In response to the three commentaries, I emphasize the importance of distinguishing the three approaches to conspiracism identified in my original article (pathologization, normalization, and problematization). My discussion centers on the commentaries of Tristan Sturm and Leila Dawney, whose perspectives resonate with the normalization paradigm. I use these interventions to reflect on the ethicopolitical relevance of the ‘normalizing’ approach in the present moment. I find that this approach's focus on the economic context in which conspiracism supposedly takes root traps this phenomenon in stories of warranted responses to economic disenfranchisement. I highlight the politics risks these stories pose as they repeat assumptions about who constitutes ‘the people’, and solutions rooted in economic leveling and ideological realignment. I restate my commitment to an approach which problematizes conspiracism with the aim of understanding the conjuncture in which it becomes an object for thought. I emphasize the relevance of this approach in a contemporary political conjuncture which seems uniquely characterized by the sense that Truth is in danger. As an object which is taken to symptomatize the eruption of this crisis of Truth, our choices of frameworks to research conspiracism delineate positions that can validate or unsettle the diagnosis of crisis.
Victoria Ridgway (Wed,) studied this question.