Hirmudiskursuse ilmingud vandenõuteooria- ja uhhuu-vastastes meediatekstides

This article focuses on the fear discourse prevalent in the Estonian media and investigates how critical positioning toward so-called quackery and conspiracy theories is constructed within this context, with particular attention to meaning-making processes. Drawing on the framework of fear semiotics and Arlie Hochschild’s concepts of feeling rules and deep stories, we explore the cultural mechanisms underpinning (alleged) fear and suggest ways of engaging with fear discourses without inadvertently reinforcing them. As fear discourse is not only characteristic of media critiques but also central to contemporary conspiracy theories, we begin by examining the fears they articulate and depict. To this end, we draw on our own and our colleagues’ recent research, focusing in particular on examples from the Great Reset super-conspiracy theory, which gained traction during the pandemic years. In our analysis of the fear discourse critiquing conspiracy theories, we identified two interrelated deep stories. The primary deep story underlying the anti-quackery fear discourse rests on the assumption of the human subject as a rational agent. This was particularly prominent in texts warning of the dangers of conspiracy theories – such as the erosion of social cohesion or the rise of polarization – where individuals were portrayed as surrendering reason to unchecked emotion. Similar portrayals emerged in depictions of conspiracy adherents and, at times, their disseminators as manipulated or “brainwashed”. Furthermore, the narrative extended into expressions of phobophobia – the fear of fear itself – underscoring concerns that persistent exposure to fear fosters frustration and hostility. This rationalist deep story also manifested in frequent appeals to scientific authority, where opposing views were discredited through reference to expert consensus and empirical knowledge. Evidence-based medicine was often positioned in stark contrast to pseudo- or fringe therapies associated with quackery, with media texts featuring vivid descriptions of illness and recovery, replete with biomedical terminology. Notably, the figure of the rational subject surfaced not only in discourses opposing conspiracy theories, but also within conspiracy narratives themselves. The second deep story revolved around the so-called power of the word and was predicated on belief in the profound emotional and cognitive influence exerted by conspiracy theories and fear-driven rhetoric. This narrative, too, characterized both conspiratorial and anti-conspiratorial discourses. Across both camps, the media were portrayed as potent tools of manipulation – either in the hands of nefarious conspiracy peddlers, intent on stoking fear, or wielded by their critics. In both frames, emotional responses – particularly fear and anxiety – were seen as easily triggered within the opposing interpretive community. As such, the manipulators were constructed as highly strategic and powerful agents, while those being manipulated appeared devoid of agency. Within this understanding of manipulability, texts critical of conspiracy theories articulated clear affective norms – emotional exploitation and covert persuasion were deemed morally reprehensible. Highly charged expressions such as “quackery believers”, “misinformation bullies”, “quackery kills”, “gullibles”, and “brainwashed” were frequently used to label both the perpetrators and their presumed victims. In discourses expressing phobophobia, it was not fear itself that was condemned, but rather the deliberate cultivation and instrumentalization of fear. In sum, phobophobic rhetoric allowed both members of conspiracy-oriented interpretive communities and their critics to position themselves as rational and morally upright. In-group members were typically portrayed as perceptive and critically minded, while out-group members were depicted as emotionally unstable, manipulable, and trapped in compulsive affective loops.