| Summary: | This article presents three critiques of disinformation scholarship, with an emphasis on “for-hire.” The article argues that disinformation is defined in unpromising and contradictory ways. Concepts have ontological and epistemological repercussions, and thus far, disinformation scholarship has failed to engage them. Partly because scholars are studying disinformation even when they do not use that word to label their work, the article argues that explicit disinformation scholarship tends to neglect neighboring fields and scholars—the second critique. By most definitions of the term disinformation, neighbors are researching the same object domain, which could provide rich resources for scholars newly attracted to “disinformation”: propaganda, public relations, promotional culture, political consulting/marketing, and post-truth studies. It discusses the neighbors’ deep historical and contemporary research on for-hire deceptive communication, including that pertaining to social media. The third critique argues that disinformation scholarship has a cryptonormative tendency, evident in language of disorder, threats, dysfunctions, and pollution; it therefore needs more overt normative justification (or defense of anti-normativity). The cryptonormativity also entails a tendency toward ethnocentrism. The article ends by questioning whether disinformation is conceptually suitable for the theoretical work with which it tasks itself.
|
|---|