symbolic efficiency”, which in many ways become an ideological motive of conspiracy theorists. Through such reliance on the decline of symbolic efficiency, they have the embrace of a “generalized savvy skepticism”, “the humanities method of critique” (Latour, 2004, p.226) according to which “all representations are suspect”, and a default to gut instinct that gives one the courage of keeping one’s preconceptions and prejudices. Conspiracy theory, in its believers’ logic, can be interpreted in ways that fit the predilections of the interpreter that indicates the disconcerting triumph of the “active” reader who has the power to explain (Andrejevic, 2013, p.225).

People believe there is an enemy because of different reasons. One either connects, get along with another in advance or discovers that other to be an outsider (ibid). The construction of “other”, in the practice of conspiracy theory, devotes to highlight the ways in which knowledge is imbricated with power and the reproduction of dominant narratives. As Andrejevic referred (2013, p.220), the conspiracy theory does the work of projecting pathologies inherent to the power system and enacted by the one who

operates within it as the figure of “corrupting interloper”, the “outsider agitator.” Thus, these “critical” competitors, who serve as the secret cabal, construct their interpretation and skepticism of the dominant symbolic efficiency that already are demised and become the “active reader” providing more plausible information to their companions in the same power relations. As a consequence, in the in-group level, ‘the construction of other’ effectively constructs and even affirms the identity, establishing the signifier between people who share same worldview and stance, which leads the rising antagonism between both sides (Fenster, 2008)

In the information age, the logic of conspiracy theories conforms neatly in the online information environment in which people are overwhelmed by a flood of information produced by different groups of people. There are two ideas “perpetually remaining a layer behind the scenes that eludes us” (Andrejevic, 2013, p.217): things are not as they seem and everything is connected (Dean, 2000). The new environment heavily influences how we think about and act when facing important events, increases the in-group polarization and out-in-group antagonism; meanwhile, also brings more actors and power group into the discussion. These factors intertwine with each other, connect into a network and become the guiding impulses of the emergence and circulation of the conspiracy theory, which will be analyzed in detail in the next part.

1.2 The Promotion and Circulation in the Information Age 1.2.1 Entering the Actor-Network Theory

Clarke (2007, p.169) has mentioned a problem in one of his observations about the Internet and conspiracy theory. He said, “the Internet can give a much-distorted

impression of how prevalent conspiracy theories are in relation to other online content.” The diversification of different online social media and contents play a significant role in users’ daily life while also influence their perception of certain ideas. Platforms in which people gather together to have a discussion and their specific dynamics become an important factor that makes conspiracism grows. Different elements and factors on platforms have gradually become research targets in the field of media studies, also in this thesis’s practice of understanding the development of conspiracy theories. In order to understand further the rise and spread of conspiracy theories in nowadays’ information age, I would like to point out the actor-network theory here. Being a reference to indicate the importance of those non-human factors, such as media, technologies, even theory itself or institutions and so on, which can manipulate, influence people’s viewpoint on certain theories, actor-network theory in many ways can help to understand how the growth and structure of knowledge can be analyzed and interpreted through the interactions of actors and networks (Michael, 2017).

Stated by Latour, Callon, and Law (1980s), actor-network theory (ANT) is a theoretical and methodological approach that emphasizes on everything in the natural and social worlds that exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships. As Latour (1999, p.288) claimed, “action is not what people do, but it is instead the ‘faire-faire’, the making-do, accomplished along with others in an event, with the specific opportunities provided by the circumstances.” These scholars posited that all the factors involved in a social or cultural situation stand on the same level; they form a network where their participants can only interact at present. Michael (2017) regarded it as a theory that focuses on relations when studying society, or some aspect of it – about how these are produced and reproduced, ordered, and disordered. Beyond the previous simple

characteristics of being social and heterogeneous, the relationships referred to in ANT necessarily entail the role of different actors – nonhumans as well as humans, which including objects, technologies, texts, nonhuman environments.

One vital reason to mention ANT here is this theory may help us understand how new representational practices emerge, how assemblages of heterogeneous actors and distributed agency condition the realization and production of representation practices. As Spöhrer and Ochsner (2017, p.3) explained, “the focus has been on the elements and differences knowledge operates with and how these elements and differences are determined for example by the technological conditions of data processing.” It discloses not only the consequences of the representations those elements and differences generate – how they work and are put into everyday use - but also the combinations and interactions of elements that make it successful (ibid, p.4). When researching on the conspiracy theories about American bioweapon, the joint of ANT requires us not only to understand the conclusion of “American bioweapon” but also to concentrate on heterogeneous actors and their distributed agencies, which interacts and mediates with each other to make impacts on the final representation practices, in the promotion and circulation process.

Another important benefit the ANT brings in the case of the conspiracy theory is that it involves the discussion of circulation process, which may differ from human to human or distributed agency to agency. The relational processes of ordering and disordering entail circulation – circulations of people, texts, objects, nature and cultures (Michael, 2017). As I mentioned above, the agencies where the texts circulate also as the important factor participants in the mediation and translation of conspiracy theory

network. How the platforms are used and by who also become interesting queries to examine the circulation process. On the one hand, the perspectives of actor-network theory can be combined with those of post-Foucauldian governmentality theory to understand the processes through which “cultural institutions fabricate distinctive entities and bring these to bear on the governance of the social” (Spöhrer & Ochsner, 2017), such as the involvement of official governance, promotion on social media in the case “American bioweapon” conspiracy. On the other hand, it also provides an approach to investigate how the individuals mobilize their actions on different social platforms and how these modifications construct a dual network.

“Action respectively is always a collective activity and a result of mutual translations and relationships between both human and non-human actors” (Muniesa, 2013, p.81). The platform, when added into the application of ANT, is not a passive object and subordinates to human action and appropriation, but instead is inevitably interwoven in the production process of conspiracy theory and capable of effecting transformation and actions in human actors as well (ibid, p.84). Using such an approach of ANT, our investigation into the arise and circulation of “American bioweapon” conspiracy is not limited only in the mechanism of why people believe and are willing to spread that. Rather, the role of social media plays as a collective cultural institution or personal information dissemination agency should be both calculated as the affecting force. As Callon (1999, p.194), Latour (2005, p.19) suggested, “ANT foregrounds a relational ontology according to which sociocultural and technical processes are mutually shaping”, which is what I want to emphasize in this thesis while the previous researches on conspiracy theory just focus on the power relationships between human beings. In the case of digital platforms, the affordances, targeted user group, and Internet

governance are all considered as non-human actors in combination with the platforms themselves participating in the mediation of conspiracy theories, which will be explored further.

1.2.2 Affordance as an Actor

The key feature that distinguishes each platform is its affordance. This concept was first proposed by the psychologist J.J.Gibson (1979) to emphasize on materiality and relationality of the environment, then it has been extended and applied in various fields. Generally, the term affordance designates “the range of functions and constraints that an object provides for, and places upon, structurally situated subjects” (Davis and Chouinard, 2016, p.241). As a term both functional and relational, affordance not only contains its mechanism which operates through gradations but also the conditions where several intersections between artifacts, actors, and situations take place (ibid, 245). This term has similarity with ANT, which both focuses on the relationality. However, affordance more focuses on the object itself while ANT has border applications on certain practices and actions. In such cases, the concept of affordance will mainly be used to explain the features different platforms afford when considering the speech of conspiracy theories on them.

Every platform affords distinctive features. The features WeChat afford are different from Facebook; Weibo is different from Twitter while Douyin is different from its international version TikTok. Affordance, as Bucher (2013) underlined, standardizes a mode of engagement across its service and perceived range of possible actions linked to its feature. The platform is a “process, an ongoing organizing of multiplicities, of

relations between elements and forces, that produces effects” (Coonfield, 2006, p.290). Accordingly, distinctive affordances engage distinctive relations and effects; the way how people interact, communicate with each other and circulate information depends on the organization of multiplicities on the platform. When promoting a particular conspiracy theory, the cross-platform circulation strategy may cover different categories of user groups widely and effectively, and increase the probability of propagation.

1.2.3 Algorithms as an Actor

Additionally, other elements such as algorithms, scales of platform can affect the visibility of and people’s perception of certain conspiracy theories as well. One should be closely examined here is the algorithms, since it heavily influenced the ecosystem and visibility of the information on each platform. As Gillespie (2014, p.167) said, “algorithms play an increasingly important role in selecting what information is considered most relevant to us, a crucial feature of our participation in public life.” In her (Gillespie, 2014, p.167) research, recommendation algorithms that are widely used in different applications “map our preferences against others, suggesting new or forgotten bits of culture for us to encounter.” Its effects and benefits start form restricting in the information selection about “what we can see and what cannot”, and as a significant constitutive element of online platforms, increasingly shape everyday sociability (Rieder et.al, 2018). For instance, algorithms can manage our interactions on social networking sites, highlighting the news of some friends while excluding others (Gillespie, 2014). The topics with the tags of “hot”, “trending”, “most discussed” in our online social life are also calculated by the designed algorithms. Accordingly,

they provide a means to know “what there is to know and how to know it”, to join in the public discussion about social and political discourse, and “to familiarize ourselves with the public in which we participate (ibid).

More importantly, algorithms, which called by Gillespie (2014, p.168) as “public relevance algorithms”, now become a key logic that governs the flows of information in which knowledge is produced and certificated, meaningfulness is assigned and perceived. “That we are now turning to algorithms to identify what we need to know is as momentous as having relied on credentialed experts, the scientific method, or the word of God”, according to Gillespie, algorithms largely change the way how we consume and identify the information (ibid, p.191). In this thesis, the case of American bioweapon theory is the key information we should concern about how are algorithms relevant to the encounter and circulation of it. As social media platforms often confer to algorithms the task of curating and modulating the flow of information, ideas, and sociability (Bucher, 2012; Gillespie, 2014), if we want to examine how do the circulation process influence theorist’ perception to the conspiracies, we should regard algorithms as another important actor whose existence shifts the visibility and popularity of conspiracy theories.

Different platforms have its own recommend algorithms, although with slightly disparities, the main knowledge logic has the predominant similarity on catering to users’ interest (Bucher, 2012), which on the one hand increases the group polarization and echo chamber within in-groups, on the other hand, also amplify the estrangement between “us” and “other.” Yeung (2017, p.172) suggested the term “nudge”, in which the user’s informational choice contexts are configured and personalized by the

algorithmic analysis of data streams. Claiming to offer predictive insights concerning the habits, preferences, and interests of targeted individuals, these nudges channel users’ access to information subtly, unobtrusively and powerfully. Such algorithmic analytic techniques of Big Data, also as a form of nudge, which restores personal digital data about their interests, privacy becomes a hot term with global attention. However, as Yeung (2017, p.171) claimed, Big Data is more likely to become the tool to conduct regulatory governance. Since “Big Data-driven decision-guidance techniques can be understood as a design-based instrument of control” (ibid), it is noteworthy to consider how are the systematic control of Internet governance processed on a collective level.

1.2.4 Censorship - In the Specific Chinese Context

In Yeung’s (2017, p.172) work, she concluded that “the algorithmic analysis of data patterns dynamically configures the targeted individual’s choice environment in highly personalized ways, affecting individual users’ behavior and perceptions by subtly moulding the networked user’s understanding of the surrounding world.” However, this pattern of digital guidance Big Data technologies is “proving difficult for individuals to resist, operating through subtle persuasion rather than blunt coercion” (Ford, 2000, p.9). Especially when it works in combination with the manipulation of censorship in Chinese online environment. The topic of Internet censorship in China has been of continuous scholarly concern, as Yang (2016, p.1365) said, China’s Internet censorship is already calling attention to “the social dimension of meaning-making and the negotiation of power in a transnational context.”

located in China, we should also include Internet censorship as a compulsory actor as which determines the visibility and accessibility (what can and what cannot be seen) of information online. Being a recurring theme in contemporary global media outlets of China, the practice Internet censorship in this country is described by the Western report as “authoritarian state sets an example for other repressive regimes” by mobilizing “an army of cyber-police and paid online propagandists to watch, filter, censor and guide Chinese internet users” (The Economist, 2013). Although there is the suspicion that those Western reports with the assumption of regarding the Internet as a “freedom-promoting” medium have tendency to differentiate the “liberal-democratic West from its Others” (Miller and Yúdice, 2002, p.107), the terminology of “state control” in their research is still worth to be noticed and referred. The multi-layered operation of China’s censorship as those Western press captured has a strong influence on netizen’s daily life (Yang, 2016), which also regulates their behavior and perceptions subtly by processing the information selection.

Nevertheless, the censoring work is not only carried by the government itself, the actors who play an important role in such online governance also contains the private service or content providers who hold the principle of “self-discipline”, “self-censored” (bid). Under both the state regulation and the stress of market exposure, platforms as the commercial companies should also serve the role of regulating “what people watch” (Wasserstrom, 2011). Combining with their specific algorithms on selecting the information and users, censorship in platforms selects and controls which contents are “suitable” for people to see on this platform. When it related to political content, China’s internet users appear to be turning to get the information that the state wants them to know. The visibility, in Yang’s (2016, p.1368) article, limits by the operation

of strategies like “removing user-generated materials that are considered ‘unharmonious’, ‘blocking the search results generated via the input of sensitive keywords’, determines “who and what can be seen or heard with the spatial and temporal order pertinent to the Internet medium.”

It is inescapable for us to discuss the role of censorship in the circulation process of American bioweapon theory, especially in platforms of WeChat, Weibo, and Douyin. As the spreading of this conspiracies has already become an action with the state will, from the speech of foreign ministry spokesman we can see (Tyler & Liu, 2020), how does the censorship on different platforms from both the national and the platform’s level influence users’ accessibility and perception to conspiracy theories about COVID-19 become an interesting issue here. Approaching the principle of ANT theory in this thesis, it is worthy to investigate different actors in the circulation network of American bioweapon conspiracies. The affordance, algorithm and censorship all contribute to the modification to people’s behavior, which is their belief and spread to this conspiracy.

Chapter 2 Methodology

To formulate the understanding of the popularity of American bioweapon conspiracies and the hidden logic of the mechanism of how conspiracy theories circulate, the primary data that supports the theories mentioned in last the chapter is significant and should be collected carefully. This chapter discusses the methodology of data collection, which based on the system of empirical research and digital methods to provide the primary source to the following analysis. I will choose four different platforms across the globe as the main grounds to collect the data, which are three Chinese mainstream social media WeChat, Weibo and Douyin, and Twitter - the one used outside China. Those primary data from social media will work with critical discourse analysis to visually and literally present the basic information of American bioweapon conspiracies in the current COVID-19 pandemic in need of the research questions. The actor-network theory I mentioned in the last chapter is not only the theory in this thesis but also will be applied as the method integrated with critical discourse analysis to go into deep research on the theorist.

The main aim of conducting these methods is to answer questions as follows: What do the dominant American bioweapon conspiracies look like? What forms do these conspiracies spread? What is the circulation agenda the conspiracy theorists use to create and spread their ideas in distinctive platforms? What is the reaction of users? In what style do they believe in this theory? All these small sub-question contribute to the analysis in combination with theoretical framework and will be explored by providing approaches to answer it in this chapter further. The selection criteria of platforms, tools

and methods will also be introduced in detail.

2.1 Foundation: Conducting an Empirical Research with Digital Methods

Being a popular research method used in several disciplines, empirical research has a wide application realm and clear instruction. Generally, it is research that is based on observation and measurement of phenomena, as directly experienced by the researcher (Goodwin, 2005). Although binding with secondary data from the literature review forms the theoretical background sometimes, the data gathered through empirical research is all primary data collecting from particular methodology such as experiment or survey (Heitink, 1999). Normally, researchers should limit the data to a particular group, area or time scale, known as the sample to the specific phenomenon they feature on. They also should offer the description of the process used to study the phenomena, including selection criteria, controls, or design the plan and structure of collection (Goodwin, 2005).

Not being restricted in certain disciplines or purpose, empirical research has one benefits that are useful in this thesis. The empirical evidence can be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Since the research design varies by field and by the question being investigated, researchers can choose their own way to analyze the data to answer the empirical questions. Except for the questions which can be studied in laboratory settings or according to the completed survey, several empirical researchers have certain theories regarding the topic under investigation and the proposed statements or hypotheses.

Conducting such an easy but effective method as the foundation, my research starts from the phenomena of American bioweapon conspiracy theories on four different social platforms with the help of rules and digital tools, which are beneficial to building up the argument in support of the new media literature of digital platforms. After observing this phenomenon and introducing the theoretical framework that integrates the conspiracy theories and actor-network theory, I try to use this fundamental research approach to present a glimpse of how people believe and spread this specific conspiracy on different platforms. It not only reflects the extent of popularity of conspiracies as a category but also involves the debate in politics and power. Thus, the analysis also should not be limited to the quantitative visualization and presentation. Instead, I will link the visualization of quantitative data with the qualitative discourse analysis together, which sets the basis also the consequence to answer why people believe it, to disclose both the phenomenon as a significant social issue and the deep power relationships behind it.

To be specific, I select four platforms as the data collection ground. In the Chinese context, WeChat (Chinese equivalence of Facebook), Weibo (Chinese equivalence of Twitter), and Douyin (Chinese version of TikTok) are the most mainstream social media platforms which have the dominance of speech on the discussion about public issues (Zhang, 2019). All of them have billions of views a day and have already constructed their influencer network with loyal follower groups. In addition, most of the Chinese state-controlled press such as People Daily, China Central Television have accounts on those social media and post pro-nation contents daily (Kennedy, 2015). Choosing them as the focused platforms to collect data not only because of their influence and active users but also their specific status as the propaganda hub. Combine the posts and

reactions on those three platforms together will help us investigate the information network across the country and the thread where American bioweapon conspiracies generate and circulate. Who create and spread the conspiracies and who believe in it? In what forms do the theory create and spread? These questions all contribute to answering the basic “why” query.

After selecting these three platforms, the next step is to introduce the data I need. I divide my plan into two parts, the first one is to collect the most popular and typical post of American bioweapon theory according to the data of views, likes, comments, and reposts. The second part is to collect data according to the specific time period. The most vital intermediate day is March 12th, the date when Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian tweeted an unproven claim that stated the US military is the culprit who brought the new coronavirus to the central city of Wuhan (Zheng, 2020). I will collect data from a month before Zhao’s tweet till May, the month when the United States becomes the epicenter of COVID-19 while the situations in other countries have gotten better (Hein, 2020). And the data in each period will be analyzed specifically in combination with the situations at that time.

Regarding the distinctiveness of each platform and the complexity of discussion contents, I will use two different digital tools to complete the collection, which is using Gooseeker for WeChat and Weibo and Cassdata for Douyin, and narrow down the results into the contents highly in relevant to American bioweapon conspiracies. Using these two tools and following operation rules in digital methods of data retrieval and selection, I will focus on searching three keywords in all three periods, they are: “American bioweapon”, “American laboratory”, “American army.” These are the

common words appearing in the popular conspiracy theories, which can also be found in Zhao’s tweet. These two procedures play an important role in getting data that explain theoretical framework and will combine with the other two methods I will mention in the following texts to support my main argument.

2.2 Disclosing the Content: Critical Discourse Analysis

As I mentioned above, I would like to select the most typical American bioweapon conspiracy on each platform based on its popularity. The procedure is similar to the second part: inputting three keywords (same with the second part as well) in search bars on all three platforms but without any time limitation this time. The selection criteria are to see which post has the highest views, likes, and comments, I will compare the data in general and consider all numbers instead of just focusing on views. Meanwhile, because of the significance of Zhao’s speech on Twitter, which to some extent represents not a single individual but the willingness of a country, that discourse will also be included to analyze carefully. The reason to do so, firstly, is to examine the creation and circulation agenda the conspiracy theorists use to promote the American bioweapon conspiracies. Then, if we connect both the main contents the authors post with the comments they get, the results may benefit to discuss how do such discourses influence normal users’ perception and reaction to conspiracy theories. Here, in order to demonstrate this process and conduct it clearly and deeply, I will introduce the second method I want to address in this thesis, which is critical discourse analysis.

Being a common qualitative research method popular in many social science and humanities disciplines, discourse analysis is often used in analyzing language-in-use

across studies like sociology, psychology, and cultural studies (Gee, 2011). Normally, discourse analysis deals with the purposes and effects of different types of languages, including “the cultural rules, conventions in communication, how values, beliefs, and assumptions are communicated and how language use relates to its social political and historical context” (Mills, 2004, p.2). Regarding its wide use scale, different scholars feature different approaches to study the “language” with a specific focus (ibid, p.3). For instance, some of them look at the structure of language (grammar) and how such a structure functions to make meaning possible in specific contexts while others pay more attention to the “content”, the discussed themes, issues in the article, or conversation. In this thesis, my focus to adopt this method is to link the language with power, which mainly concentrates on Foucault’s approach to discourse, which will be explained further.

Discourse is, for Foucault (1972), “groups of statements which structure the way a thing is thought, and the way we act on the basis of that thinking.” From his view, when in the specific cultural and social context, the term ‘discourse’ no longer refers to formal linguistic aspects; instead, it can be seen as institutionalized patterns of knowledge that operate by the connection of knowledge and power (Gee, 2011) There is a manifest disciplinary structure where discourse emerges. Foucault’s perspective concentrates on the institutional contexts of the production and integration of knowledge, “where the subject mainly appears to be determined by knowledge and power” and is embedded in the fabric of social life under the invisible role of power (Gumperz, 1982, p.131). With the huge impact of Foucault’s work, there is a wide range of approaches working with his definition of ‘discourse’ to develop a specific perspective to research on knowledge and power. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is one of them.

Following Foucault’s basic insight of discourse, CDA tries to show the mutual relation between language and power. It conceives of language not just as speech, grammar, and syntax, but as embedded in social contexts and cementing social relationships (Fairlcough, 1995). For CDA scholars, language is the site of the imposition and contestation of dominant ideologies. Thus, language, in the form of discourse, is never neutral while as an active part of maintaining social, cultural, and institutional forms of power that plays a central role in communicating the institutional ideologies. Conversely, it is the power that makes the statement possible and allows it to have an impact on the world. My purpose to use this method is to analyze not only the concrete ‘natural speech’ in the discussion about COVID-19 but also the abstract context that formulates and empowers the speech.

In the case of American bioweapon theory, using CDA as one of the main approaches firstly supports to answer the basic question of “what does the American bioweapon conspiracies look like”, which is in the single linguistic level to depict the contour of “conspiracy theories.” Selecting the most popular post is to present the typical, representative image of this conspiracy theory in relation to the calculation of users’ reactions. Meanwhile, as the language is never “neutral” (ibid) and as the site of the imposition of dominant ideologies that connects knowledge with power, CDA also serves the function of analyzing specific and distinctive language use to make the hidden power relationship possible. In this case, this approach helps analyze the strategy in the creation and circulation process about how to construct the opposite “other” and collective “us” to make people believe through the use of certain language. Finally, in association with the analysis to the top liked comments under the post, the

results and analysis all contribute to understanding who is under such power relationships and how do they view this, which provides insight to the hidden inquiry of American conspiracy theories are attractive to its followers in different aspects.

2.3 Reusing the Actor-Network Theory: Network of Circulation

However, it always has the limitation if we only investigate the exact contents and the number of data, which is not complete enough to answer the question. There is a significant actor missing in the data collection process, which is the “theorist” and the “platforms” as the subject. Therefore, I want to re-bring the actor-network theory (ANT) here, but not (only) as the theoretical framework but (also) as the methodology to examine the relationships between different actors no matter it is human or non-human. As a theory that emphasizes the importance of actors, referring ANT here is beneficial for focusing on the effect of different actors such as platforms, authors, and contents itself, which help to analyze the whole network from the angle of the part.

As I mentioned above, in ANT scholars’ view, everything in the natural and social worlds exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships. When one tries to study the society or some aspect of it, ANT is the one help him focus on relations and about how these are produced and reproduced, ordered and disordered (Michael, 2017). Since all the different factors, including both human and nonhuman actors, involved in a cultural or social situation entail the same role, how does a single actor mobilize their actions and how these modifications construct a dual network (Spöhrer & Ochsner, 2017) become an issue that needs to be concerned. ANT, on the one hand, helps us understand how do the circulation process constructed as a network with internal