Challenging the Dominant Knowledge Order and Its Conceptualisation of Mis- and Disinformation

The final presenter at the ICA 2024 conference is Florian Primig, whose interest is in how we make sense of misinformation. He participated in an expert citizen council in Germany that explored the question of misinformation, which sparked him to rethink these concepts – we ought to try some critical introspection and consider the societal factors that have challenged the established knowledge order and enabled the emergence of counter-knowledge orders.

That emergence is not necessarily a bad thing; the primacy of knowledge has always been problematic. Instead of citizens we are now seen as life-long learners, and this requires us to perceive and perform as knowers. But this is constraining; the constraints of the existing knowledge order are incompatible with the imperative to know.

The imperative to know builds on the presuppositions of the knowledge order; we are called upon to be responsible and align with the presuppositions of the established knowledge order. While the availability of the Internet enables us to draw knowledge and learn from others, but it is also overwhelming and makes such learning difficult; navigating the conditions of the strong epistemic responsibility that are demanded of us is difficult, especially where empirical evidence is unsettled.

This also requires us to think about power, which determines what is and is not acceptable, and indeed defines what is seen as mis- and disinformation. Where the state determines what is acceptable, pushing back against this knowledge order can be dangerous for the individual. Counterpublics, too, actively challenge the established knowledge order; but in mainstream publics there can be epistemic violence enacted upon individuals and groups, too, and this might drive individuals towards counterpublics and fringe groups, in fact.

This represents a struggle for epistemic hegemony, and contingency in the knowledge order is back. Counter-knowledge orders construct alternative hierarchies, in response to the dominant order, and provide access to alternative knowledge structures, and their bland dismissal perpetuates the illusion that the hegemonic order is always right. Immunising the established knowledge order against such counter-orders will not do; a more sophisticated approach is required here.

(Not sure I did that full justice – this was dense with ideas, and presented without slides to signpost the discussion. Anyway, that’s the end of the ICA conference…)