Recent News

Definitions:
The intent of this blog is to address the very important topic of ignorance. When people work to communicate, they often encounter misunderstandings because of a difference in the way that they are using some of their words. This might not be obvious until something makes it clear that they are talking – or working at cross-purposes. In order for this blog to be productive, it will be important to confirm that we are all sharing the same meaning for the critical terms. For this first edition, we will define ‘Agnotology’.

To begin our conversation, agnotology means – in brief – ‘the study of ignorance’. I say in brief because there are different types of ignorance and different causes for its occurrence. While we intend to introduce and perhaps address a significant number of them in this forum, we cannot provide an in-depth treatment of them all.

To date, the most influential treatment of agnotology is the Stanford Press, 2008 publication ‘Agnotology: The Making & Unmaking of Ignorance’ edited by Proctor and Schiebinger. I will be relying on these authors (and their contributors to the volume) for their characterization of ignorance throughout the coming posts, as we look at a variety of topics through this lens. We can start by imagining that ignorance represents a void; a space where some information or knowledge could or might reside, but at this point in time simply does not. Viewed in this way, ignorance takes on a shape and a mass that can vary in significant ways in different people.

Types of Ignorance:
Proctor and Schiebinger’s conceptualization makes no claims as to the actual existence of the missing information. That is, we might be ignorant of something because the data doesn’t yet exist. It might seem on the surface that we can’t investigate that type of ignorance and therefore, we can safely eliminate the area from our study. We might consider this the unknowable by virtue of the fact that there isn’t some place we could go look it up to fill the vacuum. However, importantly this might mean that the methods/tools or environment for observation are not available to us. This should rule out all of the knowledge that humans are striving to acquire, but have not yet succeeded. Not so fast! It is possible that the information itself might well exist, but for deliberate efforts to prevent our being able to get to it through limitations on the research.

The flipside would be the types of ignorance where the knowledge does exist, but some individuals possess it while others do not. Proctor notes that ‘the distribution of ignorance is unequal’ (Proctor, 2008, p.6). That suggests that this information is knowable, and takes us to a discussion of causes of ignorance.

Causes of ignorance:
Certainly, ignorance can be attributed to a variety of causes. Some are passive constructs. As a species, those things that humans don’t know are what Proctor calls native ignorance or infantile absence. As young people (infants, toddlers, children) we experience ignorance as a function of lack of experience with or exposure to certain information – what Proctor calls innocence. Another cause of ignorance, which Proctor notes is ultimately caused by a choice – he has termed selective ignorance. For example, when a college student declares a major in English literature, it can be imagined that they are relinquishing claims to a serious understanding of chemistry or tennis. Both ignorance of innocence and selective ignorance might appear to be outside of the scope of this blog. However, as our public schools were conceived as a deliberate and strategic effort to address the deficits of growing children, educators, administrators, politicians, and parents work to identify the information that children are exposed to. Similarly, even at the university level, when programs are designed to require certain courses, or courses are designed to require certain information ignorance is no longer passive.

The original impetus for launching this blog and the causes of most interest for our focus are active constructs. These are the areas in which ignorance is intentional (knowledge deliberately hidden or explicitly forgotten and lost or discredited), manufactured (through publication of dis- or misinformation), or engineered as a strategic exercise. An impressive array of actors are working to limit access to information or to discredit legitimate information. I expect there will be areas that many people will confirm as important or necessary to withhold information. As any parent who has implemented parental controls on their children’s television or digital engagement will attest, there may be valid reasons to filter, restrict, or censure information for young minds. There will be many who support political choices to keep certain information secret or confidential from general dissemination to the public for some perceived benefit to the citizenry.

Without question, there are limits to our time and our energy to research and to know everything there is to know. We have to trust that somebody is minding the store and that they know what they are doing. The primary goal of this blog is to encourage you to ask yourself the questions: What don’t I know? Why don’t I know this? How is my ignorance impacting my quality of life? Is someone (who) benefiting from my ignorance? These questions suggest also that at some point in future posts, we will address the motivations for active ignorance.

References
Proctor, R. N. (2008). Agnotology: A missing term to describe the cultural production of ignorance (and its study). In R. N. Proctor & L. Schiebinger, L. (Eds.), Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance,. (1-33). Stanford University Press.
Proctor, R. N., & Schiebinger, L. (2008). Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford University Press.