#FreeBritney and the Pleasures of Conspiracy
Authors: Smith Naomi , Southerton Clare 
Published: March 2022

Introduction
There are many competing explanations for why people are drawn to conspiracy theories. Increasingly, conspiracy theories are mainstream sites of cultural engagement (Barkun). Conspiracy theorising, then, is part of, or at least brushes up against, people’s daily sense-making practices. However, many still think of conspiracy theorising and the communities that form around them as deviant, pathological or deficient (Swami et al.). In this article, we argue that we need to shift from a model of a deficient and deviant understanding of conspiracy theorising to understand these practices as part of our everyday behavioural and social repertoires. We argue that part of this shift means attending to the sensory and felt experience of conspiracy thinking, as a bodily and affective experience, as a site of pleasure.
Centring pleasure as an explanatory framework for conspiracy theorising does not foreclose other explanations. Rather we argue that pleasure operates as a broader explanatory framework within which these competing explanations can also offer insight. We do not aim to provide an empirical account of the #FreeBritney movement in this article, but instead use it as an example through which we can begin to develop pleasure as a potential explanatory framework for understanding conspiracy theorising.
To argue for the centrality of ‘pleasure’ in conspiracy theories, we draw on scholarship from fandom studies to ask, “What can the ‘Free Britney’ movement tell us about the pleasures of conspiracy?” We pay particular attention to how conspiracy theorising can be understood as a site of pleasure and, at times, hope, which in turn transform conspiracy theories into ‘sticky’ cultural sites (Ahmed). The centring of pleasure as a driver of conspiracy theorising also points to possible alternative approaches to countering the affective pull of conspiracy theories.
Why #FreeBritney?
This article focusses on the #FreeBritney community as an example for several reasons. #FreeBritney sits outside many of the political concerns that often characterise conspiracy theories; that is, it is neither left nor right in its orientation. Additionally, #FreeBritney was initially written off as nonsense by mainstream media outlets and commentators. For example, in the first version of TikToker Abbie Richards’s viral chart that categorises conspiracy theories, #FreeBritney is in the same category as UFOs and not something that ‘actually happened’ (Richards), meaning Richards did not believe the central claim of the #FreeBritney movement, that Britney wished to end an abusive conservatorship, was real. Similar coverage was evident in other press, including by Maria Sherman for Jezebel, which describes the #FreeBritney theory as “dubiously sourced” and as “mak[ing] gargantuan assumptions about mental health without much concrete evidence” (Sherman). Despite the derision, #FreeBritney persisted, and the claims made in the initial, instigating episode of Britney’s Gram (a fan-created podcast) have been borne in court, affirmed by Spears herself, and in numerous pieces of investigative reporting (Stark and Day).
The #FreeBritney Context
So, how did we get to #FreeBritney? In early 2008, after a string of increasingly erratic public appearances, Britney Spears was placed into a conservatorship arrangement. Conservatorships are typically reserved for the elderly and mentally ill, or those without the capacity to care for them themselves. Spears’s conservatorship meant that she could not make any personal or financial decisions for herself. Spears’s conservatorship was overseen by her father and court-appointed lawyers who benefited financially by allegedly exploiting the arrangement (Day and Abrams). Until 2021, Spears remained under the conservatorship, while continuing to work. These working arrangements included world tours, TV appearances and a long-running Las Vegas residency where she performed a 90-100 minute show several times per week (Jacobs).
Rumours marked the beginning of Spears’s conservatorship that it was an attempt to exploit Spears financially while keeping her under parental control (Jacobs). This is evidenced by her thwarted attempt to acquire legal representation, where the court ultimately ruled that she was too unwell to retain her own counsel (Coscarelli et al.). Rumours of a broader conspiracy designed to entrap Spears in the conservatorship only gained widespread traction in 2019, resulting in the birth of the #FreeBritney movement. The growth of #FreeBritney discourse can be traced to an April 2019 episode of the podcast Britney’s Gram (Barker and Babs). Britney’s Gram was initially a ‘close reading’ of Spears’s Instagram focussed on parsing her captions, images, and emoticon use. In the podcast's special ‘emergency’ episode, episode 75, titled “#FreeBritney”, the nature of the conspiracy regarding Spears’s conservatorship took shape. The ‘emergency’ episode of the podcast responded to a tip called into the Britney’s Gram hotline. The anonymous source claims to be a paralegal who worked on legal documents related to the conservatorship throughout their employment. 
The paralegal claims that the conservatorship is “disturbing to say the least”. The show goes on to lay out a timeline of key events that support their assertion that Spears is being kept in the conservative against her will. Their claims are supported by a ‘close reading’ of Spears’s output, including her Instagram account and her public appearances, both official and unofficial. The hosts assemble their theory from a diverse range of sources, but their iterative theory building is underscored by the hosts’ empathetic reading, “what if it were me?”
Fandom and the Collective Feelings of Conspiracy
The #FreeBritney movement offers an opportunity to reflect on the parallels and intersections between fandom culture and conspiracy. It also allows us to consider what contemporary fan practices might tell us about the appeal of engaging in conspiracy. While #FreeBritney as a movement has extended far beyond the reach of the Britney Spears fandom, its roots began in the everyday fan practices that are not unique to the singer's supporters. Identifying as a ‘fan’ of a celebrity, a band, television show, film franchise, or other popular cultural texts has become a mainstream activity in recent decades, moving from a more subcultural or fringe practice (Gray et al.). Fan practices often include developing a repertoire of knowledge of their chosen fandom. This repertoire allows them to conduct close readings of these ‘texts’, which include relevant images and social media content (Hills), and look for patterns, consistencies and inconsistencies — what Jason Mittell (52) calls ‘forensic fandom’. Fans also create their own paratexts drawing on their fandom-specific knowledge to create work such as fanfiction, fan videos (fanvids), blogs, dedicated social media accounts, podcasts (such as Britney’s Gram) and other texts that fans may also analyse (Geraghty).
Much like engaging in conspiracy, participating in fandom is also a broad continuum in terms of commitment, and depth of engagement. Some fans are more peripheral to the fandom, casually engaged, and only broadly aware of close reading practices that may be normalised for those within the more engaged inner circle of the fandom. However, these more casual fans may also draw on and consume paratext created by more avid fans. Creators of popular and well-made paratexts can even become renowned in social media spaces within fan communities for their creations (Hills). This mirrors conspiracy thinking, where believers range from curious about the conspiracy to committed and embedded in the conspiracy community. Like fandoms, the more active participants in the conspiracy can become established and well-known in the community for disseminating information and knowledge. For example, many followers of the QAnon conspiracy receive most of their information through secondary QAnon social media influencers who interpret ‘Qdrops’ rather than interpret the cryptic message board posts themselves (Conner and MacMurray).
Scholarship examining fandom and fan experiences has emphasised the key role of pleasure for fans in developing this fan expertise (McCann and Southerton). In particular, the practices of close textual reading and familiarity with the fandom's texts, symbols, and key players offer a sense of community and collective feeling. As McCann and Southerton report in their study on queer shipping among One Direction fans (when fans invest emotional energy in the relationship, the ‘ship’, between two characters or celebrities), pleasure is collective rather than individual and emerges from a sense of belonging and shared investment. While, as we have discussed, the differing levels of involvement and investment can create hierarchy, and therefore potential conflict within fandom, scholarship on fandom has argued that fans primarily take pleasure in the feeling of community, support and belonging (McCann and Southerton; Geraghty; Pearson). Fan spaces are spaces in which collective feelings can be heightened, as participants take pleasure in experiencing something that thousands of others are feeling simultaneously — whether it be in person at a concert or, increasingly, in social media communities.
The pleasures of fandom also go beyond momentous occasions like a singer's album launch or a celebrity scandal. Fans can cultivate pleasure in the mundane practices of fandom by building a sense of building and momentum, by using their close reading to predict imminent events (e.g. attempting to discern what Instagram posts might be hinting that a popstar is going to put out a new album) or undertaking rereading of old material to reinterpret meanings in new contemporary light. The pleasures of anticipation are central to these fan practices, with close reading offering endless rewards. Conspiracy theorists operate similarly, even when an anticipated event does not come to fruition. When the predictions of the mysterious Q that tell of mass arrests of prominent enemies of the movement fail to eventuate, rather than lose belief in Q’s prophetic power, the believers find explanation and new events to anticipate (Butler and Martin).
Is #FreeBritney a Conspiracy?
While it is tempting to situate #FreeBritney firmly within the domain of fan studies, we argue that while later borne out by facts, it can also be understood as a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are united by a focus on and fear of a larger malevolent actor, who uses the power vested in institutions to control the narrative about the conspiracy, and indeed the conspiracy itself (Melley). In #FreeBritney, the stakes are a little lower, with the clearest villains being Spears’s immediate family, who appear to have financially benefited from her conservatorship. Nevertheless, the conspiracy involves elements of control, not only over Spears herself but the media, the criminal justice system, and the medical professionals diagnosing and treating Spears, as well as any close friends and staff.
As with other conspiracies, power is exercised through social institutions to ‘cover up’ the conspiracy itself and any damage it is causing (Barkun; Melley). If conspiracies are secret, how then are they detected? Key to conspiracy theorising is the ‘close reading’ or ‘forensic’ examination (Mittell) of various texts to spot inconsistencies and gaps in authenticity that disrupt the dominant narrative. This is a hallmark of conspiracy theorising, which relies on “the interpretation of half-hidden cIues, tell-tale signs, and secret messages” (Melley 16). Within #FreeBritney, close reading is most obviously applied to her Instagram account and extends to various court courts, interviews, and media reporting. This analysis allows for these inconsistencies to build an alternative explanation while using a corpus of evidence available to everyone.
Where Is the Pleasure?
Where can we locate the sources of pleasure in #FreeBritney? To be clear, we are arguing for an understanding of pleasure that is not eroticised but rather found in the arguably mundane practises of conspiracy. The close, detailed sifting through evidence required to build a conspiracy theory is pleasurable in a number of ways. These practices are pleasurable in and of themselves — developing deep knowledge assembling the threads in the conspiracy theory holds the individual in a continual site of possibility and potential. The space of ‘what if’ where nothing is certain and outcomes can be constantly refigured allows conspiracy theorists to exist in expectation, in ‘looking forward to’ as one would a long-awaited holiday. The pleasure is in anticipating the event, but not necessarily in the resolution of the conspiracy itself. The momentum and anticipation in fan communities are remarkably similar to those of conspiracy theory communities, creating a pleasurable affective atmosphere (Anderson) that circulates in and through digital practices.
The ‘close reading’ practice we describe is also pleasurable through proximity and intimacy. Close reading allows for a point of entry and connection to the broader #Free Britney community, where close readings are contributed, the readings of others are affirmed, and these individual contributions are incorporated into the fabric of the community. Close reading also provides proximity and a sense of intimate familiarity with Spears herself. Close reading is only made possible through deep knowledge, through being able to understand Spears’s self-presentation, mediated through digital platforms like Instagram, as authentic or forced.
The Internet also makes close reading more accessible and immediate. Instagram posts can be saved for later perusal, comments screenshotted, and deleted comments captured before they vanish. This work of understanding, interpreting, and building happens both in real time (as soon as content is posted) and retrospectively, using what is now known or agreed upon to go back and reinterpret old material, hunting for clues and signs previously missed. This is evident in a number of TikToks where fans closely interpret Britney’s movement to confirm their theories. In one video, Spears discusses the LGBTQIA+ community. The video is not particularly coherent, and in the comments, a fan writes, “If you need help, wear yellow and blink twice”, and “If you need help do two spins” (ABC News). In her next video, Spears appears wearing a yellow top and holding flowers; she blinks twice, then does two spins for the camera. Given what we now know about Spears’s situation at the time, it seems likely she was in dialogue with her fans, counting on their close reading, attention to detail, and emotional investment. While Spears’s abusive conservatorship was obviously of concern to fans, there is also pleasure in the moments of reading, knowing, and dialoguing with Spears, creating a parasocial intimacy (ABC News).
These compounding pleasures are overlapping and mutually reinforcing and create what Ahmed would call a ‘sticky’ site of affective engagement. Ahmed’s conceptualisation of ‘stickiness’ often refers to negative affects, but we argue can apply to positive or pleasurable affectivities.
Conclusion
#FreeBritney began as a fringe fan concern. It was mocked, derided and dismissed, before being ultimately vindicated through legal action and the removal of the conservatorship. Legal action addressing the financial exploitation of Spears is underway (Day). 
In a video after the end of her conservatorship, Spears speaks to her fans through an Instagram video detailing her next steps (Sky News). She also thanks the #FreeBritney movement, saying,

the Free Britney Movement, you guys rock! Honestly, my voice was muted and threatened for so long, and um I wasn’t able to speak up or say anything, and um because of you guys’ awareness and kind of knowing what was going on and delivering that news to the public for so long ... because of you, I honestly think you guys saved my life.

Examining the #FreeBritney movement allows us to consider the role of pleasure in conspiracy theorising. Through this reading, we can also begin to understand conspiracy theorists in a more nuanced way. Those who believe in conspiracy theories are often characterised as fearful, anxious, and paranoid. However, there are pleasurable affectivities also associated with conspiracy theorising. While conspiracy theories most often circulate through and coalesce in online spaces, #FreeBritney demonstrates that theories also drive practice with fans protesting outside of Spears’s court hearings and taking steps to dismantle the conservatorship system more generally (Rolling Stone).
Focussing on pleasure can also explain the derision directed towards conspiracy theories and their subscribers. Anti-fan communities provide a language to discuss the gleeful debunking and mocking of conspiracy theories. Pleasure is also a core part of anti-fandom, that is groups mobilised around their hate of something or someone (usually a celebrity with a fan following), and this anti-fandom mirrors many core fan practices (Pinkowitz). The anti-fan is smarter and more discerning than the fan and has the ‘right’ way of thinking, reasoning, and appreciating. The rational anti-fan understands that any clue in Spears’s videos is coincidental and that fans are over-involved, overreacting and out of touch. However, the pleasure of anti-fandom, and debunking more generally, cannot exist without the fan and the conspiracy theory. Thus, the pleasure of the anti-fan only exists in dialogue with the fan, or in this case, the perceived conspiracy theorist.
Attending to conspiracy theories as a site of pleasure allows us to construct a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the seemingly magnetic pull of conspiracy theories.
References
ABC News. “Britney Spears’s Fans Claim She Is Pleading for Help through Her Social Media Videos.” 24 July 2020. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-24/britney-spears-fans-claim-she-is-pleading-for-help/12488754>.
Ahmed, Sara. Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh UP, 2014.
Anderson, Ben. “Affective Atmospheres.” Emotion, Space and Society 2.2 (2009): 77–81.
Barker, Tess, and Grey Babs. “75 #FREEBRITNEY.” Britney’s Gram, podcast, 75 (16 Apr. 2019). <https://soundcloud.com/user-405122914-411166228/74-freebritney>.
Barkun, Michael. “Conspiracy Theories as Stigmatized Knowledge.” Diogenes 62.3-4 (2015): 114–20.
Butler, Josh, and Sarah Martin. “Australian Online Anti-Vaccine Groups Switch to Putin Praise and Ukraine Conspiracies.” The Guardian 1 Mar. 2022. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/02/australias-anti-vaccine-groups-switch-focus-to-putin-praise-and-ukraine-conspiracies>.
Conner, Christopher T., and Nicholas MacMurray. “The Perfect Storm: A Subcultural Analysis of the QAnon Movement.” Critical Sociology (Nov. 2021). <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08969205211055863>.
Coscarelli, Joe, et al. “Britney Spears Can Hire a New Lawyer of Her Choice, Judge Rules.” The New York Times 14 July 2021. <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/14/arts/music/britney-spears-conservatorship-lawyer.html>.
Day, Liz. “Britney Spears Fights Father’s Fee Claim, Alleging Financial Misconduct.” The New York Times 19 Jan. 2022. <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/18/business/britney-spears-father-fees.html>.
Day, Liz, and Rachel Abrams. “Investigation into Britney Spears Conservatorship Will Look into Her Finances.” The New York Times 2 Nov. 2021. <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/us/britney-spears-father-deposition.html>.
Geraghty, Lincoln. “Introduction: Fans and Paratexts.” Popular Media Cultures: Fans, Audiences and Paratexts, ed. Lincoln Geraghty. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015. 1–14.
Gray, Jonathan, et al. “Why Still Study Fans?” Fandom, Second Edition: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Jonathan Gray et al. NYU P, 2017. 1–27.
Hills, Matt. “Fiske’s ‘Textual Productivity’ and Digital Fandom: Web 2.0 Democratization versus Fan Distinction.” Participations 10.1 (2013): 130–53.
Jacobs, Julia. “What Is Actually Happening with Britney Spears?” The New York Times 17 May 2019. <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/arts/music/britney-spears-conservatorship-mental-health.html>.
McCann, Hannah, and Clare Southerton. “Repetitions of Desire: Queering the One Direction Fangirl.” Girlhood Studies 12.1 (2019): 49–65.
Melley, Timothy. Empire of Conspiracy. Cornell UP, 2016.
Mittell, Jason. Complex TV: The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytelling. NYU P, 2015.
Pearson, Roberta. “Fandom in the Digital Era.” Popular Communication 8.1 (2010): 84–95.
Pinkowitz, Jacqueline M. “‘The Rabid Fans That Take [Twilight] Much Too Seriously’: The Construction and Rejection of Excess in Twilight Antifandom.” Transformative Works and Cultures 7 (2011): 1–17.
Richards, Abbie. “The Conspiracy Chart.” Twitter 3 Oct. 2020. <https://twitter.com/abbieasr/status/1312512066071060480>.
Rolling Stone. “#FreeBritney Rallies around the World.” 14 July 2021. <https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-pictures/freebritney-rallies-britney-spears-conservatorship-photos-1197458/buk_1491/>.
Sherman, Maria. “A Guide to the #FreeBritney Theory That Britney Spears Is Being Held against Her Will.” Jezebel 23 Apr. 2019. <https://jezebel.com/a-guide-to-the-freebritney-theory-that-britney-spears-1834216480>.
Sky News. “Britney Spears Thanks Fans in Instagram Video after Conservatorship Ends.” 17 Nov. 2021. <https://news.sky.com/video/video-im-not-here-to-be-a-victim-britney-spears-speaks-after-end-of-conservatorship-12470545>.
Stark, Samatha, and Liz Day. “‘Controlling Britney Spears’ Reveals Details of Her Life under Conservatorship.” The New York Times 2 Nov. 2021. <https://www.nytimes.com/article/controlling-britney-spears.html>.
Swami, Viren, et al. “Associations between Belief in Conspiracy Theories and the Maladaptive Personality Traits of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5.” Psychiatry Research 236 (2016): 86–90.