States of Ignorance

Scholars at the intersection of policy and science and technology studies love to talk about knowledge as power. Whether it be Foucault's Panopticon, the co-production of scientific knowledge and political order, or the post-structuralist State, most scholarship sees the action of policy and knowledge as fundamentally linked. Matthew, however takes another approach. Rather than an engine of knowledge, he views the State as an engine of ignorance; a human institution deliberately designed not to gather certain kinds of facts, a patchy net full of holes, and an illusion of control over a vast depth of chaos. Matthew's story about the Mexican forestry service is a case that seems easy to dismiss as irrelevant to the American experience. However, it's about more than Western scientific imperialism against native culture, or a corrupt and ineffective third-world bureaucracy (both of these are false characterizations of Mexico's forest service, and of the paper). Rather, what can we learn about the political uses of ignorance?

A cultivated ignorance is the tool used to reconcile the ideals of the political elites with the realities on the ground. In the case of Mexican forest fires, the elites having decided that fires are to be suppressed, based on best practices inherited from the American forest service, which has very different priorities, and the needs of an urban constituency, simply ignore fires below a certain size. These fires don't exist, so they don't cause political problems. While this is an extreme case, any institution serving diverse constituencies will preforce have to provide them with individualized, relevant, information. In some cases, the contradictions caused by these facts may be insurmountable, such as the Mexican forest fires, or sexual activity in middle-schoolers, so the facts are lost in a hole of ignorance, to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Which leads to my weekly Red(state) baiting. One of the casualties in the latest round of budget cuts were NOAA weather satellites. Like-wise, the NRA has systemically blocked research on gun violence. As a rationalist, this infuriates me. I have no inherent ideological stance on climate change or guns, but I do have a deep belief that policy decisions should be made on the basis of observable evidence. These attempts to introduce system ignorance into the policy apparatus leave American more vulnerable, just as actual problems of rural heating, agriculture, and forest health cannot be addressed until Mexico acknowledges the reality of forest fires. Far too often, ideology triumphs over the evidence, and also the desire for evidence.

But I am prepared for a moment to be generous. Clark Miller's chapter on the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction and Lansing's book on Bali water temples shows how 'rationalist' approaches can lead to a false sense of surety, and activist policies with extremely bad outcomes. Perhaps, recognizing and using institutional ignorance is the first step towards Jasanoff's "technologies of humility".