By Daniel Rigney
Meta-ignorance, put simply, is ignorance of one’s own ignorance. There are many things in life we don’t know, and some of these are things we don’t know we don’t know.
Military philosopher Donald Rumsfeld put it memorably when he termed meta-ignorance the “unknown unknown.” Rumsfeld observed that “as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.” (emphasis added)
So there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
But what’s missing?
Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek argues pointedly that Rumsfeld should have added a fourth logical category to complete his set, namely, the category of unknown knowns , or things we disavow knowing, but do know at some unconscious level. These are objects of knowledge that sink into the dim depths of the unconscious when we engage in strategic amnesia, convenient forgetting or denial.
One wonders why Rumsfeld accidentally forgot to name this fourth category in his taxonomy. Maybe the fourth category was hiding somewhere in the depths of his own lack of self-awareness.*
But let’s return for the moment to meta-ignorance, the category of the unknown unknown , and illustrate the concept with a few homely examples.
Imagine a hypothetical 87-year-old mother-in-law who thinks she’s competent to drive a car. It’s obvious to everyone around her that her judgment is severely impaired, and that if she ever got hold of her car keys she might well cause serious injury or death to herself or others. In this instance, her meta-ignorance is not just an intriguing logical conundrum. It is a misjudgment that could turn tragic in a careless instant if she were allowed behind the wheel of her misguided missilemobile. Thankfully her keys seem to have gone mysteriously missing.
Here’s another hypothetical example of meta-ignorance. Suppose a certain Secretary of Defense believes he knows that a foreign dictator is harboring weapons of mass destruction. He acts on that belief, ignorant of his own ignorance that his belief is false, and proceeds to help incite a needless war that results in the deaths of countless thousands of human beings. Again we see meta-ignorance playing out in external reality, with deadly consequences.
Some may insist that the Case of the Defensive Secretary belongs more properly to the category of the known unknown, or knowledge conveniently suppressed and disavowed, the better to lure a gullible nation into a perilous war. We may never know for certain what sort of ignorance this was, and oddly, neither may the hypothetical Secretary of Defense. The mind of the military philosopher is a mysterious animal, perhaps even to itself.
Let’s consider one last hypothetical instance of meta-ignorance. Suppose a large industrial city – let’s call it Carbon City – is a major generator of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Its economic base depends on the massive extraction, processing, and distribution of hydrocarbons which, when ignited, send billions of tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, trapping the sun’s heat and slowly, over decades, warming the planet to temperatures that are tragically destructive of people and other living things. The city’s economy benefits in the short run from the world’s addiction to fossil fuels, yet there is almost no local public discussion of the city's own significant role in generating global warming and climate change. It is as though there were an unspoken taboo against noticing the dinosaur in Carbon City's living room, and perhaps even a taboo against noticing the taboo itself.
But is Carbon City’s deafening silence concerning its role in the manufacture of climate change truly a case of meta-ignorance? Is the city really unaware, and unaware that it is unaware, of the negative global consequences of its ephemeral prosperity? Is the city really that deeply asleep? That deeply in denial? Or is it only pretending to be asleep? Unknown unknown or known unknown? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.
I don’t know for sure, but I do know that Carbon City can’t sleep, or pretend to sleep, forever. The laws of nature and their greenhouse effects will see to that. And the laws of nature don’t care one way or the other whether we’re sleeping or not.
The trouble with meta-ignorance is that it’s not just a concept. It’s a reality, sometimes a deadly one, but one we’re rarely aware of. Maybe it's time we woke up to it.
Danagram
*For a flashlight beam into the murky depths of Rumsfeld’s soul, I recommend Erroll Morris’s interview-based documentary, The Unknown Known.
Meta-ignorance, put simply, is ignorance of one’s own ignorance. There are many things in life we don’t know, and some of these are things we don’t know we don’t know.
Military philosopher Donald Rumsfeld put it memorably when he termed meta-ignorance the “unknown unknown.” Rumsfeld observed that “as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.” (emphasis added)
So there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
But what’s missing?
Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek argues pointedly that Rumsfeld should have added a fourth logical category to complete his set, namely, the category of unknown knowns , or things we disavow knowing, but do know at some unconscious level. These are objects of knowledge that sink into the dim depths of the unconscious when we engage in strategic amnesia, convenient forgetting or denial.
One wonders why Rumsfeld accidentally forgot to name this fourth category in his taxonomy. Maybe the fourth category was hiding somewhere in the depths of his own lack of self-awareness.*
But let’s return for the moment to meta-ignorance, the category of the unknown unknown , and illustrate the concept with a few homely examples.
Imagine a hypothetical 87-year-old mother-in-law who thinks she’s competent to drive a car. It’s obvious to everyone around her that her judgment is severely impaired, and that if she ever got hold of her car keys she might well cause serious injury or death to herself or others. In this instance, her meta-ignorance is not just an intriguing logical conundrum. It is a misjudgment that could turn tragic in a careless instant if she were allowed behind the wheel of her misguided missilemobile. Thankfully her keys seem to have gone mysteriously missing.
Here’s another hypothetical example of meta-ignorance. Suppose a certain Secretary of Defense believes he knows that a foreign dictator is harboring weapons of mass destruction. He acts on that belief, ignorant of his own ignorance that his belief is false, and proceeds to help incite a needless war that results in the deaths of countless thousands of human beings. Again we see meta-ignorance playing out in external reality, with deadly consequences.
Some may insist that the Case of the Defensive Secretary belongs more properly to the category of the known unknown, or knowledge conveniently suppressed and disavowed, the better to lure a gullible nation into a perilous war. We may never know for certain what sort of ignorance this was, and oddly, neither may the hypothetical Secretary of Defense. The mind of the military philosopher is a mysterious animal, perhaps even to itself.
Let’s consider one last hypothetical instance of meta-ignorance. Suppose a large industrial city – let’s call it Carbon City – is a major generator of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Its economic base depends on the massive extraction, processing, and distribution of hydrocarbons which, when ignited, send billions of tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, trapping the sun’s heat and slowly, over decades, warming the planet to temperatures that are tragically destructive of people and other living things. The city’s economy benefits in the short run from the world’s addiction to fossil fuels, yet there is almost no local public discussion of the city's own significant role in generating global warming and climate change. It is as though there were an unspoken taboo against noticing the dinosaur in Carbon City's living room, and perhaps even a taboo against noticing the taboo itself.
But is Carbon City’s deafening silence concerning its role in the manufacture of climate change truly a case of meta-ignorance? Is the city really unaware, and unaware that it is unaware, of the negative global consequences of its ephemeral prosperity? Is the city really that deeply asleep? That deeply in denial? Or is it only pretending to be asleep? Unknown unknown or known unknown? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.
I don’t know for sure, but I do know that Carbon City can’t sleep, or pretend to sleep, forever. The laws of nature and their greenhouse effects will see to that. And the laws of nature don’t care one way or the other whether we’re sleeping or not.
The trouble with meta-ignorance is that it’s not just a concept. It’s a reality, sometimes a deadly one, but one we’re rarely aware of. Maybe it's time we woke up to it.
Danagram
*For a flashlight beam into the murky depths of Rumsfeld’s soul, I recommend Erroll Morris’s interview-based documentary, The Unknown Known.
No comments:
Post a Comment