Discursive structures and power relations in Covid-19 knowledge production

The Covid-19 pandemic, the first truly global and digitally mediated event, has generated unprecedented levels of polarization in social media discussions. This article investigates the dynamics of this polarization, arguing that the pandemic's mediation through social media has significantly intensified the effects of "epidemic psychology." Epidemic psychology, as described by Strong (1990), refers to the initial adverse reactions to a new disease that spread through linguistic interaction. Social media's ability to facilitate continuous and widespread communication, particularly in the absence of reliable information, has created a novel context for the spread of these reactions. The study examines this context as a discourse of knowledge production, characterizing the way knowledge about the pandemic was constructed, challenged, and contested on social media. This perspective is coupled with a critical lens on the power dynamics intrinsic to all knowledge production processes, enabling an understanding of the mechanisms driving polarization. The paper argues this polarization is primarily issue-related rather than based on traditional ideological divisions, and it critically analyzes the discursive strategies of exclusion employed to shape this knowledge production.

The article draws extensively on existing literature in epidemic psychology, focusing on Strong's (1990) model to understand the initial societal response to the pandemic. It leverages concepts from the sociology of knowledge (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), highlighting the role of casual conversation and routine in shaping social realities. The work of Foucault is central, providing a framework for understanding the power dynamics in knowledge production and the inherent ideology in all truth claims. The article engages with discussions on the virtual public sphere (Bruns & Highfield, 2016; Papacharissi, 2002), considering social media's role in shaping public discourse and its potential to amplify extreme viewpoints. Further, the review explores research on political polarization (Tucker et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2014; Taber & Lodge, 2006), distinguishing between partisan/ideological polarization and issue-related polarization, which is argued to be more relevant in understanding the pandemic's discourse. The study also incorporates work on discursive exclusion (Mills, 2004; Baxter, 2011) and the use of terms like "conspiracy theory" and "the science" (Husting & Orr, 2007; Husting, 2018; Vogel, 2018), analyzing their functions within the broader power dynamics of knowledge production.

The study employs a critical discourse analysis approach, examining the discourse surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic on social media. The methodology isn't explicitly detailed in terms of specific data sources, but the analysis focuses on the discursive structures and power relations embedded within the public conversations about the pandemic. The authors draw upon theoretical frameworks from several disciplines, including sociology, psychology, and critical discourse analysis, to provide a nuanced interpretation of the observed phenomena. The analysis centers on the identification and critique of specific terms and phrases, like "science" and "conspiracy theory," revealing how these terms function as strategies of dialogic contraction, excluding certain perspectives and voices from the debate. The study also uses case studies and examples from social media and the wider public discourse to demonstrate how these strategies of exclusion shape the understanding and response to the pandemic. The theoretical frameworks, particularly those of Foucault and Bakhtin, guide the selection and interpretation of specific discursive elements, allowing for a deeper understanding of the power dynamics at play. The paper doesn't present quantitative data but relies on qualitative analysis of public discourse to support its claims. It examines the ways in which the pandemic discourse challenged existing ideological boundaries, emphasizing the interpretative nature of the resulting polarization.

The paper's key finding is that the Covid-19 pandemic, being the first truly global, digitally mediated event, has generated a unique context for knowledge production that is characterized by significant interpretative polarization. This polarization, driven by competing frames and interpretations of the pandemic, is not readily explained by traditional partisan affiliations. The article demonstrates that terms such as "science" and "conspiracy theory" are frequently used as strategies of dialogic contraction, excluding certain perspectives from the public discourse. The analysis reveals how the use of "the science" often relies on an undefined and arguably hegemonic authority, silencing dissenting opinions. The term "conspiracy theory," meanwhile, functions as a sanctioning device, dismissing arguments by questioning the motives or competence of their proponents rather than engaging with their substance. The study argues that these strategies, rooted in an emancipatory modernist approach to discourse analysis, are ultimately unproductive and may even be counterproductive to achieving the goals of fostering informed public discourse. This is because they lack self-reflexivity and rely on a simplistic view of ideology juxtaposed with an assumed "knowable reality." The paper uses examples from social media, news media, and government statements to illustrate these patterns of discourse and their effects on the overall polarization surrounding the pandemic.

The findings address the research question by highlighting the significant role of social media in intensifying the effects of epidemic psychology and fostering interpretative polarization during the Covid-19 pandemic. The significance of these results lies in their implications for understanding how knowledge is produced and contested in digitally mediated contexts, particularly during crises. The relevance to the field stems from its critique of dominant approaches to discourse analysis and its proposal of an alternative framework grounded in Foucauldian and Bakhtinian theories. This framework offers a more nuanced understanding of the power dynamics inherent in knowledge production, recognizing that all knowledge is ideological and that truth claims are never neutral. The discussion underscores that the observed polarization is primarily issue-related rather than stemming from traditional ideological divides, challenging simplistic explanations that solely rely on partisan affiliations.

This paper contributes to our understanding of the discourse surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic by analyzing the power dynamics inherent in knowledge production on social media. It critiques the simplistic use of terms like "science" and "conspiracy theory" as strategies of exclusion and proposes a Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis that accounts for the inherent ideology and power relations in all knowledge claims. Future research could explore the long-term effects of this digitally mediated knowledge production on public trust in institutions, the shaping of public policy, and the evolution of public discourse in the digital age. The study also highlights the need for more self-reflexive approaches to discourse analysis that acknowledge the limitations of simplistic binary categorizations.

The study's limitations primarily stem from its reliance on qualitative analysis of publicly available discourse. While the chosen methodology allows for a rich and nuanced examination of discursive strategies, it lacks the capacity to quantify the prevalence or impact of these strategies in a statistically rigorous manner. The analysis is also inherently limited to the publicly available data, potentially excluding valuable insights from private or less accessible sources. The generalizability of the findings may also be limited, as the study focuses primarily on the social media discourse surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic, and the findings may not be directly transferable to other contexts. Finally, the lack of a precise methodology could leave room for subjective interpretations of some aspects.