Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance

A G N O T O L O G Y The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance

Edited by Robert N. Proctor and Londa Schiebinger

Stanford University Press Stanford,

California

S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press Stanford, California © 2008 by the B o a r d of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. N o part o f this b o o k m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d o r transmitted i n a n y f o r m o r b y any m e a n s , electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system w i t h o u t the prior written permission of Stanford University Press. P r i n t e d i n the U n i t e d States o f A m e r i c a o n a c i d - f r e e , a r c h i v a l - q u a l i t y p a p e r Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A g n o t o l o g y : the m a k i n g and u n m a k i n g of ignorance / edited by R o b e r t N. P r o c t o r and L o n d a Schiebinger. p. c m . Includes bibliographical references and index. I S B N 978-0-8047-5652.-5 (cloth : alk. paper) — I S B N 9 7 8 - 0 - 8 0 4 7 - 5 9 0 1 - 4 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1.

Ignorance (Theory of k n o w l e d g e ) — S o c i a l a s p e c t s — C o n g r e s s e s .

Congresses.

I. Proctor, R o b e r t , 1 9 5 4 -

2.

Secrecy—

II.

Schiebinger, L o n d a L. B D 2 2 1 . A 3 6 2008 OOI-dc22

2OO7O498II

P o r t i o n s o f the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s h a v e b e e n p r e v i o u s l y p u b l i s h e d a s i n d i c a t e d : C H A P T E R 2 : Peter G a l i s o n ,

"Removing Knowledge,"

Critical Inquiry

31

(2004):

2 2 9 - 2 4 3 . © 2004,

T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o . R e p r i n t e d b y p e r m i s s i o n o f T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press. CHAPTER 4: D. M i c h a e l s and C. M o n f o r t o n , " M a n u f a c t u r i n g Uncertainty: Contested Science and

the

Protection

of t h e

Public's

Health

and

Environment,

American Journal of Public

Health 9 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) : S 3 9 - S 4 8 . © 2 0 0 5 A m e r i c a n P u b l i c H e a l t h A s s o c i a t i o n . C H A P T E R 5 : N a n c y T u a n a , " C o m i n g t o U n d e r s t a n d : O r g a s m a n d t h e E p i s t e m o l o g y o f I g n o r a n c e , " Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy

19 ( 2 0 0 4 ) :

1 9 4 - 2 3 2 . © 2 0 0 4 by H y p a t i a , Inc. R e p r i n t e d by

p e r m i s s i o n of I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y Press. C H A P T E R 6: L o n d a S c h i e b i n g e r , Plants and Empire: Colonial Bioprospecting in the Atlantic

World.

© 2004

by

Londa

Schiebinger.

Reprinted

by

p e r m i s s i o n of H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press. C H A P T E R 7: A d r i e n n e M a y o r , Fossil Legends of the First Americans. © 2 0 0 5 by P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press. R e p r i n t e d by p e r m i s s i o n of P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press. C H A P T E R 1 0 : C h a r l e s W . M i l l s , " W h i t e I g n o r a n c e , " p p . 1 3 - 3 8 i n Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, S h a n n o n Sullivan a n d N a n c y T u a n a , eds. © 2 0 0 7 State University o f N e w Y o r k Press. R e p r i n t e d b y p e r m i s s i o n o f S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w Y o r k P r e s s . Designed by Bruce Lundquist T y p e s e t a t S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press i n 1 0 / 1 5 S a b o n

Contents

Preface

vii

1. A g n o t o l o g y : A M i s s i n g Term to Describe the Cultural Production of Ignorance (and Its Study)

R O B E R T

P A R T

I

N .

P R O C T O R

S E C R E C Y ,

1

S E L E C T I O N ,

A N D

S U P P R E S S I O N

2 . R e m o v i n g K n o w l e d g e : T h e Logic o f M o d e r n Censorship P E T E R

G A L I S O N

37

3 . Challenging K n o w l e d g e : H o w C l i m a t e Science Became a Victim of the C o l d W a r N A O M I

O R E S K E S

A N D

ERIK

M.

C O N W A Y

55

4. M a n u f a c t u r e d Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public's H e a l t h and Environment D A V I D

M I C H A E L S

90

5. C o m i n g to Understand: O r g a s m and the Epistemology of Ignorance

N A N C Y

P A R T

I I

T U A N A

L O S T

1 0 8

K N O W L E D G E ,

L O S T

W O R L D S

6. West Indian Abortifacients and the M a k i n g of Ignorance L O N D A

S C H I E B I N G E R

149

7. Suppression of Indigenous Fossil K n o w l e d g e : From C l a v e r a c k , N e w Y o r k , 1 7 0 5 t o A g a t e Springs, N e b r a s k a , 2005 A D R I E N N E

M A Y O R

163

8. M a p p i n g Ignorance in A r c h a e o l o g y : T h e A d v a n t a g e s of Historical Hindsight ALISON

PART

WYLIE

III

T H E O R I Z I N G

183

I G N O R A N C E

9. Social Theories of Ignorance M I C H A E L J.

SMITHSON

209

10. W h i t e Ignorance CHARLES

11.

W.

MILLS

230

Risk M a n a g e m e n t versus the Precautionary Principle: A g n o t o l o g y as a Strategy in the D e b a t e over Genetically Engineered O r g a n i s m s DAVID

MAGNUS

250

1 2 . S m o k i n g O u t Objectivity: Journalistic Gears in the Agnotology Machine JON

CHRISTENSEN

266

List of Contributors

283

Index

289

Preface

WE LIVE IN AN AGE OF IGNORANCE,

and it is important to understand

h o w this came to be and why. O u r g o a l here is to explore h o w ignorance is p r o d u c e d or maintained in diverse settings, through mechanisms such as deliberate or inadvertent neglect, secrecy and suppression, d o c u m e n t destruction, unquestioned tradition, and m y r i a d forms of inherent (or avoidable) culturopolitical selectivity. A g n o t o l o g y is the study of igno­ rance m a k i n g , the lost and forgotten. O n e focus is on k n o w l e d g e that could have been but w a s n ' t , or should be but isn't, but we shall also see that not all ignorance is bad. O u r primary purpose here is to p r o m o t e the study of ignorance, by developing tools for understanding h o w and w h y various forms of k n o w ­ ing have " n o t c o m e to b e , " or disappeared, or have been delayed or long neglected, for better or for w o r s e , at various points in history. S w i m m i n g as we do in oceans of ignorance, examples could be multiplied ad infini­ tum. C o n t r i b u t o r s to this v o l u m e p r o b e the secrecy maintained by mili­ tary classification, the " d o u b t " peddled by manufacturers of carcinogens ( " d o u b t is our p r o d u c t " ) , the denialist claims of environmental troglo­ dytes, the nontransfer of technologies (such as birth control) from colonial outposts to imperial centers, the role of disciplinarity and media " b a l a n c e routines" on agnogenesis, and certain aspects of racial and sexual igno­ rance. T h e idea is that a great deal of attention has been given to episte­ m o l o g y (the study o f h o w w e k n o w ) w h e n " h o w o r w h y w e don't k n o w " is often just as important, usually far m o r e scandalous, and remarkably undertheorized. This v o l u m e emerged from w o r k s h o p s held at Pennsylvania State Uni­ versity in 2003 and at Stanford University in 2005, the g o a l of w h i c h w a s to c o m e to grips w i t h h o w ignorance has been understood, created, and ignored, linking these ideas also to allied creations of secrecy, uncertainty, confusion, silence, absence, and i m p o t e n c e — e s p e c i a l l y as these pertain

to scientific activities. For financial support, we o w e a debt of gratitude to the N a t i o n a l Science F o u n d a t i o n — a n d at Penn State, to the Science, M e d i c i n e , and T e c h n o l o g y in Culture initiative, the Institute for Arts and Humanities, the R o c k Ethics Institute, and the departments of History, English, and A n t h r o p o l o g y . At Stanford we are also grateful to the His­ tory & Philosophy of Science, the Suppes Center, the Humanities Center, M o d e r n T h o u g h t and Literature, and the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. We are also thankful for administrative help provided by Rosemary R o g e r s , Michelle C a l e , and Jeanette Jenkins. We are hoping this volume will be taken as opening a door to a broader realm of inquiry. We invite others to step through this door, and to explore the m a n y other realms of ignorance that saturate and define our w o r l d .

A G N O T O L O G Y

CHAPTER

I

Agnotology A Missing Term to Describe the Cultural Production of Ignorance (and Its Study) ROBERT N.

We is

are

often

not just

a

ence, about

unaware blank

and for all what

we

I

of the

space know

know,

on rules

maybe

scope a

and

structure

person's

mental

of operation

as

we

should

Thomas

Doubt Brown

PROCTOR

well.

add

Pynchon,

is

& Williamson Tobacco

our

of our

map.

It So

getting

ignorance.

has as

a

familiar

Ignorance

contours

and

coher-

to

writing

corollary with

our

ignorance.

1984

product.

Company,

internal

memo,

PHILOSOPHERS LOVE TO TALK ABOUT KNOWLEDGE.

1969

A w h o l e field

is devoted to reflection on the topic, w i t h p r o d u c t tie-ins to professor­ ships and w e i g h t y conferences. Epistemology is serious business, taught in academies the w o r l d over: there is " m o r a l " and " s o c i a l " epistemology, epistemology of the sacred, the closet, and the family. T h e r e is a C o m p u ­ tational Epistemology L a b o r a t o r y at the University of W a t e r l o o , and a Center for Epistemology at the Free University in A m s t e r d a m . A G o o g l e search turns up separate websites for " c o n s t r u c t i v i s t , " " f e m i n i s t , " and " e v o l u t i o n a r y " epistemology, of course, but also " l i b i d i n a l , " " a n d r o i d , " " Q u a k e r , " "Internet," and (my favorite) " e r o t o m e t a p h y s i c a l " epistemol­ ogy. H a r v a r d offers a course in the field (without the erotometaphysical part), w h i c h (if we are to believe its website) explores the epistemic status of w e i g h t y claims like "the standard meter is 1 meter l o n g " and "I am not a brain in a v a t . " We seem to k n o w a lot a b o u t k n o w l e d g e . 1

2

W h a t is remarkable, t h o u g h , is h o w little we k n o w a b o u t ignorance.

3

T h e r e is not even a w e l l - k n o w n w o r d for its study (though our hope is to 1

change that), no fancy conferences or polished websites. This is particularly remarkable, given (a) h o w m u c h ignorance there is, (b) h o w m a n y kinds there are, and (c) h o w consequential ignorance is in our lives. T h e point of this volume is to argue that there is much, in fact, to know. Ignorance has many friends and enemies, and figures big in everything from trade association p r o p a g a n d a to military operations to slogans chanted at children. L a w y e r s think a lot a b o u t it, since it often surfaces in consumer p r o d u c t liability and tort litigation, w h e r e the question is often " W h o k n e w w h a t , and w h e n ? " Ignorance has m a n y interesting surrogates and overlaps in myriad w a y s w i t h — a s it is generated b y — s e c r e c y , stupidity, apathy,

censorship,

disinformation, faith,

and forgetfulness,

all

of w h i c h

are science-twitched. Ignorance hides in the s h a d o w s of philosophy and is f r o w n e d upon in sociology, but it also pops up in a great deal of p o p u l a r rhetoric: it's no excuse, it's w h a t can't hurt y o u , it's bliss. Ignorance has a history and a c o m p l e x political and sexual geography, and does a lot of other o d d and arresting w o r k that bears exploring. A n d d e p l o r i n g — t h o u g h we don't see inquiry in this area as necessar­ ily having the g o a l of rectification. Ignorance is most c o m m o n l y seen (or trivialized) in this way, as something in need of correction, a kind of natu­ ral absence or void where k n o w l e d g e has not yet spread. As educators, of course, we are committed to spreading k n o w l e d g e . But ignorance is more than a v o i d — a n d not even a l w a y s a bad thing. No one needs or w a n t s to k n o w everything all the time; and surely all of us k n o w things we w o u l d rather others not k n o w . A founding principle of liberal states is that o m ­ niscience can be d a n g e r o u s , and that some things should be kept private. Rights to privacy are essentially a form of sanctioned ignorance: liberal governments are (supposed to be) barred from k n o w i n g everything; in­ quisitors must have warrants. Juries are also supposed to be kept ignorant, since k n o w l e d g e can be a form of bias. There is virtuous ignorance, in the form of resistance to (or limits placed on) dangerous k n o w l e d g e .

4

T h e causes of ignorance are multiple and diverse. N o t m a n y people k n o w that the biggest building in the w o r l d is a semi-secret facility built to produce explosive u r a n i u m - 2 3 5 , using e n o r m o u s magnets, near a non­ descript t o w n in southern O h i o (Piketon); but that is for reasons that are different from w h y we don't k n o w much a b o u t the origin of life, or any-

thing at all a b o u t time before the Big Bang circa 14 billion years a g o . A n d there are many different w a y s not to know. Ignorance can be the flipside of memory, w h a t w e don't k n o w because w e have forgotten, parts o f w h i c h can be restored by historical inquiries but most of w h i c h is forever lost. (And we often cannot say which.) Ignorance can be made or u n m a d e , and science can be complicit in either process.

THE

PURPOSE

OF

THE

PRESENT

is programmatic, to begin a

VOLUME

discussion of ignorance as more than the " n o t yet k n o w n " or the steadily retreating frontier. We need to think about the conscious, unconscious, and structural production of ignorance, its diverse causes and conformations, whether brought about by neglect, forgetfulness, myopia, extinction, secrecy, or suppression. T h e point is to question the naturalness of ignorance, its causes and its distribution. W h y have so few Americans heard a b o u t the Nakba? W h y did epidemiologists miss the high levels of pellagra a m o n g early-twentieth-century African A m e r i c a n s ?

5

H o w did World W a r I-era

research into the reproductive effects of a l c o h o l b e c o m e "scientifically uninteresting"? W h y have today's geneticists developed a "collective am­ 6

nesia" a b o u t Francis G a l t o n ? W h y d o " w e " (many men and surely fewer 7

women) k n o w so little about the clitoris (see N a n c y Tuana, this volume), or laws of nature classified for national security, or indigenous abortifacients (see Londa Schiebinger, this v o l u m e ) , or the countless Xs or Ys or Zs that we cannot even name, given h o w l o w they fly under the radar? N o w , certain kinds of exploration require that we make distinctions; that is a reasonable first step into understanding. "Cutting u p " and "dividing into parts" is implicit in the etymology of scientia, which derives from the protoIndo-European skein, via the Latin seco and scindo (to cut), from which we get scissors and schism, scat and skin. There must be as many kinds of ig­ norance as of k n o w l e d g e — p e r h a p s more, given h o w scant is our knowledge compared to the vastness of our ignorance. A n d though distinctions such as these are somewhat arbitrary, I shall make three to begin the discussion: ignorance as native state (or resource), ignorance as lost realm (or selective choice), and ignorance as a deliberately engineered and strategic ploy (or active construct). There are of course other w a y s to divide this pie, and sev­ eral of the contributors to this volume provide alternative taxonomies.

I G N O R A N C E

AS

NATIVE

STATE

This may be the most c o m m o n w a y that scientists think a b o u t our topic: ignorance is like Kansas, a great place to be from. K n o w l e d g e g r o w s out of ignorance, as a flower from honest soil, but the direction of movement is pretty much one way. Here, t h o u g h , ignorance can also be a prompt for k n o w l e d g e , insofar as we are constantly striving to destroy i t — f a c t by fact. Ignorance has both an ontogeny and a phylogeny: babies start out ignorant and slowly come to k n o w the world; hominids have become sapient over mil­ lions of years from the happy accident of upright posture and not k n o w i n g w h a t to do w i t h our idle hands. (I personally favor the theory that bipedalism enabled us to " p u t things in q u o t e s " w i t h our newly freed fingers.) Ignorance in this sense of a primitive or native state is something to be fought or o v e r c o m e ; we hope and plan for it to disappear over time, as k n o w l e d g e triumphs over foolish superstition. Ignorance is not necessar­ ily e v i l — i t can be innocent (as k n o w l e d g e can be sin). But it seems to be something we are all supposed to w a n t to g r o w out of, to put behind us, in the process of generating (or acquiring) k n o w l e d g e . Johannes Kepler in the sixteenth century had a rather brutal w a y of putting it: ignorance w a s "the mother w h o must die for science to be b o r n . "

8

A n d foolish ignorance a b o u n d s . Jay Leno makes g o o d sport interview­ ing people w h o don't k n o w whether the Earth has one or t w o m o o n s , or w h a t day of the w e e k G o o d Friday lands on. M o r e serious is the fact that 52 percent of all Americans answer " y e s " w h e n asked whether "the earliest h u m a n s lived at the same time as the d i n o s a u r s . " Science educators (and 9

all thinking people) w o r r y a b o u t the fact that a b o u t half of all A m e r i c a n s believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, a m o n g them several former and living presidents. R o n a l d R e a g a n once proclaimed in a televised speech that A m e r i c a w a s great "because it has never k n o w n slavery"; ignorance seems to k n o w no b o u n d s . Ignorance in this sense of " n a t i v e " or "originary" state implies a kind of deficit, caused by the naivete of youth or the faults of improper education—or the simple fact that here is a place where knowledge has not yet penetrated. Ignorance is compared to innocence or, in the secular variant, knowledge in its infancy, with ontogeny more or less recapitulating phylogeny. Scientists 10

often cherish this kind of ignorance, using it as a prompt to inquiry. There is

the familiar grant application version: we k n o w this and that but not yet this other t h i n g — s o fund me please! Fill this gaping hole (which also happens to be my p o c k e t b o o k ) ! Less cynical renditions are familiar from the history of philosophy: Socrates taught that the truly wise are those w h o realize h o w little they k n o w ; knowledge of one's ignorance is a precondition for enlight­ enment. T h e modern twist has ignorance as something to be escaped but also as a kind of rejuvenating force, since it is only by asking the right ques­ t i o n s — b y k n o w i n g wherein fruitful (that is, eradicable) ignorance lies—that we can ever come to knowledge.

11

Creative intellects are ignorance experts:

they k n o w where it can be found, and h o w to make it go away. M o d e r n i t y gives this a greater sense of urgency, insofar as ignorance becomes a kind of vacuum or h o l l o w space into which knowledge is pulled. Science rushes in to fill the v o i d , or rushes out to greet the w o r l d , if we re­ call the birthing metaphor of Kepler. Psychoanalytics aside, we could give various names to this theory of ignorance. I have called it native ignorance, because the notion is of a kind of infantile absence by virtue of primitiv­ ity, a dearth or cavity that is rectified (filled) by g r o w t h or b i r t h — t h o u g h other metaphors are used. Light floods the darkness, keys are found to unlock locks, ignorance is w a s h e d away, teaching uplifts out of ignorance, which is thereby destroyed or chased, and so f o r t h .

12

Ignorance here is seen as a resource, or at least a spur or challenge or prompt: ignorance is needed to keep the wheels of science turning. N e w ignorance must forever be rustled up to feed the insatiable appetite of sci­ ence. T h e w o r l d ' s stock of ignorance is not being depleted, however, since (by wondrous fortune and hydra-like) t w o new questions arise for every one answered. Some veils of ignorance are pushed aside but others a l w a y s p o p up, saving us from the end of inquiry. This regenerative p o w e r of ignorance makes the scientific enterprise sustainable. T h e nightmare w o u l d be if we were s o m e h o w to run out of ignorance, idling the engines of k n o w l e d g e production. We need ignorance to fuel o u r k n o w l e d g e engines. Science is sustainable because ignorance proliferates, a triumph not foreseen by early champions of modernity. Bacon and Descartes both envisioned a time in the not so distant f u t u r e — p e r h a p s within their o w n l i f e t i m e s — w h e n all scientific problems w o u l d be s o l v e d — b u t later M o d e r n s k n e w a g o o d thing w h e n they s a w it, and h o w to keep it going.

A vast literature exists on h o w to escape from ignorance, including the recognition that learning often implies a process of " u n l e a r n i n g " (try any of the 542,000 G o o g l e hits for this term). But there is also the apprecia­ tion that the distribution of ignorance is unequal, hence the digital divide, remedialisms of various sorts, and so forth. Technologies can cause the proliferation of ignorance: "the public seems to be a w a k e n i n g to the fact that in the midst of the 'information' e x p l o s i o n , there has been an 'igno­ rance' e x p l o s i o n as w e l l . "

1 3

M e d i a analyst Sut Jhally in 1 9 9 1 made head­

lines w h e n he found that people were misinformed a b o u t the Gulf W a r in direct proportion to h o w much TV they had w a t c h e d on the t o p i c .

14

Radio

w a s early on criticized as a vehicle for p r o p a g a n d a (spreading ignorance, as w a s often said), and Walter Benjamin discussed the quaint idea from the 1920s that film could lead to a kind of dictatorship of the imagination, via an enforced railroading of the eye (versus the freedom purportedly allowed by static graphic arts).

15

T h e Internet has certainly fostered the spread of

fictions along w i t h f a c t s — a s w h e n South Africa's president T h a b o M b e k i " d u r i n g a late-night Internet surfing session" happened o n , and became convinced by, a website challenging the v i e w that H I V w a s the cause of AIDS.

1 6

T h e president's v i e w s were later used to justify a s l o w d o w n in ef­

forts to c o m b a t exposure to the virus. O u r interest here, t h o u g h , is less in remediation than in w h a t N a n c y T u a n a has called the "liberatory m o m e n t " — w h i c h brings us to a more subtle form of agnotology.

I G N O R A N C E SELECTIVE

C H O I C E

AS

LOST

(OR

R E A L M ,

PASSIVE

OR

C O N S T R U C T )

This second variant recognizes that ignorance, like k n o w l e d g e , has a p o ­ litical geography, p r o m p t i n g us to ask: W h o k n o w s not? A n d w h y not? W h e r e is there ignorance and w h y ? Like k n o w l e d g e or wealth or poverty, ignorance has a face, a house, and a price: it is encouraged here and dis­ c o u r a g e d there from ten thousand accidents (and deliberations) of social fortune. It is less like a vacuum than a solid or shifting b o d y — w h i c h travels through time and occupies space, runs r o u g h s h o d over people or things, and often leaves a shadow. W h o at Hiroshima did not k n o w to leave the city that day, and turned into a s h a d o w on the asphalt?

Part of the idea is that inquiry is a l w a y s selective. We look here rather than there; we have the predator's fovea (versus the indiscriminate w a t c h ­ fulness of prey), and the decision to focus on this is therefore invariably a choice to ignore that. Ignorance is a p r o d u c t of inattention, and since we cannot study all things, some by necessity—almost all, in f a c t — m u s t be left out. "A w a y of seeing is also a w a y of not s e e i n g — a focus u p o n object A involves a neglect of object B . "

1 7

A n d the w o r l d is very b i g — m u c h bigger

than the w o r l d of Descartes and B a c o n , w i t h their hopes for an imminent finish to the project of science. A k e y question, then, is: h o w should we regard the "missing matter," k n o w l e d g e not yet k n o w n ? Is science more like the progressive illumination of a well-defined b o x , or does darkness g r o w as fast as the light? Both images are c o m m o n . Selectivity is often conceived as transient, evanescent, a kind of " n o i s e " in the system or scatter a b o u t the line, w i t h bias s l o w l y being rectified. Science is like m o w i n g y o u r l a w n : y o u can c h o o s e any place to start, but things end up l o o k i n g pretty m u c h the same. I w a s recently faced w i t h a succinct (albeit unpleasant) version of this in a peer review of a grant proposal of mine to the N a t i o n a l Science Foundation. This rather disgruntled h o o d e d " p e e r " w a s unhappy w i t h my request for funds to study the history of paleoanthropology, given my fail­ ure to recognize, as he or she put it, that science w a s biased "only in the past, but not in the present." In this undialogic c o n t e x t I did not have the opportunity to respond to this wonderfully self-refuting chestnut, w h i c h soured as s o o n as it w a s uttered; I couldn't point out that errors often do languish, projects go unfunded, opportunities are lost, the dead do n o t spring back to life, and justice does not a l w a y s p r e v a i l — e v e n in science. This is a different sense of selectivity: that k n o w l e d g e switched o n t o one track c a n n o t a l w a y s return to areas passed over; we don't a l w a y s have the opportunity to correct old e r r o r s .

18

Research lost is not just research

delayed; it can also be forever m a r k e d or never recovered. L o n d a Schiebinger describes a clear instance of a g n o t o l o g y of this sort in her essay for this v o l u m e . T h e b a c k g r o u n d here is that for three or four centuries f o l l o w i n g the first transits of the Atlantic and circumnavigations of Africa, European monarchs and trading companies sent out ships in search of fame or fortune, c o n q u e r i n g and colonizing but also capturing

k n o w l e d g e and wealth from far-flung territories. N o t all knowledge gained in the peripheries flowed back to the center, however. T h e passage w a s unequal in that only certain kinds of g o o d s were imported, while others were ignored. Abortifacients in particular were excluded: African and Eu­ ropean w o m e n k n e w m a n y different w a y s to prevent childbirth, but these were judged irrelevant to the kind of knowledge/extraction projects favored by the colonizing Europeans. T h e p o t a t o w a s fine, as w a s quinine from the bark of the Cinchona tree (for malaria), but not the means by w h i c h (white) w o m e n might have prevented conception or caused abortion. Eu­ ropean governments were trying to g r o w their populations and c o n q u e r n e w territories, for w h i c h they needed quinine but not the p e a c o c k flower (the abortifacient described by Sibylla M a r i a M e r i a n in 1 7 1 0 ) . M e t h o d s of contraception or abortion were l o w on the list of priorities, and the plants used for such purposes by the indigenes were simply ignored. It may well be that no decision w a s ever made to ignore or destroy such k n o w l e d g e . It is not hard to imagine an " o v e r d e t e r m i n e d " m i x of delib­ erate and inadvertent neglect, t h o u g h the b o u n d a r y between these t w o is not a l w a y s clear. T h e mechanisms involved in producing or maintaining ignorance can change over time, and once things are made u n k n o w n — b y suppression or by a p a t h y — t h e y c a n often remain u n k n o w n w i t h o u t fur­ ther effort. O n c e lost or destroyed, a d o c u m e n t or a species or a culture does not spring back to life. D i e g o de L a n d a must have k n o w n this w h e n he burned the M a y a n royal libraries at M a n i on the Y u c a t a n in 1 5 6 2 , de­ fending this act of cultural vandalism w i t h the argument that such codices contained only "superstitions and lies of the devil." T h i s bridges into our next form of agnogenesis: the deliberate production of ignorance in the f o r m of strategies to deceive.

I G N O R A N C E OR

AS

ACTIVE

STRATEGIC

PLOY,

C O N S T R U C T

The focus here is on ignorance—or doubt or uncertainty—as something that is made, maintained, and manipulated by means of certain arts and sciences. The idea is one that easily lends itself to paranoia: namely, that certain people don't w a n t y o u to k n o w certain things, or will actively w o r k to organize doubt or uncertainty or misinformation to help maintain (your) ignorance.

T h e y know, and may or may not w a n t y o u to k n o w they know, but y o u are not to be privy to the secret. This is an idea insufficiently explored by philosophers, that ignorance should not be viewed as a simple omission or g a p , but rather as an active production. Ignorance can be an actively engi­ neered part of a deliberate plan. I'll begin with trade secrets, moving from there in the next three sections to t o b a c c o agnotology, military secrecy, and the example of ignorance making (or maintenance) as moral resistance. There have a l w a y s been lots of reasons to keep things secret—for love, for war, for business, for every conceivable human desire or enterprise.

19

T h o u g h t itself, of course, is secret until expressed in perishable verbal form, or in the more durable medium of print or some other enduring mode of capture. Secrets are as old as human thought and perhaps older still, judging from the fantastic variety of animal techniques of deception, ranging from insect camouflage to predators stashing their prey to the myriad disguises of herbivores. Recall h o w the white underbellies of deer and most other ungulates help turn these animals into non-objects by canceling s h a d o w s . Science and trade are often said to be (or forced) open, but secrecy plays an important role in both r e a l m s — t h i n k of peer review, or the jeal­ ous guarding of discoveries until publication. Science and industry are increasingly interwoven, with R & D pursued under c l o a k s o f privacy t o maintain some business a d v a n t a g e . Science even in the best of circum­ stances is " o p e n " only under highly ritualized constraints. T h e point of confidential peer review, for e x a m p l e , is to guarantee o b j e c t i v i t y — h e r e a kind of balanced f a i r n e s s — t o a l l o w one's peers to criticize w i t h o u t fear of recrimination. Blinded review c o m e s at a cost, however, since it means that an a u t h o r — t h e recipient of criticism in this i n s t a n c e — c a n n o t " c o n ­ sider the s o u r c e . " Reviewers can also act w i t h o u t taking responsibility for their opinions, except insofar as an editor or grant officer takes this into account.

20

A similar weakness plagues Wikipedia-style publishing, though

preservation of page histories makes it at least theoretically possible to minimize vandalism (the bigger problem here is the perpetual " b a l a n c e of terror" produced on controversial topics such as intelligent design). Scientific secrecy long predates peer review. A l c h e m y and astrology were often advertised as occult sciences, in the sense of harnessing dark p o w e r s but also of being practiced in the dark, hidden from v i e w .

21

The

t w o senses were intertwined, since the principles sought were supposed to lie behind or beyond ordinary kinds of k n o w l e d g e that flourished in the light. M u c h of early modern science w a s also guild-like, insofar as "secrets of the t r a d e " were taken for granted. Trade secrets were guarded to con­ trol access to a particular kind of technique, resource, ritual, or market. M u c h of the rhetoric of the so-called Scientific R e v o l u t i o n w a s directed t o w a r d eliminating secrecy, to open up practices to i n s p e c t i o n — w h e n c e the omnipresent rhetorics of " l i g h t , " "clarification," and eventually " e n ­ lightenment." A l c h e m y done in the light became chemistry. Trade secrets are still a vital part of m a n u f a c t u r i n g ,

22

however, and

it is p r o b a b l y not far from the m a r k to say that older forms of secrecy have simply been replaced by newer ones. A great deal of m o d e r n chem­ istry is tied up w i t h industrial p r o d u c t i o n , m a k i n g it hard to speak of an open exchange of ideas. Three or four people are supposed to k n o w the formula for C o c a - C o l a , locked in a vault in Atlanta; the same is true for the spices used in K e n t u c k y Fried C h i c k e n (in Louisville) and m a n y other celebrated c o n s u m a b l e s .

23

Publication is one w a y of claiming intellectual

property, but ideas are also often shared " o p e n l y " only within some re­ stricted social space. M i l i t a r y technologies are an o b v i o u s e x a m p l e , but there is a great deal of private speech inside law firms, hospitals, govern­ ments, and every other kind of institution, for w h o m k n o w l e d g e is not just p o w e r but danger—which is w h y institutional amnesia m a y be as valued as institutional memory. Within academia, scholars will often keep certain ideas secret or limit their circulation to avoid improper use; and it is only after publication that circulation becomes difficult to control. Information flows are also limited for legal or PR purposes, or for reasons of national security. T h e apparent free flow of ideas celebrated in academia is actually circumscribed by the things that m a k e it o n t o the public table; I taught at Pennsylvania State University for almost a dozen years before I stumbled o n t o a department called "Undersea W a r f a r e , " w h i c h is also a b o u t h o w long it t o o k for me to learn that Penn State w a s the official university of the United States M a r i n e C o r p s . I d o n ' t k n o w h o w many of my former colleagues were a w a r e of either of these closely held facts. But there are other w a y s ignorance is crafted, and one of the most dra­ matic e x a m p l e s stems from the black arts of t o b a c c o manufacturers.

Tobacco

Industry

Agnotology

One of my favorite examples of agnogenesis is the tobacco industry's efforts to manufacture d o u b t a b o u t the hazards of s m o k i n g . It w a s primarily in this c o n t e x t (along w i t h military secrecy) that I first began exploring this idea of manufactured i g n o r a n c e ,

24

the question again being " W h y don't

w e k n o w w h a t w e don't k n o w ? " T h e n o n e - t o o - c o m p l e x answer i n many instances w a s "because steps have been taken to keep y o u in the d a r k ! " We rule y o u , if we can fool y o u . No one has done this m o r e effectively than the t o b a c c o mongers, the masters of fomenting ignorance to c o m ­ bat k n o w l e d g e . Health fears are assuaged by reassurances in the form of "reasonable d o u b t " — a state of mind w i t h both PR and legal value. T h e logic is simple, but it also has some devious twists and turns. I'll deal here only w i t h the U.S. case, t h o u g h the duplicity project is n o w being fran­ chised globally to buttress the continued sale of 5.7 trillion cigarettes per a n n u m , e n o u g h to circle the Earth some 13,000 times. M a r k e t i n g has a l w a y s involved a certain persuasion bordering on de­ ception, insofar as laundry soap is pretty much the same t h r o u g h o u t the world. T h e t o b a c c o industry early on recognized health concerns as market impediments, w h i c h is w h y L & M Filters were offered as "just w h a t the doctor o r d e r e d , " C a m e l s were said to be s m o k e d by " m o r e d o c t o r s , " and so forth. T h e industry w a s barred from m a k i n g such claims in the 1 9 5 0 s and m o v e d to more subtle inducements, associating s m o k i n g w i t h y o u t h , vigor, and beauty, and later freedom, risk, and rebellion. For a time in the 1980s, w h e n health infringements centered around secondhand s m o k e , we were told that s m o k i n g w a s a form of free speech. T h e industry likes to have it both w a y s : s m o k i n g is patriotic yet rebellious, risky yet safe, calming yet exciting, and so forth. M a r k e t i n g tools of a novel sort were introduced in the early 1 9 5 0 s , f o l l o w i n g the e x p l o s i o n of evidence that cigarettes were killing tens of thousands every year. Responding to this evidence, the industry launched a multimillion dollar campaign to reassure consumers that the hazard had not yet been " p r o v e n . " Through press releases, advertisements, and well-funded industry research fronts, epidemiology w a s denounced as "mere statistics," animal experiments were said not to reflect the human condition, and lung pathologies revealed at autopsy were derided as anecdotes without " s o u n d

science" as backing. Cigarette manufacturers often invoked the laboratory as the site where the " c o n t r o v e r s y " w o u l d be resolved, k n o w i n g that it w a s difficult to mimic h u m a n s m o k i n g harms using animal models. Small animals just don't contract cancer from breathing smoke; it takes twenty or thirty or more years for human smokers to develop cancer, and rats don't live that long. A n d even w h e n cancers were successfully produced in mice (by painting t o b a c c o tars on their shaven backs), the industry admitted only the presence of " m o u s e c a r c i n o g e n s " in s m o k e . Cigarette apologists w o r k e d in a conveniently tight logical circle: no evidence w a s g o o d enough, no experiment close enough to the human condition. True p r o o f w a s hard to have short of experimenting on h u m a n s — b u t do y o u really w a n t us to experiment on humans? W h a t are y o u , some kind of N a z i ? We don't yet k n o w w h a t evil genius came up w i t h the scheme to associ­ ate the continued manufacture of cigarettes w i t h prudence, using the call for " m o r e research" to slow the threat of regulation, but it must rank as one of the greatest triumphs of American corporate c o n n i v a n c e .

25

T h e idea

w a s that people w o u l d continue to smoke so long as they could be reassured that " n o one really k n o w s " the true cause of cancer. T h e strategy w a s to question all assertions to the contrary, all efforts to " c l o s e " the controversy, as if closure itself were a mark of d o g m a , the enemy of inquiry. T h e point w a s to keep the question of health harms o p e n , for decades if possible. C a n c e r after all w a s a c o m p l e x disease w i t h multiple causes, all of w h i c h w o u l d have to be explored w i t h o u t rushing to any kind of judgment. We o w e d as m u c h to those p o o r souls suffering from this terrible scourge, we had to keep an open mind, leaving the question of causation open. Do y o u w a n t to close d o w n research? C a n ' t y o u keep an open mind? Establishing and maintaining " t h e t o b a c c o c o n t r o v e r s y " w a s a k e y element in the industry's PR strategy from the beginnings of the modern conspiracy in the 1 9 5 0 s . C o n t r o v e r s y w a s like hope, something y o u (they) w a n t e d to keep alive. Interminable controversy had an immediate value in keeping smokers s m o k i n g and legislators pliable. It eventually also had a legal value, insofar as the industry could claim it had never denied the hazards, but had only called for further evidence. T h e idea of " n o p r o o f " becomes one of the t w o main pillars of the industry's defense against law­ suits, the other being common knowledge: everyone has a l w a y s k n o w n

a b o u t the dangers, so smokers have only themselves to blame for w h a t ­ ever illnesses they may contract. Universal awareness w a s matched w i t h open controversy: everyone knew that cigarettes are harmful, but no one had ever proven i t .

26

T h e strategy is a clever one, t h o u g h it does require that we a d o p t a rather broad rift between p o p u l a r and scientific k n o w l e d g e . In court, the industry's experts do some fancy dancing to m a k e this w o r k , pointing to historical examples of " f o l k " w i s d o m predating scientific k n o w l e d g e , with more " c a u t i o u s " confirmations c o m i n g only later. Folk healers use an herb to effect a cure, but it takes some time for doctors to accept this and grasp h o w it w o r k s . So while popular belief may recognize that t o b a c c o is h a z a r d o u s , the science has been m u c h harder to nail d o w n . In court, the industry's experts like to emphasize the continuance of "legitimate scientific d o u b t " long past even the Surgeon General's report of 1 9 6 4 . Kenneth Ludmerer, a St. Louis medical historian and frequent witness for the industry, recently claimed under cross-examination that there w a s " r o o m for responsible d i s a g r e e m e n t " w i t h the hazards consensus even after the Surgeon General's report. Indeed, he says, "There's a l w a y s r o o m for d i s a g r e e m e n t . "

27

A crucial issue in many lawsuits is whether the industry acted respon­ sibly in denying any p r o o f of a hazard. " C o m m o n k n o w l e d g e " and " o p e n controversy" come to the rescue, the hoped-for point being that since every­ one has a l w a y s k n o w n that cigarettes are d a n g e r o u s , the manufacturers can't be faulted for failing to w a r n . T h e establishment of controversy in the scientific c o m m u n i t y is also crucial, t h o u g h , because it gives cigarette makers yet another excuse for negligence in failing to w a r n . W h y did the industry n o t w a r n smokers of a hazard? Because the issue had not been settled! No p r o o f w a s f o r t h c o m i n g — s o the industry maintained, duplici­ t o u s l y — s o we c a n n o t say it acted irresponsibly. 28

29

T h e t o b a c c o industry w a s rarely innocent in any of these respects, since its goal at m a n y points w a s to generate i g n o r a n c e — o r sometimes false k n o w l e d g e — c o n c e r n i n g t o b a c c o ' s impact on health. T h e industry w a s trebly active in this sphere, feigning its own ignorance of hazards, while simultaneously affirming the absence of definite proof in the scien­ tific community, while also d o i n g all it could to manufacture ignorance

on the part of the smoking public. T h i s last-mentioned g o a l w a s achieved by m a n y different means, including release of duplicitous press releases, publication o f " n o b o d y k n o w s the a n s w e r s " w h i t e p a p e r s , and funding decoy or red-herring research to distract from genuine hazards (which also functioned as "alibi r e s e a r c h " in subsequent litigation). C o m m o n k n o w l e d g e w a s really only a legal arguing p o i n t — t h e reality desired by the industry w a s c o m m o n ignorance (to keep people s m o k i n g ) . " S m o k e ­ screen" is an appropriate epithet, but we c o u l d also talk a b o u t disestab­ lishing facts, via several key strategies. O n e w a s simply to conceal whatever hazards the industry k n e w about, but another w a s to fund research that w o u l d seem to be addressing t o b a c c o and health, while really doing nothing of the sort. T h e chief instrument for this w a s the Tobacco Industry Research Council (TIRC), established in 1 9 5 4 w i t h great fanfare in full-page ads published in 448 of the nation's leading newspapers. T h e T I R C (later renamed the C o u n c i l for T o b a c c o Research) eventually funded hundreds of millions of dollars of research, very little of w h i c h had anything to do with smoking. Little of it ever addressed the question supposedly in doubt: whether and to w h a t extent cigarettes are bad for y o u r health. T h e political value of research of this kind (mostly basic biochemistry) w a s the fact of its being funded—which allowed the industry to say it w a s "studying the p r o b l e m . " Industry researchers k n e w from the beginning w h a t they were supposed to find (and not find): per instructions from the T o b a c c o Institute, the T I R C w a s supposed to mani­ fest confidence that " w e do not n o w k n o w w h a t causes lung cancer or any other kind of c a n c e r . "

30

Press releases and publications from the industry

beat this drum pretty hard. In lawyerly fashion, health implications were thought of as " c h a r g e s " to be refuted rather than as topics to be honestly investigated. Yet another strategy w a s to publicize alternatives to the "cigarette the­ ory." A k e y instrument in this w a s the already-mentioned T o b a c c o Insti­ tute, w h i c h metastasized from the T I R C in 1 9 5 8 to serve as the l o b b y i n g and p r o p a g a n d a arm of the industry. For decades, the T o b a c c o Institute trumpeted the " n o p r o o f " position of the industry, usually in response to n e w confirmations of one or another t o b a c c o hazard. T h e institute also published a m o n t h l y newsletter, the Tobacco and Health Report, d r a w -

ing attention to w h a t e v e r could be used to distract from t o b a c c o hazards. T h e magazine w a s sent to hundreds of thousands of physicians, plus thou­ sands of other opinion makers from industry, government, and journal­ ism, the purpose being to highlight every possible cause of cancer except for t o b a c c o . Typical for 1 9 6 3 and 1 9 6 4 were articles w i t h titles such as " R a r e Fungus Infection M i m i c s L u n g C a n c e r , " " V i r a l Infections Blamed in Bronchitis O u t b r e a k s , " "English Surgeon Links Urbanization to L u n g C a n c e r , " " N i c o t i n e Effect Is Like Exercise," " L u n g C a n c e r Rare in Bald M e n , " " 2 8 Reasons for D o u b t i n g Cigarette-Cancer L i n k , " and " N o O n e Yet K n o w s the A n s w e r s . " T h e m a g a z i n e blamed bird keeping (feather mites), genetics, viruses, air pollution, and every other possible cause of the lung cancer e p i d e m i c — e x c e p t t o b a c c o . T h r o u g h o u t this period, the g o a l of the industry w a s to c o m f o r t by virtue of allying itself w i t h science. O n e remarkable organ for this purpose w a s Science Fortnightly, an ambitious popular science magazine published by the Lorillard T o b a c c o C o m p a n y from 1 9 6 3 to 1 9 6 5 , mailed free of charge every t w o w e e k s to 1.4 million people. This w a s one of the best p o p u l a r science publications of the decade, treating n e w archaeological finds, theories of the origins of the Earth, sociological questions a b o u t the role of blacks and w o m e n in science, and dozens of other hot topics. T h e point w a s to introduce a breath of fresh air to science reporting, including also in every issue a couple of large and serious ads for Kent's micronite filter, " m a d e of a pure, dust-free, completely harmless material that is so safe that it is actually used to help filter the air in operating r o o m s of lead­ ing h o s p i t a l s . " T h a t semi-secret "harmless m a t e r i a l " for a time at least in the 1 9 5 0 s w a s crocidolite asbestos. Cigarette makers were successful for a time in keeping many people in the dark a b o u t the magnitude of certain hazards. A Harris Poll of adults in 1 9 6 6 found that not even half of those questioned regarded s m o k i n g as a " m a j o r " cause of lung cancer.

31

Surveys c o n d u c t e d that same year for

the U.S. Public H e a l t h Service found that only 46 percent of those polled answered " y e s " w h e n asked: "Is there any w a y at all to prevent a person from getting lung c a n c e r ? " T w e n t y percent of those answered " y e s " in response to the same question a b o u t emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

32

Thirteen- and fourteen-year-olds were not polled, but it w o u l d be surprising

if their awareness w a s any higher. Even today, h o w m a n y people k n o w that s m o k i n g is a major cause of blindness, bladder cancer, and cancers of the pancreas? Or (possibly) cancers of the h u m a n b r e a s t ?

33

We need bet­

ter measures of this and other kinds of i g n o r a n c e — a g n o m e t r i c indicators that will tell u s h o w m a n y people don't k n o w X , Y , o r Z . A n e w element in the t o b a c c o story over the past t w e n t y years or so has been the industry's hiring of historians to tell the t o b a c c o story in a w a y that jurors might find sympathetic. Historians are employed to point out that correlation does not imply causation, that history is messy, that we must be careful in judging the past, that g o o d history m a y even re­ quire our not judging the past, and so f o r t h .

34

Historians are most often

brought into t o b a c c o trials to testify to w h a t is k n o w n as "state of the a r t " and " c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e " — b a s i c a l l y the science of the times, and w h a t people k n e w a b o u t the hazard. As of 2005 at least thirty-six academic historians had testified under oath for the i n d u s t r y — w h e r e a s only three had testified against (myself, Louis K y r i a k o u d e s , and Allan B r a n d t ) .

35

The

industry's g o a l has been to control the history of t o b a c c o just as earlier they'd controlled the science of t o b a c c o . A typical instrument in this w a s Philip Morris's "Project C o s m i c , " an effort launched in 1 9 8 7 to create " a n extensive n e t w o r k of scientists and historians from all over the w o r l d " to write the history of drug u s e .

36

D a v i d M u s t o of Yale, D a v i d H a r l e y of

O x f o r d , John B u r n h a m of O h i o State, and a number of others w e r e ap­ proached to write articles for the industry to "see to it that the beneficial effects of nicotine are m o r e widely u n d e r s t o o d . "

37

M u s t o ' s w o r k w a s con­

sidered particularly useful for presenting "a m o d e r a t e v i e w of substance use in the m e d i a . "

38

H u n d r e d s of thousands of dollars were paid to C o s ­

mic research directors; M u s t o alone received nearly $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 .

39

Grant­

ees published on the history of t o b a c c o w i t h o u t ever a c k n o w l e d g i n g the industry's support. David Harley, for example, published an article on " T h e Beginnings of the T o b a c c o C o n t r o v e r s y " in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, t h a n k i n g a certain Daniel Ennis for " e n c o u r a g i n g my interest in this t o p i c . "

40

N o w h e r e does he mention that Ennis's " e n c o u r a g e m e n t "

t o o k the form of large piles of cash from Philip M o r r i s . There is an interesting sense in w h i c h the most c o m m o n definitions of expertise in recent t o b a c c o trials are biased in favor of the defense. Biased,

because in restricting their focus to the "state of the a r t , " a historian might fail to recognize the "state of the deception." If there is a diversity of views on t o b a c c o as a cause of cancer, w h a t fraction of that diversity has been created by the industry itself? Similar problems confront our grappling w i t h the extent t o w h i c h t o b a c c o harms were " c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e . " W e need to k n o w w h a t people knew, but also w h a t they didn't k n o w (and w h y not). " C o m m o n i g n o r a n c e " must b e e x p l o r e d and understood a s m u c h as c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e . Big T o b a c c o w a n t s us to believe that there are really only t w o kinds of k n o w l e d g e in question: p o p u l a r and scientific. Ignored is the role of the industry itself in creating ignorance: via advertising, duplicitous press releases, funding of decoy research, establishment of scientific front orga­ nizations, manipulation of legislative a g e n d a s ,

41

organization of "friendly

research" for publication in p o p u l a r magazines, and myriad additional projects from the dark arts of agnotology. Tremendous amounts of m o n e y have been t h r o w n into this effort, w h i c h the industry's o w n lawyers have (privately) characterized as a form of "studied i g n o r a n c e . "

42

T h e industry

eventually recognized itself as a manufacturer of t w o separate, but codepen­ dent products: cigarettes and doubt. As T o b a c c o Institute VP Fred Panzer put it in a 1 9 7 1 m e m o , the industry's g o a l w a s to create " d o u b t a b o u t the health charge without actually denying i t . "

4 3

B r o w n & Williamson officials

had earlier confessed (internally) that " d o u b t is our p r o d u c t , "

44

and in the

1980s Philip M o r r i s responded to the " t h r e a t " of environmental t o b a c c o smoke (ETS) by formulating as their number one "strategy objective": " t o maintain d o u b t on the scientific front a b o u t E T S . "

4 5

There is no central tenet in t o b a c c o industry a g n o t o l o g y , h o w e v e r ; their philosophy is opportunistic, and a l w a y s subordinate to the goal of selling cigarettes and w i n n i n g lawsuits, usually via stalling tactics k n o w n in the business as " s a n d in the g e a r s . "

46

Cigaretteers will jump from being

Popperian to constructivist as it suits them; they love to argue that no number of experiments can verify a theory, but they also k n o w h o w to h a m m e r a w a y at the language of a claim until it falls to pieces. (Recall the A c a d e m y for T o b a c c o Studies' scientist in Thank You for Smoking w h o could " d i s p r o v e gravity.") A n d on the question of demonstrating harms, the industry's standards for p r o o f are so high that nothing in this w o r l d

c o u l d satisfy them. " M o r e research" is a l w a y s needed, a "benefit of the d o u b t " is a l w a y s granted, as if cigarettes were on trial and innocent until p r o v e n guilty. T h e industry loves this form of the "null h y p o t h e s i s " : they start by assuming " n o h a r m d o n e , " and then fail in their feeble efforts at falsification. Similar strategies have been used by other industries to disprove hazards of lead, asbestos, and the like; and petrochemical and neoconservative doubters of global w a r m i n g have learned a lesson or t w o from the t o b a c c o d o u b t mongers (as N a o m i O r e s k e s s h o w s in her contri­ bution to this v o l u m e ) .

47

Military

Secrecy

T o b a c c o duplicity is notorious, but deliberate ignorance also comes from numerous other sources, such as military classification. Estimates are that a quarter of the world's technical personnel have some kind of military clearance; there are secret scientific facts, secret scientific methods, secret scientific societies, secret scientific journals, and (probably) secret laws of nature. Military men don't always w a n t to keep secrets from themselves, so firewalls are established to a l l o w a community of cognoscenti w i t h "clear­ a n c e " to meet in private to discuss classified matters. T h e N a t i o n a l Security Agency, for example, maintains an Internet firewalled from the outside world, as do some of our larger private corporations. T h e M a n h a t t a n Project in World War II (to make an atomic bomb) set the stage for much of America's p o s t w a r secret research; the project diverted m u c h of the country's scien­ tific talent and the name itself w a s a deception, as w a s Britain's comparable " T u b e Alloys Project." N u c l e a r technologies have been clothed in secrecy from quite early on: the very existence of plutonium, for example, w a s clas­ sified for several years after its discovery, and w o r d s like " r a d i a t i o n " and " r a d i o i s o t o p e " were not supposed to be bandied about. Neither w o r d w a s mentioned in the first 200 articles written on the atom b o m b .

48

A t o m i c secrecy w a s also the rationale for entire scientific disciplines going underground, w i t h code names devised for sensitive topics. T h e field of " H e a l t h Physics," for e x a m p l e , has its origins in the need to explore the novel hazards of atomic radiation, w i t h the n a m e being deliberately kept v a g u e to disguise the fact that projects were u n d e r w a y to explore health and safety in the nuclear w o r k p l a c e .

T h e w h o l e point of secrecy in this realm is to hide, to feint, to dis­ tract, to deny access, and to m o n o p o l i z e information. G l o b a l positioning system locations are t w e a k e d to keep "sensitive" locations (for e x a m p l e , the W h i t e H o u s e ) u n k n o w a b l e — a n d so u n t a r g e t a b l e — a n d entire cities have been erased from m a p s or never d r a w n in. T h e N a t i o n a l Security A g e n c y is larger and m o r e secretive even than the Central Intelligence A g e n c y ( N S A = " N o Such A g e n c y " )

4 9

and the N a t i o n a l Reconnaissance

Office is more s h a d o w y still, and even better funded. M o s t secret w o u l d be those offices and operations " w e " in the outside w o r l d k n o w nothing about. Classified research in the United States is hidden in the so-called Black Budget, w h i c h currently exceeds the amounts funded for education and m a n y other social services. In N o v e m b e r of 2005, M a r y M a r g a r e t G r a h a m , deputy director of N a t i o n a l Intelligence at the C I A , revealed the total U.S. intelligence budget to be $44 billion per a n n u m .

50

T h e impact of military secrecy on science has been p r o f o u n d , affect­ ing nearly every branch of k n o w l e d g e . An interesting case concerns the seafloor stripes discovered during W o r l d W a r II. These large, linear, m a g ­ netic anomalies are caused by a c o m b i n a t i o n of seafloor spreading and periodic reversals in the Earth's magnetic field. T h e y were also useful in locating enemy G e r m a n (and later Russian) submarines, assisting in the scanning for underwater metallic objects. Seafloor stripes were important in the acceptance of continental drift, but their locations and even their existence were classified until the 1 9 5 0 s . H a d these been openly available to the scientific community, the theory of continental drift could have been accepted years before it w a s . Secrecy in this instance produced ignorance in the form of delayed k n o w l e d g e .

51

There are other e x a m p l e s of military agnogenesis. Military-sponsored research in the 1940s led to early predictions of g l o b a l w a r m i n g and the melting of the polar ice caps; the guardians of military secrecy kept this quiet, h o w e v e r , and the topic w a s n o t w i d e l y and o p e n l y d i s c u s s e d .

52

Climate science has suffered n e w kinds of a g n o t o l o g y in recent years, as Bush administration strategists have tried to keep the question of anthro­ pogenic g l o b a l w a r m i n g " o p e n . "

5 3

A s w i t h t o b a c c o industry apologetics,

calls for " m o r e research" on climate change have served as an effective stalling tactic: the strong evidence of w a r m i n g is denied, using the pretence

of a quest for rigor as a trick to delay action. Calls for precision can play out as prevarication. Military research has m o r e often generated ignorance by passive ag­ nogenesis: we have m a n y e x a m p l e s where military funding has pushed certain areas, leaving others to languish. C a r b o n - 1 4 research, for ex­ ample, w a s heavily supported by the military as part of nuclear isotope research (Libby's w o r k ) , whereas o x y g e n isotope analysis languished un­ derfunded. Science responds to funding opportunities, w h i c h means that ignorance c a n be maintained or created in certain areas simply by " d e f u n d i n g . " W h e n R o n a l d R e a g a n took office in 1 9 8 0 , federal funding for solar energy research w a s zeroed out. Semiconductor studies that could have advanced k n o w l e d g e in this realm were transferred to areas such as the " h a r d e n i n g " of silicon chips to resist the neutron flux from an atomic blast. Solar t e c h n o l o g y " k n o w - h o w " suffered from this loss of funding; ignorance here resulted from a decision to emphasize fossil fuels over re­ n e w a b l e energy sources.

V I R T U O U S AS

I G N O R A N C E ?

R E S I S T A N C E

OR

" N O T

M O R A L

K N O W I N G " C A U T I O N

T h e prospect sounds anathema: h o w could a n y o n e w a n t to hold back the progress of science? K n o w l e d g e is the light; w h y bathe in the dark? O n c e past the bluster, however, there are obviously many things " w e " don't w a n t to k n o w — a n d many more w e ' d rather have others not k n o w about us. I've mentioned the "right to privacy," but there are other realms where "less is m o r e " w h e n it c o m e s to k n o w l e d g e , including scientific k n o w l e d g e . We k n o w this from p o p u l a r sayings, as in the notion that it is not al­ w a y s easy to put some genies " b a c k in the b o t t l e . " K n o w l e d g e escapes, that w e ' d rather have confined or relegated to history. This w o u l d include m a n y technologies and bodies of skill: if not those surrounding plutonium or uranium, then perhaps the k n o w - h o w involved in torture, or the manu­ facture of neutron bombs, or some of our more horrific bioweapons. People can w o r k to undo rotten k n o w l e d g e ; that is one goal of education, but it is also the principal rationale for military classification, in that p o w e r s that be don't w a n t dangerous k n o w l e d g e falling into the w r o n g hands. Universities r o u t i n e l y bar m a n y k i n d s o f r e s e a r c h — r e s e a r c h w i t h

strings attached, for e x a m p l e , or research that involves certain kinds of risks for h u m a n or animal subjects, or research of a sort intended solely for profit, and so forth. M a n y universities bar research that is classified for military purposes, along w i t h research seen to involve certain kinds of conflict of interest. U C S F ' s Energy Institute w o n ' t take m o n e y from oil and gas interests, for e x a m p l e , and m a n y universities have been struggling over whether to a l l o w projects funded by the t o b a c c o industry. Rationales for such restrictions differ in each instance, but one overarching theory is that certain kinds of research will produce k n o w l e d g e that could be bi­ ased or undesirable. Scientific journals often have other kinds of restrictions. There are the familiar restrictions of disciplinarity and rhetoric, but projects receiving funding from certain sources are sometimes barred, as are research objects of illegitimate provenance (notably in archaeology). T h e entire notion of "research ethics" presumes that ignorance in certain situations is prefer­ able to knowledge by improper means. T h e American Medical Association in 1 9 9 6 r e c o m m e n d e d that scientific journals refuse to publish research funded by the t o b a c c o industry,

54

and there are calls n o w for history jour­

nals to do the s a m e — g i v e n the covert industry support for such publica­ tions.

55

Historians haven't yet had much experience limiting research from

such sources, and few professional journals require disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. T h a t could change, as historians realize that their re­ search can be " b o u g h t " as easily as any other kind. Disclosures and even " t r a n s p a r e n c y " are double-edged s w o r d s , however, as s h o w n by the to­ bacco industry's w o r k to draft and organize passage of the D a t a Access A c t of 1998 and the D a t a Q u a l i t y A c t of 2000. T h e n e w l a w s a l l o w the industry to obtain the r a w data of anyone publishing any kind of scientific or medical study using federal funds; the industry pushed for legislation of this sort to a l l o w it to reanalyze and reinterpret (that is, look for flaws in) research suggesting a t o b a c c o hazard of one sort or another.

56

Philip

Morris employed Multinational Business Services and other front organiza­ tions to push through these l a w s — o v e r objections from both the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences and the A m e r i c a n Association for the A d v a n c e m e n t of Science. T h e b o t t o m line: the seemingly noble goal of transparency can be an instrument in the service of organized duplicity.

O n e key principle of research e t h i c s — a s of ethics more g e n e r a l l y — i s that not all things are w o r t h k n o w i n g at any cost. M a n y kinds of scientific experiments are barred, either legally or less formally, w h i c h amounts to a tolerance for ignorance in realms where the costs of gaining k n o w l e d g e are judged to be t o o high. An interesting e x a m p l e of deliberate refusal of knowledge is the agreement by most journals of archaeology not to publish artifacts without an explicit and acceptable "provenance" demonstrating that the object in question w a s obtained either legally in recent years, or illegally prior to some agreed-on cutoff point. Estimates are that as many as half of all artifacts in museum collections have been obtained i l l e g a l l y — t h o u g h legal standards have changed considerably in this realm over time. T h e logic for the policy is that unrestricted publication will encourage looting, since publication is part of the process by w h i c h artifacts obtain value (via both certification and publicity). Different archaeological traditions regard this question of h o w to treat lootings very differently. " C o n t e x t u a l i s t s " (aka "dirt archaeologists," w h o study sites laid out in square meters) tend to take the hard line, arguing that artifacts without proper provenance should not be published. (Some even imply they should be destroyed, in the same w a y that Daniel A r a p M o i burned all that ivory.) Linguistic archaeolo­ g i s t s — d e c o d e r s — t e n d to be more tolerant, pointing out that all evidence available must be taken into account if translations (of M a y a n stelae, for example) are to be possible. These different epistemic traditions have dif­ ferent attitudes toward looting: " d i r t " archaeologists tend to value context, the first victim of looting, whereas philologists tend to value comparative analysis of series of "great artifacts," which often requires access to artifacts in private collections. T h e t w o traditions have different understandings of the costs of certain kinds of k n o w l e d g e and ignorance. If k n o w l e d g e is p o w e r (which it sometimes is but not a l w a y s ) , then to dismantle certain kinds of p o w e r m a y require the reintroduction of bod­ ies of i g n o r a n c e — h e n c e i m p o t e n c e — i n that realm. History is full of such undoings, the deliberate a b a n d o n m e n t of skills to improve some w a y of life. A n d w e ' r e not just talking A m i s h virtues: w h o n o w k n o w s all the techniques slave o w n e r s once possessed of h o w to control slaves? T h a t is lost k n o w l e d g e , as it should be, save perhaps for museums. W h o could lament the loss of k n o w l e d g e of all the world's w a y s to torture, the cogni-

tive equivalent of smallpox stocks? Refusals of technology are often of this sort. We often hear that y o u can't turn the clock b a c k , an idea as absurd as the notion that thieves c a n n o t be brought to justice. It is not only for foolishness that technologies have been avoided, refused, or a b a n d o n e d . In Ireland, the eel fishermen of L o u g h N e a g h no longer fish with powerdriven nets; a decision w a s made in the 1960s to restrict all fishing in the lake to h a n d - d r a w n nets, to sustain the diminishing stocks. Leaf blowers are being banned in many communities, and many of us look f o r w a r d to the day w h e n doctored m o n o c r o p lawns will be seen as pathology. T h e Japanese lived for more than a hundred years w i t h o u t the gun. Protests against novel technologies are often lumped under the ridiculous rubric of " l u d d i s m , " a term t o o often forgotten to have sprung from moral c o m ­ plaints w i t h g o o d reasons. Iain Boal in his f o r t h c o m i n g Long Theft s h o w s h o w the breaking of l o o m s in the early decades of the nineteenth century gave rise to the modern industrial strike (for better w o r k i n g conditions); protests against technologies and k n o w l e d g e practices are rarely the result of people fearing modernity in the abstract. There are many other reasons people might not w a n t to have all k n o w l ­ edge omnipresent all the time. N o t everyone w a n t s to k n o w w h a t kinds of genetic diseases they (or their children) may be harboring in their genomes. Archaeologists deliberately don't publish the location of certain excavation sites, fearing looting (botanists do the same for n e w cactus finds), and some ethnographers are publishing k n o w l e d g e of certain biopharmaceuticals in " i n d i g e n o u s " languages to give locals an edge against the multinationals. Access to all kinds of information is l i m i t e d — i g n o r a n c e is deliberately c r e a t e d — f o r more reasons than the m o o n has craters. T h e lesson is one that should have been applied in all of the recent hys­ teria over the myriad vulnerabilities of Americans to terrorist attack. T h e nightly n e w s for months w a s full of exposes of h o w this or that bridge or granary could be b o m b e d or p o i s o n e d , in a gargantuan paranoid proc­ lamation o f national v i c t i m h o o d . " N e w s " a b o u t potential threats and "security g a p s " arguably did more to give people worries (and ideas) than to encourage any truer sense (and reality) of safety; there is such a thing as dangerous k n o w l e d g e , things we don't need to k n o w . Total Informa­ tion Awareness is not for everyone.

S O M E

Q U E S T I O N S

There are lots of w a y s to think a b o u t i g n o r a n c e — a s tragedy, as crime, as p r o v o c a t i o n , as strategy, as stimulus, as excess or deprivation, as handi­ c a p , as defense mechanism or obstruction, as opportunity, as guarantor of judicial neutrality, as pernicious evil, as w o n d r o u s innocence, as ineq­ uity or relief, as the best defense of the w e a k or the c o m m o n excuse of the p o w e r f u l , and so forth. There are surely as m a n y w a y s to think a b o u t ignorance as of k n o w l e d g e , w i t h the sociology just as intricate in both in­ stances. There are lots of different kinds of ignorance, and lots of different reasons to e x p o s e it, u n d o it, deplore it, or seek it. Here some questions for further reflection: W h a t other kinds of w o r k does ignorance do? H o w else is it created, via w h a t other kinds of inat­ tention, disinterest, calculation, resistance, tradition, or distraction? A n d when does knowledge create ignorance? Wes Jackson has called the modern university " a n engine of distraction"; h o w does pursuit of certain kinds of k n o w l e d g e produce such "distractions"? Is ivory t o w e r reclusion re­ quired for certain kinds of k n o w l e d g e production? H o w do disinterests and apathies c o m e into being, and w h a t patterns of competence or dis­ ability are thereby brought into being? We tend to think of ignorance as something negative, but w h e n can it become a virtue? Or an imperative? T h e philosopher John R a w l s has c h a m p i o n e d a "veil of i g n o r a n c e " as a kind of ethical method: we are supposed to imagine ourselves not k n o w i n g where we ourselves will fig­ ure in an ethical situation; ignorance of h o w we personally might gain is supposed to guarantee a kind of neutrality and therefore balance in judg­ ing such situations. We find something similar in the c o u r t r o o m , where jurors are supposed to be ignorant of the particulars of the crime they are e v a l u a t i n g — v e r s u s prior to the seventeenth century, w h e n jurors w e r e supposed to k n o w as m u c h as possible a b o u t the case in question. (Jurors w e r e only later clearly separated from witnesses, the theory being that ignorance will prevent bias.) K n o w l e d g e here is interestingly attached to bias, ignorance to balance. A n d h o w i m p o r t a n t is the genesis of ignorance for m o d e r n c o r p o ­ rations? M a n y c o m p a n i e s c u l t i v a t e i g n o r a n c e as a k i n d of insurance policy: if w h a t y o u d o n ' t k n o w can't hurt y o u , sometimes it is safer n o t

to k n o w . D o c u m e n t retention policies of m a n y c o m p a n i e s w e r e revised in the w a k e of the M a s t e r Settlement A g r e e m e n t ( 1 9 9 8 ) , w h i c h forced tens of millions of previously secret t o b a c c o industry d o c u m e n t s o n t o the Internet. T h e traditional c o r p o r a t e l a w y e r s ' trick of flooding a plain­ tiff w i t h d o c u m e n t s (aka " d u m p i n g " ) backfired w i t h the rise of the In­ ternet and search engines, leading information holders to recognize the dangers of a l o n g paper trail. In the n e w millennium, m a n y c o m p a n i e s have a d o p t e d email deletion policies to a v o i d leaving such trails (paper o r electronic), the theory again being that w h a t y o u d o n ' t k n o w can't hurt y o u . ( T h o u g h failure to k e e p accurate records has itself been used in certain l a w s u i t s , alleging destruction of documents.) A n d w h a t a b o u t in medicine, or the science of public health? Richard Peto has argued that ignorance of a certain type is essential for progress in the science of epidemiology. No one needed to k n o w anything a b o u t the biochemistry of cancer to realize that cigarettes w e r e causing the dis­ ease; it w a s crucial to " b l a c k b o x " the things we didn't k n o w , rather than w a i t i n g paralyzed until k n o w l e d g e had c o m e in on every f r o n t .

57

The to­

b a c c o industry has spread confusion on this point, pretending that every last fact must be k n o w n a b o u t a disease before we c a n say w h a t causes it. John Snow's r e m o v i n g the handle from the w a t e r p u m p at C h a r i n g C r o s s is the c o n t r a r y l e s s o n — w a r t s and all: sometimes we k n o w e n o u g h to act, despite oceans of ignorance. Ignorance must be productive or vir­ tuous (not the same thing) in m a n y other c o n t e x t s — w h a t are they? T h e history of discovery is littered w i t h fertile m i s t a k e s — t h i n k of C o l u m b u s , e m b o l d e n e d to cross the Atlantic by virtue of an overly conservative es­ timate for the size of the globe. W h a t other e x a m p l e s are there of fertile ignorance? A n d w h e n does ignorance beget confidence, arrogance, or timidity? Charles D a r w i n once w r o t e that " i g n o r a n c e more frequently begets c o n ­ fidence than does k n o w l e d g e : it is those w h o k n o w little, and not those w h o k n o w m u c h , w h o so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by s c i e n c e . "

58

D a r w i n implies that k n o w l e d g e leads us to

a kind of productive h u m i l i t y — b u t h o w often is this true? His point is not the Socratic one, that "the more y o u k n o w the m o r e y o u realize h o w little y o u k n o w , " but rather that the m o r e y o u k n o w , the m o r e y o u realize that

science can go forward, trouncing ignorance. George G a y l o r d Simpson has taken a different tack, claiming that our capacity for ignorance is central to w h a t it means to be h u m a n : " M a n is a m o n g m a n y other things, the mistaken animal, the foolish animal. O t h e r species doubtless have m u c h more limited ideas a b o u t the w o r l d , but w h a t ideas they do have are m u c h less likely to be w r o n g and are never foolish. W h i t e cats do not denigrate black, and dogs do not ask Baal, Jehovah, or other Semitic gods to perform miracles for t h e m . "

5 9

To be h u m a n is to be ignorant, apparently.

Crucial also is: ignorance for w h o m ? and against w h o m ? Ignorance has a history and is a l w a y s unevenly distributed; the g e o g r a p h y of ignorance has mountains and valleys. W h o is ignorant and why, and to w h a t extent? H o w can w e develop better agnometric indicators? W h a t keeps ignorance in one place, w h i l e it evaporates in some other? A n d w h i c h a m o n g our myriad ignorances will be tolerated or c o m b a t e d ? M a n y of these same questions can be asked a b o u t k n o w l e d g e since, like ignorance, it occupies space and takes us d o w n one path rather than another. K n o w l e d g e , t o o , has a face, a house, and a p r i c e — t h e r e are p e o ­ ple attached, institutions setting limits, and costs in the form of monies or opportunities lost. Decisions of w h a t kind of k n o w l e d g e " w e " w a n t to support are also decisions a b o u t w h a t kinds of ignorance should re­ main in place.

SUMMARIZING,

THEN:

it is our hope that readers will be convinced that

there are a lot of g o o d reasons to explore ignorance. There is surely quite a lot of it, as m u c h as we are willing to let our arrogance a c k n o w l e d g e . A g n o t o l o g y could be a challenge to hubris, if there is modesty in learning h o w deeply ignorant we are. T h i n k of the countless different w a y s it is generated: by ingesting lead or by w a t c h i n g T V , or by fatigue or fear or isolation or poverty or any of the other m y r i a d experiences that deaden h u m a n life. T h i n k of ignorance generated by failures of the body, or fail­ ures to fund education, or free access to bogus information, or practices and policies that enlarge secrecy or prevarication or compartmentaliza­ tion. People have extracted very different things from different kinds of u n k n o w n s , and will no d o u b t continue to m i x suspect w i t h admirable reasons for letting those flourish or disappear.

P O S T S C R I P T THE

ON

TERM

THE

C O I N I N G

OF

" A G N O T O L O G Y "

Some time into this project I learned that there already w a s a w o r d that has been used to designate the study of ignorance, albeit w i t h a quite different slant from h o w we shall be using the term. A p a r t from being obscure and s o m e w h a t i n h a r m o n i o u s , agnotology has often been taken to mean "the doctrine of things of w h i c h we are necessarily i g n o r a n t " in some profound metaphysical sense. My hope for devising a n e w term w a s to suggest the opposite, namely, the historicity and artifactuality of n o n - k n o w i n g and the n o n - k n o w n — a n d the potential fruitfulness of studying such things. In 1 9 9 2 , I posed this challenge to the linguist Iain B o a l , and it w a s he w h o came up w i t h the term agnotology, in the spring of that year. C o i n a g e for science terms in A n g l o p h o n i a is conventionally from the G r e e k , so that is w h e r e he started. Ignorance in G r e e k really has t w o forms: agnoia, meaning " w a n t of perception or k n o w l e d g e , " and agnosia, meaning a state of ignorance or not k n o w i n g , both from gnosis (with a long o or omega) meaning " k n o w l e d g e , " w i t h the privative (negating) aprefix. (We didn't look for a h a r m o n i o u s negation of episteme.) Alterna­ tive designations for the study of ignorance could have been agnosiology, or agnarology (using the Latin c o m p o u n d i n g rule), or even agnoskology, designating more properly a study of the unwillingness or inability to learn, from gignosko (with both o's as omegas), the first-person singular present indicative active form of the verb meaning " t o k n o w . " Iain crafted agnotology from a m o n g these possible options, using gno as the root (meaning " t o k n o w " ) , a as the negating prefix, a t added as the marker of the participial (yielding gnot), and -ology as the denomina­ tive suffix. We chose -ology largely on phonaesthemic grounds, w i t h the logos-derived suffix lying roughly in the midrange of the hubris contin­ u u m , a v o i d i n g alternatives such as the more archaic agnonomy, the vivid yet micro-tainted agnoscopy (with its tilt to molecular c o p r o s c o p y ) , the Latin-Greek mongrel ignorology, the A n g l o - S a x o n romantic yet overly quaint " i g n o r a n c e - l o r e " (Lorraine Daston's tongue-in-cheek suggestion), the hyperempirical ig- or agnotometry (or -metrics), and the self-marginal­ izing " i g n o r a n c e science" or " i g n o r a n c e studies," w i t h its taint for those w h o scoff that "if there's science in the title, it isn't o n e . "

We had originally spelled our n e w term w i t h t w o a's (agnatology) to avoid having people elongating and accenting the second o (as in agnostic or ignoble), recognizing also that v o w e l s are essentially fillers in written language, f o l l o w i n g Voltaire's f a m o u s m a x i m that e t y m o l o g y is "a sci­ ence in w h i c h the consonants c o u n t for very little, and the v o w e l s for even less." (Try replacing all v o w e l s in a text w i t h the letter a, e, or i; and of course there are m a n y languages that d r o p them altogether, such as H e ­ brew.) Protests over this second a came from a number of quarters, a m o n g these a few biologists w h o insinuated that we were infringing on the study of jawless ( " a g n a t h i c " ) fish. M o r e serious w a s the objection that agnate w a s already a w o r d , m e a n i n g " r e l a t i v e " (from ad gnatus). In the spirit of scholarly h a r m o n y we decided to rechristen o u r neologism agnotology, recognizing that while the meanings of w o r d s lie only in their use, their use can also depend on h o w and for w h a t ends they are created.

S O M E

F A M O U S

Q U O T A T I O N S

Real knowledge is to

A B O U T

I G N O R A N C E

know the extent of one's ignorance.

Confucius ( 5 5 1 B C - 4 7 9 B C )

The loss which is unknown is no loss at all. Publilius Syrus, Maxims (c. 100 B C )

To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge. Nicolaus Copernicus ( 1 4 7 3 - 1 5 4 3 )

Ignorance of certain subjects is a great part of wisdom. Hugo De Groot (1583-1645)

Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. T h o m a s Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia ( 1 7 8 5 )

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure. M a r k Twain, December 2, 1887

Education

is

a

progressive

discovery

of our

own

ignorance.

Will D u r a n t ( 1 8 8 5 - 1 9 8 1 )

Ignorance

is

strength.

G e o r g e O r w e l l , 1984

Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing. PL L. M e n c k e n ( 1 8 8 0 - 1 9 5 6 )

Ignorance is king,

many would not prosper by its abdication.

Walter M. Miller, A

Canticle for Leibowitz ( 1 9 5 9 )

It's innocence when it charms us, ignorance when it doesn't. Mignon McLaughlin,

The Neurotic's Notebook

(1960)

Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily Karl Popper,

Reports

that say

be

infinite.

Conjectures and Refutations

(1963)

that something hasn't happened are always

interesting

to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know 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.

And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. D o n a l d H. Rumsfeld, D e p a r t m e n t of Defense n e w s briefing, February 1 2 , 2002

NOTES 1. T h e reference is to H a r v a r d ' s P h i l o s o p h y 2 5 3 . 2 . A G o o g l e s e a r c h o f D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 1 y i e l d e d 1 4 5 , 0 0 0 hits for " e p i s t e m o l o g y , " i n c l u d i n g objectivist, subjectivist, virtue, analytic, genetic, affective, iceberg, and C h i c a n a feminist. For t h e g a m u t , see h t t p : / / p a n t h e o n . y a I e . e d u / ~ k d 4 7 / e - p a g e . h t m . 3 . T w o s o l i d e x c e p t i o n s : P e t e r W e h l i n g , " W e s h a l b w e i s s d i e W i s s e n s c h a f t n i c h t , w a s sie nicht w e i s s ? F o r s c h u n g s p e r s p e k t i v e n einer S o z i o l o g i e des w i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e n N i c h t w i s s e n s , " http://www.sciencepolicystudies.de/wehling%20Expertise.pdf; and Michael Smithson, " T o w a r d a Social T h e o r y of Ignorance," Journal for the T h e o r y of Social Behavior 15 ( 1 9 8 5 ) : 1 5 1 - 1 7 2 . A n earlier d i s c u s s i o n i n t h e f u n c t i o n a l i s t m o o d c a n b e f o u n d i n W . E . M o o r e a n d M . M . T u m i n , " S o m e Social Functions o f Ignorance," A m e r i c a n Sociological R e v i e w 1 4 ( 1 9 4 9 ) : 7 8 7 - 7 9 5 . 4. T h e philosopher Paula Driver argues that one version of m o d e s t y consists in being ignorant of one's actual merits.

C h a r i t y can similarly consist in not n o t i c i n g — o r failing

t o b e a w a r e o f — t h e f a u l t s o f o t h e r s ; see h e r

Uneasy

Virtue ( C a m b r i d g e , U K : C a m b r i d g e

University Press, 2 0 0 1 ) . 5. H a r r y M a r k s , " M i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g Pellagra: Gender, R a c e and Political E c o n o m y in E a r l y - 2 o t h - C e n t u r y E p i d e m i o l o g y , " History of Science C o l l o q u i u m , Welch M e d i c a l Library, JHMI

(2001).

6.

Fetal

alcohol

s y n d r o m e w a s discovered circa

1 9 0 0 and then

forgotten with the

d i s c r e d i t i n g o f its e u g e n i c s s c a f f o l d i n g ; see P h i l i p J . P a u l y , " H o w D i d t h e E f f e c t s o f A l c o h o l on

Reproduction Become

Scientifically U n i n t e r e s t i n g ? " J o u r n a l o f the H i s t o r y o f B i o l o g y

29 (1996): 1-28. 7.

D a v i d R e i c h , " B u i l d i n g S u p e r m a n , " r e v i e w o f N i c h o l a s G i l l h a m , A L i f e o f Sir F r a n c i s

G a l t o n ( N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 2 0 0 1 ) , i n the N e w York T i m e s B o o k R e v i e w , February 10, 2002: 16. 8.

" S o l o n g as the m o t h e r , I g n o r a n c e , lives, it is n o t safe for S c i e n c e , the offspring, to

d i v u l g e the h i d d e n c a u s e o f t h i n g s " (Kepler, 1 5 7 1 - 1 6 3 0 ) . 9 . M a l c o l m Ritter,

"Americans Show They Don't K n o w M u c h

about Science,"

AP,

June 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 (based on an N S F - f u n d e d survey). 10.

A u g u s t C o m t e m a k e s this e x p l i c i t i n his C o u r s d e p h i l o s o p h i e p o s i t i v e ( 1 8 3 0 - 1 8 4 2 ) ;

see A u g u s t e C o m t e a n d P o s i t i v i s m , t h e E s s e n t i a l W r i t i n g s , e d . G e r t r u d L e n z e r ( N e w Y o r k : Harper and R o w , 1 9 7 5 ) , 7 3 , 94, 4 6 5 - 4 7 4 , and 84. 11.

T h i s i s R o b e r t K . M e r t o n ' s i d e a o f " s p e c i f i e d i g n o r a n c e " ; see his " T h r e e F r a g m e n t s

from a Sociologist's N o t e b o o k s :

Establishing the P h e n o m e n o n , Specified I g n o r a n c e , a n d

Strategic Research M a t e r i a l s , " A n n u a l R e v i e w o f S o c i o l o g y 1 3 ( 1 9 8 7 ) : 1 - 2 8 . M e r t o n ' s point is really o n l y t h a t q u e s t i o n s n o t a s k e d are q u e s t i o n s n o t a n s w e r e d , a n d that scientists need t o m a k e w h a t t h e y d o n ' t k n o w e x p l i c i t a s " a first s t e p t o w a r d s u p p l a n t i n g t h a t i g n o r a n c e with k n o w l e d g e " (10). 12.

R.

Duncan

and

M.

Weston-Smith,

The

Encyclopaedia

E x p l o r i n g the Frontiers of M e d i c a l K n o w l e d g e (Oxford: Pergamon, 13.

Smithson, " T o w a r d a Social T h e o r y of Ignorance,"

14.

Sut Jhally, Justin L e w i s , a n d M i c h a e l M o r g a n ,

of Medical Ignorance: 1984).

153.

" T h e Gulf War:

A S t u d y of the

M e d i a , Public O p i n i o n , and Public K n o w l e d g e " (Research R e p o r t . C e n t r e for the S t u d y o f Communication, Doc. #P-8, February 1 9 9 1 ) . 1 5 . Walter Benjamin, " T h e W o r k o f Art i n the A g e o f M e c h a n i c a l R e p r o d u c t i o n " ( 1 9 3 5 ) , i n his I l l u m i n a t i o n s , ed. H a n n a h A r e n d t ( N e w Y o r k : S c h o c k e n , 1 9 6 9 ) , 2 3 8 . 16.

D a v i d D i c k s o n , " W e a v i n g a Social W e b , " N a t u r e 4 T 4 ( 2 0 0 1 ) : 5 8 7 .

17.

Kenneth Burke, Permanence a n d C h a n g e ( N e w York: N e w Republic,

3935),

70.

T h e idea of selective bias has fallen on hard times in recent s o c i o l o g y of science. A l l science is said to be selective, so it b e c o m e s o n l y trivially true to say t h a t a n y particular pattern of inquiry is selective, since it c a n n o t h a v e been o t h e r w i s e . T h e so-called S t r o n g P r o g r a m m e in t h e s o c i o l o g y o f k n o w l e d g e a l s o t e n d e d t o r e g a r d t h e s o c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f i g n o r a n c e (or error) a s " e a s y " o r " t r i v i a l " b y c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the social c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t r u t h . 1 8 . Ian H a c k i n g , T h e S o c i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n o f W h a t ? ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 2000). 19.

Sissela

Random House,

B o k , Secrets:

20. M a r i o Biagoli, 1 2 (2002): 21.

On

the E t h i c s o f C o n c e a l m e n t a n d R e v e l a t i o n

( N e w York:

1990). "From Book

C e n s o r s h i p t o A c a d e m i c Peer R e v i e w , "

Emergences

11-45.

W i l l i a m R . N e w m a n a n d A n t h o n y G r a f t o n , eds., Secrets o f N a t u r e : A s t r o l o g y a n d

A l c h e m y i n E a r l y M o d e r n E u r o p e ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : M I T Press, 2 0 0 1 ) . 22.

W . R . V a n M e t e r i n his " P u t t i n g F a l s e F a c e s o n F o r m u l a s " ( F o o d I n d u s t r i e s , O c t o b e r

1 9 4 1 , 4 1 - 4 2 ) advised food chemists to disguise valuable formulas "so that w o r k m e n do not g e t w i s e t o i t a n d c o m p e t i t o r s c a n n o t s t e a l it. T h e i d e a i s t o u s e a r b i t r a r y u n i t s o f m e a s u r e m e n t a n d a d o p t c o i n e d n a m e s for i n g r e d i e n t s " ( 4 1 ) . 23.

W i l l i a m P o u n d s t o n e , B i g Secrets: T h e

Uncensored Truth a b o u t A l l Sorts of Stuff

You Are N e v e r Supposed to K n o w ( N e w York: William M o r r o w , 1985). 24.

See m y

Cancer

Wars: H o w Politics Shapes

What

We Know and Don't K n o w

a b o u t C a n c e r ( N e w Y o r k : Basic B o o k s , 1 9 9 5 ) , esp. p . 8 n a n d C h a p t e r 5 o n " D o u b t I s O u r Product." 25.

T h e PR firm of Hill a n d K n o w l t o n is often b l a m e d , b u t Paul H a h n , president of

t h e A m e r i c a n T o b a c c o C o . , w a s surely i n v o l v e d ; see m y f o r t h c o m i n g G o l d e n H o l o c a u s t . C o m p a r e also m y C a n c e r Wars, C h a p t e r 5 ; Gerald M a r k o w i t z and D a v i d Rosner, " E x p e r t Panels

and

Medical Uncertainty,"

American Journal of Industrial Medicine

19

(1991):

1 3 1 - 1 3 4 ; and Allan M . Brandt, T h e Cigarette C e n t u r y ( N e w York: Basic B o o k s , 2 0 0 7 ) , 159-207. 26.

See m y " E v e r y o n e K n e w b u t N o O n e H a d P r o o f : T o b a c c o I n d u s t r y U s e o f M e d i c a l

History Expertise in U.S. Courts, 1 9 9 0 - 2 0 0 2 , " T o b a c c o C o n t r o l 15 (2006): iv 27.

Kenneth Ludmerer, testimony in B o e k e n v.

C o u r t o f C a l i f o r n i a for the C o u n t y o f L o s A n g e l e s ,

117-125.

Philip M o r r i s , Inc., et al., Superior Case N o .

BC

226593,

Transcript of

Proceedings, vol. 3 1 A , 5262. 28. T h e words "deceive,"

"misleading,"

"fraud," and cognates appear 4 5 4 times with

reference to t o b a c c o industry actions in J u d g e G l a d y s Kessler's " F i n a l O p i n i o n " in U S A v. Philip M o r r i s e t al. ( A u g u s t 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 ) , online a t h t t p : / / w w w . t o b a c c o l a w c e n t e r . o r g / d o c u m e n t s / F i n a l O p i n i o n . p d f . T h e C o u r t here n o t e s t h a t n u m e r o u s " a c t s o f c o n c e a l m e n t a n d d e c e p t i o n " were m a d e "intentionally and deliberately" as part of a "multifaceted, sophisticated scheme t o d e f r a u d . " T h e C o u r t a l s o c o n c l u d e s t h a t " f r o m a t least 1 9 5 3 u n t i l a t l e a s t 2 0 0 0 , e a c h a n d every one of these D e f e n d a n t s repeatedly, consistently, v i g o r o u s l y — a n d f a l s e l y — d e n i e d the e x i s t e n c e o f a n y a d v e r s e h e a l t h effects f r o m s m o k i n g . M o r e o v e r , t h e y m o u n t e d a c o o r d i n a t e d , well-financed, sophisticated public

r e l a t i o n s c a m p a i g n t o a t t a c k a n d d i s t o r t the scientific

e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s m o k i n g a n d disease, c l a i m i n g t h a t the link b e t w e e n t h e t w o w a s still a n ' o p e n q u e s t i o n ' " ( 3 3 0 - 3 3 1 ) . 29.

The tobacco

i n d u s t r y s o m e t i m e s d e f e n d s itself b y s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e p u b l i c w a s

n e v e r c o n v i n c e d b y its

"no proof of harm"

propaganda.

During my expert deposition of

J u l y 2 0 0 2 for the plaintiffs i n U S A v . P h i l i p M o r r i s I w a s s h o w n a n i n d u s t r y d o c u m e n t f r o m the 1 9 7 0 s suggesting that confidence in the industry w a s l o w by c o m p a r i s o n w i t h medical a n d p u b l i c health g r o u p s . T h e industry's inference w a s essentially: yes, w e lied, b u t n o b o d y b e l i e v e d us. F r a u d , it s e e m s , is n o t fraud if no o n e believes y o u . 30. (1986), 390.

Cited in Jones, Day, Reavis, and Pogue's 4 5 0 - p a g e " C o r p o r a t e Activity Project" available

online

at

http://www.tobacco.org/resources/documents/jonesdayi.html,

C l a r e n c e C o o k Little w a s scientific d i r e c t o r o f T I R C b u t " t o o k o r d e r s "

from the T I

on this o c c a s i o n . 3 1 . L o u i s H a r r i s , " M o s t Still D o u b t C i g a r e t t e s A r e M a j o r C a u s e o f C a n c e r , " W a s h i n g t o n Post, January 2, 1 9 6 7 , Bates 5 0 0 3 2 3 7 7 8 . 32.

Use o f T o b a c c o : Practices, A t t i t u d e s , K n o w l e d g e , a n d Beliefs.

United States—Fall

1 9 6 4 a n d Spring 1 9 6 6 (U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n , and Welfare: July

1969),

52, 68. 3 3 . California E P A , P r o p o s e d Identification of E n v i r o n m e n t a l T o b a c c o S m o k e as a T o x i c Air C o n t a m i n a n t (Sacramento: California EPA, 2003). 34.

See m y " S h o u l d M e d i c a l H i s t o r i a n s B e W o r k i n g for the T o b a c c o I n d u s t r y ? " L a n c e t

363 (2003): 1 1 7 4 . 35.

See m y " E v e r y o n e K n e w b u t N o O n e H a d P r o o f , "

36.

" C h r o n o l o g y and

2023919844-9907;

D e v e l o p m e n t o f Project C o s m i c "

"Project C o s m i c , "

February

18,

iv117-iv125. (Philip M o r r i s ) ,

1992,

Bates

1 9 8 8 , Bates

2040573257-3270.

D o c u m e n t s w i t h " B a t e s " n u m b e r s (litigation c o d e s ) are s e a r c h a b l e online a t http://legacy .library.ucsf.edu/. 37.

" P l a n s for t h e S m o k i n g R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t " ( P h i l i p M o r r i s ) , 1 9 8 8 , B a t e s 2 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 3 1 -

0136. 38.

" C h r o n o l o g y and D e v e l o p m e n t o f Project C o s m i c , " Bates 2 0 2 3 9 1 9 8 4 4 - 9 8 4 7 .

39.

"Project C o s m i c : Budget/Spending Status," February 1 9 9 1 , Bates 2 0 2 3 1 6 0 9 2 7 .

40.

D a v i d Harley, " T h e Beginnings of the T o b a c c o C o n t r o v e r s y : Puritanism, James I,

a n d the

Royal

Physicians,"

Bulletin

of the History of M e d i c i n e 67

(1993):

28.

Harley's

article c o n v e y s this m e s s a g e o f a timeless " c o n t r o v e r s y " t h a t m a y n e v e r b e r e s o l v e d ; M u s t o similarly talked a b o u t a p e n d u l u m swinging from endorsement to c o n d e m n a t i o n of drug use, w i t h a periodicity of a b o u t seventy years. T h i s latter idea w a s p i c k e d up by a n u m b e r of science reporters ( G i n a K o l a t a , for e x a m p l e ) , n o n e of w h o m r e c o g n i z e d the thesis as an industry c o n c o c t i o n designed to m a k e s m o k i n g seem natural and inevitable. 41.

S t a n t o n A . G l a n t z , J o h n Slade, Lisa A . B e r o , Peter H a n a u e r , a n d D e b o r a h E . Barnes,

eds., T h e Cigarette P a p e r s (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1 9 9 6 ) , 1 7 1 - 2 0 0 . 4 2 . Jones, Day, Reavis, and Pogue, " C o r p o r a t e Activity Project," 7 1 . 43.

Fred Panzer t o H o r a c e R . K o r n e g a y , M a y 1 ,

44.

G l a n t z et al., Cigarette Papers, 1 7 1 .

1 9 7 2 , Bates 8 7 6 5 7 7 0 3 - 7 7 0 6 .

45.

Daniel J. Edelman, " I N F O T A B ETS-Project: T h e Overall Plan," M a r c h 12,

1987,

Bates 2 0 2 2 9 3 4 0 1 1 - 4 0 2 4 , p. 8. 46.

C r a i g L . Fuller, S e n i o r V i c e P r e s i d e n t , C o r p o r a t e A f f a i r s , a n d K a t h l e e n L i n e h a n , V i c e

President, G o v e r n m e n t Affairs, " P r e s e n t a t i o n for the B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s — J u n e 2 4 , 1 9 9 2 , " June 24, 1 9 9 2 , Bates 2 0 4 7 9 1 6 0 1 0 . 47.

See N a o m i O r e s k e s ' e s s a y i n t h i s v o l u m e a n d G e o r g e M o n b i o t , H e a t : H o w t o S t o p

the Planet f r o m B u r n i n g ( L o n d o n : Allen L a n e , 2006); also my C a n c e r Wars, C h a p t e r 5. 48. Carole Gallagher, American Doubleday,

1993).

Ground Zero:

T h e Secret N u c l e a r

War ( N e w York:

49. James

Bamford,

The Puzzle Palace: A

(Boston: H o u g h t o n Mifflin, 50.

Scot Shane,

R e p o r t o n A m e r i c a ' s M o s t Secret A g e n c y

1982).

"Official

R e v e a l s B u d g e t for U . S .

Intelligence,"

New

York

Times,

N o v e m b e r 8, 2005. 51.

N a o m i Oreskes, T h e Rejection o f C o n t i n e n t a l Drift: T h e o r y a n d M e t h o d i n A m e r i c a n

Earth Science ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1 9 9 9 ) . 52. R o n a l d E. Doel, "Polar Melting W h e n C o l d War Was H o t , " San Francisco Examiner, October 3, 2000, A 1 5 . 53.

R e p u b l i c a n political strategist F r a n k L u n t z prior t o the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 presidential

e l e c t i o n w a r n e d p a r t y m e m b e r s t h a t t h e scientific d e b a t e o n g l o b a l w a r m i n g w a s " c l o s i n g b u t n o t c l o s e d , " a n d a d v i s e d his p a r t y t o b e m o r e a g g r e s s i v e i n recruiting s y m p a t h e t i c e x p e r t s w h o w o u l d e n c o u r a g e the p u b l i c n o t t o " r u s h t o j u d g m e n t before all the facts are i n . " T h e stakes were clear:

" S h o u l d t h e p u b l i c c o m e t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s c i e n t i f i c i s s u e s are s e t t l e d ,

their v i e w s a b o u t g l o b a l w a r m i n g will c h a n g e accordingly. T h e r e f o r e , y o u need t o c o n t i n u e t o m a k e the lack o f scientific c e r t a i n t y a p r i m a r y i s s u e . " C i t e d i n H e a t h e r B o o n s t r a , " C r i t i c s C h a r g e Bush M i x o f Science and Politics I s U n p r e c e d e n t e d and D a n g e r o u s , " T h e G u t t m a c h e r Report on Public Policy, M a y 2003, 2. 54.

" T o b a c c o - f u n d e d Research," A M E D N E W S . C O M , July 22,

1 9 9 6 , a t http://.ama-

a s s n . o r g / s c i - p u b s / a m n e w s / a m n _ 9 6 / s u m m o 7 2 2 . h t m [accessed January 2 0 0 2 ] . 55.

See a g a i n m y " S h o u l d H i s t o r i a n s B e W o r k i n g for the T o b a c c o I n d u s t r y ? "

56.

Annamaria

Baba,

Daniel

M.

Cook,

Thomas

O.

McGarity,

and

Lisa

A.

Bero,

" L e g i s l a t i n g ' S o u n d Science': T h e R o l e o f the T o b a c c o Industry," A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f P u b l i c Health 95

(2005): S 2 0 - 2 7 ; Rick Weiss,

"'Data Quality' L a w Is Nemesis of Regulation,"

Washington Post, August 1 6 , 2004, p. A1. 57.

Richard Peto, "Ignorance in C a n c e r Research," in D u n c a n and Weston-Smith, eds.,

The Encyclopaedia of Medical Ignorance, 58.

129-133.

C h a r l e s D a r w i n , D e s c e n t o f M a n ( 1 8 7 1 ) (Princeton, N J : Princeton Universiry Press,

1981), 3. 59.

George

Gaylord

W o r l d , 1 9 6 4 ) , viii.

Simpson,

This

View of Life

( N e w York:

Harcourt,

Brace

and

PART

I

Secrecy, Selection, and Suppression

CHAPTER

2

Removing Knowledge The Logic

of Modern

PETER

YOU

MIGHT

THINK

Censorship

GALISON

that the guarded annals of classified information

largely consist of that rare d o c u m e n t — a small, tightly guarded a n n e x to the vast sum of h u m a n writing and learning. True, the number of carefully archived pages written in the open is large. W h i l e hard to estimate, one could begin by taking the number of items on the shelves of the Library of C o n g r e s s , one of the largest libraries in the w o r l d : 1 2 0 million items carrying a b o u t 7.5 billion pages, of w h i c h a b o u t 5.4 billion pages are in 18 million b o o k s .

1

In fact, the classified universe, as it is sometimes called, is certainly n o t smaller, and is very p r o b a b l y m u c h larger than this unclassified o n e . N o one has any very g o o d idea h o w m a n y classified d o c u m e n t s there are. No one did before the digital t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the late twentieth century, and n o w — a t least after 2 0 0 1 — e v e n the old s a m p l i n g meth­ ods are recognized to be nonsense in an age w h e r e d o c u m e n t s multiply across secure n e t w o r k s like virtual w e e d s . So we b i b l i o - o w l s of M i n e r v a are c o u n t i n g sheets just as the very c o n c e p t of the classified printed page fades into its evening h o u r s . U n d e t e r r e d , we might begin w i t h a rela­ tively small subset of the w h o l e classified w o r l d , a b o u t 1.6 billion pages from d o c u m e n t s twenty-five years old or older that qualify as historically v a l u a b l e . Of these 1.6 billion p a g e s , 1.1 billion h a v e been released o v e r the last t w e n t y y e a r s , w i t h most o p e n e d since Bill Clinton's A p r i l 1 9 9 5 E x e c u t i v e O r d e r 1 2 9 5 8 . H o w m a n y n e w classified d o c u m e n t s have been p r o d u c e d since 1 9 7 8 or so is m u c h harder to e s t i m a t e — t h e c o g n o s c e n t i disagree by several orders of m a g n i t u d e — b u t there isn't an expert alive w h o thinks the recent haul is a n y t h i n g less than much larger than the p r e v i o u s twenty-five p o s t - W o r l d W a r II years.

Some suspect as m a n y as a trillion pages are classified ( z o o Libraries of Congress). T h a t m a y be t o o many. For e x a m p l e , 2001 s a w 33 million classification actions; assuming (with the experts) that there are roughly 10 pages per action, that w o u l d mean roughly 330 million pages were classi­ fied last year (about three times as m a n y pages are n o w being classified as declassified). So the United States added a net 250 million classified pages in a year. By c o m p a r i s o n , the entire system of H a r v a r d l i b r a r i e s — o v e r a hundred of t h e m — a d d e d a b o u t 220,000 v o l u m e s (about 60 million pages, a number n o t far from the acquisition rate at other c o m p a r a b l y massive universal depositories such as the Library of C o n g r e s s , the British M u s e u m , or the N e w Y o r k Public Library). C o n t e m p l a t e these numbers: a b o u t five times as m a n y pages are being added to the classified universe than are being brought to the storehouses of h u m a n learning, including all the b o o k s and journals on any subject in any language collected in the largest repositories on the planet.

2

If that were t y p i c a l — o r at any rate the right order of m a g n i t u d e — t h e n twenty-five years of such actions w o u l d yield a very rough figure in the range of 8 billion pages since 1 9 7 8 . T h e fact that the number has been g r o w i n g is n o t to the p o i n t — e v e n if it increased linearly from zero in 1 9 7 8 to its current rate twenty-five years later, that w o u l d only divide the total in t w o , " d o w n " to 4 billion pages. Indeed, h o w e v e r one calculates, the number of classification actions is increasing dramatically both as a result of a boosted defense, intelligence, and w e a p o n s lab budget, and because we are living in a climate of augmented secrecy. Figured another w a y , the supervising agency, the Information Security Oversight Office ( I S O O ) , reports a total expenditure in 2001 of $5.5 billion to keep classified documents secure. T h e D e p a r t m e n t of Energy costs are n o w a b o u t $0.30 per secure docu­ ment per year. Estimating by this economic measure, we w o u l d figure that a b o u t 7.5 billion pages are being kept under w r a p s , a classified Library of Congress w i t h an acquisition rate five times greater than the great library T h o m a s Jefferson bequeathed to this country over t w o centuries a g o . O n e last set of n u m b e r s : there are a p p r o x i m a t e l y 500,000 college professors in the United States, including both t w o - and four-year insti­ tutions. Of course, there are o t h e r s — i n v e n t o r s , industrial scientists, c o m ­ puter programmers—responsible for generating and conveying knowledge,

especially technical k n o w l e d g e . But to fix ideas, 4 million people hold clearance in the United States, plus some vast reservoir w h o did in the past but no longer d o . B o t t o m line? W h e t h e r one figures by acquisition rate, by holding size, or by contributors, the classified universe is, as best I can estimate, on the order of five to ten times larger than the open literature that finds its w a y to our libraries. O u r c o m m o n s e n s e picture m a y well be far t o o sanguine, even inverted. T h e closed w o r l d is not a small s t r o n g b o x in the corner of our collective house of codified and stored k n o w l e d g e . It is we in the open w o r l d — w e w h o study the w o r l d lodged in our libraries, from a a r d v a r k s to zymurgy, we w h o are living in a modest information b o o t h facing o u t w a r d , our unseeing backs to a vast and classified empire w e barely k n o w . O n e c a n trace the history of secrecy back to the ancient Babylonians through medieval l o n g b o w s and fin-de-siècle invisible ink, f r o m tightly guarded f o r m u l a e for Venetian g l a s s m a k i n g to the hidden p o u c h e s of diplomatic couriers. Trade, state, and military secrets are all part of the b a c k g r o u n d to the m o d e r n system. But this m o d e r n secrecy system has its substantive start not in antiquity, but in the vast infrastructure of W o r l d War II. In part, this n e w secrecy issued from the government, and yet in no small measure it emerged in the hands of scientists themselves as they launched a discipline of self-censorship on matters relating to the nucleus. O u t of the $2 billion M a n h a t t a n Project and its subsequent evolution into the A t o m i c Energy C o m m i s s i o n ( A E C , n o w the D e p a r t m e n t of Energy) came one sector of secrecy, w i t h its t w i n classification categories of Re­ stricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data (FRD), this last for uninterest­ ing historical reasons covering military applications of nuclear w e a p o n s rather than their p r o d u c t i o n or design. Alongside nuclear secrecy arose another fundamental category, N a t i o n a l Security Information. At the pinnacle of the N a t i o n a l Security Information w o r l d is the presi­ dent, w h o himself can classify or, m o r e realistically, have his agency heads classify information. These agency heads in turn delegate that p o w e r to a relatively small number of o t h e r s — j u s t over 4,000 for the w h o l e of the United S t a t e s — w h o bear the title of original classifiers. O n l y this initiated cadre can transform a d o c u m e n t , idea, picture, shape, or device into the m o d a l categories T o p Secret, Secret, or Confidential. A n d of these 4 , 1 3 2

or so original classifiers, only 999 (as of 2001) are authorized to stamp a d o c u m e n t into the category T o p Secret.

3

Those few people are the unmoved prime movers of the classified world; it is they w h o begin the tagging process that w i n d s its w a y d o w n the chain of derivative classification. For every document that subsequently refers to information in those originally classified gains the highest classification of the documents cited in it. Like the radio tagging of a genetic mutant, the classified information bears its m a r k t h r o u g h all the subsequent genera­ tions of w o r k issuing from it. M o r e numbers: in 2 0 0 1 , there were 260,678 original classifications (acts that designated a b o d y of w o r k classified) and 3 2 , 7 6 0 , 2 0 9 derivative o n e s . A cascade of classification. 4

But there is another w a y for documents to b e c o m e classified. Under the A t o m i c Energy A c t s of 1 9 4 6 and 1 9 5 4 , materials p r o d u c e d a b o u t nu­ clear w e a p o n s - r e l a t e d activities are e x e m p t from the blessing hands of the original classifiers. N u c l e a r w e a p o n s k n o w l e d g e is born secret. No primal act of classification is needed, no m o m e n t w h e n it passes out of light into darkness, no justification, no term of expiration to w r a p it in the protective blanket of restriction. N u c l e a r k n o w l e d g e becomes classified the instant it is written d o w n , even by someone w h o has no nuclear w e a p o n s (Q) clear­ ance. If I think of a n e w scheme for channeling x-rays f r o m a fission pri­ m a r y to a thermonuclear secondary and write that idea d o w n , I am (senso strictu) forbidden from possessing the page I just created. (Technically, I c o u l d be arrested for espionage for reading or even possessing the letters or pictures in my printer, on my screen, or under my pen.) A n d yet in this w o r l d of natal secrecy, there is a subtlety b o r n in the holy m a t r i m o n y of industry and the w e a p o n s laboratories: an isotope-separating technology used to produce special nuclear materials such as U 2 3 5 or U 2 3 3 . A sepa­ ration t e c h n i q u e — i n some sense the heart of nuclear w e a p o n s of mass d e s t r u c t i o n — r e m a i n s entirely in the open until just that m o m e n t w h e n it might demonstrate (as the Federal Register puts it) "reasonable potential for the separation of practical quantities of special nuclear m a t e r i a l . " At 5

precisely this m o m e n t of efficacy it m o r p h s into Restricted D a t a ; as clas­ sifier A r v i n Quist puts it in a d o c u m e n t addressed to his fellow guardians of the faith, the separation t e c h n o l o g y becomes "classified only w h e n it reaches ' a d o l e s c e n c e . ' "

6

In 1 9 9 5 , the N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l w o r k i n g w i t h the D e p a r t m e n t of Energy ( D O E ) estimated that the D O E ' s born and adolescent classified documents numbered some 280 million p a g e s — a n a m o u n t that w o u l d take its current complement of reviewers 9,000 years to review—if, against reality, not a line of n e w material were a d d e d . H o w e v e r incomplete it is 7

now, this nine-millennium stack is ten times larger than the previous esti­ mate given a few years earlier. Needless to say, neither the D O E nor any other agency has the budget, the m a n d a t e , or the intention of catching up. In the last few years, the rate of classification increased fivefold, w i t h no end in sight. Secret information is a c c u m u l a t i n g , at a rate that itself is accelerating, far quicker than it is being declassified.

THE

C L A S S I F I E D

T H E O R Y

OF

K N O W L E D G E

W i t h such a vast reservoir of learning under w r a p s , the D O E must h a v e — i f not explicitly then at least i m p l i c i t l y — s o m e sense of w h a t can and c a n n o t be released. W h a t , we m a y ask, is the theory of interdicting k n o w l e d g e ? Let us begin w i t h a distinction imposed since 1 9 4 5 , segregating subjective from objective secrecy. Subjective secrets are said by classifiers to display four key characteristics: c o m p a c t , transparent, c h a n g e a b l e , and perish­ able. C o m p a c t means they can be expressed very briefly; transparent that they are readily understandable ( " t w o of the A b r a m s tanks are disabled"); changeable means that they typically can be revised ("the 1 0 1 s t A i r b o r n e will conduct its first drop at first l i g h t " ) ; and they are perishable (normally after some decent interval, for e x a m p l e , once the 1 0 1 s t has landed the fact that they did so has lost its potency). Objective secrets are supposed to contrast w i t h each of these qualities s e p a r a t e l y — t h e y are supposed to be diffuse, technical, determinable, eternal, and long-lasting qua secrets. T h a t is, they m a y be far from expressible in a few w o r d s (a theory of neu­ tron diffusion involves integro-differential equations and takes volumes to express w h e n it is put into useable form); they m a y n o t be understand­ able to anyone w i t h o u t a technical training (no untrained observer sim­ ply grasps the details of fluorocarbon chemistry); they are supposed to be determinable insofar as they can be deduced if the right question is posed (the number of neutrons emitted in uranium fission can be found w i t h e n o u g h effort and equipment); and finally the objective secret is supposed

to be in some sense unchangeable (in the limit case a l a w of nature but, if not that, then at least as unchangeable as the finely articulated process of preparing equipment against the corrosive effects of uranium hexafluo­ ride). As such, objective secrets are long-lasting secrets.

8

In important w a y s , objective secrets pose the more difficult p r o b l e m , t h o u g h subjective ones c a n be quite deadly if exposed (Loose Lips Sink Ships). Particular m o v e m e n t s or strengths of t r o o p s or materiel seem m o r e straightforward. But to accomplish the goal of secrecy, the block­ ing of k n o w l e d g e transmission is an extraordinarily difficult task. A n d given the resources devoted to it, it is perhaps w o r t h inquiring just w h a t its principles are. In other w o r d s , suppose we ask a b o u t the transmission of k n o w l e d g e not by asking the usual social studies of k n o w l e d g e question, " H o w does replication o c c u r ? " but instead by probing the staggeringly large effort de­ voted to impeding the transmission of knowledge. Already before America's entry into World War II, nuclear scientists began a self-imposed ban on pub­ lishing matters relating to nuclear fission. T h e effect w a s immediate: N a z i scientists spent the w a r struggling to moderate neutrons (slow them d o w n to the point where they were effective in causing fission) using heavy water (deuterium) rather than the vastly more useful graphite. This self-imposed muzzle continued t h r o u g h the war, issuing in the founding d o c u m e n t of m o d e r n secrecy, the A t o m i c Energy A c t of 1 9 4 6 . T h a t act released certain parts of the basic chemistry and physics of materials including uranium, thorium, and p o l o n i u m but kept a lid on the details of a vast a m o u n t of technical knowledge, including some basic physics. For example, in 1 9 5 0 it w a s permitted to say that the impact of a neutron on U 2 3 3 , U 2 3 6 , PU239, or PU240 could release a g a m m a ray but it remained forbidden to say just h o w likely this reaction w a s . O n l y in 1 9 5 6 w o u l d the process technology for producing uranium metal and preparing alloys of uranium and thorium be released. M o r e indirectly, the cost of highly enriched uranium (about $25,ooo/kg) w a s only declassified in 1 9 5 5 ; presumably the mere quotation of a price c o n v e y e d certain information a b o u t h o w it w a s done (ordinary metallic uranium w a s running a b o u t $40/kg).

9

Indeed, one of the most classified parts of the fission b o m b w a s the pro­ cess by which highly enriched metallic U 2 3 5 w a s produced. It is instructive

to follow the sequence of declassification orders from 1 9 4 6 to 1952. show­ ing the gradual erosion of restriction on electromagnetic separation: 1 9 4 6 : Physics of electrical discharges in a v a c u u m , experimental data and theory. 1 9 4 6 : "Electrical controls and c i r c u i t s . . . omitting reference to classified

installations"

1 9 4 7 : "Experimental and theoretical physics of [electromagnetic sepa­ ration]

provided they do not reveal production details or processes."

1 9 5 2 : " E x p e r i m e n t a l and theoretical physics and chemistry, engineer­ ing designs and operating performance of single electromagnetic pro­ cess units without identification as components Production

Plant

("RDD")."

of the Electromagnetic

1 0

Each step gave m o r e detail, m o r e a b o u t the internal w i r i n g and construc­ tion of the machinery, until, by the end, the major secret w a s simply the label of the documents as being for the separation facility at O a k Ridge. But perhaps the best w a y to grapple with the secrecy system is to follow the instructions. Suppose y o u are an original classifier at the D e p a r t m e n t of Defense.

The

Handbook

for

Writing Security

Classification

Guidance

is y o u r bible, and it begins by reviewing the various arenas of classified material from w e a p o n s , plans, and c r y p t o l o g y to scientific, technologi­ cal, and economic matters affecting national security. T h e n y o u are to ask yourself these questions. First, "Is the information o w n e d by, produced by or for, or under the control of the United States G o v e r n m e n t ? " If yes, then check that the information falls in one of the regulated domains (such as c r y p t o l o g y ) . If it still looks like a classification candidate, then pose this question: " C a n the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably be expected to cause d a m a g e to the national security?" A n d if the infor­ mation is of the destructive type, then the acid test is this: What is the level of. damage ("damage," "serious damage," or "exceptionally grave damage") to the national security expected in the event of an unauthorized disclosure of the information? If the answer to this question is "damage," you have arrived at a decision to classify the information Confidential. If the answer is "serious damage," you have arrived at a decision to classify the information

Secret. If the answer is "exceptionally grave damage," you have arrived at a deci­ sion to classify the information Top Secret.

11

Y o u , the classifier, should then designate the material secret for a period of time less than ten years or, for a variety of reasons, y o u m a y w a n t to justify an extension b e y o n d ten years. Just a few of such reasons to carry on w i t h secrecy: revelation of hidden information that might assist in the development of w e a p o n s of mass destruction, impair the development of a U.S. w e a p o n system, reveal emergency plans, or violate a treaty. N e x t in this antiepistemology y o u have to do w h a t a n y o n e pursuing a m o r e positive p r o g r a m w o u l d : establish the state of the art. This includes, of course, published materials in the United States and abroad but also, and more problematically, k n o w n but unpublished material including that pos­ sessed by unfriendly countries. By consulting w i t h the intelligence services, y o u will w a n t to find out w h a t the foreign k n o w l e d g e is of unpublished materials in the United States. All this is, however, preliminary. H a v i n g established w h a t is k n o w n , y o u must identify h o w classification will add to the "net national a d v a n t a g e , " that is, "the values, direct and indirect, accruing or expected to accrue to the United States." Such advantage might derive from the suppression of the fact that the g o v e r n m e n t is interested in a particular effort, or that it has something in its possession. Or the capabilities, performance, vulnerabilities, or uniqueness of an object (or bit of k n o w l e d g e ) that the United States has. T h e net national advantage might be in guarding surprise or lead time, manufacturing technology, or associations w i t h other d a t a .

12

T h e real heart of a classification guide is the

identification and enunciation of the specific items or elements of informa­ tion w a r r a n t i n g security protection. Regardless of the size or c o m p l e x i t y of the subject matter of the guide, or the level at w h i c h the classification guide is issued, certain identifiable features of the information create or contribute to actual or expected national security a d v a n t a g e .

13

Getting at those "special features or critical items of i n f o r m a t i o n " and tying them to the net national advantage is the primary task of the classi­ fier. T h i s is where the writer of the guide has to get inside the information being hidden. T h e questions are subtle. " A r e the counter-countermeasures o b v i o u s , special, unique, u n k n o w n t o outsiders o r other n a t i o n s ? " O r w o u l d k n o w l e d g e of the counter-countermeasures assist in carrying out

n e w counter-measures? " W h a t , " the guide d e m a n d s , "are the things that really m a k e this effort w o r k ? " Here is the analysis of science and technol­ o g y opened in m a n y of its aspects, all in the service of stopping the flow of science. It puts me in mind of an experimental film I once saw, a blackand-white, 16 mm production, printed in negative, all shot within a single r o o m filled w i t h tripods and lamps. As each light came o n , it cast black over its portion of the screen. H e r e is something similar. Understanding the w a y s in w h i c h things w o r k , are made, deployed, and connected is used to interdict transmission. Y o u r j o b as a classifier is to locate those criti­ cal elements that might lead to vulnerabilities and then to suppress those that can be protected by classification. T h e guide insists that secrets are not forever. Y o u must answer the question: h o w l o n g can this particular secret reasonably be expected to be k e p t ?

14

Epistemology asks h o w knowledge can be uncovered and secured. Anti­ epistemology asks h o w knowledge can be covered and obscured. Classifica­ tion, the antiepistemology par excellence, is the art of nontransmission.

PRESSURES

TO

D E C L A S S I F Y

W i t h the end of the C o l d W a r in 1 9 8 9 - 1 9 9 0 and the election of President Bill C l i n t o n , the executive branch pressed the agencies to release some of the vast trove of secrets. Secretary of Energy H a z e l O ' L e a r y announced on D e c e m b e r 7, 1 9 9 3 , that the D O E had begun to "lift the veil of C o l d W a r secrecy" and to m a k e visible some of the hidden d a t a .

15

Increasingly,

scientists, scholars, activists, and the D O E itself tried to displace an ethos in w h i c h justification w a s needed to release information to one in w h i c h it required justification to keep information classified. T h e arguments for openness w e r e several. C o s t w a s o n e — a s I mentioned, some $5.5 billion goes into maintaining the secret storehouse. But that isn't the only justifi­ cation. As the national security establishment itself has long recognized, overclassification breeds disregard for classification procedures. Serious classifiers (as o p p o s e d to y a h o o politicians desperately l o o k i n g to classify everything in sight) w a n t the arenas of real secrecy to be protected w i t h higher walls and the vast penumbral gray range to be open. Back in 1 9 7 0 , the D e p a r t m e n t of Defense Science Board Task Force on Secrecy, headed by Frederick Seitz, argued to the secretary of defense

that there w a s vastly t o o m u c h secrecy, and that even a unilateral set of disclosures w e r e preferable to the current system. An all-out effort by the United States and the USSR to control thermonuclear w e a p o n s failed utterly as the United K i n g d o m and C h i n a f o l l o w e d s o o n on their heels. Conversely, w h e n the nation decided to open certain areas of technical research, the results were p o w e r f u l . T h e United States led in m i c r o w a v e electronics and c o m p u t e r technology, in nuclear reactors beginning in the m i d - 1 9 5 0 s , and in transistor t e c h n o l o g y .

16

E x a m p l e s of secrecy run a m o k

are legion, including some $2.7 billion that sank like a stone into an un­ w o r k a b l e special access p r o g r a m aiming to produce the N a v y A - 1 2 attack aircraft. Secrecy contributed too in the protection of u n w o r k a b l e programs like the one outfitted to build the Tacit R a i n b o w antiradar missile and the ($3.9 billion) Tri-Service Standoff A t t a c k M i s s i l e .

17

T h e n there are the historians and journalists w h o clamor for access to documents about the history of the national security state. These groups join a chorus of others, from legislators and lawyers to former atomic w o r k e r s , soldiers, and ordinary citizens, w h o have militated for a glimpse of records about radiological contamination, test sites, radiological experimentation on humans, and nuclear w o r k i n g conditions. Scientists themselves—especially those the national laboratories w a n t to recruit from elite universities—want a degree of openness in w h i c h they can encounter other ideas and publish their o w n . But my o w n judgment is that none of these constituencies w o u l d have made even the limited progress they made during the Clinton years had it not been for the demands of industry insisting loud and clear that they no longer be excluded from the trove of secret (objective) informa­ tion. Declassification makes it easier and cheaper for industry to produce, and, needless to say, opens the vast civilian and, within the constraints of e x p o r t controls, the huge foreign military market.

T R A D E

SECRET

L E G I T I M A C Y

But within the secret w o r l d , managing the flood of data has presented ever greater problems. There is a nervousness in the classifying community, a sense that the rising m o u n t a i n of classified materials is unstable. T h e ab­ sence of a principled basis for classification weighs heavily, and classification itself makes it hard to provide such a systematic understanding. " N e e d to

k n o w " compartmentalization leaves classifiers in different domains un­ able to c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h one another, and each isolated branch forms its o w n routines of hiding. W h e n the D e p a r t m e n t of Energy commissioned O a k Ridge classifier A r v i n S. Q u i s t to do a massive study of security clas­ sification, he c o m m e n t e d t h r o u g h o u t his several-volume report that there simply w e r e no principles on w h i c h classification could be staked. A n d he w a n t e d such a foundation. Trade secrets appeared to be the open society's equivalent of national security secrecy, and Quist, speaking both to and for the D O E , saw in trade secrecy l a w the possibility of establishing, at last, a g r o u n d . Addressing the army of classifiers, Quist put it this w a y : Our legal system's roots go back millennia, thereby giving that system a solid foundation. Trade secret law is a part of that legal system. Trade secret law has developed over hundreds of years and has been a distinct area of the legal system for over a century—principles of trade secret law are widely accepted. Because trade secret law evolved as part of the "common law," it has a firm basis in our culture. Our extensive body of trade secret law has been developed by a very open process; the workings of our legal system are essentially completely open to the public, and the judicial decisions on trade secrets have been extensively pub­ lished and discussed. Thus, trade secret law rests on a solid foundation, is consis­ tent with our culture, and is known, understood, and accepted by our citizens.

18

Establishing the isomorphism between national security and trade se­ crets then became the order of the day. For this w a s the holy grail: the exact mechanism for the Teller-Ulam idea, the scheme that first made possible the detonation of a true hydrogen b o m b , w o u l d remain a fiercely guarded secret, one for w h i c h the government w a s willing to w a g e an all-out battle in court against the Progressive (a rather small left-leaning magazine that printed an article describing the rudiments of the Teller-Ulam scheme). T h e D O E ' s declassification guide R D D - 7 reports the guarded release in 1 9 7 9 of the idea this w a y : " T h e fact that, in thermonuclear w e a p o n s , radiation from a fission explosive can be contained and used to transfer energy to compress and ignite a physically separate c o m p o n e n t containing thermo­ nuclear fuel. N o t e : Any elaboration of this statement will be classified." A n d so it has remained for over half a century.

19

Just such secrets, says

Q u i s t , o u g h t to be understood by c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the holiest of trade se­ crets, that best kept of all commercial formulae, "the recipe for C o c a - C o l a C l a s s i c . . . has been kept a secret for over one hundred years. It is said that only t w o C o c a - C o l a c o m p a n y executives k n o w that recipe [which] is in a safe deposit b o x in A t l a n t a , w h i c h m a y be opened only by vote of the c o m p a n y ' s b o a r d of d i r e c t o r s . . . . We p r o b a b l y w o u l d not k n o w if a national security secret w a s as well-kept as the secret of C o c a - C o l a . "

2 0

Schematizing Quist's argument, the parallelism between the secrets of nukes and nachos might look something like Table 2 . 1 .

T A B L E Characteristic

2.1

N a t i o n a l security secret (objective)

Interest definition

2 1

Trade secret

Includes national security

I n c l u d e s profits f o r m u l a , p a t t e r n ,

weapons-related

compilation, program, device,

"facts of

nature," technical design and

method, technique, process that

performance of weapons;

is of e c o n o m i c value and derives

method, process, technique, or

its v a l u e f r o m s e c r e c y

device to create a w e a p o n Availability of

M u s t in fact be secret; m u s t be

M u s t in fact be secret; m u s t be

knowledge

distributed on a n e e d - t o - k n o w

distributed on a n e e d - t o - k n o w

basis

basis

inside

organization Secrecy measures

U.S.

taken

on g r o u n d s t h a t if the U n i t e d

v.

Heine: e x o n e r a t e d H e i n e

M u s t take

"reasonable"

measures that m i g h t include

States had n o t protected the

restricted access, " n o

(aviation) secrets inside the

trespassing" signs, guards,

U n i t e d States then it c o u l d n o t

restrictive c o v e n a n t s , briefings,

c o n v i c t H e i n e for h a v i n g sent

badges,

compartmentalization

information to foreign p o w e r Value of

M u s t have actual or potential

M u s t have actual or potential

information

military

economic

advantage

advantage

Effort to d e v e l o p

M u s t c o n s t i t u t e a sufficient

secret

effort such t h a t this i n v e s t m e n t

i n v e s t m e n t of e m p l o y e r s in their

in d e v e l o p m e n t "is a f a c t o r in

propriety information

its c l a s s i f i c a t i o n "

secrets]"

M u s t be such that the secret n o t

M u s t be such t h a t the secret n o t

be readily ascertainable by easy

be readily ascertainable by easy

reverse engineering, reference

reverse engineering, reference

b o o k s , trade j o u r n a l s , etc.

b o o k s , trade j o u r n a l s , etc.

Effort needed

for

others to develop

Former

employees

M u s t protect "the substantial [trade

U s e classified solutions to

"Former employees can m a k e

classified p r o b l e m s t o solve

use of g e n e r a l skills, k n o w l e d g e ,

unclassified p r o b l e m s

m e m o r y if they do not include

the

fence"

"outside

'special confidential

knowledge

obtained from the employer w h i c h belongs to the e m p l o y e r . ' "

There are t w o fascinating aspects to Quist's recourse to trade secret law. First, of course, is the formal structure: he is able to develop a largely parallel structure between security and trade secrecy. But perhaps even m o r e interesting is a second feature. At the end of the C o l d W a r (the t w o volumes appeared in 1 9 8 9 and 1 9 9 3 , respectively), a senior classification officer could see security secrecy as in need of legitimation from some­ thing exterior to the needs of the state. W h i l e the nuclear establishment could d r a w on the 1 9 4 6 A t o m i c Energy A c t and its successor legislation, trade secrecy carried the w e i g h t of a long history. A n d while the A t o m i c Energy A c t w a s largely isolated from other bodies of law, and so m u c h of the A E C ' s o w n c o m p o r t m e n t w a s shrouded in secrecy, trade secrecy l a w (so Quist argued) emerged from open judicial structures. Because it w a s hammered out on the anvil of c o m m o n law, it w a s part of the wider culture in w a y s that the scientist- and executive-branch-created A E C never w o u l d be. It is hard, perhaps impossible, to imagine such a search for justifica­ tion to have seemed necessary at the height of the C o l d War. Yet here is a case, made f r o m inside the D e p a r t m e n t of Energy, for its secret practices to find a g r o u n d i n g in the legal ethos of the c o r p o r a t i o n .

C O N C L U S I O N :

P R O D U C I N G

I G N O R A N C E

W h e n the Establishment of Secrecy tries to block the transmission of dan­ gerous k n o w l e d g e , it faces a fundamental dilemma. If it blanket-classifies w h o l e d o m a i n s of learning (nuclear physics, m i c r o w a v e physics), the ac­ cumulated mass of guarded data piles up at a smothering rate: it impedes industry, it interferes w i t h w o r k within the defense establishment, and it degrades the very concept of secrecy by applying it indiscriminately. Y e t w h e n the guardians of secrets try to pick and c h o o s e , to hunt for the criti­ cal number, essential technique, or irreplaceable specification; w h e n they try to classify this fact, that property, or those circumstances, they find themselves in an impossible situation. T h e y find themselves struggling to halt or at least stall the spread of vital, large-scale sectors of the technicalscientific sphere t h r o u g h the protocol-driven excision of bits of language and technique. It is as if they w a n t to m a k e an image unreadable by pick­ ing off just the vital pixels one by one. Indeed such a digital m e t a p h o r m a y be m o r e than allusive. Faced w i t h the proliferation of electronically

registered data, the g o v e r n m e n t is n o w e m b a r k i n g on a massive effort to recruit AI (artificial intelligence) to automate the classification (and declas­ sification) of the fiber-optic pipes of e-secrets pouring out of the national laboratories and their affiliates. Philosophically, this puts us, o d d l y flipped (and t h r o u g h a d e a d l y p u n ) , in the footsteps of early t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y p h i l o s o p h y , w h e n Ber­ trand Russell and the y o u n g L u d w i g W i t t g e n s t e i n w e r e struggling to ar­ ticulate a vision of l a n g u a g e in w h i c h c o m m u n i c a t i o n w o u l d be reduced to the assembly of isolated " a t o m i c p r o p o s i t i o n s . " T h e s e elemental bits o f m e a n i n g , " R e d p a t c h here n o w " o r " S m e l l o f o z o n e 1 2 : 0 0 n o o n i n this r o o m , " w e r e to be assembled into " m o l e c u l a r " and then into ever m o r e c o m p l e x c o n c a t e n a t i o n s . T h e effort failed b a c k in the early 1900s because facts never did remain within their confines; as even its staunch­ est a d v o c a t e s e v e n t u a l l y c o n c e d e d , facts c o u l d not be defined w i t h o u t theory, and theory, ever s p r e a d i n g , refused to c o n g e a l into the isolable k n o w l e d g e - i s l a n d s o f w h i c h seventeenth-century n a t u r a l p h i l o s o p h e r s dreamed. For both practical and theoretical reasons, the atomic statements of the 2003 D e p a r t m e n t of Energy are no m o r e likely than Russell's atomic statements of 1903 to stay in their place. At some level, even the D O E and its sister agencies k n o w this. D O E e x e m p t s p r o t o t y p e d e v e l o p m e n t of isotope separation t e c h n o l o g y f r o m the m a w of classification because the D O E desperately needs industrial and university-based w o r k t o p r o ­ duce each next generation of devices that will s p e w o u t the special ma­ terials for nuclear w e a p o n s . T h i n k of tunable die lasers. But, then, just as the lasers actually start sorting the U-235 from the U - 2 3 8 , the secrecy lid slams d o w n and the k n o w l e d g e b e c o m e s adolescent classified. T o o bad for us, t h o u g h , because the techniques, skilled o p e r a t o r s , businesses, journal articles, and graduate students are by then on the hoof. Is it a surprise that the West G e r m a n s w i t h no nuclear w e a p o n s p r o g r a m were able in the m i d - 1 9 7 0 s to e x p o r t the t e c h n o l o g y to apartheid South Af­ rica, w h i c h i m m e d i a t e l y began a s s e m b l i n g and e v e n t u a l l y d e t o n a t i n g a nuclear b o m b ? Or for that matter is it really astonishing that D O E ' s claim that they c o u l d contain " a n y e l a b o r a t i o n " of w h y the Teller-Ulam idea eventually failed?

Back in 1 9 6 6 w h e n T h o m a s P y n c h o n finished his great Crying of Lot 4 9 , he sketched a paranoid and disjointed society, a universe so obsessed with concealment and conspiracy, w i t h government and corporate m o ­ n o p o l y control of information, that the causal structure and even the r a w sequence of events hovered perpetually out of reach. N o w that the secret w o r l d has begun to exceed the open one, Pynchon's fantasy stands ever nearer to hand. In the midst of his protagonist O e d i p a M a a s ' s efforts to understand w h a t w a s happening to her, she stumbles across a c r y p t o g r a m scrawled o n t o a latrine w a l l , inscribed into postage stamps, present, if one l o o k e d carefully, just a b o u t a n y w h e r e . It w a s , as she soon discovers, the old post horn, symbol of the late medieval T h u r n and Taxis state m o ­ n o p o l y postal system. But there is a twist. Pynchon's post horn has a mute jammed into it; c o m m u n i c a t i o n w a s b l o c k e d .

22

Secret societies with private communication desperately tried to counter the m o n o p o l y on information; Pynchon's w o r l d crawls w i t h disaffected engineers trying to patent M a x w e l l ' s d e m o n , w o u l d - b e suicides, and iso­ lated lovers all seeking to break the out-of-control m o n o p o l y of knowledge transmission. M a d as it sounds, is it madder than it must feel to the radio astronomers w h o discover that important bits of w h a t they k n o w a b o u t their best instruments have long been clear to the N a t i o n a l Reconnais­ sance O r g a n i z a t i o n ( N R O ) and the N S A ? T h a t one of the main objects of astrophysical inquiry (gamma ray bursters) emerged not in the groves of academe but t h r o u g h secret efforts to monitor potential Russian viola­ tions of the N u c l e a r Test Ban Treaty using satellites built to find H - b o m b detonations on the far side of the m o o n ? C o n t r a the logical positivists and their allies, it is precisely not possible to reduce meaningful language to discrete enunciations. C o m m u n i c a t i o n — at least meaningful, verifiable c o m m u n i c a t i o n — c a n n o t be rendered into a sequence of p r o t o c o l statements. But such a conception of k n o w l e d g e is exactly w h a t lies behind the classifiers' imaginary. To block the trans­ mission of k n o w l e d g e , to impede c o m m u n i c a t i o n a b o u t the most deadly edge of modern science and technology, the security services of the United States (and for that matter N A T O , the W a r s a w Pact, C h i n a , and dozens of other countries) have chosen to list facts, circumstances, associations, and effects that w o u l d be banned from utterance.

At the r o o t of this theory of punctiform k n o w l e d g e excision stands a fundamental instability. To truly cover an arena of knowledge one is d r a w n ever o u t w a r d , r e m o v i n g from the public sphere entire d o m a i n s until one is in fact cutting out such a vast multiple of the original classification that the derivative censorship covers 330 million pages a year and g r o w i n g . Even that n u m b e r is one kept " l o w " by beating d o w n the classified d o ­ main by its inverse, the classification of particular points. But then one is c a u g h t in the manifestly peculiar position of trying to stanch k n o w l e d g e flow by punctiform excision. On the one side is an u n a f f o r d a b l e , intractable, holist antiepistemol­ ogy, on the other a ludicrously naive p u n c t i f o r m one. If this w e r e just a theoretical matter it w o u l d be fascinating but delimited. It is not. At stake for the n a t i o n a l security establishment is the b r o a d interference t h a t c o m p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n is c a u s i n g , m a n i f e s t m o s t r e c e n t l y in the w o r l d - c h a n g i n g failures of intelligence leading up to 9/11 and w e a p o n s of mass destruction that w e r e or w e r e n ' t in Iraq. Industry chafes under the restriction of classification, and vast resources are needed to defend excessive retention of information. For universities, the effects of the n e w order of secrecy are just beginning to be felt. T h e Patriot A c t restricts l a b o r a t o r y access to people c o m i n g f r o m certain countries, a direct clash w i t h universities' o w n statutes that expressly forbid d e n y i n g access to certain categories of l a b o r a t o r i e s on the basis of race, creed, or n a t i o n a l origin. M o r e broadly, for all the c o n c e p t u a l and practical p r o b l e m s w i t h classification behind the fence at L o s A l a m o s or L i v e r m o r e , the p r o b l e m of restricting research in the o p e n university m a y be far greater. But it is n o t " j u s t " the rights and culture of universities that are at stake. Billions of dollars have been spent on projects that scientifically or technically w o u l d n o t h a v e , c o u l d not h a v e , survived the g i m b a l - e y e d scrutiny of international and o p e n review. W h a t e v e r their strategic use or useless­ ness might have been, the a t o m i c airplane and the x-ray laser w e r e not just o v e r b u d g e t , they w e r e over a d o o m e d set of a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t science and technology. In the end, however, the broadest p r o b l e m is not merely that of the w e a p o n s laboratory, industry, or the university. It is that, if pressed t o o hard and t o o deeply, secrecy, measured in the staggering units of Librar-

ies of C o n g r e s s , is a threat to democracy. A n d that is not a p r o b l e m to be resolved by an automated original classifier or declassifier. It is political at every scale, from attempts to excise a single critical idea to the vain ef­ forts to remove w h o l e domains of k n o w l e d g e .

N O T E S 1.

A s s u m i n g 3,000 pages per foot and

1 5 million p a g e s per mile, the L O C c o n t a i n s

a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 0 0 miles o f shelf a n d t h u s a b o u t 7 . 5 billion p a g e s . T h i s a v e r a g e s 6 0 p a g e s per d o c u m e n t , in c o n t r a s t to the Joint Security C o m m i s s i o n , w h i c h in 1 9 9 4 estimated 3 p a g e s per classified d o c u m e n t . I t a k e this to h a v e b e e n superseded by the D e p a r t m e n t of Energy, Analysis of Declassification Efforts, D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 1 9 9 6 , http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/ d o e r e p . h t m l , w h i c h uses a m e a n o f 1 0 p a g e s per classified d o c u m e n t . 2 . A c c o r d i n g t o the A n n u a l R e p o r t for f i s c a l 2 0 0 1 : H a r v a r d C o l l e g e Library, 1 1 libraries including Widener, net a d d e d 1 3 9 , 8 3 4 v o l u m e s for f i s c a l 2 0 0 1 . L i b r a r i a n s a t H a r v a r d estimate 3 0 v o l u m e s per three feet, s o 1 0 v o l u m e s per f o o t o r 3 0 0 p a g e s per v o l u m e . I n the f i s c a l y e a r 2 0 0 1 , i t c o n t a i n e d 8.9 m i l l i o n v o l u m e s ; t h e t o t a l u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r y s y s t e m n e t a d d e d 2 1 8 , 5 0 7 volumes to a total of 1 4 . 7 million volumes. 3.

See

2001

ISOO

Report to President,

http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/2001rpt.html

[accessed F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 ] . 4.

See

2002 I S O O

R e p o r t to the President, http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/2002rpt.pdf

[accessed February 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 ] . 5. U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of Energy, Office of Declassification, "Restricted D a t a Declassification Decisions 1 9 4 6 t o the Present," R D D - 7 , 1 Jan. 2 0 0 5 1 , h t t p : / / w w w . f a s . o r g / s g p / o t h e r g o v / d o e / r d d - 7 . h t m l ; hereafter a b b r e v i a t e d " R D D . "

6. A r v i n S. Q u i s t , "Security Classification of I n f o r m a t i o n , " 2 vols., http://www/fas/org/ sgp/library/quist2/index.html, vol. 2, c h a p . 3; hereafter a b b r e v i a t e d " S C . " 7.

See N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l , A R e v i e w o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n :

Policy a n d Practice ( W a s h i n g t o n , D C : N a t i o n a l A c a d e m i e s Press, 1 9 9 5 ) , 7 - 8 . 8. Quist, vol. 2, ch. 2, 1 - 3 . 9.

Quist, vol. 2, ch. 2, 2 1 - 2 3 .

10.

Quist, vol. 2, ch. 2, 32.

11.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for C o m m a n d ,

Control,

Communications, and

I n t e l l i g e n c e , " D e p a r t m e n t o f D e f e n s e H a n d b o o k for W r i t i n g S e c u r i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n G u i d a n c e , " DoD

5200.1-H,

November

H99/p52001h.pdf,

1999,

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/52001h_

p . 8 ; hereafter a b b r e v i a t e d " D D . "

12.

"Handbook," D o D

5200.1-H,

C3.3.

13.

"Handbook," D o D

5200.1-H,

C3.5.1.

14.

"Handbook," D o D 5200.1-H, AP2.5, AP2.7.

15.

Secretary

of Energy

Advisory

Board

website,

http://www.seab.energy.gov/sub/

openpanl.html. 16.

See S t e v e n A f t e r g o o d , " G o v e r n m e n t S e c r e c y a n d K n o w l e d g e P r o d u c t i o n : A S u r v e y

of S o m e G e n e r a l Issues," http://ciaonet.0rg/wps/rejo2.html, p. 5 [accessed April 8, 2 0 0 3 ] . 17.

See i b i d . , p . 3 .

18.

Quist, vol.

2, app. A,

" C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f I n f o r m a t i o n Principles and T r a d e Secret

L a w , " p. 1; f o l l o w i n g chart builds on this a p p e n d i x .

19.

"Restricted D a t a Declassification D e c i s i o n s 1 9 4 6 to the Present," R D D - 7 , 1 Jan.

2 0 0 1 , U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Energy, pp. 6 1 - 6 2 . 20.

Quist, vol. 2, app. A, 3.

21.

T h e following chart builds on " S C , " vol. 2, a p p e n d i x A.

22.

See T h o m a s P y n c h o n ,

1999)

The

Crying of Lot 49

(1966; N e w

York:

HarperCollins,

CHAPTER

3

Challenging K n o w l e d g e : How

Climate Science Became

a Victim of the Cold War NAOMI

ON

JUNE

2,

2 0 0 5 ,

ORESKES

AND

ERIK

M.

CONWAY

C a l i f o r n i a g o v e r n o r A r n o l d S c h w a r z e n e g g e r an­

nounced an initiative to curb greenhouse gas emissions in California as a step t o w a r d addressing g l o b a l w a r m i n g . In his speech, the g o v e r n o r de­ clared: " T h e debate is over. We k n o w the science. We see the threat, and we k n o w the time for action is n o w . "

1

Schwarzenegger had his science right: the scientific debate is over. In fact, it has been for quite some time. Since the early to m i d - 1 9 9 0 s there has been a consensus in the scientific c o m m u n i t y a b o u t the basic facts of global w a r m i n g , w h i c h is w h y the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate C h a n g e (IPCC) is able to say w i t h assurance that " m o s t of the w a r m i n g observed over the last 50 years is attributable to h u m a n a c t i v i t i e s . "

THE

C O N S E N S U S

ON

C L I M A T E

2

C H A N G E

What scientific knowledge lies behind this statement? First, that humans have changed the chemistry of the earth's atmosphere, most notably by chang­ ing the concentration of carbon dioxide from a pre-industrial revolution level of a b o u t 280 parts per million to its current level of 385 and rising. (For his systematic w o r k on the measurement of atmospheric C 0

2

since

1 9 5 8 , Charles D a v i d Keeling w o n the 2002 N a t i o n a l M e d a l of Science.) Second, that this carbon dioxide is largely the result of the burning of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—since the industrial revolution. Third, that 3

carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning that it is highly transparent to visible light and less so to infrared; so if y o u change its concentration, it affects the radiative balance of the atmosphere. (This point w a s first made

in the nineteenth century by John Tyndall and subsequently reaffirmed by various scientists, including Gustav Arrhenius, G. S. Callendar, Gilbert Plass, H a n s Suess, and R o g e r Revelle.) Physical theory predicts that given 4

the steady increase in atmospheric C 0 (and other greenhouse gases), we 2

may reasonably expect to see the earth's climate change. A n d we have. Instrumental measurements reveal an increased average global surface temperature of approximately 0 . 8 ° C since the 1860s, w h e n sustained sys­ tematic record keeping began, and these data are independently c o r r o b o ­ rated by studies of tree rings, coral reefs, and ice c o r e s .

5

Physical theory and c o m p u t e r models predict that the effects of global w a r m i n g will be seen first, and most strongly, in the Arctic, due to w h a t is k n o w n as "ice-albedo f e e d b a c k . " Ice and s n o w strongly reflect solar radiation, helping to keep cold regions cold. But if y o u melt some of this s n o w or ice, e x p o s i n g bare land or seawater, then m o r e solar radiation is absorbed, leading to m o r e rapid w a r m i n g , more melting, more w a r m i n g , and so on. So a given a m o u n t of w a r m i n g has a bigger impact in the Arctic than in temperate regions. T h i s is k n o w n as " p o l a r amplification," and predicted effects included thinning and decreased extent of sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, decreased extent of permafrost regions, earlier spring t h a w s , and ramifying effects of these changes on indigenous peoples w h o depend on native species for their survival. All of these effects have n o w been o b s e r v e d .

6

Physical theory and climate models also suggest that g l o b a l w a r m i n g m a y lead to an increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, heat w a v e s , and droughts. In the w a k e of the record-breaking Atlantic hurricane season of 2005, m a n y people have w o n d e r e d if this prediction has also come true. Hurricane seasons are notoriously variable, so no single storm or season can confirm or deny this prediction, but statistical studies suggest an increase in hurricane intensity in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, and in recent years numerous records have been broken around the g l o b e . While there is still some argu­ 7

ment over whether this is a real change or an artifact of p o o r record keep­ ing, many scientists believe that this prediction is c o m i n g true as well. In short, both theory and evidence support the claim that a n t h r o p o ­ genic global w a r m i n g is underway.

Climate models based on our current scientific understanding predict that unabated increases in greenhouse gases will have serious and irrevers­ ible effects, including sea level rise, further melting of Arctic (and w o r s e , Antarctic) ice, changes in o c e a n chemistry and circulation, habitat de­ struction, and m o r e . Some of these changes m a y be mitigated by h u m a n actions, but mitigation is typically difficult and expensive, and in m a n y cases will be unlikely to protect n o n - h u m a n species. T h e most recent sci­ entific literature concludes that if all h u m a n c a r b o n emissions w e r e to stop t o m o r r o w , the earth w o u l d still w a r m at least another 0 . 5 ° C . But 8

emissions will not stop t o m o r r o w , so the "climate c o m m i t m e n t " we have already made to future w a r m i n g is m u c h l a r g e r — m o s t likely 2 - 3 ° C or more, and perhaps substantially more.

9

These concerns and results have been documented in the four assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization created by the United N a t i o n s Environment P r o g r a m m e and the World M e t e o r o l o g i c a l O r g a n i z a t i o n , representing the w o r l d ' s most prominent atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, geophysicists, g e o g r a p h e r s , and other scientists. T h e most recent report, issued in February 2007, repre­ sents the c o m b i n e d w o r k of over 800 scientists and 1,000 peer reviewers from 1 3 0 countries. Virtually everyone w h o is a n y o n e in climate research has had the opportunity to participate in the I P C C p r o c e s s .

10

T h e I P C C conclusions have been ratified by every major scientific so­ ciety in the United States w i t h pertinent expertise, including the A m e r i ­ can G e o p h y s i c a l U n i o n , the A m e r i c a n M e t e o r o l o g i c a l Society, and the A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n for the A d v a n c e m e n t o f S c i e n c e .

11

O u t s i d e the

United States, they have been affirmed by the R o y a l Society in its " G u i d e to Facts and Fiction a b o u t C l i m a t e C h a n g e "

1 2

and by a joint statement

of the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m i e s of Science of eleven nations, including France, Russia, G e r m a n y , Japan, Italy, C a n a d a , C h i n a , and Brazil. R o b e r t M a y , president of the R o y a l Society, recently summarized the v i e w of acade­ micians a r o u n d the w o r l d : " T h e scientific evidence forcefully points to a need for a truly international effort. M a k e no mistake, we have to act now. A n d the longer we procrastinate, the more difficult the task of tack­ ling climate change b e c o m e s . "

13

A n d in O c t o b e r 2007, the I P C C shared

w i t h former U.S. vice president Al G o r e the N o b e l Peace Prize for their

"efforts to build up and disseminate greater k n o w l e d g e a b o u t m a n - m a d e climate c h a n g e . "

1 4

Some critics have suggested that the I P C C , an international organiza­ tion w i t h links to the United N a t i o n s , might be politicized and not accu­ rately reflect the consensus of expert scientific opinion. In 2 0 0 1 , the W h i t e H o u s e , under G e o r g e W. Bush, commissioned a report on climate change f r o m the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences, addressing this question. T h e a c a d e m y laid this argument to rest: " T h e I P C C ' s conclusion that most of the observed w a r m i n g of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific c o m m u n i t y on this i s s u e . "

15

T h i s conclusion should not have been surprising. T h e scientific c o m ­ munity w a s in broad agreement that global w a r m i n g w o u l d likely become a p r o b l e m as early as 1 9 7 9 , w h e n the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences c o m ­ missioned a study under the leadership of the distinguished M I T meteo­ rologist Jule Charney. C h a r n e y ' s c o m m i t t e e c o n c l u d e d that "If c a r b o n dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to d o u b t that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."

16

M a n y people are surprised to learn that scientists recognized so early the dangers of g l o b a l w a r m i n g f r o m greenhouse gases, and some might suppose that C h a r n e y ' s g r o u p w a s an outlier, sounding an early w a r n i n g on w a r m i n g m u c h like British engineer G u y C a l l e n d a r in the 1 9 3 0 s .

1 7

B u t the panel's w o r k w a s a review of n u m e r o u s studies u n d e r t a k e n t h r o u g h o u t the 1 9 7 0 s , and so the a c c o m p a n y i n g press release declared: "A plethora of studies f r o m diverse sources indicates a consensus that climate c h a n g e s will result f r o m man's c o m b u s t i o n of fossil fuels and changes in land u s e . "

1 8

T h e academy's concern w a s expressed by w a y of a p r e d i c t i o n — " c l i ­ mate changes will r e s u l t " — c h a n g e s that some scientists t h o u g h t w o u l d be evident by the end of the century. In the p r o p o s a l written to the W h i t e H o u s e Office of Science and T e c h n o l o g y Policy, outlining the scope of the report, the a c a d e m y w r o t e , "Plausible projections of future c a r b o n dioxide concentrations suggest several-fold increases by the middle of the next century; experiments w i t h models of the earth's climate system sug-

gest major associated climate changes that might become evident in our own century."

19

T h e y were right. In 1 9 9 5 , the I P C C c o n c l u d e d that effects on climate from h u m a n activities w e r e n o w "discernible." T h e evidence leading to this conclusion w a s the motivation for the United N a t i o n s "earth s u m m i t " in R i o de Janeiro in 1 9 9 2 , w h i c h led to the UN F r a m e w o r k C o n v e n t i o n on Climate C h a n g e , signed by President G e o r g e H. W. Bush. For the o v e r w h e l m i n g majority of research scientists, global w a r m i n g is no longer a prediction, but an observation. In the summer of 2005, for e x a m p l e , the n e w president of the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences, R a l p h Cicerone, affirmed in testimony to the U.S. Congress: " C a r b o n dioxide in the atmosphere is n o w at its highest level in 400,000 years and it continues to rise. N e a r l y all climate scientists today believe that m u c h of Earth's cur­ rent w a r m i n g has been caused by increases in the a m o u n t of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly f r o m the burning of f u e l s . "

20

So w h y should anyone be confused a b o u t the facts of global climate change? T h e earth is w a r m i n g — t h i s is an observation, n o t a matter of political p e r s u a s i o n — a n d scientists agree that h u m a n activities are largely the c a u s e . T h e y h a v e been in a g r e e m e n t o v e r these matters for s o m e time. Yet, as recently as 2006, polls s h o w e d s h o w that a majority of the A m e r i c a n people t h o u g h t scientists w e r e still arguing the point, and only a b o u t a third believed that g l o b a l w a r m i n g is " m a i n l y caused by things people d o . "

2 1

In fact, climate change is a p r o f o u n d l y polarized issue. T h r o u g h o u t the 1 9 9 0 s , on the Internet and AM r a d i o , in the pages of Forbes, Fortune, and the Wall Street Journal, and even in the U.S. C o n g r e s s , one could find a d a m a n t denials that g l o b a l w a r m i n g w a s real, or that if it w a s real, that it w a s caused by h u m a n activities. These denials emanated almost entirely from the right w i n g of the A m e r i c a n political spectrum. In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, R o b e r t B e r k m a n of Rochester, N e w Y o r k , summarized the situation aptly: What I fail to understand is why global warming has come to be viewed as a po­ litical or ideological i s s u e . . . . If you are in a house where there's a strong burning smell and the air is getting smoky, the sane response is to acknowledge that there

is a fire somewhere and do something about it—no matter what one's political ideology might be.

22

Current confusion and political polarization has often been blamed on the administration of U.S President George W. Bush, which has often suggested that the scientific basis for understanding global w a r m i n g is insufficient to warrant action, emphasizing the uncertainties rather than the accepted and established scientific relationships.

23

But the p r o b l e m is quite a bit deeper,

w i t h historical roots in a little k n o w n organization called the G e o r g e C. M a r s h a l l Institute. E x a m i n i n g the origins of the M a r s h a l l Institute sug­ gests that the answer to Mr. Berkman's question is, at least in part, that climate science became a victim of the C o l d War.

THE

GEORGE

C.

MARSHALL

INSTITUTE

T h r o u g h o u t the 1 9 9 0 s , a major source of statements in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change w a s a W a s h i n g t o n , D C , think tank k n o w n as the G e o r g e C. M a r s h a l l Institute. Today, the institute continues to argue that there are major unresolved scientific uncertainties and sig­ nificant scientific debate, suggesting that these uncertainties are sufficient justification for continuing to delay action to control greenhouse gas emis­ sions and d e f o r e s t a t i o n .

24

T h e institute's stated mission is " t o encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and tech­ nology are major considerations." Examination of their positions, however, reveals that their view of " s o u n d " science frequently clashes with the results of scientific research published in refereed journals, and w i t h the stated po­ sitions of leading professional scientific societies. Since the early 1 9 9 0 s , the M a r s h a l l Institute has insisted that the evi­ dence of global climate change is uncertain, incomplete, insufficient, or otherwise inadequate. Its spokesmen and members have argued that there is no p r o o f that global w a r m i n g is real or, if it is real, that there is no p r o o f that it is caused by h u m a n activities or, if it is real and anthropogenic, that there is no p r o o f that it m a t t e r s .

25

T h e institute suggests that regulatory

action is premature at best, foolish and d a m a g i n g at w o r s t . Individuals w i t h links to the institute have written extensively in mass media outlets

and p o p u l a r magazines such as the tator, Forbes, and National Review.

26

Wall Street Journal, American Spec-

T h e y have appeared on television

and on r a d i o , and on sponsored websites and listservs p r o m o t i n g views diametrically o p p o s e d to the mainstream of scientific opinion. O n e recent report by the institute argues that natural variability is in­ sufficiently understood to permit us to say that current global w a r m i n g is not natural: Climate varies naturally on time scales ranging from seasons to the tens of thou­ sands of years between ice ages. Knowledge of the natural variability of the cli­ mate system is needed to assess the extent of human impact on the climate sys­ tem. At present there are no robust estimates of natural climate variability on the decades to centuries time scale that is essential for evaluating the extent to which human activities have already affected the climate system, and to provide the baseline of knowledge needed to assess how they might affect it in the future.

27

This position is of course at o d d s w i t h the scientific consensus described above. Scientists have looked extensively at the issue of natural variability and concluded that it is insufficient to account for the observed c h a n g e s .

28

W h y does the Marshall Institute insist on opposing professional expert opinion? W h y do they deny anthropogenic global w a r m i n g ? A possible answer is suggested in the second sentence in their mission statement, as currently posted on their website's h o m e page: " O u r current p r o g r a m em­ phasizes issues in national security and the e n v i r o n m e n t . " T h e connection between national security and the environment is clarified by considering the history of the institute, and its founders.

THE

GEORGE

C.

ROBERT

MARSHALL

JASTROW

AND

INSTITUTE: SDI

T h e founder and long-time director of the M a r s h a l l Institute w a s R o b e r t Jastrow. Born in 1 9 2 5 , Jastrow enjoyed a thirty-year career as a distin­ guished astrophysicist. He played a leading role in the U.S. space p r o g r a m , chairing N A S A ' s lunar e x p l o r a t i o n committee. In 1 9 6 1 , he became the founding director of the G o d d a r d Institute for Space Studies. On retiring in 1 9 8 1 , he became an adjunct professor of Earth Sciences at D a r t m o u t h , a position he held until 1 9 9 1 .

W h i l e at D a r t m o u t h , J a s t r o w h a d t a k e n up a n o t h e r cause: the de­ fense of R o n a l d R e a g a n ' s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). P r o p o s e d in M a r c h of 1 9 8 3 , the SDI c o n c e p t w a s to d e v e l o p a missile " s h i e l d " t h r o u g h the use of space-based lasers to defend the United States f r o m i n c o m i n g inter-continental ballistic missiles. W i t h i n w e e k s o f its an­ n o u n c e m e n t , academic scientists began to express o p p o s i t i o n , criticizing the p r o g r a m as unrealistic, undesirable, and potentially destabilizing, as it could undermine the principle of M u t u a l Assured Destruction on w h i c h the C o l d W a r balance of p o w e r had l o n g h u n g . By the end of the year, a few voices of o p p o s i t i o n had s w o l l e n to a c h o r u s , causing considerable c o n s t e r n a t i o n in the R e a g a n administration. As historian Rebecca Slayton has discussed, academic physicists or­ ganized a historically unprecedented effort to resist the p r o g r a m . W h i l e most had long been accepting military research and development funds, they reacted differently to SDI, fomenting a coordinated effort to block the p r o g r a m that culminated in a b o y c o t t of p r o g r a m funds. By M a y of 1 9 8 6 , 6,500 academic scientists had signed a pledge not to solicit or accept funds from the missile defense research p r o g r a m , a pledge that received a b u n d a n t media c o v e r a g e .

29

Jastrow w a s appalled by both his colleagues' actions and the media coverage of it, w h i c h he felt made it seem as if all scientists o p p o s e d SDI. A man w i t h strong administrative and communicative skills, and plenty of contacts in W a s h i n g t o n , he decided to act. Writing on D a r t m o u t h C o l l e g e letterhead in December of 1 9 8 4 , he invited William (Bill) Nierenberg, direc­ tor of the Scripps Institution of O c e a n o g r a p h y , to join him and Frederick Seitz on the board of directors of a n e w institute, n a m e d after the military c o m m a n d e r from World W a r II w h o , as Eisenhower's secretary of state, gave his name to the " M a r s h a l l P l a n " to rebuild Europe. Frederick Seitz w a s a solid-state physicist w h o had trained under Eugene W i g n e r at Princeton, w i t h w h o m he developed the concept of the WignerSeitz unit cell, a n o w - s t a n d a r d w a y of understanding crystal lattices. From 1 9 6 5 until 1 9 6 8 , Seitz w a s also president of the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sci­ ences, and in 1 9 6 8 became president of Rockefeller University, a position he held until retiring in 1 9 7 8 . Bill Nierenberg w a s also a physicist, having studied w i t h I. I. Rabi at

C o l u m b i a and w o r k e d on uranium isotope separation for the M a n h a t t a n Project before joining the physics department at Berkeley. In 1 9 5 3 , he be­ came the director of C o l u m b i a University's H u d s o n Laboratory, created to continue scientific projects begun on behalf of the U.S. N a v y during World W a r II. He subsequently held a series of positions at the interface between science and politics, including N A T O ' s assistant secretary general for scientific affairs, and in 1 9 6 5 , he became the director of the Scripps Institution of O c e a n o g r a p h y . Both Seitz and Nierenberg served on numerous government panels deal­ ing w i t h national security issues: Seitz had served on the U.S. President's Science A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e ; N i e r e n b e r g had a longtime association w i t h J A S O N , the committee of scientists w i t h high-level security clearances w h o advise the Department of Defense on matters of science related to national security. Here were three prominent physicists w i t h extensive links to the military-scientific c o m p l e x , joining forces to counter the anti-SDI stance of most of their c o l l e a g u e s .

30

Their principal focus w a s the mass media. T h e institute set up w o r k ­ shops and p r o g r a m s , and w r o t e reports and press releases, to counter the prevailing negative opinion of SDI. Jastrow had taken a first step w i t h articles for Commentary and the Wall Street Journal. "It seems to have been effective," he told N i e r e n b e r g , "Commentary and the Wall Street Journal have been getting calls and letters from Sagan, Bethe, Carter, e t c . " A debate w a s n o w on. Jastrow believed that if the A m e r i c a n people u n d e r s t o o d SDI, they w o u l d support it, but for this to h a p p e n journalists had to present it cor­ rectly. T h e institute's first initiative, therefore, w o u l d be a " t w o - d a y train­ ing seminar for journalists on the fundamental technologies of Strategic Defense."

31

O v e r the next t w o years, the institute built up its p r o g r a m

activities in the manner that Jastrow had hoped. By 1 9 8 6 , it had clarified its g o a l and w a s m o v i n g t o w a r d getting its message directly to where it counted, namely, C o n g r e s s . T h r o u g h press briefings, reports, and semi­ nars directly aimed at C o n g r e s s m e m b e r s and their staff, the institute p r o m o t e d its message. Jastrow's approach w a s underlined by a strongly anti-communist ori­ entation. He believed that the opponents of SDI—particularly the Union

of Concerned Scientists—were playing into Soviet h a n d s .

32

As evidence, he

cited a letter written by Soviet Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev to M I T professor and Union of Concerned Scientists' founder Henry Kendall, con­ gratulating him on the union's "noble activities in the cause of p e a c e . "

33

If

Gorbachev approved of Kendall's w o r k , then something w a s w r o n g . Jastrow suggested that Kendall and the union were stooges of the Soviets, noting "the intensification—one could say almost, the f e r o c i t y — o f the efforts by the U C S and Soviet leaders to undermine domestic support for S D I . "

3 4

A major debating point w a s whether SDI violated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. T h e institute insisted that it did n o t , an argument used in England by Conservative MP Ian L l o y d in a H o u s e of C o m m o n s debate. Q u o t i n g directly from M a r s h a l l Institute materials, L l o y d insisted that SDI did not violate the A B M treaty because the treaty did n o t prohibit research. L l o y d closed w i t h the familiar C o l d W a r argument that the g o a l of the arms race w a s not simply to maintain a balance of terror, but rather to free the Soviet people. SDI w a s a means to achieve that goal: [A] fundamental Western interest is the survival of the Russian people as a whole long enough for them to understand, evaluate, and eventually escape from the yoke of their self-imposed tyranny. That is in the interests of the civilised world. The perspective of this decision on SDI on both sides is one that extends well into the next century and clearly embraces that possibility. Our purpose is not merely the survival, but ultimately the legitimate enlargement, of the free world by the voluntary actions of convinced peoples.

35

A consistent theme of M a r s h a l l Institute materials w a s the demand for " b a l a n c e " — t h a t the U C S position papers on SDI were one-sided, and journalists were obligated to present " b o t h sides." Fair e n o u g h , there were t w o sides of SDI, c o n c e p t u a l l y — s u p p o r t and o p p o s i t i o n — b u t those t w o sides had very different numbers of experts associated w i t h them. O n e w a s a large majority position, the other a small minority position. If journal­ ists were to give both sides equal weight or space, this w o u l d effectively misrepresent the situation in the scientific community. Yet the institute's insistence on gaining equal time for their (minority) views proved to be highly effective, and they later used the " b a l a n c e " card in a host of other debates, including g l o b a l climate change.

THE

INSTITUTE

TURNS

TO

GLOBAL

WARMING

In 1 9 8 6 , g l o b a l w a r m i n g w a s not on the institute's radar screen. Besides SDI, other issues under c o n s i d e r a t i o n included nuclear winter, seismic verification, and the relative merits of manned and unmanned space flight. But 1 9 8 9 s a w the fall of the Berlin Wall, and by the early 1 9 9 0 s the Soviet empire w a s in collapse. On at least one reading, the C o l d W a r w a s over. Perhaps n o t coincidentally, the M a r s h a l l Institute b e g a n that v e r y year to address g l o b a l w a r m i n g . By the early 1 9 9 0 s climate had b e c o m e a major focus. As scientists began to consolidate around a consensus posi­ tion and w o r l d leaders to converge on R i o , the institute scientists pursued the same strategy they had used w i t h SDI: they claimed that the major­ ity position w a s mistaken, that the science on w h i c h it w a s based w a s incomplete, inaccurate, or just plain w r o n g , and they d e m a n d e d equal time for their v i e w s . In the case of SDI, the demand for equal time had a certain logic: m a n y scientists' objections to SDI were n o t exactly scientific, based as they were on moral and ethical qualms a b o u t destabilizing the balance of power. SDI was a political issue, and a great deal of opposition to it w a s p o l i t i c a l — s o it w a s fair to insist on an open political debate. M o r e o v e r , SDI did not yet exist, so in a certain sense there w e r e no facts a b o u t it. G l o b a l w a r m i n g w a s different. T h e question of whether or not w a r m ­ ing w a s happening w a s an empirical m a t t e r — s e p a r a b l e at least in prin­ ciple from political decisions over h o w to respond. This w a s the position taken by most scientists in the U.S. G l o b a l Climate Research P r o g r a m , w h o d r e w on the traditional fact/value distinction to defend their o w n objectivity and political neutrality. So w h e n the M a r s h a l l Institute began to attack the scientific evidence, m a i n s t r e a m scientists w e r e a p p a l l e d . Consider one e x a m p l e . In 1 9 9 5 , R o b e r t S. Walker, chairman of the H o u s e C o m m i t t e e on Sci­ ence, issued a press release quoting directly from a Marshall Institute report attacking the U.S. G l o b a l Climate Research P r o g r a m . T h e press release w a s accompanied not by any statements from the leaders of that p r o g r a m , but from the M a r s h a l l Institute, w h o s e leaders attacked N A S A ' s M i s s i o n to Planet E a r t h — t h e very p r o g r a m designed to determine the facts a b o u t

global w a r m i n g — a n d called the U.S. G l o b a l Climate Research P r o g r a m a "perversion of the scientific p r o c e s s . " John M c E l r o y , dean of Engineering at the University of T e x a s , Arling­ t o n , and a member of the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences Space Science Board, w a s enraged by the accusations and penned a three-page, singlespaced letter to W a l k e r to register his i n d i g n a t i o n , and to defend the " m a n y sober, careful scientists w h o are attempting to unravel one of the most challenging scientific puzzles that one can c o n c e i v e . " T h e M a r s h a l l Institute report seriously understates the complexity of the problem and the time that will be required for its solution. [Its] political charge of "perversion of the scientific pro­ cess" is reprehensible,... and is unsupported by evidence that would lend cre­ dence to such an allegation.

36

T h e allegations, he concluded, were " s c u r r i l o u s . "

37

T h a t w a s in 1 9 9 5 . If y o u visit the M a r s h a l l Institute h o m e page today, y o u will find " E n v i r o n m e n t " and " C l i m a t e C h a n g e " at the head of its agenda. H o w did climate change b e c o m e the focus for an organization created to defend SDI? H o w did the M a r s h a l l Institute reach the posi­ tion of offending mainstream scientists such as M c E l r o y ? A n d w h a t does this tell us a b o u t the cultural p r o d u c t i o n of ignorance? To answer these questions, we must consider some of the other activities of the institute's founders, R o b e r t Jastrow and Frederick Seitz.

HOW

SDI,

TOBACCO,

GLOBAL

ACID

WARMING

RAIN,

CAME

CFCS,

AND

TOGETHER

Frederick Seitz w a s the first c h a i r m a n of the board of the institute and continues to be listed as their chair, emeritus. He is well k n o w n in the sci­ entific c o m m u n i t y as a past president of the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences and president emeritus of the Rockefeller University. Less well k n o w n is the fact that he served as a principal advisor in the 1980s to the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

38

In the m i d - 1 9 7 0 s , RJR N a b i s c o , the parent c o m p a n y of R. J. Reynolds T o b a c c o , established a " M e d i c a l Research P r o g r a m " to support research that might help them avoid legal liability, either by establishing causes of

cancer other than s m o k i n g , or by complicating the causal links between lifestyle and cancer. M u c h of the funded w o r k can fairly be described as basic r e s e a r c h — d e a l i n g w i t h mechanisms of cell m u t a t i o n , lung physiol­ ogy, genetic predispositions, and the l i k e — a n d a great deal w a s done at leading A m e r i c a n research universities. But w a s this simple philanthropy, aimed at advancing basic science? N o t exactly. Documents released through t o b a c c o litigation discovery s h o w that the p r o g r a m goal w a s to find evidence or arguments that might cast d o u b t on the links between t o b a c c o use and adverse health effects, by emphasizing other causal factors such as stress, hypertension, personality traits, and genetic b a c k g r o u n d .

39

These documents also s h o w that between 1 9 7 5 and

1 9 8 9 , RJR N a b i s c o spent $45 million dollars on this p r o g r a m , and a prin­ cipal advisor in establishing and running it w a s Frederick S e i t z .

40

In M a y 1 9 7 9 , Seitz explained how, w h e n , and w h y he became associ­ ated with R. J. Reynolds Industries: About a year ago, when my period as President of the Rockefeller University was nearing its end, [I was] asked if I would be willing to serve as advisor to the Board of Directors of R. J. Reynolds Industries, Inc., as it developed its program on the support of biomedical research related to degenerative diseases in man—a program which would enlarge upon the work supported through the consortium of tobacco industries. S i n c e . . . R. J. Reynolds had provided very generous sup­ port for the biomedical work at the Rockefeller University, I was more than glad to accept.

41

A m o n g others i n v o l v e d i n the p r o g r a m w a s M a c l y n M c C a r t y , the man w h o along w i t h O s t w a l d Avery and C o l i n M a c L e o d had f i r s t dem­ onstrated that D N A is the material that carries hereditary information in cells. M c C a r t y , a Rockefeller colleague, w o r k e d w i t h Seitz to establish the guidelines for the research p r o g r a m .

42

Seitz had been appointed to an ad­

visory g r o u p to the board of directors, a g r o u p that also included former R e y n o l d s chairman C o l i n Stokes. In w h a t appears to have been the introductory remarks to a speech by Seitz, Stokes elaborated on the research p r o g r a m . He asserted that the charges that t o b a c c o w a s linked to lung cancer, hardening of the arteries, and c a r b o n m o n o x i d e poisoning were " t e n u o u s " (despite their repeated

affirmation in Surgeon General's reports) and that " R e y n o l d s and other cigarette makers have reacted to these scientifically unproven claims by intensifying our funding of objective research into these m a t t e r s . " Stokes claimed that "science really k n o w s little a b o u t the causes or development mechanisms of chronic degenerative diseases imputed to cigarettes, including lung cancer, e m p h y s e m a , and cardiovascular disorders" and that many of the studies linking s m o k i n g to these diseases were either " i n c o m p l e t e " or "relied on dubious methods or hypotheses and faulty i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . "

43

T h e intent of the p r o g r a m w a s to develop "a strong body of scientific data or opinion in defense of the p r o d u c t , " w h i c h Stokes stressed had helped the industry avoid legal liability in the past. " D u e to favorable sci­ entific testimony, no plaintiff has ever collected a penny from any t o b a c c o c o m p a n y in lawsuits claiming that s m o k i n g causes lung cancer or cardio­ vascular illness—even t h o u g h one hundred and seventeen such cases have been brought since 1 9 5 4 [ s i c ] . "

44

To evaluate and monitor these research

projects, R. J. R e y n o l d s had "secured the services of a permanent consul­ t a n t — D r . Frederick Seitz, former president of Rockefeller U n i v e r s i t y . "

45

T h e impact of these research p r o g r a m s is hard to assess, but their pur­ pose is not. T h e g o a l w a s to develop arguments to c o n f o u n d the causal links between t o b a c c o and cancer by emphasizing epidemiological uncer­ tainties and biochemical c o m p l e x i t i e s — i n effect, to construct i g n o r a n c e .

46

T h e emphasis on uncertainty and c o m p l e x i t y w o u l d characterize subse­ quent efforts to challenge the scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Seitz's w o r k for R. J. R e y n o l d s seems to have ended around 1 9 8 9 , just w h e n the M a r s h a l l Institute began its c a m p a i g n to deny the link between g r e e n h o u s e gas emissions and g l o b a l w a r m i n g . Seitz by this time w a s 78 years old, and perhaps not as energetic as he had once been, and the project w a s taken up by another retired physicist: S. Fred Singer. Like Jastrow, Seitz, and Nierenberg, Singer w a s a prominent physicist and career science administrator. Like Seitz, he received his P h D in phys­ ics at Princeton, from w h i c h he m o v e d into a research career in the Upper A t m o s p h e r e R o c k e t P r o g r a m at the Applied Physics L a b o r a t o r y at Johns H o p k i n s University. T h r o u g h o u t the 1 9 5 0 s and early 1960s he w o r k e d on topics in atmospheric physics, astrophysics, and rocket and satellite

technology, and in 1 9 6 2 became the first director of the N a t i o n a l Weather Satellite Center. F r o m there he m o v e d increasingly into the policy dimen­ sions of environmental issues, serving as deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. EPA, where he chaired the Interagency W o r k G r o u p on the Envi­ ronmental Impacts of the Super-Sonic Transport and later served as chief scientist at the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Transportation in the second R e a g a n administration ( 1 9 8 7 - 1 9 8 9 ) .

4 7

In 1 9 8 9 , Singer founded the Science and Environment Policy Project (SEPP) in his h o m e in Virginia. E c h o i n g the mission statement of the M a r ­ shall Institute, SEPP w a s founded to " a d v a n c e environment and health policies t h r o u g h s o u n d s c i e n c e . " F o l l o w i n g the pattern established by Jastrow, Singer w r o t e numerous popular and semi-popular articles, op-ed pieces, and letters to editors challenging the emerging scientific consensus on global w a r m i n g .

48

Between 1 9 8 9 and 2003, Singer published at least thirty-five articles, letters, and op-ed pieces, many of which disputed the reality or significance of anthropogenic w a r m i n g . M e a n w h i l e , m a n y websites and listservs de­ veloped on the Internet citing arguments found in his w o r k , and that of other individuals affiliated w i t h the M a r s h a l l Institute.

49

T h i s , of course,

coincided w i t h the period in w h i c h the m a i n s t r e a m scientific c o m m u ­ nity reached consensus over global climate change. In short, the pattern w a s identical w i t h that pursued for SDI: attempt to convince the public, through mass media c a m p a i g n s , to accept an interpretation well outside the mainstream of professional science. Singer's c a m p a i g n culminated in 1 9 9 7 w i t h the publication of a b o o k , Hot Talk,

Cold Science:

Global

Warming's

Unfinished Debate, published

by the Independent Institute, a conservative think tank w i t h links to the H o o v e r Institution, and w h o s e board of academic advisors included the economist Julian Simon, f a m o u s for his " c o r n u c o p i a n " theory that, given truly free markets, technological innovation can and will solve any en­ vironmental or social problem. G o v e r n m e n t intervention is not only un­ necessary but counterproductive. T w o years before, the I P C C had issued its Second Assessment R e p o r t in w h i c h it concluded that the balance of evidence suggested that climate change due to h u m a n activity, particularly fossil fuel burning and land use

changes, w a s n o w " d i s c e r n i b l e . "

50

W h i l e the I P C C report has since been

ratified by virtually all relevant major scientific societies, Singer's b o o k claimed that the evidence for w a r m i n g w a s "neither settled, nor c o m p e l ­ ling, nor even c o n v i n c i n g . " Focusing on instabilities and uncertainties, he claimed that "scientists continue to discover n e w mechanisms for climate change and to put forth n e w theories to try to a c c o u n t for the fact that g l o b a l temperature is not rising, even t h o u g h greenhouse theory says it should."

51

This w a s w r o n g on one c o u n t and at best misleading on another. T h e I P C C summaries m a d e clear that the w e i g h t of the available evidence s h o w e d that global temperature was rising. Climate scientists were con­ tinuing to address the diverse m e c h a n i s m s of climate c h a n g e , but n o t because they d o u b t e d that greenhouse gases were implicated. It w a s to better understand the contributions of various possible forces, to under­ stand h o w their effects ramify through Earth systems, and to determine whether severe climate change might happen abruptly. T h e b o o k ' s f o r e w o r d claimed that g l o b a l w a r m i n g w a s simply a scare tactic, the result of pandering to irrational fears of environmental calamity by scientists seeking fame and fortune. A more sober analysis purportedly s h o w e d that " w e do not at present have convincing evidence of any sig­ nificant climate change other than from natural c a u s e s . "

52

W h o w a s the

author of this sober f o r e w o r d ? Frederick Seitz. A g a i n Seitz w a s challenging the consensus of the expert scientific c o m ­ munity to take a position that favored industry positions. A n d Singer w a s following a similar pattern, applying the strategy of challenging knowledge to several other issues as well: that acid rain w a s linked to p o w e r plant emissions, that stratospheric o z o n e depletion w a s linked to chlorinated fluorocarbons ( C F C s ) , and that adverse health effects could be attributed t o environmental t o b a c c o s m o k e .

53

In the early 1980s, Singer had served on the W h i t e H o u s e Office of Science and T e c h n o l o g y ( O S T P ) A c i d R a i n Panel. In 1 9 8 3 , t w o major scientific reports affirmed that acid precipitation w a s largely the result of sulfate emissions from p o w e r plants, as well as nitrous emissions from a u t o m o b i l e exhaust, and that policy steps should be taken to c u r b those emissions. O n e report came from the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences, the

other from O S T P itself. W h e n the O S T P report w a s completed, the Rea­ gan White H o u s e stalled the report's release, arguing that " m o r e research" w a s needed. Administration spokesmen argued that the science w a s t o o uncertain to justify immediate a c t i o n .

54

This w a s the same argument that Singer w o u l d make a few years later in Hot Talk, Cold Science, and no w o n d e r : Singer w a s apparently involved in the W h i t e H o u s e decision. A c c o r d i n g to one member of an acid rain panel on w h i c h Singer served, Singer w a s persistently skeptical of the scientific evidence and eventually w e n t along with the majority only w h e n it became clear that no one else on the committee w o u l d support his p o s i t i o n .

55

By the early 1990s, acid rain legislation had been adopted, and a parallel environmental issue had gained public attention: the depletion of strato­ spheric o z o n e by C F C s , chemicals used in refrigerators, air conditioners, and hair spray. Singer w a s involved in this issue, t o o . M a n y chemicals break d o w n rapidly in the natural environment, but C F C s are extraordinarily long-lived and stable. T h i s had led atmospheric chemists S h e r w o o d R o w l a n d and M a r i o M o l i n a to p r o p o s e , in an article in Nature in 1 9 7 4 , that C F C s might reach the stratosphere where they w o u l d f i n a l l y break d o w n , releasing free chlorine that c o u l d c o m b i n e w i t h and destroy stratospheric o z o n e . R o w l a n d and M o l i n a ' s hypothesis stimulated vigorous scientific debate. M o r e than a few scientists agreed that the potential for d a m a g e w a s significant, but the relevant empirical evidence w a s contradictory. So the U.S. government established a research p r o g r a m in 1 9 7 7 to investigate the potential for C F C - i n d u c e d o z o n e de­ struction. This program's Second O z o n e Assessment, issued in 1 9 8 5 , be­ came the scientific basis for the 1 9 8 7 M o n t r e a l Protocol on Substances T h a t Deplete the O z o n e Layer, requiring 50 percent cuts in chlorofluoro­ carbon production by 2000. It also required the signatory parties to revisit the M o n t r e a l Protocol periodically in the light of n e w evidence, so that it could be tightened or loosened if the scientific case for C F C - i n d u c e d depletion c h a n g e d .

56

In 1 9 8 5 , as the assessment w a s being finalized, British measurements in Antarctica revealed the n o w - f a m o u s o z o n e " h o l e , " a continental-size region w i t h depletion rates far higher than those expected by the scientific community. In 1 9 8 6 and 1 9 8 7 , the A m e r i c a n C h e m i c a l Association, the

N a t i o n a l O c e a n i c and A t m o s p h e r i c Administration, and N A S A m o u n t e d joint expeditions to the Antarctic to investigate further. T h e expedition scientists concluded that the c o m b i n a t i o n of high levels of anthropogenic chlorine and extremely l o w Antarctic stratospheric temperatures produced the large o z o n e l o s s e s .

57

T h e 1 9 8 9 international o z o n e assessment docu­

ment puts it this w a y : " T h e weight of scientific evidence strongly indi­ cates that chlorinated (largely man-made) and brominated chemicals are primarily responsible for the recently discovered substantial decreases of stratospheric o z o n e over Antarctica in s p r i n g t i m e . "

58

In 1 9 8 9 , President G e o r g e H. W. Bush acted on this evidence, call­ ing for a complete p h a s e o u t of c h l o r o f l u o r o c a r b o n p r o d u c t i o n by 2000. In 1 9 9 2 , he acted again on n e w findings to accelerate the b a n .

59

Instead

of w e a k e n i n g the M o n t r e a l Protocol in the light of n e w scientific results, w o r l d leaders used its adaptive nature to tighten the p r o t o c o l . R o w l a n d , M o l i n a , and Paul C r u t z e n shared the 1 9 9 5 N o b e l Prize in Chemistry for their w o r k on demonstrating the relation between C F C s and the deple­ tion of stratospheric o z o n e . Singer, m e a n w h i l e , had been arguing that the scientific basis for regu­ latory action on C F C s w a s insufficient. In the late 1980s, as the o z o n e hole w a s discovered and monitored, and in the early 1 9 9 0 s , as the Bush administration signed the M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l , Singer w r o t e p o p u l a r ar­ ticles and letters challenging the science, w i t h titles such as " O z o n e Scare Generates M u c h H e a t , Little L i g h t , " published in the Wall Street Journal, and " T h e H o l e Truth a b o u t C F C s , " published in Chemistry and Industry. These articles suggested that the observed depletions might just be 60

natural variability and that the environmental arguments were nothing m o r e than scare tactics. In 1 9 9 5 , the H o u s e Energy and Environment Subcommittee on Sci­ ence, chaired by Republican R o b e r t W a l k e r (the same W a l k e r mentioned a b o v e ) , held hearings on "scientific integrity" focusing on three issues: o z o n e depletion, climate change, and d i o x i n . In the very year that R o w ­ land and M o l i n a w o u l d w i n their N o b e l P r i z e — i n d e e d , just w e e k s before the prize w a s a n n o u n c e d — S i n g e r testified to the U.S. C o n g r e s s : "[T]here is no scientific consensus on o z o n e depletion or its c o n s e q u e n c e s . "

61

DEFENDING

SMOKE

There w a s yet another area in w h i c h Singer challenged science: environ­ mental tobacco smoke (ETS). Today, the Department of Health and H u m a n Services says that "there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke: even small a m o u n t s . . . can be harmful to people's h e a l t h , " and this is not a n e w c o n c l u s i o n . T h e 1986 Surgeon General's report, "Health 62

Consequences of Involuntary S m o k i n g , " concluded that secondhand smoke is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy n o n s m o k e r s . Yet in 1 9 9 4 Singer challenged this scientific evidence, t o o . In a report, " E P A and the Science of Environmental T o b a c c o S m o k e , " written on behalf of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, an anti-regulatory think tank, and funded by a $20,000 grant from the T o b a c c o Institute, Singer asserted that "scientific standards were seriously violated" in conclud­ ing that E T S w a s a hazard. In finding such a risk, the U.S. Environmental Protection A g e n c y had assumed a "linear dose-response c u r v e " — t h a t is to say, had assumed that the risk w a s directly proportional to e x p o s u r e , even at very l o w levels. Singer rejected this idea, and argued that the EPA should assume a "threshold e f f e c t " — p r e s u m i n g that l o w doses w o u l d have no effect.

63

Singer had a point: some substances that are clearly harmful at high doses do appear to be innocuous at very l o w levels. But he p r o v i d e d no evidence that this w a s the case for E T S ; he merely asserted that it might be and used this to challenge the science on w h i c h the EPA (and, indi­ rectly) the surgeon general had relied. But the EPA had f o l l o w e d nor­ mal scientific practice, as r e c o m m e n d e d in the w e l l - k n o w n " R e d B o o k " on risk assessment, published by the U.S. N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l .

64

O n e chemist w h o has w o r k e d closely w i t h the EPA for m a n y years put it this w a y : " L i n e a r dose-response is the 'official' EPA default [position]. If there is sufficient evidence for a non-linear m o d e of action then that is used. O t h e r w i s e , it is linear. I think it is a l w a y s l i n e a r . . . . T h i s is [also] laid out in EPA's cancer g u i d e l i n e s . "

65

But Singer's c o a u t h o r on the report

turned that a r o u n d , noting in a letter to his T o b a c c o Institute sponsors, "I can't prove that E T S is not a risk of lung cancer, but EPA can't p r o v e that it i s . "

6 6

Today, the h o m e page of the Sierra C l u b of C a n a d a c o m p a r e s the de­ nial of global w a r m i n g to the denial of the scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer. In both cases, there is strong scientific evidence supporting current scientific understandings, and the vast majority of scientific experts support the reality of the alleged links. But w h a t the Sierra C l u b doesn't say, and perhaps doesn't k n o w , is that the similarity in these positions is no coincidence. T h e same tactics, and in some cases even the same indi­ viduals, have been responsible for both.

WHAT

IMPACT

HAS

THIS

HAD?

In the early 1 9 9 0 s , underscoring uncertainty became the official strategy of the U.S. R e p u b l i c a n Party. In a n o w - f a m o u s m e m o , leaked to the press in 2003, R e p u b l i c a n pollster and media advisor Frank Luntz urged can­ didates in the 1 9 9 2 mid-term elections to use scientific uncertainty as a political tactic.

"The scientific debate remains open"

he w r o t e emphati­

cally. " V o t e r s believe that there is no consensus a b o u t global w a r m i n g . Should the public c o m e to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views a b o u t global w a r m i n g will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack in

the

of scientific certainty a primary issue

debate."

67

Evidence suggests that this tactic w a s successful. A 2007 G a l l u p - Y a l e University poll s h o w e d that while a large majority of A m e r i c a n s n o w be­ lieve that g l o b a l w a r m i n g is happening, 40 percent think that there is still "a lot of disagreement a m o n g scientists."

68

In 1 9 7 9 , scientists had a consensus that w a r m i n g w o u l d h a p p e n , and by the m i d - 1 9 9 0 s they had a consensus that it w a s beginning. T h e lion's share of this w o r k w a s done in the United States. Yet, in 1 9 9 7 , the U.S. Senate voted 9 5 - 0 for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), w h i c h re­ jected any p r o t o c o l that did not impose binding targets on developing nations. T h e K y o t o Protocol does not impose emissions limits on India or the People's Republic of C h i n a , both major sources of c a r b o n dioxide emissions, so the Resolution effectively scuttled the K y o t o Treaty before the C l i n t o n administration had the opportunity to submit it for ratifica­ tion. Today, the United States is the only major industrialized country to refuse to participate in the K y o t o agreement.

Polls also s h o w that A m e r i c a n s have been consistently less concerned a b o u t global w a r m i n g than citizens of other nations. Sociologists A a r o n McCright and Riley D u n l a p note that, at a m i n i m u m , the arguments of climate change deniers have aligned w i t h the anti-regulatory ambitions of the U.S. R e p u b l i c a n Party, in control of Congress from 1 9 9 4 to 2 0 0 6 .

69

Fred Singer continues to write articles for business journals such as the

Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Business Investor's

Weekly, and to

challenge the w o r k of scientists (and others) w h o represent the consensus view.

70

He continues to be widely quoted in the p o p u l a r media by report­

ers seeking " b a l a n c e " for their s t o r i e s .

71

A n d his arguments have been

extended by others, some of w h o m have been influential. In 2 0 0 1 , for example, C a m b r i d g e University Press released The Skeptical Environmentalist, written by a y o u n g Danish political scientist, Bjǿrn Lomborg. Covering everything from acid rain to overpopulation, the book's chapter on climate change echoed the M a r s h a l l Institute's stance that the science w a s uncertain and the likelihood of serious h a r m grossly exagger­ ated. Echoing Julian Simon, L o m b o r g argued that g o v e r n m e n t regulation was the w r o n g w a y to address whatever real problems might exist, because it inhibits the economic g r o w t h and technological innovation that are the real solutions to h u m a n misery. Environmental challenges m a y lie a h e a d , but free markets will provide the appropriate solutions. Prominent scientists criticized the b o o k for misrepresenting the scientific evidence and for its flagrantly anthropocentric W e l t a n s c h a u u n g . Scientific American dedicated a large part of its January 2002 issue to a rebuttal, titled " M i s l e a d i n g M a t h about the E a r t h , " in w h i c h four experts—Stephen Schneider, John Holdren, John Bongaarts, and T h o m a s Lovejoy—critiqued Lomborg's arguments on global w a r m i n g , energy, overpopulation, and bio­ diversity. While L o m b o r g claimed that his book w a s based on an extensive 72

review of the relevant scientific literature—and Cambridge University Press championed the b o o k for its nearly 3,000 endnotes—his critics noted that a very large proportion of his citations were to media articles and secondary sources rather than to refereed scientific literature.

73

Schneider character­

ized L o m b o r g ' s strategy as one of "selective inattention," ignoring reams of relevant scientific evidence that undermine his v i e w s .

74

While it is impossible to say h o w m u c h actual i m p a c t — a s o p p o s e d to

media f l u r r y — L o m b o r g ' s b o o k had, in 2004 he w a s named by Time as one of the most influential thinkers of the y e a r .

75

At m i n i m u m , it t o o k up

m a n y hours of the time of distinguished scientists like Schneider to refute L o m b o r g ' s erroneous claims. In Schneider's w o r d s , " W h a t a m o n u m e n t a l w a s t e of busy people's t i m e . "

76

M u c h of the debate over L o m b o r g ' s w o r k concerned whether he had gotten the facts straight, but another b o o k w o u l d s o o n suggest that, w h e n it c a m e to climate c h a n g e , facts didn't matter. In 2 0 0 5 , science fiction writer M i c h a e l Crichton's novel, State of Fear, reached number three on the New York Times bestseller list, its premise being that global w a r m i n g is a h o a x perpetrated by radical environmentalists bent on bringing d o w n Western capitalism. T h e b o o k is a w o r k of fiction, but it includes an ap­ pendix alleging that its central premise is correct, supported w i t h a long list of claims highly redolent of M a r s h a l l Institute reports. C r i c h t o n has spoken at the A m e r i c a n Enterprise Institute and m a n y other venues p r o ­ moting his claims, which have in turn been taken up by O k l a h o m a Senator James Inhofe. In 2005, C r i c h t o n w a s invited to the W h i t e H o u s e to meet President G e o r g e W. B u s h .

77

James Inhofe, chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works until 2007, has suggested that global w a r m i n g might be the "greatest h o a x ever perpetrated on the A m e r i c a n p e o p l e . " On September 28, 2005, he sponsored hearings on science in environmental decision m a k i n g in the w a k e of Hurricane Katrina. W h o w a s the star witness? Michael C r i c h t o n .

78

V e r m o n t Senator James Jeffords summed up the cultural construction of ignorance perfectly w h e n h e asked: " M r . C h a i r m a n , . . . w h y are w e hav­ ing a hearing that features a fiction writer as our key w i t n e s s ? "

HOW

CLIMATE

VICTIM

OF

SCIENCE THE

BECAME

COLD

79

A

WAR

On first glance, it seems just plain weird that several of the same individu­ a l s — a l l retired p h y s i c i s t s — w e r e involved in denying that cancer causes s m o k i n g , that pollution causes acid rain, that C F C s destroy o z o n e , and that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global w a r m i n g . But w h e n y o u put these things t o g e t h e r — t o b a c c o regulation, banning of C F C s , delay of controls on C 0 e m i s s i o n s — a pattern does emerge, insofar as all are ex2

pressions of a radical free market ideology opposing any kind of restriction on the pursuit of market capitalism, no matter the justification. T h r o u g h o u t the literature of climate change denial, a recurrent theme is that environmentalists are motivated by a desire to bring d o w n capi­ talism and to replace it w i t h socialism or c o m m u n i s m . There is also the i m p l i c a t i o n — a n d sometimes the overt a c c u s a t i o n — t h a t the environmen­ talists' g o a l is some kind of w o r l d g o v e r n m e n t . In a 1 9 9 1 piece on global w a r m i n g , for example, Fred Singer suggested that the threat of global w a r m i n g had been manufactured by environmen­ talists based on a " h i d d e n political a g e n d a " against "business, the free market, and the capitalistic s y s t e m . "

80

T h e true goal of those involved in

the global w a r m i n g issue w a s not so m u c h to stop global w a r m i n g — w h i c h he insisted did not e x i s t — b u t rather to foster "international action, pref­ erably w i t h lots of treaties and p r o t o c o l s . "

81

A similar argument w a s made by political scientist A a r o n W i l d a v s k y in a 1 9 9 2 preface to a b o o k denying g l o b a l w a r m i n g .

82

W i l d a v s k y suggested

that the true goal of the environmentalist movement w a s the redistribution of wealth, and that characterizing environmentalists this w a y w a s " a n ac­ curate rendition of w h a t environmentalist-cum-postenvironmentalist lead­ ers are trying to a c c o m p l i s h . "

83

This, he suggests, is w h y environmentalists

are so enamored of international treaties and regulation: they v i e w them as levers t o w a r d achieving a n e w w o r l d order. As the basis for his v i e w that g l o b a l w a r m i n g is a fiction, W i l d a v s k y credited the Marshall Institute report, "Scientific Perspectives on the Green­ house P r o b l e m , " written by Seitz, Jastrow, and Nierenberg. But the real issue at stake, he continued, is not science, but "central planning versus free enterprise, regulation versus free enterprise, spontaneity versus con­ trol."

84

Evidently this is w h a t W i l d a v s k y believes is at stake.

In her PhD dissertation, anthropologist M y a n n a Lahsen studied the phe­ n o m e n o n of physicists w h o deny g l o b a l w a r m i n g and suggested that their actions w e r e driven in large part by the downfall of physics as America's "prestige science." T h e reduction of funding and opportunity in physics, and its succession by biological and earth sciences as the d o m i n a n t sci­ ences of the era, led them to challenge climate science in a kind of turf war. M o r e o v e r , these physicists had little regard for the distinctively different

methodologies and standards of evidence of these sciences, seeing them as less rigorous than the methods and standards of physics. M e m b e r s of an " o l d g u a r d " no longer connected to the highest levels of science, they could not accept that a n e w generation of scientific leaders, from "lesser" sciences, were replacing them in the role of speaking truth to p o w e r .

85

To be sure, the men in this story w e r e used to having their opinions sought and heeded on many important issues over the better part of three decades. To some extent, they m a y have been addicted to the limelight. By challenging climate science, they were able to remain in the center of attention l o n g after their o p i n i o n s w e r e s o u g h t in g o v e r n m e n t circles. H o w e v e r , we find little evidence in the historical d o c u m e n t s that their actions w e r e motivated by epistemic concerns a b o u t scientific m e t h o d s . R o b e r t Jastrow had built the climate m o d e l i n g effort at G o d d a r d , and hired the m a n w h o has since become America's premier voice on climate models: James E. Hansen. William Nierenberg similarly built the Climate Research Division at Scripps, hiring numerous climate modelers and other scientists directly engaged in developing the evidence of global w a r m i n g . It simply does not seem plausible that they w o u l d attack the science they helped to build because it w a s the w r o n g kind of science, m e t h o d o l o g i ­ cally or even disciplinarily. We believe that Lahsen is closer to the m a r k w i t h another point. Fol­ l o w i n g Richard Hofstader, she situates these men within the political tra­ dition that Hofstader called "the p a r a n o i d style" in A m e r i c a n politics: a style that sees grand conspiracies to undermine America's free market system and constant threats to A m e r i c a n liberty. T h e political preferences of climate change " c o n t r a r i a n s , " including Singer, Nierenberg, and Seitz, can be characterized, Lahsen argues, as anti-communist, pro-capitalist, and a n t i - g o v e r n m e n t interference

86

We agree. Indeed, philanthropist G e o r g e

Soros has given this perspective a succinct label: " m a r k e t fundamental­ ism."

8 7

M a r k e t fundamentalists hold a d o g m a t i c , quasi-religious belief in

unfettered market capitalism, and therefore oppose anything that restrains the business community, be it restrictions on the use of t o b a c c o or the emission of greenhouse g a s e s .

88

There is something very peculiar about this, because many people believe in the merits of free markets but still accept the reality of global climate

change. O n e c a n argue the merits or demerits of c a r b o n taxes, emissions control, c a r b o n credits, and all kinds of other potential responses to cli­ mate change w i t h o u t denying the scientific f a c t s — a n d indeed, all over the w o r l d , people are doing just that. Political scientist Roger Pielke Jr. has emphasized that k n o w i n g scientific facts does not determine w h a t policy actions should f o l l o w .

89

T h e widely

held "linear m o d e l " of science-policy i n t e r a c t i o n — w h i c h assumes that facts do lead directly to p o l i c y — i s simplistic and inaccurate. It is perfectly possible to accept the reality of global w a r m i n g and believe that nothing should be done a b o u t i t .

90

T h a t w a s in fact Nierenberg's position in 1 9 8 3 ,

w h e n he chaired a major N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences study of climate c h a n g e — a n d before he became involved w i t h the M a r s h a l l Institute.

91

Pielke's critique of the linear model has been largely directed at scien­ tists w h o , he suggests, have a naive faith in the p o w e r and virtue of sci­ ence. A n d yet, in their o w n w a y , these climate change deniers presumed the linear m o d e l , t o o : that if global w a r m i n g were p r o v e n true, then gov­ ernment interference in free markets w o u l d necessarily follow. T h u s , they had to fight against the emerging consensus, either by challenging the sci­ entific evidence directly or by creating the impression of o n g o i n g scien­ tific debate. As Republican pollster and media advisor Frank Luntz put it prior to the 2002 elections, " T h e science is closing against us but not yet closed. There is still a w i n d o w of opportunity to challenge the s c i e n c e . "

92

This w a s the linear model in action. T h e C o l d War, however, is over. We face n o w not a binary choice be­ tween communism and capitalism (if ever we did) but rather the realization that capitalism has had unintended consequences. W h e n humans began to burn fossil fuels, no one intended to create g l o b a l w a r m i n g . But they (and we) did. Capitalism triumphed over c o m m u n i s m , but n o w must deal with its o w n waste products. In this sense, the anxieties of climate change deniers are not w h o l l y unfounded. Capitalism will need to be adjusted, or adapted to address its o w n impacts, and this is the part that the deniers simply cannot accept. T h e United States w o n the C o l d W a r — a n d Nierenberg, Jastrow, and Seitz played a role in that v i c t o r y — b u t n o w we have to figure out a w a y to w i n the (ever-warmer) peace.

T h e connection to the C o l d W a r and its legacies helps a c c o u n t for the origins of this story in the debate over S D I — a l a t e - C o l d W a r response to the perceived continued threat of communism. M o s t physicists opposed SDI on either technical or political g r o u n d s , but its defenders believed that the Soviet threat continued, and that the science that had contained it through­ out the C o l d W a r — n a m e l y , p h y s i c s — c o u l d and should continue to do so. SDI w a s one m o r e w a y in w h i c h physicists could defend A m e r i c a . W h i l e the United States w a s different from the Soviet U n i o n in various w a y s , to the physicists in this story the crucial difference w a s its defense of capitalism against c o m m u n i s m , free markets against g o v e r n m e n t con­ trol of the economy. M a r s h a l l Institute initiatives m a k e sense w h e n read as an expression of an u n c o m p r o m i s i n g c o m m i t m e n t to market capital­ i s m — i n d e e d , market f u n d a m e n t a l i s m — a n d a willingness to do w h a t e v e r is necessary to prevent creeping g o v e r n m e n t control. To accept that the free market may be creating profound problems that it cannot solve w o u l d be, as one of us has argued elsewhere, "ideologically s h a t t e r i n g . "

93

When

scientific k n o w l e d g e challenged their w o r l d v i e w , these men responded by challenging that k n o w l e d g e . Believing in free m a r k e t capitalism does n o t require one to dispute the scientific evidence of g l o b a l w a r m i n g or to misrepresent the state of scientific debate. But in the hands of the M a r s h a l l Institute, and those it has influenced, climate science has been p r o f o u n d l y misrepresented and a great deal of confusion and ignorance p r o d u c e d . T h e great economist John M a y n a r d Keynes famously noted that there is no free lunch. T h e western w o r l d has experienced 1 5 0 years of unprec­ edented prosperity built by tapping the energy stored in fossil fuels. T h a t w a s our lunch. G l o b a l w a r m i n g is the bill.

NOTES 1.

" F e e l i n g t h e H e a t , " N e w Y o r k T i m e s , J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 (late e d i t i o n ) , A 2 2 .

2.

IPCC,

Climate

Change

2001:

Synthesis

Report,

A

Contribution

of Working

G r o u p s I, II, a n d III to the T h i r d A s s e s s m e n t R e p o r t of the I n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l P a n e l on C l i m a t e C h a n g e ( C a m b r i d g e , U K : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 2 0 0 1 ) , 5 . For discussion o f g l o b a l w a r m i n g a s a d i s c o v e r y o r r e a l i z a t i o n , i n t h e m i d - 1 9 9 0 s , see S p e n c e r W e a r t , T h e Discovery of Global

Warming (Cambridge,

MA:

Harvard

University

Press,

2003).

For

b a c k g r o u n d on early r e c o g n i t i o n of the p o t e n t i a l for g r e e n h o u s e gas e m i s s i o n s to affect

c l i m a t e , see J a m e s R o g e r F l e m i n g , H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s o n C l i m a t e C h a n g e ( N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d University Press,

1 9 9 8 ; and idem,

Callendar Effect: T h e Life a n d Times o f G u y

S t e w a r t Callendar, the Scientist W h o E s t a b l i s h e d the C a r b o n D i o x i d e T h e o r y o f C l i m a t e C h a n g e (Boston: A m e r i c a n M e t e o r o l o g i c a l Society,

2 0 0 6 ) . O n t h e role o f the fossil fuel

i n d u s t r y i n c h a l l e n g i n g t h e scientific k n o w l e d g e , see R o s s G e l b s p a n , T h e H e a t I s O n : T h e Climate

Crisis,

the C o v e r - U p ,

the Prescription

( N e w York:

Perseus,

1995); and

idem,

Boiling Point: H o w Politicians, B i g O i l a n d Coal, Journalists a n d Activists Are Fueling the

Climate

Crisis—and

2005); Jeremy Leggett, (London:

Routledge,

What The

We

Can

Carbon

Do to Avert Disaster ( N e w York:

War:

Global

Basic

W a r m i n g a n d the E n d o f the

Books, Oil Era

2 0 0 1 ) ; and G e o r g e M o n b i o t , H e a t : H o w t o S t o p the Planet from

Burning (London: South End, 2007). 3 . O n the evidence that the o b s e r v e d C 0

2

h a s b e e n p r o d u c e d b y b u r n i n g fossil fuels ( a n d

n o t , for e x a m p l e , b y v o l c a n o e s ) , see P r o s e n j i t G h o s h a n d W i l l i A . B r a n d , " S t a b l e I s o t o p e Ratio M a s s

Spectrometry in Global

Climate

Mass Spectrometry 228 (August 2003):

Change Research,"

International Journal of

1 - 3 3 ; and T a r o T a k a h a s h i , " T h e Fate o f Industrial

C a r b o n D i o x i d e , " S c i e n c e 3 0 5 (July 2 0 0 4 ) : 3 5 2 - 3 5 3 . 4. T h e best historical studies of climate c h a n g e are Fleming's H i s t o r i c a l Perspectives on Climate C h a n g e and Weart's T h e D i s c o v e r y o f G l o b a l Warming. 5. I P C C , Climate Change 2001, 3 0 - 3 4 , 4 7 - 5 0 . 6. Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment ( N e w York: C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2 0 0 5 ) . See a l s o A n d r e w C . R e v k i n , " I n a M e l t i n g T r e n d , L e s s A r c t i c Ice t o G o A r o u n d , " N e w Y o r k T i m e s , S e p t e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 (late e d i t i o n ) , A 1 . 7. P. J. Webster, G. J. H o l l a n d , J. A. Curry, a n d H . - R . C h a n g , " C h a n g e s in Tropical C y c l o n e N u m b e r , D u r a t i o n , a n d Intensity in a W a n n i n g E n v i r o n m e n t , " Science 3 0 9 (2005): 1 8 4 4 - 1 8 4 6 ; Kerry E m a n u e l , "Increasing Destructiveness of T r o p i c a l C y c l o n e s o v e r the Past 30 Y e a r s , " N a t u r e 4 3 6 (2005): 6 8 6 - 6 8 8 . For a discussion of the controversy over interpreting recent hurricane events and the resistance of s o m e elements of the hurricane forecasting c o m m u n i t y to r e c o g n i z i n g t h e r o l e o f g l o b a l w a r m i n g , see C h r i s M o o n e y , S t o r m W o r l d : H u r r i c a n e s , P o l i t i c s , a n d the Battle o v e r G l o b a l W a r m i n g ( N e w York: H a r c o u r t , 2 0 0 7 ) . 8 . T . M . L . Wigley, " T h e C l i m a t e C h a n g e C o m m i t m e n t , " Science 3 0 7 (2005): 1 7 6 6 - 1 7 6 9 . W i g l e y states t h a t the e x t a n t c o m m i t m e n t " m a y e x c e e d 1 C . " In the s a m e issue of S c i e n c e , a m u l t i a u t h o r e d p a p e r p u t s i t a t a h a l f d e g r e e C f o r n o f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e o f c a r b o n d i o x i d e . See G e r a l d A . M e e h l , W a r r e n M . W a s h i n g t o n , W i l l i a m D . C o l l i n s , Julie M . Arblaster, A i x u e H u , Lawrence E . Buja, Warren G . Strand, and H a i y a n Teng, " H o w M u c h M o r e G l o b a l W a r m i n g a n d Sea L e v e l R i s e ? " S c i e n c e 3 0 7 ( 2 0 0 5 ) : 1 7 6 9 - 1 7 7 2 . 9 . J a m e s E . H a n s e n , d i r e c t o r o f t h e G o d d a r d I n s t i t u t e for S p a c e S t u d i e s , p l a c e s t h e e a r t h ' s climate sensitivity to a d o u b l i n g of the pre-industrial c a r b o n d i o x i d e levels as 3 C, based on p a l e o c l i m a t e d a t a . T h e l a s t t i m e t h e e a r t h w a s t h i s w a r m , 3 m i l l i o n y e a r s a g o , sea l e v e l w a s a b o u t 2 5 m e t e r s h i g h e r t h a n i t i s t o d a y . See J a m e s E . H a n s e n , " I s T h e r e Still T i m e t o A v o i d ' D a n g e r o u s A n t h r o p o g e n i c Interference' w i t h G l o b a l C l i m a t e ? " (Keeling Lecture, A m e r i c a n G e o p h y s i c a l U n i o n a n n u a l meeting, San Francisco, D e c e m b e r 6, 2 0 0 5 ) . 10. 11.

F o r t h e r e p o r t itself a n d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t it, see h t t p : / / w w w . i p c c . c h / . Naomi

Oreskes,

" B e y o n d the I v o r y T o w e r : T h e Scientific C o n s e n s u s o n C l i m a t e

C h a n g e , " Science 306 (2004): 1 6 8 6 . 1 2 . T h e R o y a l Society, " A G u i d e t o F a c t s a n d Fictions a b o u t C l i m a t e C h a n g e , " http:// www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2986

[accessed F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 ] .

13.

Stephen Pincock,

"Scientists D e m a n d A c t i o n on

Climate,"

Scientist

19

(July

2005): 47. 14. 15.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/12/gorecitation. C o m m i t t e e o n the Science o f C l i m a t e C h a n g e , D i v i s i o n o n Earth and Life Studies,

National Research Council,

Climate C h a n g e Science: A n Analysis o f S o m e K e y Questions

( W a s h i n g t o n , D C : N a t i o n a l A c a d e m i e s P r e s s , 2 0 0 1 ) ; see a l s o O r e s k e s , " B e y o n d t h e I v o r y Tower," 16.

1686. U.S. National

A c a d e m y of Sciences,

"Carbon

Dioxide and Climate:

A Scientific

Assessment" (Charney report), 1 9 7 9 . 17.

Fleming,

C a l l e n d a r Effect.

1 8 . N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y o f Sciences A r c h i v e s , A n E v a l u a t i o n o f the E v i d e n c e for C O 2

Induced C l i m a t e C h a n g e , A s s e m b l y of M a t h e m a t i c a l and Physical Sciences, C l i m a t e Research Board, Study G r o u p on C a r b o n Dioxide, Hoc:

1 9 7 9 , Film Label: C 0

2

and Climate C h a n g e : A d

General. 1 9 . P r o p o s a l for S u p p o r t o f C a r b o n D i o x i d e a n d C l i m a t e C h a n g e : A Scientific A s s e s s m e n t ,

submitted by the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences, to the W h i t e H o u s e Office of Science a n d T e c h n o l o g y Policy, June 2 6 , 1 9 7 9 , 1 . M a s s a c h u s e t t s Institute o f T e c h n o l o g y A r c h i v e s , Papers o f Jule M . C h a r n e y . b o x 1 1 , folder 3 6 4 : C l i m a t e R e s e a r c h B o a r d . 20. Senate C o m m i t t e e on Energy and N a t u r a l Resources, C l i m a t e C h a n g e , 1 0 9 t h C o n g . , 1st sess., 2 0 0 5 , C I S S 3 1 - 2 0 0 5 0 7 2 1 - 0 1 . 21.

ABC

News

Story?id-i750492; 2006,

Poll,

March

2006,

Abcnews.go.com/technology/GlobalWarming/

see a l s o P e w R e s e a r c h

C e n t e r for T h e P e o p l e a n d the Press, J u l y

http://people-press.0rg/reports/display.php3 ?ReportID=28o.

See

Anthony

Leiserowitz, "American Opinions on Global W a r m i n g , " http://environment.yale.edu/news/ 5305-american-opinions-on-global-warming/. 22.

Robert Berkman,

"It's T i m e t o T a l k a b o u t G l o b a l W a r m i n g , "

N e w York

Times,

O c t o b e r 1 , 2 0 0 5 (late e d i t i o n ) , A 1 4 . 23.

Chris Mooney, The Republican

War o n Science ( N e w Y o r k : Basic B o o k s , 2 0 0 5 ) .

It is a l s o true t h a t a lot of conflicting and c o n t r a d i c t o r y c l a i m s h a v e e m a n a t e d from the c u r r e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . O n m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e scientific w o r k o n c l i m a t e c h a n g e prior t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f G e o r g e W . B u s h , i n c l u d i n g t h e r o l e o f t h e M a r s h a l l I n s t i t u t e , see G e l b s p a n , T h e H e a t Is O n ; a n d i d e m , B o i l i n g Point. G e l b s p a n ' s focus is primarily on the r o l e o f t h e f o s s i l fuel i n d u s t r y a n d its l i n k t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f P r e s i d e n t G e o r g e W . B u s h , w h o s e m o t i v a t i o n s are o b v i o u s . O u r q u e s t i o n i s slightly different: w h y w o u l d distinguished scientists c h a l l e n g e scientific k n o w l e d g e ? 24.

http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9. For e x a m p l e , in O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7 , the

site w a s h i g h l i g h t i n g the b o o k S h a t t e r e d C o n s e n s u s : T h e T r u e S t a t e o f G l o b a l W a r m i n g , which

insists

on

"disparities

between

what

and w h a t has actually been o b s e r v e d , " and

has

been

predicted

"highlight[s]

about climate change

substantial anomalies and n e w

i n f o r m a t i o n n o t generally discussed in m a i n s t r e a m reports a b o u t climate s c i e n c e . " http:// w w w . m a r s h a l l . o r g / a r t i c l e . p h p ? i d = 3 5 7 . T h e editor of the b o o k is Patrick J. M i c h a e l s , a w e l l - k n o w n contrarian w h o , before he b e c a m e involved in global w a r m i n g , w a s also a contrarian w h o opposed responsible 2006).

for the

the g r o w i n g scientific c o n s e n s u s

demise

Other authors

of the dinosaurs

(Brooks

that a

Hansen,

meteorite

pers.

was

largely

comm.,

February

include other w e l l - k n o w n c o n t r a r i a n s , i n c l u d i n g Sallie

Baliunas,

w h o testified a l o n g w i t h Fred S i n g e r i n C o n g r e s s i n 1 9 9 5 a g a i n s t t h e m a i n s t r e a m scientific

v i e w o n C F C s a n d o z o n e . B a l i u n a s , a n a s t r o p h y s i c i s t , testified t h a t o z o n e d e p l e t i o n w o u l d not lead to increases in skin cancer, a position that directly c o n t r a d i c t e d the statement submitted by the A m e r i c a n A c a d e m y of D e r m a t o l o g y that o z o n e depletion w o u l d lead t o increases i n b o t h b a s a l cell c a r c i n o m a s a n d m a l i g n a n t m e l a n o m a s (Scientific I n t e g r i t y hearings, note 6 3 , Baliunas testimony o n 1 2 3 - 1 3 3 . Cf. statement from A m e r i c a n A c a d e m y of Dermatology on pp. 7 - 1 1 ) . 25.

We focus here on the M a r s h a l l Institute, one of the first think tanks to e n g a g e the

contrarian position on global warming. A a r o n M. M c C r i g h t and Riley D u n l a p note that between

1990 and

1 9 9 7 this strategy w a s t a k e n u p b r o a d l y b y " p r o m i n e n t c o n s e r v a t i v e

think t a n k s . " T h e s e authors e m p h a s i z e that w h i l e science studies scholars h a v e e m p h a s i z e d the s o c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f scientific k n o w l e d g e , a n d

s o u g h t t o u n d e r s t a n d h o w scientists

established the reality p r o b l e m of g l o b a l w a r m i n g , conservatives constructed narrative of

"non-problematicity,"

w h i c h few scholars

have

analyzed.

a parallel

We quite agree,

e x c e p t for d e p a r t i n g f r o m a c c e p t i n g the l a b e l o f " c o n s e r v a t i v e " t o d e s c r i b e t h e i n d i v i d u a l s and

ideology involved. We consider it radical market fundamentalism,

discussed below.

M c C r i g h t and D u n l a p , " C h a l l e n g i n g G l o b a l W a r m i n g as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the C o n s e r v a t i v e M o v e m e n t ' s C o u n t e r - C l a i m s , " Social P r o b l e m s 4 7 (2000): 4 9 9 - 5 2 2 . 26.

T h e s e i n c l u d e p a r t i c u l a r l y P a t r i c k M i c h a e l s , F r e d e r i c k Seitz, a n d S . F r e d Singer.

M i c h a e l s has b e e n a visiting scientist at the M a r s h a l l Institute, Seitz w a s the f o u n d i n g director (as d i s c u s s e d b e l o w ) , a n d S i n g e r i s t h e a u t h o r o f a c h a p t e r i n a b o o k r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d by the M a r s h a l l Institute.

S o m e characteristic articles include Patrick M i c h a e l s ,

"Benign

Greenhouse," Research & Exploration 9 (1993): 2 2 2 - 2 3 3 ; idem, " G l o b a l W a r m i n g — F a i l e d Forecasts and Politicized Science,"

Waste M a n a g e m e n t 14

Warming Warnings: A Lor of H o t Air,"

(1994):

8 9 - 9 5 ; idem,

USA Today Magazine 129 (2001):

"Global

1 8 - 2 0 ; Patrick

M i c h a e l s a n d R o b e r t C . Balling, T h e Satanic G a s e s : C l e a r i n g the A i r a b o u t G l o b a l W a r m i n g ( W a s h i n g t o n , D C : C a t o I n s t i t u t e , 2 0 0 0 ) ; F r e d e r i c k S e i t z , S . F r e d Singer, a n d H . W . E l l s a e s s e r , " C o v e r u p in the G r e e n h o u s e ? (Letter to the E d i t o r ) "

Wall Street Journal, July 1 1 ,

1996

(eastern e d i t i o n ) , 1 5 ; S . F r e d Singer, " T h e S c i e n c e b e h i n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c a r e s , " C o n s u m e r s Research

Magazine 74

(1991):

17-21;

idem,

"No

Scientific

Consensus

on

Greenhouse

W a r m i n g ( c o m m e n t a r y ) , " W a l l S t r e e t J o u r n a l , S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 1 9 9 1 (eastern e d i t i o n ) , 1 4 ; i d e m , " G l o b a l W a r m i n g R e m a i n s U n p r o v e d (Letter t o the E d i t o r ) , " N e w York T i m e s , S e p t e m b e r 19,

1995 27.

(late e d i t i o n ) , A 2 0 . G e o r g e C . M a r s h a l l Institute, " N a t u r a l C l i m a t e Variability," http://www.marshall.

org/article.php?id=340 [accessed on F e b r u a r y

16,

2006].

2 8 . See, for e x a m p l e , I P C C 4 : " T h e o b s e r v e d w i d e s p r e a d w a r m i n g o f the a t m o s p h e r e a n d o c e a n , t o g e t h e r w i t h ice m a s s loss, s u p p o r t the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t it is e x t r e m e l y u n l i k e l y that g l o b a l climate c h a n g e of the past fifty years c a n be explained w i t h o u t external forcing." I P C C Climate Change p.

2007:

T h e P h y s i c a l Science Basis, S u m m a r y for P o l i c y - m a k e r s , o n

t o , released February 2 0 0 7 . 29.

R e b e c c a S l a y t o n , " D i s c u r s i v e C h o i c e s : B o y c o t t i n g Star W a r s b e t w e e n Science a n d

Politics," Social Studies of Science 3 7 : 1 30.

(2007), 2 7 - 6 6 .

Robert Jastrow to Robert Walker, D e c e m b e r

1,

1986, Box 21, George Marshall

Institute 9 / 8 6 - 1 / 8 8 , S.I.O. Office o f the D i r e c t o r (Nierenberg) R e c o r d s ,

1904-1992, AC2,

Scripps Institution of O c e a n o g r a p h y , University of California, San D i e g o . 31.

G e o r g e C . M a r s h a l l Institute t o W i l l i a m N i e r e n b e r g , Draft P r o p o s a l , D e c e m b e r 1 2 ,

1 9 8 4 , 7 5 : 6 , G e o r g e M a r s h a l l Institute 9 / 8 6 - 1 / 8 8 , S . I . O . Office o f the D i r e c t o r (Nierenberg)

Records,

1 9 0 4 - 1 9 9 2 , A C 2 , Scripps Institution o f O c e a n o g r a p h y , University o f California,

San D i e g o . 32.

Robert Jastrow to Robert Walker, 1 9 8 6 .

33.

Ibid.

34.

Ibid. K e n d a l l w o u l d w i n the 1 9 9 0 N o b e l Prize i n P h y s i c s for his w o r k o n inelastic

1986.

electron scattering. 3 5 . J a m e s Frelk to W i l l i a m N i e r e n b e r g , E n c l o s u r e of an e x c e r p t of Strategic D e f e n s e Initiative o f F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1 9 8 6 , B o x 2 1 , G e o r g e M a r s h a l l Institute 9 / 8 6 - 1 / 8 8 , S.I.O. Office o f the Director (Nierenberg) R e c o r d s , 1 9 0 4 - 1 9 9 2 , A C 2 , Scripps Institution o f O c e a n o g r a p h y , University of California, San D i e g o . 36. John M c E l r o y to Robert Walker, June Correspondence,

1 9 9 3 - T 9 9 5 , S.I.O.

19,

1995, Box

2 1 , M a r s h a l l Institute

Office o f the D i r e c t o r (Nierenberg) R e c o r d s ,

1904-

1 9 9 2 , A C 2 , Scripps Institution of O c e a n o g r a p h y , University of California, San D i e g o . A c o p y w a s faxed to N i e r e n b e r g from the M a r s h a l l Institute, raising the interesting question of h o w the institute g o t a copy. 3 7 . J o h n M c E l r o y t o F . J a m e s Sensenbremmer, June 2 0 , 1 9 9 5 , B o x 2 1 , M a r s h a l l Institute C o r r e s p o n d e n c e , 1 9 9 3 - 1 9 9 5 , S.I.O. Office o f the Director (Nierenberg) R e c o r d s , 1 9 0 4 - 1 9 9 2 , A C 2 , Scripps Institution o f O c e a n o g r a p h y , University o f California, San D i e g o . 3 8 . S t a n t o n A . G l a n t z , J o h n Slade, Lisa A . B e r o , Peter H a n a u e r , a n d D e b o r a h E . Barnes, eds., T h e C i g a r e t t e P a p e r s (Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 9 6 ) . T h i s b o o k is the best available entry into the c o p i o u s online d o c u m e n t s regarding t o b a c c o industry activities m a d e public during litigation. 39.

F o r g e n e r a l b a c k g r o u n d o n t h e t o b a c c o i n d u s t r y a c t i v i t i e s , see G l a n t z e t a l . ; T h e

C i g a r e t t e Papers. F o r a discussion of the role of the research p r o g r a m in e x p l o r i n g other c a u s e s o f cancer, s u c h a s stress a n d

"personality traits,"

see E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y , a n d

S u m m a r y o f the R J R N a b i s c o , Inc., B i o m e d i c a l R e s e a r c h G r a n t s P r o g r a m for 1 9 8 7 , http:// t o b a c c o d o c u m e n t s . o r g / r j r / 5 0 7 7 2 0 4 9 4 - 0 5 2 5 . h t m l [accessed o n F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 ; rechecked on August 3, 2007]. 40.

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y and S u m m a r y o f the R J R N a b i s c o , Inc., B i o m e d i c a l Research

G r a n t s P r o g r a m for 1 9 8 7 , h t t p : / / t o b a c c o d o c u m e n t s . o r g / r j r / 5 0 7 7 2 0 4 9 4 - 0 5 2 5 . h t m l [ a c c e s s e d o n F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 ; r e c h e c k e d o n A u g u s t 3 , 2 0 0 7 ] ; see a l s o F r e d e r i c k S e i t z t o H . C . R o e m e r , Vice President and General C o u n s e l , R J R e y n o l d s Industries, M a y 1 , 1 9 7 8 , S u m m a r y o f RJR N a b i s c o , Inc., B i o m e d i c a l R e s e a r c h G r a n t s P r o g r a m for 1 9 8 7 , i n h t t p : / / t o b a c c o d o c u m e n t s .org/tplp/504480670-0672.html 41.

[accessed February 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 ; rechecked A u g u s t 3 , 2 0 0 7 ] .

Frederick Seitz, "Presentation t o International A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e — R . J . R e y n o l d s

Industries by Frederick Seitz," tplp/504480541-0562.html

M a y 9,

1979, pp.

1 - 2 , at http://tobaccodocuments.org/

[accessed o n F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 ; c h e c k e d o n A u g u s t 2 , 2 0 0 7 ,

and N o v e m b e r 7, 2007]. 42.

Ibid., on p. 2 of the d o c u m e n t , p. 3 of the website.

43.

C o l i n S t o k e s , " D r a f t P r e s e n t a t i o n P r e p a r e d b y R J R M a n a g e r i a l E m p l o y e e for R e v i e w

a n d A p p r o v a l b y R J R I n - H o u s e L e g a l C o u n s e l C o n c e r n i n g a Scientific R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m a n d Containing Hand-written Marginalia of RJR In-House Legal Counsel Concerning Same," August

24,

1979,

http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_rjr/504480518-0529.html

on February 19, 2006]. 44.

Ibid.

45.

Ibid.

[accessed

4 6 . R o b e r t N . Proctor, C a n c e r W a r s : H o w P o l i t i c s S h a p e s W h a t W e K n o w a n d D o n ' t K n o w about Cancer ( N e w York: HarperCollins, 47. the

On

the

history o f the

SST,

see

1 9 9 6 ) ; G l a n t z e t al., T h e C i g a r e t t e Papers. Erik

Conway,

Technopolitics of Supersonic Transportation,

High-Speed Dreams:

1945-1999

NASA

and

(Baltimore: Johns H o p k i n s

University Press, 2 0 0 5 ) . 48.

S.

Fred Singer,

" N o Scientific C o n s e n s u s o n G r e e n h o u s e W a r m i n g (Letter t o the

E d i t o r ) , " Wall Street Journal, S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 1 9 9 1 , 1 4 ; i d e m , " G l o b a l W a r m i n g ' s D o o m s d a y N o w h e r e i n Sight (Letter t o the E d i t o r ) , " N e w York T i m e s , S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , 1 9 9 3 , 49.

See h t t p : / / w w w . s e p p . o r g / [ a c c e s s e d o n F e b r u a r y

[accessed o n F e b r u a r y

18.

1 6 , 2006]; http://heartland.org/

1 9 , 2 0 0 6 ] ; http://www.aei.org/ [accessed on February

19,

2006];

h t t p : / / w w w . m a r s h a l l . o r g / [accessed o n February 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 ] . 50.

S u m m a r y for P o l i c y - m a k e r s : T h e S c i e n c e o f C l i m a t e C h a n g e , I P C C W o r k i n g G r o u p

I , 1 9 9 5 , http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsyn.htm [accessed o n F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 ] . 51.

S.

Fred Singer, H o t Talk,

C o l d Science:

Global

Warming's

Unfinished D e b a t e

( O a k l a n d , C A : Independent Institute, 1 9 9 7 ) , ix. 52.

Ibid.

53.

S.

Fred

Journal, April

Singer,

16,

" O z o n e Scare Generates M u c h H e a t , Little L i g h t , "

Wall Street

1 9 8 7 (eastern edition), 3 0 ; i d e m , " D r a s t i c R e m e d i e s A r e N o t N e e d e d , "

Consumer Research M a g a z i n e 71

(1988):

3 2 - 3 3 ; idem,

" M y A d v e n t u r e s i n the O z o n e

L a y e r , " N a t i o n a l R e v i e w (June 3 0 , 1 9 8 9 ) , 3 4 - 3 8 ; i d e m , " H o t W o r d s o n G l o b a l W a r m i n g (Letter t o the E d i t o r ) , " W a l l Street J o u r n a l , J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1 9 9 6 (eastern e d i t i o n ) , 1 3 ; i d e m , "Climatic Change: Hasty Action Unwarranted," Consumer Research Magazine 80 (1997): 1 6 - 2 0 ; idem, " G l o b a l W a r m i n g : W h a t W e ' r e N o t T o l d (Letter t o the E d i t o r ) . "

Washington

P o s t , J a n u a r y 2 6 , 1 9 9 8 , 2 2 . See a l s o t h e d i s c u s s i o n i n M o o n e y , T h e R e p u b l i c a n W a r , 5 6 - 5 9 ; G e l b s p a n , T h e H e a t I s O n , 3 4 - 3 6 , 4 6 - 4 9 ; W i l l i a m K . Stevens, T h e C h a n g e i n the Weather: People,

Weather, a n d the Science o f C l i m a t e ( N e w Y o r k : D e l t a , 1 9 9 9 ) , 2 4 5 - 2 4 9 .

54.

Mooney, The Republican

55.

F. S h e r w o o d R o w l a n d , personal interview, September 7, 2 0 0 5 .

War, 4 1 - 4 3 .

56.

Richard Elliot Benedick,

O z o n e D i p l o m a c y : N e w D i r e c t i o n s i n Safeguarding the

Planet ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 1 ) , 9 9 . O n the p r o t o c o l a s a n " a d a p t i v e regime,"

see

Edward

A . Parson, P r o t e c t i n g the O z o n e L a y e r : Science a n d Strategy ( N e w

Y o r k : O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 9 7 - 2 4 4 . 57.

T h e " m i s s i n g s c i e n c e " f r o m the 1 9 8 5 a s s e s s m e n t w a s t h a t the scientific c o m m u n i t y

h a d n o t c o n s i d e r e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e c h e m i c a l r e a c t i o n s t a k i n g p l a c e o n ice a n d p a r t i c l e surfaces m i g h t be significantly different from those t a k i n g place solely in the g a s phase. T h e p r e s e n c e o f ice a c c e l e r a t e d t h e r e l e a s e o f a c t i v e c h l o r i n e , p r o d u c i n g h i g h e r o z o n e d e s t r u c t i o n rates.

C o l d temperatures in the Antarctic stratosphere a l l o w e d the formation of "polar

stratospheric c l o u d s , "

which were composed

p r i m a r i l y o f ice c r y s t a l s .

Several

different

research g r o u p s d e m o n s t r a t e d this p h e n o m e n o n i n l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t s d u r i n g

1986.

See P a r s o n , P r o t e c t i n g t h e O z o n e L a y e r , 1 4 9 - 1 5 3 . 5 8 . W o r l d M e t e o r o l o g i c a l O r g a n i z a t i o n G l o b a l O z o n e R e s e a r c h a n d M o n i t o r i n g Project, Scientific A s s e s s m e n t o f S t r a t o s p h e r i c O z o n e : 1 9 8 9 , n o . 2 0 , v o l . 1 ( W a s h i n g t o n , D C : N a t i o n a l A e r o n a u t i c s a n d S p a c e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1 9 8 9 ) , vii. 59.

P a r s o n , P r o t e c t i n g t h e O z o n e L a y e r , 1 6 3 , 2 1 4 - 2 1 6 ; see a l s o h t t p : / / o z o n e . u n e p . o r g /

pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf.

6 0 . Singer, " O z o n e Scare G e n e r a t e s M u c h H e a t , Little L i g h t , " 1 ; i d e m , " T h e H o l e T r u t h about C F C s , " Chemistry a n d Industry 6 (1994): Z40. 61. 62. 63.

Mooney, The Republican

War, 5 7 .

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060627.html.

" D r a f t O n l y the E P A and the Science o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l T o b a c c o S m o k e [sic], h t t p : t o b a c c o d o c u m e n t s . o r g / n y s a _ t i _ m 2 / t i 4 0 4 8 1 9 5 1 . h

B o x 9 0 1 7 Walter W o o d s o n f i l e s , Executive C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g Mailings and meetings, M a y 1 9 9 4 [loaded January 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , accessed June 2 6 , 2006]. 64.

Risk A s s e s s m e n t in the Federal G o v e r n m e n t ; M a n a g i n g the Process ( W a s h i n g t o n ,

D C : N a t i o n a l A c a d e m i e s Press, 1 9 8 3 ) . T h i s i s the b o o k that f i r s t f i r m l y established definitions for h a z a r d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , d o s e - r e s p o n s e a s s e s s m e n t , e x p o s u r e a s s e s s m e n t , risk a s s e s s m e n t , a n d risk m a n a g e m e n t . A t t h e t i m e o f this p a p e r , a n e w N R C c o m m i t t e e w a s " r e v i s i n g " t h e Red

Book,

" I m p r o v i n g Risk Analysis A p p r o a c h e s Used b y the U S E P A , " chaired

by Tom

Burke. 65.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=116283;

Judith G r a h a m , email

comm., August 6, 2007, 7:03:12 AM P D T 66.

A u g u s t 1 1 , 1 9 9 4 , letter f r o m S a m u e l D . C h i l c o t e t o t h e T o b a c c o Institute, M e m b e r s

of the E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e , http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/chf03f00/pdf [accessed July 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d r e c h e c k e d N o v e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 7 ] . See a l s o C h i l c o t e t o t h e T o b a c c o I n s t i t u t e , J u l y 26,

1994, 67.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=fifo3foo.

" T h e Luntz

Research

Companies—Straight Talk,"

~platet/Newpublicsiteo6/suppmats/02.6.pdf.

p.

137, http://www2.bc.edu/

See also M o o n e y , T h e R e p u b l i c a n War.

68. A m e r i c a n O p i n i o n s o n G l o b a l W a r m i n g , A n t h o n y L e i s e r o w i t z , Principal Investigator, http://environment.yale.edu/news/5305-american-opinions-on-global-warming/.

Polls

also

s h o w that A m e r i c a n s h a v e k n o w n a b o u t g l o b a l w a r m i n g for a l o n g t i m e , but in the late 1 9 9 0 s the issue b e c a m e m o r e p o l i t i c i z e d — w i t h R e p u b l i c a n s m u c h m o r e likely t o d i s b e l i e v e the scientific e v i d e n c e , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the d i s i n f o r m a t i o n c a m p a i g n s w e r e effective, h a v i n g r e a c h e d their i n t e n d e d a u d i e n c e . See, for e x a m p l e , J o n A . K r o s n i c k , P e n n y S . Visser, a n d A l l y s o n L . H o l b r o o k , " A m e r i c a n O p i n i o n o n G l o b a l W a r m i n g : T h e I m p a c t o f the Fall 1 9 9 7 D e b a t e , " R e s o u r c e s 5 : 1 3 3 (Fall 1 9 9 8 ) , 5 - 9 . 69.

M c C r i g h t and

Dunlap

note that surveys

show that most Americans do

believe

that g l o b a l w a r m i n g is a serious p r o b l e m , suggesting that the misinformation c a m p a i g n s w e r e not entirely successful in p r o d u c i n g public ignorance. H o w e v e r , the Leiserowitz w o r k d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e y w e r e effective i n c o n v i n c i n g the p u b l i c t h a t the scientific jury w a s still o u t , a n d f o r a s e c t o r o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n t h i s w a s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h b e l i e v i n g t h a t a c t i o n w a s still " p r e m a t u r e . " S e e , f o r e x a m p l e , P e w R e s e a r c h C e n t e r f o r t h e P e o p l e a n d t h e P r e s s , J u l y 2 0 0 6 , "Little C o n s e n s u s on W a r m i n g , " July 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , http://people-press.org/reports/display . p h p 3 ? R e p o r t I D = 2 8 o [re-accessed O c t o b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 ] . I n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 7 , o n the release o f the F o u r t h A s s e s s m e n t R e p o r t o f the Intergovernmental Panel o n C l i m a t e C h a n g e , Vice President R i c h a r d C h e n e y c o n t i n u e d t o insist o n t h e u n c e r t a i n t y , s a y i n g i n a n i n t e r v i e w w i t h A B C n e w s , "I t h i n k there's an e m e r g i n g c o n s e n s u s that we do h a v e g l o b a l w a r m i n g . . . . W h e r e there does not a p p e a r to be a c o n s e n s u s . . . is the e x t e n t to w h i c h that's part of a n o r m a l cycle v e r s u s t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h it's c a u s e d b y m a n , g r e e n h o u s e g a s e s , e t c . " Y e t , t h e I P C C h a d e x p l i c i t l y a d d r e s s e d the c a u s a l issue, w r i t i n g , " m o s t o f the o b s e r v e d w a r m i n g o v e r the last 50 years is v e r y likely to h a v e been d u e to the increase in g r e e n h o u s e g a s c o n c e n t r a t i o n s . . . . T h e o b s e r v e d w i d e s p r e a d w a r m i n g o f t h e a t m o s p h e r e a n d o c e a n , t o g e t h e r w i t h ice m a s s l o s s ,

s u p p o r t the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t it is e x t r e m e l y u n l i k e l y that g l o b a l c l i m a t e c h a n g e of the past fifty y e a r s c a n b e e x p l a i n e d w i t h o u t e x t e r n a l f o r c i n g "

( I P C C , S u m m a r y for P o l i c y m a k e r s ,

i n C l i m a t e C h a n g e 2 0 0 7 : T h e Physical Science Basis. C o n t r i b u t i o n o f W o r k i n g G r o u p 1 t o the F o u r t h A s s e s s m e n t R e p o r t o f the I n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l P a n e l o n C l i m a t e C h a n g e , p . http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf).

As

of

this

10,

writing

( O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7 ) , t h e W h i t e H o u s e w a s c o n t i n u i n g t o reject all b u t v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n , c i t i n g scientific u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s j u s t i f i c a t i o n (see, for e x a m p l e , E l i z a b e t h K o l b e r t , F i e l d N o t e s f r o m a Catastrophe: M a n , Nature, a n d Climate C h a n g e [ N e w York: Bloomsbury, 2006]). Perhaps t h e real e f f e c t o f t h e c l i m a t e a g n o t o l o g i c a l c a m p a i g n h a s b e e n t o p r o v i d e p o l i t i c a l c o v e r f o r inaction, and

t o g e n e r a t e sufficient c o n f u s i o n

a m o n g the A m e r i c a n

public to m a k e such

inaction politically acceptable. 70.

I n c l u d i n g us.

71.

For e v i d e n c e that those presenting a n t i - c o n s e n s u s v i e w s h a v e received press a n d

p o l i t i c a l a t t e n t i o n g r e a t l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e i r n u m b e r s , see A a r o n M . M c C r i g h t a n d Riley E . D u n l a p , " D e f e a t i n g K y o t o : T h e C o n s e r v a t i v e M o v e m e n t ' s I m p a c t o n U.S. C l i m a t e C h a n g e Policy," Social Problems

50 (2003):

3 4 8 - 3 7 3 ; M a x w e l l T.

B o y k o f f a n d Jules M .

B o y k o f f , " B a l a n c e a s B i a s : G l o b a l W a r m i n g a n d the U . S . Prestige P r e s s , " G l o b a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l Change 14 (2004): The

1 2 5 - 1 3 6 . T h i s point has been underscored recently b y E u g e n e Linden,

Winds of Change: Climate,

Weather, a n d the D e s t r u c t i o n o f Civilizations ( N e w Y o r k :

S i m o n a n d S c h u s t e r , 2 0 0 6 ) , b a s e d o n his o w n e x p e r i e n c e a s a s c i e n c e w r i t e r . 7 2 . Scientific A m e r i c a n , " S k e p t i c i s m t o w a r d T h e S k e p t i c a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t , " h t t p : / / w w w . sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00000B96-9517-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF

[accessed

F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 ] ; see a l s o S t u a r t P i m m a n d Jeff H a r v e y , " T h e S k e p t i c a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t : M e a s u r i n g the R e a l State o f the W o r l d , " N a t u r e 4 1 4 ( 2 0 0 1 ) :

1 4 9 - 1 5 0 ; Stephen Schneider,

" H o s t i l e C l i m a t e : O n BjØrn L o m b o r g a n d C l i m a t e C h a n g e , " G r i s t M a g a z i n e , D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 1 , http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/hostile/ [accessed February 1 9 , 2006]. 73.

Committee

for the

Scientific

Investigation

of C l a i m s of the

Paranormal,

"The

Skeptical E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t : A C a s e S t u d y in the M a n u f a c t u r e of N e w s , " h t t p : / / w w w . c s i c o p . org/scienceandmedia/environmentalist/ [accessed February

16, 2006].

74.

Schneider, " H o s t i l e C l i m a t e . "

75.

T i m e , " T h e 2 0 0 4 T i m e 1 0 0 Scientists a n d T h i n k e r s , " h t t p : / / w w w . t i m e . c o m / t i m e / 2 0 0 4 /

time100/scientists/ [accessed February 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 ] . 76.

S c h n e i d e r , " H o s t i l e C l i m a t e . " (In t e r m s o f full d i s c l o s u r e : t h e a u t h o r s o f t h i s c h a p t e r

have also spent significant a m o u n t s of time over the past t w o years a n s w e r i n g p h o n e calls and emails offering " s k e p t i c a l " questions and perspectives.) 77.

Michael Janofsky,

York T i m e s , F e b r u a r y

"Bush's C h a t with

Novelist Alarms

Environmentalists,"

New

19, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/national/19warming

.html?ei=5088&en=a7ab8a51ec6cf4df&ex=1298005200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&page wanted=print. 78.

M i c h a e l Janofsky,

"Michael

Crichton, Novelist,

Becomes

Senate Witness,"

New

Y o r k T i m e s , S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 (late e d i t i o n ) , E 1 ; A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f P h y s i c s , " S e n a t e Hearing Demonstrates Wide fyi/2005/142.html 79.

Disagreement about Climate

U.S. Senate C o m m i t t e e on Environment and

Jeffords a t

EPW

Change,"

http://www.aip.org/

Public W o r k s ,

" S t a t e m e n t by Sen.

[accessed February 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 ] .

Hearing on

Science a n d

Environment,"

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem

.cfm?id = 2 4 6 5 1 1 & p a r t y = d e m [accessed February 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 ] .

80.

S . Fred Singer, " G l o b a l W a r m i n g : D o W e K n o w E n o u g h t o A c t ? " E n v i r o n m e n t a l

Protection:

R e g u l a t i n g for Results, eds. K e n n e t h C h i l t o n and M e l i n d a W a r r e n (Boulder,

C O : Westview, 81.

1991), 45-46.

Ibid.

8 2 . T h e b o o k w a s b y g e o g r a p h e r R o b e r t C . B a l l i n g , Jr., T h e H e a t e d D e b a t e : G r e e n h o u s e Predictions versus Policy,

C l i m a t e R e a l i t y (San F r a n c i s c o :

Pacific R e s e a r c h Institute for Public

1992).

83. A a r o n Wildavsky, " G l o b a l W a r m i n g as a M e a n s of A c h i e v i n g an Egalitarian Society: An Introduction," preface to Balling, T h e H e a t e d D e b a t e , xvi. 84. Wildavsky,

"Global Warming," xxxi.

85. M y a n n a H. Lahsen, " C l i m a t e Rhetoric: Constructions of C l i m a t e Science in the A g e o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s m " ( P h D d i s s e r t a t i o n , R i c e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 9 8 ) , 3 5 8 - 3 6 9 , 3 7 2 - 3 7 3 , 3 7 9 . See a l s o " T e c h n o c r a c y , D e m o c r a c y a n d U . S . C l i m a t e S c i e n c e P o l i t i c s : T h e N e e d for D e m a r c a t i o n s , " Science, Technology, a n d H u m a n Values 30: 1 (2005): 1 3 7 - 1 6 9 ; idem, " T h e Detection and Attribution of Conspiracies: T h e Controversy over Chapter 8,"

Paranoia within Reason:

A C a s e b o o k on C o n s p i r a c y as E x p l a n a t i o n , ed. G e o r g e E. M a r c u s ( C h i c a g o : University of C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 9 9 ) ; i d e m , " S e d u c t i v e Simulations: U n c e r t a i n t y D i s t r i b u t i o n a r o u n d C l i m a t e M o d e l s , " Social Studies of Science 35 (2005): 8 9 5 - 9 2 2 ; and idem, "Experiences of M o d e r n i t y in the G r e e n h o u s e : A C u l t u r a l A n a l y s i s of a Physicist 'Trio' S u p p o r t i n g the C o n s e r v a t i v e Backlash against Global W a r m i n g , "

G l o b a l Environmental Change, forthcoming.

86.

Lahsen, "Climate Rhetoric, 3 5 8 - 3 6 9 , 3 7 2 - 3 7 3 , 3 7 9 .

87.

George

Soros,

" T h e Capitalist Threat,"

Atlantic Monthly

279

(February

1997):

45-58. 88. I n her dissertation o n the history o f f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t , M . C a r m e l Finley s h o w s h o w a similar i d e o l o g y i n f o r m e d A m e r i c a n fisheries policy, w h i c h shifted the b u r d e n of p r o o f o n t o t h o s e a r g u i n g for r e g u l a t i o n a n d h e l p e d t o p r e v e n t m e a n i n g f u l restrictions o n f i s h i n g t h a t m i g h t h a v e served t o p r e v e n t the c o l l a p s e o f w o r l d f i s h e r i e s . See " T h e T r a g e d y of Enclosure: U.S.

Fisheries Science, D e v e l o p m e n t , a n d M a n a g e m e n t ,

1945-1995"

(PhD

dissertation, University of California, San D i e g o , 2 0 0 7 ) . 8 9 . R o g e r P i e l k e Jr., " W h e n Scientists P o l i t i c i z e S c i e n c e : M a k i n g Sense o f C o n t r o v e r s y o v e r the Skeptical E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t , " E n v i r o n m e n t a l Science a n d P o l i c y 7 (2004): 4 0 5 - 4 1 7 . 90.

It is also possible to be a c o m m u n i s t and have no opinions w h a t s o e v e r a b o u t global

warming. 91.

N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y o f Science,

C h a n g i n g C l i m a t e : R e p o r t o f the C a r b o n D i o x i d e

A s s e s s m e n t C o m m i t t e e ( W a s h i n g t o n , D C : N a t i o n a l A c a d e m i e s Press, 1 9 8 3 ) , x i i i - x v i , 1 - 4 ; William Nierenberg, o f the

"Climate, C 0

2

and A c i d R a i n , " presented a t the 80th Anniversary

Scripps Institution of O c e a n o g r a p h y ,

M C 1 3 ,

Papers

of William

Aaron

October

Nierenberg,

13,

Scripps

1983, Box

Institution

of

169,

Folder

17,

Oceanography

A r c h i v e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n D i e g o ; a n d see p h y s i c i s t A l v i n W e i n b e r g ' s s c a t h i n g denunciation o f the 1 9 8 3 on Box

N R C 86,

Draft

study's " d o n o t h i n g " attitude: Alvin M. Weinberg, " C o m m e n t s

R e p o r t o f the

Folder 7,

MC

13,

Carbon

Papers

Dioxide Assessment

C o m m i t t e e , " July

of William Aaron Nierenberg,

O c e a n o g r a p h y Archives, University of California, San D i e g o .

6,

1983,

Scripps Institution of

See a l s o N a o m i

Oreskes

and Erik M . C o n w a y , " F r o m C h i c k e n Little t o Dr. Pangloss: W i l l i a m N i e r e n b e r g , G l o b a l W a r m i n g , a n d the Social D e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f Scientific K n o w l e d g e , " H i s t o r i c a l S t u d i e s i n the N a t u r a l Sciences 3 8 : 1 (2008), in press.

92.

M o o n e y , T h e Republican War, 7 4 .

93.

Erik M .

Conway, A

History of Atmospheric Science in N A S A

(Baltimore: Johns

H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2 0 0 8 ) ; see a l s o i d e m , " S a t e l l i t e s a n d S e c u r i t y : S p a c e i n S e r v i c e to H u m a n i t y , " in T h e Societal I m p a c t of Space Flight, N A S A S P - 2 0 0 7 - 4 8 0 0 , eds. Steven J. Dick and R o g e r D . Launius (Washington, D C : N A S A , 2 0 0 7 ) , esp. 2 8 2 - 2 8 3 .

CHAPTER

4

M a n u f a c t u r e d Uncertainty Contested Science and the Protection of the Public's

Health DAVID

SINCE

and Environment MICHAELS

1 9 8 6 , every bottle of aspirin sold in the United States has included

a label advising parents that aspirin c o n s u m p t i o n by children w i t h viral illnesses greatly increases their risk of developing Reye's s y n d r o m e . Be­ fore that m a n d a t o r y w a r n i n g w a s required by the U.S. F o o d and D r u g Administration ( F D A ) , the toll from this disease, for w h i c h the cause is u n k n o w n , w a s substantial: 555 cases reported in one year, 1 9 8 0 , and with many others probably missed, because the syndrome is easily misdiagnosed. O n e in three diagnosed children died.

1

Today, less than a handful of Reye's Syndrome cases are reported each year. W h i l e the disappearance of Reye's Syndrome is often considered a public health triumph, it is a bittersweet one, because an untold number of children w e r e disabled or died while the aspirin manufacturers delayed the FDA's regulation by arguing that the four scientific studies establishing the aspirin link were incomplete, uncertain, unclear. T h e industry raised seventeen specific " f l a w s " in the four studies and insisted that more reliable ones were needed. T h e medical c o m m u n i t y k n e w of the danger, thanks 2

to an alert issued by the Centers for Disease C o n t r o l ( C D C ) , but parents were kept in the dark. Despite a federal advisory committee's concurrence w i t h the C D C ' s conclusions a b o u t the link, the industry issued a public service a n n o u n c e m e n t claiming, " W e do k n o w that no medication has been proven to cause R e y e s " (emphasis in the original).

3

T h e manufacturer's campaign and the dilatory procedures of the White House's Office of M a n a g e m e n t and Budget delayed a public education p r o g r a m for t w o years and m a n d a t o r y labels for t w o m o r e . O n l y litiga4

tion by Public Citizen's H e a l t h Research G r o u p forced the recalcitrant R e a g a n administration to act. T h o u s a n d s of lives have been s a v e d — a f t e r hundreds had been lost. Absolute certainty in the realm of medicine and public health is rare. O u r public health p r o g r a m s will not be effective if absolute p r o o f is re­ quired before we act; the best available evidence must be sufficient. Yet we see a g r o w i n g trend that d e m a n d s p r o o f over precaution in the realm of public health.

5

F e w scientific challenges are m o r e c o m p l e x than understanding the cause of disease in h u m a n s . Scientists c a n n o t feed t o x i c chemicals to peo­ ple to see w h a t dose causes cancer. Instead, we must harness the "natural experiments" w h e r e exposures have already happened in the field. In the laboratory, we c a n use only animals. Both epidemiologic and laboratory studies therefore have m a n y uncertainties, and scientists must extrapolate from study-specific evidence to m a k e causal inferences and r e c o m m e n d protective measures. Absolute certainty is rarely an option. O u r regulatory programs will n o t be effective if such p r o o f is required before we act; the best available evidence must be sufficient.

THE

TOBACCO

ROAD

Years a g o , a t o b a c c o executive unwisely committed to paper the perfect slogan for his industry's disinformation c a m p a i g n : " D o u b t is our prod­ u c t . " W i t h t o b a c c o , d o u b t turned out to be less addictive for the public 6

than the leaf itself, and the industry finally a b a n d o n e d its strategy. I call this strategy " m a n u f a c t u r i n g u n c e r t a i n t y , " a n d no industry 7

m a n u f a c t u r e d m o r e uncertainty over a longer period than the t o b a c c o c o m p a n i e s . F o l l o w i n g a strategic p l a n developed in the m i d - 1 9 5 0 s by the public relations firm Hill and K n o w l t o n — a firm that m a n u f a c t u r e d uncertainty on behalf of v a r i o u s industries over several d e c a d e s — B i g T o b a c c o hired scientists to challenge the g r o w i n g consensus linking cig­ arette s m o k i n g w i t h lung cancer and other adverse health effects. T h i s industry c a m p a i g n had three basic messages: cause-and-effect relation­ ships have n o t been established; statistical data do n o t provide the an­ swers; and m o r e research is needed. As recently as 1 9 8 9 , a spokesperson appearing on national television dismissed claims that t o b a c c o s m o k i n g

c a u s e s disease, d e c l a r i n g that " t h e c a u s a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p has n o t y e t been e s t a b l i s h e d . "

8

T h e industry even started its o w n "scientific" publication, Tobacco and Health Research, for w h i c h the main criterion for articles w a s straight­ f o r w a r d : " T h e most important type of story is that w h i c h casts d o u b t on the cause and effect theory of disease and s m o k i n g . " Editorial guidelines stated that headlines " s h o u l d strongly call out the p o i n t — C o n t r o v e r s y ! C o n t r a d i c t i o n ! O t h e r Factors! U n k n o w n s ! "

9

L e a r n i n g f r o m t o b a c c o ' s success, other industries h a v e d i s c o v e r e d that debating the science is m u c h easier and m o r e effective than debating the policy. Witness the debate over g l o b a l w a r m i n g . M a n y studies link h u m a n activity, and especially burning of c a r b o n fuels, with global w a r m ­ ing.

10

W a i t i n g for absolute certainty that the a c c u m u l a t i o n of greenhouse

gases will result in dramatic changes in the climate seems far riskier, and potentially far m o r e expensive to address, than acting n o w to control the causes of g l o b a l w a r m i n g . O p p o n e n t s of preventive action, led by the fossil fuels industry, attempted to delay the inevitable policy debate by challenging the science instead w i t h a classic uncertainty c a m p a i g n . I need only cite a m e m o f r o m the political consultant Frank L u n t z , de­ livered to his clients in early 2003. In " W i n n i n g the G l o b a l W a r m i n g Debate," Luntz wrote: Voters believe that there is

about global warming within the scien­

no consensus

tific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you

need

the

debate.

There

is

original).

to

continue

to

.

.

.

The

still

a

window

make scientific of

the

lack

of scientific

debate

is

closing

opportunity

to

certainty

[against

challenge

the

us]

a

primary but

science

not

issue yet

in

closed.

(emphasis

in

11

There has been substantial media coverage of the political machina­ tions behind the global w a r m i n g debate, and the behavior of the t o b a c c o industry has been well d o c u m e n t e d .

12

Less well k n o w n are the campaigns

m o u n t e d to question studies d o c u m e n t i n g the adverse health effects of e x p o s u r e to beryllium, lead, mercury, vinyl chloride, c h r o m i u m , benzene, benzidine, nickel, and a long list of other t o x i c chemicals and p h a r m a -

ceuticals. In fact, it is unusual for the science behind any p r o p o s e d public health or environmental regulation not to be challenged, no matter howpowerful the evidence. M a n u f a c t u r i n g uncertainty on behalf of big business has become a big business in itself. " P r o d u c t defense" firms have become experienced, adept, and successful consultants in epidemiology, biostatistics, and t o x i ­ cology. T h e w o r k of these product-defense firms bears the same relation­ ship to science as the A r t h u r Andersen C o m p a n y ' s w o r k for Enron and W o r l d c o m did to a c c o u n t i n g — o r did, before it w e n t b a n k r u p t f o l l o w i n g the Enron debacle.

B E R Y L L I U M : O R

N A T I O N A L

" P R O D U C T

D E F E N S E

D E F E N S E " ?

T h e metal beryllium is extremely u s e f u l — a n d almost unimaginably toxic. Breathing the tiniest a m o u n t of this lightweight metal can cause disease and death. As a neutron m o d e r a t o r that increases the yield of nuclear ex­ plosions, it is vital to the p r o d u c t i o n of w e a p o n s systems, and t h r o u g h o u t the C o l d War, the U.S. nuclear w e a p o n s c o m p l e x w a s the nation's largest consumer of the substance. As a result, however, hundreds of w e a p o n s w o r k e r s have developed chronic beryllium disease ( C B D ) — a n d not just machinists w h o w o r k e d directly w i t h the metal, but also others simply in the vicinity of the milling and grinding processes, and often for very short periods of time. As Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health from 1 9 9 8 to 2 0 0 1 , I was the chief safety officer for the nuclear w e a p o n s c o m p l e x , responsible for protecting the health of w o r k e r s , the c o m m u ­ nities, and the environment a r o u n d the p r o d u c t i o n and research facili­ ties. In 1 9 9 8 , the D e p a r t m e n t of Energy's ( D O E ) exposure standard had remained unchanged for almost fifty years, and there were hundreds of cases of beryllium disease in the nuclear w e a p o n s c o m p l e x and in factories that supplied beryllium products. T h e history of this original D O E beryllium standard is legendary. It w a s developed in a 1948 discussion held in the backseat of a taxi by Merril Eisenbud, an A t o m i c Energy C o m m i s s i o n ( A E C ) industrial hygienist, and Willard M a c h l e , a physician w h o w a s a consultant to the firm building the

Brookhaven Laboratory on Long Island, N e w York. Eisenbud discusses this history in his autobiography, noting that they selected the exposure limit " i n the absence of an epidemiological basis for establishing a s t a n d a r d . "

13

T h e A E C "tentatively" adopted a standard of 2 μg/m in 1 9 4 9 , and then 3

reviewed it annually for seven years before permanently accepting it. W h e n first implemented, the 2 μg/m standard resulted in a dramatic 3

decrease in n e w beryllium disease cases. But by 1 9 5 1 , Eisenbud recognized that "the distribution of the chronic form of beryllium disease did not fol­ l o w the usual exposure­response m o d e l seen for most t o x i c substances" and hypothesized an i m m u n o l o g i c a l susceptibility.

Eventually, cases of

14

C B D appeared a m o n g w o r k e r s hired after the 1 9 4 9 standard w e n t into effect, and w h o s e e x p o s u r e appeared to be b e l o w the 2 μg/m s t a n d a r d . 3

15

M o r e o v e r , C B D had been diagnosed in persons w i t h no w o r k p l a c e e x p o ­ sure to the metal, including individuals w h o simply laundered the clothes of w o r k e r s , drove a milk delivery truck w i t h a route near a beryllium plant, or tended cemetery graves near a beryllium f a c t o r y .

16

W h e n the O c c u p a t i o n a l Safety and H e a l t h A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( O S H A ) w a s established in 1 9 7 1 to protect the health of w o r k e r s in the private sector, it simply a d o p t e d the t a x i c a b standard. By the 1980s, however, it w a s clear that w o r k e r s e x p o s e d to beryllium levels well b e l o w the stan­ dard were developing the disease. As both the D O E and O S H A began the time­consuming legal process of changing their standards, the beryllium industry objected. At one public meeting, the director of environmental health and safety of Brush W e l l m a n , the leading U.S. producer of beryl­ lium p r o d u c t s , asserted (according to D O E ' s minutes of the meeting): " B r u s h Wellman is u n a w a r e of any scientific evidence that the standard is not protective. H o w e v e r , we do recognize that there have been sporadic reports of disease at less than 2 μg/m . Brush W e l l m a n has studied each of 3

these reports and found them to be scientifically u n s o u n d . "

17

In 1 9 9 1 , Brush managers were told that if they were " a s k e d in some fashion w h e t h e r or n o t the 2 μg/m

3

standard is still considered by the

c o m p a n y to be reliable," they should answer, "In most cases involving our employees, we can point to circumstances of exposure (usually ac­ cidental), higher than the standard a l l o w s . In some cases, we have been unable (for lack of clear history) to identify such circumstances. H o w e v e r ,

in these cases we also c a n n o t say that there w a s not excessive e x p o s u r e " (emphasis in o r i g i n a l ) .

18

T h i s w a s the industry's p r i m a r y a r g u m e n t , a n d it w a s based on a flawed logic. Practically speaking, it w a s not difficult to go back into the w o r k history of anyone w i t h C B D and estimate that at some point in time, the airborne beryllium level must have exceeded the standard. Brush did this, and then reasoned that the 2 μg/m standard must be fully protec­ 3

tive since most people w h o had C B D had at some point been e x p o s e d to a higher level. Yet, the ever­increasing n u m b e r of C B D cases identified at facilities across the nuclear w e a p o n s c o m p l e x , as well as in the beryllium industry's o w n factories, rendered the claim that the old standard w a s safe less and less plausible. In September 1 9 9 9 , Brush Wellman sponsored a confer­ ence, in c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h the A m e r i c a n Conference of G o v e r n m e n t a l Industrial Hygienists, to bring "leading scientists together to present and discuss the current information and n e w research on the hazards posed by b e r y l l i u m . "

19

T h e papers were subsequently published together in an

industrial hygiene j o u r n a l .

20

Clearly, one purpose of the conference w a s

to influence g o v e r n m e n t standard setting on beryllium; at the time of the conference, D O E w a s a few months a w a y from issuing its final rule and O S H A had signaled its intention to revise its outdated standard. Several papers were presented by scientists e m p l o y e d by E x p o n e n t , Inc., the beryllium industry's product defense consultant, including a paper entitled "Identifying an A p p r o p r i a t e O c c u p a t i o n a l Exposure Limit ( O E L ) for Beryllium: D a t a G a p s and C u r r e n t Research Initiatives." This paper p r o m o t e d the industry's n e w rationale for opposing a new, stronger beryl­ lium standard: that m o r e research is needed on the effects of particle size, of exposure to beryllium c o m p o u n d s , and of skin exposure to C B D risk. T h e paper concluded: " A t this time, it is difficult to identify a single n e w T L V [threshold limit value] for all forms of beryllium that will protect nearly all w o r k e r s : It is likely that within three to four years, a series of T L V s might need to be considered. . . . In short, the beryllium O E L could easily be a m o n g the most c o m p l e x yet e s t a b l i s h e d . "

21

After reviewing the public c o m m e n t s and the literature on beryllium's health effects, the D O E health and safety office concluded that, while more

research is always desirable, we had more than enough information to war­ rant immediate implementation of a stronger beryllium disease prevention standard. O v e r the industry's objections, we issued a n e w rule, reducing the acceptable w o r k p l a c e exposure level by a factor of ten. Simultaneously, O S H A also r e c o g n i z e d the i n a d e q u a c y o f its o w n standard

22

and a n n o u n c e d its c o m m i t m e n t to issuing a stronger o n e .

23

H o w e v e r , w h e n the G e o r g e W. Bush administration t o o k office in 2 0 0 1 , the c o m m i t m e n t to strengthening its beryllium rule w a s dropped from the agency's formal regulatory agenda. In N o v e m b e r 2002, O S H A implicitly accepted the industry's a p p r o a c h by issuing a call for additional data on the relationship of beryllium dis­ ease t o , a m o n g other things, particle size, particle surface area, particle number, and skin c o n t a c t .

In the few years since D O E issued its stan­

24

dard, however, researchers have published several epidemiologic studies that demonstrate that the 2 μg/m standard does not prevent the occur­ 3

rence o f C B D .

2 5

In addition to C B D , the scientific c o m m u n i t y widely recognizes that beryllium also increases the risk of lung cancer; several studies c o n d u c t e d by epidemiologists at the C D C s u p p o r t this c o n c l u s i o n .

26

In 2002, h o w ­

ever, scientists at a product defense firm published a ten­year­old reanalysis of one of the C D C s t u d i e s .

27

By c h a n g i n g some parameters, the statisti­

cally significant elevation of lung cancer rates w a s no longer statistically significant. (Such alchemy is rather easily a c c o m p l i s h e d , of course, while the o p p o s i t e — t u r n i n g insignificance into significance—is extremely dif­ ficult.) N o t coincidentally, this particular firm had d o n e extensive w o r k for the t o b a c c o industry.

28

T h e n e w analysis w a s published in a peer­

reviewed j o u r n a l — n o t one w i t h m u c h experience in epidemiology, but peer­reviewed nevertheless, and the industry n o w touts its study as evi­ dence that everyone else is w r o n g . A n d so it goes today, in industry after industry, w i t h study after study, year after year. D a t a is disputed, data has to be reanalyzed. A n i m a l data is deemed not relevant, h u m a n data not representative, e x p o s u r e data not reliable. M o r e research is a l w a y s needed. Uncertainty is manufactured. Its purpose is a l w a y s the same: shielding corporate interests from the incon­ venience and economic consequences of public health protections.

PPA:

THE

TRICKS

OF

THE

TRADE

In order to attract new clients, some product defense firms even brag about their successes. Until I w r o t e a b o u t it in Scientific American,

19

the Wein­

berg G r o u p (another firm that had w o r k e d extensively for the t o b a c c o industry) advertised on its website its contribution to the effort to oppose the FDA's belated c l a m p d o w n on p h e n y l p r o p a n o l a m i n e (PPA), the overthe-counter d r u g that w a s w i d e l y used as a decongestant and appetite suppressant until the F D A forced it off the market. Here is a short version of the PPA saga. Reports of hemorrhagic strokes in y o u n g w o m e n w h o had taken a PPA-containing drug began circulating in the early 1 9 7 0 s . T w e n t y years later, w h e n the F D A finally raised offi­ cial questions a b o u t the safety of PPA, the manufacturers rejected them. Eventually, a c o m p r o m i s e w a s reached. T h e drug manufacturers w o u l d select an i n v e s t i g a t o r — t h e y selected the Yale University School of M e d i ­ c i n e — a n d fund an epidemiologic study w h o s e design w o u l d be a p p r o v e d by the F D A . In O c t o b e r 1 9 9 9 , the manufacturers and the F D A learned that the study confirmed the causal relationship between PPA and hem­ orrhagic s t r o k e . England

Journal

30

T h e study w a s published the f o l l o w i n g year in the New of Medicine.

31

W h e n they were initially alerted to the study's findings, did the manufac­ turers immediately w i t h d r a w this drug, which by then had annual sales of more than $500 million, but w a s responsible, according to an F D A analysis, for between 200 and 500 strokes per year a m o n g 18- to 49-year-olds? N o . 32

Instead, they turned to the Weinberg G r o u p to attack the Yale study, focus­ ing on "bias and areas of c o n c e r n . "

33

T h e manufacturers recognized that

the F D A w o u l d eventually force the drug off the market, but they stalled for almost a year, enough time to reformulate their products. A n d when the F D A finally requested manufacturers to stop marketing PPA in N o v e m b e r 2000, the industry w a s prepared to ship reformulated products immediately.

34

A m a z i n g l y , the W e i n b e r g g r o u p boasted a b o u t this w o r k o n their website: Adverse Event Linked to O T C Product A pharmaceutical company retained THE WEINBERG GROUP to audit the re­ sults of a FDA-requested, industry-sponsored case-control study that linked their

over-the-counter (OTC) product and several others with a serious, life-threat­ ening adverse event. There was a substantial concern from the FDA based on reports of adverse events that use of these O T C products would present a public health problem. The study was commissioned to answer the question of risk with a controlled investigation. According to the study investigators, the results of the study showed a strong association between these products and a severe, life-threatening adverse event. Epidemiologists at THE WEINBERG GROUP led experts and consultants to some of the other affected O T C companies, in an effort that included a reanalysis of the raw data from the case-control study, and an assessment of the study's methodological flaws. The unique ability of the experts at THE WEINBERG GROUP to combine their expertise in epidemiology and biostatistics with strategic thinking enabled them to lead the pharmaceutical company's effort in their dispute with the FDA.

THE

FUNDING

35

EFFECT

T h e b i o m e d i c a l literature extensively discusses the " f u n d i n g effect," a term used to describe the close correlation b e t w e e n the results of a study desired by a study's funders a n d the r e p o r t e d results of that s t u d y .

36

R e c e n t r e v i e w s in l e a d i n g b i o m e d i c a l j o u r n a l s f o u n d that p h a r m a c e u ­ tical industry s p o n s o r s h i p w a s s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p r o - i n d u s t r y conclusions.

37

As researchers have e x a m i n e d the w o r k i n g s of the funding effect, it has b e c o m e clear this is not the result of p o o r l y done studies c o n d u c t e d by researchers apparently aiming for a preordained conclusion (although e x a m p l e s of this are not rare). T h e quality of the studies paid for by phar­ maceutical manufacturers is at least as g o o d and often better than ones they didn't f u n d .

38

T h i s is not surprising, since drug makers have plentiful

financial resources and m o r e extensive experience c o n d u c t i n g clinical tri­ als. H o w e v e r , the failure to identify methodologic flaws that might explain the funding effect puzzled journal editors, w h o generally have strong sci­ entific b a c k g r o u n d s and w h o pride themselves on their ability to identify poor-quality research. W h a t then explains the funding effect? It appears that the pharmaceu­ tical industry is devoting sizable resources to the c o n d u c t of studies w h o s e

results will increase sales, but will not necessarily provide the information physicians need to select the best drug for their patients. This has been summarized most clearly by Dr. Richard Smith, w h o recently retired as editor of British Medical Journal (BMJ). Describing h o w it t o o k him " a l ­ most a quarter of a century editing for the BMJ to w a k e up to w h a t w a s h a p p e n i n g , " he w r o t e : Why are pharmaceutical companies getting the results they want? . . . The com­ panies seem to get the results they want not by fiddling the results, which would be far too crude and possibly detectable by peer review, but rather by asking the "right" questions—and there are many ways to do this [see list below]. . . . There are many ways to hugely increase the chance of producing favourable results, and there are many hired guns who will think up new ways and stay one jump ahead of peer reviewers.

39

Smith w e n t on to provide a series of e x a m p l e s of methods used by pharmaceutical manufacturers to obtain the results they w a n t from clini­ cal trials (the f o l l o w i n g is a quote): •

Conduct a trial of your drug against a treatment known to be inferior.

•

Trial your drugs against too low a dose of a competitor drug.

•

Conduct a trial of your drug against too high a dose of a competitor drug (making your drug seem less toxic).

•

Conduct trials that are too small to show differences from competitor drugs.

•

Use multiple endpoints in the trial and select for publication those that give favourable results.

•

Do multicentre trials and select for publication results from centres that are favourable.

•

Conduct subgroup analyses and select for publication those that are favour­ able.

•

Present results that are most likely to impress—for example, reduction in relative rather than absolute risk.

40

T h e funding effect has also been seen in studies that look at the toxic effects of chemical exposures. T h e disparity between the results of studies

examining the risk of lung cancer a m o n g beryllium-exposed w o r k e r s dis­ cussed above is an example of the funding effect: three government-funded analyses find an elevated risk while the one industry-funded analysis (actu­ ally a reanalysis) does not. An even more striking e x a m p l e in the t o x i c o l o g y literature is the de­ bate over the effects of l o w - d o s e e x p o s u r e to bisphenol A (BPA), an en­ vironmental estrogen used in the manufacture of p o l y c a r b o n a t e plastic, a resin w i d e l y used in food cans and dental sealants. E x p o s u r e to BPA had been reported in some studies to alter endocrine function at very l o w doses. In response, the A m e r i c a n Plastics C o u n c i l hired the H a r v a r d Center for Risk Analysis ( H C R A ) to c o n d u c t a weight-of-the-evidence r e v i e w o f the t o x i c o l o g y . T h e H C R A panel r e v i e w e d nineteen animal studies and reported that it found no consistent affirmative evidence of l o w - d o s e BPA effects.

41

This conclusion w a s challenged by scientists w h o felt that the H C R A had chosen to examine only a minority of the 47 studies available at the time. These scientists reviewed the 1 1 5 studies that had been published through December 2004 and found results that differed markedly from the H C R A analysis.

42

As can be seen in Table 4 . 1 , 90 percent (94 of 104) of

the studies paid for w i t h g o v e r n m e n t funds reported an effect associated w i t h BPA exposure; not a single one of the 11 corporate-funded studies found an effect.

4 . 1 Biased outcome due to source of funding in low-dose, in vivo BPA research as of December 2004

TABLE

Number of studies and effect reported Source of funding

Harm

No harm

94

10

0

11

94

22

Government Chemical corporations Total

S O U R C E : Adapted from F. S. Vom Saal and C. Hughes, "An Extensive New Literature Concerning Low-Dose Effects of Bisphenol A Shows the Need for a New Risk Assessment," Environmental

Health

Perspectives

113

(2005):

926-933.

VIOXX: AND

CONFLICTED ITS

SCIENCE

CONSEQUENCES

I am not presuming here that the scientists involved in m a n u f a c t u r i n g uncertainty k n o w i n g l y p r o m o t e deadly products. M o r e likely, scientists, along w i t h the corporate executives and attorneys w h o hire them, con­ vince themselves that the products they are defending are safe, and that the evidence of harm is inaccurate, or misleading, or trivial. This can be seen in the recent evidence on the cardiac effects of V i o x x (rofecoxib), M e r c k ' s blockbuster pain reliever that w a s taken off the mar­ ket in N o v e m b e r 2004, m a k i n g headlines around the w o r l d . Even before the F D A a p p r o v e d V i o x x in M a y 1 9 9 9 , agency scientists reviewed data that suggested V i o x x could increase heart disease risk. Several independent scientists (that is, not on M e r c k ' s payroll) also raised red flags, but for the most part, the F D A ignored them. T h e n the results of a clinical trial appeared in early 2000, just a few months after the drug w a s put on the m a r k e t , linking V i o x x w i t h an increased risk of heart attack. M e r c k had chosen n a p r o x e n (sold under the brand name Aleve) as the c o m p a r i s o n treatment in the trial because aspirin, perhaps a m o r e o b v i o u s choice, w a s k n o w n to l o w e r cardiovascular disease risk, and the c o m p a n y didn't w a n t its trial to find m o r e heart attacks a m o n g the study participants w h o t o o k V i o x x . But the results s h o w e d that participants w h o t o o k V i o x x for more than eighteen months had five times the risk of heart attack as those taking n a p r o x e n .

43

M e r c k ' s scientists faced a d i l e m m a . T h e y c o u l d interpret this finding to mean either that V i o x x increased heart attack risk by 400 percent or that n a p r o x e n w a s beneficial in reducing the risk of heart attack by 80 percent. W h e n a double-blind trial using a p l a c e b o control found seven excess heart attacks per every t h o u s a n d users per year, the correct inter­ pretation w a s clear: V i o x x causes heart attacks. O n e F D A analysis esti­ mates that V i o x x caused between 88,000 and 1 3 9 , 0 0 0 heart a t t a c k s — 3 0 to 40 percent of w h i c h were f a t a l — i n the five years the drug w a s on the market.

44

Subsequent litigation has uncovered m e m o s d o c u m e n t i n g that M e r c k e x e c u t i v e s w e r e c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the increased risk o f h e a r t a t t a c k s

associated w i t h V i o x x , but d o w n p l a y e d these concerns in their c o m m u ­ nications w i t h physicians and resisted the FDA's efforts to add warnings to V i o x x ' s l a b e l .

45

It is hard to imagine that the drug maker's scientists

were consciously p r o m o t i n g a p r o d u c t they k n e w w o u l d result in disease and death. At the same time, it is hard to imagine they honestly thought n a p r o x e n reduced the risk of heart attack by 80 percent. It is possible that their allegiances were so tightly linked with the products they'd w o r k e d o n , as well as the financial health of their employers, that their judgment became fatally impaired.

A

NEW

REGULATORY

PARADIGM

There are clear lessons from these repeated regulatory failures in recent years: a n e w regulatory p a r a d i g m is needed. Federal agencies must ensure that data and scientific analyses provided by manufacturers are indepen­ dently verified. O p i n i o n s submitted to regulatory agencies by corporate scientists a n d , especially, the p r o d u c t defense industry must be taken as advocacy, primarily, not as science. B e l o w are a few steps that begin to develop this n e w p a r a d i g m . It has become apparent that some industry-supported research is never published because the sponsor didn't like the results. F o l l o w i n g a series of alarming instances in w h i c h the sponsors of research used their financial control to the detriment of the public's health, a g r o u p of leading biomedi­ cal journals have established policies that m a k e their published articles more transparent to commercial bias and that require authors to accept full control of and responsibility for their w o r k . These journals will n o w only publish studies done under contracts in w h i c h the investigators had the right to publish the findings w i t h o u t the consent or control of the sponsor. In a joint statement, the editors of the journals asserted that contractual arrangements a l l o w i n g sponsor control of publication " e r o d e the fabric of intellectual inquiry that has fostered so m u c h high-quality clinical r e s e a r c h . "

46

But the federal regulatory agencies that are charged with protecting our health and environment have no similar requirements. W h e n stud­ ies are submitted to the EPA or O S H A , for e x a m p l e , the agencies do not have the authority to inquire w h o paid for the studies, and whether these

studies w o u l d have seen the light of day if the sponsor didn't a p p r o v e the results. Federal agencies should a d o p t , at a m i n i m u m , requirements for "research integrity" c o m p a r a b l e to those used by biomedical journals: parties that submit data from research they have sponsored must disclose whether the investigators had the right to publish their findings w i t h o u t the consent or influence of the s p o n s o r .

47

It is also important to recognize that the opinions of virtually any sci­ entist can be clouded by conflict of interest, even if it isn't apparent to the scientist herself. Conflict of interest inevitably shapes j u d g m e n t — a n d this must be factored into the consideration of the analyses and opinions of scientists in the employ of industry. Public health is not well served by the unequal treatment of public and private science. W h i l e r a w data f r o m government-funded studies are gen­ erally available to private parties for inspection and reanalysis, enabling p r o d u c t defense experts to c o n d u c t post hoc analyses that challenge trou­ bling findings, industry is under no obligation to release c o m p a r a b l e r a w data from their o w n studies. W h e n private sponsors c o n d u c t research to influence public regulatory proceedings, these studies should be subject to the same access and reporting provisions as those applied to publicly funded science.

48

Apologists for polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products c o m ­ monly c o m p l a i n a b o u t g o v e r n m e n t regulation, asserting that the agencies are not using " s o u n d science." In fact, many of these manufacturers of un­ certainty do not w a n t " s o u n d science"; they w a n t something that sounds like science, but lets them do exactly w h a t they w a n t . We all recognize that the scientific evidence is just one part of policy m a k i n g . In shaping rules and p r o g r a m s to protect the public health and environment, decision makers also have to consider economic issues, moral values, and a host of other factors. In our current regulatory system, de­ bate over science has become a substitute for debate over policy and the values on w h i c h policy should be based. O p p o n e n t s of regulation use the existence of uncertainty, no matter its magnitude or importance, as a tool to counter imposition of public health protections that may increase their financial burden. It is important that those charged w i t h protecting the public's health recognize that the desire

for absolute scientific certainty is both counterproductive and futile. T h i s recognition underlies the wise w o r d s of Sir Austin Bradford Hill delivered in an address to the R o y a l Society of M e d i c i n e in 1 9 6 5 : All scientific work is incomplete—whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone action that it appears to demand at a given time. W h o knows, asked Robert Browning, but the world may end tonight? True, but on available evidence most of us make ready to commute on the 8:30 next day.

49

NOTES 1. from

E. D. Belay, J. S. Bresee, R. C. H o l m a n et al., " R e y e ' s S y n d r o m e in the United States 1981 through 1 9 9 7 , " N e w England Journal of Medicine 340 (1999): 1 3 7 7 - 1 3 8 2 .

2 . F o o d a n d D r u g A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , " L a b e l i n g for S a l i c y l a t e - c o n t a i n i n g P r o d u c t s : A d v a n c e d N o t i c e of Proposed R u l e m a k i n g , " Federal Register 47 (1982): 5 7 8 8 6 . 3. P. Lurie and S. Wolfe, " A s p i r i n and Reye's S y n d r o m e , " P a r a d i g m s for C h a n g e : A Public Health Textbook for Medical, Dental, Pharmacy a n d N u r s i n g Students (Washington, D C : Public Citizen Health Research G r o u p , unpublished). 4 . P . J . H i l t s , P r o t e c t i n g A m e r i c a ' s H e a l t h : T h e F D A , Business, a n d O n e H u n d r e d Years of Regulation ( N e w York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003). 5 . D . M i c h a e l s , " D o u b t I s T h e i r P r o d u c t , " Scientific A m e r i c a n 2 9 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) : 9 6 - 1 0 1 . 6.

" S m o k i n g and

Available at 7.

D.

Health

Proposal,"

Brown

&

Williamson

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nvs40f00

Michaels and

C.

Monforton,

Document No.

332506.

[accessed N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 ] .

"Manufacturing Uncertainty:

Contested

Science

a n d the Protection of the Public's H e a l t h and E n v i r o n m e n t , " A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l of Public Health 95 (2005): S 3 9 - S 4 8 . 8. B.

D a w s o n , T o b a c c o Institute, in a January

11,

1 9 8 9 , interview on A B C ' s

Good

M o r n i n g A m e r i c a . Available a t http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ile92f00 [accessed N o v e m b e r 12, 2007]. 9.

C . T h o m p s o n , H i l l a n d K n o w l t o n , I n c . , M e m o r a n d u m t o W . K l o e p f e r , Jr., T o b a c c o

Institute, Inc. Available at 10.

(October

18,

1 9 6 8 ) . T o b a c c o Institute D o c u m e n t T I M N 0 0 7 1 4 8 8 - 1 4 9 1 .

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/upv92f00

[accessed N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 ] .

N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences, Planning C l i m a t e a n d G l o b a l C h a n g e Research: A

R e v i e w o f the D r a f t U.S. C l i m a t e C h a n g e Science P r o g r a m Strategic Plan ( W a s h i n g t o n , D C : N a t i o n a l A c a d e m i e s Press, 2 0 0 3 ) . 11.

F. Luntz, M e m o r a n d u m :

Available

at

Environmental

" W i n n i n g the G l o b a l W a r m i n g D e b a t e : A n O v e r v i e w . "

Working

Group

http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_

e n v i r o n m e n t . p d f [accessed N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 ] . 12.

R o b e r t N . Proctor, " ' D o u b t I s O u t Product': T r a d e A s s o c i a t i o n Science," C a n c e r

Wars ( N e w Y o r k : Basic B o o k s , 1 9 9 5 ) ; R . Kluger, A s h e s t o A s h e s ( N e w Y o r k : V i n t a g e , 1 9 9 6 ) ; S. A. G l a n t z , J. Slade, L. A. Bero, P. Hanauer, and D. Barnes, eds., T h e Cigarette Papers (Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 9 6 ) .

13.

M . Eisenbud, A n E n v i r o n m e n t a l O d y s s e y : People, Pollution, a n d Politics i n the Life

of a P r a c t i c a l Scientist (Seattle: University of W a s h i n g t o n Press, 1 9 9 0 ) , 5 5 . 1 4 . J . H . Sterner a n d M . E i s e n b u d , " E p i d e m i o l o g y o f Beryllium I n t o x i c a t i o n , " A r c h i v e s of Industrial Hygiene and O c c u p a t i o n a l Medicine 4 ( 1 9 5 1 ) : 15.

123-151.

N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y a n d H e a l t h , " C r i t e r i a for a R e c o m m e n d e d

Standard t o Beryllium Exposure," D H E W H S M 7 2 - 1 0 2 6 8 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : I V - 2 1 . 16.

Ibid.

17.

D e p a r t m e n t of Energy, Transcript:

Beryllium

Public

Forum: January

15,

1997

( A l b u q u e r q u e , N M ) . Available from the author. 1 8 . J.J. Pallum, Brush W e l l m a n , M e m o r a n d u m (December 1 0 , 1 9 9 1 ) : " M e e t i n g N o t e s — December 6,

1 9 9 1 — B L T T P r o g r a m , " A t t a c h m e n t : " R e d r a f t of E x h i b i t B: 'Efficacy of the 2

m i c r o g r a m per m e t e r S t a n d a r d . ' " A v a i l a b l e from the author. 19.

D. J. Paustenbach, A. K. M a d l , and J. F. Greene,

Occupational

Exposure

Limit

(OEL)

for B e r y l l i u m :

Data

"Identifying an Appropriate Gaps and

Current Research

Initiatives," A p p l i e d O c c u p a t i o n a l a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l H y g i e n e 1 6 (2001): 5 2 7 - 5 3 8 . 20.

Beryllium:

Hygiene.

Effect o n W o r k e r

Health.

Applied Occupational and Environmental

16 (2001): 5 1 4 - 6 3 8 .

21.

Paustenbach, M a d l , and Greene, "Identifying an Appropriate,"

22.

C . N . Jeffress, A s s i s t a n t Secretary for O c c u p a t i o n a l Safety a n d H e a l t h , D e p a r t m e n t

536.

o f L a b o r , letter t o P e t e r B r u s h , A c t i n g A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y , D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y ( A u g u s t 2 7 , 1998). 23. Department of Labor, "Semiannual A g e n d a of Regulations," (1998):

Federal Register 63

22257.

24.

Occupational

Safety

and

Health

Administration,

"Occupational

Exposure to

B e r y l l i u m ; R e q u e s t for I n f o r m a t i o n , " F e d e r a l R e g i s t e r 6 7 ( 2 0 0 2 ) : 7 0 7 0 7 . 2 5 . A. W. Stange, D. E. Hilmas, F. J. F u r m a n , and T. R. Gatliffe, "Beryllium Sensitization and C h r o n i c Beryllium Disease at a Former N u c l e a r W e a p o n s Facility," A p p l i e d O c c u p a t i o n a l and Environmental Hygiene D e u b n e r et al., Workers

in

a

16

(2001): 4 0 5 - 4 1 7 . P. K.

Henneberger, D.

Cumro, D.

D.

"Beryllium Sensitization and Disease a m o n g L o n g - t e r m and Short-term Beryllium

Ceramics

Plant,"

International Archives

of O c c u p a t i o n a l a n d

E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h 7 4 ( 2 0 0 1 ) : 1 6 7 - 1 7 6 . P . C . Kelleher, J . W . M a r t y n y , M . M . M r o z e t al., " B e r y l l i u m Particulate E x p o s u r e and Disease R e l a t i o n s in a Beryllium M a c h i n i n g P l a n t , " Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 43 (2001): 2 3 8 - 2 4 9 . K. Rosenman, V. H e r t z b e r g , C. R i c e et al., " C h r o n i c Beryllium Disease a n d Sensitization at a

Beryllium

Processing Facility," E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h Perspectives 1 1 3 (2005): 1 3 6 6 - 1 3 7 2 ; A . K . M a d l , K . U n i c e , J . L . B r o w n e t al., " E x p o s u r e - R e s p o n s e A n a l y s i s for B e r y l l i u m S e n s i t i z a t i o n a n d Chronic Beryllium Disease a m o n g Workers in a Beryllium M e t a l M a c h i n i n g Plant," j o u r n a l of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 4 (2007): 4 4 8 - 4 6 6 . 26.

I n t e r n a t i o n a l A g e n c y for R e s e a r c h o n C a n c e r , B e r y l l i u m a n d B e r y l l i u m C o m p o u n d s ,

vol. 58 (1993): 4 1 . Available at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol58/volume58 .pdf, N a t i o n a l T o x i c o l o g y P r o g r a m , 1 1 t h R e p o r t o n C a r c i n o g e n s , 2 0 0 5 . A v a i l a b l e a t http://ntp. niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/ptofiles/so22bery.pdf; K. Steenland and E. W a r d , " L u n g C a n c e r Incidence a m o n g Patients w i t h Beryllium Disease: A C o h o r t M o r t a l i t y Study," J o u r n a l of the N a t i o n a l C a n c e r Institute 8 3 ( 1 9 9 1 ) : 1 3 8 0 - 1 3 8 5 ; E . W a r d , A . O k u n , A . Ruder, M . Fingerhut, and K.

Steenland,

"A Mortality Study of Workers at Seven Beryllium Processing Plants,"

A m e r i c a n Journal of Industrial Medicine 22 ( 1 9 9 2 ) : 8 8 5 - 9 0 4 ; W. T. Sanderson, E. M. W a r d , K. Steenland, and M. R. Petersen, " L u n g C a n c e r C a s e - C o n t r o l Study of Beryllium W o r k e r s , " American Journal of Industrial Medicine 39

(2001):

133-144.

27.

P. S. Levy, H. D. R o t h , P. M. H w a n g , and T. E. Powers,

Cancer:

A Reanalysis of a

(2002):

1003-1015.

NIOSH

Cohort Mortality

28.

Michaels, " D o u b t Is Their Product," 9 6 - 1 0 1 .

29.

Ibid., 9 9 .

30. 2004.

K.

Sack

Available

and A. at

Mundy,

"A

Dose

Study"

of Denial,"

"Beryllium and L u n g

Inhalation

Los Angeles

Toxicology

Times,

March

14

28,

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ppa28mar

28-1,1,4339482,print.htmlstory?coll=la-home-headlines&ctrack= 1&cset=true

[accessed

November 12, 2007]. 31.

W . N . K e r n a n , C . M . Viscoli, L . M . Brass e t a l , " P h e n y l p r o p a n o l a m i n e a n d the

Risk of Hemorrhagic Stroke," N e w England Journal of Medicine 343 32.

(2000):

1826-1832.

L. L a G r e n a d e , P. N o u r j a h , R. S h e r m a n et al., " E s t i m a t i n g Public H e a l t h I m p a c t of

Adverse D r u g Events in Pharmacoepidemiology:

Phenylpropanolamine and Hemorrhagic

S t r o k e . " P o s t e r p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t h e 2 0 0 1 F D A S c i e n c e F o r u m : " S c i e n c e a c r o s s the B o u n d a r i e s " (Washington, D C : February 1 5 - 1 6 , 2001). 33.

W. Kirton, Email to Bayer representatives, S U B J E C T : C H P A Yale Study M e e t i n g ,

J a n u a r y 2 1 , 1 9 9 9 . A v a i l a b l e t h r o u g h the L o s A n g e l e s T i m e s , " A D o s e o f D e n i a l , " a t http:// www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ppa28mar28-1,1,2552623.htmlstory?coll= l a - h o m e - h e a d l i n e s [accessed N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 ] . 34.

Sack and M u n d y ,

35.

W e i n b e r g G r o u p , " A d v e r s e e v e n t linked t o O T C p r o d u c t , " w a s a v a i l a b l e a t http://

"A Dose of Denial."

w w w . w e i n b e r g g r o u p . c o m . A screen shot is available from the author. 36.

S. K r i m s k y , Science in the P r i v a t e Interest: H a s the L u r e of Profits C o r r u p t e d the

Virtue o f B i o m e d i c a l R e s e a r c h ? ( L a n h a m , M D : R o w m a n & Littlefield, 2 0 0 3 ) ; S . Krimsky, " T h e F u n d i n g E f f e c t i n S c i e n c e a n d Its I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e J u d i c i a r y , " J o u r n a l o f L a w a n d Policy 8

(2005): 4 3 - 6 8 ; R. Smith, " M e d i c a l Journals A r e an E x t e n s i o n of the M a r k e t i n g

A r m of Pharmaceutical C o m p a n i e s , " P L o S Medicine 2 (2005): 0 1 3 8 . 37.

J. E. B e k e l m a n , Y. Li, and C. P. G r o s s , " S c o p e and I m p a c t of Financial Conflicts

o f Interest i n B i o m e d i c a l R e s e a r c h : A S y s t e m a t i c R e v i e w , " J A M A

289

(2003): 4 5 4 - 4 6 5 ;

J. L e x c h i n , L. A. Bero, B. Djulbegovic, and O. Clark, "Pharmaceutical Industry Sponsorship and Research O u t c o m e and Quality," B M J 326 (2003): 1 1 6 7 - 1 1 7 0 . 38.

Lexchin, Bero, Djulbegovic, and Clark,

"Pharmaceutical Industry Sponsorship,"

1167-1170. 39.

Smith, " M e d i c a l Journals Are an Extension," 0 3 6 4 - 0 3 6 6 .

40.

Ibid., 0 3 6 5 .

41.

G . M . G r a y , J . T . C o h e n , G . C u n h a e t al., " W e i g h t o f the E v i d e n c e E v a l u a t i o n o f

L o w - D o s e R e p r o d u c t i v e a n d D e v e l o p m e n t a l Effects o f B i s p h e n o l A , " H u m a n a n d E c o l o g i c a l Risk Assessment 10 (2004): 8 7 5 - 9 2 1 . 42.

F . S . V o m Saal and C . H u g h e s , " A n Extensive N e w Literature C o n c e r n i n g L o w -

D o s e Effects of B i s p h e n o l A S h o w s the N e e d for a N e w R i s k A s s e s s m e n t , " E,nvironmental Health Perspectives 1 1 3 43.

(2005): 9 2 6 - 9 3 3 .

C . B o m b a r d i e r , L . L a i n e , A . Reicin e t al., " C o m p a r i s o n o f U p p e r Gastrointestinal

T o x i c i t y a n d R o f e c o x i b and N a p r o x e n i n Patients w i t h R h e u m a t o i d Arthritis," N e w E n g l a n d Journal of Medicine 343 44.

D.

(2000):

1520-1528.

G r a h a m , T e s t i m o n y before the U.S.

Senate Finance C o m m i t t e e

(November

1 8 , 2004). Available at http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2004test/111804dgtest .pdf.

45.

A . Berenson, " F o r M e r c k , V i o x x Paper Trail W o n ' t G o A w a y , " N e w York T i m e s ,

A u g u s t 21, 2 0 0 5 . 46.

F. Davidoff, C. D. D e A n g e l i s , J. F. D r a z e n et al., " S p o n s o r s h i p , A u t h o r s h i p , and

Accountability," J A M A 47.

286 (2001):

1232.

D. Michaels and W. Wagner,

"Disclosures in Regulatory Science,"

Science 3 0 2

(2003): 2 0 7 3 . 48.

W . W a g n e r a n d D . M i c h a e l s , " E q u a l T r e a t m e n t for R e g u l a t o r y Science: E x t e n d i n g

the C o n t r o l s G o v e r n i n g Public Research to Private R e s e a r c h , " J o u r n a l of L a w & M e d i c i n e 3 0 (2004): 1 1 9 - 1 5 4 . 49.

A. B. Hill, " T h e Environment and Disease: Association or C a u s a t i o n ? " Proceedings

o f the R o y a l Society o f M e d i c i n e 5 8

(1965): 295-300.

CHAPTER

5

C o m i n g t o Understand Orgasm and the Epistemology NANCY

IT

is

A

COMMON

TENET

of Ignorance

TUANA

of theorists working in the sociology of scientific

k n o w l e d g e (SSK) that an account of the conditions that result in scientists accepting apparently true beliefs and theories is as crucial as an analysis of those that result in their holding to apparently false theories and beliefs. In outlining the Strong Programme in SSK studies, D a v i d Bloor ( 1 9 7 6 ) argues against the asymmetry position c o m m o n to philosophies of science. On 1

such a position, only false beliefs that have had a history of influence on science, such as views a b o u t ether, h u m o r s , or phlogiston, are in need of a sociological account. True beliefs or theories, however, are viewed as in need of no such explanation in that their acceptance can be accounted for simply by their truth. Bloor and other SSK theorists argue that such appeals to truth are inadequate, insisting that the acceptance of a belief as true, even in science, involves social factors. T h e appeal to reality thus does not suffice in explaining w h y a belief has c o m e to be accepted by scientists. In a similar fashion it is important that our epistemologies not limit at­ tention simply to w h a t is k n o w n or believed to be k n o w n . If we are to fully understand the c o m p l e x practices of knowledge production and the variety of features that account for w h y something is k n o w n , we must also under­ stand the practices that account for not k n o w i n g , that is, for our lack of knowledge about a phenomena or, in some cases, an account of the practices that resulted in a g r o u p unlearning w h a t w a s once a realm of knowledge. In other w o r d s , those w h o w o u l d strive to understand h o w we k n o w must also develop epistemologies of ignorance.

2

Ignorance, far from being a simple lack of knowledge that g o o d science aims to banish, is better understood as a practice with supporting social

causes as c o m p l e x as those involved in k n o w l e d g e practices. As R o b e r t Proctor argued in his study of the politics of cancer research and dissemi­ nation, Cancer Wars ( 1 9 9 5 ) , we must "study the social construction of ig­ norance. T h e persistence of controversy is often not a natural consequence of imperfect k n o w l e d g e but a political consequence of conflicting interests and structural apathies. C o n t r o v e r s y c a n be engineered: ignorance and uncertainty c a n be manufactured, maintained, and d i s s e m i n a t e d . "

3

An important aspect of an epistemology of ignorance is the realization that ignorance should not be theorized as a simple omission or passive g a p but is, in m a n y cases, an active p r o d u c t i o n . In her essay, " O n Being W h i t e , " M a r i l y n Frye explains that " i g n o r a n c e is not something simple: it is not a simple lack, absence or emptiness, and it is not a passive state. Ignorance of this s o r t — t h e determined ignorance most white Americans have of A m e r i c a n Indian tribes and clans, the ostrich-like ignorance most white A m e r i c a n s have of the histories of Asian peoples in this country, the impoverishing ignorance most w h i t e A m e r i c a n s have of Black lan­ g u a g e — i g n o r a n c e of these sorts is a c o m p l e x result of m a n y acts a n d many n e g l i g e n c e s . "

4

A n d because ignorance is frequently constructed and actively preserved, and is linked to issues of cognitive authority, d o u b t , trust, silencing, and uncertainty, it often, as Frye clearly demonstrates, intersects w i t h systems of oppression. C h a r l e s M i l l s , in his b o o k The Racial Contract ( 1 9 9 7 ) , argues that matters related to race in Europe and the United States involve an active p r o d u c t i o n and preservation of ignorance: " O n matters related to race, the Racial C o n t r a c t prescribes for its signatories an inverted epis­ temology, an epistemology of ignorance, a particular pattern of localized and global cognitive dysfunctions (which are psychologically and socially functional), p r o d u c i n g the ironic o u t c o m e that whites will in general be unable to understand the w o r l d they themselves have m a d e . "

5

A l t h o u g h such productions are not a l w a y s linked to systems of oppres­ sion, it is important to be a w a r e of h o w often oppression w o r k s t h r o u g h and is s h a d o w e d by ignorance. As Eve K o s o f s k y S e d g w i c k argues in her Epistemology of the Closet ( 1 9 9 0 ) , " i g n o r a n c e effects can be harnessed, licensed, and regulated on a mass scale for striking enforcements." Indeed, 6

tracing w h a t is not k n o w n and the politics of such ignorance should be

a key element of epistemological and social/political analyses, for it has the potential to reveal the role of p o w e r in the construction of w h a t is k n o w n and provide a lens for the political values at w o r k in our k n o w l ­ edge practices. Epistemologies that view ignorance as an arena of not-yet-knowing will also o v e r l o o k those instances where k n o w l e d g e once had has been lost. W h a t w a s once c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e or even c o m m o n scientific k n o w l e d g e can be transferred to the realm of ignorance not because it is refuted and seen as false, but because such k n o w l e d g e is no longer seen as valuable, important, or functional. Obstetricians in the United States, for e x a m p l e , no longer k n o w h o w to turn a breech, not because such k n o w l e d g e , in this case a k n o w i n g - h o w , is seen as false, but because medical practices, w h i c h are in large part fueled by business and malpractice concerns, have shifted k n o w l e d g e practices in cases of breech births to Cesareans. M i d w i v e s in most settings and physicians in many other countries still possess this knowl­ edge and employ it regularly. Epistemologies of ignorance must focus not only on cases where bodies of k n o w l e d g e have been completely erased, or where a realm has never been subject to k n o w l e d g e p r o d u c t i o n , but also on these in-between cases where w h a t w a s once c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e has been actively " d i s a p p e a r e d " a m o n g certain g r o u p s . We must also ask the question n o w c o m m o n to feminist and postcolonialist science studies of w h o benefits and w h o is disadvantaged by such i g n o r a n c e .

7

While we must a b a n d o n the assumption that ignorance is a passive g a p in w h a t we k n o w , a w a i t i n g scientific progress and discovery, it w o u l d be premature to seek out a theory of ignorance w i t h the expectation of find­ ing some universal calculus of the "justified true belief" model. W h y we do not k n o w something, whether it has remained or been made u n k n o w n , w h o k n o w s and w h o is ignorant, and h o w each of these shift historically or from realm to realm are all open to question. Furthermore, while the movements and productions of ignorance often parallel and track particu­ lar k n o w l e d g e practices, we c a n n o t assume that their logic is similar to the knowledges that they shadow. T h e question of h o w ignorance is sustained, cultivated, or a l l o w e d is one that must be asked explicitly and w i t h o u t as­ suming that the epistemic tools cultivated for understanding k n o w l e d g e will be sufficient for understanding ignorance. T h e general point, however,

still holds that we c a n n o t fully a c c o u n t for w h a t we k n o w w i t h o u t also offering an a c c o u n t of w h a t we do not k n o w and w h o is privileged and disadvantaged by such knowledge/ignorance. Female sexuality is a particularly fertile area for tracking the inter­ sections of p o w e r / k n o w l e d g e - i g n o r a n c e .

8

Scientific and c o m m o n s e n s e

k n o w l e d g e of female o r g a s m has a history that provides a rich lens for understanding the importance of explicitly including epistemologies of ig­ norance alongside our theories of k n o w l e d g e . A n d so it is w o m e n ' s bodies and pleasures that I embrace.

EPISTEMOLOGIES

OF

ORGASM

No d o u b t it sounds strange to ears schooled by a Foucaultian sensitivity to things sexual for me to frame an epistemology of ignorance around w o m e n ' s sexuality in general and their orgasms in particular. Indeed, it w a s M i c h e l Foucault w h o w a r n e d that the disciplining practices of the nineteenth century had constructed sex as "a problem of t r u t h " : " [ T ] h e truth of sex became something fundamental, useful, or dangerous, pre­ cious or formidable; in short, that sex w a s constituted as a problem of truth."

9

C a n m y investigations o f the p o w e r dimensions o f i g n o r a n c e

concerning w o m e n ' s orgasms not fall prey to a constructed desire for the "truth of s e x " ? O n e might suggest that I f o l l o w Foucault's a d m o n i t i o n to attend to bodies and pleasures rather than sexual desire to a v o i d this epistemic trap. A n d , indeed, I do desire to trace bodies and pleasures as a source of subversion. T h e bodies of my attention are those of w o m e n ; the pleasures those of o r g a s m . But bodies and pleasures are not outside the history and deployment of sex-desire. Bodies and pleasures will not remove m e , the epistemic subject, from the practice of desiring truth. Bodies and pleasures, as Foucault well knew, have histories. Indeed the bodies that I trace are material-semiotic interactions of organisms/environments/cultures.

10

Bod­

ies and their pleasures are not natural givens, not even deep d o w n . N o r do I believe in a true female sexuality hidden deep beneath the layers of oppressive socialization. But w o m e n ' s bodies and pleasures provide a fer­ tile lens for understanding the w o r k i n g s of power/knowledge-ignorance in w h i c h we can trace w h o desires w h a t k n o w l e d g e ; that is, we can glimpse

the construction of desire (or lack thereof) for k n o w l e d g e of w o m e n ' s sexuality. I also believe that w o m e n ' s bodies and pleasures can, at this historical m o m e n t , be a wellspring for resisting sexual normalization.

11

A l t h o u g h my focus in this chapter will be on the former concern, I hope to provide sufficient development of the latter to tantalize. I have no desire in this chapter to trace the normalizing and p a t h o l o ­ gizing o f sexual subjectivities. M y g o a l i s t o understand w h a t " w e " d o and do not k n o w a b o u t w o m e n ' s o r g a s m s , and why. My "we's" include scientific communities, both feminist and nonfeminist, and the c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e s of everyday folk, both feminist and nonfeminist. Of course I c a n n o t divorce normalizing sexualities from such a study of w o m e n ' s o r g a s m s , for, as we will see, w h a t we do and do not k n o w of w o m e n ' s bodies and pleasures interact w i t h these practices. A l t h o u g h part of my g o a l is to trace an epistemology of o r g a s m , I do so because of a firm belief that as we c o m e to understand our o r g a s m s , we will find a site of pleasure that serves as a resource for resisting sexual normalization through the practices of becoming sexual. In c o m i n g to understand, I suggest that we begin at the site of the clitoris.

UNVEILING

THE

CLITORIS

W h a t we do and do not k n o w a b o u t w o m e n ' s genitalia is a case study of the politics of ignorance. T h e "we's" I speak of here are both the "we's" of the general p o p u l a t i o n in the United S t a t e s

12

and the "we's" of scien­

tists. Let me begin w i t h the former. I teach a popular, large lecture course on sexuality. I have discovered that the students in the class k n o w far more a b o u t male genitals than they do a b o u t female genitals. T a k e , for e x a m p l e , the clitoris. T h e vast majority of my female students have no idea h o w big their clitoris is, or h o w big the average clitoris is, or w h a t types of variations there are a m o n g w o m e n . C o m p a r e to this the fact that most of my male students can tell y o u the length and diameter of their penis both flaccid and erect, though their information a b o u t the average size of erect penises is sometimes shockingly inflated—a consequence, I suspect, of the size of male erections in porn movies. An analogous pattern of knowledge-ignorance also holds across the sexes. T h a t is, both w o m e n

and men alike typically k n o w far m o r e a b o u t the structures of the penis than they do a b o u t those of the clitoris. This is not to say that w o m e n do not k n o w anything a b o u t their geni­ talia. But w h a t they, and the typical male student, k n o w consists primar­ ily in a m o r e or less detailed k n o w l e d g e of the menstrual cycle and the reproductive organs. W o m e n and men can typically d r a w a relatively ac­ curate rendition of the vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries, but w h e n asked to provide me w i t h a d r a w i n g (from memory) of an external and an internal view of female sexual organs, they often do not include a sketch of the clitoris; and w h e n they d o , it is seldom detailed. T h i s pattern of knowledge-ignorance mirrors a similar pattern in sci­ entific representations of female and male genitalia. A l t h o u g h the role of the clitoris in female sexual satisfaction is scientifically a c k n o w l e d g e d , and well k n o w n by most of us, the a n a t o m y and physiology of the clitoris, par­ ticularly its beginnings and ends, is still a contested terrain. A brief history of representations of the clitoris provides an interesting initial entry into this epistemology of ignorance. Let me begin w i t h the " f a c t s . " As I and many other theorists have argued, until the nineteenth century, men's bodies were believed to be the true form of h u m a n biology and the standard against w h i c h female s t r u c t u r e s — b o n e s , brains, and genitalia a l i k e — w e r e t o b e c o m p a r e d . " T h e clitoris fared n o differently. M e d i ­ cal science held the male genitals to be the true form, of w h i c h w o m e n ' s genitals were a colder, interior version (see Figure 5 . 1 ) . As Luce Irigaray w o u l d say, through this speculum w o m e n ' s genitals were simply those of a m a n turned inside out and upside d o w n .

1 4

It thus comes as no surprise

that the clitoris w o u l d be depicted as, at best, a diminutive h o m o l o g u e to the penis. A history of medical views of the clitoris is n o t a simple tale. It includes those of A m b r o i s e Paré, the sixteenth-century biologist, w h o , while quite content to chronicle and describe the various parts and func­ tions of w o m e n ' s reproductive organs, refused to discuss w h a t he called this "obscene p a r t , " and admonished "those w h i c h desire to k n o w more of i t " to read the w o r k of anatomists such as Renaldus C o l u m b u s and Gabriello Fallopius.

15

A history of the clitoris must also include the sub­

ject, well dissected by T h o m a s Laqueur, whether, despite the proliferation of terms such as kleitoris, columnella, virga (rod), and

nympha

in texts

FIGURE SOURCE:

The

workes

5.1 of that

"The twelfth figure, Of the wombe." famous

chirurgion

Ambrose

Parey,

ed.

Thomas

Johnson

(London: T. Cotes and R. Y o u n g , 1 6 3 4 ) , 1 2 7 .

from Hippocrates to the sixteenth century, these meant anything quite like w h a t " c l i t o r i s " meant after the sixteenth century w h e n the link between it and pleasure were b r i d g e d .

16

W h a t w a s s o " d i s c o v e r e d " w a s , o f course, c o m p l e x . R e n a l d u s C o ­ lumbus ( 1 5 5 9 ) , self-heralded as he w h o discovered the clitoris, refers us to " p r o t u b e r a n c e s , emerging from the uterus near that opening w h i c h is called the m o u t h of the w o m b . " He described the function of these protu­ berances as "the seat of w o m e n ' s delight," w h i c h " w h i l e w o m e n are eager for sex and very excited as if in a frenzy and aroused to l u s t . . . y o u will find it a little harder and o b l o n g to such a degree that it s h o w s itself a sort of male member," and w h e n rubbed or touched "semen swifter than air flows this w a y and that on a c c o u n t of the pleasure even with them unwill-

ing."

1 7

T h o u g h a different clitoris than we are used t o , I will later argue

that C o l u m b u s provides an interesting rendition of this emerging flesh that is relevant to an epistemology of k n o w l e d g e - i g n o r a n c e . While m u c h pleasure can result from a thorough history of the clitoris, let me forebear and leap ahead to more c o n t e m p o r a r y renditions of this seat of pleasure. Even after the " t w o - s e x " model became d o m i n a n t in the nineteenth century, w i t h its v i e w of the female not as an underdeveloped male but as a second gender w i t h distinctive gender differences, the cli­ toris got short shrift. It w a s often rendered a simple n u b , w h i c h t h o u g h carefully labeled, w a s seldom fleshed out or made a focus of attention. Even more striking is the emerging practice from the 1940s to the 1 9 7 0 s of simply omitting even the nub of this seat of pleasure w h e n offering a cross-sectional image of female g e n i t a l i a .

18

It is important to remember

that this display, or lack thereof, is happening at a time w h e n displays of the penis are becoming ever m o r e c o m p l e x . Enter the w o m e n ' s health m o v e m e n t , and illustrations of w o m e n ' s genitals shift yet again, at least in some locations. Participants in the selfhelp w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t , ever believers in t a k i n g matters into our o w n hands, not only t o o k up the speculum as an instrument of k n o w l e d g e and liberation but questioned standard representations of our anatomy. T h e nub that tended to disappear in standard a n a t o m i c a l texts t o o k on c o m p l e x i t y and structure in the hands of these feminists. In the 1984 edi­ tion of the Boston W o m e n H e a l t h Collective's b o o k , Our Bodies, Ourselves, the clitoris e x p a n d e d in size and configuration to include three structures: the shaft, the glans, and the crura. T h i s n e w model received its most loving rendition t h a n k s to the leadership of the Federation of Feminist W o m e n ' s H e a l t h Centers and the illustrative hands of Suzann G a g e ( 1 9 8 1 ) in A New View of Woman's Body (see Figure 5.2). On such accounts, the lower two-thirds of the clitoris is hidden beneath the skin of the vulva. T h e clitoral glans surmounts the shaft, or body of the clitoris, which is partly visible, and then extends under the muscle tissue of the vulva (see Figure 5.3). To this is attached the crura, t w o stems of tis­ sue, the corpora cavernosa, w h i c h arc out t o w a r d the thighs and obliquely t o w a r d the vagina. T h e glans of the clitoris, they explain, is a bundle of nerves containing 8,000 nerve fibers, twice the number in the penis, and

FIGURE SOURCE:

5.2

A cross section of the clitoris

F e d e r a t i o n of F e m i n i s t W o m e n ' s H e a l t h

Body ( N e w Y o r k : T o u c h s t o n e ,

1 9 8 1 ) , illustrated

Centers, A

New

View of a

by Suzann Gage, 4 1 .

Woman's

Reprinted with

p e r m i s s i o n o f the F e d e r a t i o n o f F e m i n i s t W o m e n ' s H e a l t h C e n t e r s .

FIGURE SOURCE:

5.3

How the clitoris is situated in the pelvis

F e d e r a t i o n of F e m i n i s t W o m e n ' s H e a l t h C e n t e r s , A

Body ( N e w Y o r k : T o u c h s t o n e ,

1 9 8 1 ) , illustrated

by Suzann

New

Gage,

p e r m i s s i o n o f the F e d e r a t i o n o f F e m i n i s t W o m e n ' s H e a l t h C e n t e r s .

View of a

42.

Woman's

Reprinted with

w h i c h , as y o u k n o w , respond to pressure, temperature, and t o u c h . T h e " n e w v i e w " presented to us not only provides far more detail a b o u t the clitoral structures but also depicts the clitoris as large, and largely internal. Unlike typical nonfeminist depictions of the clitoris as largely an external genitalis, the n e w v i e w rendered the divide between external and internal visible (see Figure 5.4). N o w to be fair, some very recent nonfeminist anatomical texts have included this trinity of shaft, glans, and c r u r a .

19

But none of these texts

focuses attention on c o m i n g to understand the sexual response patterns of these and other b i t s .

20

Feminist imagery diverges significantly f r o m

nonfeminist in providing us far more detailed views of the impact of sex­ ual stimulation on the glans and crura of the clitoris, as well as the labia majora and the bulbs of the vestibule, the latter of w h i c h possess a very extensive b l o o d vessel system that becomes very engorged during arousal, d o u b l i n g , even tripling in size, we are told, during sexual arousal (see Fig­ ure 5.5). T h e a l w a y s - f o u n d illustrations of male erections (see Figure 5.6) are n o w a c c o m p a n i e d by an illustration of female erections (see Figure 5.7), something absent in nonfeminist texts. Feminist texts also lovingly

FIGURE SOURCE:

5.4

View of the pelvic floor and clitoris

Boston Women's Health

Book Collective,

The New Our Bodies

Y o r k , S i m o n & Schuster, 1 9 8 4 ) , i l l u s t r a t e d b y C h r i s t i n e B o n d a n t e , 2 0 6 . p e r m i s s i o n o f the B o s t o n W o m e n ' s H e a l t h B o o k C o l l e c t i v e .

Ourselves

(New

Reprinted

with

FIGURE SOURCE:

5.5

An inner view of the clitoris during the plateau phase

F e d e r a t i o n of F e m i n i s t W o m e n ' s H e a l t h C e n t e r s , New View of a

Woman's Body

( N e w Y o r k : T o u c h s t o n e , 1 9 8 1 ) , illustrated b y Suzann G a g e , 5 1 . Reprinted w i t h permission o f the F e d e r a t i o n o f F e m i n i s t W o m e n ' s H e a l t h C e n t e r s .

FIGURE

5.6

Side view of the penis

FIGURE

5.7

Side view of the clitoris

S O U R C E : Federation o f Feminist Women's

S O U R C E : Federation o f Feminist Women's

Health Centers, A

Health

New

View of a

Woman's

Centers, A

New

View of a

Woman's

Body ( N e w Y o r k : T o u c h s t o n e , 1 9 8 1 ) , illus­

Body ( N e w Y o r k : T o u c h s t o n e , 1 9 8 1 ) , illus­

trated by Suzann G a g e , 4 9 . Reprinted with

trated by Suzann G a g e , 48. Reprinted with

permission

permission

o f the

Federation

Women's Health Centers.

of Feminist

o f the

Federation

Women's Health Centers.

of

Feminist

detail the other bits that are part of our seat of delight. R e m i n d i n g us that the clitoris, impressive t h o u g h it be, is not our only sensitive bit, feminists also provide us w i t h images of the urethral sponge that lies between the front w a l l of the vagina and the urethra, w h i c h e x p a n d s w i t h b l o o d dur­ ing sexual arousal (see Figure 5.8). It w a s this structure that w a s allegedly " d i s c o v e r e d " with Columbus-like gusto (Christopher, this time, not Renal­ dus) by Ernst Graffenburg and popularized as the " G - s p o t . "

2 1

Although

a few nonfeminist anatomical illustrators, post-Graffenburg, provide us glimpses of this pleasurable sponge, apparently neither they nor Graffen­ burg have gotten the h a n g of the feminist speculum, for they continue to o v e r l o o k feminist presentations of the other sponge, the perineal sponge located between the vagina and the rectum, w h i c h also engorges w h e n a w o m a n is sexually aroused (see Figure 5.9). Pressure on any of these en­ gorged structures can result in pleasure and o r g a s m . We have a classic case of separate and unequal w h e n it comes to con­ t e m p o r a r y nonfeminist depictions of female and male genitals. A l l the

FIGURE SOURCE:

Federation

Body

York:

(New

5.8

of F e m i n i s t W o m e n ' s

Touchstone,

1981),

Urethral sponge Health

illustrated

by

Centers, A Suzann

New

Gage,

p e r m i s s i o n o f the F e d e r a t i o n o f F e m i n i s t W o m e n ' s H e a l t h C e n t e r s .

View of a 43.

Woman's

Reprinted with

F I G U R E

5.9

Self-examination of the perineal sponge

SOURCE:

F e d e r a t i o n of F e m i n i s t W o m e n ' s

Body

York:

(New

Touchstone,

1981),

Health

illustrated

by

Centers, A Suzann

New

Gage,

View of a

45.

Woman's

Reprinted

with

p e r m i s s i o n o f the F e d e r a t i o n o f F e m i n i s t W o m e n ' s H e a l t h C e n t e r s .

a b o v e m e n t i o n e d c o n t e m p o r a r y a n a t o m y t e x t b o o k s include detailed ren­ ditions of the structures of the penis, w i t h the corpus cavernosum and the corpus spongiosum, important sites of male engorgement, carefully d r a w n and labeled, while offering only the merest bit of a nub as a sufficient rep­ resentation of the clitoris.

f i n g e r i n g

t r u t h

So h o w do we put our finger on the truth of w o m e n ' s clitoral structures? W h o s e c a r t o g r a p h i e s d o w e believe? For those o f u s w h o f o l l o w the speculum, the feminist-influenced model of the three-fold clitoral struc­ tures have become scripture, w i t h each detail ever more lovingly d r a w n . But rather than f o l l o w desire and insist that the feminist depictions of the clitoris are the truth, let me rather trace the ebbs and flows of this knowledge-ignorance. Despite fifteen years of clear illustrations of this n e w v i e w of clito­ ral structures, our impact has been surprisingly minimal, at least so far. A review of anatomical illustrations in standard college human sexual­ ity t e x t b o o k s reveals a surprising lack of attention to the functions and

structures of the c l i t o r i s .

22

No surprise, then, that my students h a v e , at

best, a passing k n o w l e d g e of the depths and c o m p l e x i t y of its structures. These are the very same students, I remind y o u , w h o have relatively de­ tailed k n o w l e d g e of the structures of female reproductive organs and of the structures of male genitalia, t h o u g h the terminology they use to label those parts often turns to street talk rather than the high Latin of medi­ cal t e x t b o o k s . T h e h u m a n sexuality t e x t b o o k writers have clearly b o u g h t the line that "size doesn't matter," and continue to depict the clitoris as a modest, undifferentiated nub of flesh. There is a politics of ignorance at w o r k here, one that is linked to the politics of sex and reproduction. W h e t h e r female and male genitalia are seen as h o m o l o g o u s or a n a l o g o u s (or s o m e w h e r e in between), centuries of scientific theories and lay beliefs have treated their pleasures differ­ ently. There has been little dispute from the G r e e k s to the present of the importance of male pleasure and ejaculation for conception. In contrast, the question of female seed and the link between it and female pleasure w a s a l w a y s a point of controversy. M a n y scientists, from the Greeks to well into the sixteenth century, disputed the very existence of female seed or semen, t h o u g h those in the earlier centuries w h o did subscribe to the existence of female seed often argued for the importance of female pleasure as the vehicle for its release.

23

T h e infertility of prostitutes, for e x a m p l e ,

w a s often explained as due to a lack of pleasure in intercourse.

24

But by

the thirteenth century and o n w a r d , the link between conception and fe­ male pleasure in sex w a s typically denied even by those w h o allowed for the existence of female seed. W o m e n ' s sexual pleasure came to be seen as inessential to reproduction, although many scholars admitted that it might be useful in p r o m o t i n g the desire for intercourse. N o w to this v i e w of the function (or lack thereof) of female erotic pleasure add the politics of sex, namely the v i e w that the only or at least the main function of sex is r e p r o d u c t i o n . To this v i e w add the politics of female sexuality, namely the tenet c o m m o n in scientific and p o p u l a r accounts well into the nineteenth century that w o m e n were more lust­ ful than men and that their sexuality w a s a danger to m e n ,

25

and a path

is cleared to an understanding of w h y clitoral structures get lost in the process. T h e logic becomes quite clear: (a) There is no g o o d reason to

p a y attention to the clitoris, given that it allegedly plays no role in re­ p r o d u c t i o n and that sex is to be studied (only) in order to understand r e p r o d u c t i o n , (b) W o r s e , there is g o o d reason to not pay attention to the clitoris lest we stir up a hornet's nest of stinging d e s i r e .

26

F r o m Pandora

o n , and well into the nineteenth century, w o m e n ' s stinging desire and l i m b - g n a w i n g passion had been branded the cause of the fall of mankind. W h a t better reason to construct and maintain an epistemology of igno­ rance? W h a t better w a y to disqualify and perhaps even c o n t r o l w o m e n ' s sexual s a t i s f a c t i o n ?

27

But I simplify here to m a k e my point. It is not true that there are no m o ­ ments in the twentieth century w h e n scientists focused their speculums on clitoral structures. Leaving Sigmund Freud aside for the moment, genitals came under scrutiny during the end of the nineteenth century as science con­ structed the category of the "invert," namely, those w h o mixed with mem­ bers of their o w n sex. Evolutionary theory linked the newly " u n c o v e r e d " sexual identity of the h o m o s e x u a l to degeneracy, and widespread societal fears of the degeneration of the race (that is, the white race) led to broad­ ened support for eugenics movements. Scientists, n o w more intent than ever before on social control, began to examine bodies for signs of degeneration to provide support for proper " m a t i n g s " and to discourage the dangerous mixing of people across racial or sexual boundaries. Belief in the degenera­ tion of the race led many to believe that so-called inverts were proliferating. Anxiety led to a desire to be able to track such undesirables and an equally strong desire to believe that their perversity and devolution w o u l d be clearly marked on their bodies. Given the desire for such k n o w l e d g e , it did not take long before genitals, or at least deviant genitals, w o u l d become a focus of the scientific gaze, hornet's nest or not. A l t h o u g h through images to be kept only for the eyes of professionals, w h o s e objectivity and dispassionate nature w o u l d protect them from corruption, science began to turn its gaze on the structures of the clitoris to seek out and control deviancy. T h e Sex Variant study, c o n d u c t e d in N e w Y o r k C i t y from 1 9 3 5 to 1 9 4 1 , w a s one e x a m p l e of scientific investigations launched to interro­ gate the m a r k s of deviance that had been imprinted o n t o the structures of the body. T h e professed g o a l of the study w a s to identify inverts so that physicians could then try to stop them from reproducing and further con-

taminating the race. G y n e c o l o g i s t R o b e r t L a t o u D i c k i n s o n , the principal investigator of the Sex Variant study, believed that deviance and degen­ eration w o u l d be m a p p e d on w o m e n ' s genitals. Clitorises w e r e e x a m ­ ined, measured, and sketched, along w i t h the various contours of v u l v a , breast, and nipple sizes. D i c k i n s o n concluded that, indeed, the genitals of inverts were a s y m b o l of their deviance, arguing that their genitals w e r e different from those of " n o r m a l " w o m e n — t h e i r vulvae, larger; their cli­ torises, n o t a b l y erectile; their labia, longer and m o r e protruding; their vaginas, distensible; their hymens, insensitive; and their uteruses, smaller (see Figure 5.10). This w a s also a period w h e n the genitals of " i n f e r i o r " races, particularly those of African descent, were examined and measured, w i t h investigators once again believing that p r o o f of inferiority w o u l d be m a r k e d on their g e n i t a l s .

FIGURE

5.10

SOURCE:

Robert

Latou

G e o r g e W.

Henry

( e d . ) , Sex

H o e b e r , 1941), 1102.

28

Typical sex variant vulva and average

Dickinson,

"The

Gynecology

of Homosexuality,"

Variants: A Study of Homosexual Patterns

(New

app.

6,

in

York:

P.

B.

T h e point here is that this epistemology is not a b o u t truth. I am not arguing that the feminist model of the three-fold structures of the clitoris finally uncovered the long submerged truth of the clitoris. N o r am I argu­ ing that feminists were, finally, practicing g o o d science and being objec­ tive. These cartographies were and are fueled by our desire to transform normative heterosexuality's vagina-only attention to pleasure. N o r am I claiming that there were no discourses on the clitoris as a source of sexual pleasure in medical and p o p u l a r literature until feminists and their specu­ lums entered the scene. Indeed, one can find dozens, if not hundreds, of accounts of female o r g a s m resulting from this feminine seat of pleasure in texts as disparate as those written by m i d w i v e s and those penned by pornographers. N o r am I arguing that the speculum w a s never focused on the female vulva. There is, however, a c o m p l e x absence, a g a p that I find important, one often repeated today. W h a t is missing or only sketch­ ily attended to in nonfeminist anatomies, at least w h e n the focus is on the " n o r m a l " rather than the " d e v i a n t , " is the desire to m a p the geographies and functions of the clitoris and our other pleasurable bits. W h a t nonfeminist anatomists sketch seldom goes b e y o n d the identification of this pleasurable (or dangerous) lump of flesh. W h a t I am arguing is that the history of our knowledges-ignorances of the c l i t o r i s — i n d e e d , o u r lived experiences of its beginnings and e n d s — i s part of an e m b o d i e d discourse and history of bodies and pleasures. It is a chapter in the tale of power/ knowledge-ignorance.

THE Who

would

Natalie

want

a

Angier,

ISSUE shotgun

OF

when

Woman:

An

PLEASURE you

can

Intimate

have

a

Geography

semiautomatic?

(1999)

Let me remain a m o m e n t at this site of pleasure. R e m e m b e r w i t h me that until the nineteenth century not only w o m e n ' s desire for sex but the very pleasures they received from it were seen as far greater than those of men. In the w o r d s of Tiresias, he w h o had lived both as a w o m a n and as a m a n , w h e n it c o m e s to the issue of pleasure: If the parts of love's pleasures be divided by ten, Thrice three go to women, one only to men.

29

This image of w o m e n ' s sexuality shifts, at least for certain w o m e n , as we m o v e into the nineteenth century, and w i t h this m o v e , we c a n locate a shift of k n o w l e d g e - i g n o r a n c e . M a n y of our sociological surveys of sexuality, t h o u g h not all, focus on heterosexual sexuality. A l t h o u g h this is far t o o n a r r o w a story to tell if w h a t we w a n t is an account of bodies and pleasures, let me focus on the differences between Tiresias's a b u n d a n t sexual pleasures w h e n em­ bodied as a w o m a n and c o n t e m p o r a r y lived experiences of heterosexual female sexuality. A 1 9 9 4 survey of heterosexual w o m e n and men in the United States between the ages of 18 and 59 reveals that one out of every three w o m e n surveyed reported that she w a s uninterested in sex and one out of every five w o m e n reported that sex provided little pleasure, in both cases double the n u m b e r of men reporting a lack of interest or of pleasure in s e x .

30

Add

to this the fact that almost 25 percent of the w o m e n surveyed reported being unable to reach o r g a s m , in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h 8 percent of men, and we begin to see an impact of k n o w l e d g e - i g n o r a n c e on bodies and plea­ sures. T h e pleasure gap surrounding heterosexual w o m e n ' s and men's first coital experiences is even more startling: 79 percent of men reported that they were certain they had an orgasm during their first sexual experience, while only 7 percent of the w o m e n could so r e p o r t .

31

These are astonishing figures in themselves, but they become all the more startling w h e n set alongside w o m e n ' s multiorgasmic capacity. W o m e n ' s capacity for multiple o r g a s m , t h o u g h taken to be a revelation by contem­ porary scientists, w a s a commonplace in many scientific and popular circles in the past. W h a t w a s once taken to be ordinary k n o w l e d g e of w o m e n ' s more robust sexuality and her greater orgasmic capacity submerged into the mire of ignorance sometime during the turn of the nineteenth century, where it w e n t dormant (or perhaps just pornographic) for about fifty years and then resurfaced in the n e w science of sexuality. W o m a n ' s m u l t i o r g a s m i c c a p a c i t y b e c a m e a subject for c o n t e m p o ­ rary scientific study w h e n Kinsey's 1 9 5 3 study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, revealed that almost half of the w o m e n studied reported the ability to experience multiple orgasms. Shere Hite's 1 9 7 6 report on female sexuality confirmed Kinsey's results. In Hite's survey, 48 percent

of the w o m e n reported that they often required m o r e than one orgasm to be sexually satisfied.

32

W i l l i a m H. M a s t e r s and Virginia G. Johnson

(1966) similarly d o c u m e n t e d w o m e n ' s ability to have m o r e than one or­ gasm w i t h o u t a significant break. T h e y noted that if proper stimulation continues after a w o m a n ' s first c l i m a x , she will in most cases be capable of having additional o r g a s m s — t h e y report between five and s i x — w i t h i n a matter of minutes. M a s t e r s and Johnson also report that w i t h direct clitoral stimulation, such as an electric vibrator, many w o m e n have from twenty to fifty orgasms. Despite having science and all those measuring tools on our side, efforts continue to suppress this bit of k n o w l e d g e . As just one e x a m p l e , D o n a l d S y m o n s , in The Evolution of Human Sexuality ( 1 9 7 9 ) , strikes a typical pose w h e n he assures his readers that the multiply orgasmic w o m a n "is to be found primarily, if not exclusively, in the ideology of feminism, the hopes of b o y s , and the fears of m e n . "

3 3

Foucault w a r n e d us a w a y from desire as a category implicated in the construction of h u m a n identities and cultures, but urged a greater atten­ tion to pleasure. His History of Sexuality (1990) documents the uses of pleasure in the practices of normalizing p o w e r and includes pleasure, not just desire, as fundamental to understanding the genealogy of sexuality. But Foucault's a c c o u n t also includes a creative, indeed resistant, aspect of pleasure, in w h i c h pleasure could be a site for resisting sexual normaliza­ tion and a wellspring for enriching the art of l i v i n g .

34

At a time w h e n p o p u l a r culture and science alike are convinced of men's greater sexual drives, w h e n a long-entrenched fear of the p o w e r of w o m e n ' s sexuality is still in the b a c k g r o u n d , w h e n a clear double standard of sexuality disciplines w o m e n and men alike, and w h e n heterosexuality remains the normalized sexuality, it is perhaps no surprise that far more w o m e n than m e n are dissatisfied w h e n it comes to the issue of pleasure. But I desire to flesh out pleasure in w a y s that have the potential to re­ sist this type of n o r m a l i z a t i o n . As a first step, I stand Tiresias alongside the nineteenth century's passionless w o m a n and the twentieth century's preorgasmic but sexually active w o m a n , and by c o m i n g to understand the politics of k n o w l e d g e - i g n o r a n c e behind their presence, i n v o k e the female o r g a s m .

THE

EITHER/OR

OF

W O M E N ' S

O R G A S M S

Let me return to my history of the clitoris. In this section I will complicate this study of the epistemology of ignorance-knowledge regarding female sexuality by bringing function to f o r m , turning my attention to accounts of the role of the clitoris in female o r g a s m . To understand the almost complete circumcision of female orgasmic potentiality effected by label­ ing practically any clitoral " e x c i t a b i l i t y " deviant during the first half of the twentieth century, we must turn to Freud. T h e longest-playing of the orgasm debates in the twentieth century began w i t h Freud's declaration of not one but t w o types of orgasm: the vaginally adult kind and her im­ mature kid sister, the clitoral o r g a s m .

35

From this one little act of counting

to t w o erupted a huge, n o w almost century-long, debate. Let me begin my account by returning to R e y n a l d u s C o l u m b u s . W h i l e C o l u m b u s locates the clitoris inaccurately, the link he makes between it and sexual pleasure m a r k a m o v e m e n t I w o u l d like us to remember. His account bears repeating. He tells us that he discovered " p r o t u b e r a n c e s , emerging from the uterus near that opening w h i c h is called the m o u t h of the w o m b " that were, in his w o r d s , "the seat of w o m e n ' s delight," w h i c h w h e n rubbed or touched "semen swifter than air flows this w a y and that on a c c o u n t of the pleasure even w i t h them u n w i l l i n g . "

36

C o l u m b u s func­

tions according to an older e c o n o m y in w h i c h w o m e n ' s pleasure in sex mattered because it w a s needed for conception. W h i l e still m a r k e d by a male e c o n o m y — b o t h in representation ("it s h o w s itself a sort of male m e m b e r " ) and in function ("even w i t h them u n w i l l i n g " ) — C o l u m b u s ' s depiction of the clitoris evinces another economy, one that dissolves the b o u n d a r y between inside and out, between the socalled external and internal genitalia. It also provides an interesting ex­ ample of h o w k n o w l e d g e once found can be lost. C o l u m b u s , a m a n of his time, viewed female genitalia as h o m o l o g o u s to male genitalia but marked by a lack of heat that resulted in their remaining, for the most part, inside the body. In identifying a " p r o t u b e r a n c e " that emerges from the uterus, C o l u m b u s a c k n o w l e d g e d that it, like the penis, g r e w in size w h e n aroused, but he did not limit female pleasure to it. He a c k n o w l e d g e d other sites of pleasure, such as "the circular folds of the cervix that cause a friction from w h i c h lovers experience wonderful pleasure" and the various bits of flesh

closer to the vulva by which "pleasure or delight in intercourse is not a little increased."

37

C o l u m b u s ' s geography described various linked structures as

contributing to w o m e n ' s pleasure, but he had no desire to determine where one part or o r g a s m stops and another begins. N o r w a s there a desire to locate pleasure in a clearly defined site. Protuberances, folds, and bits of flesh alike are, for C o l u m b u s , that from w h i c h pleasure flows. W h a t C o l u m b u s had put together, Freud w o u l d cast asunder. W h i l e Freud retained a remnant of the one-sex m o d e l , arguing that " p o r t i o n s of the male sexual apparatus also appear in w o m e n ' s bodies, t h o u g h in an atrophied state," he argues for an important psychical difference between the pleasures of men and those of w o m e n .

3 8

In b o y s , there is a relatively

unproblematic "accession of l i b i d o " during puberty. In girls, however, he tells us that there is "a fresh w a v e of repression in w h i c h it is precisely clitoroidal sexuality that is e f f e c t e d . "

39

T h a t is, to become a w o m a n the

girl must a b a n d o n the pleasures of the clitoris and discover those of the vagina. " W h e n erotogenic susceptibility to stimulation has been success­ fully transferred by a w o m a n from the clitoris to the vaginal orifice, it implies that she has adopted a n e w leading zone for the purposes of her later sexual a c t i v i t y . "

40

This is an e c o n o m y that requires a level of differ­

entiation not found in C o l u m b u s . Freud's is a m a p of the female genitals that requires that we can, and d o , distinguish between the clitoris and all its bits, on the one hand, and the vagina and its bits of flesh on the other. A n d it is here, despite the trace of the one-sex model, that Freud imposes a t w o - s e x e c o n o m y that divides the clitoris from the other bits. But he does so to perpetuate an even older e c o n o m y that perceives the purpose of female pleasure, w h e n properly channeled, to be heterosexual repro­ duction. Indeed, "the intensification of the brake u p o n sexuality brought a b o u t by pubertal repression in w o m e n serves as a stimulus to the libido of men and causes an increase in its a c t i v i t y . "

41

In other w o r d s , repressed

female sexuality increases male desire—quite a modern trope. T h e story, of c o u r s e , shifts in the 1 9 6 0 s w i t h the t o o l s of M a s t e r s and Johnson and the politics of feminism. M a s t e r s and J o h n s o n ( 1 9 6 6 ) rejected the purported distinction b e t w e e n clitoral and v a g i n a l o r g a s m , a r g u i n g that p h y s i o l o g i c a l l y s p e a k i n g there w a s o n l y one k i n d o f or­ g a s m . Peering t h r o u g h their s p e c u l u m s , they c o n c l u d e d that allegedly

vaginal o r g a s m s , w h i c h they revealingly identified as those experienced during intercourse (notice the functionality of the definition), w e r e no different than allegedly clitoral o r g a s m s , for b o t h resulted from the same p h e n o m e n o n , namely clitoral stimulation. We are told that penile coital thrusting d r a w s the clitoral h o o d back and forth against the clitoris and vaginal pressure heightens b l o o d flow in the clitoris, further setting the stage for o r g a s m . These findings w e r e , and still are, met w i t h skepticism in the scientific community, but not in the feminist community. F o l l o w i n g closely on the heels of M a s t e r s and Johnson's p r o n o u n c e m e n t s and the second w a v e of feminism that hit in the late 1 9 6 0 s , feminist theorists such as A n n K o e d t and A l e x Shulman insisted that we w o m e n should all " t h i n k clitoris" and reject the m y t h of the vaginal o r g a s m .

42

Their concern w a s to discredit

the vaginal o r g a s m and the years of pressure placed on w o m e n w h o did not have the "right k i n d . " But to m a k e the case, a frustrating reversal oc­ curred where only the clitoris w a s the source of s e n s a t i o n — a n d remember we do not yet have the enlarged Our Bodies, Ourselves (1984) concep­ tion of the clitoris to turn t o . Shulman tells us that the vagina has so little sensation that " w o m e n c o m m o n l y w e a r a diaphragm or t a m p o n in it, and even undergo surgery on it, w i t h o u t feeling any sensation at a l l . "

4 3

And

although Shulman does not deny that some w o m e n might sometimes ex­ perience o r g a s m through intercourse, for after all some w o m e n , she tells us, sometimes experience o r g a s m t h r o u g h breast stimulation or mental stimulation or even t h r o u g h dreams, she does disparage the level of plea­ sure intercourse can provide: " M a s t e r s and Johnson observe that the cli­ toris is automatically 'stimulated' in intercourse since the h o o d covering the clitoris is pulled over the clitoris w i t h each thrust of the penis in the v a g i n a — m u c h , I suppose, as a penis is automatically 'stimulated' by a man's underwear w h e n e v e r he takes a step. I wonder, however, if either is erotically stimulating by itself."

44

Despite Masters and Johnson and feminist slogans, the days of vagi­ nal o r g a s m are not (yet) numbered. Josephine Singer and Irving Singer ( 1 9 7 2 ) , for e x a m p l e , argue that there are still t w o types of orgasms, the vulval and the uterine.

45

T h e y contend that w h a t Masters and Johnson

observed w e r e vulval o r g a s m s , w h i c h remain the same despite the source

of stimulation, clitoral or vaginal. But they argue that the uterine o r g a s m occurs only in response to deep thrusting against the cervix, w h i c h slightly displaces the uterus and stimulates the tissues that cover the a b d o m i n a l organs. This v i e w of t w o types of o r g a s m has received additional support from scientists w h o argue that orgasms that result from deep cervical or uterine stimulation are controlled by a different neural p a t h w a y and p r o ­ duce different subjective experiences than do those generated t h r o u g h clitoral s t i m u l a t i o n .

46

O n e response to the orgasm debates is to ask w h a t keeps them so en­ trenched? As breasts and other nongenital bits attest t o , the origins of or­ gasms are a c o m p l e x matter. W h y the persistence in counting even w h e n we are reassured (repeatedly) that they are all equally " g o o d " ?

4 7

Though I

have no d o u b t that the answer to this question is c o m p l e x , let me explore t w o of its c o m p o n e n t s : the g e o g r a p h y of the genitals and the persistence of the belief that the function of sex is reproduction. T h o s e w h o sketch anatomical renditions of male and female genitals in­ sist on making a distinction between internal and external genitalia. There is a factor of arbitrariness clearly marked on this distinction. For males, the penis is wholly an external genital, but testicles get divided in t w o , with the scrotum being listed as an external sex organ and the testes as internal. Since a lot of bits of the penis are internal, one w o n d e r s w h y we even bother to make this distinction. But when it comes to the analogous division of female genitals, there is more than arbitrariness at play. The politics of reproduction gets written explicitly into this division, for in the female another descrip­ tive phrase for the internal female sex organs is "the female reproductive system."

48

This division reinforces the orgasm debates and provides a w a y

to " m a k e sense" of the claim that there are different kinds of orgasms, those that originate from outside and those from inside. W h a t we have here is an instance of the politics of k n o w l e d g e - i g n o ­ rance. T h i s division of female genitals evinces the persistence of a poli­ tics of v i e w i n g reproduction as central to sexuality, so that it becomes a defining element in the demarcation of female genitalia. If y o u set sail by C o l u m b u s ' s m a p , y o u w o u l d not arrive at the planned destination. Still, like his earlier navigator namesake, where y o u do arrive is interesting t o o . Seeing orgasm and reproduction as a piece of a whole cloth, C o l u m b u s had

no desire to demarcate the clitoris as " e x t e r n a l " and hence not part of the female reproductive system. But once the clitoris and its orgasmic pleasures were seen as inessential to reproduction, few anatomists s a w any value in charting its contours and it w a s relegated into that little undifferentiated nub that could easily be deemed " e x t e r n a l " and " n o n r e p r o d u c t i v e , " w i t h the " t r u e " genitals, those that matter, being the internal g e n i t a l i a .

49

T h i s politics of k n o w l e d g e - i g n o r a n c e is in turn marked by a persistent refusal to admit that the new, feminist-inspired view of female genitals dis­ solves the basis for the internal/external divide, for, on its view, the clitoris is a l w a y s already both. A n d once one has this richer understanding of all the bits involved in female o r g a s m , and little political c o m m i t m e n t to re­ taining a teleology of reproduction in accounts of pleasure, then nothing turns on demarcating types of o r g a s m based on physiological location. In Women's Experience of Sex ( 1 9 8 5 ) , Sheila Kitzinger sums up this v i e w thusly: " A s k i n g whether o r g a s m is in the clitoris or in the vagina is really the w r o n g q u e s t i o n . "

50

But here, despite feminists' insistence that their ac­

counts were a b o u t t r u t h — " I think that we were revealing the truth. A n d h o w can y o u argue w i t h a n a t o m y ? " — w e find ourselves in that c o m p l e x 5 1

intersection between knowledge-ignorance and power-politics. T h e desire to " c u t nature at its j o i n t s " often requires value-laden, strategic decisions. Feminists cut nature at different joints than do others w h o represent the clitoris because their values concerning the politics of sex differ from the values of nonfeminist anatomists. Perhaps the body speaks, but under­ standing w h a t it says requires interpretation. W h a t we learn from feminist explorations of our genital g e o g r a p h y is t w o f o l d . First, if y o u v i e w the clitoris as an important k n o w l e d g e project, whether because y o u are convinced that orgasm is primarily clitoral and y o u r geographies aim to understand pleasure or because, like C o l u m b u s , y o u think orgasm is central to reproduction and y o u aim to understand reproduction, then y o u will focus far m o r e attention on the structures of the clitoris than if y o u see it as an uninteresting though pleasant nub. W h a t we attend to and w h a t we ignore are often c o m p l e x l y interwoven with values and politics. Second, if y o u discover n e w k n o w l e d g e a b o u t some­ thing others do not take seriously, do not e x p e c t y o u r k n o w l e d g e projects to have much effect. T h e veil of ignorance is not so easily lifted.

SISTERHOOD

IS

POWERFUL

I've talked so far a b o u t scientific v i e w s of h u m a n female o r g a s m , but an­ other w a y to enrich our understanding of this epistemology of ignorancek n o w l e d g e and attend to bodies and pleasures is to include in this account our simian sisters and h o w their stories and ours are w o v e n together in theories of evolution. In m a k i n g this m o v e , I w o u l d like to return to the issue of pleasure and keep in the foreground w h y w o m e n ' s multiple or­ gasmic pleasures are so seldom a c k n o w l e d g e d . Lest one think that only feminist accounts of orgasm are political, one need only l o o k at the or­ g a s m debates in e v o l u t i o n a r y theory to see that nonfeminist a c c o u n t s also w e a r their societal values on their sleeves.

52

First of all, and n o t at all

surprising given w h a t I've already pointed o u t , the typical evolutionary accounts of female sexuality explain all basic aspects of sexuality in terms of reproduction. It is rare to find an a c c o u n t in w h i c h sexuality is treated as an a u t o n o m o u s set of functions and activities only partially explained in terms of reproductive functions. T h e reduction of sexuality to reproduction is well illustrated in primate studies. In reconstructing h o w early man and w o m a n behaved, researchers have generally turned to chimpanzees, with w h o m we shared a c o m m o n an­ cestor a mere 5 million years a g o . Despite our kinship and some important similarities between humans and chimpanzees, such as the long period of infant dependency, social bonds that persist over generations, and the need to learn w h a t to eat and h o w to obtain it, there is also a striking difference, namely, the fact that female chimps have sex only during estrus, w h i c h be­ gins and ends during their fertile period. A d d to this that such occurrences are comparatively rare in a chimpanzee community because females spend most of their adult lives either pregnant or l a c t a t i n g , and the use of chimp 53

sexual behavior as a blueprint for human sexual behavior becomes question­ able. H o w e v e r , one effect of this comparison is to link all sexual behavior, chimpanzee and human alike, to reproductive success. T h e vast majority of chimpanzee sexual behavior occurs during the female fertile period, and thus it is easy to argue that it is linked to reproductive success. But there is another contender for a snapshot of early hominid sexual behavior, the b o n o b o s , w h o also shared that same 5-million-year-old an­ cestor. B o n o b o s , unlike chimpanzees and far more like humans, frequently

separate sex from reproduction, and female b o n o b o s ' sexuality, like the sexuality of female h u m a n s , is not tied to their ovulation cycles. T h o u g h female b o n o b o s have pink genital swellings as do chimps, theirs begin and end w e e k s before and after their fertile periods and last for approximately 70 percent of their cycle. B o n o b o sexuality is not only not linked to fertile periods, but its functions and enactments go far beyond simple reproductive success. B o n o b o s use sex to decrease tensions caused by potential c o m p e ­ tition, typically competition for food. W h e n b o n o b o s find a food source such as a tree filled w i t h ripe fruit, their initial response is a sexual freeplay that calms d o w n the g r o u p before they turn to feeding. Sexual encounters also often follow displays of aggression, especially a m o n g males. After t w o males fight, one will often place his rump against the other's genitals or reach out and stroke the other's penis, again as a w a y to release social tension. Females also use sexual behavior to enhance bonding, both w i t h males and w i t h females. Females, w h o join n e w communities w h e n they reach sexual maturity, will have sex with each member of the g r o u p as a w a y to gain acceptance. Females also maintain sexual relations with other females as a w a y to form alliances that will help ensure access to food and collaborative efforts to control male behavior.

54

Lest this foraging in the jungles of primate sexuality has made it dif­ ficult to f o l l o w the logic of my analysis, my point here is that k n o w l e d g e and ignorance p r o d u c t i o n emerge from values and prior a s s u m p t i o n s concerning proper ends. If we have for centuries insisted that the proper function of sexuality is reproduction, then it is crucial to " c i v i l i z e " it, that is, to put it in service of family values. Given the persistence of the belief that the primary purpose of h u m a n sex is reproduction and, I w o u l d a d d , an equally imbedded fear of female sexuality, it c o m e s as no surprise that our mostly male evolutionary theorists w o u l d pick the chimp over the b o n o b o to model the evolution of h u m a n sexuality. A female chimpanzee m a y have sex w i t h more than one male, but at least she modestly reserves her passions for procreation. Seeing h o w sex fares, it w o u l d be foolhardy to predict that female or­ gasms w o u l d fare any better. A n d indeed, if we turn our attention to e v o ­ lutionary accounts of female orgasms, their existence and function, we find another story of family values. But to understand the plotline of this story,

we have to return to our primate sisters. A l t h o u g h evolutionary theorists have accepted the existence of h u m a n female o r g a s m s , until recently they w a n t e d to m a k e them uniquely h u m a n . In other w o r d s , a l t h o u g h it w a s accepted that male primates exhibit orgasmic responses during ejacula­ tion, most theorists denied that female n o n h u m a n primates experienced o r g a s m , another piece in an epistemology of ignorance. In asking w h y theorists denied our primate sisters their o r g a s m s , let's begin w i t h some of the facts. D o n a l d S y m o n s , in his influential b o o k The Evolution

of Human Sexuality

(1979),

chronicled

the

empirical

data

marshaled by those w h o w o n d e r e d a b o u t such orgasms. He noted that numerous primatologists reported a "clutching r e a c t i o n " in w h i c h female rhesus m o n k e y s grasped the male, but only during the ejaculatory m o u n t , the last of t w o to eight m o u n t s . T h o u g h some argued that the timing of this clutch supported a possible ejaculation-triggering vaginal spasm, oth­ ers denied any such association. O t h e r s studying rhesus m o n k e y s noted rhythmic contractions of thigh muscles and around the base of the tail in females after a number of m o u n t s and thrusts. O t h e r s studying stumptail m o n k e y s noted that females w h o m o u n t other females sometimes exhibit the same behavior patterns that a male stumptail exhibits as he ejaculates, namely "a pause f o l l o w e d by muscular b o d y spasms a c c o m p a n i e d by the characteristic frowning round-mouthed stare expression and the rhythmic expiration v o c a l i z a t i o n . "

55

O t h e r s studying rhesus m o n k e y s found that

after sessions of clitoral and vaginal stimulation some of the m o n k e y s had vaginal contractions. Despite the mounting evidence for nonhuman primate orgasm, Symons concludes: " W h i l e the possibility that n o n h u m a n female m a m m a l s expe­ rience orgasm during heterosexual c o p u l a t i o n remains open, there is no compelling evidence that they d o . "

5 6

He argues that w h a t evidence there

is for n o n h u m a n primate o r g a s m occurs only in " u n n a t u r a l " settings such as laboratories or z o o s in w h i c h primates experience " m o r e intense and varied sexual behavior than occurs in natural c i r c u m s t a n c e s . "

57

Notice

that the only orgasms that c o u n t for Symons are those that occur during heterosexual copulation in so-called natural settings. T h e evidence is n o w turning against the v i e w that o r g a s m is uniquely h u m a n , t h o u g h the debates still rage. A l a n D i x s o n ( 1 9 9 8 ) , for e x a m p l e ,

reports evidence of uterine c o n t r a c t i o n s in female stumptail m a c a q u e s d u r i n g c o p u l a t i o n s w i t h males as w e l l as w h i l e e n g a g i n g in so-called m o u n t i n g b e h a v i o r between f e m a l e s .

58

Studies also d o c u m e n t elevated

heart rates similar to those experienced in h u m a n females during o r g a s m , as well as vaginal contractions, clitoral tumescence, limb spasm, and body tension during n o r m a l bouts of pelvic thrusting. Jane G o o d a l l , I w o u l d a d d , also notes that adolescent female c h i m p a n z e e s laugh softly as they masturbate.

59

D i x s o n concludes that " o r g a s m should therefore be viewed

as a phylogenetically ancient p h e n o m e n o n a m o n g a n t h r o p o i d primates; the capacity to exhibit o r g a s m in the h u m a n female being an inheritance f r o m ape-like a n c e s t o r s . "

60

So, again, w h y the decades of denial of orgasm to our primate sisters in the face of their embodied pleasures? W h a t is the logic of this epistemology of knowledge-ignorance? T h e desire to m a k e the h u m a n female orgasm unique w a s linked to the desire to argue for the so-called pair-bond, that is, m o n o g a m o u s heterosexual c o u p l i n g — t h e family values script. Western sexual values and the sexual antics of b o n o b o s are a b o u t as far afield from each other as they can get, but even the more sexually sedate chimpanzee female mates with multiple partners during her estrus. Evolutionary theorists opted instead for a picture right out of a N o r m a n R o c k w e l l painting, the idea being that orgasm evolved by sexual selection in the human female to facilitate bonding and long-term relationships between the sexes. A c c o r d ­ ing to D a v i d Barash, " s e x may be such a device [to sustain the pair-bond], selected to be pleasurable for its o w n sake, in addition to its procreative function. T h i s w o u l d help explain w h y the female o r g a s m seems to be unique to h u m a n s . "

61

Female o r g a s m here serves as a female's reward and

motivation to engage in frequent intercourse, but only with one partner, which helps cement the pair-bond, ensures reproduction, and increases male cooperation and assistance w i t h rearing offspring. Here we see h o w an epistemology of ignorance surrounding female orgasms, in this case those of our simian sisters, can be put in the service of family values. There are, as y o u might suspect, a number of problems w i t h this story. Females of other primate species, such as g i b b o n s , w h o do not exhibit o b v i o u s signs of female o r g a s m are primarily m o n o g a m o u s . But the the­ ory also associates o r g a s m with intercourse in assuming that orgasm is a

r e w a r d for engaging in frequent intercourse. In both h u m a n s and m a n y n o n h u m a n primates, heterosexual intercourse is a far less reliable path to orgasm than other types of genital stimulation. Orgasm through intercourse alone and apart from any additional clitoral stimulation is relatively rare for h u m a n females: somewhere between 20 to 3 5 percent of w o m e n in the United States report a l w a y s or almost a l w a y s experiencing o r g a s m from intercourse a l o n e .

62

Evolutionary theorists w a n t to w e d the b o n o b o - l i k e

social bonding function of sexuality to gibbon-like m o n o g a m y , but with­ out attending to w h e n we h u m a n w o m e n are laughing softly. N o w introduce h u m a n female multiorgasmic capacity into the e v o ­ lutionary picture, and the pair-bond story becomes even less credible, a patriarchal pipe dream, if y o u will. T h e h u m a n female stands before us, lacking any visible sign of estrus and a capacity for far more orgasmic pleasure than the h u m a n male. N o w c o m p a r e this to the oft-told evolu­ tionary tale a b o u t the differences in the so-called cost of sex: The unconscious evolutionary logic of males and females differs. Physiologi­ cally, if a man mated with a different woman every night he could sire thousands of children, whereas an equally promiscuous woman could bear at most some twenty children during her adult life. The dramatic variance in reproductive po­ tential between males and females suggests that human males, unlike females, may have benefited significantly by copulating with as many lovers as possible. Thus, in males at least, the desire for "sex for sex's sake," the taste for sex with­ out emotional attachment, very likely has been genetically reinforced.

63

W h e r e this tale goes a w r y yet again reflects the politics of ignorance. Let's begin by checking out these numbers. First of all, men do n o t have unlimited sperm supplies. T h e daily h u m a n sperm p r o d u c t i o n is a b o u t 185 million sperm per day and most men ejaculate s o m e w h e r e between 1 5 0 and 360 million sperm. A man's sperm c o u n t drops by 72 percent if he ejaculates more than once a day, and ejaculating more than 3.5 times a w e e k significantly decreases total sperm supplies, c o m p r o m i s i n g fertil­ ity.

64

N o w remember he is consorting w i t h females w h o s h o w no visible

signs of fertility and, if we accept the " s e x for sex's s a k e " hypothesis, is competing with many other males. Assuming a generous w i n d o w of 5 days in a 28-day cycle where fertilization is possible, then, even assuming that

the male restricts all his ejaculations to intercourse and assuming he does n o t go over the 3.5 ejaculations per w e e k to keep his sperm c o u n t up to peak performance, but a l l o w i n g that he mates r a n d o m l y with differ­ ent females, it is unlikely that any of his 14 ejaculations per m o n t h will result in conception. N o w add to this the supposition that other males, given their projected promiscuity, m a y also be having sex w i t h the same females. T h i s requires that we add sperm competition to the picture, yet again reducing male reproductive p o t e n t i a l .

65

T h e facts, it seems, m a k e

the dramatic variance in reproductive potential postulated between males and females highly questionable. N o w stand this male w h o s e ejaculations c a n n o t go over 3.5 per w e e k w i t h o u t reducing reproductive efficacy alongside the female w h o is capa­ ble of twenty to fifty orgasms in each of her sexual encounters. O n e w a y to retell this story is to a c c o u n t for the evolutionary advantage of female orgasmic capacity as an inducement to copulate w i t h a variety of males rather than one partner and thus p r o m o t e sperm competition. But another w a y to retell this story is to break sex off from its exclusively reproductive role and a c k n o w l e d g e that sex has other functions. F o l l o w i n g the antics of the b o n o b o s , we might see female sexual potency as a means of assuring societal harmony and diffusing tensions or as a w a y to ensure the assistance of others, and not just male others, in procuring food and assisting in the care of offspring. But these are stories that are very seldom told. My point in all this is not to argue for the superiority of my " w h a t if" story of h u m a n sexual evolution, but to point out as clearly as I can the dramatic suppression of female orgasmic capacity in current evolutionary accounts. H u m a n w o m e n ' s orgasms are not denied, but they are carefully cultivated to avoid rupturing certain societal scripts. Returning to the issue of pleasure once again, I w o u l d ask w h a t we might discover a b o u t bodies and pleasures if we cultivated our female sexuality t h r o u g h scripts from different disciplinary practices.

B O D I E S

A N D

PLEASURES

I return to the figure of Tiresias, n o w standing beside a female b o n o b o , a n d a d d a third to this g a t h e r i n g , A n n i e S p r i n k l e , p o r n - s t a r - t u r n e d performance-artist/sex-educator. If bodies and pleasures are to be seen

as a resource, it is important not to think that our goal is to find those pleasures that are free from sexual normalization, free from disciplinary practices. Here I follow LaDelle M c W h o r t e r , w h o claims that "instead of refusing normalization outright, we need to learn w a y s to use the p o w e r of its disciplines to propel us in n e w directions." T h o u g h we cannot simply remove ourselves from disciplinary practices, she argues that it is possible to affirm " d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h o u t affirming docility, [through] affirming the free, open playfulness of h u m a n possibility within regimes of sexual­ ity w i t h o u t getting stuck in or s u c c u m b i n g to any one sexual discourse or formation."

66

M c W h o r t e r , f o l l o w i n g Foucault, suggests that one path to

this playfulness is to deliberately separate practice from goal and simply engage in disciplinary practices for their o w n sake, for the pleasures they bring, rather than for some purpose beyond them. " W h a t if we used our capacities for temporal development not for preparation for some task b e y o n d that development but for the purpose of development itself, in­ cluding the development of our capacities for pleasure? W h a t if we used pleasure rather than pain as our primary disciplinary t o o l ? "

6 7

Following

Foucault, w h a t we must w o r k on "is not so much to liberate our desires but to m a k e ourselves infinitely more susceptible to p l e a s u r e . "

68

Annie Sprinkle, in her o n e - w o m a n show, " H e r s t o r y of Porn: Reel to R e a l , " describes the n e w direction her w o r k t o o k in the mid-1980s w h e n she devoted her talents to displaying the beauty of sex and the undiscovered p o w e r of orgasms. " S o m e people discover Jesus and w a n t to spread the w o r d . I discovered orgasms and w a n t to spread the w o r d . " Sprinkle's n e w productions attempt to refocus attention from p o w e r to pleasure. "There's a lot of people w h o talk a b o u t violence, rape, and abuse. But, there's not a lot of people that talk a b o u t pleasure, bliss, o r g a s m , and e c s t a s y . "

69

Sprin­

kle's w o r k has transformed over time. At one point her performances fo­ cused attention on female orgasmic ejaculations, providing audiences with sights seldom before seen on stage and ones that were, as the title of her performance explains, real, not reel. She has also advocated and really per­ formed the nongenital breath or energy orgasm in w h i c h one " c a n simply lie d o w n , take a few breaths, and go into an orgasmic state." Sprinkle is not a d v o c a t i n g a n e w h o m o l o g o u s model of female or­ g a s m — w o m e n ejaculate t o o — o r an ultimate radical feminist rejection

of penetrative sex. Rather than setting up n e w disciplinary practices w i t h clearly defined markers between " g o o d " feminist sex and " b a d " nonfemi­ nist sex, Sprinkle explores pleasure and refers to herself as a " m e t a m o r ­ p h o s e x u a l . " I am not here claiming that Sprinkle's pleasures are outside sexual normalization, but I do think she stands before us as one w h o ex­ plores pleasure for its o w n sake. I offer her pleasures as an e x a m p l e of h o w w e might, i n M c W h o r t e r ' s w o r d s , "live our bodies a s w h o w e are, to intensify our experiences of bodiliness and to think from our bodies, if we are g o i n g to push back against the n a r r o w confines of the normalizing p o w e r s that constrict our f r e e d o m . "

70

Sprinkle's pleasures are themselves part of disciplinary practices. It is important if we go the w a y of pleasure that we not desire pleasures that escape power. For Sprinkle's b o d y and pleasures are situated in economies partially shaped by the feminist speculum. A more complete story w o u l d situate Sprinkle in the decades of practices of the feminist health move­ ment and feminist efforts to take back our bodies and our sexualities. This pleasurable a c c o u n t I must leave for another time. Here I will simply tan­ talize by repeating Sprinkle's gospel that we return to our bodies and to our o r g a s m s , and spread the w o r d .

C O N C L U S I O N

It comes as no surprise that there is often a correlation between knowledge and pleasure. T h e feminist quest to enhance k n o w l e d g e a b o u t w o m e n ' s bodies and their sexual experiences had as its goal the enhancement of w o m e n ' s pleasures. As should n o w be clear, ignorance and pleasure are complexly interrelated. Indeed the old adage that "ignorance is bliss" takes on n e w meanings w h e n read t h r o u g h the lens of an epistemology attentive to both k n o w l e d g e and ignorance. W h o s e pleasures were enhanced by ig­ norance and w h o s e were suppressed by k n o w l e d g e are c o m p l e x questions that must be asked repeatedly in any study of the science of sexuality. My goal in this chapter w a s t w o f o l d . First, I w a n t e d to share a genu­ ine fascination w i t h the study of the science of sexuality, particularly in relation to female sexuality. W h i l e much effort has g o n e into studying the formation of sexual identities, far less has been devoted to the science of sexuality. W h i l e I do not w a n t to suggest that this aspect of sexual science

or our sexual experiences are divorced from the constructions of sexual identities, I do believe that a fascination w i t h the latter has deferred full attention from the former. W h i l e sexual identity issues will a l w a y s be an aspect of any study of the science of sexuality, it is my conviction that an inclusion of sexuality will highlight other axes of power. My second goal w a s to begin to outline the importance and p o w e r of attending to w h a t we do not k n o w and the power-politics of such igno­ rances. A l t h o u g h my account is preliminary and suggestive, I have pre­ sented the f o l l o w i n g claims: • A n y complete epistemology must include a study of i g n o r a n c e , not just k n o w l e d g e . I g n o r a n c e — f a r from being a simple, innocent lack of k n o w l e d g e — i s a c o m p l e x p h e n o m e n o n , w h i c h , like k n o w l e d g e , is interrelated w i t h power. For example, ignorance is frequently constructed, and it is linked to issues of cognitive authority, trust, doubt, silencing, and so forth. •

W h i l e m a n y feminist science studies theorists have embraced the in­ terrelationship of k n o w l e d g e and values, we must also see the w a y s in w h i c h i g n o r a n c e , t o o , is so interrelated.

•

T h e study of ignorance c a n provide a lens for the values at w o r k in o u r k n o w l e d g e practices.

•

We should not assume that the epistemic tools we have developed for the study of k n o w l e d g e or the theories we have developed c o n c e r n i n g k n o w l e d g e practices will transfer to the study of ignorance. EPILOGUE

Inanna placed the shugurra, the crown of the steppe, on her head. She went to the sheepfold, to the shepherd. She leaned back against the apple tree. When she leaned against the apple tree, her vulva was wondrous to behold. Rejoicing at her wondrous vulva, the young woman Inanna applauded herself.

71

I hope by n o w y o u are laughing softly w i t h me. Lean back against the apple tree. Feel the delicate fire running under y o u r skin. O u r vulvae are w o n d r o u s to behold.

NOTES T h i s essay benefited

from

helpful

suggestions

from

Lynn

Hankinson Nelson and

Alison

Wylie. 1.

D a v i d Bloor, K n o w l e d g e a n d Social I m a g e r y ( L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e and K e g a n Paul,

1976). 2.

I c h o o s e t o e m p l o y t h e p h r a s e " e p i s t e m o l o g i e s o f i g n o r a n c e " d e s p i t e its p o t e n t i a l

a w k w a r d n e s s (theories o f k n o w l e d g e o f i g n o r a n c e ) for a n u m b e r o f r e a s o n s . O n e a l t e r n a t i v e t e r m , a g n o i o l o g y , h a s h i s t o r i e s I h a v e n o d e s i r e t o i n v o k e . First e m p l o y e d b y J a m e s F r e d e r i c k Ferrier ( 1 8 5 4 ) t o refute W i l l i a m H a m i l t o n ' s ( 1 8 5 8 - 1 8 6 0 ) thesis o f the u n k n o w a b l e n e s s o f the A b s o l u t e R e a l i t y , Ferrier posits i g n o r a n c e a s p r o p e r l y a t t r i b u t a b l e o n l y t o a n a b s e n c e o r lack o f k n o w l e d g e o f t h a t w h i c h i t i s p o s s i b l e for u s t o k n o w a n d p r e c l u d e s the t e r m i g n o r a n c e from b e i n g a p p l i e d to a n y t h i n g t h a t is unintelligible or self-contradictory. Ferrier used the term a g n o i o l o g y to distinguish w h a t w a s truly k n o w a b l e — a n d thus the proper subject

matter

of e p i s t e m o l o g y — f r o m

that which

was

unknowable. James

F.

Ferrier,

Institutes o f M e t a p h y s i c ( E d i n b u r g h : B l a c k w o o d , 1 8 5 4 ) , 5 3 6 ; W i l l i a m H a m i l t o n , " L e c t u r e s on Metaphysics and Logic," Thoemmes,

in

W o r k s of William H a m i l t o n , ed.

Savina Tropea

(Bristol:

1858-1860/2.001).

T h e term a g n o i o l o g y has been resuscitated by Keith Lehrer ( 1 9 9 0 ) as part of an a r g u m e n t d e m o n s t r a t i n g that skepticism has not been p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y refuted; he argues that the possible t r u t h o f the s k e p t i c a l h y p o t h e s i s entails t h a t w e c a n n e v e r a c h i e v e c o m p l e t e l y justified true belief. H e n c e , L e h r e r c o n c l u d e s t h a t w e d o n o t k n o w a n y t h i n g , e v e n t h a t w e d o n o t k n o w a n y t h i n g . H i s p o i n t is that rational belief a n d a c t i o n do not require refuting the skeptical h y p o t h e s i s , nor d o t h e y need the v a l i d a t i n g s t a m p o f " k n o w l e d g e . " K e i t h Lehrer, T h e o r y o f K n o w l e d g e (Boulder, C O : W e s t v i e w , 1 9 9 0 ) . W h i l e a g n o t o l o g y d o e s n o t carry this history, I w i s h to retain the rhetorical strength o f " e p i s t e m o l o g y " w h e n i n v e s t i g a t i n g i g n o r a n c e . T o o often, a s e v i d e n c e d b y b o t h Ferrier a n d L e h r e r , i g n o r a n c e i s o n l y a v e h i c l e t o r e v e a l t h e p r o p e r w o r k i n g s o f k n o w l e d g e or, i n t h e c a s e o f L e h r e r , r a t i o n a l b e l i e f a n d a c t i o n . I g n o r a n c e itself i s n o t i n t e r r o g a t e d b u t i s s e t up as the b a c k g r o u n d against w h i c h o n e unfurls enriched

knowledge.

It is my desire to

retain a f o c u s on i g n o r a n c e , to f o r e g r o u n d i g n o r a n c e as a l o c a t i o n for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the w o r k i n g s of p o w e r . Just as we h a v e epistemology/ies of science, of religion, a n d so o n , I w i s h t o a r g u e for a n e p i s t e m o l o g y o f t h e c o m p l e x p h e n o m e n o n o f i g n o r a n c e a s w e l l a s t o suggest that no theory of k n o w l e d g e is complete that ignores ignorance. 3 . R o b e r t N . Proctor, C a n c e r Wars: H o w Politics Shapes

What

We K n o w and Don't

K n o w a b o u t C a n c e r ( N e w Y o r k : Basic B o o k s , 1 9 9 5 ) , 8 . 4.

M a r i l y n Frye, " O n Being White: T h i n k i n g t o w a r d a Feminist Understanding of Race

a n d R a c e S u p r e m a c y , " i n T h e Politics o f Reality: E s s a y s i n Feminist T h e o r y (Berkeley, C A : C r o s s i n g Press,

1983), 118.

5. C h a r l e s S. M i l l s , T h e R a c i a l C o n t r a c t (Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press, 1 9 9 7 ) , 18. 6. Eve K o s o f s k y S e d g w i c k , E p i s t e m o l o g y of the C l o s e t (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1 9 9 0 ) , 5. 7.

Sandra

Harding,

Is Science Multi-Cultural? Postcolonialisms,

E p i s t e m o l o g i e s ( B l o o m i n g t o n : Indiana University Press,

Feminisms,

and

1998); Nancy Tuana, "Re-Valuing

Science," in Feminism, Science, a n d the P h i l o s o p h y of Science, eds. Lynn H a n k i n s o n N e l s o n and Jack N e l s o n (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 1996).

8. I w i l l use this p a r t i c u l a r rhetorical f o r m b o t h to visually r e m i n d readers of F o u c a u l t ' s notion of power/knowledge (1980) and to add to it my emphasis on ignorance. I am not here c l a i m i n g t h a t F o u c a u l t did n o t u n d e r s t a n d

h o w the w o r k i n g s o f p o w e r / k n o w l e d g e

served to suppress k n o w l e d g e practices, but w i t h o u t c o n t e m p o r a r y philosophical emphasis on w h a t we do k n o w , I think the constant reminder to attend to w h a t we do not k n o w is crucial. W i t h o u t the reminder, the politics of i g n o r a n c e are t o o often erased. M i c h e l F o u c a u l t , P o w e r / K n o w l e d g e : Selected Interviews a n d O t h e r Writings, 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 7 , ed. and trans. C o l i n G o r d o n ( N e w York: Pantheon, 1980). 9 . M i c h e l Foucault, T h e H i s t o r y o f Sexuality, V o l u m e 1 : A n Introduction, trans. R o b e r t Hurley ( N e w York: R a n d o m House, 1990), 56. 10. This conception of bodily being w a s developed extensively in N a n c y Tuana, "Fleshing Gender,

S e x i n g the

Body:

Refiguring the

Sex/Gender

Proceedings, Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 35

Distinction,"

Spindel Conference

(1996); Tuana, "Material Locations:

An Interactionist Alternative to Realism/Social C o n s t r u c t i v i s m , " in Engendering Rationalities, eds. N a n c y T u a n a a n d Sandra M o r g e n ( B l o o m i n g t o n : Indiana University Press, 2 0 0 1 ) . 11.

M c W h o r t e r c o n v i n c i n g l y (and p l e a s u r a b l y ) a r g u e s t h a t a n e g l e c t e d a s p e c t o f F o u c a u l t ' s

p h i l o s o p h y i s his a c c o u n t o f p l e a s u r e a s c r e a t i v e a n d a s a r e s o u r c e f o r p o l i t i c a l r e s i s t a n c e . M y use o f F o u c a u l t i n this c h a p t e r o w e s m u c h t o her r e a d i n g . L a D e l l e M c W h o r t e r , B o d i e s &

Pleasures:

F o u c a u l t a n d the

Politics

of Sexual Normalization

(Bloomington:

Indiana

University Press, 1 9 9 9 ) . 12.

It is i m p o r t a n t to emphasize that w h a t we do a n d do n o t k n o w is often " l o c a l " to

a p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p or a p a r t i c u l a r culture. I l o c a t e my " w e " in this s e c t i o n as the c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e of laypeople in the U n i t e d States b o t h because the studies a n d surveys that I will e m p l o y w e r e limited t o this g r o u p a n d i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f the fact t h a t k n o w l e d g e - i g n o r a n c e a b o u t w o m e n ' s sexuality varies t r e m e n d o u s l y from o n e culture/country to another. 1 3 . T h o m a s L a q u e u r , M a k i n g S e x : B o d y a n d G e n d e r f r o m the G r e e k s t o F r e u d ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d University Press, 1 9 9 0 ) ; C a t h e r i n e G a l l a g h e r a n d T h o m a s L a q u e u r , eds., T h e M a k i n g o f the M o d e r n B o d y : Sexuality a n d Society i n the N i n e t e e n t h

C e n t u r y (Berkeley:

University o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 8 7 ) ; L o n d a Schiebinger, T h e M i n d H a s N o S e x ? W o m e n i n the O r i g i n s o f M o d e r n Science ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d University Press,

1989); N a n c y

T u a n a , T h e L e s s N o b l e S e x : Scientific, R e l i g i o u s , a n d P h i l o s o p h i c a l C o n c e p t i o n s o f W o m e n ' s N a t u r e ( B l o o m i n g t o n : Indiana University Press, 1 9 9 3 ) . 14.

L u c e Irigaray, S p e c u l u m o f the O t h e r W o m a n , trans. Gillian C .

Gill (Ithaca, N Y :

C o r n e l l University Press, 1 9 8 5 ) . 15.

A m b r o i s e Paré,

The Collected

(New York: Milford House, 16.

Works o f A m b r o i s e Paré, trans. T h o m a s J o h n s o n

1968), 130.

T h o m a s L a q u e u r , " O r g a s m , G e n e r a t i o n , a n d the Politics o f R e p r o d u c t i v e B i o l o g y , "

Representations

14

(1986):

1 - 4 1 ; Laqueur,

" A m o r Veneris, vel D u l c e d o A p p e l e t u r , "

in

F r a g m e n t s for a H i s t o r y o f the H u m a n B o d y , ed. M i c h e l Feher ( N e w Y o r k : Z o n e , 1 9 8 9 ) . 17.

R e n a l d u s C o l u m b u s , D e r e a n a t o m i c a (Venice,

" A m o r Veneris," 18. "Clitoral

1559),

1 1 . 1 6 . 4 4 7 - 4 4 8 ; Laqueur,

103.

F o r a c a r e f u l s t u d y o f t h i s p h e n o m e n o n see L i s a J e a n M o o r e a n d A d e l e E . C l a r k e , Conventions

and Transgressions:

Graphic

Representations

in A n a t o m y Texts,

C 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 9 1 , " Feminist Studies 2 1 . 2 ( 1 9 9 5 ) : Z 5 5 - 3 0 1 . 19.

M c A n u l t y a n d Burnette describe the clitoris a s c o m p o s e d o f shaft a n d g l a n s , b u t

m a k e n o effort t o p r o v i d e a n illustration. R i c h a r d D . M c A n u l t y and M . M i c h e l e Burnette, Exploring H u m a n Sexuality: M a k i n g Healthy Decisions (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001),

6 7 . R a t h u s e t a l . ( 2 0 0 2 ) i s t h e f i r s t t e x t b o o k d e s i g n e d for c o l l e g e h u m a n s e x u a l i t y c l a s s r o o m s that includes an illustration of w h a t they

label the

" w h o l e clitoris,"

namely, the shaft,

g l a n s , a n d crura. Spencer A . R a t h u s , Jeffrey S . N e v i d , a n d L o i s F i c h n e r - R a t h u s , H u m a n Sexuality in a

World of Diversity, 5th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2002).

2 0 . M c A n u l t y a n d B u r n e t t e , for e x a m p l e , w h i l e a d m i t t i n g a m o r e c o m p l e x s t r u c t u r e for the clitoris, s i m p l y i n d i c a t e t h a t " t h e g l a n s of the clitoris has a h i g h c o n c e n t r a t i o n of t o u c h a n d temperature receptors a n d s h o u l d be the primary center of sexual stimulation a n d sensation i n the f e m a l e " ( E x p l o r i n g H u m a n S e x u a l i t y , 6 7 ) . Later, w h e n discussing the female sexual r e s p o n s e c y c l e , they s i m p l y note t h a t the d i a m e t e r of the clitoral shaft increases (Exploring H u m a n Sexuality, 21.

Ernst Graffenburg,

Journal of Sexology 3 22.

114).

" T h e R o l e of the Urethra in Female O r g a s m , "

International

(1950): 1 4 5 - 1 4 8 .

I have e x a m i n e d the various editions of Albert R i c h a r d Allgeier and Elizabeth

Rice Allgeier, S e x u a l Interactions ( L e x i n g t o n , M A : D . C . H e a t h , 1 9 8 4 / 1 9 8 8 / 1 9 9 8 ) ; Curtis O . Byer and Louis W . Shainberg, D i m e n s i o n s o f H u m a n Sexuality (Boston: M c G r a w Hill, 1985/1988/1991/1998/2001);

G a r y F. Kelly, Sexuality T o d a y :

The H u m a n Perspective

(Boston: M c G r a w Hill, 1 9 8 8 / 1 9 9 4 / 1 9 9 8 / 2 0 0 1 ) ; M c A n u l t y and Burnette, E x p l o r i n g H u m a n Sexuality; and Rathus, N e v i d , and Fichner-Rathus, H u m a n Sexuality. O n l y Rathus, N e v i d , a n d F i c h n e r - R a t h u s i n c l u d e this e x p a n d e d m o d e l o f the clitoris. B u t w h i l e t h e y p r o v i d e the m o s t detailed discussion of w o m e n ' s m u l t i o r g a s m i c capacity, their i m a g e s a n d discussion of the female response phases are surprisingly t r a d i t i o n a l , w i t h the clitoris o n c e a g a i n relegated to a mere n u b . 2 3 . N a n c y T u a n a , " T h e W e a k e r Seed: T h e Sexist Bias o f R e p r o d u c t i v e T h e o r y , " H y p a t i a : A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 3.1 (1988): 3 5 - 3 9 ; Tuana, T h e Less N o b l e Sex. 24. Joan C a d d e n , M e a n i n g s o f Sex Difference i n the M i d d l e A g e s : Medicine, Science, a n d C u l t u r e ( C a m b r i d g e , U K : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1 9 9 3 ) , 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 . 25.

I s u p p o r t these claims in my b o o k , T h e Less N o b l e Sex.

2 6 . T h e reference here i s t o H e s i o d ' s d e p i c t i o n o f the c r e a t i o n o f t h e first w o m a n , P a n d o r a , i n W o r k s a n d D a y s . A f t e r she w a s m o l d e d i n the s h a p e o f a g o d d e s s b y H e p h a i s t o s , Z e u s ordered A p h r o d i t e t o b e q u e a t h t o her " s t i n g i n g desire a n d l i m b - g n a w i n g p a s s i o n . " H e s i o d , Theogony,

Works a n d D a y s , a n d T h e Shield, trans. A p o s t o l o s Athanassakis (Baltimore:

J o h n s H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 8 3 ) , p . 6 6 , lines 6 6 - 6 7 . 27.

A s just o n e o f literally t h o u s a n d s

of e x a m p l e s of the v i e w that w o m e n ' s greater

s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o s e x u a l t e m p t a t i o n r e q u i r e s c o n t r o l , I refer t h e r e a d e r t o D a v i d H u m e ' s ( 1 9 7 8 ) discussion of chastity and modesty. H u m e argues that w o m e n have such a strong t e m p t a t i o n t o infidelity t h a t the o n l y w a y t o reassure m e n t h a t the children their w i v e s b e a r are their o w n b i o l o g i c a l offspring is for s o c i e t y to " a t t a c h a p e c u l i a r d e g r e e of s h a m e to their i n f i d e l i t y , a b o v e w h a t a r i s e s m e r e l y f r o m its i n j u s t i c e " ; a l s o , b e c a u s e w o m e n are p a r t i c u l a r l y a p t to o v e r l o o k remote motives in favor of present t e m p t a t i o n s , he argues "'tis necessary, therefore, t h a t , beside the i n f a m y a t t e n d i n g s u c h licenses, there s h o u l d b e s o m e p r e c e d i n g b a c k w a r d n e s s o r d r e a d , w h i c h m a y p r e v e n t t h e i r first a p p r o a c h e s , a n d m a y g i v e t h e f e m a l e s e x a r e p u g n a n c e t o all e x p r e s s i o n s , a n d p o s t u r e s , a n d l i b e r t i e s , t h a t h a v e a n i m m e d i a t e r e l a t i o n t o that e n j o y m e n t . " D a v i d H u m e , A Treatise of H u m a n N a t u r e , ed. L e w i s A m h e r s t Selby-Bigge ( N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 7 8 ) , b k . 3 , p t . 2 , sec. 1 2 , p a r a . 6 / 9 , 5 7 1 - 5 7 2 . 28.

Scientists believed that enlarged clitorises w e r e b o t h a result of a n d a reason for

hypersexuality, and b o t h sex deviants a n d racially "inferior" w o m e n were v i e w e d as sexually d e v i a n t b e c a u s e o f h e i g h t e n e d s e x u a l " e x c i t a b i l i t y . " F o r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s e t h e m e s see

A n n e Fausto-Sterling, "Gender, Race, and Nation: T h e C o m p a r a t i v e A n a t o m y of 'Hottentot' W o m e n in Europe, 1 8 1 5 - 1 8 1 7 , " in D e v i a n t Bodies: Critical Perspectives on Difference in Science a n d P o p u l a r Culture, eds. Jennifer Terry and Jacqueline Urla ( B l o o m i n g t o n : Indiana U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 5 ) ; a n d Jennifer Terry, " A n x i o u s S l i p p a g e s b e t w e e n ' U s ' a n d ' T h e m ' : A Brief H i s t o r y o f the Scientific Search for H o m o s e x u a l B o d i e s , " i n D e v i a n t B o d i e s , 29.

Apollodorus,

T h e G o d s a n d H e r o e s o f the G r e e k s :

1995.

The Library of Apollodorus,

trans. M i c h a e l S i m p s o n ( A m h e r s t : U n i v e r s i t y o f M a s s a c h u s e t t s Press, 1 9 7 6 ) , 3 . 6 . 7 . 30.

E d w a r d O. L a u m a n n , John H. G a g n o n , Robert T. Michael, and Stewart Michaels,

The Social

Organization

of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in

the

United States

(Chicago:

University o f C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 9 4 ) . 31.

S u s a n S p r e c h e r , A n i t a B a r b e e , a n d P e p p e r S c h w a r t z , " ' W a s I t G o o d for Y o u , T o o ? ' :

G e n d e r D i f f e r e n c e s i n First S e x u a l I n t e r c o u r s e E x p e r i e n c e , " i n S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y a n d H u m a n Sexuality, ed. R o y F. Baumeister (Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis, 2 0 0 1 ) . 32.

Shere H i t e , T h e H i t e R e p o r t : A N a t i o n w i d e S t u d y o f F e m a l e S e x u a l i t y ( N e w Y o r k :

Dell, 1 9 7 6 ) , 6 0 2 - 6 0 3 . 33.

D o n a l d Symons, T h e Evolution o f H u m a n Sexuality ( N e w York: O x f o r d University

Press, 1 9 7 9 ) , 9 2 . 34.

See M c W h o r t e r ,

Bodies

& Pleasures,

for an

insightful

analysis of the difference

b e t w e e n d e s i r e a n d p l e a s u r e . " T h e a r t o f l i v i n g " is, o f c o u r s e , B e a u v o i r ' s p h r a s e . 35.

Sigmund Freud,

Three E s s a y s o n the T h e o r y o f Sexuality, trans. a n d ed. J a m e s

Strachey ( N e w York: Avon, 1 9 6 2 ) , 1 2 4 . 36.

Columbus, De re anatomica,

37.

C o l u m b u s , D e r e a n a t o m i c a , 1 1 . 1 6 . 4 4 5 ; Laqueur, A m o r Veneris,

11.16.447-448;

Laqueur, A m o r Veneris, 1 0 3 .

38.

Sigmund Freud, "Femininity," in Standard Edition of the C o m p l e t e Psychological

W o r k s , vol. 2 2 , trans. a n d ed. James Strachey ( L o n d o n : H o g a r t h , 39.

105.

1964), 114.

Freud, Three Essays, 123.

40.

Freud, Three Essays, 1 2 4 .

41.

Freud, Three Essays, 1 2 3 .

42.

Ann Koedt,

" T h e M y t h o f the V a g i n a l O r g a s m , " i n N o t e s f r o m the S e c o n d Year:

Women's Liberation, eds. Shulamith Firestone and A n n K o e d t ( N e w York: Radical Feminism, 1970); Alex Shulman,

" O r g a n s and O r g a s m s , "

in

W o m e n in Sexist Society, eds. Vivian

G o r n i c k and Barbara K . M o r a n ( N e w York: N e w A m e r i c a n Library, 1 9 7 1 ) . 43.

Schulman " O r g a n s and Orgasms,"

44.

Schulman, " O r g a n s and Orgasms,"

45.

Josephine Singer and

294.

Irving Singer,

296. "Types of Female O r g a s m , " Journal of Sex

R e s e a r c h 8.4 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : 2 5 5 0 - 2 5 6 7 . 46.

Heli A l z a t e , " V a g i n a l Eroticism: A R e p l i c a t i o n S t u d y , " A r c h i v e s of S e x u a l B e h a v i o r

14.6 (1985):

5 2 9 - 5 3 7 ; J o h n D e l b e r t Perry a n d Beverly W h i p p l e , " P e l v i c M u s c l e Strength

of Female Ejaculators:

Evidence

in Support of a

N e w T h e o r y of O r g a s m , " Journal of Sex

Research 17.1 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 2 2 - 3 9 ; Whipple, "Research Concerning Sexual Response in W o m e n , " The Health Psychologist 17.1 (1995):

16-18.

47.

M c A n u l t y and

Burnette, E x p l o r i n g H u m a n Sexuality,

48.

Rathus, N e v i d , and Fichner-Rathus, H u m a n Sexuality,

49.

T h i s v i e w of female genitals is surprisingly resilient.

119. 106. A

recent story in my local

State C o l l e g e , Pennsylvania, newspaper, the C e n t e r D a i l y T i m e s , reported that t w o w o m e n w h o were running nude were acquitted of charges of streaking. T h e story explains that the streaking l a w requires that the genitalia be e x p o s e d , s o m e t h i n g that the judge in this case

d e c i d e d i s n e a r l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r w o m e n , s i n c e , i n t h e j u d g e ' s v i e w , f e m a l e g e n i t a l i a a r e all internal! M y t h a n k s t o D a v i d O ' H a r a for c a l l i n g this s t o r y t o m y a t t e n t i o n . 50.

Sheila

Kitzinger,

Women's Experience of Sex:

Sexuality at E v e r y Stage of Life ( N e w York: Penguin, 51.

T h e Facts a n d Feelings of Female

1985), 76.

S u z a n n G a g e , the illustrator of A N e w V i e w of a W o m e n ' s B o d y ( 1 9 8 1 ) , as reported

in M o o r e and Clark, "Clitoral Conventions." 52.

Elisabeth A. Lloyd, "Pre-Theoretical Assumptions in Evolutionary Explanations of

Female Sexuality," Philosophical Studies 69 ( 1 9 9 3 ) :

139-153.

5 3 . A l a n D i x s o n , P r i m a t e Sexuality: C o m p a r a t i v e Studies o f the Prosimians, M o n k e y s , A p e s , a n d H u m a n B e i n g s ( O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 54.

1998), 43.

F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f b o n o b o b e h a v i o r a s a n e v o l u t i o n a r y m o d e l for h u m a n sexuality,

see M e r e d i t h F . S m a l l ,

What's L o v e G o t t o D o w i t h It? T h e E v o l u t i o n o f H u m a n M a t i n g

( N e w York: Anchor, 1995). 55.

D o n a l d Symons, T h e Evolution o f H u m a n Sexuality ( N e w York: O x f o r d University

Press, 1 9 7 9 ) , 28. 56.

Symons, The Evolution, 82.

57.

Symons, The Evolution, 82-83.

58.

Dixson, Primate Sexuality.

59. Jane G o o d a l l , I n the S h a d o w o f M a n (Boston: H o u g h t o n Mifflin, 60. 61. 1977), 62.

Dixson, Primate Sexuality, David

Barash,

Sociobiology and Behavior ( N e w York:

Elsevier N o r t h - H o l l a n d ,

296-297. Hite, T h e Hite Report; William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, H u m a n Sexual

R e s p o n s e (Boston: Little, B r o w n , 63.

1988).

133.

1966).

Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Mystery D a n c e :

Sexuality ( N e w York: Summit,

O n the E v o l u t i o n o f H u m a n

1991), 43.

64.

Small,

65.

F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f c u r r e n t t h e o r i e s o f s p e r m c o m p e t i t i o n , see R . R o b i n B a k e r

What's L o v e G o t to Do

With It? 111.

a n d M a r k A . Bellis, H u m a n S p e r m C o m p e t i t i o n : C o p u l a t i o n , M a s t u r b a t i o n , a n d Infidelity (London: C h a p m a n and Hall,

1995).

66.

M c W h o r t e r , Bodies & Pleasures,

181.

67.

M c W h o r t e r , Bodies & Pleasures,

182.

68.

Michel Foucault,

"Friendship as a W a y of Life,"

in Foucault Live, trans. John

Johnston and ed. Sylvere Lotringer ( N e w Y o r k : Semiotext(e), 1 9 8 9 ) , 3 1 0 . 69.

Sprinkle, " H e r s t o r y of Porn: Reel to R e a l " ( 1 9 9 9 ) .

70.

M c W h o r t e r , Bodies & Pleasures,

71.

Inanna:

Queen of Heaven

185.

& Earth,

H e r Stories a n d H y m n s f r o m Sumer, trans.

Diane Wolkstein and Samuel N o a h Kramer ( N e w York: Harper and R o w , 1983), 1 2 .

P A R T

I I

Lost K n o w l e d g e , Lost W o r l d s

C H A P T E R

6

West Indian Abortifacients and the M a k i n g of Ignorance L O N D A

S I N C E

C O L U M B U S ' S

S C H I E B I N G E R

Europeans have scoured the C a r i b b e a n

V O Y A G E S ,

l o o k i n g for useful and profitable d r u g s . T h e greatest success story both 1

in terms of efficacy and profit w a s cinchona, the anti-malarial, k n o w n variously as the Peruvian bark, Jesuits' bark, or, by its Q u e c h u a n a m e , quinquina. Importing exotics from Europe's East and West Indian colonies w a s big business. President of the R o y a l Society of L o n d o n H a n s Sloane, for e x a m p l e , while in Jamaica as a y o u n g man invested the greatest part of his fortune in "the b a r k , " a Jamaican k n o c k o f f of the Peruvian qui­ nine, w h i c h he later p r o m o t e d by prescription in his fashionable L o n d o n practice. He did the same w i t h c h o c o l a t e , w h i c h he r e c o m m e n d e d for stomach upset and c o n s u m p t i o n . A number of medicinal plants from the 2

A m e r i c a s — j a l a p a , quassia, ipecacuanha, and c a c a o , for e x a m p l e — b e c a m e standard medicines in Europe. Given this climate where Europeans enthusiastically culled N e w World flora for useful exotics for European markets, it is remarkable that a par­ ticular class of d r u g s — a b o r t i f a c i e n t s (used to induce a b o r t i o n ) — d i d not transfer from the C a r i b b e a n into Europe. In this chapter I explore the m o v e m e n t , m i x i n g , and extinction of botanic k n o w l e d g e in early m o d ­ ern encounters between Europeans and the peoples of the C a r i b b e a n . I am particularly interested to see h o w gender relations in Europe and its West Indian colonies guided E u r o p e a n naturalists as they selected par­ ticular plants and technologies for transport back to Europe. T h e plant w h o s e history provides the leitmotif for this w o r k is the " p e a c o c k flower," Poinciana pulcherrima or Caesalpinia pulcherrima. In the C a r i b b e a n , it is also k n o w n as the Pride of B a r b a d o s , Flower Fence, Red Bird-of-Paradise,

and, on the M a l a b a r coast, the

Tsjétti-Mandáru—though

it has dozens of

other names specific to the particular cultures in w h i c h it has been culti­ vated, suggesting the time-depth of its uses. T h e p e a c o c k flower is not a heroic plant of the stature of c a c a o , the p o t a t o , quinine, coffee, tea, or even r h u b a r b , used extensively in the eigh­ teenth century as a laxative. I lavish attention on the p e a c o c k flower not 3

because it is exquisitely beautiful, g r o w i n g in stunningly inviting places, but because it w a s a highly political plant, deployed in the struggle against slavery t h r o u g h o u t the eighteenth century by slave w o m e n in the West In­ dies, w h o used it to a b o r t offspring w h o otherwise w o u l d have been born into bondage. We k n o w this from a number of sources, the most remarkable of w h i c h is a passage from M a r i a Sibylla Merian's 1 7 0 5 Metamorphosis of the Insects of Surinam, recording h o w slave and Indian populations in Surinam used the seeds of this plant as an abortifacient: The Indians and Africans, who are not treated well by their Dutch masters, use the seeds [of this plant] to abort their children, so that their children will not become slaves like they are. . . . They told me this themselves.

4

I w o u l d love to recount in full the torrid tale of the p e a c o c k flower, but that is not my topic. Here I will discuss the a g n o t o l o g y surrounding West Indian abortifacients. Historians have rightly focused on the e x p l o s i o n of k n o w l e d g e associated w i t h the scientific revolution and global e x p a n s i o n , and the frantic transfer of trade g o o d s and plants between Europe and its colonies. Abortifacients, however, represent a body of k n o w l e d g e and 5

set of techniques that did not transfer from the N e w World into Europe. K n o w l e d g e ignored in the eighteenth century w a s by the nineteenth cen­ tury largely forgotten. T h e first thing to recall, t h o u g h — a n d indeed this may seem surpris­ i n g — i s that the use of herbs to induce abortion w a s well established in the West Indies in the eighteenth century. Europeans observed these practices immediately u p o n c o n t a c t . T h e y w r o t e a b o u t abortifacients often and in different c o n t e x t s , and I have identified eight plants widely used for abortion in the C a r i b b e a n in this period. M a n y other " h e r b s " w e r e used as w e l l , but these remained unidentified. These abortifacients, however, were not a m o n g the medical plants collected and developed in Europe as

mainstream medicines. In order to look at this in some detail, I focus on M a r i a Sibylla Merian's p e a c o c k flower. O n e reason I chose the p e a c o c k flower for close study is that natural­ ists from three separate European countries each independently discovered its use as an abortive in the West Indies: M e r i a n reported its use for this purpose in Surinam; Sloane described it in Jamaica; and some time later Michel Descourtilz, a French naturalist, observed this same use in Saint Domingue, n o w Haiti. W h e n analyzing whether the peacock flower moved 6

into Europe, we need to distinguish clearly between m o v e m e n t of knowledge and m o v e m e n t of the plant itself. We find that the p e a c o c k flower itself did in fact m o v e freely into Europe. F r o m a b o u t 1 6 6 6 o n w a r d , the plant w a s cultivated all across E u r o p e , including in the Jardin du R o i in Paris and the famous H o r t u s A c a d e m i c u s in Leiden. Philip Miller at the Chelsea Physic G a r d e n outside L o n d o n noted that "the seeds of this plant are annually brought over in plenty from the West-Indies." W i t h proper management, he w r o t e with remarkable hubris, this plant will g r o w m u c h taller in England than in B a r b a d o s .

7

W h i l e the p e a c o c k flower itself m o v e d easily into Europe, the k n o w l ­ edge of its use as an abortifacient did not. Merian's report of its abortive qualities w a s published in 1 7 0 5 . C a s p a r C o m m e l i n , director of the Hor­ tus M e d i c u s and professor of botany in A m s t e r d a m , prepared elaborate bibliographical notes for her b o o k and w a s clearly familiar w i t h its con­ tents. If he and others had valued k n o w l e d g e of h o w to manage w o m e n ' s fertility, k n o w l e d g e of the p e a c o c k flower and its uses w o u l d have quickly spread t h r o u g h o u t Europe. But it did not. H e r m a n n Boerhaave, professor of botany at Leiden and the leading authority on Europe's materia medica, reported in 1 7 2 7 " n o k n o w n virtues" of this plant.

8

W h e r e a s the P e r u v i a n b a r k a n d the q u i n i n e it yields represents a t e c h n o l o g y of conquest m o v i n g from A m e r i c a to E u r o p e , we have here a t e c h n o l o g y of resistance m o v i n g from perhaps A m e r i n d i a n s to A f r i c a n s l a v e s — a n d only then to E u r o p e a n s , w i t h the added twist that this lat­ ter t e c h n o l o g y that could have been of e n o r m o u s value to w o m e n w a s ignored, left to languish increasingly in r u m o r and innuendo. K n o w l e d g e of abortifacients poured into the C a r i b b e a n in the eighteenth c e n t u r y — s o m e f r o m S o u t h A m e r i c a and others f r o m A f r i c a . E u r o p e a n w o m e n

even b r o u g h t a few abortifacients w i t h them from Europe (penny r o y a l , for e x a m p l e ) . W h a t I w a n t to e m p h a s i z e , t h o u g h , is that k n o w l e d g e that flowed into the C a r i b b e a n f r o m Africa and South A m e r i c a did not trans­ ship out of the C a r i b b e a n and into E u r o p e . T r a d e w i n d s of prevailing opinion prevented shiploads of N e w W o r l d abortifacients and k n o w l e d g e of their use f r o m reaching E u r o p e a n shores.

A G N O T O L O G I C

FISSURES

A g n o t o l o g y traces the cultural politics of ignorance. It takes the measure of our ignorance, and analyzes w h y some knowledges are suppressed, lost, ignored, or a b a n d o n e d , w h i l e others are e m b r a c e d and c o m e to shape our lives. Ignorance is often not merely the absence of k n o w l e d g e but an o u t c o m e of cultural struggles. In this section, I investigate t w o questions. First, w h o s e k n o w l e d g e w a s it that did not transfer into Europe? Amerin­ dian? African? A hybrid k n o w l e d g e created by colonial slaves through the crossing of African and A m e r i n d i a n techniques? Second, w h a t p r o d u c e d E u r o p e a n s ' neglect of abortifacients from a b r o a d and the gradual vilifica­ tion of induced abortion in their o w n medical traditions? There are many forms of ignorance (see Proctor, this volume). I am here not interested in the sequestering of k n o w l e d g e in the early modern period through secrecy, such as guild or trading c o m p a n y secrets, or the secrets of the Spanish w h o did not publish the intelligence gathered from their many royal expeditions into the N e w W o r l d so as to retain an advantage over their enemies, nor even the secrets of the many colonial slaves w h o hid their medicines f r o m E u r o p e a n s . N o r am I interested in ignorance produced 9

b y overtly suppressing k n o w l e d g e considered w o r t h l e s s o r d a n g e r o u s , as w a s the fate of Jamaican obeah and Saint D o m i n g u a n v o d o u . W h a t I am interested in is how, in the eighteenth century, both European science and societies were structured to cultivate certain types of k n o w l e d g e over others. Funding priorities, global strategies, national policies, structures of scientific institutions, trade patterns, configuration of technologies all pushed investigation t o w a r d certain parts of nature and a w a y from others. Before turning to the a g n o t o l o g y of herbal abortifacients, let me discuss t w o other distinctive ignorances in eighteenth-century botany. T h e distinguished English botanist William Stearn has d r a w n attention

to a fundamental distortion in eighteenth-century botanical k n o w l e d g e . A burning question for early modern European t a x o n o m i s t s , such as John Ray, w a s : h o w great is the uniformity of plants across continents? R a y queried Sloane in Jamaica, for instance, whether he found m a n y species of plants that were c o m m o n to both Europe and the Americas. Sloane himself realized that m u c h of the floral uniformity he observed across the C a r i b b e a n w a s h u m a n - m a d e , a result of cultigens carried from the South American mainland and elsewhere into the islands first by the Tainos, then by the Spanish, D u t c h , and English. T h e impression of floral uniformity in the tropics w a s further heightened by the fact that Europeans w h o col­ lected in these areas before 1 7 5 3 did so mostly in ports and along coasts, regions highly disturbed by t w o hundred years of European v o y a g i n g and trade. Sacks of produce standing in harbors before being shipped often picked up soil and seeds of w e e d y species. By this means, European settle­ ments around the globe eventually came to host m u c h the same flora as a result of both intentional transport of useful plants and inadvertent con­ veyance of w e e d s . A collector, u n a w a r e of these mixings, might find the same plant in both the East and West Indies, and assume it to be indigenous to wherever it w a s found. This h u m a n - m a d e uniformity led t a x o n o m i s t s erroneously to assume that tropical flora were highly uniform instead of regionally d i v e r s e .

10

Steam's observation raises an interesting e x a m p l e of a g n o t o l o g y in that the ignorance of the rich diversity in tropical flora w a s p r o d u c e d by distinctive cultural patterns, in this case plants f o l l o w i n g European trade routes. W h a t distinguishes the type of ignorance Stearn discussed from that surrounding abortifacients is that in the former case, once the error w a s discovered, it w a s energetically corrected. Incorrect scientific conclu­ sions were quickly revised w h e n A l e x a n d e r v o n H u m b o l d t , A i m é Bon­ pland, James C o o k , and Joseph Bank's v o y a g e s revealed great variety in tropical flora. European t a x o n o m i s t s were not invested in the notion of uniformity. Other culturally induced ignorances were created by eighteenth-century technologies of conveyances. Until the early nineteenth century, for ex­ ample, plants were better k n o w n in Europe than stones and minerals for the simple reason that plants were lighter and more easily transported.

A m o n g plants, v o y a g e r s gave preference to succulents and bulbs because these were m o r e likely to survive successfully the long and expensive pas­ sage back to E u r o p e .

11

To the extent that Europeans consciously made

these choices, they changed as ships became larger and speedier. T h e ignorance surrounding abortifacients w a s different in kind. First, I should note that k n o w l e d g e in this realm w a s rarely suppressed by decree. Instructions to travelers did not w a r n against collecting this k n o w l e d g e . Physicians often c a u t i o n e d against the dangers of the use of this class of drugs in Europe, but at the same time they k n e w and used different abortive techniques. Indeed, the lives of m a n y w o m e n depended on this k n o w l e d g e . W h e n n e w exotic abortifacients were discovered, as indeed they were repeatedly by naturalists for over a century, k n o w l e d g e of them w a s not cultivated. Unlike the t w o examples a b o v e , cultural forces closed Europe's borders to the importation of abortive techniques from a b r o a d . W h e n k n o w l e d g e became available, it w a s not embraced. Turning t o m y f i r s t question, w h o s e k n o w l e d g e w a s rebuffed? W h a t characterized the chain of k n o w l e d g e , and where w a s it broken? W h o originally developed the p e a c o c k flower as an abortifacient w h o s e use the Europeans observed? M e r i a n reported that both Amerindians and African slaves used the peacock flower as an a b o r t i f a c i e n t — b u t by 1 6 9 9 , w h e n she arrived in Surinam, these cultures had been m i x i n g for over a century. There are several different w a y s to explain the presence of this plant and its widespread use as an abortive in the C a r i b b e a n . O n e possibility is that the plant later k n o w n as the p e a c o c k flower m o v e d w i t h o u t h u m a n agency from South A m e r i c a into the C a r i b b e a n . Seeds of the plant m a y have been swept from the Guiana coast and O r i n o c o valley into the C a r i b ­ bean by the flood waters that divert the South Equatorial current north­ w a r d , carrying plants and sometimes even animals into the W i n d w a r d Islands.

12

T h e p e a c o c k flower's sturdy seed p o d m a y have helped it m a k e

this w a t e r y v o y a g e . A second scenario suggests that the presence of the p e a c o c k flower in the C a r i b b e a n and the k n o w l e d g e of its use as an abortifacient m a y have had African origins. Richard L i g o n , a seventeenth-century planta­ tion owner, reported having brought seeds of the plant from Saint J a g o , in the C a p e Verde archipelago off the west coast of Africa, to B a r b a d o s .

13

T h e flaming y e l l o w s and reds of this elegant flower made it a favorite ornamental. It should be kept in mind, however, that C a p e Verde w a s a shipping crossroads and entrepot in this period. If L i g o n carried the plant from St. J a g o , it could have c o m e earlier from a n y w h e r e in the w o r l d that the Europeans had ports. Alternatively, the plant might have been carried to the C a r i b b e a n by African slaves themselves. Africans had long practiced herbal abortion, and m a y have brought the seeds w i t h them w h e n they were carried into slavery. A plant closely resembling Merian's p e a c o c k flower does in fact g r o w on the west coast of Africa and its seeds are well k n o w n in Senegal as an abortifacient.

14

Finally (and I think this scenario the most likely), one might postu­ late a South A m e r i c a n origin and an Amerindian discovery of its abortive virtues. T h e historical record of the p e a c o c k flower used as an abortive from Surinam up through the French Antilles to Jamaica suggests that the plant w a s k n o w n to the forebears of the Tainos, the Saladoid peoples, and followed their migration out of South A m e r i c a into the islands. Sometime around 4000 B C , the Saladoids m o v e d from the northeast coast o f South America into the C a r i b b e a n islands. This quick m o v e m e n t of peoples (in less than a century) may a c c o u n t for the similarities in the uses of plants found in the region.

15

While it is possible that displaced Africans taught the

Tainos the use of the p e a c o c k flower, I find it more likely that the Tainos and A r a w a k s taught its uses to the newly arrived A f r i c a n s .

16

While m u c h Amerindian and African k n o w l e d g e entered Europe via the C a r i b b e a n in this period, their k n o w l e d g e of abortifacients did not. To turn to my second question: W h y w a s this so? A g n o t o l o g y calls for an investigation into h o w societies are structured so that certain k n o w l e d g e s are embraced while others are reviled or slip by unnoticed. W h a t , then, were the agnotological fissures that impeded transport of the k n o w l e d g e of abortifacients into Europe? W h a t induced this form of cultural igno­ rance? T h e suppression of abortifacients w a s rarely overt (until the nineteenth century). T h e archives of the A c a d é m i e des Sciences in Paris yield only one report of an a b o r t i f a c i e n t — a plant k n o w n to us only as the " p o t a t o w i t h t w o r o o t s " — i n 1 7 6 3 . T h e report, sent by a M. De la R u ë from the Island

of B o u r b o n , indicated that people there (les gens du pays) used a poultice made from a plant k n o w n as la patate à deux rangs (the p o t a t o w i t h t w o roots) to abort dead fetuses. De la R u ë reported that he had experimented w i t h the plant in a E u r o p e a n w o m a n (une Dame), a " N e g r e s s e , " and also with a nanny g o a t , and found use of the poultice superior to the pain­ ful and dangerous surgical removal of the fetus. T h e report w a s read to the full A c a d e m y and passed to the C o m i t é de Librairie, w h e r e it w a s marked "supprimé attend le danger de la publication."

17

T h i s e x a m p l e of explicit

and direct suppression seems, however, to have been the e x c e p t i o n — m o r e c o m m o n w a s a kind of cultured apathy or cultivated disinterest. M a n y aspects of eighteenth-century European societies contributed to the induced ignorance of abortifacients. I should note first that abortion did not become illegal in Europe until the nineteenth century. T h r o u g h o u t 18

the early modern period, the general consensus w a s that for legal purposes a w o m a n w a s not p r e g n a n t — n o t truly with c h i l d — u n t i l " q u i c k e n i n g " or " e n s o u l m e n t " t o o k place, usually considered to occur near the midpoint of gestation, late in the fourth or early in the fifth month of pregnancy (or, according to Aristotle, forty days after conception for a male child and ninety days for a female c h i l d ) .

19

As Barbara D u d e n has emphasized,

a fetus that had not quickened w a s not considered a person, but simply a part of the mother's o w n body (ein Theil

mütterlicher

Eingeweide). Even 20

t h o u g h abortion w a s legal in this period, it w a s never undertaken lightly: moral trepidation and physical danger argued against it. Cultivating k n o w l e d g e of West Indian abortifacients in Europe w a s discouraged by the fact that European colonial enterprises were largely male. T h e majority of C a r i b b e a n planters and slaves were men, as were colonial administrators, naturalists, and physicians. C o l o n i a l governors, such as Hendrick van Reede and Philippe de Lonvilliers, chevalier de Poincy (for w h o m the Poinciana pulcherrima w a s n a m e d ) , were most interested in medicines to protect traders, planters, and trading c o m p a n y t r o o p s , a m o n g w h o m few w o m e n were found. D e v e l o p i n g abortifacients or any drugs used predominantly to control fertility also w o r k e d directly against the interests of mercantilist states. Mer­ cantilist governments sought to augment the wealth of nations by producing growing and healthy populations. Within Europe, abundant population w a s

to increase the p r o d u c t i o n of crops and g o o d s , fill the ranks of standing armies, and provide productive w o r k e r s w h o w o u l d pay substantial taxes and rents. In the colonies, the practice of " g r o w i n g n e g r o e s , " as it w a s called, w a s seen as a key factor in securing the " w e a l t h of n a t i o n s . " Slave w o m e n , w h o m planters had earlier used chiefly as " w o r k u n i t s , " became increasingly valued as " b r e e d e r s , " as abolitionists in Europe threatened to shut d o w n the slave trade in the 1 7 8 0 s and 1 7 9 0 s .

21

Finally, the culturally induced ignorance of abortifacients resulted also from newly cantankerous disciplinary hierarchies and professional divides. A b o r t i o n , like m u c h female medicine, traditionally belonged to the d o ­ main of midwifery. M u c h k n o w l e d g e of abortion w a s lost in the shift in the m a n a g e m e n t of birthing in this period a w a y from midwives to profes­ sionalized obstetricians. Physicians, of course, employed abortifacients in their practices but only w h e n a w o m a n ' s life w a s seriously in danger. As obstetricians sought professional standing, they pushed aside potentially tainted practices and k n o w l e d g e s .

22

Alexander von H u m b o l d t , writing at the turn of the nineteenth century, revealed in a single passage a great deal a b o u t h o w and w h y European scientific men did not collect abortifacients from the N e w World. H u m ­ boldt expressed his surprise at h o w safe the abortifacients were that the Amerindians living along the O r i n o c o river (he did not name the peoples) employed, and he discussed the need for such drugs in Europe, sympathiz­ ing w i t h y o u n g mothers there w h o are "afraid of having children, because they k n o w not h o w to feed, clothe, and provide for t h e m . " Yet he refused to transmit information a b o u t these efficacious herbs to Europe. W h i l e he w a s well a w a r e that European w o m e n had a w o r k i n g k n o w l e d g e of abor­ tifacients (he listed savin, aloes, and the essential oils of c i n n a m o n and clove), he feared that the introduction of N e w World abortives into Europe w o u l d increase "the depravity of manners in t o w n s , where one quarter of the children see the light only to be a b a n d o n e d by their p a r e n t s . "

23

M o r e importantly, H u m b o l d t made clear that his reluctance to collect such knowledge had to do with neo-mercantilist concerns about population g r o w t h . Listing the causes of depopulation a m o n g these peoples, H u m b o l d t dismissed s m a l l p o x , w h i c h had so ravished other Amerindians (according to H u m b o l d t the smallpox had n o t yet penetrated inland to this remote

area). H u m b o l d t highlighted instead the Amerindian's " r e p u g n a n c e " of the Christian mission (as one reason for their decreasing numbers), the unhealthy hot and d a m p climate, the p o o r food they received, the sever­ ity of children's diseases, and, last but not least, w o m e n ' s control of their o w n fertility. These "guilty m o t h e r s , " he w r o t e , prevent pregnancy and abort their children by the use of "deleterious herbs." Like many European medical men w h o by the end of the eighteenth century simply refused to discuss abortives, H u m b o l d t concluded his remarks by adding, "I thought it necessary to enter into these pathological details [concerning a b o r t i o n ] , far from agreeable as they are, because they m a k e k n o w n a part of the causes, w h i c h in the rudest state of our species as well as in a high degree of civilization, render the progress of population almost i m p e r c e p t i b l e . "

24

C O N C L U S I O N

T h e curious history o f Merian's p e a c o c k flower s h o w s , then, h o w v o y a g ­ ers selectively culled nature for k n o w l e d g e responding to state policies, patterns of patronage and trade, and moral and professional imperatives. Gender politics both in Europe and its colonies gave recognizable contours to distinctive bodies of k n o w l e d g e and of ignorance. T h e same forces feed­ ing the explosion of k n o w l e d g e we c o m m o n l y associate w i t h the scien­ tific revolution and g l o b a l e x p a n s i o n led to an implosion of k n o w l e d g e of herbal abortifacients. There w a s no systematic attempt to introduce into Europe abortifacients gathered from cultures around the globe. European awareness of antifertility agents declined over the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries largely because the development and testing of such agents did not become part of academic medicine or p h a r m a c o l o g y in the eighteenth century. M a n y drugs no d o u b t were dangerous because they were not submitted to rigorous and systematic testing. T h e notori­ ous hazards of abortion in the twentieth century must be traced partly to this process of forgetting and failure to test. Traditions that did not travel to Europe remained alive in the C a r i b ­ bean. In my travels to Belize, Jamaica, C o s t a Rica, M a r t i n i q u e , G u a d e ­ loupe, D o m i n i c a , D o m i n i c a n Republic, and so forth, I queried numerous people concerning the use of abortifacients today. In C o s t a Rica I w a s told by a male guide of Spanish heritage that " e v e r y o n e " k n o w s these

remedies and that they are still e m p l o y e d today. W h i l e hiking t h r o u g h the rain forest, he told me that "a little v i r g i n " had recently aborted a child conceived out of w e d l o c k . In D o m i n i c a , I had an animated, t w o - h o u r conversation a b o u t C a r i b history and culture w i t h one of the a p p r o x i ­ mately three thousand ethnic C a r i b s w h o have survived in the C a r i b b e a n basin. Feeling comfortable w i t h this very o p e n and interesting w o m a n , I eventually turned to the topic of birth control. She launched into her answer, then shot me a glance and said quietly, " b u t it's secret." I did not press the issue. After a moment's reflection, she called her husband and together they picked a plant g r o w i n g at their b a c k d o o r step. She told me that to prevent c o n c e p t i o n , after intercourse a w o m a n ingests a tea made from the plant and also w a s h e s herself w i t h it. T h e closest I came to a firsthand account of Merian's p e a c o c k flower w a s from a w o m a n of European origin a b o u t sixty years of age, w h o s e family had been in the islands for over 300 years. She told me that w h e n she w a s y o u n g , one of the serving girls in her household had become preg­ nant. In the kitchen, speaking to the other servants, the y o u n g w o m a n said she planned " t o do a w a y w i t h it." W h a t did she plan to use? T h e p e a c o c k flower. I pressed my interlocutor for a recipe (which I had not found in the historical records). Unfortunately, she w a s only a child at the time and did not have details. Enthobotanists today tell us that the plant is still used as an abortifacient in the C a r i b b e a n . Pharmacologists tell us that it induces uterine contractions that could well bring on a b o r t i o n .

25

O n e sees in these casual meetings specters of the eighteenth-century encounters between European bioprospectors and the peoples of the C a r i b ­ bean. There is the language p r o b l e m : the C a r i b w o m a n and I conversed in English (the C a r i b language has died out in D o m i n i c a and she w o r k s w i t h A w a r a k s in Surinam in a project to revive it); nonetheless, we did not share the same names for plants. I could not ask her if she k n e w the p e a c o c k flower because I had not yet been in the country long enough to discover their local term for Merian's flowering bush. Then there w a s the problem of secrecy and fear because abortion in this largely Catholic country is illegal. O n e w o n d e r s w h a t easy, safe, and effective methods of birth control and abortion have been lost to w o m e n because innocent plants have become entangled in the w e b of history and wide-ranging cultural politics.

NOTES 1 . P o r t i o n s o f this c h a p t e r are d r a w n f r o m m y P l a n t s a n d E m p i r e s : C o l o n i a l B i o p r o s p e c t i n g i n the A t l a n t i c W o r l d ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d University Press, 2 0 0 4 ) . 2.

[ T h o m a s B i r c h ] , " M e m o i r s r e l a t i n g t o t h e L i f e o f Sir H a n s S l o a n e , f o r m e r l y P r e s i d e n t

o f t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y , " B r i t i s h L i b r a r y , A d d i t i o n a l M S 4 2 4 1 , 2 5 . See a l s o A r t h u r M a c G r e g o r , " T h e L i f e , C h a r a c t e r a n d C a r e e r o f Sir H a n s S l o a n e , " i n S i r H a n s S l o a n e : C o l l e c t o r , S c i e n t i s t , A n t i q u a r y , F o u n d i n g F a t h e r o f the British M u s e u m , e d . A r t h u r M a c G r e g o r ( L o n d o n : British Museum, 1994), 1 1 - 4 4 , esp. 15. 3 . H e n r y H o b h o u s e , Seeds o f C h a n g e : Five Plants T h a t Transformed M a n k i n d ( N e w York: Harper & R o w , 1 9 8 5 ) ; Clifford Foust, R h u b a r b : T h e Wondrous D r u g (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1 9 9 2 ) ; Saul J a r c h o , Q u i n i n e ' s Predecessor: F r a n c e s c o Torti a n d the E a r l y H i s t o r y o f C i n c h o n a (Baltimore: Johns H o p k i n s University Press, Z u c k e r m a n , T h e P o t a t o : H o w the H u m b l e S p u d R e s c u e d the N o r t h Point,

1 9 9 9 ) ; Susan Terrio,

Western

1993); Larry

World ( N e w York:

Crafting the Culture a n d H i s t o r y o f French

Chocolate

(Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 2000). 4.

Maria

Sibylla

Merian, Metamorphosis insectorum Surinamensium

(Amsterdam,

1 7 0 5 ) , c o m m e n t a r y t o plate no. 4 5 . 5.

Marie-Cécile

Bénassy-Berling,

ed.,

Nouveau

monde et renouveau

de l'histoire

naturelle, 3 v o l s . (Paris: U n i v e r s i t é d e l a S o r b o n n e n o u v e l l e , 1 9 8 6 - 1 9 9 4 ) ; J o h n M a c K e n z i e , ed.,

Imperialism a n d the N a t u r a l World (Manchester, U K : University of M a n c h e s t e r , 1 9 9 0 ) ;

J a m e s M c C l e l l a n III, C o l o n i a l i s m a n d S c i e n c e : S a i n t D o m i n g u e i n t h e O l d R e g i m e ( B a l t i m o r e : J o h n s H o p k i n s University Press,

1 9 9 2 ) ; M a r y Louise Pratt, Imperial E y e s : Travel Writing

a n d Transculturation (London: Routledge, eds.,

Cultures of Natural History: From

University Press,

1 9 9 2 ) ; N . Jardine, J . A . Secord, E . C . Spary,

Curiosity to

Crisis ( C a m b r i d g e , U K : C a m b r i d g e

1 9 9 5 ) ; Yves Laisses, ed., L e s Naturalistes français en A m e r i q u e de s u d

(Paris: E d i t i o n d u C T H S , 1 9 9 5 ) ; R i c h a r d G r o v e , G r e e n I m p e r i a l i s m : C o l o n i a l E x p a n s i o n , T r o p i c a l Island E d e n s a n d the O r i g i n s o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s m , C a m b r i d g e University Press, Voyages,

1 6 0 0 - 1 8 6 0 (Cambridge, UK:

1 9 9 5 ) ; D a v i d M i l l e r and Peter Reill, eds.,

Visions of E m p i r e :

Botany, a n d Representations of N a t u r e (Cambridge, U K : C a m b r i d g e University

Press, 1 9 9 6 ) ; T o n y Rice, V o y a g e s : T h r e e Centuries o f N a t u r a l H i s t o r y E x p l o r a t i o n ( L o n d o n : M u s e u m of N a t u r a l History, 1 9 9 9 ) ; L o n d a Schiebinger and C l a u d i a S w a n , C o l o n i a l Botany: Science,

C o m m e r c e , a n d Politics (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

L o n d a Schiebinger, ed., 96

(2005):

Press,

2005);

" C o l o n i a l S c i e n c e , " Isis, J o u r n a l o f the H i s t o r y o f S c i e n c e S o c i e t y

5 2 - 8 7 ; Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra, Nature,

of the History of Science in the Iberian

Empire, and Nation: Explorations

W o r l d (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2 0 0 6 ) ;

A n t o n i o B a r r e r a - O s o r i o , E x p e r i e n c i n g N a t u r e : T h e Spanish A m e r i c a n E m p i r e a n d the E a r l y Scientific R e v o l u t i o n (Austin: U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s Press, 2 0 0 6 ) . 6. M e r i a n , M e t a m o r p h o s i s , c o m m e n t a r y to plate no. 4 5 . H a n s Sloane, A V o y a g e to the Islands M a d e r a ,

B a r b a d o s , N i e v e s , St.

Christophers, a n d Jamaica; with N a t u r a l History,

etc., 2 vols. ( L o n d o n , 1 7 0 7 - 1 7 2 5 ) , vol. 2, 4 9 - 5 0 , 3 8 4 . M i c h e l - É t i e n n e Descourtilz, Flore p i t t o r e s q u e et m é d i c a l e des A n t i l l e s , 8 v o l s . (Paris, 1 8 3 3 ) , v o l . 1, 2 7 - 3 0 . 7.

Philip

Miller,

The

Gardeners

Dictionary

(London,

1768),

s.v.

"Poinciana

(Pulcherrima)." 8. Hermann Boerhaave, Historia plantarum (Rome,

1 7 2 7 ) , 4 8 8 - 4 8 9 . Clearly much

i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the use o f c o n t r a c e p t i v e s a n d a b o r t i f a c i e n t s p a s s e d from w o m a n t o w o m a n , n e i g h b o r to neighbor, m i d w i f e to client, and m a y h a v e passed from the C a r i b b e a n to E u r o p e in this fashion. If it d i d , h o w e v e r , it w a s n o t r e c o r d e d , or at least I h a v e n o t f o u n d

letters, n o t i c e s , or other traces of these o t h e r w i s e v i b r a n t largely oral cultures. 9.

Iris

Engstrand, Spanish Scientists in the N e w

E x p e d i t i o n s (Seattle: University o f W a s h i n g t o n Press, 10.

World:

The Eighteenth-Century

1 9 8 1 ) , 3.

William Stearn, " C a r l Linnaeus's A c q u a i n t a n c e with Tropical Plants,"

Taxon 37

(1988): 7 7 6 - 7 8 1 . 11.

M a r y G u n n and L. E. C o d d , Botanical Exploration of Southern Africa (Cape T o w n :

A. A. Balkema, 1981), 25. 12.

Irving R o u s e , T h e T a i n o : Rise a n d D e c l i n e o f the P e o p l e W h o G r e e t e d C o l u m b u s

( N e w H a v e n , C T : Yale University Press, 13.

Richard

Ligon,

A

1992), 3-4.

True a n d E x a c t

History of the Island of B a r b a d o s

(London,

1657), 15. 14.

H a n s Neuwinger, African E t h n o b o t a n y (London: C h a p m a n & Hall, 1996), 3 2 1 - 3 2 4 .

Barbara Bush discusses some continuities between abortive practices in Africa and C a r i b b e a n slave societies in her Slave W o m e n in C a r i b b e a n Society, 1 6 5 0 - 1 8 3 2 ( B l o o m i n g t o n : Indiana University Press, 1 9 9 0 ) . 15.

William Keegan, " T h e Caribbean, Including Northern South America and L o w l a n d

Central America: Early History,"

in

The Cambridge

World History of P o o d , ed. Kenneth

K i p l e and K r i e m h i l d C o n e è O r n e l a s , 2 vols. ( C a m b r i d g e , U K : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 2000), vol. 2, 1 2 6 0 - 1 2 7 8 . 16.

It m a y a l s o h a v e been t h a t p e o p l e p e r i o d i c a l l y r e d i s c o v e r e d this a b o r t i v e virtue in

the e n v i r o n m e n t a r o u n d them. It should also be pointed o u t that slave w o m e n c o m b i n e d African a n d N e w W o r l d techniques. I t w a s reported a t the time that female slaves w h o intend to abort lubricated themselves w i t h a diet of okra, a plant of African origins. T h e y then induced abortion using the g u l l y - r o o t or the o f tropical A m e r i c a a n d most n o t a b l y Brazil.

"sensitive plant"

( M i m o s a pudica), a native

E d w a r d Bancroft, An E s s a y on the N a t u r a l

History of Guiana in South America (London, 1769), 5 2 - 5 3 , 3 7 1 - 3 7 2 . 17.

Registres du C o m i t é de Librairie ( M a r c h 1 7 6 3 ) , vol. 1, 1 2 2 . I thank James E.

M c C l e l l a n III for t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . 18.

Günter

Jerouschek,

" Z u r G e s c h i c h t e des A b t r e i b u n g s v e r b o t s , " in

U m s t ä n d e n : Z u r Geschichte der A b t r e i b u n g , ed. Gisela Staupe and Deutsches H y g i e n e - M u s e u m ,

Unter anderen

Lisa Vieth

(Dresden:

1993), 1 1 - 2 6 .

1 9 . Aristotle, History o f A n i m a l s , ed. D . M . Balme ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d University Press, 1 9 9 1 ) , bk. 9 , pt. 3 , 5 8 3 b . E u r o p e a n m e d i c a l t r a d i t i o n s w e r e influenced a l s o b y A r a b i c s c i e n t i f i c t r a d i t i o n s . M u s l i m j u r i s t s h e l d t h a t t h e f e t u s b e c o m e s a h u m a n b e i n g o n l y after t h e fourth m o n t h o f p r e g n a n c y ( 1 2 0 d a y s ) ; a b o r t i o n w a s a l l o w e d u p until t h a t t i m e . B a s i m M a s a l l a m , " T h e H u m a n E m b r y o i n A r a b i c Scientific a n d R e l i g i o u s T h o u g h t , " i n T h e H u m a n E m b r y o , ed. G . R . D u n s t a n (Exeter: University o f E x e t e r Press, 1 9 9 0 ) , 3 2 - 4 6 , esp. 3 9 . M i c h a e l R y a n o b j e c t e d i n t h e 1 8 3 0 s t h a t q u i c k e n i n g d i d n o t o c c u r until h a l f t h e p e r i o d o f u t e r o g e s t a t i o n h a d e l a p s e d , e v e n t h o u g h t h e fetus w a s a l i v e f r o m t h e v e r y m o m e n t o f c o n c e p t i o n ( A M a n u a l of Medical Jurisprudence

[London,

1831],

1 5 1 ) . I t w a s not until 1 8 7 6 t h a t O s k a r H e r t w i g

o b s e r v e d a s p e r m fertilize a n e g g . J o h n R i d d l e , E v e ' s H e r b : A H i s t o r y o f C o n t r a c e p t i o n a n d A b o r t i o n i n the West ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d University Press, 1 9 9 7 ) , 2 2 2 . 20. trans.

Barbara D u d e n , D i s e m b o d y i n g W o m e n : Perspectives on Pregnancy a n d the U n b o r n ,

Lee H o i n a c k i

(Cambridge, M A :

H a r v a r d University Press,

1993),

7 9 - 8 2 ; Johann

Peter F r a n k , S y s t e m einer v o l l s t ä n d i g e n m e d i c i n i s c h e n P o l i z e y , 4 v o l s . ( M a n n h e i m , v o l . 2, 6 1 . 21.

Bush, Slave Women.

1784),

22.

F o r g e n e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n o n m i d w i v e s a n d a n t i - f e r t i l i t y a g e n t s , see A n g u s M c L a r e n , A

H i s t o r y o f C o n t r a c e p t i o n : F r o m A n t i q u i t y t o the Present D a y ( O x f o r d : B . B l a c k w e l l , 1 9 9 0 ) ; Hilary M a r l a n d , ed., T h e A r t of Midwifery: Early M o d e r n M i d w i v e s in E u r o p e (London: Routledge, 1993); and Riddle, Eve's Herbs. 23.

A l e x a n d e r v o n H u m b o l d t (and A i m é B o n p l a n d ) , Personal N a r r a t i v e o f Travels t o

t h e E q u i n o c t i a l R e g i o n s o f the N e w C o n t i n e n t , d u r i n g the Years 1 7 9 9 - 1 8 0 4 , trans. H e l e n Williams, 7 vols. (London,

1 8 1 4 - 1 8 2 9 ) , vol.

5, 2 8 - 3 2 . Frank also reported that w o m e n

killed their infants b e c a u s e t h e y feared p o v e r t y (System einer v o l l s t ä n d i g e n m e d i c i n i s c h e n Polizey, vol. 2, 61). 24.

H u m b o l d t (and B o n p l a n d ) , P e r s o n a l N a r r a t i v e , vol. 5 , 2 8 - 3 2 .

2 5 . Julia M o r t o n , A t l a s o f M e d i c i n a l P l a n t s o f M i d d l e A m e r i c a (Springfield, IL: C h a r l e s T h o m a s , 1 9 8 1 ) , 2 8 4 - 2 8 5 . C a e s a l p i n i a p u l c h e r r i m a ( a n o t h e r n a m e f o r the P o i n c i a n a p u l c h e r r i m a ) i s listed i n N o r m a n F a r n s w o r t h ' s l a r g e s t u d y a s a n a b o r t i f a c i e n t a n d e m m e n a g o g u e ( " P o t e n t i a l Value of Plants as Sources of N e w Antifertility A g e n t s I," J o u r n a l of P h a r m a c e u t i c a l Sciences 64 ( 1 9 7 5 ) :

5 3 5 - 5 9 8 , esp.

5 6 5 ; and in R. Casey, " A l l e g e d Anti-Fertility Plants of India,"

Indian J o u r n a l o f M e d i c a l Science 1 4 (1960): 5 9 0 - 6 0 0 , esp. 5 9 3 .

C H A P T E R

7

Suppression of Indigenous Fossil K n o w l e d g e From Claverack, New York,

1705

to Agate Springs, Nebraska,

2005

A D R I E N N E

L O N G

B E F O R E

E U R O P E A N S

M A Y O R

A R R I V E D

in the N e w W o r l d , indigenous

people had encountered the remains of large extinct animals, from dino­ saurs to mammoths. Native Americans kept oral records of their discoveries and created narratives to a c c o u n t for the remarkable fossilized creatures. M u c h w a s lost or forgotten during migrations and in post-contact epidem­ ics, w a r s , and forced removals, but a surprisingly rich body of oral tradi­ tions a b o u t fossils w a s preserved in writing, by the Spanish beginning in 1 5 1 9 , and in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries by French, English, and A m e r i c a n colonists, explorers, and naturalists. Beginning in 1 8 2 5 , D a v i d Cusick (Iroquois), Richard C a l m e t A d a m s (Delaware), and others began to publish their nations' fossil folklore themselves. Indigenous observations and interpretations were not scientific in the modern sense, but they offered an alternative explanation of large ver­ tebrate fossils at a time w h e n E u r o - A m e r i c a n s w e r e questioning their o w n mythic biblical explanations and beginning to develop theories of geological time and paleontology. M o r e o v e r , like the neglected literary evidence for fossil discoveries in classical antiquity that I have described elsewhere, some N a t i v e A m e r i c a n fossil traditions contained concepts of deep time, extinction, fossils' relationships to living species, and succes­ sive ages marked by different landforms, climate, and life-forms—insights that anticipate or parallel modern scientific theories. Some classical and indigenous myths were revised to a c c o m m o d a t e n e w information, and excavations and verification of fossil finds were carried o u t .

1

F r o m the C o n q u e s t t h r o u g h the Enlightenment, N a t i v e A m e r i c a n s

brought major bone beds to the attention of Euro-Americans, w h o actively inquired a b o u t indigenous fossil discoveries and ideas in the struggle to understand "the fossil e n i g m a . " N o r t h and South A m e r i c a n Indian dis­ 2

coveries of large vertebrate fossils played a role in the thinking of G e o r g e s Cuvier, w h o established the m o d e r n science of paleontology. Later, Indian scouts guided the pioneer paleontologists to significant fossil beds in the A m e r i c a n West. It is therefore striking that the contributions of N a t i v e Americans in the first scientific investigations of fossils are missing in mod­ ern histories of paleontology. W h y is the official history of paleontology silent on the earliest recorded fossil discoveries? In my analysis of classical Greek and Roman fossil interpre­ tations, I found that passive neglect, misunderstanding of literary evidence, and ignorance of paleontology were the main reasons that ancient M e d i ­ terranean fossil knowledge w a s absent from the history of science. M o d e r n classicists tended to ignore non-elite Greek and Latin sources; they read fossil folklore as fiction and were unaware of the rich Miocene-Pleistocene bones in the locales where ancients reported " g i a n t " or " m o n s t e r " remains.

3

But the silencing of N a t i v e A m e r i c a n fossil k n o w l e d g e has been m o r e active and deliberate. This chapter explores some motives and strategies of agnogenesis by considering five case studies to s h o w w h y and h o w indig­ enous A m e r i c a n discoveries and interpretations of large vertebrate fossils have been purposely omitted from the historical record. C a s e 1 is C o t t o n Mather, one of the first authorities in N o r t h A m e r i c a to willfully censor Indian fossil k n o w l e d g e . C a s e 2 presents a normative model, Georges Cuvier, the "father of p a l e o n t o l o g y , " w h o c o m p i l e d , an­ alyzed, and published every available ancient G r e c o - R o m a n and N a t i v e A m e r i c a n account of oversized animal bones; he considered these finds significant evidence to help support his theories. Yet Cuvier's interest in classical and N a t i v e A m e r i c a n fossil k n o w l e d g e is generally u n k n o w n today. Cuvier's w o r k s are translated and interpreted by the leading modern historian of geology, M a r t i n J. S. R u d w i c k , w h o s e significant omissions provide the third case study. C a s e 4 is G e o r g e G a y l o r d Simpson ( 1 9 0 2 - 1 9 8 4 ) , the most eminent A m e r i c a n paleontologist of the twentieth century. Simpson's t w o m o n o ­ graphs of 1 9 4 2 - 1 9 4 3 , chronicling N o r t h A m e r i c a n fossil discoveries up

to 1 8 4 2 , are considered the authoritative history of vertebrate paleontol­ o g y in A m e r i c a . Simpson systematically denied N a t i v e A m e r i c a n s a n y role, going to great lengths to reject even their documented participation in historic events in paleontology. But Euro-Americans are not the only ones to actively suppress indig­ enous fossil knowledge. A complex veil of ignorance surrounds some sacred or t a b o o fossil traditions, intentionally kept secret by N a t i v e A m e r i c a n and n o n - N a t i v e authorities in an effort to control dangerous k n o w l e d g e (see C h a p t e r s 1 and 9 in this v o l u m e ) . T h e concluding vignette centers on traditional L a k o t a Sioux k n o w l e d g e of M i o c e n e animal fossils at A g a t e Springs Fossil Beds in N e b r a s k a to illustrate the well-meaning suppression of fossil k n o w l e d g e by diverse groups over centuries.

C O T T O N C L A V E R A C K

M A T H E R G I A N T ,

A N D

T H E

I 7 O 5 - I 7 1 2

In northeastern A m e r i c a , abundant remains of Pleistocene mastodons and m a m m o t h s , and giant species of sloths, bears, beavers, and bison that lived 10,000 to 2 million years a g o attracted the attention of pre-contact N a t i v e observers. As detailed in my b o o k , Fossil Legends of the First Americans (2005), these c o n s p i c u o u s fossils w e r e featured in Iroquois, D e l a w a r e , Shawnee, W y a n d o t , and many other native oral traditions as evidence that enormous creatures lived and vanished before the era of present-day hu­ mans. European colonists first heard some of these stories in 1 7 0 5 , w h e n m a s t o d o n remains appeared along the H u d s o n River. At that time, no scientific t h e o r y existed in E u r o p e to a c c o u n t for such bones. Europeans and Americans strove to explain the skeletons of startling magnitude c o m i n g to light around the N e w W o r l d . A c c o r d i n g to biblical traditions, the bones were w i c k e d giants d r o w n e d in N o a h ' s flood. But so many extraordinary skeletons in far-flung lands never men­ tioned in the Bible began to strain that claim. T h e idea of extinction w a s unacceptable. So, while m a n y Euro-Americans believed the huge bones were d r o w n e d giants, others thought they were stranded whales or huge carnivores that must have migrated to the still-unexplored n o r t h w e s t . T h e y also solicited the opinions of N a t i v e A m e r i c a n s , w h o had observed the bones for thousands of y e a r s .

4

In 1 7 0 5 , w h e n some enormous bones and teeth eroded from the banks of the H u d s o n River at C l a v e r a c k , N e w Y o r k , curious c r o w d s c a m e from miles a r o u n d . T w o groups in p a r t i c u l a r — t h e Indians of the H u d s o n Val­ ley region and the D u t c h and English f a r m e r s — d e b a t e d the identity of the C l a v e r a c k giant. W o r d of the N e w World " g i a n t s " electrified intellectual circles in the C o l o n i e s and Europe. T h e Puritan poet E d w a r d Taylor w a s fascinated by Indian tales of giants. In 1 7 0 5 , he e x a m i n e d the great bones and " f a n g s " (said to hold a pint of beer) at C l a v e r a c k . He recounted the debate between the colonists and Indians "flocking to see the monstrous B o n e s . " T h e Indians " u p b r a i d e d " the Dutch farmers for not believing w h a t the Indians had already told them, that giants had once inhabited the land. Indeed, thirty-five years earlier, in 1 6 6 8 , Taylor had heard Indi­ ans describe a " G y a n t of incredible M a g n i t u d e " but "disbelieved it till he s a w the T e e t h " at C l a v e r a c k . A c c o r d i n g to some of the unidentified Indi­ ans (probably M o h a w k s , A l g o n q u i a n M o h i c a n s , A b e n a k i s , and Pequots, a m o n g others), the bones belonged to a giant being called Maushops, w h i c h had died out many centuries a g o .

5

In 1 7 1 2 , Taylor's fellow Puritan, the erudite minister C o t t o n M a t h e r (see Figure 7 . 1 ) , described the giant bones of C l a v e r a c k in a letter to the R o y a l Society of L o n d o n , founded in 1 6 6 0 for the scientific study of natu-

7.1 Cotton Mather. Engraving by Peter Pelham Peter Pelham, Boston: 1 7 2 8 , restrike 1 8 6 0 . Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress.

F I G U R E

(1727).

ral history. M a t h e r w a s a c o m p l e x man: he demonized the " s a v a g e s " as devil w o r s h i p p e r s , but his writings s h o w a keen interest in their k n o w l ­ edge of natural history, and M a t h e r took the trouble to learn A l g o n q u i a n . In his letter to the R o y a l Society, M a t h e r argued that the bones belonged to a giant victim of the flood. This and similar finds in N o r t h and South America were "scientific p r o o f " that giants had once inhabited the Ameri­ cas and died w h e n the flood inundated the w h o l e w o r l d . To support these claims, M a t h e r referred to local Indian lore. " U p o n the Discovery of this horrible

Giant,"

M a t h e r w r o t e , "the Indians within

an H u n d r e d M i l e s " maintained that giants w e r e described in their an­ cient traditions, passed d o w n over " h u n d r e d s of y e a r s . " For e x a m p l e , a m o n g the " A l b a n y Indians," continued Mather, the giant's " n a m e w a s Maughkompos."

But M a t h e r suddenly

b r e a k s off to ridicule N a t i v e

A m e r i c a n languages, w i t h their " d i s a g r e e a b l e " sounds and ludicrously long names. He digresses to spell out a long A l g o n q u i a n w o r d of fiftyfour letters, with a jocular aside to the p o o r printer w h o has to set the line of type. M a t h e r dismisses the topic abruptly: " T h e r e is very Little in any Tradition of the Salvages [sic] to be relied u p o n . "

6

N o t a b l y , M a t h e r w a s well versed in ancient and N a t i v e A m e r i c a n fos­ sil legends; he had previously cited Inca and Aztec discoveries, along w i t h mythic interpretations, as reported by the Spanish in the 1500s. Yet at this point in his letter, M a t h e r w a s seized by an agnotological imperative to cancel out the local Indian fossil k n o w l e d g e . A n d he seems to m a k e this decision mid-sentence. Did M a t h e r intuit that articulating alternative, non-biblical ideas a b o u t giant bones w o u l d undermine his "creation sci­ e n c e " argument? Mather's fellow Puritan, E d w a r d Taylor, maintained that the evidence of the huge bones at C l a v e r a c k legitimized native traditions about past giants. In contrast, M a t h e r believed that all pagan m y t h o l o g y w a s inspired by Satan. C o u l d the seemingly spontaneous interruption in the letter be an artifact of a collision between Mather's faith-based belief system and his scientific impulse to be objective and inclusive by citing Indian giant legends as p r o o f of Christian doctrine? But M a t h e r w a s a skilled orator, arguing a case before a learned so­ ciety, so it is m o r e likely that his digression w a s a rhetorical strategy. M a t h e r often demonized Indian culture. In this case, however, he needed

the long-standing Indian traditions to m a k e his point. M a t h e r b r o u g h t up the centuries-old tales of giants to p r o v e that huge skeletons w e r e so c o m m o n in the A m e r i c a s that the natives had a name for them. T h e n , having m a d e that p o i n t , he cut off further discussion of native accounts w i t h h e a v y - h a n d e d humor. W i t h this decision to cancel out native fossil k n o w l e d g e , M a t h e r became the first authority on record in N o r t h America to deny Indians a role in interpreting fossil evidence. I suggest that M a t h e r m o d e l e d his tactic on a similar strategy of the R o m a n historian Plutarch, w h o s e reports of giant bones M a t h e r cites in his letter. Plutarch described the a m a z i n g discovery of a gigantic skeleton in N o r t h Africa in the first century B C , but dismissed indigenous explanations a s "fantastic l e g e n d s " and scorned their language as " a b s o l u t e l y u n p r o n o u n c e a b l e . "

G E O R G E S I N D I A N

C U V I E R ' S F O S S I L

I N T E R E S T

I N

D I S C O V E R I E S ,

A N C I E N T

7

A N D

I 7 9 6 - 1 8 2 1

O v e r the next century, m a n y m o r e reports of large fossil e x p o s u r e s c o n ­ tinued to accumulate from N o r t h and South A m e r i c a . Indians familiar w i t h the Pleistocene b o n e beds guided m a n y English and French natu­ ralists w h o collected the fossil bones, tusks, and teeth and sent t h e m to E u r o p e for study. In this period of mutual a c c o m m o d a t i o n and e x c h a n g e , described by R i c h a r d W h i t e in The Middle Ground, scientifically curious E u r o - A m e r i c a n s , such as T h o m a s Jefferson, John Bartram, M a r k Catesby, C o u n t Buffon, and Benjamin Smith Barton attempted to learn w h a t native people k n e w a b o u t the mysterious b o n e s .

8

In Paris, the brilliant naturalist G e o r g e s C u v i e r ( 1 7 6 9 - 1 8 3 2 ; see Fig­ ure 7.2) c o m p a r e d m a s t o d o n fossils from a r o u n d the w o r l d and gathered every ancient and indigenous tradition a b o u t giant bones he c o u l d find, d r a w i n g on his w i d e n e t w o r k of A m e r i c a n , French, G e r m a n , D u t c h , Ital­ ian, Swedish, and Spanish correspondents, w h o sent him specimens and field reports. In 1 7 9 6 and more fully in 1 7 9 9 and 1 8 0 6 , C u v i e r published his discovery that m a s t o d o n s w e r e extinct elephants that once flourished a r o u n d the w o r l d . Part 1 of his three-part m o n o g r a p h " O n Living and Fossil E l e p h a n t s " of 1 8 0 6 surveyed discoveries of m a s t o d o n fossils from f o u r t h - c e n t u r y - B C Greece up to 1 8 0 2 , including mention of native tradi­ tions gathered by the Franciscan J. Torrubia in M e x i c o and Peru. C u v i e r

7 . 2 Georges Cuvier. Engraving in Georges Cuvier, Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles (Paris, 1825).

FIGURE

continued to amass n e w reports of fossils from the A m e r i c a s . His studies culminated in the great four-volume "Researches on Fossil B o n e s " ( 1 8 1 2 , revised in 1 8 2 1 ) , proposing w o r l d w i d e catastrophic extinctions of mast­ o d o n s . In the 1 8 2 1 edition, C u v i e r devoted some t w e n t y pages to fossil discoveries and traditions by N a t i v e A m e r i c a n s gleaned from his reading and c o r r e s p o n d e n c e .

9

Beginning w i t h the giant bones at C l a v e r a c k in 1 7 0 5 , Cuvier turned to the l a n d m a r k discovery in 1 7 3 9 of the famous m a s t o d o n site, Big Bone Lick on the O h i o River in Kentucky, where u n n a m e d " S a u v a g e s " in the French army collected the first A m e r i c a n fossils to be scientifically stud­ ied (in a notable e x a m p l e of agnogenesis, the fossils are still prominently d i s p l a y e d — b u t mislabeled until 2 0 0 1 — i n the Paleontological M u s e u m , Paris). My historical detective w o r k indicates that the a n o n y m o u s Indi­ ans w e r e A b e n a k i s f r o m Q u e b e c . H o w they were denied credit for their discovery for m o r e than 250 years is yet another striking instance of ag­ nogenesis, discussed further b e l o w .

10

C u v i e r n o t e d that natives o f C a n a d a a n d the O h i o V a l l e y identi­ fied m a s t o d o n s as the "grandfather or ancestor of the b u f f a l o , " and he c o m b e d through reports of British expeditions between 1 7 6 5 and 1 7 6 6 along the O h i o , for Iroquois, H u r o n , D e l a w a r e , and Shawnee opinions a b o u t the fossils. In 1 7 9 5 , C u v i e r w r o t e a b o u t Iroquois and D e l a w a r e

place names in N e w England that indicated discoveries of m a s t o d o n re­ mains (see Figure 7.3). C u v i e r w a s especially impressed w i t h Shawnee and D e l a w a r e legends surrounding the "astonishing abundance" of fossils of mastodons and other m a m m a l s in the O h i o Valley. In 1 7 6 2 , five complete m a s t o d o n skeletons were described and measured by "les sauvages s h a w a n a i s . " R e m a r k i n g on Indians' repeated assurances that no living specimens had ever been seen, C u v i e r w a s also struck by the Shawnee observation of "the long n o s e " on m a s t o d o n skulls. He c o m p a r e d this detail to an earlier discovery by Il­ linois Indians, reported by Swedish naturalist Peter K a l m in 1 7 4 8 - 1 7 5 1 , a b o u t a well-preserved m a s t o d o n skeleton w i t h part of the trunk. C u v i e r himself examined a mummified elephant foot discovered by an unnamed tribe in the mountains west of the Missouri River. These finds led C u v i e r to w o n d e r whether some m a s t o d o n s in bogs might be as well preserved as the frozen m a m m o t h s of Siberia.

11

7.3 Indians discovering mastodon skeleton. Engraving by Alexander Anderson, for Thomas Bewick's General History

FIGURE

of Quadrupeds (New York: G. & R. Waite,

1804).

" T r a c e s of devastation have a l w a y s been striking to h u m a n s , " C u v i e r r e m a r k e d . A n c i e n t " t r a d i t i o n s of d e l u g e s " and giant beings preserved a m o n g indigenous people a r o u n d the w o r l d arose f r o m their observa­ tions of marine fossils and bones of extinct megafaunas. M o r e o v e r , w r o t e Cuvier, tribes are knowledgeable a b o u t all the n o t e w o r t h y animals in their o w n lands, and they learn a b o u t exotic species t h r o u g h travel and trad­ ers. Their insights were not just " v u l g a r i d e a s " — e v e n garbled or confused legends could contain scientific truth. T h u s , w r o t e Cuvier, "the sciences, like people, m o v e d from poetry to h i s t o r y . "

12

T h e details that emerged from indigenous accounts were consistent. T h e giant beings had lived in the remote past but were wiped out by some violent destruction event before the era of present-day Indians: no one claimed to have seen them alive. These widespread extinction scenarios, from Peru to C a n a d a , helped C u v i e r to rule out migration and focus on catastrophic extinctions, and therefore were significant in developing the theories that established the n e w science of paleontology. A l l u d i n g to D e l a w a r e , S h a w n e e , and other fossil legends, and c o n ­ tradicting T h o m a s Jefferson's hope that Lewis and C l a r k w o u l d discover live m a s t o d o n s in the Pacific N o r t h w e s t , Cuvier w r o t e : " H o w can it be believed that the immense m a s t o d o n s . . . w h o s e bones are found under ground in the t w o A m e r i c a s , still l i v e ? " N a t i v e traditions a b o u t their de­ struction were based on their o w n discoveries of the bones over genera­ tions, w r o t e Cuvier. If these animals still lived, h o w could such e n o r m o u s beasts "escape the knowledge of the nomadic peoples w h o move ceaselessly around the continent in all directions, and w h o themselves recognize that the creatures no longer e x i s t ? "

1 3

R e m a r k a b l y , no modern historian of paleontology has a c k n o w l e d g e d Cuvier's attention to ancient Greek and N a t i v e A m e r i c a n fossil traditions, or speculated on their influence in his theories. Indeed, only s o m e o n e w h o reads Cuvier's original publications w o u l d notice the extent of his interest. O n e m o d e r n historian of p a l e o n t o l o g y w h o is familiar w i t h all of Cuvier's w o r k s is M a r t i n J. S. R u d w i c k , the modern translator and in­ terpreter of Cuvier. In his extensive writings on Cuvier's correspondence, m e t h o d s , and theories, R u d w i c k does not discuss the scientist's interest in indigenous discoveries.

14

M A R T I N

R U D W I C K ' S

S E L E C T I V E

S I L E N C E ,

1972-2005 I n 1 9 9 7 , R u d w i c k published the f i r s t m o d e r n English t r a n s l a t i o n s o f Cuvier's writings w i t h commentaries. Of the pages C u v i e r devoted to N a ­ tive A m e r i c a n fossil k n o w l e d g e in his 1 8 1 2 / 1 8 2 1 m a g n u m o p u s , only one passage rated R u d w i c k ' s translation: the statement in w h i c h C u v i e r con­ cluded, citing N a t i v e A m e r i c a n testimonies, that catastrophic extinctions must have w i p e d out all A m e r i c a n m a s t o d o n s in an era before h u m a n memory. Cuvier's survey of large fossil discoveries and interpretations over the past 2,000 years in Europe, A s i a , Africa, and the A m e r i c a s in his 1 8 0 6 m o n o g r a p h w a s dismissed w i t h o u t c o m m e n t : " T h e f i r s t p a r t . . . o n the geographical distribution of finds of fossil elephants" is " n o t trans­ lated here." Cuvier's extensive section on N a t i v e A m e r i c a n accounts in 1 8 1 2 / 1 8 2 1 , summarized a b o v e , is not translated or c o m m e n t e d o n , in the 1 9 9 7 text or in R u d w i c k ' s recent w o r k on C u v i e r and his t i m e .

15

W h y did R u d w i c k ignore Cuvier's interest in ancient and indigenous fossil finds and ideas? Some answers emerge from R u d w i c k ' s influential history of paleontological milestones, The Meaning of Fossils, first p u b ­ lished in 1 9 7 2 . For R u d w i c k , true paleontological history began in 1 5 6 5 . Before that, he states, fossils m a y have been "noticed and c o m m e n t e d on by men of m a n y different periods and cultures," but "it is only within Western civilization . . . since the Renaissance, that p a l a e o n t o l o g y has emerged from this diffuse awareness of fossils." A c c o r d i n g to R u d w i c k , the use of fossil evidence to understand the history of the earth began in Europe in a b o u t 1 8 0 0 . As he a c k n o w l e d g e s , m o d e r n scholars tend to " d e v a l u e " the preceding paleontological investigations of the eighteenth c e n t u r y — t h e same p e r i o d o f " m u t u a l a c c o m m o d a t i o n " described b y Richard White, w h e n Euro-Americans were soliciting native ideas a b o u t the "fossil e n i g m a . "

16

R u d w i c k is a proponent of an "institutional m y t h " of modern paleon­ tology, that no serious consideration of vertebrate fossils could occur until the scientific theories of evolution and extinction were invented in Europe in the Enlightenment and later. A c c o r d i n g to this view, meaningful inter­ pretation of fossils as organic remains of the past requires an understand­ ing of natural history that the ancient Greeks and non-Europeans could

not have possessed. Of course, as he decided w h i c h of Cuvier's w o r d s to translate for posterity and w h i c h to leave in obscurity, R u d w i c k w a s selec­ tive (see C h a p t e r 1 in this v o l u m e , on selective inquiry). But his neglect of both the ancient Greek and indigenous A m e r i c a n evidence, w h i c h C u v i e r had carefully gathered and cited in his publications, hides the importance that C u v i e r and other naturalists of this era placed on traditional infor­ mation a b o u t fossils around the w o r l d . R u d w i c k ' s omission prevents us from k n o w i n g a b o u t a time w h e n early scientists respected and actively sought out fossil k n o w l e d g e from all available s o u r c e s .

17

For R u d w i c k , science progresses by " d e m y t h o l o g i z i n g itself"; there­ fore little of historical or scientific value exists in traditional, often m y t h based ideas a b o u t fossils, in pre-scientific cultures. Accordingly, R u d w i c k omitted portions of Cuvier's studies that he judged dated and scientifi­ cally uninteresting. N o t a b l y , however, R u d w i c k has written that " e a c h period's interpretation of the meaning of fossils m a y be an illuminating reflection of that period's v i e w of the natural w o r l d . " Instead of criticiz­ ing the mistakes of the learned E u r o p e a n gentlemen w h o studied fos­ sils, R u d w i c k suggests that we should " u n d e r s t a n d them as men of their time, grappling w i t h problems w h i c h they rarely had e n o u g h evidence to solve, and solving them in terms of their o w n v i e w of the w o r l d . " T h e history of p a l e o n t o l o g y might be further illuminated by extending the same u n d e r s t a n d i n g to ancient and indigenous efforts to c o m p r e h e n d the fossil r e c o r d .

18

G E O R G E " T R U E "

G A Y L O R D

F O S S I L

S I M P S O N

D I S C O V E R I E S ,

A N D

I942-I943

In 1 9 3 5 , the C a n a d i a n E d w a r d Kindle w a s the first m o d e r n scientist to suggest that N a t i v e A m e r i c a n s should be credited w i t h significant fossil discoveries, in a brief paper in the Journal of Paleontology. But in t w o influential m o n o g r a p h s of 1 9 4 2 - 1 9 4 3 , the prominent U.S. p a l e o n t o l o ­ gist G e o r g e G a y l o r d Simpson ( 1 9 0 2 - 1 9 8 4 ) strenuously rejected Kindle's suggestion. Simpson declared all Indian fossil discoveries " c a s u a l finds w i t h o u t scientific sequel," w h i c h deserved no place in the history of "true discovery." W i t h that, Simpson effectively silenced the earlier exchanges between N a t i v e Americans and Euro-Americans a b o u t the fossil record.

As I have argued elsewhere, Simpson's pronouncements are a major reason w h y native encounters w i t h fossils are so little k n o w n t o d a y .

19

In his official history of vertebrate p a l e o n t o l o g y in the Western H e m i ­ sphere, Simpson maintained that N a t i v e A m e r i c a n s contributed nothing to paleontological history, because they only picked up fossils out of "idle curiosity" w i t h o u t ever recognizing their organic nature, and their ideas about fossils were mere superstition. Since there w a s no record of "continu­ ous consciousness" of fossil k n o w l e d g e in Indian culture, argued Simpson, their discoveries never resulted in scientific advancement and thus had " n o real bearing on paleontological discovery." W h y w o u l d a t o w e r i n g figure like Simpson go to such lengths to deny N a t i v e Americans a role in the early history of p a l e o n t o l o g y ? Some paleontologists w h o k n e w Simpson suggest he w a s a racist; oth­ ers describe him as an irascible and arrogant c u r m u d g e o n . L é o L a p o r t e , S i m p s o n ' s b i o g r a p h e r , t o l d m e S i m p s o n w a s c o n c e r n e d w i t h defining "science as science. . . . If he did not give them sufficient credit, it w a s p r o b a b l y because he w a s not a w a r e of their traditions accounting for fos­ sil r e m a i n s . "

20

In the 1 9 4 0 s , p a l e o n t o l o g y w a s just c o m i n g into its o w n as a scientific field. In 1 9 4 4 , Simpson chaired the n e w D e p a r t m e n t of Vertebrate Paleon­ t o l o g y at the A m e r i c a n M u s e u m of N a t u r a l History. His rigid standards of w h a t he called "true d i s c o v e r y " w e r e intended to modernize the n e w science and define its disciplinary borders. Y e t , I think we can glimpse in­ triguing hints of ambivalence. In a revealing moment, Simpson commented that the "prediscovery finds" by Indians and their k n o w l e d g e of fossils of­ fered m u c h "sentimental and literary" interest. But, w r o t e Simpson, "the temptation to consider them in more detail must be resisted," in favor of "true scientific d i s c o v e r i e s . "

21

H a d Simpson given in to temptation and learned s o m e t h i n g a b o u t N a t i v e A m e r i c a n fossil accounts, perhaps he w o u l d have been impressed by the understanding of Earth's past that can be expressed in m y t h o l o g i ­ cal language. But, because he so assiduously kept himself and his readers in the dark a b o u t native fossil observations, Simpson w a s led to m a k e some outrageous assertions. He declared, for e x a m p l e , that the " v a r i o u s reported Indian legends of fabulous beasts represented by fossil bones

have little ethnological and no paleontological v a l u e . " T h e traditions, he said, are "untrustworthy, and carry little conviction of genuine and spon­ taneous (truly aboriginal) reference to real finds of fossils." He m o c k e d the intellectual capacity of " m e n w h o live close to n a t u r e . " T h e y m a y be meticulous observers, he w r o t e , but their "acuteness of physical observa­ tion is . . . generally linked w i t h peculiarly d u l l " understanding. " M e n w h o pass their lives out of doors c o m m o n l y have a vast store of objective k n o w l e d g e , but their comprehension of any real interpretations of those facts . . . i s usually ludicrously s c a n t y . "

22

Simpson's drive to erase Indians from the story led to c o n v o l u t e d rea­ soning. In his description of the historic 1 7 3 9 discovery of mastodon fossils by A b e n a k i hunters in the French army, Simpson's logic is tortuous: " E v e n t h o u g h Indians were p r o b a b l y involved in the real d i s c o v e r y " of the O h i o fossils, " t h e y c a n n o t fairly be called the discoverers." Despite the Indians' " a b s o l u t e priority," w h i c h has been a c k n o w l e d g e d by French scientists since 1 7 6 4 , Simpson w e n t so far as to create an ahistorical discovery sce­ nario in order to give credit to the French c o m m a n d e r of the expedition. A n o t h e r important Indian fossil discovery on the O h i o in 1 7 6 2 led Simp­ son to mutter, "It is . . . curious to find the Indians as sole authorities in this incident," since surely whites must have k n o w n of the fossils.

23

Simpson stated: " T h e a b u n d a n t occurrence of fossil bones in N o r t h America w a s not widely k n o w n a m o n g Indians and not a c o m m o n subject of remark by t h e m . " Yet Simpson w a s forced to contradict himself and recount yet another historic fossil discovery by N a t i v e A m e r i c a n s , " a t the astonishingly early d a t e " o f 1 5 1 9 , w h e n Spanish conquistadors recorded that p r e - C o l u m b i a n people in the A z t e c Empire had collected m a s t o d o n fossils, correctly identified them as belonging to giant m a m m a l s , specu­ lated on their behavior, understood mass extinction, and displayed the bones as historical records. Simpson admitted this w a s a "true find" of " u n q u e s t i o n a b l e priority," but then categorized it as a "casual find," not a "true discovery in the historical s e n s e . "

24

In Fossil Legends, I was able to document evidence from more than fortyfive N a t i v e A m e r i c a n cultures, from pre-contact to the present, to prove Simpson w r o n g on all counts. But for m o r e than half a century, Simpson's calculated assault on Native A m e r i c a n s ' role in the history of paleontology

has been accepted uncritically by most historians and scientists. Simpson concluded his grand history of A m e r i c a n p a l e o n t o l o g y — w h i c h he himself praised as " d e f i n i t i v e " — w i t h these w o r d s : " N o w [that] the thin trickle of fossils collected in A m e r i c a " has become "a f l o o d , . . . the study of the beginnings [of paleontological inquiry] need go no f u r t h e r . "

25

Sioux historian Vine Deloria Jr., in Red Earth, White Lies, cited Simp­ son's official history as a prime example of h o w "scientists have maintained a stranglehold on the definitions o f . . . reliable human experiences." Ironi­ cally, a hope expressed by M a r t i n R u d w i c k in 1 9 7 2 can be read to refute Simpson. Pointing out that "in every period of its history, palaeontology . . . developed through a series of intricate interactions between philosophical" assumptions and w o r l d v i e w s , theory building, and a "steadily accumulat­ ing fund of observed evidence," R u d w i c k hoped that the next generation of paleontologists w o u l d "recover . . . the broad interests and o u t l o o k that [the study of fossils] possessed so markedly earlier in its h i s t o r y . "

D A N G E R O U S A T

A G A T E

F O S S I L

K N O W L E D G E

S P R I N G S ,

N E B R A S K A

26

As Proctor and Smithson (this volume) point out, some forms of a g n o ­ genesis are morally m o t i v a t e d , to limit or control dangerous k n o w l e d g e . M a n y N a t i v e A m e r i c a n g r o u p s traditionally believe that fossils contain p o w e r f u l " m e d i c i n e " or magical forces for g o o d or ill. Some fossil tradi­ tions are sacred, secret k n o w l e d g e , w h i c h should not be made available to the uninitiated or vulnerable or to outsiders. I have participated in main­ taining this kind of ignorance: in interviews on reservations, I promised not to publish n e w oral fossil k n o w l e d g e unless something similar had already been published. Some knowledge of fossils is not just withheld from outsiders but within the tribe. Collecting large animal fossils or attempting to obtain p o w e r from them is forbidden in some native cultures. For e x a m p l e , m a n y tradi­ tional N a v a j o s avoid touching or talking a b o u t anything to do with death, including dinosaur fossils in their lands. In the fossiliferous West, many Plains Indian groups traditionally avoid disturbing petrified b o n e s .

27

T h e L a k o t a Sioux feared the a w e s o m e p o w e r s of fossils eroding out of the badlands of western N e b r a s k a . A g a t e Springs Fossil Beds on the N i o -

brara River is a vast graveyard of densely p a c k e d , jumbled skeletons of huge, bizarre beasts from the M i o c e n e , 20 million years a g o . L o n g before paleontologists arrived to dig the fossils in 1890s, the L a k o t a s named the place " A n i m a l Bones Brutally Scattered A b o u t . " T h e frightening creatures were t h o u g h t to be evil Water M o n s t e r s slaughtered by T h u n d e r Beings in primeval times. A g a t e Springs w a s a sacred place to collect special plants and stones and to m a k e offerings and vision quests, but most L a k o t a s steered clear of the monster bones spilling out of t w o hills there. Agnogenesis by scientists began with their arrival in 1 8 9 2 to dig up tons of fossils for museums. H a d they spoken a b o u t the fossils to the L a k o t a s , w h o c a m p e d every summer at A g a t e Springs, they might have learned the true identity of the " f o r e s t " of six-foot-tall trace fossils, w h i c h the mysti­ fied scientists named "Devil's C o r k s c r e w s . " D e c a d e s later, the scientists identified the perplexing spiral structures as fossilized b u r r o w s made by M i o c e n e beavers, w h o s e skeletons often lay at the b o t t o m (see Figures 7.4 and 7.5). T h e L a k o t a s had already figured out the connection between the fossils: their traditional name for the c o r k s c r e w w a s "Beaver's L o d g e . "

2 8

In 2 0 0 1 , the N a t i o n a l Park Service (NPS) c o m m i s s i o n e d a L a k o t a , Sebastian (Bronco) LeBeau, to create a Cultural Evaluation R e p o r t on in­ digenous k n o w l e d g e of the fossil beds, n o w a national m o n u m e n t . After consulting w i t h elders at Pine R i d g e , R o s e b u d , Cheyenne River, and Spirit

7.4 Devil's Corkscrew. Photo courtesy of Agate Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Museum.

F I G U R E

7.5 Daemonelix, Beaver's Lodge. Painting on hide calendar by Lakota artist Dawn Little Sky. Courtesy of Agate Springs Fossil Beds, National Monument Museum.

FIGURE

L a k e reservations, LeBeau m a d e a pilgrimage to the place called A n i m a l Bones Brutally Scattered A b o u t . He m a p p e d archaeological remains of altars and other sites and recounted the traditional story of T h u n d e r Be­ ings Killing Water M o n s t e r s . LeBeau experienced an o v e r w h e l m i n g , eerie sensation of danger at the fossil site. He w e n t back to talk w i t h the elders. Reluctantly, they told him more. A c c o r d i n g to L a k o t a tradition, w h e n the First People had arrived, an evil spirit used the terrible p o w e r of the monster bones to drive a y o u n g man crazy. Then the spirit taught the man h o w to magically " s h o o t " slivers of fossils into enemies to b e w i t c h or kill them. T h e first L a k o t a medicine m a n had w a r n e d the First People to a v o i d the fossils. Nevertheless, some people u n d e r t o o k vision quests to A g a t e Springs to learn the evil p o w e r of the fossils, k n o w n as the Stinging Bones ritual. Bronco LeBeau returned to A g a t e Springs. He located old boundary markers w a r n i n g people a w a y from the bad-medicine fossils and found vision quest sites a m o n g the fossils, adding this material to his report. T h e Park Service allowed me to read LeBeau's detailed field notes and gave per­ mission to cite LeBeau's official evaluation. This w a s a very rare instance of using fossils for evil instead of for healing, so I wanted to include it in Fossil Legends. But I felt a n x i o u s a b o u t revealing a black-magic fossil ritual, so I

searched until I found older published references to similar " s h o o t i n g " fossil spells a m o n g the Sioux w h e n they still lived in the Great Lakes a r e a .

29

In 2005, the N a t i o n a l Park Service hired an experienced non-Indian consultant, Janet Cliff (PhD in folklore), to write an official site bulletin a b o u t L a k o t a traditions at A g a t e Springs, to be distributed to park visi­ tors. Cliff read the official history of the site, my then-unpublished research a b o u t Sioux fossil k n o w l e d g e , and LeBeau's field notes and report. N o t i n g that the L a k o t a spiritual leaders and elders " o b v i o u s l y w a n t e d to keep LeBeau ignorant as long as p o s s i b l e " a b o u t the malevolent p o w e r of the fossils, and respecting their w i s h to " k e e p n o n - N a t i v e s i g n o r a n t , " Cliff p r o d u c e d a w a t e r e d - d o w n draft of the site bulletin for the public, w i t h a vague allusion to " g o o d and bad m e d i c i n e " of the fossils. Cliff explained in an a c c o m p a n y i n g letter to the N P S that "including anything meaningful a b o u t witchcraft can encourage certain individuals to remove fossils . . . and certain individuals w o u l d p r o b a b l y find it 'neat' to do their i m p r o m p t u satanic rituals at m i d n i g h t , " posing a security risk for the park. Indeed, Cliff remarked that she hoped her site bulletin w o u l d "never see the light of day.

30

This latest twist in the shroud of ignorance surrounding N a t i v e A m e r i ­ can fossil k n o w l e d g e evokes some aspects of the Puritan witch hunter C o t ­ ton M a t h e r ' s anxiety a b o u t the satanic influences of Indian fossil legends 300 years a g o . M a t h e r deliberately created ignorance as a strategic p l o y b o r r o w e d from Plutarch. In contrast, Cuvier, 100 years later, sought fossil k n o w l e d g e from every available source to further science. T h e n , z o o years after Cuvier, R u d w i c k ' s selective "tunnel history" ignored the evidence for eighteenth-century E u r o p e a n curiosity a b o u t fossils, focusing on the "sci­ entifically interesting" advances of the nineteenth century.

31

Meanwhile,

Simpson not only actively suppressed k n o w n facts of Indian priority in fossil discoveries and ideas, but he published disinformation to support his Eurocentric history of paleontology. T h e A g a t e Springs case differs from the preceding cases, exemplifying " v i r t u o u s i g n o r a n c e , " w i t h roots reaching back hundreds of years. For a diverse g r o u p of people, Indian and non-Indian, the masses of monstrous bones entombed in the badlands still have the p o w e r to e v o k e fear and tension over h o w to handle dangerous k n o w l e d g e , k n o w l e d g e sincerely believed to pose h a r m to body or soul.

N O T E S 1.

O n C u s i c k a n d A d a m s , see A d r i e n n e M a y o r , F o s s i l L e g e n d s o f t h e F i r s t A m e r i c a n s

(Princeton, N J : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 2 0 0 5 ) ,

37-50,

6 5 - 6 7 ; fossil l e g e n d s d e f i n e d , x x i x ;

excavations and revisions, 2 8 - 2 9 , 4 1 , 4 4 - 4 5 , 6 7 - 6 8 , 8 1 , 1 0 3 , 1 5 0 , 1 7 3 , 208. 2.

" T h e f o s s i l e n i g m a " has stimulated curiosity since antiquity: B . G l a s s , O . T e m k i n , a n d

W . Straus, F o r e r u n n e r s o f D a r w i n , 1 7 4 5 - 1 8 5 9 (Baltimore: J o h n s H o p k i n s University Press, 1 9 6 8 ) . C f . S c h i e b i n g e r (this v o l u m e ) , o n e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y E u r o p e a n s ' r e l i a n c e o n N a t i v e guides in seeking profitable drugs in the W e s t Indies. British a n d French colonists c o m p e t e d to c o l l e c t N o r t h A m e r i c a n m a s t o d o n b o n e s a n d t u s k s for profit a n d t o a d v a n c e science. M a y o r , Fossil L e g e n d s ,

8-11,

353nn10-13;

C l a u d i n e C o h e n , T h e F a t e o f the M a m m o t h : Fossils,

M y t h , a n d H i s t o r y ( C h i c a g o : University o f C h i c a g o Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 6 5 - 6 6 , 7 9 - 8 0 . 3 . A d r i e n n e M a y o r , T h e First Fossil H u n t e r s : P a l e o n t o l o g y i n G r e e k a n d R o m a n T i m e s (Princeton, N J : Princeton University Press,

2 0 0 0 ) . T y p i c a l m o d e r n v i e w o f a n c i e n t fossil

k n o w l e d g e : Glass et al., Forerunners of D a r w i n . 4.

Paul S e m o n i n , A m e r i c a n M o n s t e r : H o w the N a t i o n ' s First Prehistoric C r e a t u r e B e c a m e

a S y m b o l o f N a t i o n a l Identity ( N e w Y o r k : N e w Y o r k University Press, 2 0 0 0 ) ; C o h e n , Fate; M a y o r , Fossil L e g e n d s , 3 3 - 3 7 . 5. D o n a l d E. Stanford, " T h e Giant Bones of Claverack, N e w York, History 40

(1959): 4 7 - 6 1 ; Semonin, Monster, 9,

1 7 0 5 , " N e w York

1 5 - 4 0 ; M a y o r , Fossil L e g e n d s ,

33-37;

H e n r y F a i r f a x O s b o r n , " M a s t o d o n s o f the H u d s o n H i g h l a n d s , " N a t u r a l H i s t o r y 2 3 ( 1 9 2 3 ) : 3 - 2 4 , esp. 7. 6. D a v i d L e v i n , " G i a n t s in the Earth: Science and the O c c u l t in C o t t o n M a t h e r ' s Letters to t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y , " W i l l i a m & M a r y Q u a r t e r l y , 3 r d ser., 4 5 ( 1 9 8 8 ) : 7 5 1 - 7 7 0 . M a u g h k o m p o s t r a n s l a t e s a s " g i a n t m a n , " a v a r i a n t o f t h e M a s s a c h u s e t t s I n d i a n n a m e M a u s h o p s ; all b a s e d on mogke

(great)

(Washington, D C , 7.

and wosketomp

(man). John H a m m o n d Trumbull,

Natick

Dictionary

1903).

M a t h e r cites P l u t a r c h : L e v i n , " G i a n t s , " 7 6 5 . P l u t a r c h : M a y o r , First Fossil H u n t e r s ,

124, 304n23. 8 . M a y o r , Fossil L e g e n d s , x x x v , x x x v i i i , 1 3 , 2 1 - 2 5 , 5 0 - 6 5 ; Richard W h i t e , T h e M i d d l e G r o u n d ( C a m b r i d g e , U K : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 9.

1991).

C u v i e r ' s interest i n t h e u n i f o r m i t y o f fossil species p a r a l l e l s the e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y

interest in

the

u n i f o r m i t y o f p l a n t s p e c i e s ; cf.

correspondence,

methods,

and

theories,

see

Schiebinger

Martin

(this

Rudwick's

volume). Georges

For Cuvier's Cuvier,

Fossil

Bones, a n d G e o l o g i c a l Catastrophes: N e w Translations & Interpretations of Primary Texts ( C h i c a g o : University o f C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 9 7 ) ; T h e N e w Science o f G e o l o g y : Studies i n the E a r t h Sciences i n the A g e o f R e v o l u t i o n ( C h i c a g o : University o f C h i c a g o Press, 2 0 0 4 ) ; a n d B u r s t i n g the L i m i t s o f T i m e :

T h e R e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f G e o h i s t o r y i n the A g e o f R e v o l u t i o n

( C h i c a g o : University of C h i c a g o Press,

2005).

C u v i e r ' s use o f n a t i v e traditions: M a y o r ,

Fossil Legends, 6 1 - 6 4 , 9 3 - 9 4 . 10.

M a y o r , F o s s i l L e g e n d s , 1 - 1 9 ; f o s s i l m i s l a b e l e d a s gift o f T h o m a s J e f f e r s o n :

16-19.

M a r t i n R u d w i c k , T h e M e a n i n g o f Fossils: E p i s o d e s i n the H i s t o r y o f P a l e o n t o l o g y ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press [ 1 9 7 2 ,

1976],

1 9 8 5 ) , e.g.,

107,

115

on Cuvier;

105 on

1739

d i s c o v e r y , w i t h n o m e n t i o n o f I n d i a n s w h o c o l l e c t e d the fossils. 11. Annales

Q u o t a t i o n s i n t h i s s e c t i o n : G e o r g e s C u v i e r , " S u r les é l é p h a n s v i v a n s e t f o s s i l e s , " d u M u s e u m d ' H i s t o i r e N a t u r e l l e (Paris) 8

( 1 8 0 6 ) : 3 - 5 8 , esp.

"Article Premier,"

4 - 7 , 1 4 , a n d 5 4 o n a n c i e n t G r e e k a n d R o m a n a c c o u n t s ; 5 4 - 5 8 , m a s t o d o n fossils i n N o r t h a n d S o u t h A m e r i c a a n d n a t i v e t r a d i t i o n s . C u v i e r , D i s c o u r s s u r les r e v o l u t i o n s d e l a s u r f a c e

d u g l o b e , 8th ed. (Paris: C o u s i n [ 1 8 1 2 ] ,

1 8 4 0 , a n d Paris: B o u r g e o i s , rpt.

1985). Cuvier,

R e c h e r c h e s s u r les o s s e m e n s f o s s i l e s [ 1 8 1 2 ] , 2 n d rev. e d . , 5 v o l s . ( P a r i s : B e l i n , 1 8 2 1 ) , v o l . 1,

153-159, 208-224, 266-267,

223;

and

C u v i e r , D i s c o u r s ( 1 8 1 2 ) , s e c t i o n 2 8 . See a l s o

Rudwick, Cuvier, 208, 2 5 4 - 2 5 5 , 2 6 2 - 2 6 3 , 4 6 4 - 4 6 7 . 12.

Cuvier's appeal to international amateurs in

1800: T e x t 6 in R u d w i c k ,

Cuvier,

4 6 - 4 7 ; see 1 7 8 o n C u v i e r ' s b e l i e f t h a t l e g e n d s c o n t a i n " a k e r n e l o f s c i e n t i f i c t r u t h " a n d 2 0 8 on tribes' zoological k n o w l e d g e . 13.

C u v i e r ' s 1 7 9 6 treatise, a n d C u v i e r , D i s c o u r s ( 1 8 4 0 ) , 5 9 ; D i s c o u r s ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 9 4 ; see

C o h e n Fate, 14.

111;

Rudwick, Cuvier, 2 1 6 .

G l a s s e t al.'s h i s t o r y o f e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y f o r e r u n n e r s o f D a r w i n h a s n o m e n t i o n

o f N a t i v e A m e r i c a n d i s c o v e r i e s . H e n r y F a i r f i e l d O s b o r n briefly n o t e d C u v i e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n a n c i e n t G r e e k fossil finds in 2 vols.

his h i s t o r y o f p r e h i s t o r i c e l e p h a n t d i s c o v e r i e s , P r o b o s c i d e a ,

(New York: American

Rudwick,

Cuvier,

M u s e u m of Natural History,

1 7 8 , acknowledged Cuvier's

1 9 3 6 - 1 9 4 2 ) , vol.

"extended review"

2,

1147.

o f fossils described

by

"writers of classical antiquity." Fleeting allusions to N a t i v e A m e r i c a n traditions in S e m o n i n , M o n s t e r , e.g., 3 0 9 - 3 1 0 ; a n d i n C o h e n , F a t e , 8 6 - 8 7 . N a t i v e A m e r i c a n scholar V i n e D e l o r i a Jr.'s c o m p a r i s o n o f i n d i g e n o u s w o r l d v i e w s a n d E u r o - A m e r i c a n s c i e n c e c i t e d e x a m p l e s o f native paleontological k n o w l e d g e e x c l u d e d from o r t h o d o x science: R e d Earth, (Golden, C O : Fulcrum, 15.

White Lies

1997).

R u d w i c k , C u v i e r , 2 1 6 , 9 1 n 1 . I n b o t h N e w Science (2004) a n d Bursting the Limits

( 2 0 0 5 ) , R u d w i c k o m i t s N a t i v e A m e r i c a n fossil d i s c o v e r i e s o r i d e a s , e v e n i n d i s c u s s i o n s w h e r e the t o p i c s e e m s r e l e v a n t : for e x a m p l e , N e w S c i e n c e 7 : 2 - 8 o n h o w " g e o h i s t o r y " c a m e t o b e based o n fossils; 8 : 2 - 1 2 o n C u v i e r ' s a p p e a l t o " a m a t e u r s " ; 9 : 5 3 - 6 5 o n C u v i e r ' s v o l u m i n o u s " p a p e r m u s e u m " a n d a r c h i v e s . See a l s o R u d w i c k , C u v i e r , 4 3 . 16.

R u d w i c k , M e a n i n g o f Fossils, preface t o 1 9 7 6 ed., n.p. (fourth p a g e ) ; preface t o 1 9 7 2

e d . , n . p . (first p a g e ) . R u d w i c k , N e w S c i e n c e 7 : 2 - 8 . G l a s s e t a l . , F o r e r u n n e r s , c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e A m e r i c a n f o s s i l s . F o r a c r i t i c a l v i e w o f R u d w i c k ' s o m i s s i o n s , see P e t e r D o d s o n , f o r e w o r d t o M a y o r , F i r s t F o s s i l H u n t e r s , x i v - x v i . O n t h e v a l u e o f i n d i g e n o u s g e o m y t h o l o g y , see E d w a r d B u r n e t T y l o r , D o r o t h y V i t a l i a n o , R o g e r E c h o - H a w k , a n d V i n e D e l o r i a Jr., c i t e d i n M a y o r , F o s s i l L e g e n d s , e.g., x x i x - x x x i v , 1 9 5 ; a l s o K . K r a j i c k , " T r a c k i n g M y t h t o G e o l o g i c a l R e a l i t y , " Science 3 1 0 (2005): 7 6 2 - 7 6 4 . 17.

R u d w i c k ' s s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a : C u v i e r , x - x i . See N a o m i O r e s k e s , " T h e H u m a n i s t i c a n d

Religious Foundations of D e e p T i m e "

[review o f R u d w i c k ' s Bursting the L i m i t s o f Time\,

Science 3 1 4 (2006): 5 9 6 - 5 9 7 . 18.

R u d w i c k , M e a n i n g o f F o s s i l s , p r e f a c e t o 1 9 7 2 e d . , n . p . (last p a g e ) .

19.

E.

M.

Kindle,

"American

Indian

Discoveries of Vertebrate

Fossils," Journal of

Paleontology 9, 5 ( 1 9 3 5 ) : 4 4 9 - 4 5 2 ; G e o r g e G a y l o r d Simpson, " T h e Beginnings of Vertebrate Paleontology (1942):

in

North

America,"

P r o c e e d i n g s o f the A m e r i c a n P h i l o s o p h i c a l Society

86

1 3 0 - 1 8 8 ; and " T h e D i s c o v e r y o f Fossil Vertebrates i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , " J o u r n a l o f

P a l e o n t o l o g y 1 7 , 1 ( 1 9 4 3 ) : 2 6 - 3 8 , esp. 2 6 - 2 7 . 20.

Simpson,

"Beginnings,"

132-135;

"Discovery,"

2 6 - 2 7 ; Leo F. Laporte, George

G a y l o r d S i m p s o n ( N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a University Press, 2000). Interviews cited i n M a y o r , Fossil L e g e n d s , x x v i - x x v i i i . S i m p s o n also criticized Jefferson's p a l e o n t o l o g i c a l w r i t i n g s a n d the notion that " f o r e r u n n e r s " anticipated D a r w i n . Glass et al., Forerunners, 4 1 4 n 7 8 . 21.

Simpson,

( N e w York:

"Beginnings,"

Macmillan,

1934),

132-135; n o ,

"Discovery,"

26-27.

In Attending Marvels

1 6 1 , S i m p s o n credited his u n e d u c a t e d P a t a g o n i a n

g u i d e J u s t i n o w i t h the d i s c o v e r y o f i m p o r t a n t fossils n o w i n the A m e r i c a n M u s e u m o f

N a t u r a l H i s t o r y : J u s t i n o p o s s e s s e d t h a t " c o n s u m i n g c u r i o s i t y w h i c h i s the real r e a s o n for a n y scientific r e s e a r c h . " 22. Marvels, 23.

Simpson, "Beginnings,"

1 3 2 - 1 3 5 , 139; "Discovery," 2 6 - 2 7 ; Simpson, Attending

110. Simpson, "Beginnings,"

135-138,

132n2;

"Discovery," 2 8 - 3 4 . Simpson's biased

v e r s i o n o f the historic d i s c o v e r y o f m a s t o d o n fossils o n the O h i o i n

1 7 3 9 is accepted by

recent historians, such as C o h e n , Fate, a n d S e m o n i n , M o n s t e r , w h e r e a s French scientists, f r o m D a u b e n t o n i n 1 7 6 4 t o P a s c a l T a s s y i n 2 0 0 0 , h a v e g i v e n the Indians credit. See M a y o r , Fossil Legends, 4 - 5 . 24.

Simpson,

"Beginnings,"

25.

Anthropologist Loren

132-134;

"Discovery,"

27. M a y o r , Fossil Legends, 7 8 -

79. Eiseley,

for e x a m p l e ,

said Indian

"myths"

a b o u t fossils

were inspired by E u r o p e a n s ' leading questions, and cited S i m p s o n w i t h a p p r o v a l in 1 9 4 5 . E t h n o l o g i s t R o b e r t L o w i e f a m o u s l y rejected the historical v a l u e o f all oral traditions i n 1 9 1 5 . M a y o r , Fossil Legends, x x x i ; Simpson, "Discovery," 26, 37. 26.

Deloria, R e d E a r t h , 7, 9; R u d w i c k , M e a n i n g of Fossils, 265-266.

27.

G r o u p s w h o k e e p fossil k n o w l e d g e secret o r fear fossils' d a n g e r o u s p o w e r s : M a y o r ,

Fossil L e g e n d s , x x x i v , 1 1 7 , 1 2 9 - 1 3 7 , 2 9 8 - 3 0 3 , 3 0 9 , 3 2 1 - 3 2 3 . 28.

L a k o t a n a m e f o r t h e site: A ' b e k i y a W a m a ' k a n s k a n s ' e ; f o r b e a v e r b u r r o w f o s s i l s :

C a ' p a e l ti. M a y o r , F o s s i l L e g e n d s , 2 4 1 - 2 5 4 . 29.

Sebastian

Evaluation,"

C.

[Bronco]

A g a t e Fossil

LeBeau,

Beds National

"Wico'cajeyate: Monument,

Traditional

Cultural Property

Harrison, N E , D e p a r t m e n t o f the

Interior, N a t i o n a l P a r k Service, D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 1 . E a r l y m i s s i o n a r i e s r e p o r t e d similar rituals in Minnesota: M a y o r , Fossil Legends, 3 8 7 n n 3 1 - 3 2 . 3 0 . J a n e t Cliff,

"Site

Bulletin:

Native Americans and

Agate

Fossil

Beds

National

M o n u m e n t , " d r a f t p r e p a r e d for N P S S u p e r i n t e n d e n t R u t h a n n K n u d s o n , A g a t e S p r i n g s F o s s i l Beds N a t i o n a l M o n u m e n t , H a r r i s o n , N E , April 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 . Janet Cliff t o R u t h a n n K n u d s o n , N P S , A p r i l 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 . Janet Cliff, pers. corr., M a r c h 31.

"Tunnel history"

(n.p.), last p a g e .

13,

2005.

is R u d w i c k ' s phrase; M e a n i n g of Fossils, preface to

1 9 7 2 ed.

CHAPTER

8

M a p p i n g Ignorance in A r c h a e o l o g y The

Advantages

of Historical Hindsight

ALISON

WYLIE

Compared to the pond of knowledge, our ignorance remains atlan­ tic. Indeed the horizon of the unknown recedes as we approach it.

THUS

BEGINS

The Encyclopedia of Ignorance, a collection of fifty-one

short essays on " w h a t it is [scientists] w o u l d most like to k n o w " that appeared in 1 9 7 7 .

1

M o s t of the contributors are physicists and b i o l o ­

gists, but cognitive neuroscientists and biomedical researchers are also well represented. T h e social sciences are considered explicitly only by a mathematician w h o is concerned a b o u t understanding w h y the tools of his discipline had not realized the kind of success in application to these fields that they have in the physical sciences, and by a c o m p u t e r scientist worried a b o u t the instability of technical systems that interact w i t h end­ lessly inventive h u m a n s . P s y c h o l o g y is represented by entries on sleep 2

and addiction research that are resolutely biomedical in orientation. There are several essays on evolutionary theory, one on the earth sciences, and one on paleontology, but nothing on a r c h a e o l o g y or h i s t o r y — t h e focus of my interest here.

MAPPING

IGNORANCE

In these assembled essays, ignorance emerges as a c o m p l e x p h e n o m e n o n . It is not just a lack of k n o w l e d g e in specific areas but also a matter of uncertainty and incompleteness, of k n o w l e d g e that degrades from con­ ventional ideals even in fields w h e r e we k n o w a great deal. Sometimes ig­ norance is clearly delimited. It is identified w i t h evidence not yet collected, variables not yet precisely measured, dimensions of a subject d o m a i n n o t

yet e x p l o r e d — a well-tempered, prospectively domesticated ignorance. But often ignorance is more unruly. The life scientists and evolutionary theorists a l l o w that the systems they study may be t o o c o m p l e x or u n b o u n d e d , t o o rapidly evolving or t o o unstable, to sustain a secure, w e l l - o r d e r e d — e x a c t and predictively r o b u s t — b o d y of k n o w l e d g e . O t h e r s a c k n o w l e d g e , at a meta-level, that we m a y n o t k n o w w h a t it is we do not k n o w . A few link ignorance of this kind to erotetic worries; perhaps the k n o w l e d g e we have is question specific and our ignorance extends to innumerable domains we will n o t begin to recognize until we learn to ask different questions.

3

A l t h o u g h their charge w a s d e s c r i p t i v e — t o identify gaps in and limita­ tions of scientific k n o w l e d g e — a number of contributors, and the author of an " I n t r o d u c t i o n " that appears m i d w a y t h r o u g h The Encyclopedia of Ignorance

4

take up the question of w h y specific kinds of ignorance have

arisen and persist. For the most part their diagnoses are resolutely epis­ temic, but they also cite ontological constraints inherent in the objects of inquiry, and a few consider contextual factors: sociopolitical, e c o n o m i c , and cultural impediments to research. Consider some of the details of their analyses, as a point of departure for assessing the sources and forms of ignorance that concern archaeologists. Epistemological

Factors

A primary source of ignorance cited by a n u m b e r of contributors to the Encyclopedia of Ignorance is the poverty of the empirical data on w h i c h they rely; the relevant evidence has not survived, as in the case of the fossil record of hominid e v o l u t i o n , or the technologies necessary to re­ 5

cover, analyze, and interpret data as evidence had not yet been developed. Brain research is an especially striking case; the cognitive neuroscientists describe a field that, in 1 9 7 7 , w a s a b o u t to be transformed by dramatic developments in neural i m a g i n g . But limited evidence w a s not the only 6

epistemic constraint that concerned these contributors; several cite a lack of adequate theory as well. An astronomer inveighs against a tendency a m o n g his colleagues to immerse themselves in the " u n i m a g i n a t i v e " col­ lection of o b s e r v a t i o n s . T h e "strangely p a r a d o x i c a l nature of science," 7

he says, is that although some observations are a necessary precondition for generating theory, they offer no real understanding until they are em-

bedded in a theory. A molecular biologist e x p a n d s on this theme: a major source of ignorance in his field is "the lack of a theoretical f r a m e w o r k in w h i c h to order and interpret the relevant f a c t s . " Others report that they 8

are a w a s h in detailed k n o w l e d g e of f o r m but not function, of correlations but not causal relations, of manifest pattern but n o t m e c h a n i s m . Clearly 9

the central tenets of a n a r r o w l y conceived positivism w e r e losing their grip, although the language of exactness, causal determinism, prediction, and control, is u b i q u i t o u s .

10

Ontological

Constraints

In a complementary vein, a n u m b e r of contributors to the Encyclopedia suggest that the limits of their k n o w l e d g e are a function of the p h e n o m ­ ena they study. Ignorance m a y be irreducible if c o m p l e x i t y is " a n intrinsic condition and characteristic of the p h e n o m e n a , " for e x a m p l e , in the life sciences.

11

A psychobiologist considers the implications of o n g o i n g evolu­

tion: it " k e e p s complicating the universe by adding n e w phenomena that have n e w properties and n e w f o r c e s . "

12

He worries that ignorance m a y

proliferate even as we e x p a n d the scope of k n o w l e d g e . But most daunting for these scientists is any p h e n o m e n o n that is conditioned by h u m a n ac­ tion and intention. T h e c o m p u t e r scientist argues that there is an "essen­ tial uncertainty" inherent in k n o w l e d g e of artificial systems that operate in a h u m a n environment; as we learn a b o u t these systems we change our responses to them and this, in turn, changes the environment to w h i c h they adapt in open-ended and unpredictable w a y s . He worries that any­ thing that touches the h u m a n is contaminated by our " u n b o u n d e d ability to invent n e w rules, n e w twists, n e w objectives" such that exact science becomes i m p o s s i b l e .

13

R e a d i n g these entries, it c o m e s as no surprise that

the social sciences, perhaps especially a r c h a e o l o g y and history, are n o t more prominently represented.

Contextual

and

Normative

Factors

A few contributors break this focus on epistemic and ontological sources of ignorance and consider social, cultural, and e c o n o m i c factors. Some experiments that might resolve long-standing puzzles a b o u t brain func­ tion c a n n o t be c o n d u c t e d for ethical reasons. T h e legacy of a Cartesian

m i n d - b o d y dualism weighs heavily on those intent on developing a sci­ entific understanding of consciousness, pain, and memory. We have such strong and c o m p l e x normative responses to drug dependency it is diffi­ cult, not just to u n c o v e r causes, but even to specify w h a t constitutes the p h e n o m e n o n under study: " i g n o r a n c e begets confidence more surely than there is k n o w l e d g e , " observes the addiction researcher, q u o t i n g B a c o n .

14

T h e geologist asks why, for w a n t of a systematic drilling p r o g r a m on land like that already well developed for the o c e a n s , so m u c h ignorance is al­ l o w e d to " r e m a i n b e l o w our feet": the t e c h n o l o g y w a s available; it w o u l d be c o m p a r a t i v e l y inexpensive; and there is considerable cost attached to o u r continued reliance on structural g e o l o g y for w h a t he describes as three-dimensional understanding w h e n dealing w i t h a four-dimensional subject.

15

Although this is an expansive list of contextual factors, it is striking that these scientists do not chiefly blame biasing intrusions from outside science for the failures and limitations of inquiry they describe. In emphasizing epistemic and ontological factors no d o u b t they account for ignorance in roughly the same w a y as they w o u l d the epistemic successes of their fields, attributing these to g o o d reasons and evidence, and limiting contextual, cultural factors to a w a l k - o n role. In short, they embrace a symmetry thesis, albeit the inverse of that w h i c h has been advocated by sociologists of sci­ ence as an antidote to the philosophical convention of reserving epistemic analysis for cases of scientific success and relegating ignorance and error to the history and sociology of science, as failures of scientific rationality that require explanation in terms of non-epistemic f a c t o r s . W i t h the benefit of 16

hindsight—specifically, thirty years of development in science studies—there is clearly considerable scope for asking w h y particular lines of evidence and theoretical insight had languished while others were avidly pursued, rebalancing the weight of the factors cited in the direction of the politi­ cal economy, the institutional structure, and the culture of the sciences in question, as well as the larger social contexts in w h i c h they operate. At the same time, these reflections on ignorance in the heartland of science m a k e it clear h o w recalcitrant empirical evidence can be and h o w hard w o n the theoretical constructs that give it epistemic significance. In a p p r o a c h i n g the question of ignorance in archaeology, I am c o m -

mitted to a symmetry thesis: the same range of factors that explain the p r o d u c t i o n of k n o w l e d g e are relevant for understanding the p r o d u c t i o n (and maintenance) of ignorance. But I w o u l d insist that we c a n n o t deter­ mine in advance w h a t these will be, w h a t w e i g h t each will bear, h o w they interact. My aim here is not so m u c h to illustrate h o w ignorance arises in archaeology, a field famous for the incomplete, enigmatic nature of its data and for the c o m p l e x i t y and inaccessibility of its (cultural) subject. Rather, it is to identify a set of strategies that archaeologists use to discern and to counteract the particular forms of ignorance that afflict the research tra­ ditions in w h i c h they w o r k .

IGNORANCE

AS

SILENCES

IN

HISTORY

T h e threat of i g n o r a n c e in all the f o r m s identified in the Encyclopedia of Ignorance is a matter of active concern a m o n g practitioners in a range of historical sciences, evident, for e x a m p l e , in the perennial debate a m o n g historians a b o u t ideals of " o b j e c t i v i t y " and its various relativ­ ist and constructivist a n t i t h e s e s .

17

W i t h i n a r c h a e o l o g y anxieties a b o u t

error a n d i g n o r a n c e — a n d the p r o s p e c t s for detecting a n d effectively c o u n t e r i n g i t — h a v e issued in crisis debates r o u g h l y every thirty years since a r c h a e o l o g y began to professionalize in the early twentieth century. T h e emphasis in analysis of the sources of a r c h a e o l o g i c a l ignorance has shifted quite d r a m a t i c a l l y since the 1 9 6 0 s f r o m a p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h jointly o n t o l o g i c a l , empirical constraints to concern w i t h the limitations of inadequate theory and, finally, to a focus on sociocultural and politi­ cal f a c t o r s .

18

As a f r a m e w o r k for understanding these developments and

the responses to ignorance they mobilize, Trouillot's analysis of silences in the p r o d u c t i o n of historical k n o w l e d g e is especially useful. He refuses the oppositional pull of positivist and constructivist impulses in h i s t o r y ;

19

there is no prospect, he argues, for eliminating the systematic ambigui­ ties inherent in the w a y we use the term history to refer both to events in the past and to the narratives by w h i c h we understand the past in the present. History, the narrative, is p r o d u c e d at innumerable sites, few of them controlled by professional historians and all of them deeply struc­ tured by c o n t e m p o r a r y interests and p o w e r relations. W h a t we do n o t k n o w , as m u c h as w h a t we do k n o w , tracks p o w e r as it operates in social

c o n t e x t s both past and present. A n d yet, T r o u i l l o t insists, history is n o t "infinitely susceptible of i n v e n t i o n . "

20

To understand h o w silences arise,

Trouillot attends to four m o m e n t s in historical p r o d u c t i o n , each of w h i c h has an a r c h a e o l o g i c a l counterpart: the generation of textual traces, the c o m p i l a t i o n of these traces as an archive, the retrieval of traces as facts to be built into historical narratives, and the construction of narratives that have retrospective significance. T h e factors symmetrically shaping ignorance and k n o w l e d g e figure at each of these junctures as they have been engaged by archaeologists in the c o n t e x t of o n g o i n g debate a b o u t disciplinary status and standards.

Empirical

and

Ontological

Factors

T h e c o n v e n t i o n a m o n g archaeologists n o w identified as engaged in "tra­ d i t i o n a l " forms of p r a c t i c e

21

has been to see the limitations of k n o w l e d g e

and the contours of ignorance as a function of the fragmentary, inscrutable nature of the data w i t h w h i c h they w o r k , a jointly epistemic and o n t o l o g i ­ cal concern w i t h limitations inherent in the archaeological record. T h e attrition of material traces begins in Trouillot's first m o m e n t and, despite optimism about the egalitarian nature of garbage (that it provides evidence of the lives of m a n y w h o never figure in historical records), those w h o peopled the past are by no means equally represented. T h e p r o d u c t i o n , c o n s u m p t i o n , circulation, and discard of material culture are as deeply structured by p o w e r relations as is the creation of a textual record. T h i s attrition continues, dramatically, w i t h the creation of an archaeological r e c o r d , a second m o m e n t in the p r o d u c t i o n of an a r c h a e o l o g i c a l past that is as m u c h a matter of decay, displacement, and destruction as it is of preservation and survival. Here o n t o l o g i c a l constraints enter: w h a t archaeologists c a n k n o w (or k n o w reliably) is c o n d i t i o n e d by the dif­ ferential survival of stone tools and metal artifacts, fired ceramics, and architectural features, by contrast, for e x a m p l e , to c o r d a g e , w o o d hafts, straw roofs, and other relatively ephemeral (although by no means ar­ chaeologically unrepresented) classes of material. But sociocultural and e c o n o m i c factors of a different order enter as w e l l : the t o m b r o b b e r s and c o n q u e r o r s of antiquity, centuries of farmers and settlers, as well as m o d e r n - d a y developers, looters, and antiquities dealers, all play a role in

determining w h a t aspects of the material record of h u m a n activity will survive and w h a t will be erased just as surely as do geological processes of erosion and bioturbation. Finally, these selection processes are amplified at Trouillot's third m o m e n t , in the retrieval of facts suitable for m a k i n g narratives. Here the w h o l e p a n o p l y of epistemic and sociopolitical fac­ tors is in play. W h a t material archaeologists recover depends not only on w h a t is visible, accessible, and technologically tractable but also on w h a t archaeologists find interesting, puzzling, and relevant to current concerns, academic and popular. T h e retrieval and constitution of archaeologically usable facts of the record is very largely a function of w h a t questions we k n o w to ask and w h a t material traces we k n o w (how) to l o o k for in at­ tempting to answer them. T h e n c o m e the vagaries of the curation of the archaeological records and collections generated by third moment retrieval, a contingency to w h i c h I return shortly. T h e result is an unevenly preserved, fragmentary, and enigmatic data base. For many this has been cause for profound epistemic pessimism. Third m o m e n t retrieval can be as systematic and exhaustive as possible, argued M. A. Smith, a British field archaeologist writing in the m i d - 1 9 5 0 s , but the " D i o g e n e s " problem remains: " t h e archaeologist m a y find the tub but altogether miss D i o g e n e s . "

22

Archaeologists should respect the (limited)

"potentialities of the e v i d e n c e " she insisted, and recognize that it is folly to elaborate speculative fourth m o m e n t narratives a b o u t the cultural past that extend b e y o n d the available (limited) evidence. There is no prospect for decisively testing these conjectures given that there is no " l o g i c a l rela­ tion between h u m a n activity in some of its aspects and the evidence left for the a r c h a e o l o g i s t ; . . . there are real and insuperable limits to w h a t c a n be legitimately inferred from archaeological m a t e r i a l . "

23

this argument, k n o w n as H a w k e s ' "ladder of i n f e r e n c e , "

On a variant of 24

archaeological

interpretations are understood to reflect a hierarchy of credibility. T h o s e aspects of the cultural past that are most closely constrained by material conditions of life may be reconstructed w i t h some reliability (for e x a m p l e , technologies, some aspects of tool function, and some forms of subsistence practice), but the further an archaeologist strays from these and considers, for e x a m p l e , forms of social organization or systems of belief, the m o r e u n a v o i d a b l y they indulge in speculation.

Theoretical

Considerations

A sharp reaction against these skeptical arguments w a s the impetus for an ambitiously scientific research p r o g r a m in archaeology, the N e w A r c h a e ­ ology of the 1960s and 1 9 7 0 s . T h e limitations of archaeological under­ standing are not inherent in the record, the N e w Archaeologists insisted; they reflect, not the ontological opacity and empirical poverty of the sur­ viving traces, but rather inadequacies in the conceptual resources that ar­ chaeologists bring to inquiry. W i t h these arguments the third and fourth 25

m o m e n t s of archaeological p r o d u c t i o n came sharply into focus; attention turned to the challenge of securing the interpretive inferences necessary to constitute archaeological data as evidence that bears on historical and a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l narratives. T w o strategies of response to skeptical w o r ­ ries were pursued in this connection. T h e chief architect of the N e w Ar­ chaeology, L e w i s Binford, and m a n y of those committed to the p r o g r a m he a d v o c a t e d , put primary emphasis on a reorientation of third m o m e n t retrieval practices: all empirical investigation of the archaeological record (excavation, survey, data analysis) should be designed w i t h the aim of re­ covering data relevant to specific questions—it should be problem oriented, rather than an exercise in open-ended e x p l o r a t i o n .

26

Here the emphasis

w a s on theory building as a necessary f r a m e w o r k for articulating interest­ ing, productive questions, fueled by an impatience w i t h "unimaginative o b s e r v a t i o n " for its o w n sake, m u c h like that recorded by contributors to

The

Encyclopedia

of Ignorance.

27

W i t h i n a decade, however, it became clear that problem-oriented re­ search requires a second strategy: that of building, or b o r r o w i n g , the substantive b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e — " m i d d l e range theory," linking or interpretive principles—necessary to secure claims a b o u t the significance of archaeological data as evidence of particular past events, conditions of life, patterns of activity, and social relations or beliefs. Here a c o m p l e x interplay of epistemic and sociopolitical factors comes into play, requiring considerable e x p a n s i o n of Trouillot's a c c o u n t of third m o m e n t retrieval practices. T h e contours of possible k n o w l e d g e and probable ignorance are shaped by the resources—technical, empirical, theoretical, e c o n o m i c , and s o c i a l — t h a t archaeologists recruit for the purpose of constituting facts of the past: identifying, recovering, recording material traces, and, crucially,

interpreting them as evidence. W h a t facts (of the record and of the past) archaeologists c a n establish has everything t o d o w i t h w h a t resources they have internally, or w h a t connections they cultivate w i t h the collateral fields that supply the crucial linking principles, and this is a function of institutional dynamics as m u c h as of internal, p r o b l e m , and theory-driven judgments of relevance; of conventions of authority and prestige, and the shifting availability of research funds, as well as accidents of personal in­ terest and connection.

The

Sociopolitics

of Archaeology

Since the early 1980s a powerful reaction against the scientism of the N e w A r c h a e o l o g y has taken shape and, w i t h it, skepticism a b o u t the possibility of k n o w i n g the past has resurfaced. In this context, however, the Diogenes problem has been cast in explicitly sociopolitical terms and the focus is resolutely on the vagaries of fourth m o m e n t narrative construction. T h e necessary reliance on linking principles and middle range theory opens space for ignorance that takes the f o r m , not just of incomplete k n o w l e d g e but of systematic distortion: the projection of c o n t e m p o r a r y preoccupa­ tions and expectations o n t o past lifeways and cultural formations that may bear little relation to anything familiar from the ethnohistoric pres­ ent. Critics of the N e w A r c h a e o l o g y argue pointedly that archaeological narratives about the past are " a l w a y s already" narratives of contemporary significance; they so radically overreach any available evidence that they cannot but track p o w e r in the present.

28

W h a t these critical analyses d r a w

attention to is not just the fact of underdetermination and the insecurity of inference in particular instances of third and fourth m o m e n t produc­ tion, but the cumulative, amplifying effects of error and ignorance once it enters a historically extended research p r o g r a m . To understand this t e m p o r a l d y n a m i c , consider an a r g u m e n t devel­ o p e d by Ian H a c k i n g in an essay on w e a p o n s r e s e a r c h .

29

W h e n scientists

focus on particular w e a p o n s - r e l a t e d p r o b l e m s , H a c k i n g argues, n o t only are resources diverted f r o m other currently p r o m i s i n g lines of inquiry but the o p t i o n s available for future research are restructured. T h e deci­ sion to channel research energies in these w a y s reshapes everything f r o m descriptive categories and research techniques to e x p l a n a t o r y hypotheses

and orienting theories; it c h a n g e s the science itself and the " w o r l d of mind and t e c h n i q u e " in w h i c h science is t r a n s a c t e d .

30

By e x t e n s i o n , this

c a n a l i z a t i o n of inquiry in a n y one field has implications for w h a t is or b e c o m e s possible in other fields, determining w h a t t e c h n o l o g i e s of in­ vestigation, w h a t collateral k n o w l e d g e , is available for a p p l i c a t i o n in the kinds of interdisciplinary e x c h a n g e s that h a v e enriched a r c h a e o l o g y from its inception. T h e i m p a c t and t o r t u o u s history of c a r b o n - 1 4 dating in a r c h a e o l o g y is a case in point; the difficulty in refining a p p l i c a t i o n s of isotope analysis is a n o t h e r .

31

In the hands of the sharpest critics of the N e w A r c h a e o l o g i s t s , these worries have been assumed to entail an u n c o m p r o m i s i n g constructivism according to w h i c h there is nothing to archaeological accounts of the past but layered silences: expansive ignorance and exuberant invention. Trouil­ lot both invokes and resists such constructivism as it arises in history; he insists that the line between history and fiction may be transgressed and blurred in innumerable w a y s , but nonetheless bears epistemic as well as rhetorical weight. An unequivocal constructivism " c a n n o t give a full ac­ c o u n t of the p r o d u c t i o n of any single n a r r a t i v e " ; it undercuts the " c o g n i ­ tive p u r p o s e " of history." It is because fields like history and a r c h a e o l o g y have c o n t e m p o r a r y significance that we require more than fictionaliza­ tion: we impose "test[s] of credibility on certain events and narratives" because it matters w h e t h e r they are " f a c t or fiction."

32

A n d in these tests

of credibility, Trouillot argues, we exploit the intransigent materiality of the record left by the events that concern us. What happened leaves traces, some of which are quite concrete—buildings, dead bodies, censuses, monuments, diaries, political boundaries—that limit the range and significance of any historical narrative. This is one of the many reasons why not any fiction can pass for history: the materiality of the socio-historical pro­ cesses (historicity 1) sets the stage for future historical narratives (historicity 2).

33

Trouillot identifies three strategies by w h i c h historians m a k e use of these resources to identify and counteract silences: repositioning evidence, critical historiography, and the cross-examination of contrasting interpre­ tations. Consider the critical appraisal of ignorance and the constructive responses to it by w h i c h such strategies have been used to negotiate the

silences inherent in one particularly rich tradition of N o r t h A m e r i c a n ar­ chaeological research.

IGNORANCE, THE

SILENCES,

A R C H A E O L O G Y

OF

UNCERTAINTIES "EMINENT

IN

M O U N D S "

T h e earthen m o u n d sites of the Mississippi, Tennessee, Illinois, and O h i o river valleys—sites associated with the prehistoric H o p e w e l l and Mississip­ pian c u l t u r e s — a r e a m o n g the m o s t intensively studied in N o r t h A m e r i c a ; they have been m a p p e d , described, excavated, interpreted, and speculated a b o u t since the mid-nineteenth century. In a s y m p o s i u m sponsored by the Society for A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y in 2 0 0 3 — " E m b l e m s of A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y ' s Past: Eminent M o u n d Sites of the Eastern W o o d l a n d s R e ­ v i s i t e d " — a d o z e n archaeologists currently w o r k i n g on these sites t o o k stock of the trajectory of research t h r o u g h the 1 0 0 - 1 5 0 years they have been i n v e s t i g a t e d .

34

T h e y w e r e c o n c e r n e d , not only to delineate specific

loci and patterns of ignorance that m a r k this long and c o m p l i c a t e d re­ search tradition, but also to assess the prospects for m a k i n g effective use of its a c c u m u l a t e d records and finds to address n e w questions and to redress long-standing gaps and distortions. T h e H o p e w e l l sites consist o f e a r t h w o r k s and settlements ranging f r o m 200 B C t o A D 400 (Middle W o o d l a n d ) , associated w i t h horticulture based on indigenous domesti­ cates and w i t h assemblages of artifacts characterized by a distinctive de­ sign tradition that incorporates material traded from as far a w a y as the R o c k y M o u n t a i n s and the A p p a l a c h i a n s , the G u l f C o a s t and the G r e a t Lakes. T h e later Mississippian sites date to AD 9 5 0 - 1 5 5 0 and are charac­ terized by elaborate ceremonial c o m p l e x e s that include e a r t h w o r k s and extensive palisades as well as m o u n d s , a related design t r a d i t i o n — t h e Southern C e r e m o n i a l C o m p l e x — a n d well-established practices of maize agriculture. E v e r y o n e discussing the history of research at these sites ac­ k n o w l e d g e d that the b o d y of a c c u m u l a t e d k n o w l e d g e "crafted by the scholars w h o preceded u s " is an exceedingly m i x e d l e g a c y

35

and, in as­

sessing this legacy, they illustrate h o w k n o w l e d g e and ignorance are c o p r o d u c e d in all the w a y s suggested by contributors to The Encyclopedia of Ignorance and at each of the m o m e n t s in the historical research p r o ­ cess identified by Trouillot.

The

Vagaries

of Evidence

O n e might think that, at the very least, a century of investigation w o u l d deliver c o n t e m p o r a r y researchers an enviably rich body of empirical data, but, in fact, this is w h e r e the trouble starts. H o p e w e l l and Mississippian m o u n d sites were m a p p e d and e x c a v a t e d in w i d e l y varying, inconsistent w a y s t h r o u g h o u t the period in w h i c h a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y p r o ­ fessionalized—its goals shifting and its standards of practice c h a n g i n g dramatically in the process. In the nineteenth century, d o c u m e n t a t i o n and opportunistic e x c a v a t i o n focused on the highly visible, the m o n u m e n t a l , the exotic, and w a s structured by curiosity a b o u t w h o could possibly have built the m o u n d s that w e r e so prominent in the central N o r t h A m e r i c a n landscape. It w a s widely assumed that none of the indigenous peoples living in the region at the time of contact w e r e capable of such massive construction, but even so, the m o u n d s stood as a reproach to claims of manifest destiny and the presumption that the rich lands along the interior w a t e r w a y s were uncultivated and unpeopled. A great m a n y e a r t h w o r k s and m o u n d s were destroyed to m a k e w a y for construction, or were m o r e s l o w l y dispersed by successively deeper and more destructive p l o w i n g , as agriculture w a s increasingly mechanized and industrialized. Large-scale archaeological projects supported by the W o r k s Projects Administration in the 1 9 3 0 s generated vast quantities of archaeological data, but the detail and precision of documentation varied widely and publication w a s uneven. Sometimes nothing at all w a s published, as in the case of M a r k s v i l l e , or only the most superficial of summaries appeared, as at S h i l o h .

37

36

Often

even the most substantial publications were highly selective; m a n y of the features reported in field notes w e n t unmentioned in published reports, and general descriptions were published w i t h o u t stratigraphic profiles of e x c a v a t e d trenches or detailed-enough coordinates to a l l o w the reidenti­ fication of e x c a v a t i o n u n i t s .

38

This pattern of expansive e x c a v a t i o n and

selective recording and publication often continued, on a smaller scale and w i t h a focus on t y p o l o g y and chronology, t h r o u g h the 1 9 5 0 s . In the last forty years archaeologists have developed more sharply focused and technically sophisticated projects designed not only to refine regional chronologies but to d o c u m e n t the internal structure, the sequence of con­ struction, and the occupational histories of " E m i n e n t M o u n d " sites. T h i s

is a necessary foundation for answering m o r e ambitious questions a b o u t the function of specific sites and features, regional subsistence patterns, shifting interaction spheres, and, most provocatively, the social organiza­ tion and the meaning of the distinctive symbolic repertoire of pre-contact H o p e w e l l and Mississippian cultures. M a n y of the surviving m o u n d s are n o w protected sites at the state or national level, so e x c a v a t i o n is strictly limited and there is a strong presumption that any n e w fieldwork must be informed as comprehensively as possible by the results of previous field projects; old data must be enlisted to answer n e w questions. To this end, archaeologists n o w w o r k i n g on such sites, represented by contributors to the "Eminent M o u n d s " s y m p o s i u m , routinely undertake w h a t a m o u n t s to a secondary retrieval of facts of the record: they reas­ semble surviving collections and records; they reconstruct architectural and stratigraphic d r a w i n g s from field notes; and they integrate w h a t e v e r they can glean from fragmentary records into comprehensive site m a p s , some­ times w i t h the help of stratigraphic profiles and other data generated by reopening the trenches e x c a v a t e d by earlier generations of archaeologists. In the process, they find not only that the empirical legacy of 1 5 0 years of archaeological w o r k is rife w i t h gaps and inconsistencies, a reflection of evolving retrieval and recording practices, but also that it has been badly c o m p r o m i s e d by p o o r storage conditions, sometimes lost altogether,

39

or

dispersed a m o n g institutions in w a y s that greatly complicate any systematic use of existing records and c o l l e c t i o n s .

40

T h e tragedy is that often these

maps and p h o t o g r a p h s , field notes, and collections are all that remains of sites that have long since been heavily looted, p l o w e d under, or bulldozed to m a k e w a y for land development projects. Even w h e n material survives in the collections of sponsoring institutions, it m a y be presumed unusable by later generations of archaeologists and i g n o r e d .

41

At the same time archaeologists intent on reclaiming w h a t they can from existing collections and records have discovered unexpectedly rich resources in museum basements and warehouses, pieced together from collections and archives that had been ignored or presumed unusable by intervening generations of archaeologists. T h e process of recovering this material and putting it to w o r k is often highly labor intensive,

42

and sometimes depends

on creative use of n e w computer-based technologies to effect a variant of

Trouillot's first strategy, quite literally repositioning the evidence. For exam­ ple, archaeologists w o r k i n g on the Mississippian sites of Aztalan in Wiscon­ sin and Jonathan Creek in Kentucky have transposed all existing site maps to a single GIS system, to w h i c h they then link the information they have retrieved from surviving field notes and excavated collections.

43

This has

generated some startling results, and represents a strategy of reassessment that t h r o w s into relief the contours of systematic bias and elisions—forms of i g n o r a n c e — t h a t reflect deeply entrenched interpretive conventions.

The

Legacy

of Interpretative

Conventions

Ironically, while the material record of the cultural past has proven distress­ ingly vulnerable to attrition, interpretations of this record have demonstrated remarkable staying power; they "haunt our current understanding,"

44

setting

"interpretive f r a m e w o r k s . . . that persist in p o p u l a r and even in scholarly reviews."

45

T h e play of p o w e r traced by Trouillot is clearly evident in the

third and fourth m o m e n t p r o d u c t i o n of claims a b o u t the archaeological past, manifest in structures of evidence and interpretive theory that have been shaped by institutional interests and cultural politics. T h e d o m i n a n t interpretive themes in the archaeology of H o p e w e l l and Mississippian sites reflect a p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the question of origins and, by extension, the place of the m o u n d builders in a hierarchy of so­ cial, cultural forms that were presumed to lie along a linear trajectory of cultural evolution. T h e m o u n d builder debates of the nineteenth century were resolved, at least in professional c o n t e x t s , w h e n e x c a v a t i o n revealed burial p o p u l a t i o n s w h o s e m o r p h o l o g y w a s well within the frame of that typical of contemporary Native Americans, as avidly documented by nineteenth-century collectors of skulls and skeletal material. But the fas­ cination w i t h burials, w i t h the exotic and ceremonial, and w i t h the savage (especially evidence of w a r f a r e and cannibalism) continued to dominate archaeological thinking well into the twentieth century. T h e legacy of this interpretive tradition is a history of third m o m e n t archaeological retrieval in w h i c h those w o r k i n g on H o p e w e l l and Mississippian sites have sought out and selectively emphasized forms of evidence that are c o n s o n a n t w i t h the political and cultural interests that animate fourth m o m e n t narratives a b o u t the cultural past.

T h i s canalization of archaeological t h o u g h t and action is evident in the entrenched presumption that m o u n d s w e r e all burial sites or crema­ toria. At the M i d d l e W o o d l a n d e a r t h w o r k sites of Fort Ancient in O h i o and Poverty Point in Louisiana, the m o r t u a r y interpretation sometimes originated in the reports of e x c a v a t o r s in the 1890s and 1 9 3 0 s w h o , it turns out, actually described a puzzling lack of skeletal material, or the presence of fragmentary and a m b i g u o u s faunal remains that have since disappeared f r o m c o l l e c t i o n s .

46

In cases w h e r e m o r t u a r y material w a s

recovered, fascination w i t h the exotic dominates; the incidence of disar­ ticulated or dispersed h u m a n bones at A z t a l a n is the basis for attributions of cannibalism that have p r o v e n hard to d i s l o d g e .

47

In the first case, in

w h i c h a burial function is inferred in the absence of m o r t u a r y remains, ignorance is addressed by recovering the history of the narrative at issue, returning to original sources, and reexamining the archaeological evidence on w h i c h these narratives are purportedly based. A n d in the second, the crucial strategy has been to reassess the b a c k g r o u n d assumptions that inform the interpretation. Attributions of cannibalism are only plausible if interpretation presupposes a n a r r o w l y ethnocentric set of assumptions a b o u t m o r t u a r y practice; if a broader range of ethnohistoric sources are considered, it becomes clear that disarticulated and dispersed skeletal ma­ terial is the archaeological signature for a variety of m o r t u a r y traditions that involve elaborate preparation of the dead and secondary burial, n o t necessarily (or only) c a n n i b a l i s m .

48

T h i s is an instance of Trouillot's strat­

egy of repositioning evidence that extends to the interpretive sources as well as the surviving material record of archaeological subjects.

49

These strategies of repositioning evidence and critical historiography, supplemented by Trouillot's third s t r a t e g y — t h a t of exploiting dissonance a m o n g interpretive conventions to identify points at w h i c h projective con­ ventions m a y be o p e r a t i n g — a l l play a role in identifying and countering simplistic models of social organization that have dominated fourth m o ­ ment interpretive and e x p l a n a t o r y theorizing. A limited repertoire of nar­ ratives a b o u t m o u n d builder cultures both reinforces and is reinforced by a selective focus on the monumental and the exotic. In most general terms, this interpretive tradition reflects the lingering influence of nineteenthcentury theories of cultural evolution. T h e local and regional histories of

these sites are routinely read in terms of the conventions of a theory of cultural evolution that posits a linear progression f r o m bands to tribes to chiefdoms to states. Interpretation vacillates between a tendency to identify m o u n d centers either as emergent proto-states or as inherently unstable chiefdoms, exaggerating their social differentiation, internal complexity, hierarchy, and centralization of power, on the one hand, or emphasizing the repetitive structure and relative a u t o n o m y of the local polities that periodically coalesced into regional n e t w o r k s , on the other.

50

Neither set

of conventions fits these sites well w h e n the c o m p l e x i t y of occupational histories is taken into account. On conventional accounts it w a s assumed that the major H o p e w e l l and Mississippian sites must have been occupied continuously, s h o w i n g gradual, sustained g r o w t h into their status as regional centers, f o l l o w e d by precipitous collapse. But site chronologies and occupational h i s t o r i e s — n o w refined t h r o u g h reanalysis of existing data and r e e x c a v a t i o n of old trenches to establish stratigraphic s e q u e n c e s — d e m o n s t r a t e that m a n y of these sites w e r e periodically a b a n d o n e d , sometimes for as m u c h as 1 0 0 years at a time in occupational histories of 4 5 0 y e a r s .

51

W h e n they were

occupied, they e x p a n d e d and contracted in size and configuration; their periods of major fluorescence w e r e not necessarily the culmination of a history of successively larger and m o r e visible o c c u p a t i o n .

52

It had also

been presumed that, where regional commonalities are evident in the style of e a r t h w o r k s , various classes of material culture, and inferred ceremonial practice, these must have diffused f r o m regional centers to smaller sites in the hinterland. There is certainly evidence of a distinctive H o p e w e l l ar­ chitectural g r a m m a r m a r k e d by c o m m o n units of m e a s u r e ,

53

cal alignment in the internal structure of Mississippian sites,

54

astronomi­ and w i d e l y

distributed stylistic conventions (for e x a m p l e , the Southern C e r e m o n i a l C o m p l e x ) , but reexamination of regional and site-specific chronologies makes it clear that simple patterns of migration and diffusion are implau­ sible. Sites identified as regional centers p r o v e to have been a b a n d o n e d during the periods in w h i c h their influence w a s assumed to have been at its h e i g h t .

55

Sites like M a r k s v i l l e , that had been interpreted as H o p e w e l l

outposts, s h o w persistent and puzzling anomalies that suggest they w e r e manifestations of a locally derived tradition o n t o w h i c h some features fa-

miliar from H o p e w e l l sites were grafted: a "veneer on a local t r a d i t i o n . "

56

M o r e o v e r , local traditions are proving to have been highly variable within the regions and periods of their influence. Stylistic diversity within sites (of architecture and of artifacts) had been interpreted as evidence of displace­ ment by or coexistence between distinct cultural groups. At sites like Jona­ than Creek, however, r e w o r k e d chronologies suggest the contemporaneity of styles that had been assumed to m a r k successive o c c u p a t i o n s , and the integration of site m a p s brings into focus intra-site distribution patterns that o v e r w h e l m any simplistic model of g r o u p affiliation.

57

These critical insights reinforce a healthy respect for the systematic nature of our ignorance a b o u t these cultures. T h e y suggest that w h a t ar­ chaeologists are dealing w i t h in these reaches of the cultural past are so­ cial, cultural formations that do not c o n f o r m either to the idealized stages posited by theories of cultural evolution or to the expectations generated by a repertoire of canonical ethnohistoric e x a m p l e s .

58

T h e y t h r o w into re­

lief the effects of a canalization of research by narrative conventions that shape the w o r l d of thought in w h i c h "Eminent M o u n d s " are investigated on every level, from fieldwork strategies and descriptive claims a b o u t the contents of the record, to culture-specific reconstructions and broad ex­ planatory theory. At the same time, they open up intriguing new possibilities for interpretation. T h e upshot is an emerging consensus that conventional assumptions a b o u t cultural e v o l u t i o n , succession, and interaction must be systematically reassessed. M u l l e r argues against exaggerating vertical hierarchy and the degree of social differentiation in Mississippian societies, and K i n g urges attention to shifting elite strategies at E t o w a h , while Kelly, B r o w n , and M a c h i r a n argue for recognizing a dynamic tension between the c o r p o r a t e and n e t w o r k strategies of elites at C a h o k i a . M i l n e r a n d Schroeder c a u t i o n , more generally, against the imposition of "restrictive and static cultural c a t e g o r i e s " derived from evolutionary schemas; w h e n archaeologists attend to a broader range of ethnohistoric sources than is typically considered, the well-documented volatility of chiefdoms calls into question the usefulness of this category for understanding the prehistoric societies associated w i t h Eminent M o u n d sites.

59

Ignorance is atlantic, to be sure, but focusing on h o w it is p r o d u c e d and maintained holds the potential for systematic, empirically and theoreti-

cally well-informed calibration of w h a t we k n o w . T h e greatest challenge lies in resisting the pressure to assume that w h e n comprehensive, definitive k n o w l e d g e lies out of reach, the result is undifferentiated ignorance. It seems to be a common defect of human minds that they tend to crave for com­ plete certainty of belief or disbelief.

60

NOTES 1.

Duncan and Weston-Smith,

"Editorial Preface,"

The Encyclopaedia

of Ignorance

( N e w Y o r k : P e r g a m o n Press, 1 9 7 7 ) , ix. 2 . C . W . Kilmister,

" M a t h e m a t i c s i n the Social Sciences"; M . M .

Lehman,

"Human

T h o u g h t and A c t i o n as an Ingredient of System Behaviour," Encyclopaedia of Ignorance, 175-189,

347-354.

3 . O . R . Frisch, " W h y , " E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f Ignorance, 4.

Sir J o h n K e n d r e w ,

5. D. Ignorance,

C. Johanson,

1-4.

"Introduction," Encyclopaedia of Ignorance, 2 0 5 - 2 0 7 .

" R e t h i n k i n g the Origins o f the G e n u s H o m o , ' " E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f

243-250.

6 . H . B . B a r l o w , " T h e L a n g u a g e s o f the B r a i n " ; H . A . B u c h t e l a n d G . B e r l u c c h i , " L e a r n i n g a n d M e m o r y a n d t h e N e r v o u s S y s t e m " ; R . W . Sperry, " P r o b l e m s O u t s t a n d i n g i n t h e E v o l u t i o n o f Brain F u n c t i o n , " E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f Ignorance, 2 5 0 - 2 7 2 , 3 1 7 - 3 3 0 , 2 8 3 - 2 9 8 , 4 2 3 - 4 3 3 . 7.

R. A. Lyttleton,

"The Nature of Knowledge," Encyclopaedia of Ignorance,

12.

8. Kendrew, "Introduction," Encyclopaedia of Ignorance, 206. 9. W. B. W e b b , "Sleep"; R. L. Gregory, "Consciousness"; Kendrew, "Introduction," Encyclopaedia of Ignorance, 374, 276, 206. 10.

F o r e x a m p l e , Sperry, " P r o b l e m s O u t s t a n d i n g , " E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f I g n o r a n c e , 4 3 2 -

11.

Kendrew, "Introduction," Encyclopaedia of Ignorance, 206.

12.

Sperry, " P r o b l e m s O u t s t a n d i n g , " E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f I g n o r a n c e , 4 2 4 .

13.

Lehman, " H u m a n T h o u g h t and A c t i o n , " Encyclopaedia o f Ignorance, 3 5 4 .

433.

14. J. H. P. Willis, " D r u g Addiction," Encyclopaedia of Ignorance, 3 7 0 . 15.

N. L. Falcon, "Ignorance beneath O u r Feet," Encyclopaedia of Ignorance, 420.

16.

Barry Barnes a n d D a v i d Bloor,

"Relativism,

R a t i o n a l i s m and the

Sociology of

K n o w l e d g e , " R a t i o n a l i t y a n d R e l a t i v i s m , eds. M . H o l l i s and S . L u k e s ( O x f o r d : Basil B l a c k w e l l , 1982),

2 2 - 2 3 ; Bruno Latour,

We H a v e N e v e r Been M o d e r n (Hempstead, UK: Harvester

Wheatsheaf, 1993), 24, 103. 17.

Peter N o v i c k , T h a t N o b l e D r e a m : T h e

" O b j e c t i v i t y Q u e s t i o n " a n d the A m e r i c a n

H i s t o r i c a l Profession ( C a m b r i d g e , U K : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1 9 8 8 ) . 1 8 . A l i s o n W y l i e , T h i n k i n g f r o m T h i n g s : E s s a y s i n the P h i l o s o p h y o f A r c h a e o l o g y (Berkeley: University o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , esp. " P h i l o s o p h y f r o m the G r o u n d U p , " 19.

1-23.

M i c h e l - R o l p h Trouillot, Silencing the Past: P o w e r a n d the P r o d u c t i o n o f H i s t o r y

(Boston: Beacon, 1 9 9 5 ) , 4 - 1 3 . 2 0 . Trouillot, Silencing the Past, 8, 26. 21.

I n t h e d e b a t e s t h a t g a v e rise t o t h e N e w A r c h a e o l o g y i n t h e

1960s and

1970s,

traditional a r c h a e o l o g y w a s identified w i t h culture-historical inquiry, a research p r o g r a m

chiefly c o n c e r n e d w i t h " s p a c e - t i m e s y s t e m a t i c s " — e s t a b l i s h i n g c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n d t y p o l o g i c a l s c h e m e s — t h a t w a s said t o have d o m i n a t e d a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a r c h a e o l o g y i n N o r t h A m e r i c a u p t o t h e 1 9 6 0 s . I n f a c t , a n t e c e d e n t s o f t h e N e w A r c h a e o l o g y a r e e v i d e n t w e l l b e f o r e its appearance, and forms of so-called traditional archaeology continue to characterize research i n m a n y c o n t e x t s . W y l i e , " T h e C o n c e p t u a l C o r e o f the N e w A r c h a e o l o g y , " Things, 22.

Thinking from

57-76. D i o g e n e s of Sinope w a s a p h i l o s o p h e r associated w i t h the C y n i c s of the fourth

century b c e w h o , i n r e n o u n c i n g w o r l d l y w e a l t h and a m b i t i o n , w a s said t o h a v e t a k e n up temporary residence in a large tub. M.

A.

Smith,

" T h e Limitations of Inference in

A r c h a e o l o g y , " A r c h a e o l o g i c a l N e w s Letter 6 ( 1 9 5 5 ) : 1 - 7 , esp. 2 ; Wylie, " H o w N e w I s the N e w Archaeology?"

Thinking from Things, 5 - 4 1 .

23.

Smith, "Limitations of Inference," 4 - 5 .

24.

Christopher H a w k e s , "Archaeological T h e o r y and M e t h o d : Some Suggestions from

the O l d W o r l d , " A m e r i c a n A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 5 6 ( 1 9 5 4 ) :

1 5 5 - 1 6 8 . See a l s o Stuart P i g g o t t ,

A p p r o a c h t o A r c h a e o l o g y ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d University Press, G . Trigger, A H i s t o r y o f A r c h a e o l o g i c a l T h o u g h t ( C a m b r i d g e , U K :

1 9 5 9 ) ; and Bruce

Cambridge University

Press, 1 9 8 9 ) , 3 9 2 - 3 9 3 . 25. Wylie, "Conceptual Core," 6 1 - 7 6 . 26.

See, for e x a m p l e , L e w i s R . B i n f o r d ,

Antiquity

28

(1962):

217-225;

"Archeology as Anthropology," American

"A Consideration of Archeological Research Design,"

A m e r i c a n Antiquity 2 9 (1964): 4 2 5 - 4 4 1 ; "Archaeological Perspectives," N e w Perspectives in A r c h e o l o g y , eds. Lewis R. Binford and Sally R. Binford ( C h i c a g o : Aldine, 1 9 6 8 ) , 5 - 3 2 . Discussed in Wylie, " C o n c e p t u a l C o r e , " esp. 6 3 - 6 4 , 7 3 - 7 6 . 27.

Lyttleton, " T h e Nature of K n o w l e d g e , "

11.

2 8 . For e x a m p l e , M i c h a e l S h a n k s a n d C h r i s t o p h e r Tilley, R e - C o n s t r u c t i n g A r c h a e o l o g y ( C a m b r i d g e , U K : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8 7 ) , e s p . iii, 1 0 4 . F o r d i s c u s s i o n , see W y l i e , " T h e Interpretive D i l e m m a " and ' " H e a v i l y D e c o m p o s i n g R e d Herrings': M i d d l e G r o u n d i n the A n t i - / P o s t p r o c e s s u a l i s m W a r s , " T h i n k i n g f r o m T h i n g s , 1 1 7 - 1 2 6 , 1 7 1 - 1 7 8 . 29.

I a n H a c k i n g , " W e a p o n s R e s e a r c h a n d t h e F o r m o f Scientific K n o w l e d g e , " C a n a d i a n

Journal of Philosophy Supplementary vol.

12 (1986):

2 3 7 - 2 6 0 . Reprinted in The Social

C o n s t r u c t i o n o f W h a t ? ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press,

1999), 1 6 3 - 1 8 5 .

30. H a c k i n g , " W e a p o n s Research," 2 5 9 . 31.

In the case of c a r b o n - 1 4 dating, substantial resources were b r o u g h t to bear to

f a c i l i t a t e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f p e a c e t i m e a p p l i c a t i o n s o f n u c l e a r p h y s i c s i m m e d i a t e l y after W o r l d W a r II. A r c h a e o l o g i c a l c h r o n o l o g i e s h a v e b e e n d r a m a t i c a l l y r e f r a m e d a n d e x t e n d e d as a result, a l t h o u g h the process of s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n a n d calibration has been m o r e c o m p l e x t h a n anticipated. By contrast, the use of stable (nonradioactive) i s o t o p e analysis to reconstruct l i f e t i m e d i e t a r y p r o f i l e s h a s b e e n l i m i t e d b y a l a c k o f a n y c o m p a r a b l e s u p p o r t , d e s p i t e its p r o m i s e . A l i s o n W y l i e , " R e t h i n k i n g U n i t y as a W o r k i n g H y p o t h e s i s for P h i l o s o p h y of Science: H o w A r c h a e o l o g i s t s E x p l o i t the D i s u n i t y o f Science," Perspectives o n Science 7.3 293-317;

" P h i l o s o p h y in Practice:

(2000):

Evidence Stabilizing Technologies in Archaeology,"

presented in " M e t h o d o l o g y in Practice," P h i l o s o p h y of Science A s s o c i a t i o n Biennial M e e t i n g (Milwaukee, W I , 2002). 32.

Trouillot, Silencing the Past, 1 1 , 1 3 .

33.

Trouillot, Silencing the Past, 2 9 .

34.

S y m p o s i u m o r g a n i z e d b y Sissel S c h r o e d e r f o r t h e 6 8 t h A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e S o c i e t y

f o r A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y ( M i l w a u k e e , W I , 2 0 0 3 ) . W h e r e v e r p o s s i b l e I cite p u b l i s h e d v e r s i o n s o f t h e p a p e r s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s s y m p o s i u m , o r r e l a t e d p u b l i c a t i o n s o n t h e sites d i s c u s s e d . 35.

Lynne Sullivan,

"Archaeological Time

H i w a s s e e Island M o u n d , "

75

Years o f T V A

Constructs

and the

A r c h a e o l o g y , eds.

C o n s t r u c t i o n of the

Todd Ahlman

and Erin

Pritchard ( K n o x v i l l e : U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee Press, f o r t h c o m i n g ) , 1. 36. Charles R. M c G i m s e y , Katherine M. Roberts, E. E d w i n Jackson, M i c h a e l L. Hargrave, "Marksville T h e n and N o w : 75 Years of D i g g i n g , " Louisiana Archaeological Society Bulletin 2 6 ( 2 0 0 5 ) : 1 , 4 . M a r k s v i l l e i s i d e n t i f i e d a s a t y p e site f o r t h e M i d d l e W o o d l a n d i n t h e L o w e r M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r valley, significant for d e m o n s t r a t i n g the e x t e n t of the H o p e w e l l cultural t r a d i t i o n s t h a t h a d c h i e f l y b e e n i d e n t i f i e d w i t h sites i n O h i o . 37.

Paul D. Welch, D a v i d G.

Anderson,

and John E.

Cornelison,

"A Century of

A r c h a e o l o g y at Shiloh Indian M o u n d s , " paper presented at the 68th A n n u a l M e e t i n g of the S o c i e t y for A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y ( M i l w a u k e e , W I , 2 0 0 3 ) . W e l c h , A n d e r s o n , a n d C o r n e l i s o n describe a four-page report that w a s the only publication on e x c a v a t i o n s at Shiloh that h a d o p e n e d u p t h o u s a n d s o f s q u a r e feet. See a l s o P a u l D . W e l c h , A r c h a e o l o g y a t S h i l o h Indian M o u n d s ,

1 8 9 9 - 1 9 9 9 (Tuscaloosa: University o f A l a b a m a Press, 2 0 0 6 ) , 2 3 .

38. Welch, Shiloh Indian M o u n d s , 30, 3 5 - 4 0 . 39. era

W e l c h describes the difficulty o f w o r k i n g w i t h surviving c o l l e c t i o n s f r o m W P A -

excavations

(Shiloh

at the

Museum

Indian M o u n d s , 2 3 - 2 4 )

of Natural History, given (see n o t e 4 1

fragmentary

documentation

b e l o w ) . M c G i m s e y e t al. o b s e r v e t h a t the

artifact collections generated by extensive e x c a v a t i o n s at M a r k s v i l l e in the

1930s

"are

substantial and w o u l d have been of great value as the ceramic characteristics and culture history of the M a r k s v i l l e period were being defined"

but that m a n y of the original field

r e c o r d s h a d b e e n l o s t ( " M a r k s v i l l e T h e n a n d N o w , " 3 ) . K i n g f o u n d t h a t n o t o n l y h a d all the d o c u m e n t s b e e n lost t h a t m i g h t link artifact c o l l e c t i o n s t o specific e x c a v a t i o n c o n t e x t s a t m o u n d sites i n t h e E t o w a h V a l l e y , b u t " a s u b s t a n t i a l p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e artifacts c o l l e c t e d [by W P A e x c a v a t i o n t e a m s ] w e r e d i s c a r d e d after t h e o r i g i n a l a n a l y s i s w a s p e r f o r m e d " ; all that remain are t y p e collections " c o m p o s e d of u n i q u e sherds a n d representative e x a m p l e s of more c o m m o n types." A d a m King, E t o w a h : T h e Political History of a Chiefdom Capital (Tuscaloosa: University of A l a b a m a Press, 2 0 0 3 ) , 3 6 . 40.

" W o r k i n g w i t h the E t o w a h d a t a i s m a d e m o r e c o m p l e x b y the fact t h a t four different

i n s t i t u t i o n s s p o n s o r e d e x c a v a t i o n s at the site, so c o l l e c t i o n s are h o u s e d in six l o c a t i o n s . . . [each of w h i c h ]

h a s its o w n h i s t o r y , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s y s t e m , a n d p r o c e d u r e s f o r a c c e s s i n g

collections." A d a m K i n g , " R e t u r n t o E t o w a h , A n c i e n t C u l t Center," p a p e r presented a t the 6 8 t h A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f the S o c i e t y for A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y ( M i l w a u k e e , W I , 2 0 0 3 ) , 2 . K i n g outlines the history of E t o w a h Valley a r c h a e o l o g y in m o r e detail a n d describes the surviving collections and records in E t o w a h , 3 3 - 3 6 , 5 0 - 5 2 . 41.

S o m e t i m e s , C o n n o l l y observes, there is a t e n d e n c y to dismiss the value of surviving

records, and to generate interpretations that do not take into a c c o u n t counterevidence available i n t h e field n o t e s a n d c o l l e c t i o n s g e n e r a t e d b y e a r l i e r g e n e r a t i o n s o f a r c h a e o l o g i s t s ( p e r s . c o m m . , M a y 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 ) . H e d e s c r i b e s , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e field r e c o r d s c o m p i l e d by some of the excavators w h o w o r k e d at Fort A n c i e n t in the

1 9 4 0 s (e.g., b y M o r g a n ,

w h o s e records i n c l u d e d a v i d e o o f the e x c a v a t i o n s a s w e l l a s detailed profiles a n d m a p s ) , a n d t h e u s e f u l i n s i g h t s t o b e d e r i v e d f r o m r e c o r d s o f less s y s t e m a t i c w o r k u n d e r t a k e n s i x t y y e a r s earlier (e.g., b y M o o r e h e a d i n 1 8 8 7 ) . T h e s e p r o v i d e d the basis for reassessing Prufer's "defensive fortification/vacant ceremonial center m o d e l " of the 1 9 6 0 s . R o b e r t P. C o n n o l l y , " T h e E v i d e n c e for H a b i t a t i o n a t the F o r t A n c i e n t E a r t h w o r k s , W a r r a n t C o u n t y , O h i o , "

O h i o H o p e w e l l C o m m u n i t y O r g a n i z a t i o n , eds. W. S. D a n c y and P. J. P a c h e c o (Kent, O H : K e n t State U n i v e r s i t y Press,

1997), 251-282.

4 2 . W e l c h describes the g r o u n d w o r k laid b y Bruce Smith, w h o assembled scattered d o c u m e n t s related to Shiloh over several decades, a n d then spent w e e k s w o r k i n g w i t h the collections held by the N a t i o n a l M u s e u m of N a t u r a l H i s t o r y collections in order to "piece together w h a t is recorded and to discover w h a t information is truly missing." Shiloh Indian M o u n d s , 28, 2 3 - 2 4 . 43.

Sissel S c h r o e d e r ,

"Reclaiming N e w Deal-Era

Civic Archaeology:

L e g a c y o f W i l l i a m S . W e b b and the J o n a t h a n C r e e k Site,"

E x p l o r i n g the

C R M : The Journal of Heritage

Stewardship 2.1 (2005): 5 3 - 7 1 , esp. 5 7 - 5 9 ; L y n n e Goldstein and D o n a l d H . Gaff, " R e c a s t i n g the Past: E x a m i n i n g A s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t A z t a l a n , " T h e W i s c o n s i n A r c h a e o l o g i s t 8 3 . 2 (2002): 9 8 - 1 1 0 , esp. 44.

107-108.

Peter C u n n i n g h a m , L y n n e G o l d s t e i n ,

and Donald H.

Gaff,

"Reexamining and

Reinterpreting Aztalan: M a k i n g O l d D a t a Useful b y Integrating I t with N e w A p p r o a c h e s , " paper presented

at the

68th

A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f the S o c i e t y for A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y

(Milwaukee, W I , 2003), 1. 45. Jon Muller,

"Kincaid M x i , P p i , "

p a p e r presented a t the

o f the S o c i e t y for A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y ( M i l w a u k e e , W I , 2 0 0 3 ) , "The History of Archaeology in West Virginia,"

68th Annual Meeting 1 . See a l s o J o n M u l l e r ,

Histories of Southeastern Archaeology,

eds. S h a n n o n T u s h i n g h a m , Jane Hill, a n d Charles H . M c N u t t (Tuscaloosa: University o f A l a b a m a Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 9 9 - 1 1 4 . 46.

Robert P.

Connolly,

" F r o m Authority to

Guide:

T h e Archaeologist in Public

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , " p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 6 8 t h A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e S o c i e t y for A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y ( M i l w a u k e e , W I , 2 0 0 3 ) , F o r t A n c i e n t , 3 - 4 ; P o v e r t y P o i n t , 6 - 9 . See a l s o R o b e r t P. C o n n o l l y and Bradley T. Lepper, eds., T h e Fort A n c i e n t E a r t h w o r k s : Prehistoric L i f e w a y s o f the H o p e w e l l C u l t u r e i n S o u t h w e s t e r n O h i o ( C o l u m b u s :

O h i o H i s t o r y Society,

2004),

85-113. 47. Cunningham, Goldstein, and Gaff, "Aztalan," 2. 48.

Goldstein makes

a g e n e r a l a r g u m e n t for r e c o g n i z i n g the diversity o f m o r t u a r y

practice; " c o n t e x t is e v e r y t h i n g , " a n d simplistic interpretive a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t the practices associated w i t h particular types of skeletal t r e a t m e n t or b i o p h y s i c a l attributes are largely untenable. Lynne Goldstein, " M o r t u a r y Analysis and Bioarchaeology," Bioarchaeology: The C o n t e x t u a l A n a l y s i s of H u m a n R e m a i n s , eds. L. A.

Beck and J. E. Buikstra

(Burlington,

M A : Elsevier, 2 0 0 6 ) , 3 7 5 - 3 8 8 . R e a s s e s s m e n t o f the a s s u m p t i o n s t h a t u n d e r p i n a t t r i b u t i o n s of cannibalism appear in G o r d o n F. M. R a k i t a , Jane Buikstra, Lane Beck, eds., Interacting with the D e a d : Perspectives o n M o r t u a r y A r c h a e o l o g y for the N e w M i l l e n n i u m (Gainesville: U n i v e r s i t y Press

of Florida,

2005);

see

especially Estella

Weiss-Krejci,

Evisceration, and E x h u m a t i o n in M e d i e v a l and Post-Medieval Europe,"

"Excarnation, Interacting with

the D e a d , 1 5 5 , 1 7 0 - 1 7 2 . 49.

F o r a m o r e d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t o f these strategies for d e p l o y i n g e v i d e n c e d r a w n b o t h

f r o m a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s u b j e c t s a n d f r o m i n t e r p r e t i v e s o u r c e s , see W y l i e , " T h e R e a c t i o n a g a i n s t Analogy"

and

136-153,

185-199.

"The

Constitution of Archaeological

Evidence,"

Thinking from

Things,

5 0 . T h i s d y n a m i c o f d e b a t e i s d e s c r i b e d i n a n u m b e r o f c o n t e x t s . See, for e x a m p l e , G e o r g e R . M i l n e r a n d Sissel S c h r o e d e r , " M i s s i s s i p p i a n S o c i o p o l i t i c a l S y s t e m s , " G r e a t T o w n s a n d R e g i o n a l P o l i t i e s i n t h e P r e h i s t o r i c A m e r i c a n S o u t h w e s t a n d S o u t h e a s t , e d . Jill E . N e i t z e l ( A l b u q u e r q u e : University o f N e w M e x i c o Press, 1 9 9 9 ) , 9 5 - 1 0 7 , esp. 9 6 - 9 9 .

51.

Sullivan, " H i w a s e e , " 7 - 8 .

52.

King, E t o w a h , 60-64, 73, 8 1 - 8 3 , 1 4 0 - 1 4 3 .

53.

Robert P.

Connolly,

"Architectural G r a m m a r Rules at the Fort A n c i e n t H i l l t o p

E n c l o s u r e , " A n c i e n t E a r t h e n Enclosures o f the Eastern W o o d l a n d s , eds. R o b e r t C . M a i n f o r t a n d L y n n e P . Sullivan (Gainesville: U n i v e r s i t y Press o f F l o r i d a , 1 9 9 8 ) , 8 5 - 1 1 3 . 54. John Organization,"

E.

Kelly,

"Redefining

Cahokia:

T h e A n c i e n t Skies a n d Sky

Principles

and

Elements

Watchers of C a h o k i a :

of C o m m u n i t y

Woodhenges,

Eclipses,

a n d C a h o k i a n C o s m o l o g y , ed. M e l v i n L . F o w l e r , Special Issue: T h e W i s c o n s i n A r c h a e o l o g i s t 7 7 (1996): 9 7 - 1 1 9 . 55.

Sullivan, " H i w a s s e e , " 8.

56.

M c G i m s e y e t al., " M a r k s v i l l e T h e n a n d N o w , "

57.

For e x a m p l e , Schroeder observes that " a s w a s c o m m o n i n the m i d - t w e n t i e t h century,

11.

W e b b a s s u m e d t h a t similar material traits b e t w e e n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l c o n t e x t s a n d e t h n o h i s t o r i c a n d e t h n o g r a p h i c d e s c r i p t i o n s reflected ' c o m m o n o r i g i n s , history, a n d ethnicity,' failing t o recognize, as we do today, that evolutionary convergence and independent invention can produce material similarities." Schroeder, " J o n a t h a n C r e e k , " 64. 58. Reflecting on the w a y s in w h i c h prehistoric societies of the U.S. Southeast violate the e x p e c t a t i o n s o f these c a t e g o r i e s , Y o f f e e , F i s c h , a n d M i l n e r a r g u e t h a t " n o t all prehistoric s o c i e t i e s [ c a n b e a s s u m e d t o ] lie o n a s i n g l e e v o l u t i o n a r y t r a j e c t o r y t h a t l e a d s t o s t a t e h o o d " ; t h e r e g i o n a l p o l i t i e s o f t h e M i s s i s s i p p i a n e r a are i n t e r e s t i n g p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e t h e y m a y b e e x a m p l e s of "alternative evolutionary trajectories"

( N o r m a n Yoffee, Suzanne K. Fish, and

G e o r g e R. Milner, " C o m u n i d a d e s , Ritualities, C h i e f d o m s : Social E v o l u t i o n in the A m e r i c a n S o u t h w e s t a n d S o u t h e a s t , " G r e a t T o w n s a n d R e g i o n a l Polities, ed. N e i t z e l , 2 6 1 ) . I n a similar vein, G o l d s t e i n argues against a t e n d e n c y to equate cultural c o m p l e x i t y w i t h stratification. See L y n n e G o l d s t e i n ,

" A n c i e n t S o u t h w e s t M o r t u a r y Practices: Perspectives from O u t s i d e

the S o u t h w e s t , " A n c i e n t Burial Practices in the A m e r i c a n S o u t h w e s t : A r c h a e o l o g y , P h y s i c a l A n t h r o p o l o g y , a n d N a t i v e A m e r i c a n Perspectives, eds.

Douglas R.

Mitchell and Judy L.

B r u n s o n - H a d l e y ( A l b u q u e r q u e : University o f N e w M e x i c o Press, 2 0 0 1 ) , 2 4 9 - 2 5 3 . 5 9 . M u l l e r , " K i n c a i d , " 2 0 ; f o r a m o r e d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n , see M u l l e r ' s a r g u m e n t s a g a i n s t state or proto-state attributions: Jon Muller, G r e a t T o w n s a n d R e g i o n a l Polities, ed. Interaction in the Later Southeast,"

"Southeastern Interaction and Integration,"

Neitzel,

1 4 3 - 1 5 8 , esp.

157-158;

"Regional

N a t i v e American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses

a n d Interpretations in the Eastern W o o d l a n d s , eds. M i c h a e l S. N a s s a n e y a n d K e n n e t h E. S a s s a m a n ( K n o x v i l l e : U n i v e r s i t y o f Tennessee Press,

1 9 9 5 ) , 3 1 7 - 3 4 0 , esp. 3 2 1 - 3 2 4 , 3 3 5 -

3 3 6 . K i n g provides a n o v e r v i e w o f debate a b o u t h o w the political structures o f c h i e f d o m s h a v e been characterized, w i t h particular attention to the distinction b e t w e e n n e t w o r k and c o r p o r a t e s t r a t e g i e s e m p l o y e d b y elites i n t h e e x e r c i s e a n d m a i n t e n a n c e o f p o l i t i c a l a u t h o r i t y ( E t o w a h , 7 ) . H e a n d Kelly, B r o w n , a n d M a c h i r a n m a k e use o f these c a t e g o r i e s i n a n a l y s i s of the c o m p l e x i t y of E t o w a h and of C a h o k i a , respectively: K i n g , E t o w a h , 1 4 0 - 1 4 3 ; Kelly, B r o w n , a n d M a c h i r a n , " C a h o k i a , " 7 , 1 0 . See a l s o C h a r l e s R . C o b b a n d A d a m K i n g , " R e Inventing Mississippian Tradition at E t o w a ,

Georgia," Journal of Archaeological Method

a n d T h e o r y 1 2 (2005): 1 6 7 - 1 9 2 . Schroeder calls into question the a s s u m p t i o n s o f cultural s t a b i l i t y t h a t i n f o r m e d W P A - e r a i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f M i s s i s s i p p i a n sites

("Jonathan Creek,"

6 4 - 6 6 ) . I n d e v e l o p i n g their a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t the use o f c u l t u r a l c a t e g o r i e s d e r i v e d f r o m conventional evolutionary schemes, M i l n e r and Schroeder argue that, although "Mississippian societies are generally called c h i e f d o m s , " s o m e s h o w e v i d e n c e o f " a structure m o r e closely a p p r o x i m a t i n g s o c i o p o l i t i c a l f o r m a t i o n s c o m m o n l y referred t o a s t r i b e s , "

and those that

do seem appropriately described as chiefdoms manifest patterns of " c y c l i n g " — " p e r i o d s of f o r m a t i o n , florescence, a n d f r a g m e n t a t i o n " — t h a t u n d e r m i n e a n y e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e y are o n a t r a j e c t o r y o f d e v e l o p m e n t t o w a r d " t r u l y stratified s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l s y s t e m s " ( M i l n e r a n d Schroeder, " M i s s i s s i p p i a n Sociopolitical S y s t e m s , " 9 6 , 1 0 3 ) . 60.

Lyttleton, " T h e Nature of K n o w l e d g e , "

14.

PART

III

T h e o r i z i n g Ignorance

C H A P T E R

9

Social Theories of Ignorance M I C H A E L

D E S P I T E

T H E

T H R E A T

J .

S M I T H S O N

of insoluble problems and p a r a d o x e s , it is pos­

sible to attain useful k n o w l e d g e a b o u t ignorance. For Western intellectu­ als, four characterizations can clear a path to initial insights: 1.

Ignorance is socially constructed but this realization neither necessi­ tates relativism nor a denial of "real w o r l d " influences.

2. Ignorance is not a l w a y s a negative aspect of h u m a n affairs. In fact, it is an essential c o m p o n e n t in social relations, o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and cul­ ture. People are motivated to create and m a i n t a i n i g n o r a n c e , often systematically. 3. Ignorance is not invariably a disadvantage for the i g n o r a m u s . 4. Ignorance is neither m a r g i n a l nor aberrant in its i m p a c t . It is a perva­ sive and f u n d a m e n t a l influence in h u m a n c o g n i t i o n , e m o t i o n , a c t i o n , social relations, and culture. M o s t of this chapter is devoted to elaborating these four points in hopes of advancing our understanding h o w ignorance is constructed, the w o r k it does, and the impacts it has. First, however, we must attend to t w o preliminary issues: terminology and w h a t constitutes a genuinely social theory of ignorance.

A

CONFUSION

OF

DEFINITIONS

AND

TERMINOLOGY

O n e difficulty p l a g u i n g " i g n o r a n c e " is that the scattered literature on the topic lacks an agreed-on nomenclature. Let us begin by considering terms for the overarching c o n c e p t in this d o m a i n . Böschen and Wehling use the term nichtwissen, w h o s e English equivalent is " n o n k n o w l e d g e . "

1

This usage echoes earlier proposals for a " s o c i o l o g y of n o n k n o w l e d g e . "

2

A related, if less c o m m o n , term is nescience (total ignorance). Alternative

usages have referred to a social theory of ignorance. Knorr-Cetina intro­ 3

duces the term negative knowledge, that is, k n o w l e d g e of the limits of k n o w i n g , mistakes in attempts to k n o w , things that interfere w i t h k n o w ­ ing, and w h a t people do not w a n t to k n o w . This concept is quite similar 4

to closed ignorance in Faber and P r o o p s . O u t s i d e the social sciences, the 5

most p o p u l a r general term seems to be uncertainty. For e x a m p l e , this is so in artificial intelligence.

6

Knorr-Cetina and I have accurately identified the main p r o b l e m here, namely that a n y o n e referring to ignorance c a n n o t avoid m a k i n g claims to k n o w something a b o u t w h o is ignorant of w h a t . It p r o b a b l y does not 7

matter greatly w h a t term we choose so l o n g as our definition of it recog­ nizes this point. In this chapter I will use ignorance as the generic term. T h e intuition that there might be different kinds of ignorance has m o ­ tivated a number of scholars to propose various distinctions and t a x o n o ­ mies. O n e of the most p o p u l a r distinctions is absence or neglect versus 8

distortion. A n o t h e r popular distinction is reducible versus irreducible ig­ 9

norance, as suggested in the negative-knowledge concepts articulated by Knorr-Cetina and Faber and Proops.

10

A third, often implicit, distinction

is between that w h i c h can be k n o w n versus that w h i c h must not be k n o w n (for e x a m p l e , the pioneering w o r k by D o u g l a s on t a b o o ) .

11

T a k i n g a cue

from Unger, I distinguish the active voice (ignoring) from the passive voice (being i g n o r a n t ) .

12

B r o w n echoes this w h e n he observes that "in science,

we may be missing useful k n o w l e d g e either because: (1) we intentionally close a problem (act of ignoring) or (2) we are unaware of alternative views of the w o r l d , or their potential utility ( i g n o r a n c e ) . "

13

In a similar vein in

this b o o k , Proctor distinguishes a m o n g ignorance as a native state (or re­ source), ignorance as a lost realm (or selective choice), and ignorance as a deliberate and strategic p l o y (active c o n s t r u c t ) .

14

Some t a x o n o m i e s of ignorance have emphasized distinctions that oper­ ate at a meta-level rather than describing the nature of different kinds of ignorance per se. T h e most p o p u l a r distinction is between k n o w i n g that we don't k n o w and not k n o w i n g that we don't k n o w . conscious

ignorance

and

15

I prefer the terms

meta-ignorance.

Several disciplines have p r o d u c e d relatively sophisticated and p r o ­ ductive distinctions a m o n g special kinds of ignorance and uncertainty. In

addition to at least three major schools of probability theory, several dif­ ferent kinds of mathematical uncertainty measures have been p r o p o s e d , in the setting of alternative mathematical uncertainty f r a m e w o r k s such as fuzzy set theory and belief f u n c t i o n s .

16

Scholars of ignorance could ben­

efit from these developments in t w o w a y s : as conceptual suggestions for their o w n theories and as exemplars of distinctions-in-use by a particular linguistic community. S h o u l d w e e v e n a t t e m p t a definition o r t a x o n o m y o f i g n o r a n c e ? B r o w n and Rogers eschew t a x o n o m i e s in their study of m i s c o m m u n i c a ­ tion on the g r o u n d s that classification uncouples p h e n o m e n a from their contexts, thereby sacrificing interpretive r i c h n e s s .

17

But it is not difficult

to c o m e up w i t h definitional criteria that are sensitive to both c o n t e x t and v i e w p o i n t . My definition seems to handle these problems reasonably well: "A is ignorant from B's v i e w p o i n t if A fails to agree w i t h or s h o w awareness of ideas w h i c h B defines as actually or potentially v a l i d . "

18

This defini­

tion a l l o w s B to define w h a t she or he means by ignorance. It also permits self-attributed ignorance, since A and B may be the same person. M o s t importantly, it incorporates anything B thinks A could or should k n o w (but doesn't) and anything that B thinks A must not k n o w (and doesn't). B's notions a b o u t ignorance m a y be as c o n t e x t dependent and subjective as required. T w o aforementioned distinctions, also generally helpful, are not always clearly made in writings a b o u t ignorance. T h e meta- versus primary-level distinction is crucial; we must specify whether m e t a - k n o w l e d g e or metaignorance is our focus as opposed to knowledge and ignorance themselves, l i k e w i s e , a ubiquitous and important distinction is between ignorance that people think is reducible and ignorance that is irreducible. H o w can we assess what other typological distinctions are worth making? I suggest four criteria, namely whether candidate kinds of ignorance: 1. A r e consistently distinguished from other kinds w h e n referred to in c o m m u n i c a t i o n by m e m b e r s of the same linguistic c o m m u n i t y 2. A r e accorded statuses or roles distinct from other kinds in the same situations or for the same p u r p o s e s in social interaction

3. P r o d u c e different social c o n s e q u e n c e s for those to w h o m they are attributed 4. A r e (dis)preferred to other kinds of ignorance An e x a m p l e fulfilling the first criterion is Hacking's observations of h o w the term probability changed meaning w i t h the advent of m o d e r n probability t h e o r y .

19

T h e second and third criteria are exemplified by the

belief that the consequences of being found out uttering a falsehood will be worse than being found out omitting part of a truth (for example, Burgoon, Callister, and Hunsaker's investigation of equivocation or omission versus falsification in doctor-patient interviews in w h i c h a b o u t 85 percent of the participants admitted to omission but only 34 percent admitted to falsi­ fication).

20

Finally, an e x a m p l e of the fourth criterion is evidence that for

m a n y people probabilistic uncertainty is preferred to ambiguity, w h i c h in turn is preferred to conflict.

21

A l t h o u g h I am a m o n g those w h o have p r o p o s e d all-weather t a x o n o ­ mies of ignorance, I regard it as clearly advisable for researchers to use criteria such as the four suggested a b o v e to guide their choices of terms and definitions. For instance, if we w i s h to understand h o w artists in the 22

D a d a m o v e m e n t used " u n c e r t a i n t y " and " c h a n c e " in art m a k i n g then we should start by understanding w h a t they meant by these terms and h o w they used them before imposing our o w n terms or definitions.

CONSTRUCTIVISM

AND

IGNORANCE

W h e r e a s it is very difficult to k n o w anything directly a b o u t our o w n or anyone else's ignorance, it is not as hard to find out a b o u t people's repre­ sentations and accounts of ignorance. Ignorance, like k n o w l e d g e , is largely socially constructed. T h e study of h o w people represent, explain, justify, and use ignorance also has plenty of r o o m for debates a m o n g construc­ tivist positions ranging from relativism to realism. M o s t of the literature on uncertainty in disciplines such as e c o n o m i c s , psychology, and (to a lesser extent) c o m m u n i c a t i o n s presupposes agree­ ment a m o n g all stakeholders on w h a t constitutes knowledge and ignorance. Yet it seems o b v i o u s that the behavior of a d u g o n g in w a t e r s off C a p e Y o r k , Australia, will c o n v e y rather different " i n f o r m a t i o n " to a marine

biologist and a Torres Strait Island fisherman. Accordingly, an in-depth understanding of h o w ignorance is construed and constituted requires at­ tention to the f o l l o w i n g particulars. First, w h a t claims are made regarding w h o is ignorant a b o u t w h a t ? Second, h o w do these claims match on as­ pects of w h a t k n o w l e d g e and ignorance are, and w h a t can and cannot be k n o w n ? T h i r d , h o w are stakeholders using and responding to their o w n and others' claims a b o u t ignorance? W h a t are the consequences of these notions a b o u t ignorance in social interaction? C o n v e r s e l y , c o n s t r u c t i v i s t theories h a v e tended to be biologically, psychologically, and economically blind. This error should be avoided in social theories of ignorance, w h i c h , after all, concern attributions a b o u t mental states and processes. M a t e r i a l from cognitive psychology, ethnol­ ogy, communications studies, and behavioral economics can help establish connections between ignorance and relevant p h e n o m e n a , such as selective attention, denial, forgetting, m i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n , privacy, and trust.

CULTURAL

SOURCES

W h e r e , in our cultural stock, do our ideas a b o u t ignorance c o m e from? I propose t w o principal, t h o u g h not exhaustive, sources: commonsense realism

and commonsense sociality.

C o m m o n s e n s e realism encompasses

everything we believe or think a b o u t h o w the nonsocial w o r l d w o r k s , in­ cluding sacred as well as profane domains (to invoke the D u r k h e i m i a n distinction). C o m m o n s e n s e sociality refers to our beliefs a b o u t the social w o r l d and includes our theories of mind. Both kinds of c o m m o n sense are essentially realist. Regardless of the ontological or epistemological positions adopted by scholars and researchers, as R o s a points out, " r e a l i s m — t h e idea that a w o r l d exists independent of percipient h u m a n observers . . . is the bedrock of our c o m m o n s e n s e ideas of the w o r l d a r o u n d u s , " and, more pointedly, many laypersons are ontological realists.

23

A l t h o u g h ignorance may be socially constructed, we should be openminded a b o u t the origins of our primary metaphors for ignorance. After all, some of them appear to be shared w i t h other species and m a y have been selected in evolutionary processes. T h e e x a m p l e s for w h i c h we have the best evidence of this are the temporal and spatial analogues of uncer­ tainty. M a n y species (including ours) behave as if events or influences that

are nearby or in the near future are more certain than those farther a w a y or further into the future (see Rachlin for an excellent o v e r v i e w of the research on d e l a y ) .

24

T h e underlying metaphor is that certainties are here

and now. Uncertainties are later and farther away. D e l a y is uncertainty. Distance is uncertainty. Even the hallmark of a " t h e o r y of m i n d , " namely the ability to infer a state of ignorance or false belief in another o r g a n i s m , m a y not be unique to humans. In h u m a n s , it emerges almost ubiquitously in early c h i l d h o o d at a b o u t 3 - 4 years of age, but the extent to w h i c h it manifests itself in culturally specific w a y s is an open q u e s t i o n .

WHAT "SOCIAL"

IS

AND

THEORY

WHAT OF

25

IS

NOT

A

" I G N O R A N C E " ?

Put simply, a social theory of ignorance should be a b o u t ignorance and it should focus on ignorance w i t h sociocultural origins. T h e literature on uncertainty and ignorance frequently conflates theoretical concerns. This is an attempt to provide some elementary but helpful clarifications by distin­ guishing a m o n g four different kinds of accounts that focus on ignorance. 1.

Ignorance as encountered in the external world: A c c o u n t s of h o w ig­ norance and u n c e r t a i n t y arise in the nonsocial w o r l d . T h e s e include science (and scientific a c c o u n t s of the limits of science; c o m p a r e H o r ­ gan), as well as epistemological and religious f r a m e w o r k s that m a k e claims about n o n k n o w l e d g e .

26

T h e s e a c c o u n t s m a k e strong c l a i m s

a b o u t m e t a - k n o w l e d g e and e x p l a i n ignorance in e x o g e n o u s (and usu­ ally nonsocial) terms. 2.

Ignorance as emergent,

constructed, and imposed: A c c o u n t s of h o w

ignorance and uncertainty are constructed, imposed, and manipulated by agents. T h e s e a c c o u n t s treat ignorance as at least partly socially constructed. In some cases, ignorance is deliberately or intentionally c o n s t r u c t e d , w h e r e a s in others it emerges as a b y - p r o d u c t of some social process. Either w a y , these c a n be genuinely social theories of ignorance. 3.

Managing under ignorance: A c c o u n t s of h o w people think and act in uncertain environments. Some of these a c c o u n t s may invoke or refer

to ignorance and uncertainty, but they are not necessarily theories a b o u t those topics. 4.

Managing ignorance: A c c o u n t s of h o w people t h i n k a b o u t ignorance or u n c e r t a i n t y and h o w they act on it. T h e distinction b e t w e e n this kind of a c c o u n t and (2) is admittedly fuzzy. A c c o u n t s in (2) tend to emphasize the notion that the construction and distribution of k n o w l ­ edge and ignorance are implicated in p o w e r relations. A c c o u n t s that fall in this fourth category place greater emphasis on individual agen­ cy, the micro-level, focusing on h o w people c o n c e p t u a l i z e , represent, negotiate, and respond to ignorance. O n l y theories in the second and fourth categories can become fully

fledged social theories of ignorance. M u c h of the recent sociological lit­ erature on risk falls into the third category and therefore c a n n o t form the basis for a social theory of ignorance. Both Beck and Giddens claim that an upsurge of ignorance, indicated by unpredictability, lack of c o n ­ trol, and unintended o u t c o m e s , is a major driving force of c o n t e m p o r a r y m o d e r n societies.

27

But their accounts neglect the issues that w o u l d need

to be addressed by a social theory of ignorance. Neither fleshes out any theory of h o w people might c o m e to believe that ignorance has increased (to say nothing of whether their o w n or someone else's has increased), w h a t kinds of ignorance people think have increased, or even h o w people conceptualize their o w n and other people's ignorance. In contrast, much of the w o r k in the present volume and other w o r k by its contributors falls squarely in the second category. Robert Proctor's account of efforts by the t o b a c c o industry to obfuscate the link between s m o k i n g and lung cancer is an e x e m p l a r of ignorance strategically cre­ ated or i m p o s e d .

28

Likewise, M i c h a e l s and M o n f o r t o n explicate a strategy

whereby opponents of health and environmental regulations "manufacture uncertainty" by calling into question the validity of the science on which the regulations are based.

29

In another vein, Schiebinger provides thoroughgoing

examples of h o w colonial-period European scientific and social priorities were oriented to pursue some kinds of k n o w l e d g e and neglect o t h e r s .

30

T h e o r y and research in categories (2) and (4) can fruitfully e x c h a n g e ideas and findings with those in category ( 3 ) . For e x a m p l e , in line with the

aforementioned doctor-patient interview study by B u r g o o n , Callister, and Hunsaker, B r o w n and Levinson's w o r k on politeness suggests that people intending to be polite to one another will resort to w h a t they consider to be ambiguity or vagueness more than outright distortion or d e c e p t i o n .

THE

NEGATIVE

BIAS

TOWARD

31

IGNORANCE

Western intellectual culture is predominantly a b o u t banishing or reducing ignorance, and negative associations w i t h ignorance are the default, even t h o u g h this is manifestly not so in quotidian social life. C o m m o n meta­ phors for ignorance are n e g a t i v e .

32

For e x a m p l e , ignorance is blindness;

to k n o w is to see. Or k n o w l e d g e is p o w e r ; ignorance is helplessness and impotence. Some of the best illustrations of the o v e r w h e l m i n g l y negative bias t o w a r d uncertainty and ignorance in the h u m a n sciences occur in the p s y c h o l o g y and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s literature. H o w e v e r , both of these disciplines also yield valuable concepts and insights for agnotology. I will briefly examine the v i e w s of uncertainty and ignorance in p s y c h o l o g y and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s studies. There are, broadly speaking, three traditional normative orientations regarding h o w people deal w i t h the u n k n o w n in psychology. Perhaps the oldest is the " K n o w l e d g e Seeker," contained in the psychoanalytic c a n o n s for the well-adjusted individual and found in most branches of ego psy­ chology. This v i e w c h a m p i o n s the person w h o seeks novel information and experience, is open to full and honest c o m m u n i c a t i o n , can tolerate uncertainty and even ignorance in the short run in order to gain k n o w l ­ edge, and w h o is n o t defensive a b o u t prior beliefs.

33

T h e second tradition, the " C e r t a i n t y M a x i m i z e r , " concerns the debili­ tating consequences of uncertainty, unpredictability, and uncontrollability for the affective, cognitive, and physiological capabilities of the affected organism. M o s t of the evidence for this viewpoint originates from research concerning learning and adaptation. But an entire set of emotion-based theories also proposes that anxiety is a consequence of uncertainty. T h u s , 34

there is a natural tension between this tradition and that of the " K n o w l ­ edge Seeker." T h e third tradition, the "Intuitive Statistician-Economist," originates from p s y c h o p h y s i c s , perception, and cognitive psychology, and reflects

information-processing models of cognition. It is primarily concerned w i t h criteria for rationality in judgment and choice, and the d o m i n a n t n o r m a ­ tive v i e w p o i n t s have been Bayesian probability and a v i e w of h u m a n s as hedonic (seeking pleasure and a v o i d i n g pain). This v i e w has a lot in c o m ­ m o n w i t h neo-classical e c o n o m i c s .

35

Despite the o b v i o u s tensions a m o n g these three perspectives, they are underpinned by the assumption that ignorance is to be reduced (by gaining k n o w l e d g e or applying logical systems of rules to quantifying and m a n a g ­ ing it) or banished altogether. There is a potentially interesting but largely unexplored set of linkages between ignorance (and k n o w l e d g e ) , emotional responses, moral assessments, and thereby legitimation. For e x a m p l e , ig­ norance can be used by the ignoramus as a justification for evading cul­ pability or responsibility. In m a n y cultures, education and other forms of k n o w l e d g e transmission are moralizing projects; so t o o are ignorance ar­ rangements such as secrecy, privacy, and the protection of innocence. While the exploration of these linkages should not be limited to psychology, that discipline is well equipped to undertake certain parts of this task. Scholars in the d o m a i n of c o m m u n i c a t i o n s have a long-standing inter­ est in misunderstanding and miscommunication, t w o topics clearly related to ignorance. Until a b o u t fifteen years a g o c o m m u n i c a t i o n s studies were severely h o b b l e d by w h a t C o u p l a n d , W i e m a n n , and Giles call a "Pollya n n a " perspective, in w h i c h the default assumption w a s that m i s c o m m u ­ nication or misunderstanding w a s " a b e r r a n t behavior w h i c h should be eliminated."

36

T h e negative connotations of terms for these phenomena

(for example, " m i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n , " " b r e a k d o w n , " or "failure") were also built into c o m m u n i c a t i o n theories and research p r o g r a m s (for e x a m p l e , the o v e r w h e l m i n g emphasis on studying h o w to detect deception rather than studying h o w it is constituted and the often essential roles it plays in social interaction). T h e literature on self-disclosure provides a g o o d case in point. A p i o ­ neer of this research, Jourard, claimed that people's psychological health is indicated by an ability to m a k e themselves "fully k n o w n to at least one other significant h u m a n b e i n g . "

37

Self-disclosure thereby is identified

w i t h intimacy, w h i c h in turn is privileged as an ideal kind of relationship. M c C a l l and S i m m o n s , and G o f f m a n were early dissidents from the v i e w

that complete c o m m u n i c a t i o n w o u l d solve all problems in h u m a n rela­ tions.

38

As M c C a l l and Simmons pointed out and as G o f f m a n illustrated

numerous times, many important kinds of social interactions and arrange­ ments w o u l d be impossible w i t h o u t some unshared perceptions, secrecy, and even deception by the participants. As in psychology, most communications researchers assume that people are motivated to reduce or banish ignorance and uncertainty. include B a b r o w , and Afifi and Weiner.

40

39

Exceptions

Afifi and Weiner's perspective is

n o t e w o r t h y because it attempts to incorporate aspects of interpersonal e x c h a n g e and c o m p e t i n g motives to seek or avoid information. A minority literature in c o m m u n i c a t i o n s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s studies brings attention to the idea that shared c o m m u n i c a t i o n or meanings are not necessary for effectively coordinated action. Weick observes that the c o o r d i n a t i o n of action is more important than the c o o r d i n a t i o n of mean­ ings or beliefs for organizational f u n c t i o n i n g .

41

A more radical stance is that unshared understanding actually is essen­ tial for some pervasive forms of social life, as in Goffman's w o r k . Eisen­ berg is a m o n g the few c o m m u n i c a t i o n s scholars to have gone so far as to suggest that lack of shared understandings can enable more effective col­ laboration than shared understandings w o u l d .

4 2

Likewise, C o n r a d points

out that m a n y organizations demand and r e w a r d people for closed rather than open c o m m u n i c a t i o n .

TOWARD MIXED

A

43

BALANCED

MOTIVES

RATIONALITY,

AND AND

VIEW

OF

IGNORANCE:

INTERESTS,

B O U N D E D

CONFIRMATION

BIAS

C o n t r a r y to the v i e w of ignorance and uncertainty as primarily nega­ tive, h u m a n engagement w i t h ignorance or uncertainty is almost a l w a y s a mixed-motive enterprise. People sometimes are motivated to discover or create, maintain, and use ignorance (their o w n as well as others'). T h e very concept of research, for e x a m p l e , presupposes conscious ignorance a b o u t the object of research at the outset; otherwise there is nothing to research. N u m e r o u s social relations depend on systematic ignorance ar­ r a n g e m e n t s . Trust and politeness are o b v i o u s e x a m p l e s . T h e c o h e s i o n and s m o o t h operation of m a n y organizations and institutions hinge on

ignorance arrangements, and not only (or even typically) for maintaining p o w e r differentials. It is not difficult to find e x a m p l e s of motives for people to remain ig­ norant a b o u t information directly relevant to themselves even w h e n that information is readily available. T h e uptake rate on genetic marker tests for individuals w i t h a hereditary risk of a life-threatening disease such as Huntington's chorea or c o l o n cancer is notoriously low, and the same is true regarding the diagnosis of carrier status for such c o n d i t i o n s .

44

More

" p o s i t i v e " e x a m p l e s include the majority of parents-to-be not w a n t i n g to k n o w the gender of their unborn child, social arrangements such as surprise gift giving, entertainment (for e x a m p l e , spoiling the ending of a novel or m o v i e ) , and g a m e s .

45

These e x a m p l e s highlight the cultural and

motivational stock from w h i c h people fashion decisions a b o u t w h e n to k n o w and w h e n not t o . T w o strands of empirical and theoretical w o r k in cognitive psychology invoke the idea of generalized and pervasive tendencies to avoid infor­ mation that do not seem entirely reducible to hedonic motivations. O n e is the " b o u n d e d rationality" v i e w of h o w people m a k e decisions under uncertainty. T h e other is the literature on "confirmation b i a s . " Both are important because, although they take ignorance and uncertainty as un­ problematic, they highlight universal tendencies that militate against the notion that people indiscriminately seek information. The bounded rationality approach w a s first articulated by Simon, partly in reaction against the rational-hedonic model in neo-classical e c o n o m i c s .

46

H u m a n s and other animals m a k e judgments and decisions not only under uncertainty but also under limitations in cognitive capacity and time. T h e result is that people use mental shortcuts called heuristics that are fast and cognitively frugal but also adapted to environmental structures.

47

Confirmation bias, on the other hand, refers to an information process­ ing wherein " o n e selectively gathers, or gives undue w e i g h t t o , evidence that supports one's position while neglecting to gather, or discounting, evi­ dence that w o u l d tell against i t . "

4 8

M o r e specifically, there is widespread

evidence that this bias can operate unconsciously. M o s t explanations for confirmation bias point to h o w it reduces c o g ­ nitive load. A crucial mistake in m a n y perspectives that privilege k n o w l ­

edge over ignorance is the failure to realize that k n o w l e d g e seeking and possession are n o t costless. T h e early literature on foraging behavior is pioneering in this regard, taking into a c c o u n t energy and time costs in search strategies. There are also social costs in seeking information. D i ­ rectly interrogating s o m e o n e , for e x a m p l e , is socially i n a p p r o p r i a t e or costly in m a n y circumstances.

IS

IGNORANCE

ALWAYS

A

COGNITIVE

DEFICIT?

Ignoramuses are not a l w a y s w o r s e off than k n o w l e d g e a b l e folk; in fact there are plenty of c o n t e x t s in w h i c h it can be demonstrated that they are better off. Imagine for a m o m e n t that h u m a n s were e n d o w e d w i t h the ability and a c o m p u l s i o n to indiscriminately a b s o r b all information that came their w a y and retain all of it for a lifetime. As Luria c o n c l u d e d in his study of just such a person, higher cognitive functions such as abstraction or even mere classification w o u l d be extremely difficult.

49

Information ac­

quired decades a g o w o u l d be as vividly recalled as information acquired seconds a g o , so older memories w o u l d interfere w i t h m o r e recent and usually m o r e relevant recollections. W i l l i a m James proposed that forgetting is just as important as remem­ bering and linked w i t h selectivity of information p r o c e s s i n g .

50

A more

elaborate version of this functionalist a r g u m e n t is offered by Schooler and H e r t w i g : "the m e m o r y system (a) meets the informational demands stemming from environmental stimuli by retrieving m e m o r y traces associ­ ated w i t h the stimuli and (b) acts on the e x p e c t a t i o n that environmental stimuli tend to recur in predictable w a y s . "

5 1

Schooler and H e r t w i g address another relevant c o n n e c t i o n , namely, h o w forgetting facilitates the use of inferential heuristics that also trade on environmental structures.

52

These are the recognition and fluency heuris­

tics, both of which require partial ignorance. To understand the recognition heuristic, consider this question: " W h i c h city has the larger p o p u l a t i o n , Pasadena (California) or Pasadena

(Maryland)?"

53

If we do n o t k n o w

the populations of those t w o cities, the recognition heuristic says that if we recognize one city (say, Pasadena, California) and not the other then we choose the recognized city. Recognition of a city is correlated w i t h its p o p u l a t i o n (as I am writing this, Pasadena, California, has a b o u t 1 4 5 , 0 0 0

people, whereas Pasadena, M a r y l a n d , has about 12,000). T h e fluency heuristic (see, for e x a m p l e , Kelley and Jacoby) is quite similar, stipulating that the city that is more fluently or rapidly recalled will be the one selected.

54

Goldstein and Gigerenzer demonstrated that a greater number of correct choices (for example, which of a pair of German cities has the greater popu­ lation) can be made by ignorant decision makers (for example, American university students) than by more knowledgeable decision makers (for ex­ ample, G e r m a n citizens).

55

Ignoramuses are not a l w a y s at a disadvantage.

SPECIALIZATION, POLITENESS,

AND

PRIVACY,

TRUST,

LEGITIMATION

N o w let us m o v e to a more social (or at least interpersonal) level and ex­ plore the adaptive interests and functions served by negotiated ignorance arrangements. I will briefly survey five of these here: specialized k n o w l ­ edge, privacy, trust, politeness, and legitimation. T h e first t w o exemplify truly social ignorance arrangements as o p p o s e d to unilateral ones such as secrecy or deceit. T h e second pair, trust and politeness, are e x a m p l e s of social relations and modes of social c o n d u c t that mandate or even require ignorance. Finally, legitimation concerns the uses of ignorance to justify actions and choices. Specialization is a social ignorance arrangement. T h e stereotypical ex­ planation for specialization is that it arises w h e n there is t o o m u c h for any one person to learn everything. But viewed from an adaptational standpoint, specialization is an e x a m p l e of spreading risk in three respects. First, the risks of direct learning (versus vicarious learning, w h i c h is less risky) are spread across the p o p u l a t i o n by diversifying learning. Second, the risk of being ignorant a b o u t crucial matters is spread by diversifying ignorance. Third, the risks associated w i t h bearing k n o w l e d g e also are diversified. As w i t h any kind of risk spreading, specialization requires various forms of social c o o p e r a t i o n to yield these benefits. Privacy is an example of another kind of social ignorance arrangement. Privacy often has been construed as control over access by others to infor­ mation, mainly a b o u t the self. As Warren and Laslett point out, privacy involves a consensual and essentially cooperative ignorance arrangement, whereas secrecy is unilaterally i m p o s e d .

56

O r g a n i z e d specialization and privacy, a l o n g w i t h other consensual social ignorance arrangements, are entwined w i t h trust. For instance, ef­ fectively functioning expertise requires that nonexperts trust experts to w a r r a n t only the k n o w l e d g e they possess and not to falsify evidence or conclusions within the scope of their expertise. Despite long-running debates a b o u t the nature of trust, there is w i d e ­ spread agreement a m o n g scholars that trust "entails a state of perceived vulnerability or r i s k . "

57

A primary source of that risk is a requirement that

the truster remain partially ignorant a b o u t the trustee. Trust is not a b o u t concealing information from others, but trust relationships (for e x a m p l e , friendships) do entail a kind of privacy. If people believe that someone is monitoring them or insisting that they self-disclose or a c c o u n t for their actions, they will infer that the other person does not trust them. Yamagishi and his colleagues argue that trust and " c o m m i t m e n t for­ m a t i o n " are alternative w a y s of reducing the risk of being exploited in social i n t e r a c t i o n s .

58

C o m m i t m e n t formation involves the d e v e l o p m e n t

of mutual m o n i t o r i n g and p o w e r s to sanction and r e w a r d each other's behavior. H o w e v e r , the reduction of transaction costs in c o m m i t m e n t for­ m a t i o n via uncertainty reduction c o m e s at a price, namely the difficulty and costliness in exiting from the relationship and foregoing opportuni­ ties to f o r m other relationships. Trust, on the other h a n d , entails run­ ning the risk of being exploited but increases opportunities by rendering the truster m o r e mobile and able to establish cooperative relations m o r e quickly. Trust, therefore, is both an e x a m p l e of a social relation that re­ quires tolerance of ignorance and also trades undesired uncertainty (the risk of being exploited) against desired uncertainty (freedom to seize o p ­ portunities for n e w relations). Polite social interaction is another important e x a m p l e of h o w social relations trade on ignorance. In polite c o n v e r s a t i o n , conversationalists do not expect to deal in the truth, the w h o l e truth, and nothing but the truth. B r o w n and Levinson elaborate various strategic requirements of politeness.

59

As I have pointed out, those strategies often are achieved via

disinformation (for e x a m p l e , p r o m o t i n g a false impression of a p p r o v a l ) , or by referential abbreviation (particularly vagueness and ambiguity, as in tactful utterances).

60

T h e employment of vagueness and ambiguity in communication serves m a n y of the same purposes in polite conversation as it does in other set­ tings where participants w a n t to p r o m o t e cooperative g o o d w i l l , even if some clarity is sacrificed for it. Eisenberg claimed ambiguity is used strate­ gically in organizational c o m m u n i c a t i o n s for several p u r p o s e s .

61

O n e is to

achieve "unified diversity," w h e r e b y a diversity of interpretations of such things as mission statements or organizational goals are permitted to exist and dysfunctional conflicts are avoided. A n o t h e r is to enable deniability, for e x a m p l e , the ability to claim that a face-threatening interpretation w a s not the intended meaning of w h a t w a s said. A third is increasing capacity for organizational change and adaptability by permitting diverse possible interpretations of organizational goals and rules while still appearing con­ sistent. Eisenberg's main insight is that fully clear c o m m u n i c a t i o n is not a l w a y s as effective as a m b i g u o u s c o m m u n i c a t i o n and ambiguity often is highly functional. Finally, let us consider ignorance as a legitimating influence. Ignorance is used in various guises to justify inaction, maintenance of the status q u o , o p p o r t u n i s m , evasion of responsibility or culpability, and risk manage­ ment policies. For e x a m p l e , Western legal traditions distinguish between civil cases in w h i c h a guilty verdict m a y be returned on the " b a l a n c e of probabilities" and criminal cases wherein guilt must be established " b e ­ y o n d reasonable d o u b t . " H o w e v e r , justifications for actions and choices on the basis of igno­ rance a b o u n d in m u n d a n e life as w e l l . J o h n s o n - H a n k s ' s e t h n o g r a p h i c research on Southern C a m e r o o n i a n w o m e n ' s intentions and actions re­ garding marriage and childbearing is a striking case in point. Life under the twenty-year economic crisis in C a m e r o o n encompasses not only eco­ nomic hardship but a "generalized state of d i s t r u s t . "

62

The extreme uncer­

tainty associated w i t h the crisis accounts for " i n c o m p e t e n c e , graft, sexual infidelity, school failure, and even w i t c h c r a f t . " It also legitimates the re­ jection of planning and ascription of intentionality to acts, various kinds of o p p o r t u n i s m , and a type of fatalistic retrospective assent to w h a t e v e r unfolds in life's course. In recent times perhaps the premier e x a m p l e of ignorance and un­ certainty being used to justify and legitimize high-level policy change in

Western countries is the precautionary principle.

63

T h e precautionary prin­

ciple essentially stipulates that the burden of p r o o f must not be placed on the environment to s h o w h a r m in decisions a b o u t whether to moderate or halt potentially environmentally d a m a g i n g activities. Different kinds of ignorance play distinctive roles in both debates and legitimation regarding this principle. For e x a m p l e , D o v e r s , N o r t o n , and H a n d m e r emphasize the relevance of elements in my t y p o l o g y of ignorance, especially forms such as t a b o o , distortion, and irrelevance, all of w h i c h are prevalent features of sustainability d e b a t e s .

CAN

64

A G N O T O L O G Y

BE

INTERDISCIPLINARY?

In this chapter I have attempted a survey of several problems that face any w o u l d - b e social theory of ignorance. Ignorance is inherently a multidis­ ciplinary topic. But to w h a t extent c a n it b e c o m e interdisciplinary? W h a t are the prospects for collaboration and integration across disciplines and domains on this difficult, multifarious, important topic? At first glance, the prospects seem quite daunting. T h e problems w i t h nomenclature, "blind s p o t s , " and "negative b i a s " are bad e n o u g h , but some relevant disciplines p a y only limited attention to ignorance or rule it out altogether (for e x a m p l e , some areas in law, engineering, and medi­ cine). Nonetheless, plenty of e x a m p l e s exist of fruitful interdisciplinary collaboration on difficult topics. T h e key to this collaboration seems to be negotiating a w o r k i n g consensus a b o u t the basic nature of the field of inquiry. As Wagner and Berger expressed it, any topic regarded as a "field" in the social sciences usually contains a core of " o r i e n t i n g strategies" that incorporate widely agreed-on core concerns, goals, metatheoretical concepts and presuppositions, research standards, and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l prescriptions.

65

T h e usual price to be paid by participants in multi- or

interdisciplinary fields of inquiry is, as F o d d y and I observed a b o u t the study of social dilemmas, that such agreements are looser, less stable, and continually debated and reassessed.

66

In a n e w area such as agnotology,

this kind of contestability w o u l d have to be a sign of g o o d health. T h e topics covered in this chapter indicate several candidates for " o r i ­ enting strategies" and " c o r e c o n c e r n s " in agnotology. A primary orienting strategy suggested here (and elsewhere) is, broadly speaking, a constructivist

approach to understanding h o w people conceptualize ignorance, c o m m u ­ nicate a b o u t it, cope w i t h it, and utilize it. A second strategic possibility is reflexivity, again in a broad sense of the term. All research domains have orientations, practices, n o r m s , and methods for dealing w i t h ignorance in the process of inquiry. A third strategy is participatory inclusiveness, that is, an e x c h a n g e of v i e w s and understandings of h o w each discipline construes those issues. I will end this chapter by mentioning three core concerns that could be added to the m i x : privileged v i e w p o i n t s , prescrip­ tive f r a m e w o r k s , and dilemmas. A p r o b l e m shared by nearly all attempts to theorize a b o u t ignorance is privileging some v i e w p o i n t s a b o v e others. " P r i v i l e g i n g " is a crude term but it will have to do for the time being. Simplistic solutions such as thor­ o u g h g o i n g relativism hold t o o m a n y pitfalls and limitations to be viable. T h e p r o b l e m is important because it dramatically affects the nature of the questions that c a n be addressed in studying ignorance. M o s t disciplines privilege the v i e w p o i n t s of the researcher, theorist, or critic in v a r i o u s w a y s . There is nothing necessarily misguided or w r o n g in doing this, but the issue does need to be systematically assessed and debated. T h e study of ignorance almost inevitably confronts us w i t h prescrip­ tive questions, that is, h o w people " s h o u l d " deal w i t h ignorance. As has already been the case in debates a b o u t rationality, it is very likely that cross-disciplinary debates about the study of ignorance will also encompass debates a b o u t prescriptions for dealing w i t h it. N o r should the consider­ ation of prescriptions be limited to the " r a t i o n a l . " T h e y should encompass moral philosophy as well. W h e n is ignorance " v i r t u o u s " and w h y ? T h e roles played by k n o w l e d g e and ignorance are n o t merely mirror images of one another. In fact, the interplay between k n o w l e d g e and ig­ norance involves as yet largely u n e x p l o r e d trade-offs and dilemmas. In earlier w o r k , I have presented several examples of both. In "Collingridge's D i l e m m a , " the less well-entrenched a system is and the shorter the time it has been operating, the more easily and inexpensively it can be changed; but the greater is our ignorance of the likely effects or p r o b l e m s .

67

By the

time ignorance of those effects has been reduced, it is t o o expensive and difficult to change the system. In this trade-off, time is both k n o w l e d g e and money.

" M a t t e r a ' s D i l e m m a " is an e x a m p l e of a c o n u n d r u m in social regula­ tion that has b o t h trade-off and dilemmatic c o m p o n e n t s .

68

T h e trade-off

arises from the fact that a climate favoring creativity and entrepreneurship requires the toleration of ignorance in the service of freedom. Insistence on full k n o w l e d g e and control eliminates the latitude needed for creativ­ ity. T h e dilemmatic c o m p o n e n t arises from the fact that the greater the attempts to regulate behavior, the m o r e reactive people b e c o m e and the more they attempt to generate ignorance in the w o u l d - b e controllers by w i t h h o l d i n g information or giving false information. If both parties pur­ sue their self-interests, then the end result is a system of constraints and controls built on disinformation. My b o o k on ignorance and uncertainty concluded w i t h a plea for in­ terdisciplinary, boundary-spanning w o r k on i g n o r a n c e .

69

In the years since

then, real progress does seem to have been made along these lines, even if falling far short of forming a coherent field of inquiry. Nevertheless, that progress leaves little d o u b t that many disciplines can benefit from one an­ other in studying ignorance, as long as specialists attempt to understand other disciplines' v i e w p o i n t s w i t h a certain a m o u n t of Quine-like charity. Perhaps that is where we must leave the matter for now.

NOTES 1.

S.

Böschen and P.

Wehling,

Wissenschaft zwischen Folgenverantwortung und

N i c h t w i s s e n ( W i e s b a d e n : V e r l a g für S o z i a l w i s s e n s c h a f t e n , 2 0 0 4 ) . 2.

D. Weinstein and M. A. Weinstein, " T h e Sociology of N o n k n o w l e d g e : A Paradigm,"

Research in Sociology of K n o w l e d g e , Sciences & A r t 1

(1978):

151-166.

3 . W . E . M o o r e and M . M . T u m i n , " S o m e Social Functions o f Ignorance," A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 1 4 ( 1 9 4 9 ) : 7 8 7 - 7 9 5 ; M . Smithson, " T o w a r d a Social T h e o r y o f I g n o r a n c e , " J o u r n a l for the T h e o r y o f Social B e h a v i o u r 1 5 ( 1 9 8 5 ) : 1 5 1 - 1 7 2 ; R o b e r t K . M e r t o n , " T h r e e F r a g m e n t s from a Sociologist's N o t e b o o k s : E s t a b l i s h i n g the P h e n o m e n o n , Specified I g n o r a n c e , and Strategic Research M a t e r i a l s , " A n n u a l R e v i e w o f S o c i o l o g y 1 3 4.

Karin

Knorr-Cetina,

Epistemic

Cultures:

How

the

(1987):

Sciences

1-28.

Make

Knowledge

( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d University Press, 1 9 9 9 ) . 5. M. Faber a n d J. L. R. P r o o p s , E v o l u t i o n , T i m e , P r o d u c t i o n a n d the E n v i r o n m e n t (Berlin: Springer, 1 9 9 8 ) , 1 1 7 . 6.

P. Krause and D. C l a r k , Representing Uncertain K n o w l e d g e : An Artificial Intelligence

A p p r o a c h (Norwell, M A : K l u w e r A c a d e m i c Publishers,

1993).

7. Knorr-Cetina, Epistemic Cultures; M. Smithson, Ignorance a n d Uncertainty: Emerging P a r a d i g m s ( N e w Y o r k : Springer, 1 9 8 9 ) . 8. Smithson, Ignorance a n d Uncertainty; Faber and Proops, Evolution. 9. M o o r e and Tumin, Some Social Functions of Ignorance; Smithson, T o w a r d a Social

Theory of Ignorance; Weinstein and Weinstein, T h e Sociology of N o n k n o w l e d g e . 10. Knorr-Cetina, Epistemic Cultures; Faber and Proops, Evolution. 11. 12.

M . D o u g l a s , Purity a n d D a n g e r (London: Routledge and K e g a n Paul, 1 9 6 6 ) . P. Unger, I g n o r a n c e : A C a s e for Scepticism ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 1 9 7 5 ) ; S m i t h s o n ,

Ignorance and 13. J.

D.

Uncertainty. Brown,

" K n o w l e d g e , Uncertainty, and Physical

Development of Methodologies

for

Questioning

Belief,"

G e o g r a p h y : T o w a r d s the

Transactions

o f the Institute

of

British G e o g r a p h e r s 29 (2004): 2 7 2 . 14.

R o b e r t N. Proctor, " A g n o t o l o g y : A M i s s i n g T e r m to Describe the C u l t u r a l P r o d u c t i o n

o f I g n o r a n c e ( a n d Its S t u d y ) , " t h i s v o l u m e . 15.

S m i t h s o n , I g n o r a n c e a n d U n c e r t a i n t y ; J . R a v e t z , " T h e Sin o f S c i e n c e : I g n o r a n c e o f

Ignorance," K n o w l e d g e : Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 15 (1993): 1 5 7 - 1 6 5 ; A n n Kerwin, " N o n e T o o Solid: M e d i c a l I g n o r a n c e , " (1993): 16.

Knowledge: Creation,

Diffusion,

Utilization

15

166-185. T . L . Fine, T h e o r i e s o f P r o b a b i l i t y ( N e w Y o r k : A c a d e m i c Press, 1 9 7 3 ) ; G . A . Klir

a n d B . Y u a n , F u z z y Sets a n d F u z z y L o g i c ( E n g l e w o o d Cliffs, N J : P r e n t i c e - H a l l ,

1995);

Smithson, Ignorance and Uncertainty. 1 7 . J. R. B r o w n and L. E. R o g e r s , " O p e n n e s s , Uncertainty and Intimacy: An Epistemological Reformulation,"

" M i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n " a n d P r o b l e m a t i c Talk, eds. N . C o u p l a n d , H . Giles,

and J. M. W i e m a n n ( N e w b u r y Park, C A : Sage,

1991), 150.

18.

Smithson, Ignorance and Uncertainty.

19.

I. H a c k i n g , The Emergence of Probability (Cambridge, U K : C a m b r i d g e University

Press, 1 9 7 5 ) . 20.

M . B u r g o o n , M . Callister, a n d F . G . H u n s a k e r , "Patients W h o D e c e i v e , " J o u r n a l o f

Language and Social Psychology 13 21.

D.

Ellsberg,

(1994): 443-468.

"Risk, A m b i g u i t y and the

Savage A x i o m s , "

Quarterly Journal of

E c o n o m i c s , 7 5 ( 1 9 6 1 ) : 6 4 3 - 6 6 9 ; M . S m i t h s o n , " C o n f l i c t A v e r s i o n : Preference for A m b i g u i t y vs.

Conflict in

Sources and

Processes 7 9 ( 1 9 9 9 ) :

Evidence,"

Organizational Behavior and H u m a n Decision

179-198.

22.

Smithson, Ignorance and Uncertainty.

23.

E . A . R o s a , " M e t a t h e o r e t i c a l F o u n d a t i o n s for P o s t - N o r m a l R i s k , " J o u r n a l o f R i s k

Research 1 ( 1 9 9 8 ) : 1 5 - 4 4 , esp. 18. 24.

H. Rachlin, Judgment, Decision, and Choice ( N e w York: Freeman, 1989).

25.

H . W i m m e r a n d J . Perner, " B e l i e f s a b o u t Beliefs: R e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d C o n s t r a i n i n g

F u n c t i o n o f W r o n g Beliefs i n Y o u n g C h i l d r e n ' s U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f D e c e p t i o n , "

Cognition

13 (1983): 1 0 3 - 1 2 8 . 26. J . H o r g a n , T h e E n d o f Science: F a c i n g the Limits o f K n o w l e d g e i n the T w i l i g h t o f the Scientific A g e ( L o n d o n : Little, B r o w n , 1 9 9 6 ) . 27.

Ulrich Beck,

World Risk

Society ( O x f o r d : Polity,

1999); Anthony Giddens, The

C o n s e q u e n c e s o f M o d e r n i t y (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 28. Proctor, Shapes 29.

1990).

" A g n o t o l o g y , " this v o l u m e ; R o b e r t Proctor, C a n c e r Wars: H o w Politics

W h a t W e K n o w a n d D o n ' t K n o w a b o u t C a n c e r ( N e w York: Basic B o o k s , 1 9 9 5 ) . D.

Michaels and C. Monforton,

" M a n u f a c t u r i n g Uncertainty: Contested Science

a n d the P r o t e c t i o n o f the Public's H e a l t h a n d E n v i r o n m e n t , " A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f P u b l i c Health Supplement 95 (2005): S 3 9 - S 4 8 . 30.

Londa

Schiebinger,

I g n o r a n c e , " this v o l u m e .

"West Indian Abortifacients and the Cultural

Production of

31.

B u r g o o n , Callister, and H u n s a k e r , "Patients W h o D e c e i v e " ; P. B r o w n and S. C.

Levinson, Universals in L a n g u a g e Usage: Politeness P h e n o m e n a ( C a m b r i d g e , U K : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 32.

1987).

G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, M e t a p h o r s We L i v e By (Chicago: University of C h i c a g o

Press, 1 9 8 0 ) . 33.

M . R o k e a c h , T h e O p e n a n d C l o s e d M i n d ( N e w Y o r k : Basic B o o k s , 1 9 6 0 ) .

34.

C. E. Izard, T h e P s y c h o l o g y of E m o t i o n s ( N e w York: Plenum, 1 9 9 1 ) ; W. G u d y k u n s t

and T. N i s h i d a , " A n x i e t y , Uncertainty, and Perceived Effectiveness of C o m m u n i c a t i o n across Relationships and C u l t u r e s , " International J o u r n a l of Inter cultural Relations 25 (2001): 55-71. 35.

D. Kahneman and A. Tversky,

"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under

R i s k , " E c o n o m e t r i c a 4 7 ( 1 9 7 9 ) : 2 6 3 - 2 9 1 ; D . K a h n e m a n a n d A . Tversky, " O n the Study o f Statistical Intuitions," C o g n i t i o n 1 1 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 1 2 3 - 1 4 1 ; H . J u n g e r m a n n , " T h e T w o C a m p s o n R a t i o n a l i t y , " D e c i s i o n M a k i n g u n d e r U n c e r t a i n t y , ed. R . W . S c h o l z ( A m s t e r d a m : Elsevier, 1983). 36. N. C o u p l a n d , J. M. W i e m a n n , and H. Giles, "Talk as 'Problem' and C o m m u n i c a t i o n as ' M i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n ' : An Integrative Analysis,"

" M i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n , " eds. C o u p l a n d ,

Giles, and W i e m a n n , 1. 37. 1971),

S . J o u r a r d , T h e T r a n s p a r e n t Self,

38. Press,

2nd ed.

( N e w York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,

32. M . M c C a l l a n d T . S i m m o n s , Identities a n d I n t e r a c t i o n s , 2 n d ed. ( N e w Y o r k : Free

1978);

Doubleday, 39. Beyond:

E.

Goffman,

The Presentation

of Self in E v e r y d a y

Life (Garden

City, N Y :

1959).

C. R. Berger and R. J. Calabrese, Toward

a

" S o m e E x p l o r a t i o n s i n Initial I n t e r a c t i o n a n d

Developmental Theory

of Interpersonal

Communication,"

Human

C o m m u n i c a t i o n Research 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) : 9 9 - 1 1 2 . 40.

A. S. Babrow, "Uncertainty, Value, C o m m u n i c a t i o n , and Problematic Integration,"

J o u r n a l o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n 5 1 ( 2 0 0 1 ) : 5 5 3 - 5 7 3 ; W . A . Afifi a n d J . L . W e i n e r , " T o w a r d a T h e o r y of Motivated Information M a n a g e m e n t , " 41. House, 42.

C o m m u n i c a t i o n Theory 14 (2004):

167-190.

K. E. Weick, T h e Social P s y c h o l o g y of O r g a n i z i n g , 2nd ed. ( N e w York: R a n d o m 1979). E. M. Eisenberg, "Jamming: Transcendence through O r g a n i z i n g , " C o m m u n i c a t i o n

Research 17 (1990): 1 3 9 - 1 6 4 . 43.

C . C o n r a d , Strategic O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n ( N e w York: H o l t , Rinehart

and Winston, 1 9 8 5 ) . 44.

C.

Lerman, C. Hughes, B. J. Trock, R. E.

Myers, D. Main, A.

Bonney, M.

R.

A b b a s z a d e g a n , A. E. Harry, B. A. Franklin, J. F. Lynch, and H. T. Lynch, "Genetic Testing in

Families with

Association 281

Hereditary Nonpolyposis (1999):

Colon Cancer," Journal of American Medical

1 6 1 8 - 1 6 2 2 ; J. H. Fanos and J. P. J o h n s o n , "Barriers to Carrier

T e s t i n g for A d u l t C y s t i c F i b r o s i s Sibs: T h e I m p o r t a n c e o f N o t K n o w i n g , " A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l of Medical Genetics 59 (1995): 8 5 - 9 T . 45.

T. D. W i l s o n , D. B. Centerbar, D. T. Gilbert, and D. A. Kermer, " T h e Pleasures of

Uncertainty:

Prolonging Positive M o o d s i n W a y s People D o

N o t Anticipate," Journal of

Personality a n d Social Psychology 88 (2005): 5 - 2 1 . 46.

H . A . S i m o n , " R a t i o n a l C h o i c e a n d the Structure o f E n v i r o n m e n t s , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l

Review 63

(1956):

M A : M I T Press,

1 2 9 - 1 3 8 ; H. A.

1982).

Simon, M o d e l s of B o u n d e d Rationality (Cambridge,

47.

G . Gigerenzer, P . M . T o d d , a n d the A B C Research G r o u p , Simple Heuristics T h a t

M a k e U s S m a r t ( L o n d o n : O x f o r d University Press, 1 9 9 9 ) . 48.

R. S. N i c k e r s o n , " C o n f i r m a t i o n Bias: A U b i q u i t o u s P h e n o m e n o n in M a n y G u i s e s , "

Review of General Psychology 2 (1998): 49.

175.

A . R . Luria, T h e M i n d o f a M n e m o n i s t ( N e w Y o r k : Basic B o o k s , 1 9 6 8 ) .

50. W. James, T h e Principles of P s y c h o l o g y , vol. 51.

1 ( N e w York: Holt, 1890).

L. Schooler and R. Hertwig, " H o w Forgetting Aids Heuristic Inference," Psychological

R e v i e w 1 1 2 (2005): 6 1 0 - 6 1 1 . 52.

Schooler and Hertwig, " H o w Forgetting Aids Heuristic Inference."

53. D . G . Goldstein and G . Gigerenzer, " M o d e l s o f Ecological Rationality: T h e Recognition Heuristic," Psychological Review 109 (2002): 7 5 - 9 0 . 54. C M . Kelley and L . L . Jacoby, "Subjective Reports and Process Dissociation: Fluency, K n o w i n g , and Feeling," Acta Psychologica 98 (1998): 55.

127-140.

Goldstein and Gigerenzer, " M o d e l s of Ecological Rationality."

56. C. Warren a n d B. Laslett, " P r i v a c y a n d Secrecy: A C o n c e p t u a l C o m p a r i s o n , " J o u r n a l o f Social Issues 3 3 57.

(1977): 4 3 - 5 1 .

R. M. Kramer, "Trust and Distrust in O r g a n i z a t i o n s : E m e r g i n g Perspectives, Enduring

Questions," Annual Review of Psychology 50 (1999):

571.

58. T. Yamagishi, K. S. C o o k , and M. Watanabe, "Uncertainty, Trust and C o m m i t m e n t F o r m a t i o n in the United

States

and J a p a n , "

American Journal of Sociology

104

(1998):

165-194. 59.

B r o w n and Levinson, Universals in L a n g u a g e Usage.

60.

Smithson, Ignorance and Uncertainty.

61.

E. M.

Eisenberg,

" A m b i g u i t y as Strategy in Organizational C o m m u n i c a t i o n , "

Communication Monographs 51

(1984): 2 2 7 - 2 4 1 .

6 2 . J. J o h n s o n - H a n k s , " W h e n the Future D e c i d e s : U n c e r t a i n t y a n d Intentional A c t i o n in Contemporary Cameroon," 63.

Current A n t h r o p o l o g y 46 (2005): 366.

C . Raffensperger a n d J . Tickner, eds. P r o t e c t i n g P u b l i c H e a l t h a n d the E n v i r o n m e n t :

I m p l e m e n t i n g the P r e c a u t i o n a r y Principle ( W a s h i n g t o n , D C : Island Press, 1 9 9 9 ) . 64.

S. Dovers, T. W. N o r t o n , and J. W. Handmer, "Ignorance, Uncertainty and Ecology:

Key Themes,"

Ecology,

Uncertainty a n d Policy: M a n a g i n g Ecosystems for Sustainability,

eds. J. W. H a n d m e r , T. W. N o r t o n , and S. R. D o v e r s ( L o n d o n : Prentice-Hall, 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 - 2 5 ; Smithson, Ignorance a n d Uncertainty. 65.

D . G . W a g n e r a n d J . Berger, " D o S o c i o l o g i c a l T h e o r i e s G r o w ? " A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l

of Sociology 90 (1985):

697-728.

6 6 . M . S m i t h s o n a n d M . F o d d y , " T h e o r i e s a n d S t r a t e g i e s for S t u d y i n g S o c i a l D i l e m m a s , " R e s o l v i n g Social D i l e m m a s : D y n a m i c , Structural, a n d Intergroup A s p e c t s , eds. M . Foddy, M . S m i t h s o n , S . Schneider, and M . H o g g (Philadelphia: P s y c h o l o g y Press, 1 9 9 9 ) , 1 - 1 4 . 67.

Smithson, Ignorance and

68.

Smithson, Ignorance a n d Uncertainty.

Uncertainty.

69.

Smithson, Ignorance and Uncertainty.

C H A P T E R

1 0

W h i t e Ignorance C H A R L E S

E P I S T E M O L O G Y

W.

M I L L S

is one of the oldest and most central areas of Western

philosophy, as famously illustrated by Plato and his u n k n o w i n g cave dwell­ ers. So if any subject should have a special expertise in agnotology, it is epistemology. After all, surely studying h o w and w h y we k n o w should also illuminate h o w and w h y we don't? Yet, ironically, it could be argued that mainstream epistemology has itself been part of the p r o b l e m rather than part of the solution, generating its o w n distinctive ignorances. Classically individualist, indeed sometimes self-parodically to the verge of solipsism, m o d e r n A n g l o - A m e r i c a n epistemology has for hundreds of years from its Cartesian origins been p r o f o u n d l y inimical terrain for the development of any concept of structural group-based miscognition, g r o u p ignorance. T h e p a r a d i g m exemplars studied of p h e n o m e n a likely to foster mistaken belief—optical illusions, hallucinations, p h a n t o m limbs, d r e a m s — w e r e by their very banality universal to the h u m a n condition. But W. V. Quine's 1 9 6 9 naturalizing of epistemology w o u l d initiate a sequence of events w i t h unexpectedly subversive long-term theoretical repercussions for the field. If articulating the n o r m s for ideal cognition 1

required taking into a c c o u n t (in some w a y ) the practices of actual c o g ­ nition, if the prescriptive needed to p a y attention (in some w a y ) to the descriptive, then on w h a t principled basis could cognitive realities of a supra-individual kind continue to be e x c l u d e d from the ambit of episte­ m o l o g y ? For it then meant that the cognitive agent needed to be located in his specificity—as a m e m b e r of certain social g r o u p s , within a given social milieu, in a society at a particular time period. W h a t e v e r Quine's o w n sympathies (or lack thereof), his w o r k had opened Pandora's b o x . A naturalized epistemology had, perforce, also to be a socialized epistemol­ ogy; this w a s "a straightforward extension of the naturalistic a p p r o a c h . "

2

W h a t had originally been a specifically M a r x i s t c o n c e p t , " s t a n d p o i n t theory," w a s a d o p t e d and developed to its most sophisticated form in the w o r k of feminist theorists, and it became possible for b o o k s w i t h ti­ tles like Social Epistemology and Socializing Epistemology,

and

journals

called Social Epistemology, to be published, and seen (at least by some) as a legitimate part of philosophy.

3

Obviously, then, for those interested in pursuing such questions this is a far m o r e w e l c o m i n g environment than that of a few decades a g o . Nonetheless, I think it is equally o b v i o u s that the potential of these de­ velopments for transforming mainstream epistemology and elucidating the mechanisms of social ignorance is far from being fully realized. A n d at least one major reason for this failure is that the conceptions of society in the literature t o o often presuppose a degree of consent and inclusion that does n o t exist outside the imagination of mainstream s c h o l a r s — i n a sense a societal population essentially generated by simple iteration of that originally solitary Cartesian cognizer. As Linda M a r t í n Alcoff has ironi­ cally observed, the " s o c i e t y " these philosophers are writing a b o u t often seems to be c o m p o s e d exclusively of white males, so that one w o n d e r s h o w it reproduces itself. T h e M a r x i s t critique is seemingly discredited, 4

the feminist critique is m a r g i n a l i z e d , the racial critique does n o t even exist. T h e c o n c e p t s o f d o m i n a t i o n , hegemony, ideology, mystification, exploitation, and so on that are part of the lingua franca of radicals find little or no place here. In particular, the analysis of the implications for social cognition and social ignorance of the legacy of white supremacy has barely been initiated. W h a t I w a n t to do in this chapter is to sketch out some of the features and the d y n a m i c of w h a t I see as a particularly p e r v a s i v e — t h o u g h hardly theorized—form of ignorance, w h a t could be called white ignorance, which is linked w i t h white supremacy. (This article is an elaboration of one of the key themes of my 1 9 9 7 b o o k , The Racial Contract. ) T h e meta-theoretical 5

approach I find most congenial is that recently outlined by Alvin G o l d m a n in his b o o k Knowledge in a Social World. G o l d m a n describes his project as " a n essay in social veritistic epistemology," oriented " t o w a r d truth deter­ mination," as against contemporary poststructuralist or Kuhn/Feyerabend/ Bloor/Barnes-inspired approaches that relativize truth. So though the focus

is social rather than individual, the traditional concerns and assumptions of mainstream epistemology have been retained: Traditional epistemology, especially in the Cartesian tradition, was highly indi­ vidualistic, focusing on mental operations of cognitive agents in isolation or ab­ straction from other persons. . . . [This] individual epistemology needs a social counterpart: social epistemology. . . . In what respects is social epistemology social? First, it focuses on social paths or routes to knowledge. That is, consider­ ing believers taken one at a time, it looks at the many routes to belief that feature interactions with other agents, as contrasted with private or asocial routes to be­ lief acquisition. . . . Second, social epistemology does not restrict itself to believ­ ers taken singly. It often focuses on some sort of group entity . . . and examines the spread of information or misinformation across that group's membership. Rather than concentrate on a single knower, as did Cartesian epistemology, it ad­ dresses the distribution of knowledge or error within the larger social cluster. . . . Veritistic epistemology (whether individual or social) is concerned with the pro­ duction of knowledge, where knowledge is here understood in the "weak" sense of true belief. More precisely, it is concerned with both knowledge and its con­ traries: error (false belief) and ignorance (the absence of true belief). The main question for veritistic epistemology is: Which practices have a comparatively fa­ vorable impact on knowledge as contrasted with error and ignorance? Individual veritistic epistemology asks this question for nonsocial practices; social veritistic epistemology asks it for social practices.

6

Unlike G o l d m a n , I will use ignorance to cover both false belief and absence of true belief. But w i t h this minor terminological variation, this is basically the project I am trying to undertake: l o o k i n g at the "spread of m i s i n f o r m a t i o n , " the "distribution of e r r o r " (including the possibility of "massive e r r o r " ) , w i t h i n the "larger social cluster," the " g r o u p entity" 7

of w h i t e s , and the "social p r a c t i c e s " (some " w h o l l y p e r n i c i o u s " ) that 8

e n c o u r a g e it. G o l d m a n m a k e s glancing reference to some of the femi­ nist and race literature (there is a grand total of a single index entry for racism), but in general, the implications of systemic social oppression for his project are n o t addressed. T h u s , his a c c o u n t offers the equivalent in social epistemology of the mainstream theorizing in political science that frames A m e r i c a n sexism and racism as " a n o m a l i e s " : U.S. political culture

is conceptualized as essentially egalitarian and inclusive, w i t h the l o n g actual history of systemic gender and racial subordination being relegated to the status of a minor " d e v i a t i o n " from the n o r m . O b v i o u s l y , such a 9

starting point crucially handicaps any realistic social epistemology since in effect it turns things upside d o w n . Sexism and racism, patriarchy and white supremacy, have not been the exception but the norm. So t h o u g h his b o o k is valuable in terms of c o n c e p t u a l clarification, and some illu­ minating discussions of particular topics, the basic f r a m e w o r k is flawed insofar as it marginalizes d o m i n a t i o n and its cognitive consequences. A less naive understanding of h o w society actually w o r k s requires d r a w i n g on the radical tradition of social theory, in w h i c h v a r i o u s factors he does not consider play a pivotal role in obstructing the mission of veritistic epistemology.

W H A T

I

W A N T

T O

P I N

D o w N , then, is the idea of an ignorance, a non-

k n o w i n g , that is not contingent, but in w h i c h r a c e — w h i t e racism or white racial d o m i n a t i o n and their ramifications—is central to its origins. So let me begin by trying to clarify and demarcate more precisely the p h e n o m ­ enon I am addressing, as well as answering some possible objections. To begin w i t h , white ignorance as a cognitive p h e n o m e n o n has to be clearly historicized. I am taking for granted the truth of some variant of social constructivism, w h i c h denies that race is biological. So the causality in the mechanisms for generating and sustaining white ignorance on the macro-level is social-structural rather than physico-biological, t h o u g h it will of course operate through the physico-biological. Assuming the g r o w ­ ing consensus in critical race theory to be c o r r e c t — t h a t race in general, and whiteness in particular, is a p r o d u c t of the m o d e r n p e r i o d — t h e n y o u could not have had white ignorance in this technical, term-of-art sense in, say, the ancient w o r l d , because whites did not exist t h e n .

10

Second, one w o u l d obviously need to distinguish w h a t I am calling white ignorance from general patterns of ignorance prevalent among people w h o are white, but in w h o s e doxastic states race has played no determin­ ing role. For e x a m p l e , at all times (such as right n o w ) there will be m a n y facts about the natural and social worlds on which people, including white people, have no opinion, or a mistaken opinion, but race is not directly

or indirectly responsible (the exact temperature in the earth's crust t w e n t y miles d o w n , the precise income distribution in the United States, and so forth). But we w o u l d not w a n t to call this w h i t e ignorance, because race has not been the cause for these n o n - k n o w i n g s , but other factors. T h i r d (complicating the foregoing), it needs to be realized that once indirect causation and diminishing degrees of influence are admitted, it will sometimes be very difficult to adjudicate w h e n specific kinds of n o n - k n o w ­ ings are appropriately categorizable as white ignorance or not. Recourse to counterfactuals of greater or lesser distance from the actual situation m a y be necessary ( " w h a t they should and w o u l d have k n o w n if . . . " ) , w h o s e evaluation may be too complex to be resolvable. Suppose, for example, that a particular true scientific generalization a b o u t h u m a n beings, P, w o u l d be easily discoverable in a society were it not for widespread white racism, and that w i t h additional research in the appropriate areas, P could be s h o w n to have further implications, Q, and b e y o n d that, R. Should these related principles and these factual findings all be included as examples of white ignorance also? H o w far o n w a r d up the chain? A n d so forth. Fourth, the racialized causality I am i n v o k i n g needs to be expansive e n o u g h to include both straightforward racist m o t i v a t i o n and m o r e im­ personal social-structural causation, w h i c h m a y be operative even if the cognizer in question is not racist. For in both cases, racialized causality can give rise to w h a t I am calling white ignorance, straightforwardly for a racist cognizer, indirectly for a non-racist cognizer. Fifth, the " w h i t e " in " w h i t e i g n o r a n c e " does not m e a n that it has to be confined to white people. Indeed, it will often be shared by nonwhites to a greater or lesser extent because of the p o w e r relations and patterns of ideological h e g e m o n y involved. Providing the causal route is appropriate, nonwhites can manifest w h i t e ignorance also. Sixth, and s o m e w h a t different, white racial ignorance can produce a doxastic environment in w h i c h particular varieties of nonwhite, such as black, racial ignorance f l o u r i s h — s o that racial causality is i n v o l v e d — b u t w h i c h one w o u l d hesitate to subsume under the category of white igno­ rance itself, at least w i t h o u t significant qualification. T h i n k , for e x a m p l e , of " o p p o s i t i o n a l " African American varieties of biological and theological determinism: whites as melanin deficient and therefore inherently physi-

ologically a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y flawed, or whites as " b l u e - e y e d d e v i l s " created by the evil scientist Y a c u b (as in early Black M u s l i m t h e o l o g y ) . These theories invert claims of white racial superiority, t h o u g h obviously they have been shaped by key assumptions of "scientific" and theologi­ cal white racism. Seventh, t h o u g h the e x a m p l e s I have given so far have all been factual ones, I w a n t a concept of white ignorance broad e n o u g h to include moral i g n o r a n c e — n o t merely ignorance of facts with m o r a l implications, but moral n o n - k n o w i n g s , incorrect judgments a b o u t the rights and w r o n g s of moral situations themselves. For m e , the epistemic desideratum is that the naturalizing and socializing of epistemology should have, as a c o m ­ p o n e n t , the naturalizing and socializing of moral epistemology also, and the study of pervasive social patterns of mistaken moral cognition, moral ignorance.

11

Eighth, it presumably does not need to be emphasized that white igno­ rance is not the only kind of privileged g r o u p ignorance. M a l e ignorance could be analyzed similarly, and clearly has a far m o r e ancient history and arguably a m o r e deep-rooted ancestry in h u m a n interrelations, insofar as it goes back to the origins of patriarchy. N i n t h , s p e a k i n g generally a b o u t w h i t e ignorance does n o t c o m m i t one to the c l a i m that it is uniform across the w h i t e p o p u l a t i o n . W h i t e s are n o t a m o n o l i t h , and if the analysis of w h i t e ignorance is to be part of a social e p i s t e m o l o g y and a g n o t o l o g y , the o b v i o u s needs to be r e m e m ­ b e r e d — t h a t people have other identities beside racial ones, so that whites will be divisible by class, gender, nationality, religion, and so forth, and these factors will modify, by differential socialization and experience, the bodies of belief and the cognitive patterns of the s u b p o p u l a t i o n s c o n ­ cerned. But this is, of course, true for all sociological generalizations, w h i c h has never been a reason for a b a n d o n i n g t h e m , but of e m p l o y i n g them cautiously. Tenth, and finally, the point of trying to understand white ignorance is, of course, normative and not merely sociological: the g o a l of trying to reduce or eliminate it. For a social epistemology, w h e r e the focus is on supra-individual processes, and the individual's interaction w i t h them, the aim is to understand h o w certain social structures and g r o u p memberships

tend to p r o m o t e these crucially flawed patterns of cognition. So, the idea is that there are typical w a y s of getting things w r o n g and one has a better chance of getting things right through a self-conscious recognition of their existence, and corresponding self-distancing from them.

LET

us

T U R N

N O W

T O

T H E

P R O C E S S E S

O F

c o G N i T i o N , individual

and social, and the examination of the w a y s in w h i c h race m a y affect some of their crucial c o m p o n e n t s . As e x a m p l e s , I will look at perception, con­ ception, memory, testimony, and motivational g r o u p interest (in a longer treatment, differential g r o u p experience should also be included). Separat­ ing out these various c o m p o n e n t s is difficult because of the fact that they are all constantly in c o m p l e x interaction w i t h one another, involving mul­ tiple intricate feedback loops of various kinds. So an analytic separating out of elements for purposes of conceptual isolation and clarification will necessarily be artificial, and in a sense each element so extracted bears a ghostly trail of all the others in its w a k e . Start w i t h perception. A central theme of the epistemology of the past f e w decades has been the discrediting of the idea of a r a w perceptual " g i v e n , " completely unmediated by concepts. Perceptions are in general simultaneously c o n c e p t i o n s , if only at a very l o w level. M o r e o v e r , the social dimension of e p i s t e m o l o g y is o b v i o u s l y m o s t salient here, since individuals do not in general m a k e up these categories themselves, but inherit them from their cultural milieu. " T h e influence of social factors begins at birth, for language is not reinvented by each individual in social isolation, nor could it be. Because language acquisition is socially medi­ ated, the concepts we acquire are themselves socially mediated from the very b e g i n n i n g . "

12

But this means that the conceptual array w i t h w h i c h

the cognizer a p p r o a c h e s the w o r l d needs itself to be scrutinized for its a d e q u a c y to the w o r l d , for h o w well it m a p s the reality it claims to be describing. If the society is one structured by relations of d o m i n a t i o n and subordination (as of course most societies in recent h u m a n history have been), then in certain areas this conceptual apparatus is likely g o i n g to be shaped and inflected in various w a y s by the biases of the ruling g r o u p s . So crucial concepts m a y well be misleading in their inner m a k e u p and their external relation to a larger doxastic architecture.

N o w apply this to race: consider the epistemic principle of w h a t has come to be called "white normativity," the centering of the Euro-, and later Euro-American, reference group as constitutive norm. Ethnocentrism is, of course, a negative cognitive tendency c o m m o n to all peoples, not just Euro­ peans. But w i t h Europe's gradual rise to global d o m i n a t i o n , the European variant becomes entrenched as an overarching, virtually unassailable frame­ w o r k , a conviction of exceptionalism and superiority that seems vindicated by the facts, and thenceforth, circularly, shapes perception of the facts. We rule the w o r l d because we are superior; we are superior because we rule the w o r l d . In his pioneering essays of the 1950s against Eurocentrism, the w o r l d historian M a r s h a l l G. S. H o d g s o n invokes Saul Steinberg's famous M a r c h 29, 1 9 7 6 , New Yorker cover c a r t o o n depiction of the " V i e w of the World from 9th A v e n u e , " the bizarrely foreshortened v i e w of the United States afforded from the Upper East Side, and argues that the standard geographical representations of Europe by Europeans, as in the M e r c a t o r projection w o r l d m a p , are not really that radically different: It would be a significant story in itself to trace how modern Westerners have managed to preserve some of the most characteristic features of their ethnocen­ tric medieval image of the world. Recast in modern scientific and scholarly lan­ guage, the image is still with us. . . . The point of any ethnocentric world image is to divide the world into moieties, ourselves and the others, ourselves forming the more important of the two. . . . We divide the world into what we call "con­ tinents." . . . Why is Europe one of the continents but not India?. . . . Europe is still ranked as one of the "continents" because our cultural ancestors lived there. By making it a "continent," we give it a rank disproportionate to its natural size, as a subordinate part of no larger unit, but in itself one of the major component parts of the world. . . . (I call such a world map the "Jim Crow projection" because it shows Europe as larger than Africa.) . . . [Mercator] confirms our predispositions.

13

A n d this geographical misrepresentation and regional inflation have g o n e in t a n d e m w i t h a c o r r e s p o n d i n g historical misrepresentation and inflation. Criticizing the standard historical categories of Western histo­ rians, H o d g s o n suggests that "the very terms we a l l o w ourselves to use foster distortion." T h e " c o n v e n i e n t result" is that Europe, an originally

peripheral region of w h a t H o d g s o n calls the " A f r o - E u r a s i a n historical c o m p l e x , " is lifted out of its context and elevated into a self-creating entity unto itself, " a n independent division of the w h o l e w o r l d , w i t h a history that need not be integrated w i t h that of the rest of m a n k i n d save on the terms posed by E u r o p e a n history itself."

14

F r o m this fatally s k e w e d optic, of course, stem all those theories of innate European superiority to the rest of the w o r l d that are still w i t h us in modified and subtler versions today. Whiteness is originally coexten­ sive w i t h full humanity, so that the n o n w h i t e O t h e r is grasped t h r o u g h a historic array of concepts w h o s e c o m m o n denominator is their subjects' location on a l o w e r ontological and moral rung. Consider, for e x a m p l e , the category of the " s a v a g e , " and its concep­ tual role in the justification of imperialism. As Francis Jennings points out, the w o r d w a s "created for the purposes of conquest rather than the pur­ poses of k n o w l e d g e . " " S a v a g e r y " and " c i v i l i z a t i o n " were " r e c i p r o c a l s , " and were " b o t h independent of any necessary correlation w i t h empirical reality." T h e conceptual o u t c o m e w a s a "conjoined m y t h " that "greatly distorted [white] A m e r i c a n s ' perceptions of reality," necessarily involving "the suppression of f a c t s . "

15

In effect,

the Englishman devised the savage's form to fit his function. The word savage thus underwent considerable alteration of meaning as different colonists pursued their varied ends. One aspect of the term remained constant, however: the savage was always inferior to civilized men. . . . The constant of Indian inferiority implied the rejection of his humanity and determined the limits permitted for his participa­ tion in the mixing of cultures. The savage was prey, cattle, pet, or vermin—he was never citizen. Upholders of the myth denied that either savage tyranny or savage anarchy could rightfully be called government, and therefore there could be no justification for Indian resistance to European invasion.

16

W h e n T h o m a s Jefferson excoriates the "merciless Indian S a v a g e s " in the D e c l a r a t i o n of Independence, then, neither he nor his readers expe­ rience any cognitive dissonance w i t h the earlier claims a b o u t the equal­ ity of all " m e n , " since savages are not " m e n " in the full sense. L o c k e d in a different temporality, incapable of self-regulation by morality and law, they are h u m a n o i d but not h u m a n . To speak of the " e q u a l i t y " of

the savage w o u l d then be o x y m o r o n i c , since one's very location in these categories is an indication of one's inequality. Even a cognizer w i t h no antipathy or prejudice t o w a r d N a t i v e A m e r i c a n s will thus be cognitively disabled in trying to establish truths a b o u t them insofar as such a cate­ gory and its associated presuppositions will tend to force his conclusions in a certain direction, will constrain w h a t he can objectively see. It is not a matter of seeing the p h e n o m e n o n w i t h the c o n c e p t discretely attached, but rather of seeing things through the concept itself. In the classic pe­ riod of E u r o p e a n e x p a n s i o n i s m , it then becomes possible to speak w i t h no sense of absurdity of " e m p t y " lands that are actually teeming w i t h millions of p e o p l e , of " d i s c o v e r i n g " countries w h o s e inhabitants already exist, because the n o n w h i t e O t h e r is so located in the guiding c o n c e p t u a l array that different rules apply to them. Even seemingly straightforward empirical perception will be a f f e c t e d — t h e myth of a nation of hunters in contradiction to widespread N a t i v e A m e r i c a n agriculture that saved the J a m e s t o w n colonists' lives, the m y t h of stateless savages in contradiction to forms of government from w h i c h the white Founders arguably learned, the myth of a pristine wilderness in contradiction to a humanized land­ scape transformed by thousands of years of l a b o r . concept

is

driving

the

perception,

with

whites

17

In all these cases, the

aprioristically

intent

on

denying what is before them. So if K a n t famously said that perceptions w i t h o u t concepts are blind, here it is the blindness of the c o n c e p t itself that is b l o c k i n g vision. Originally, then, foundational concepts of racialized difference, and their ramifications in all sociopolitical spheres, preclude veridical percep­ tion of nonwhites and serve as a categorical barrier against their equitable moral treatment. T h e transition a w a y from old-fashioned racism of this kind has not, however, put an end to white normativity but transformed its character. If previously whites were color demarcated as biologically or culturally unequal and superior, n o w through a strategic "color-blindness" nonwhites are assimilated as putative equals to the status and situation of whites on terms that negate the need for any measures to repair the ineq­ uities of the past. So white normativity n o w manifests itself in a white re­ fusal to recognize the long history of structural discrimination that has left them w i t h the superior resources they have today and all the consequent

advantages they provide for negotiating opportunity structures. W o o d y D o a n e suggests that: "Color-blind" ideology plays an important role in the maintenance of white hegemony. . . . Because whites tend not to see themselves in racial terms and not to recognize the existence of the advantages that whites enjoy in American soci­ ety, this promotes a worldview that emphasizes individualistic explanations for social and economic achievement, as if the individualism of white privilege was a universal attribute. Whites also exhibit a general inability to perceive the per­ sistence of discrimination and the effects of more subtle forms of institutional discrimination. In the context of color-blind racial ideology, whites are more likely to see the opportunity structure as open and institutions as impartial or objective in their functioning. . . . This combination supports an interpretative framework in which whites' explanations for inequality focus upon the cultural characteristics (e.g., motivation, values) of subordinate groups. . . . Politically, this blaming of subordinate groups for their lower economic position serves to neutralize demands for antidiscrimination initiatives or for a redistribution of resources.

18

W h a t m a k e s such denial possible, of course, is the m a n a g e m e n t of memory. M e m o r y is n o t a subject one usually finds in epistemology texts, but for social epistemology it is obviously pivotal. T h e French sociologist M a u r i c e H a l b w a c h s w a s one of the pioneers of the concept of a collective, social memory, w h i c h provided the f r a m e w o r k for individual m e m o r i e s .

19

But if we need to understand collective memory, we also need to under­ stand collective amnesia. Indeed, they go together insofar as m e m o r y is necessarily s e l e c t i v e — o u t of the infinite sequence of events, some trivial, some m o m e n t o u s , we extract w h a t we see as the crucial ones and orga­ nize them into an overall narrative. Social m e m o r y is then inscribed in t e x t b o o k s , generated and regenerated in ceremonies and official holidays, concretized in statues, p a r k s , m o n u m e n t s . Historian John Gillis argues that " t h e n o t i o n of identity depends on the idea of m e m o r y , a n d vice versa. . . . [But] memories and identities are not fixed things, but repre­ sentations or constructions of reality. . . . ' [ M ] e m o r y w o r k ' is . . . embed­ ded in c o m p l e x class, gender and p o w e r relations that determine w h a t is remembered (or forgotten), by w h o m , and for w h a t end. If m e m o r y has

its politics, so t o o does i d e n t i t y . "

20

T h u s , there will be both official and

counter-memory, generating, in the case of race, an intimate relationship b e t w e e n w h i t e identity, w h i t e m e m o r y , a n d w h i t e a m n e s i a , especially a b o u t n o n w h i t e victims. Hitler is supposed to have reassured his generals, apprehensive a b o u t the launching of World W a r II, by asking them: " W h o n o w remembers the A r m e n i a n s ? " Because the T h i r d R e i c h lost, the g e n o c i d e o f the J e w s (though far less the Romani) is remembered. But w h o n o w remembers the H e r e r o s , the N a m a , the B e o t h u k s , the Tasmanians? (For that matter, w h o does remember the A r m e n i a n s , except the A r m e n i a n s themselves?) W h o remembers the Congolese? In A d a m Hochschild's chilling b o o k on K i n g L e o p o l d II's regime of rubber and extermination, w h i c h resulted in the deaths of 10 million people in the Belgian C o n g o in the 1890S-1900S, the final chapter is titled " T h e G r e a t F o r g e t t i n g . " T h r o u g h the systematic destruction of state archives in B r u s s e l s — " t h e furnaces burned for eight d a y s " — a n d the deliberate n o n c o m m e m o r a t i o n of the African v i c t i m s — "in none of the [Brussels R o y a l M u s e u m of Central

Africans

t w e n t y large

exhibition galleries is there the slightest hint that millions of C o n g o l e s e met unnatural d e a t h s " — a "deliberate forgetting" as an "active d e e d " w a s achieved, a purging of official m e m o r y so t h o r o u g h and efficient that a Belgian a m b a s s a d o r to West Africa in the 1 9 7 0 s w a s astonished by the " s l a n d e r " on his country in a Liberian newspaper's passing reference to the genocide: "I learned that there had been this huge c a m p a i g n , in the international press, from 1 9 0 0 to 1 9 1 0 ; millions of people had died, but we Belgians k n e w absolutely nothing a b o u t i t . "

21

Similarly, and closer to

h o m e , James L o e w e n ' s critical study of the silences and misrepresenta­ tions of standard American history t e x t b o o k s points out that " T h e Indianw h i t e w a r s that dominated our history from 1 6 2 2 to 1 8 1 5 and were of considerable importance until 1 8 9 0 have disappeared from our national m e m o r y , " encouraging a "feel-good history for w h i t e s " : " B y d o w n p l a y ­ ing Indian w a r s , t e x t b o o k s help us forget that we wrested the continent from N a t i v e A m e r i c a n s . "

22

M o r e o v e r , the misrepresentations of national t e x t b o o k s have their counterpart in m o n u m e n t s and statuary: social m e m o r y made marble and concrete, national mnemonics of the landscape itself. In his study of Civil

War m o n u m e n t s , Kirk Savage argues that " m o n u m e n t s served to a n c h o r collective r e m e m b e r i n g , " fostering "a shared and standardized p r o g r a m of m e m o r y , " so that " l o c a l m e m o r y earned credibility by its assimilation to a visible national m e m o r y . "

23

T h e postbellum decision to rehabilitate

R o b e r t E. Lee, c o m m a n d e r in chief of the C o n f e d e r a t e A r m y , thereby "eras[ing] his status as traitor," signified a national w h i t e reconciliation that required the repudiation of an alternative black m e m o r y : The commemoration of Lee rested on a suppression of black memory, black truth. . . . [U.S. statesman Charles Francis] Adams could not justify a monument to Lee without denying the postwar reality of racial injustice and its congruence with the Confederate cause. "Sectional reconciliation" of this kind was founded on the nonconciliation of African-Americans, and on their exclusion from the legitimate arenas of cultural representation. Black Americans did not have their own monuments, despite the critical role they had played in swinging the balance of power—both moral and military—to the North. . . . The commemoration of the Civil War in physical memorials is ultimately a story of systematic cultural repression. . . . Public monuments . . . impose a permanent memory on the very landscape within which we order our lives. Inasmuch as the monuments make credible particular collectivities, they must erase others.

24

At the level of symbolism and national self-representation, then, the denial of the extent of N a t i v e A m e r i c a n and black victimization c o n ­ tributes to the airbrushed white narrative of discovery, settlement, and building of a shining city on the hill. But the editing of white m e m o r y has m o r e concrete and practical consequences also: it enables a personal self-representation in w h i c h differential white privilege, and the need to correct for it, does not exist. In other w o r d s , the mystification of the past underwrites a mystification of the present. T h e erasure of the history of Jim C r o w makes it possible to depict the playing field as historically level, so that current black poverty just proves black unwillingness to w o r k . As individual memory is assisted through a larger social memory, so individual amnesia is then assisted by a larger collective amnesia. In his research on the continuing, indeed deepening, w e a l t h g a p be­ t w e e n w h i t e and black A m e r i c a n s , T h o m a s S h a p i r o r e m a r k s o n h o w often w h i t e interviewees seemed to " f o r g e t " w h a t they had just told him

a b o u t the extensive parental assistance they received, claiming instead that they had w o r k e d for it: "[X's] m e m o r y seems accurate as she cata­ logues all sorts of parental wealthfare w i t h m a t c h i n g dollar figures. . . . H o w e v e r , as soon as the conversation turns to h o w she and her husband acquired assets like their h o m e , cars, and savings a c c o u n t , her attitude changes dramatically. . . . T h e [Xs] describe themselves as self-made, c o n ­ veniently forgetting that they inherited m u c h of w h a t they o w n . " T h u s , the "taken-for-granted sense of [white] entitlement" erases the fact that "transformative assets,"

"inherited w e a l t h lifting a family b e y o n d their

o w n a c h i e v e m e n t s , " have been crucial to their w h i t e success, and that blacks do not in general have such advantages because of the history of discrimination against t h e m .

25

But forgetting, whether individual or social, will not even be necessary if there is nothing to remember in the first place. C. A. J. C o a d y ' s n o w clas­ sic b o o k on testimony has made it irrefutably clear h o w dependent we are on others for so m u c h of w h a t we k n o w , so that testimony must be crucial to the elaboration of a social e p i s t e m o l o g y .

26

Yet if one g r o u p , or specific

g r o u p s , of potential witnesses are discredited in advance as epistemically suspect, reports from them will tend to be dismissed, or never solicited to begin w i t h . Kant's infamous line a b o u t a " N e g r o carpenter's" v i e w s has often been quoted, but never stales: " A n d it might be, that there w e r e something in this w h i c h perhaps deserved to be considered; but in short, this fellow w a s quite black from head to foot, a clear p r o o f that w h a t he said w a s s t u p i d . "

27

N o n w h i t e inferiority necessarily has cognitive ramifi­

cations, undermining n o n w h i t e claims to k n o w l e d g e that are not backed up by E u r o p e a n epistemic authority. D u r i n g slavery, blacks were gener­ ally denied the right to testify against whites, because they were not seen as credible witnesses, so w h e n the only (willing) witnesses to white crimes were black, these crimes w o u l d n o t be brought to light. Moreover, in many cases, even if witnesses w o u l d have been given some kind of grudging hearing, they were terrorized into silence by the fear of white retaliation. A black w o m a n recalls the w o r l d of Jim C r o w and the dangers of describing it for w h a t it w a s : " M y problems started w h e n I began to c o m m e n t on w h a t I saw. . . . I insisted on being accurate. But the w o r l d I w a s born into didn't w a n t that. Indeed, its very survival depended

on not k n o w i n g , not seeing—and certainly, not saying anything at all about w h a t it w a s really l i k e . "

28

If black testimony could be aprioristically rejected

because it w a s likely to be false, it could also be aprioristically rejected be­ cause it w a s likely to be true. Testimony about white atrocities—lynchings, police killings, race r i o t s — w o u l d often have to be passed d o w n t h r o u g h segregated informational channels, black to black, t o o explosive to be al­ l o w e d exposure to white cognition. T h e m e m o r y of the 1 9 2 1 Tulsa race riot, the w o r s t A m e r i c a n race riot of the twentieth century, w i t h a possible death toll of 300 people, w a s kept alive for decades in the black c o m m u ­ nity long after whites had erased it from the official record. Ed Wheeler, a white researcher trying in 1 9 7 0 to locate documentation on the riot, found that the official Tulsa records had mysteriously vanished, and w a s only able with great difficulty to persuade black survivors to come f o r w a r d with their p h o t o g r a p h s of the event: " T h e blacks a l l o w e d Wheeler to take the pictures only if he promised not to reveal their names, and they all spoke only on the condition of anonymity. T h o u g h fifty years had passed, they still feared retribution if they spoke o u t . "

2 9

A n d even w h e n such fears are not a factor, and blacks do feel free to s p e a k , the epistemic p r e s u m p t i o n against their credibility r e m a i n s in a w a y that it does not for white witnesses. Black counter-testimony against w h i t e m y t h o l o g y has a l w a y s existed, but w o u l d originally have been handicapped by the lack of material and cultural capital investment available for its p r o d u c t i o n — o r a l testimony from illiterate slaves, ephem­ eral pamphlets w i t h small print runs, self-published w o r k s like those by the a u t o d i d a c t J. A. R o g e r s laboriously d o c u m e n t i n g the achievements of men and w o m e n of c o l o r to contest the white lie of black inferiority.

30

But even w h e n p r o p a g a t e d in more respectable v e n u e s — f o r e x a m p l e , the N e g r o scholarly journals founded in the early twentieth c e n t u r y — t h e y were epistemically ghettoized by the Jim C r o w intellectual practices of the white academy. As Stephen Steinberg points out, the United States and its w h i t e social sciences have " p l a y e d o s t r i c h " on the issues of race and racial d i v i s i o n ,

31

so t h a t — i n W. E. B. Du Bois's famous image of blacks

in a cave trying desperately to c o m m u n i c a t e to w h i t e passersby, before despairingly realizing that they are silenced behind " s o m e thick sheet of invisible but horribly tangible plate g l a s s " — " [ b l a c k critics] of w h a t e v e r

political stripe . . . were simply met w i t h a deaf ear." T h e testimony of N e g r o scholars saying the w r o n g thing (almost an analytic statement!) w o u l d not be registered. " [ T ] h e marginalization of black voices in aca­ demia w a s facilitated by an 'invisible but horribly tangible' c o l o r line that relegated all but a few black scholars to teach in black colleges far removed from the academic m a i n s t r e a m . "

32

Consider, for e x a m p l e , an anthropol­

o g y founded on the " o b v i o u s " truth of racial hierarchy. Or a s o c i o l o g y failing to confront the central social fact of structural white d o m i n a t i o n . Or a history sanitizing the record of aboriginal conquest and black ex­ ploitation. Or a political science representing racism as an a n o m a l y to a basically inclusive and egalitarian polity. Or a political philosophy thriv­ ing for thirty years and supposedly dedicated to the elucidation of justice that makes next to no mention of the centrality of racial injustice to the "basic structure" of the United States, and assumes instead that it will be more theoretically appropriate to start from the "ideal t h e o r y " assump­ tion that society is the p r o d u c t of a mutually agreed-on, nonexploitative enterprise to divide benefits and burdens in an equitable w a y — a n d that this is s o m e h o w g o i n g to illuminate the distinctive m o r a l p r o b l e m s of a society based on exploitative white settlement! In w h a t e v e r discipline that is affected by race, the " t e s t i m o n y " of the black perspective and its distinctive conceptual and theoretical insights will tend to be whited out. Whites will cite other whites, in a closed circuit of epistemic authority that reproduces white delusions. Finally, the dynamic role of white group interests needs to be recognized and a c k n o w l e d g e d as a central causal factor in generating and sustaining white ignorance. Cognitive psychologists standardly distinguish between " c o l d " and " h o t " mechanisms of cognitive distortion, those attributable to intrinsic processing difficulties and those involving motivational factors, and in analytic philosophy of mind and philosophical p s y c h o l o g y there is a large and well-established b o d y of w o r k on self-deception and moti­ vated irrationality, t h o u g h located within an individualistic f r a m e w o r k .

33

So claiming a link between interest and cognition is not at all unheard of in this field. But because of its framing individualism, and of course the aprioristic exclusion in any case of the realities of white group domination, the generalization to racial interests has not been carried out.

W h a t needs to be d o n e , I suggest, is to extrapolate some of this litera­ ture to a social c o n t e x t — o n e informed by the realities of race. Because of its marginalization of social oppression, the existing social epistemol­ ogy literature tends to ignore or d o w n p l a y such factors. By contrast, in the left tradition this w a s precisely the classic thesis: (class) d o m i n a t i o n and e x p l o i t a t i o n w e r e the f o u n d a t i o n of the social order, and as such they produced not merely material differentials of wealth in the economic sphere, but deleterious cognitive consequences in the ideational sphere. M a r x i s m ' s particular analysis of e x p l o i t a t i o n , resting as it does on the labor theory of value, has proven to be fatally vulnerable. But obviously this does not negate the value of the c o n c e p t itself, suitably refurbished, nor undercut the prima facie plausibility of the claim that if exploitative s o c i o e c o n o m i c relations are indeed foundational to the social order, this is likely to have a fundamental shaping effect on social ideation. So vested white g r o u p interest in the racial status q u o — t h e " w a g e s of w h i t e n e s s " in D a v i d Roediger's adaptation of Du Bois's f a m o u s phrase from Black Reconstruction—needs to be recognized as a major factor in encouraging white cognitive distortions of various k i n d s .

34

N o r is such " m o t i v a t e d i r r a t i o n a l i t y " confined to the period of overt racism and de jure segregation. R e c e n t attitudinal research by D o n a l d K i n d e r and Lynn Sanders on public policy matters linked to race reveals "a deep and p e r h a p s w i d e n i n g racial divide [that] m a k e s the discovery of c o m m o n a l i t y and a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n the races a dim p r o s p e c t , " and central to the s h a p i n g of w h i t e o p i n i o n , it turns o u t , is their p e r c e p t i o n of their g r o u p interests: " t h e threats b l a c k s a p p e a r to pose to w h i t e s ' collective w e l l - b e i n g , n o t their personal w e l f a r e . "

3 5

T h e s e t w o political

scientists c o n c l u d e that race is the p r i m a r y social division in the United States, and that whites generally see black interests as o p p o s e d to their o w n . Inevitably, then, this will affect w h i t e social c o g n i t i o n — t h e c o n ­ cepts f a v o r e d (for e x a m p l e , t o d a y ' s " c o l o r - b l i n d n e s s " ) , the refusal to p e r c e i v e s y s t e m i c d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , the c o n v e n i e n t a m n e s i a a b o u t the past and its legacy in the present, the hostility to black testimony on c o n t i n u i n g w h i t e privilege and the need to eliminate it so as to achieve racial justice. As e m p h a s i z e d at the start, then, these analytically distin­ guishable cognitive c o m p o n e n t s are in reality all interlocked w i t h and

reciprocally determining one another, jointly c o n t r i b u t i n g to the blind­ ness of the w h i t e eye. In his wonderfully titled States of Denial, Stanley C o h e n argues that " [ w ] h o l e societies may slip into collective modes of d e n i a l " : Besides collective denials of the past (such as brutalities against indigenous peo­ ples), people may be encouraged to act as if they don't know about the present. Whole societies are based on forms of cruelty, discrimination, repression or ex­ clusion which are "known" about but never openly acknowledged. . . . Indeed, distortions and self-delusions are most often synchronized. . . . Whole societies have mentioned and unmentionable rules about what should not be openly talked about. You are subject to a rule about obeying these rules, but bound also by a meta-rule which dictates that you deny your knowledge of the original rule.

36

W h i t e ignorance has been able to flourish all these years because a white epistemology of ignorance has safeguarded it against the dangers of an illuminating blackness or redness, protecting those w h o for " r a c i a l " reasons have needed not to k n o w . O n l y by starting to break these rules and meta-rules can we begin the long process that will lead to the eventual o v e r c o m i n g of this white darkness and the achievement of an enlighten­ ment that is genuinely multiracial.

NOTES 1. W. V. Q u i n e , " E p i s t e m o l o g y N a t u r a l i z e d , " O n t o l o g i c a l Relativity, a n d O t h e r Essays ( N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a University Press, 1 9 6 9 ) ; H i l a r y K o r n b l i t h , N a t u r a l i z i n g E p i s t e m o l o g y , 2 n d ed. ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : M I T Press, 1 9 9 4 ) , o r i g . e d . 1 9 8 5 . 2. Hilary Kornblith,

"A Conservative A p p r o a c h to Social Epistemology," Socializing

E p i s t e m o l o g y : T h e Social D i m e n s i o n o f K n o w l e d g e , ed. Frederick F . Schmitt ( L a n h a m , M D : R o w m a n & Littlefield, 3.

Sandra

1994), 93.

H a r d i n g , ed.,

The Feminist Standpoint

Theory

Reader:

Intellectual a n d

P o l i t i c a l C o n t r o v e r s i e s ( N e w Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e , 2 0 0 4 ) ; Steve Fuller, S o c i a l E p i s t e m o l o g y , 2 n d ed. ( B l o o m i n g t o n : University of Indiana Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , orig. ed.

1988; Schmitt, Socializing

Epistemology. 4.

Linda M a r t i n Alcoff, R e a l K n o w i n g : N e w Versions o f the C o h e r e n c e T h e o r y (Ithaca,

N Y : C o r n e l l University Press, 1 9 9 6 ) , 2 n 1 . 5. Charles W.

Mills,

T h e Racial C o n t r a c t (Ithaca, N Y :

Cornell

University Press,

1997). 6. Alvin

I.

Goldman,

K n o w l e d g e in a Social

Press, 1 9 9 9 ) . 4 - 5 . 7.

Kornblith, "Conservative A p p r o a c h , " 97.

8.

Ibid.

World ( N e w York:

O x f o r d University

9.

Rogers M. Smith,

Civic Ideals:

Conflicting

( N e w H a v e n , C T : Yale University Press, 10.

Visions of Citizenship in

U.S.

History

1997).

G e o r g e M. Fredrickson, R a c i s m : A Short History (Princeton, N J : Princeton University

Press, 2 0 0 2 ) . 11.

Richmond

Campbell and

Bruce Hunter, eds., M o r a l E p i s t e m o l o g y Naturalized,

Canadian Journal of Philosophy supp. vol.

26

( C a l g a r y , A B : University o f C a l g a r y Press,

2000). 12.

Kornblith, "Conservative Approach," 97.

13.

M a r s h a l l G. S. H o d g s o n , "Interrelations of Societies in History," R e t h i n k i n g W o r l d

H i s t o r y : E s s a y s o n E u r o p e , I s l a m , a n d W o r l d H i s t o r y , e d . E d m u n d B u r k e , III ( N e w Y o r k : C a m b r i d g e University Press,

1993), 3-5.

14.

H o d g s o n , "Interrelations," 9.

15.

Francis Jennings, T h e I n v a s i o n o f A m e r i c a : Indians, C o l o n i a l i s m , a n d the C a n t o f

Conquest ( N e w York: W. W. N o r t o n , 1 9 7 6 [1975]), 1 2 , 10. 16. Jennings, Invasion, 59. 17.

Jennings, Invasion.

18.

Woody

Doane,

Significance of Racism, Routledge, 2003), 19.

"Rethinking Whiteness ed.

Ashley W.

Studies,"

D o a n e and

White

Eduardo

Out:

The

Bonilla-Silva

Continuing (New

York:

13-14.

M a u r i c e H a l b w a c h s , O n C o l l e c t i v e M e m o r y , ed. and trans. L e w i s A . C o s e r ( C h i c a g o :

University o f C h i c a g o Press,

1992).

2 0 . J o h n R . G i l l i s , " M e m o r y a n d Identity: T h e H i s t o r y o f a R e l a t i o n s h i p , " C o m m e m o r a t i o n s : T h e Politics of N a t i o n a l Identity, ed. J o h n R. Gillis (Princeton, N J : Princeton University Press, 1 9 9 4 ) , 3. 21.

A d a m H o c h s c h i l d , K i n g L e o p o l d ' s G h o s t : A S t o r y o f G r e e d , Terror, a n d H e r o i s m i n

C o l o n i a l Africa ( N e w York: H o u g h t o n Mifflin, 1 9 9 8 ) , 2 9 3 - 2 9 5 , 2 9 7 . H o w e v e r , Hochschild's b o o k initiated a d e b a t e in B e l g i u m that h a s n o w led to a R o y a l M u s e u m of C e n t r a l Africa s h o w o n the issue:

" M e m o r y o f C o n g o : T h e C o l o n i a l E r a . " Belgian historians dispute his

f i g u r e s a n d reject t h e c h a r g e o f g e n o c i d e : N e w Y o r k T i m e s , F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 5 , B 3 . 22. James W. L o e w e n , Lies My Teacher Told M e : Everything Your American History T e x t b o o k G o t W r o n g ( N e w Y o r k : T o u c h s t o n e / S i m o n & Schuster, 23.

Kirk Savage,

" T h e Politics o f M e m o r y :

1996),

133.

Black E m a n c i p a t i o n and the Civil W a r

M o n u m e n t , " C o m m e m o r a t i o n s : T h e Politics o f N a t i o n a l Identity, ed. John R . Gillis (Princeton, N J : Princeton University Press, 1 9 9 4 ) , 1 3 0 - 1 3 1 . 24.

Savage, "Politics of M e m o r y , "

25.

Thomas

M.

Shapiro,

1 3 4 - 1 3 5 , 143.

The Hidden

Cost o f Being African American: H o w

Wealth

Perpetuates Inequality ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 2004), 7 5 - 7 6 , 1 0 . 26.

C. A. J.

Coady,

Testimony: A

Philosophical Study (Oxford:

Clarendon,

1994

[1992]). 27.

I m m a n u e l K a n t , O b s e r v a t i o n s on the Feeling of the Beautiful a n d Sublime, trans.

J o h n T . G o l d t h w a i t (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1 9 6 0 ) , 1 1 3 . 28. C i t e d in L e o n F. L i t w a c k , T r o u b l e in M i n d : B l a c k Southerners in the A g e of Jim C r o w ( N e w York: Alfred A . Knopf, 1998), 34. 2 9 . J a m e s S . H i r s c h , R i o t a n d R e m e m b r a n c e : T h e T u l s a R a c e W a r a n d Its L e g a c y ( N e w Y o r k : H o u g h t o n Mifflin, 2 0 0 2 ) , 2 0 1 . 30. J. A. Rogers, 1 0 0 A m a z i n g Facts a b o u t the N e g r o with C o m p l e t e Proof: A Short C u t t o t h e W o r l d H i s t o r y o f t h e N e g r o (St. P e t e r s b u r g , F L : H e l g a M . R o g e r s , 1 9 8 5 [ 1 9 5 2 ] ) .

31.

Stephen Steinberg, Turning B a c k : T h e Retreat from Racial Justice in A m e r i c a , 3rd

ed. (Boston: B e a c o n , 2 0 0 1 [ 1 9 9 5 ] ) , ix. 32. Ibid., 5 1 . 33.

Brian P. M c L a u g h l i n and Amelie O k s e n b e r g Rorty, eds.,

P e r s p e c t i v e s o n Self-

D e c e p t i o n (Berkeley: University o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 8 8 ) ; Alfred R . M e l e , S e l f - D e c e p t i o n U n m a s k e d (Princeton, N J : Princeton University Press, 2 0 0 1 ) . 34.

D a v i d R . Roediger, T h e Wages o f Whiteness: R a c e a n d the M a k i n g o f the A m e r i c a n

W o r k i n g C l a s s , rev. e d . ( N e w Y o r k : V e r s o , 1 9 9 9 ) , o r i g . e d . 1 9 9 1 ; W . E . B . D u B o i s , B l a c k Reconstruction in America, Mills,

1 8 6 0 - 1 8 8 0 ( N e w Y o r k : Free Press,

" R a c i a l E x p l o i t a t i o n a n d the W a g e s o f W h i t e n e s s , "

a n d Ethnicity, ed. M a r i a K r y s a n a n d A m a n d a

1998

[1935]); Charles W.

T h e C h a n g i n g Terrain o f R a c e

E. L e w i s ( N e w York: Russell Sage, 2004),

235-262. 35.

Donald R.

Kinder and Lynn M.

Sanders, D i v i d e d b y C o l o r : Racial Politics a n d

D e m o c r a t i c I d e a l s ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 9 6 ) , 3 3 , 8 5 . 36.

Stanley C o h e n , States o f D e n i a l : K n o w i n g a b o u t Atrocities a n d Suffering ( M a i d e n ,

M A : Polity, 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 0 - 1 1 , 4 5 .

C H A P T E R

I I

Risk M a n a g e m e n t versus the Precautionary Principle Agnotology as a Strategy in the Debate over Genetically

Engineered D A V I D

A G N O T O L O G Y

IS

T H E

Organisms

M A G N U S

C O N S T R U C T I O N

O F

I G N O R A N C E .

But it is also

often a strategy that can be utilized to bring a b o u t specific ends, such as avoiding regulation or liability. Indeed several chapters presented here il­ lustrate h o w companies and other entities willfully create uncertainty to avoid u n w a n t e d regulation. In " D o u b t Is Their P r o d u c t , " D a v i d Michaels argues that this has become a c o m m o n response w h e n industries find their interests threatened: Uncertainty is an inherent problem of science, but manufacturing uncertainty is another matter entirely. Over the past three decades, industry groups have frequently become involved in the investigative process when their interests are threatened. . . . The business typically responds by hiring its own researchers to cast doubt on . . . studies.

1

Chris M o o n e y , in The Republican War on Science, argues that this strat­ egy has become a mainstay of conservatives in their political battles w i t h science: In political science debates, one specific form of misrepresentation occurs so fre­ quently that it needs its own category. And that is the hyping and exaggerating of scientific uncertainty, frequently with the goal of preventing political action. . . . Since scientific uncertainty can never be fully dispelled, it hardly provides a good excuse for ducking political action. If it did, nothing would ever get done. Yet in policy fights with a strong scientific component, conservatives have touted

uncertainty to precisely this end. Moreover, they have strategically magnified un­ certainty itself, effectively misrepresenting what scientists actually know. Some industry groups have even gone so far as to "manufacture" uncertainty by strate­ gically attempting to sow doubt about mainstream conclusions.

2

T h i s story has n o w b e c o m e so c o m m o n that we k n o w it by heart: industry and its politically conservative allies o p p o s e science-based regu­ lation and s u p p o r t the creation of uncertainty to protect their interests. E x a m p l e s range f r o m the t o b a c c o industry fighting the idea that s m o k ­ ing has a negative i m p a c t on health to c o m b a t i n g the g r o w i n g c o n s e n ­ sus on g l o b a l w a r m i n g . F o l l o w i n g Proctor, I will refer to this strategy 3

of focusing on and m a g n i f y i n g uncertainty to a v o i d the i n t r o d u c t i o n of s o m e t h i n g seen as undesirable (for e x a m p l e , regulations) as " c o n s t r u c t agnotology." In environmental regulation, this agnogenesis eventually led to a strat­ egy by regulators that w o u l d enable them to m o v e f o r w a r d , even in the face of uncertainty, through the use of w h a t w o u l d become k n o w n as "the p r e c a u t i o n a r y p r i n c i p l e . " Ironically, this principle evolved from a tool employed by industry to aid risk m a n a g e m e n t into a n e w agnotological strategy used by anti-industry non-governmental organizations ( N G O s ) to oppose the creation of genetically engineered organisms ( G E O s ) . RISK THE

ASSESSMENT

CREATION

OF

THE

AND

MANAGEMENT:

PRECAUTIONARY

PRINCIPLE

In the realm of environmental policy, risk assessment and m a n a g e m e n t determine whether an activity is safe and are seen as "scientific" and sys­ tematic approaches to risk evaluation. For g o v e r n m e n t regulators trying to decide, for e x a m p l e , whether they should a l l o w ships to discharge their ballast in their ports, the starting point w o u l d be systematic review of the environmental impact of such activities on the port. T h i s is only a start­ ing point, as a value-based assessment of whether the degree of risk is w o r t h the potential benefit of an action involves w e i g h i n g many factors, including e c o n o m i c and public benefits against risks. T h e general g o a l is to reduce risks and to find w a y s of eliminating any harm that occurs once risks are identified.

This approach to risk management might be characterized as " w e k n o w w h a t w e k n o w and w e ignore w h a t w e don't k n o w . " Taking this a p p r o a c h is difficult in the absence of g o o d information a b o u t risks, and, in a sense, it invites agnogenesis since creating uncertainty a b o u t the existence of risks reduces the role risks play in the assessment and therefore limits the impetus to m a n a g e those risks. Risk m a n a g e m e n t , as it is currently prac­ ticed, is essentially an invitation to m o v e f o r w a r d w i t h an activity in the face of a great deal of uncertainty in the hope that serious environmental problems do not emerge. T h e precautionary principle, or the precautionary a p p r o a c h to regu­ lation, is a response to this p r o b l e m . It has a long history. In 1 8 5 4 , John Snow, a British anesthesiologist w h o did pioneering w o r k on epidemiol­ ogy, found evidence to support his hypothesis that polluted w a t e r w a s the source of cholera in L o n d o n . Prior to publishing his research in 1 8 5 5 , and at a time w h e n there w a s a great deal of uncertainty over whether w a t e r bred cholera, S n o w t o o k action, removing the handle of a w a t e r p u m p on Broad Street in L o n d o n to prevent a cholera o u t b r e a k . In the 1 9 7 0 s , 4

G e r m a n environmental l a w introduced the concept of Vorsorgeprinzip, as the nation sought to a l l o w preventive measures to protect forests from acid rain and other environmental harms even if the science behind the connection, for e x a m p l e , between p o w e r plant emissions and acid rain, had n o t been established.

5

In the 1980s, the precautionary principle became part of international law. In 1 9 8 2 , the World C h a r t e r for N a t u r e w a s adopted by the UN Gen­ eral Assembly. It included the following: Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided ( 1 1 . a) and Activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential ad­ verse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed (11 b).

6

T h e 1 9 8 4 International Conference on the Protection of the N o r t h Sea gave rise to a 1 9 8 7 declaration that stated in part that "in order to protect the N o r t h Sea from possibly d a m a g i n g effects of the most dangerous sub­ stances, a precautionary a p p r o a c h is necessary w h i c h may require action

to control inputs of such substances even before a causal link has been established by absolutely clear scientific e v i d e n c e . "

7

T h e most prominent early formulation of the precautionary principle w a s the o u t c o m e of the 1 9 9 2 United N a t i o n s Conference on Environment and D e v e l o p m e n t , also k n o w n as the Earth Summit. T h e R i o Declaration on Environment and D e v e l o p m e n t included a clear articulation of a pre­ cautionary a p p r o a c h that w o u l d a v o i d agnogenesis as a w a y of prevent­ ing adequate environmental regulation. T h e key provision is Article 15 of the R i o Declaration: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of se­ rious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

8

There are several key features of the initial versions of the precautionary principle. T h e R i o Declaration, like the 1 9 8 7 N o r t h Sea Declaration, w a s an explicit response to construct agnotology. No longer w o u l d efforts to establish uncertainty stand as a reason to avoid prudent regulation or risk m a n a g e m e n t . Uncertainty w o u l d not be a bar to action. Second, the precautionary principle primarily treated the obligations of nations or regulatory bodies. It w a s developed as part of law and especially international agreements and treaties as those responsible for regulation sought w a y s of understanding h o w they should manage risks in the face of uncertainty (but where devastating consequences could result from failure to act). Further, it dealt w i t h the shared obligations of different nations where environmental impact crossed national boundaries. T h i r d , the precautionary principle became an important tool for risk m a n a g e m e n t . Ignoring uncertainty w a s simply not sufficient for adequate risk m a n a g e m e n t . T h e precautionary principle provided managers or reg­ ulators w i t h a n e w tool that w o u l d a l l o w them to reasonably m o v e for­ w a r d w h e n there w a s clearly sufficient evidence to w a r r a n t concern, but not sufficient evidence to establish risks w i t h a high degree of certainty. Sometimes w e k n o w w h a t w e d o n ' t k n o w — a n d the precautionary prin­ ciple turned ignorance into k n o w l e d g e .

THE

EVOLUTION

PRECAUTIONARY

OF

THE

PRINCIPLE

T h e precautionary principle has come to have a number of different mean­ ings and uses. D a v i d V a n d e r z w a a g has identified fourteen different for­ mulations of the principle in various treaties and declarations. T h o u g h 9

there has been and continues to be variation and hence ambiguity in the m e a n i n g of the p r e c a u t i o n a r y principle or a p r e c a u t i o n a r y a p p r o a c h to regulation, its e v o l u t i o n and e x p a n s i o n w o u l d eventually transpose a g n o t o l o g i c a l strategy. T h e precautionary approach to regulation expanded from strictly envi­ ronmental concerns and came to play a major role in the framing of issues in genetically engineered organisms. In January 2000, the Conference of the Parties to the C o n v e n t i o n on Biological Diversity issued a Protocol on Biosafety, the Cartegena Protocol that applied the precautionary principle to the products of bioengineering. Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information . . . shall not prevent the Party of import, in order to avoid or minimize such poten­ tial adverse effects, from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organism in question.

10

W h i l e the precautionary principle continued to play a role in various con­ ventions, treaties, and agreements, and covered a broader range of topics, it w a s in the hands of N G O s that the most significant e x p a n s i o n of the concept t o o k place. In 1 9 9 8 , the Science and E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h N e t w o r k c o n v e n e d a m e e t i n g at W i n g s p r e a d in w h i c h a g r o u p of activists and a c a d e m ­ ics issued a statement on the p r e c a u t i o n a r y principle. T h e W i n g s p r e a d Statement c o n d e m n e d existing risk m a n a g e m e n t - b a s e d policy for failing a d e q u a t e l y to protect h u m a n health, the e n v i r o n m e n t , and " t h e larger system of w h i c h h u m a n s are but a p a r t . " T h e y argued that a n e w para­ d i g m w a s needed and a n e w set of principles a d o p t e d to address the se­ rious e n v i r o n m e n t a l h a r m s that h u m a n activity p r o d u c e d . Indeed, they c l a i m e d , "there is c o m p e l l i n g e v i d e n c e " that d a m a g e had o c c u r r e d on a large scale.

T h e W i n g s p r e a d Statement did n o t merely apply the precautionary principle to states or regulatory bodies, but identified an obligation on the part of a m u c h broader g r o u p of institutions and actors. These included " c o r p o r a t i o n s , government entities, organizations, communities, scientists and other individuals" w h o all w e r e obligated to " a d o p t a precautionary a p p r o a c h to all h u m a n e n d e a v o r s . " T h e W i n g s p r e a d Statement urged caution and a d o p t e d similar lan­ guage to the R i o D e c l a r a t i o n , namely, signaling the importance of n o t a l l o w i n g scientific uncertainty a b o u t the magnitude of risk to circumvent action to prevent h a r m . T h e W i n g s p r e a d definition of the precautionary principle stated: Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relation­ ships are not fully established scientifically.

11

But, Wingspread w e n t far b e y o n d previous statements by shifting the bur­ den of p r o o f to " p r o p o n e n t s of an activity rather than the p u b l i c . " F o l l o w i n g W i n g s p r e a d , m a n y N G O s have taken u p the precautionary principle as a critical underpinning of their opposition to genetic engineer­ ing. Greenpeace's statement on the precautionary principle, for e x a m p l e , states that " w h e n (on the basis of available evidence) an activity may harm h u m a n health or the environment, a cautious approach should be taken in a d v a n c e — e v e n if the full extent of h a r m has not yet been fully established scientifically. It recognizes that such p r o o f of h a r m m a y never be possible, at least until it is t o o late to avoid or reverse the d a m a g e d o n e . "

1 2

This statement creates an incentive for opponents of biotechnology to emphasize uncertainty and openly embraces the idea that certainty may be u n a c h i e v a b l e — l e a v i n g strict regulations w i t h o u t scientific rationale. T h e Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) has tirelessly addressed the precautionary principle. Peter Saunders, one of the cofounders of ISIS has claimed at various times that In fact, the precautionary principle is very simple. All it actually amounts to is a piece of common sense: if we are embarking on something new, we should think very carefully about whether it is safe or not, and we should not go ahead until

we are convinced it is. . . . The Precautionary Principle states that if there are reasonable scientific grounds for believing that a new process or product may not be safe, it should not be introduced until we have convincing evidence that the risks are small and are outweighed by the benefits.

13

Saunders defends the precautionary principle from charges that it creates an impossibly high burden of proof, that the uncertainty that is inherent in all science w o u l d mean no n e w technology could ever be safely intro­ duced. He argues instead that w h a t the precautionary principle implies is that the burden of p r o o f is on those introducing a n e w technology (such as G E O s ) and that the standard that must be met is the legally familiar one of " p r o o f b e y o n d a reasonable d o u b t " rather than certainty: The precautionary principle does not deal with absolute certainty. On the con­ trary, it is specifically intended for circumstances in which there is no absolute certainty. It simply puts the burden of proof where it belongs, with the innovator. The requirement is to demonstrate, not absolutely but beyond reasonable doubt, that what is being proposed is safe. W h e n it c o m e s to G E O s , there are a number of w a y s in w h i c h ISIS and other N G O s argue that introducing these organisms could turn out to be unsafe, even if there is no (or not sufficient) evidence of any harm. In their report of April 2003 (report n o . 4), " T h e Precautionary Prin­ ciple Is Science-Based," ISIS argued that G E O s pose a grave risk to the environment. Transgenes may spread from the introduced organism to other, related organisms t h r o u g h out-crossing or horizontal gene transfer m a y occur through action of bacteria that spread genes from the G E O s to other organisms. T h e r e are also risks associated w i t h the impact of G E O s on non-target organisms, as w h e n Bt crops harm butterfly p o p u ­ lations in addition to the pest they are designed to target. In addition to environmental harm, ISIS raises worries a b o u t food safety. T h e y w o r r y that there m a y be food allergies that are triggered by the expression of transgenes and even speculate that G E O s could lead to cancer (though no possible mechanism is suggested for h o w eating a G E O could cause cancer as o p p o s e d to the risks of h u m a n genetic engineering w h i c h has k n o w n cancer r i s k s ) .

14

T h e Science and Environmental H e a l t h N e t w o r k ( S E H N ) that helped organize W i n g s p r e a d raised similar concerns: Waiting to take action before a substance or technology is proven harmful, or even until plausible cause-and-effect relationships can be established, may mean allowing irreversible harm to occur—deaths, extinctions, poisoning, and the like. Humans and the environment become the unwitting testing grounds for these technologies. Precaution advocates say this is no longer acceptable. Moreover, science should serve society, not vice versa. Any decision to take action—before or after scientific proof—is a decision of society, not science.

15

Significantly, this statement introduces an element of hostility to sciencebased regulation that is a hallmark of the N G O use of the precautionary principle. N a n c y M y e r s of the S E H N claims explicitly that "standard risk a s s e s s m e n t . . . is only useful in conditions of relatively high c e r t a i n t y . "

16

O p p o n e n t s of G E O s argue, however, that the nature of biological entities makes genetic engineering inherently dangerous and intrinsically uncertain (and hence, presumably never safe to be introduced). Ted Schettler, also of S E H N , sees biological systems as potentially u n k n o w a b l e in principle. " W e ' r e talking a b o u t enormously c o m p l e x interactions a m o n g a number of systems. N o w w e ' r e starting to think that some of these things are prob­ ably u n k n o w a b l e and i n d e t e r m i n a t e . "

17

Similarly, ISIS's Saunders contrasts biological organisms from the rela­ tively clearer nonbiological realm, where a great deal m o r e certainty c a n be achieved: We have to appreciate the difference between biological and other kinds of sci­ entific evidence. Most experiments in physics and chemistry are relatively clear cut. If we want to know what will happen if we mix copper and sulphuric acid, we really only have to try it once. We may repeat the experiment to make sure it worked properly, but we expect to get the same result, even to the amount of hydrogen that is produced from a given amount of copper and acid. Organisms, however, vary considerably and don't behave in closely predictable ways. M o r e o v e r , the kind of science that w o u l d be needed to understand the products of genetic engineering is not the kind of science that n o w exists.

S E H N ' s C a r o l y n Raffensperger claims that "science has been c o m m o d i ­ fied. W h a t w e ' v e created in the last 10 or 15 years is a science that has a goal of global e c o n o m i c competitiveness." Presumably this means intro­ duction of G E O s w o u l d have to w a i t until science has been transformed from its current corporate-dominated a p p r o a c h . A number of features of this n e w version of the precautionary principle are significant. First, the concept has been extended from environmental regulation to include a m u c h broader range of concerns, including food safety and health risks. Second, while the p r e c a u t i o n a r y principle w a s developed initially as a tool to aid risk managers in their attempts at a science-based risk assessment, the n e w version of the precautionary prin­ ciple largely rejects risk m a n a g e m e n t and the very idea of a science-based regulatory policy. Indeed, there is a g r o w i n g sense of unease a b o u t sci­ ence (which is often seen as influenced by c o r p o r a t e interests and goals). Evolving from a tool for risk managers that focused on the obligations of states and regulators, the precautionary principle has become an obli­ gation for multiple actors, including individuals, c o r p o r a t i o n s , and even w h o l e industries. A b o v e all, there w a s a shift in the nature of the principle from a reason to a l l o w regulation (in the face of uncertainty) to a reason to prohibit or delay introduction of n e w organisms or n e w technology. W e (sometimes) don't k n o w w h a t w e don't k n o w . T h e shift in the meaning of the precautionary principle resulted in a shift in strategy. Ironically, this has resulted in an N G O strategy that mir­ rors the m o r e typical corporate strategy. Some scientists continue to raise concerns a b o u t the safety and environmental impact of G E O s . H o w e v e r , the mainstream v i e w (expressed by leading scientific bodies such as the N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l of the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m i e s of Science) is that most G E O s are safe and that, in principle, the t e c h n o l o g y can be safely utilized. H o w e v e r , o p p o n e n t s of b i o t e c h n o l o g y appeal to the fact that there are minority scientific views and to the inherently u n k n o w a b l e na­ ture of biological entities as grounds for claiming that G E O s have n o t been proved safe " b e y o n d a reasonable d o u b t . " At this point, continued creation of uncertainty becomes a viable strategy to avoid introduction of biotechnology.

RELIGIOUS

A G N O T O L O G Y

It is unsurprising that religious values w o u l d b e c o m e interwoven into the debate over G E O s . Indeed, m a n y o p p o n e n t s o f b i o t e c h n o l o g y g r o u n d their v i e w s firmly in religious language. W h i l e there are some religiously based arguments in favor of biotechnology, I will focus here on the (largely Christian) opposition. A number of Christian groups have raised theologi­ cally and morally grounded objections to genetic engineering, ranging from concern to active opposition. T h e language used in these debates is quite revealing. T h e c o n c e p t of " p l a y i n g G o d " l o o m s large and is featured in advertising N G O s use to oppose biotechnology. Promethean imagery and language highlight these concerns as opponents describe " f r a n k e n f o o d s " or "frankenfish." In this c o n t e x t it w a s predictable that religiously based opponents of biotechnology w o u l d emerge w h o furthered the N G O agnotological strat­ egy described above. Their response built on the agnogenesis expressed by groups like ISIS: they emphasized the difficulties of achieving full k n o w l ­ edge of the biological w o r l d . But, for religious opponents (or even m o r e o p e n - m i n d e d skeptics), there w a s also a m o r a l dimension to attempts to " e n g i n e e r " organisms. Genetic engineering represented a v i e w of the natural w o r l d that is t o o instrumental, that commodified nature and the organisms in it. T h i s v i e w is seen as inconsistent w i t h g o o d stewardship, w h i c h requires balancing obligations to improve the w o r l d w i t h obliga­ tions to preserve nature. In attempting to control and re-create the natural w o r l d , scientists exhibit a dangerous h u b r i s — a n d pride goes before a fall. Religious-based opponents of b i o t e c h n o l o g y advocate instead a central role for humility, an embracing of ignorance. A n u m b e r of religious g r o u p s that w o r k on genetic engineering have expressed this c o n c e r n , b o t h w i t h respect to b i o t e c h n o l o g y itself and the practice of patenting the G E O s that are p r o d u c e d . D o n a l d Bruce heads up the C h u r c h of Scotland's p r o g r a m on Society, R e l i g i o n and Technol­ o g y (SRT). U n d e r Bruce, S R T e x p l o r e d m a n y of the arguments in f a v o r of and against v a r i o u s aspects of genetic engineering, s u m m a r i z e d in his and his wife's Engineering Genesis. H e r e a religious a g n o t o l o g y is a d v o ­ cated in w h i c h we are urged to recognize our ignorance as a fundamental

limitation on h u m a n experience, and we are urged not to intervene in matters w h e r e only G o d has k n o w l e d g e . There is a wisdom in the natural order of things which reflects the goodness and purposiveness of the creator. For humans to mix aspects of different organisms by genetic engineering would go beyond God's wise ordering of life. . . . It is . . . suggested that genetic engineering is an act of hubris on the part of human be­ ings, in thinking we can alter the very fundamentals of what God has made. In our human pride we are tampering with something which we do not have the knowledge or wisdom to handle.

18

In N e w Z e a l a n d , the Interchurch C o m m i s s i o n on Genetic Engineering m a d e a detailed submission to the R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n on Genetic Modifi­ cation in N o v e m b e r 2000. This g r o u p represented the nation's A n g l i c a n , M e t h o d i s t , and Presbyterian churches. In their report, the g r o u p identified a number of concerns a b o u t G E O s , emphasizing "the need to c u r b our natural hubris in this a r e a " and instead to "think of the a w e w i t h w h i c h we should a p p r o a c h a delicate balance w h i c h has been slowly evolving to its present state before recorded t i m e . "

1 9

This group emphasized the difficulty of the possibility of knowledge and h o w that might entail a " c a u t i o u s " a p p r o a c h to the n e w technology. There is a strong awareness that our knowledge is partial and our ability to predict the future is also partial. We see in a glass darkly and sometimes miss the interconnectedness of all things. Sometimes this makes a mockery of our sense of what is good to do and what should be approached with doubt and caution.

20

T h e report also raised a c o m m o n theme: that both the interconnected na­ ture of biology and the length of time it t o o k to produce the w o r l d are far t o o c o m p l e x to a l l o w casual engineering. Calvin DeWitt, president of Au Sable Institute for Environmental Studies (a g r o u p that designs curricula for Christian universities) has claimed that " w h a t y o u discover as y o u study biotic communities and the ecosystems of w h i c h they're a part is that this w h o l e assemblage of different species has historically w o r k e d together through t i m e " and criticized biotechnol­ o g y for its " a b u s e of our k n o w l e d g e of genetics, generally driven not by

respect for h o w creation operates or h o w biological systems operate, but strictly driven by questions of greed or h u b r i s . "

21

In a 2003 report, the Rural Life Committee of the N o r t h D a k o t a C o u n ­ cil of C h u r c h e s claimed that: While "genetic engineering" implies a scientific precision comparable to the con­ struction of a building or other inanimate tool or article, we recognize that plant and animal life is the result of a biological, not a manufacturing process. "Ge­ netic engineering" seeks to establish specific and uniform genetic traits to achieve particular goals. In essence, it is an effort to industrialize biological processes to produce particular traits in agricultural commodities. In this c o n t e x t , the precautionary principle can be seen as a moral and re­ ligious expression of appropriate humility in the face of h u m a n ignorance. T h e Rural Life C o m m i t t e e goes on to claim that: We are now involved in the manipulation of life at its most elemental level. There­ fore the potentials for both benefit and advancement, and catastrophe and chaos are great. Out of respect for life and creation, we must proceed with disciplines of great caution, intentionality, and patience as we enter this era. Therefore, we endorse the "Precautionary Principle" as a primary guide in the development, application and expansion of G M O biotechnology. In summary, religious a g n o t o l o g y expresses the v i e w that life is t o o c o m p l e x for h u m a n s to fully understand and that science and technology will lead to disaster because of the hubris involved in attempting to im­ prove on G o d ' s creation. M o r e o v e r , biotechnology represents an attempt to understand nature for the purpose of control (on behalf of corporate interests) and leads to the commodification of the natural w o r l d , w h i c h is inconsistent w i t h g o o d stewardship. T h e precautionary principle becomes a tool for curbing both hubris and the commodification of nature.

THE

INDUSTRY

RESPONSE:

VALUE

A G N O T O L O G Y

There are several w a y s that industry has responded to the use of the pre­ cautionary principle against their interests. O n e part of the response has been to characterize the precautionary principle as implausible by e x a g ­ gerating the claims that are made in its name. It is clearly true that many

opponents of G E O s have transformed the precautionary principle into a tool for constructing uncertainty as a w a y of o p p o s i n g n e w technology. John H a t h c o c k , for e x a m p l e , from the C o u n c i l for Responsible N u t r i t i o n (a p r o - G E O g r o u p that represents the dietary supplement industry) has been a tireless critic of the precautionary principle and characterized it as requiring an "impossible burden of p r o o f " through an unachievable " z e r o risk" assessment. Julian M o r r i s , formerly of the conservative Institute of 22

E c o n o m i c Affairs, characterized Greenpeace as defining the precautionary principle as not a l l o w i n g any substance until there is p r o o f that it will " d o no h a r m to the e n v i r o n m e n t . "

23

It is w o r t h noting the contrast between

this and the definition offered on their website, quoted a b o v e , " w h e n (on the basis of available evidence) an activity m a y h a r m h u m a n health or the environment, a cautious a p p r o a c h should be taken in a d v a n c e — e v e n if the full extent of harm has not yet been fully established scientifically. It recognizes that such p r o o f of h a r m m a y never be possible, at least until it is t o o late to avoid or reverse the d a m a g e d o n e . " W i t h i n the United States, regulators, w i t h the b a c k i n g of industry, have largely rejected the precautionary principle. Unlike the E u r o p e a n U n i o n , the United States regulates the p r o d u c t s of genetic engineering, but n o t the process. T h i s m e a n s that G E O s c a n largely be treated as sub­ stantially equivalent to their nonengineered counterparts as l o n g as they contain similar substances. In other w o r d s , G E O s are presumed to be safe unless there is evidence against t h e m .

24

In this w a y , uncertainty b e c o m e s

an ally of industry rather than its o p p o n e n t . As a result, the biotech in­ dustry has largely ignored the strategy that m a n y other industries have taken to actively construct d o u b t . Internationally, industry has had a s t r o n g ally in the W o r l d T r a d e O r g a n i z a t i o n , w h i c h has helped lighten the regulatory burden that the p r e c a u t i o n a r y principle might present. T h e b i o t e c h n o l o g y industry and its allies h a v e p o r t r a y e d the p r e c a u t i o n a r y principle as a trade barrier, claiming that only science-based, established risks can legitimize regula­ tion that effectively prohibits the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a n e w p r o d u c t (such as a G E O ) into a country. For e x a m p l e , the E u r o p e a n U n i o n decision to refuse the i m p o r t a t i o n of N o r t h A m e r i c a n beef that w a s e n h a n c e d by Bovine G r o w t h H o r m o n e ( B G H ) on the basis of the p r e c a u t i o n a r y prin-

ciple w a s challenged by b o t h the United States and C a n a d a . In 1 9 9 8 , the W T O A p p e l l a t e B o d y ruled that the ban w a s n o t sufficiently scientific. W h e n the EU refused to lift its i m p o r t b a n , the W T O imposed a $ 1 2 4 million penalty and a l l o w e d punitive tariffs o n some E U g o o d s .

2 5

Thus,

in practice, industry has been able to shield itself s o m e w h a t from the p r e c a u t i o n a r y principle. M u c h of the industry response to the debate has been to valorize sci­ ence and to p o r t r a y the p r e c a u t i o n a r y principle as unscientific. W h i l e n o t all N G O s or regulators reject the earlier a p p r o a c h to the principle as a t o o l for risk m a n a g e r s , industry has successfully a t t a c k e d the ver­ sions of the p r e c a u t i o n a r y principle that N G O s have d e v e l o p e d as the antithesis of science-based regulation. Interestingly, the l a n g u a g e that is often used to defend this a p p r o a c h is the c o n c e p t of " s o u n d s c i e n c e , " w h i c h is associated w i t h b o t h the t o b a c c o industry and o p p o n e n t s of regulation.

26

If industry has largely rejected the agnogenesis strategy, it has intro­ duced a new kind of agnotology, which I will call "values agnotology." This constructs ignorance in the realm of v a l u e s — b y denying the existence or relevance of anything seen as " n o n s c i e n t i f i c " — i n t o the regulatory risk as­ sessment process. However, this w a y of framing risks bears no relationship to h o w most people assess r i s k .

27

Risk is a construction. Science-based risk

assessment offers one w a y of constructing it. H o w e v e r , it is an a p p r o a c h that is alien to the p s y c h o l o g y and lived experience of most people. In the realm of biotechnology, M a r i o n Nestle has argued that risk assessment must be values based, not just science based. Instead of simply counting up costs and benefits and balancing these, other dimensions matter, such as whether risks are voluntary or imposed, whether they are familiar or foreign, whether they are natural or technological, and whether they are fairly or unfairly distributed.

28

Industry's skepticism t o w a r d nonscience-based values leads to a fairly crude form of utilitarianism that p o o r l y captures most of the values that are actually at stake in the d e b a t e .

29

To the extent that regulators in the

United States a d o p t a similar a g n o t o l o g i c a l stance t o w a r d values, they will fail to accord w i t h public values, w h i c h may lead to a loss of public confidence in regulatory bodies.

CONCLUSION

T h e precautionary principle originated as a tool to assist in science-based risk assessment, one that w o u l d a l l o w regulation in the face of uncertainty. In the hands of some N G O s , it became an epistemological hurdle that led to an a g n o t o l o g i c a l strategy that ironically mirrored the agnogenesis strategy on the part of industry that had necessitated the creation of the precautionary principle. In response, industry has reinforced its appeal to science and developed a strategy that valorizes science-based risk as real to the exclusion of all value-based considerations. T h i s construction of ignorance in the realm of values has led to a clash between the w a y s in w h i c h regulators assess and the public experiences risk. W h e t h e r this clash will lead to a politically effective challenge to the d o m i n a n t regula­ tory a p p r o a c h remains to be seen.

NOTES 1 . D a v i d M i c h a e l s , " D o u b t I s T h e i r P r o d u c t , " S c i e n t i f i c A m e r i c a n 2 9 2 , n o . 6 (June 2005): 9 6 - 1 0 1 . 2 . Chris M o o n e y , T h e R e p u b l i c a n War o n Science ( N e w Y o r k : Basic B o o k s , 2005). 3 . See O r e s k e s , Proctor, M i c h a e l s , this v o l u m e . 4.

K e n n e t h Foster, P a o l o V e c h i a , a n d M i c h a e l R e p a c h o l i , " R i s k M a n a g e m e n t : Science

and the Precautionary Principle," Science 288 (2000): 9 7 9 - 9 8 1 . 5.

P. Saradhi Puttagunta, " T h e Precautionary Principle in the R e g u l a t i o n of Genetically

Modified Organisms," Health L a w Review 9, no. 2 (2001): 6. United Nations,

10-17.

World Charter for N a t u r e (1982), http://www.un.org/documents/

ga/res/37/a37r007.htm [accessed M a r c h 2 3 , 2006]. 7.

N o r t h Sea Declaration, Ministerial Declaration Calling for Reduction of Pollution

(November 25, 1987): 27 I L M 835. 8. United Nations,

R e p o r t of the

United Nations

Conference on Environment and

Development, R i o Declaration on Environment a n d D e v e l o p m e n t ( 1 9 9 2 ) , http://www.un.org/ documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm 9. Policy:

David

Vanderzwaag,

Elusive Rhetoric and

" T h e Precautionary

[accessed M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 ] . Principle

in

Environmental

L a w and

First E m b r a c e s , " J o u r n a l o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w P r a c t i c e 8

(1999): 355. 10.

C o n f e r e n c e of the

Protocol on Biosafety to

Parties t o the C o n v e n t i o n

the

on

Biological

Diversity,

Convention of Biological Diversity (2000),

Cartagena

http://www.cbd

.int/biosafety/protocol.shtml [accessed N o v e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 ] . 11.

See h t t p : / / w w w . s e h n . o r g / w i n g . h t m l [accessed M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 ] .

12.

See

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/trade-and-the-environment/

the-precautionary-principle [accessed M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 ] . 13.

Peter Saunders,

6 (2000),

" U s e a n d A b u s e o f the Precautionary

Principle,"

ISIS N e w s no.

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/MaeWanHo/i-sisnews6.html#usea

March 23, 2006).

[accessed

14.

ISIS s u b m i s s i o n t o U . S . A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l E c o n o m i c P o l i c y

( A C I E P ) Biotech. W o r k i n g G r o u p , July 1 3 , 2000. 15.

N a n c y M y e r s , " D e b a t i n g the Precautionary Principle," Science a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l

H e a l t h N e t w o r k ( 2 0 0 0 ) , h t t p : / / w w w . s e h n . o r g / p p d e b a t e . h t m l [ a c c e s s e d M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 ] . See also M y e r s , " T h e Precautionary Principle Puts Values First," Bulletin of Science, Technology, a n d Society 22 (2002): 2 1 0 - 2 1 9 . 16.

M y e r s , " D e b a t i n g the Precautionary Principle."

17.

Quoted

in

284 (January 2 0 0 1 ) :

David

Appell,

" T h e N e w Uncertainty Principle,"

Scientific A m e r i c a n

18-19.

18.

D o n a l d and A n n Bruce, E n g i n e e r i n g G e n e s i s (Sterling, V A : E a r t h s c a n , 1 9 9 9 ) .

19.

Interchurch C o m m i s s i o n on Genetic Engineering, to R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n on Genetic

M o d i f i c a t i o n , S e c t i o n B.(j)(v)ii. 2 0 . I C C r e p o r t , B.(j)(v)iv. 21.

T r e y P o p p , " G o d a n d t h e N e w F o o d s t u f f s , " S c i e n c e a n d S p i r i t 1 7 ( 2 0 0 6 ) : 1 5 - 1 7 . See

http://www.science-spirit.org/new_detail.php?news_id=573

[accessed M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 ] .

2 2 . John N . H a t h c o c k , " T h e Precautionary Principle: A n Impossible Burden o f Proof for N e w P r o d u c t s , "

A G B I O F O R U M 3

(2000):

2 5 5 - 2 5 9 . It is worth noting that many

a c a d e m i c s share this characterization. T h u s , Soren H o l m and J o h n Harris c l a i m that " t h e p r e c a u t i o n a r y principle will b l o c k the d e v e l o p m e n t of a n y t e c h n o l o g y if there is the slightest t h e o r e t i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y o f h a r m . " H o l m a n d H a r r i s , " P r e c a u t i o n a r y P r i n c i p l e Stifles D i s c o v e r y , " Nature 400 (1999): 398. 2 3 . Julian

Morris,

R e t h i n k i n g Risk a n d the Precautionary Principle

(Woburn, M A :

Elsevier, 2 0 0 0 ) . 24.

V o l k e r L e h m a n , " F r o m R i o t o J o h a n n e s b u r g a n d B e y o n d : G l o b a l i z i n g P r e c a u t i o n for

G e n e t i c a l l y M o d i f i e d O r g a n i s m s , " R e p o r t f o r H e i n r i c h B ö l l F o u n d a t i o n ( A p r i l 2 0 0 2 ) , 1 5 . See h t t p : / / w w w . w o r l d s u m m i t 2 0 0 2 . o r g / t e x t s / P r e c a u t i o n G M O . p d f [accessed M a r c h 2 3 ,

2006].

2 5 . L e h m a n , " F r o m R i o t o J o h a n n e s b u r g , " 1 8 ; B e r n a r d G o l d s t e i n , " P r e c a u t i o n a r y Principle and Endocrine Active Substances," Pure Applied Chemistry 75 (2003): 2 5 1 5 - 2 5 1 9 . 26.

Lehman, "From Rio to Johannesburg,"

27.

Paul Slovic, T h e P e r c e p t i o n o f Risk (Sterling, V A : E a r t h s c a n , 2000).

13.

28.

M a r i o n N e s t l e , Safe F o o d : Bacteria,

Biotechnology a n d Bioterrorism

(Berkeley:

University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 2 0 0 3 ) . 29.

D a v i d M a g n u s and A r t h u r C a p l a n , " T h e Primacy o f the M o r a l i n the G E O D e b a t e , "

Genetically M o d i f i e d F o o d s : D e b a t i n g B i o t e c h n o l o g y , eds. M i c h a e l Ruse and D a v i d Castle ( N e w York: Prometheus, 2002), 80-87.

C H A P T E R

1 2

S m o k i n g O u t Objectivity Journalistic

Gears in the Agnogenesis Machine J O N

C H R I S T E N S E N

Historically, it would seem that the 1 9 5 4 emergency was handled effectively. From the experience there arose a realization by the tobacco industry of a public relations problem that must be solved for the self-preservation of the industry. Memorandum from James M. Brady to Clarence Cook Little, Subject: Tobacco Industry Research Committee Program, April

M O D E R N

C O R P O R A T E

C R I S I S

M A N A G E M E N T

9, 1 9 6 2 .

1

c a m e of age o n D e ­

cember 1 5 , 1 9 5 3 , w h e n the presidents o f six major cigarette c o m p a n i e s c o n v e n e d a secret m e e t i n g w i t h public relations m a s t e r m i n d J o h n W. Hill in N e w Y o r k to plan a response to a l a r m i n g scientific evidence that s m o k i n g caused cancer. T h i s w a s not just an acute crisis that c o u l d be dealt w i t h in a few n e w s cycles or even a few years. It w a s a chronic crisis that w o u l d have to be m a n a g e d forever if an industry that caused death w a s to defy death. T h e strategies and tactics developed and lessons learned in the aftermath of that meeting came to define h o w c o r p o r a t e public relations could use journalistic values to fatally undermine p u b ­ lic understanding and encourage ignorance in even the most clear-cut of public health cases. Robert Proctor has used the tobacco industry as a primary case study in agnotology. He has analyzed many of the industry's strategies and tactics of agnogenesis, in science, c o u r t cases, advertising, and public relations. But the role of c o m m u n i c a t i o n s media and journalism, in particular, in a g n o t o l o g y has remained something of a black b o x . Agnogenesis goes in. Ignorance comes out. My aim here is to propose an analytical f r a m e w o r k for understanding

h o w journalistic values of objectivity, fairness, balance, and f a c t s — v a l u e s that form the center of journalism's e p i s t e m o l o g y — m a k e journalism vul­ nerable to being enlisted as an accomplice, even if unwilling or unwitting, in the deliberate cultural p r o d u c t i o n of ignorance. I have investigated the history of the t o b a c c o industry's use of public relations and journalism in order to c o m p l e m e n t Proctor's efforts and the g r o w i n g b o d y of research on the t o b a c c o industry's agnogenesis. I believe that the f r a m e w o r k could prove useful for understanding other cases in w h i c h journalism is impli­ cated in agnotology. As a journalist myself, I also hope that this research might contribute to rectifying ignorance and reinforcing self-critical per­ spectives as well as values and strategies that can arm journalists against deliberate campaigns of agnogenesis. A caveat is in order, however. T h i s research is based on a fairly c o m ­ prehensive search of the massive online t o b a c c o industry archives per­ taining to public relations, journalism, and science writing. F r o m those documents, I have constructed a c h r o n o l o g i c a l and analytical narrative of the industry's shifting strategies and a t y p o l o g y of its tactics for involving journalists in the t o b a c c o industry's project of creating ignorance. T h i s research does not include an investigation of h o w journalists perceived the industry c a m p a i g n s , except as reflected through documents in indus­ try files and changes in industry strategies and tactics. This research also does not include an investigation of h o w consumers of journalism per­ ceived the result, again except as reflected in industry sources. Both of those investigations could p r o v e fruitful in future research to flesh o u t this f r a m e w o r k for understanding the role of journalism in agnogenesis. In the meantime, I believe that this f r a m e w o r k could be tested in other cases of a g n o t o l o g y involving journalism. T h e rather long time frame in w h i c h this history played out in the t o b a c c o w a r s during the second half of the twentieth century may be truncated in other cases, in no small mea­ sure because the p r o d u c t i o n of science and n e w s has increased in v o l u m e and speed. T h e shifts in the t o b a c c o industry's strategy, however, seem to be h o m o l o g o u s to other m o r e recent controversies that arguably involve agnogenesis, such as the attack on evolution by proponents of intelligent design and the massive industrial, political, and think tank resistance to regulations for reducing global w a r m i n g .

In broad outline, the strategic shifts in the t o b a c c o industry's develop­ ment of agnogenesis through public relations and journalism w e n t through four b r o a d phases: Fighting Science with Science: This first phase involved finding and funding scientific research that could be fed to journalists to argue that the industry w a s seriously studying the p r o b l e m , on the one hand, and that there w a s evidence that factors other than cigarette s m o k i n g caused cancer, on the other. In this phase, the industry's stance w a s positivist and empiricist. It relied on journalism's esteem for facts and a w e of science. This phase lasted roughly until the first Surgeon General's report in 1 9 6 4 , w h i c h provided public evidence coincident w i t h internal evidence from the industry's o w n research that cigarette s m o k e contained carcinogens and s m o k i n g w a s the major factor associated w i t h lung cancer. "Doubt Is Our Product. . . . Truth Is Our Message": This second phase evolved o u t of the first phase w h e n the scientific counterevidence w a s no longer sufficient to balance m o u n t i n g evidence that s m o k i n g w a s the primary factor in lung cancer and a major factor in other diseases. After the Surgeon General's first report and the first w a r n i n g labels mandated for cigarettes, the industry settled in for the long haul. In this phase, the industry sought to continue to s o w d o u b t a b o u t particular facts while relying on self-evident truths, including, most significantly for this analysis, journalistic principles and values including objectivity, balance, fairness, and free speech. A June 2 3 , 1 9 7 3 , handwritten note in industry files reads: " m a i n p o i n t — k e e p controversy a l i v e . "

2

Undermining Science: This third phase evolved out of the second phase in the early 1980s. W h e n it w a s no longer efficacious to cast d o u b t on particular scientific research, the public relations front w a s broadened to attack entire fields and methods of science, such as epidemiology, risk analysis, statistics, modeling, and forecasting. This period w a s defined by the extended battles over " e n v i r o n m e n t a l t o b a c c o s m o k e " (aka " s e c o n d h a n d s m o k e " ) in the early 1980s through the m i d - 1 9 9 0 s . It's Not News: This final phase, spanning the past decade or s o , could be seen as a capitulation by the industry to o v e r w h e l m i n g evidence. It is not

n e w s that cigarette s m o k i n g causes cancer, heart disease, other illnesses, and death. There is no m o r e controversy. This phase, however, represents the ultimate strategic triumph of an industry fighting for its survival at any cost. T h i s " N e w D a y , " as Philip M o r r i s executives called it, d a w n e d w h e n Philip M o r r i s , along w i t h other major t o b a c c o c o m p a n i e s , began to reposition the industry strategically as a "responsible manufacturer of a risky p r o d u c t . "

3

Like m o s t periodizations, these are not precisely demarcated epochs. Aspects of each of these strategies can be seen in each period, w h i c h m a d e it possible for the industry to slip f r o m one to the other w i t h o u t major shifts. A n d in the end the industry got w h a t it w a n t e d in the beginning: to m a k e it not n e w s that s m o k i n g causes cancer. In fact, the industry w o u l d have preferred to m a k e it not n e w s from the beginning, but that w a s n o t possible. T h e t o b a c c o industry made history, but it had to be made under conditions not entirely of its o w n choosing. In the half-century-long, high-profile public health w a r over s m o k ­ ing, the ultimate result of these strategic shifts has been that cigarette m a n u f a c t u r e r s c a n c o n t i n u e to m a r k e t a p r o d u c t that n e w l y a d d i c t s 4,000 teenagers each d a y in the United States alone and kills millions of people every year a r o u n d the w o r l d . A theoretical-historical concern w i t h a g n o t o l o g y pales beside this h u m a n tragedy. As an a c c o m p l i c e to the killing, h o w e v e r , agnogenesis must be investigated and u n d e r s t o o d , especially as the lessons of the t o b a c c o industry are increasingly being used in other c a m p a i g n s . As early as 1 9 6 2 , Hill and K n o w l t o n realized that the lessons learned in the " t o b a c c o a c c o u n t " gave the c o m p a n y " e x ­ perience and personnel for dealing w i t h scientific and medical p r o b l e m s in far better fashion than we had been previously able to d o . T h i s has been of considerable help to us in being prepared to deal w i t h similar p r o b l e m s of other c l i e n t s . "

4

In this l o n g , still-ongoing p u b l i c relations war, science and public health h a v e been u n d e r m i n e d , a n d journalistic n o t i o n s o f o b j e c t i v i t y and balance h a v e been s h o w n to be n o t just ineffective strengths, but w e a k n e s s e s . T h e long-term effects of these trends, a l o n g w i t h structural e c o n o m i c p r o b l e m s in the n e w s business, are cause for great c o n c e r n .

T h e r e is h o p e , h o w e v e r . Public trust in scientists and d o c t o r s remains higher than for most other professions. Journalists have other techniques they can u s e — i n v e s t i g a t i v e reporting and n a r r a t i v e s — w h i c h c o m p l i c a t e naive objectivity and routine balance. A n d there are m o m e n t s in this his­ tory that demonstrate strategies and tactics for journalism and public health c a m p a i g n s to w o r k together to c o u n t e r the social construction of i g n o r a n c e .

HOW

JOURNALISM'S

STRENGTHS

BECAME

HISTORICAL WEAKNESSES

It is one of the ironies of this history that objectivity, a professional code meant, in part, to free journalists from the manipulations of the n e w field of public relations in the early twentieth century, w o u l d in the end p r o v e one of the most useful tools for the professional manipulators of n e w s . A n o t h e r irony is that a code of balance, meant to create a space for n e w s ­ papers outside of the confines of the partisan politics of parties, w h i c h developed at the same time as an emerging trust in the empiricism of sci­ ence, w o u l d leave journalists ill equipped w h e n scientific evidence itself w a s politicized. M o s t scholars of journalism and the history of journalism agree that objectivity in journalism is a peculiarly A m e r i c a n invention, w i t h Brit­ ish-American r o o t s , to be sure, but b o r n and bred in the United States. Some scholars read the roots of objectivity back to the idea of "the re­ liable w i t n e s s " of Puritanism. O t h e r s see the roots of disinterestedness in republican ideals espoused during the c o l o n i a l and revolutionary era, a l t h o u g h ample evidence s h o w s that the newspapers of that era were par­ tisan and often closely tied to particular interests and emerging parties t h r o u g h p a t r o n a g e . Indeed, the ideas, c o n c e p t s , and values that w o u l d eventually coalesce explicitly in objectivity in the early twentieth century seemed to h a v e first formed clearly in reaction to the rabidly partisan press of early nineteenth-century A m e r i c a . D a v i d T. Z. M i n d i c h sum­ marizes the v i e w s of m a n y scholars w h o see in " t h e first years of the ' p e n n y press' in the J a c k s o n i a n era ( 1 8 2 8 - 1 8 3 6 ) , the p r i m o r d i a l s o u p of journalistic 'objectivity.'" M i n d i c h writes that " t h e pennies were the first n e w s p a p e r s to formally break from political parties, and this break

caused the first step t o w a r d journalistic 'objectivity': d e t a c h m e n t . " T h i s detachment from party politics led to explicit v a l u i n g of " n o n p a r t i s a n ­ s h i p , " w h i c h w a s typically situated in the center, balanced between the poles of t w o - p a r t y p o l i t i c s .

5

T h e professionalization of journalism occurred in roughly the same period, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as profession­ alization in other fields, including medicine, natural sciences, and social sciences, M i n d i c h and other scholars agree. A l o n g w i t h other professions that " w e r e shifting from a p a r a d i g m of religion and philosophy to one of science," M i n d i c h writes, "journalism w a s changing t o o , m o v i n g t o w a r d a m o r e empirical and 'fact-based' p a r a d i g m . " M i n d i c h traces newspaper coverage of nineteenth-century cholera epidemics as an index of this shift. D u r i n g this period, the medical response evolved from such horrific treat­ ments as " t o b a c c o s m o k e e n e m a s " in the 1 8 3 2 epidemic to " a n efficient and scientific response in the 1 8 6 6 e p i d e m i c " using data gathering and statistical analysis to locate and isolate outbreaks. O v e r the same period, M i n d i c h writes, journalistic coverage exhibited a parallel a b a n d o n m e n t of " a t m o s p h e r e " as an explanation for cholera and a g r o w i n g reverence instead for " ' f a c t s ' and scientific m e t h o d . " M i n d i c h calls this the era of "facticity" and " n a i v e e m p i r i c i s m . " O n e is nevertheless left w i t h admi­ 6

ration for a time w h e n the n e w tools of epidemiology, statistics, and jour­ nalistic investigation and reporting w o r k e d in tandem to stanch a deadly public health threat. This journalistic ideology, however, proved vulnerable to the politi­ cization of science. A stubborn and sometimes naive discourse of objec­ tivity and balance—first enshrined in journalism t e x t b o o k s in the early twentieth century, in part as an antidote to the rise of public relations professionals—ultimately plays into the hands of those w h o w o u l d ex­ ploit its weaknesses, especially w h e n coupled w i t h another characteristic of journalism: an understandable attraction to w h a t is n e w and contro­ versial. In the case of cigarette s m o k i n g , this fatal attraction to w h a t is n e w and controversial favored keeping controversy alive w h e n it served the interests of the t o b a c c o industry, while objectivity and balance a l w a y s ensured r o o m for the industry's point of view. Later, and on into the pres­ ent period, the valuation of the n e w and controversial has made it possible

to quietly bury the n e w s of the industry's o n g o i n g death toll. T h e terrible irony is that just w h e n the industry's long history of lies w a s beginning to be revealed fully and there w a s no longer any d o u b t a b o u t the danger of cigarettes, it w a s no longer n e w s . A

TACTICAL

TOOLBOX

Public

FOR

Relations

AGNOGENESIS

Science

T h e t o b a c c o industry's strategic problem w a s clear from the beginning in a m e m o written immediately after the D e c e m b e r 1 9 5 3 meeting between t o b a c c o executives and Hill and K n o w l t o n . " W e have one essential j o b — w h i c h can be simply said: Stop public p a n i c , " w r o t e E d w a r d D e H a r t , an account executive for the public relations firm, in a m e m o to his staff after the meeting. " T h e r e is only one problem—confidence and h o w to establish it; public assurance and h o w to create it," he added. " A n d , most impor­ tant, h o w to free millions of A m e r i c a n s from the guilty fear that is going to arise deep in their biological depths—regardless of any p o o h - p o o h i n g l o g i c — e v e r y time they light a c i g a r e t t e . "

7

Hill and K n o w l t o n executives k n e w they had a public relations chal­ lenge because that w a s h o w they defined it. T h e y were not scientists. T h e y were public relations men. " T h e public relations problem of the cigarette industry is complicated because the health issue is more emotional than scientific," declared a briefing for Hill and K n o w l t o n executives in 1 9 6 2 . " A n d it is n e w s w o r t h y . It's hard to think of a n e w s item that could inter­ est m o r e people than one w h i c h combines t o b a c c o u s e — s o m e 70 million smokers and a g o o d m a n y n o n s m o k e r s feel intensively a b o u t t o b a c c o — and unsolved health p r o b l e m s — w h i c h interest almost everyone. C o m b i n e s m o k i n g and health, and y o u ' v e got n e w s for the m a s s e s . "

8

DeHart's m e m o is f r a n k — m o r e frank than the " F r a n k Statement" that the t o b a c c o companies w e r e soon persuaded to have printed in newspa­ pers around the country committing themselves to an open scientific in­ vestigation of the health effects of s m o k i n g . " A t the m o m e n t , these men feel t h r o w n for a l o o p , " D e H a r t w r o t e a b o u t the t o b a c c o executives. " T h e y ' v e competed for y e a r s — n o t in price, not in any real difference of q u a l i t y — b u t just in ability to conjure up hypnotic claims and brighter as­ surances for w h a t their o w n brand might do for a smoker, c o m p a r e d to

another brand. A n d now, suddenly, they feel all out of bounds because the old claims became unimportant overnight; they suddenly are challenged to produce just one, simple f a c t . "

9

The Tail of the Kite From the beginning, science and public relations w o u l d be twisted together, and the public relations professionals, not being scientists themselves, w o u l d deliver over their professional services to the t o b a c c o industry's version of s c i e n c e . John W. Hill, a principal in the firm that bore his name, insisted 10

that the t o b a c c o companies had to pursue scientific answers to the question of whether cigarette s m o k i n g caused cancer, but this w a s first and fore­ most a public relations m o v e . A n d it w o r k e d . As W a l d e m a r Keempffert, at the time the " d e a n of the country's scientific w r i t e r s , " according to Hill and K n o w l t o n , w r o t e in the New York Times: " T h e case for and against t o b a c c o c o n s u m p t i o n as a cause of cancer m a y be settled by the T o b a c c o Industry's Research C o m m i t t e e of w h i c h Dr. C. C. Little, former director of the A m e r i c a n C a n c e r Society, is head. M a n y will argue that an impar­ tial investigation can hardly be expected from a b o d y of experts paid by the t o b a c c o industry. Dr. Little is an eminent geneticist, a type of scientist w h o has the c o u r a g e to face facts and to state t h e m . "

11

Keempffert w a s n ' t the only one to give the t o b a c c o research a favor­ able pass based on Little's reputation as a scientist. " N e w s handling of the a n n o u n c e m e n t story w a s nearly 1 0 0 per cent f a v o r a b l e , " a Hill and K n o w l t o n m e m o reported. M o r e o v e r , 65 percent of the n e w s p a p e r s that published editorials on the c o m m i t t e e w e r e f a v o r a b l e . O n l y 9 percent w e r e u n f a v o r a b l e . " I n 1 9 5 3 , no v o i c e w a s being raised in behalf of in­ dustry," reported a confidential Hill and K n o w l t o n m e m o on the first six m o n t h s of public relations activities on behalf of the research council. " T h e bulk o f editorial c o m m e n t n o w a p p e a r i n g a p p r o v e s and, a t times, a p p l a u d s the action of the i n d u s t r y . "

12

In the summer of 1 9 5 4 , w h e n the New York Times reported on a study s h o w i n g that "cigarette smokers from 50 to 70 years of age have a higher death rate, from all disease, as m u c h as 75 percent higher than that of n o n - s m o k e r s , " Little w a s able to garner a story in the paper the very next day characterizing the study as " p r e l i m i n a r y " and "statistical." Senator

M a u r i n e Neuberger, w h o later sponsored the first w a r n i n g label legisla­ tion for cigarettes and w r o t e a b o o k a b o u t the industry entitled Smoke Screen, described this strategy as being like "a tail of a kite, no story a b o u t the risk of s m o k i n g goes a n y w h e r e w i t h o u t a t o b a c c o industry rebuttal trailing along b e h i n d . " Even m o r e important w e r e stories that never ap­ peared because Hill and K n o w l t o n got w i n d of them and m a n a g e d to per­ suade producers n o t to air them, such as " o n e negatively-aimed p r o g r a m ( W N B T ) w h i c h w a s being scheduled on the cigarette controversy [and] w a s p o s t p o n e d after a discussion of T I R C f a c t s . " This t o o k a personal t o u c h and inside i n f o r m a t i o n .

The

13

Personal

Touch

C a r l T h o m p s o n , a Hill and K n o w l t o n account executive, told a staff gath­ ering in 1 9 6 2 : " W h a t we do for t o b a c c o has been said to resemble an ice­ b e r g — o n l y one-ninth of it c a n be s e e n — t h e rest is submerged and unseen but important." At that meeting, T h o m p s o n introduced Leonard Z a h n , the m a n responsible for m u c h of the invisible w o r k of Hill and K n o w l t o n on behalf of the t o b a c c o industry for most of the 1 9 5 0 s and 1960s. He w e n t on to flack for the industry for nearly three more decades. Z a h n w o r k e d for Hill and K n o w l t o n on the t o b a c c o a c c o u n t from January 1 9 5 4 until the c o m p a n y let the contract expire in the m i d - 1 9 6 0 s . Z a h n then w e n t to w o r k for the T o b a c c o Research Council as an independent public relations consultant. He occasionally w r o t e stories for t w o obscure medical n e w s ­ letters, one in G e r m a n y the other in the United States, so that he could qualify to join the N a t i o n a l Association of Science Writers and volunteer for many activities essential to the volunteer professional organization over the years, and Hill and K n o w l t o n boasted of having a founding member of the science writers association on staff.

14

" L e n has been t r o u b l e - s h o o t i n g at scientific meetings, c o n v e n t i o n s , panels of scientists and science writers, press c o n f e r e n c e s — a n y w h e r e that t o b a c c o has c o m e under a t t a c k , " T h o m p s o n boasted at the 1 9 6 2 "Inside H & K " staff meeting. " L e n Z a h n has often been the Daniel in the Lions D e n . As the m a n on the spot at a meeting where an adverse attack is being made, Len goes right into the press r o o m w i t h the T.I.R.C. answer and sees that the correspondents w o r k i n g on the stories have our side to go right

into their first stories. This takes some doing. A n d it takes g o o d contacts with the science w r i t e r s . "

15

D a v i d Z i m m e r m a n , a science writer w h o later e x p o s e d Z a h n ' s du­ plicity to the N a t i o n a l Association of Science Writers, remembered that m a n y of Z a h n ' s most productive contacts were inclined to see s m o k i n g as a personal risk, k n o w i n g l y taken. " H i s m e m o s and reports do n o t say that many, if not most of his press contacts w e r e , as we recall, s m o k e r s , " Z i m m e r m a n w r o t e . " T h i s minority of smokers a m o n g the science press w a s , in effect, Z a h n ' s potent secret w e a p o n . " O v e r the years, the indus­ try continued to keep close track of reporters, whenever possible noting whether they s m o k e d or not. A 1 9 8 8 m e m o notes that Jerry Bishop, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, w a s given a carton of P r e m i e r s — " h e likes t h e m , " noted a Hill and K n o w l t o n m e m o . Some reporters, such as Irv M o l o t s k y of the New York Times, were deemed " o b j e c t i v e " a b o u t s m o k i n g . On the other hand, M a r l e n e C i m o n s , a reporter from the Los Angeles Times w a s considered "a f o e . " A c c o r d i n g to the m e m o , " T h i s lady could be t r o u b l e . "

16

THE

BALANCE

ROUTINE

Within the first few years of the t o b a c c o industry c a m p a i g n , a pattern of tactics w a s established for exploiting journalistic values of balance, fair­ ness, and objectivity to keep bad n e w s a b o u t cigarettes out of the media as m u c h as possible, and w h e n that w a s not possible to ensure that the industry's point of v i e w w a s represented in any story that appeared or in a balancing story that f o l l o w e d . T h i s w a s done by attending scientific meetings, w h e r e results were a n n o u n c e d to journalists, issuing anticipa­ tory press announcements a b o u t t o b a c c o industry research to counterbal­ ance research announcements a b o u t s m o k i n g and cancer, and vigilantly complaining to editors and publishers w h e n reports were published that did not sufficiently represent the industry's position, and w h e n any d o u b t could be cast on reporting. T h e industry complained early and often. In one of the earliest instances, a telegram w a s sent to H e n r y Luce, f o l l o w i n g a June 1 1 , 1 9 5 6 , article in Life complaining of a "one-sided discussion of the cigarette-lung cancer i s s u e . "

17

These tactics were r e m a r k a b l y consistent t h r o u g h the years, t h o u g h

over the years they were ratcheted up in scale and became more formal as the industry public relations effort m o v e d from the personal era exempli­ fied by L e o n a r d Z a h n to the professional era personified by Chris Cory, a former editor of Psychology Today w h o joined the C o r p o r a t e Affairs D e p a r t m e n t of Philip M o r r i s in the m i d - 1 9 8 0 s . C o r y designed an "objec­ tivity i n d e x " meant to provide a standard for measuring reporters based on the code of ethics of Sigma Delta C h i , the professional journalism so­ ciety. T h e industry w a s still centrally concerned w i t h using principles of balance to get its o w n arguments in the media, but under the direction of C o r y and others, it w a s c o m i n g to believe that a more aggressive approach w o u l d be needed to continue to carve out this space. Philip M o r r i s w o u l d "constantly remind the press that there continues to be t w o sides to all of the controversies surrounding cigarettes." O v e r the years, this c a m p a i g n focused on w h a t one letter to the Newport Daily News called "the can­ ons of journalism we at Philip M o r r i s thought still applied . . . that n e w s articles should incorporate balance, accuracy and fairness." In a letter to the Milwaukee Sentinel, another rule w a s cited: " T h e one iron-clad rule of journalism w h i c h we at Philip M o r r i s thought still applied w a s that the subject of an attack is given the chance to respond (or at least the attempt is made) before the story a i r s . "

1 8

As the news cycle accelerated in the late 1990s, Philip Morris responded by developing an early warning system and rapid response " t o decrease the a m o u n t of time between identification of inaccuracies/bias and finalization of response." By 1 9 9 7 , the budget for this " M e d i a Fairness P r o g r a m " had g r o w n to $250,000 a year. " W e do not expect the media's e n d o r s e m e n t , " read the plan for that year, " w e are simply asking for the chance to give the facts and a r g u m e n t s . "

19

Soundly

Attacking

Science

Although the tobacco industry public relations campaign continued to stress objectivity, fairness, and balance in its communications with reporters and editors, the industry's strategy made a profound shift in the 1980s. W h e n "secondhand s m o k e " became a cause of concern, following the 1 9 8 1 pub­ lication of a study s h o w i n g that n o n s m o k i n g wives of smokers were more likely to get lung cancer the more their husbands s m o k e d , the battleground

shifted, not just scientifically but ideologically. Exposure to the risks of smok­ ing w a s no longer just personal and voluntary. Smoking affected n o n s m o k ­ ers involuntarily. T h e industry's argument began to shift over time from defending the rights of smokers to a full-blown attack on science. Chris C o r y came to Philip Morris eager to mount a campaign that w o u l d "raise public skepticism a b o u t science r e p o r t i n g " and "help us and the in­ dustry m a k e c o m m o n cause w i t h companies in other fields like chemicals and drugs, and w i t h parts of the foundation and scientific establishment w h i c h also are critical of science r e p o r t i n g . " In 1 9 9 0 , Philip M o r r i s bud­ geted $2.5 million for an ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) C o m m u n i c a ­ tion Plan to "maintain the controversy and correct misinformation a b o u t t o b a c c o smoke in public and scientific f o r u m s , " including media briefings, a science journalists conference, and publishing reports around the w o r l d on sick-building syndrome. A year later, another plan to "generate a m o r e balanced media presentation of E T S issues" w a s budgeted at $450,000 and included sponsoring educational p r o g r a m s for journalists "regarding the flaws in the risk assessment process and the w a y to accurately report on these issues," and identifying journalists and publications " o p p o s e d to g o v e r n m e n t regulations that are based on inaccurate s c i e n c e . "

20

Often these journalists w o r k e d for conservative and libertarian publica­ tions, such as Reason, and their skeptical reporting could be used then to feed a media f o o d chain consisting of conservative think tanks, campaigns such as the A d v a n c e m e n t of Sound Science Coalition, columnists, and edi­ torial pages. T h i s c a m p a i g n w a s augmented w i t h a nationwide n e t w o r k of public relations consultants w h o monitored the press and coordinated the publication of letters to the editor and op-eds in response to report­ ing on any attempts to regulate i n d o o r s m o k i n g . T h r o u g h these public relations tactics, the t o b a c c o industry w a s able simultaneously to main­ tain a semblance of balance in mainstream journalism while reinforcing its anti-regulatory c a m p a i g n a m o n g conservative and libertarian media. This w a s crucial for maintaining its base a m o n g smokers, industrial al­ lies, conservative politicians, and other industries o p p o s e d to regulation, and it a l l o w e d the industry to survive and maintain its base of strength up to and t h r o u g h the settlements that it reached w i t h the state attorneys general in 1 9 9 8 .

No

News Is

Good News,

Again

In the run-up to the settlement, a draft m e m o on "resolution & recon­ ciliation strategy" by a strategic planning g r o u p at Philip M o r r i s called this a " N e w D a y " that w o u l d require defining w h a t makes "a respon­ sible marketer and manufacturer of [a] risky p r o d u c t . "

21

Ironically, this

b r o u g h t the t o b a c c o industry public relations c a m p a i g n back to square one, except n o w the cigarette companies could proceed w i t h marketing a risky p r o d u c t w i t h o u t w o r r y i n g a b o u t scientific debates over its effects in an era in w h i c h the risk w a s no longer n e w s . T h e settlement itself w a s n e w s , of course, but it settled the controversy and ended the debate and w i t h that m u c h of w h a t drives journalism. In the fall of 2005, a study w a s published showing that viewing smoking in movies w a s the primary variable affecting whether teenagers s m o k e d , but journalists could dismiss it as not news. Reports that did appear were short, buried deep in the newspapers, and bore no response from the to­ b a c c o industry. T h i s final stage suggests another kind of agnogenesis is n o w at w o r k different from the active construction of ignorance that the industry w a s engaged in earlier t h r o u g h deception, distraction, and de­ manding balance. T h e industry is n o w benefiting from w h a t psychologists call habituation or desensitization, a response to something so constant and omnipresent that it is ignored. W h a t everyone k n o w s is no longer noteworthy. It m a y be one of the most useful and ultimately p o w e r f u l forms of agnogenesis available. HOW AFTER

TO

WIN

LOSING

THE EVERY

WAR, BATTLE

W h e n the t o b a c c o industry conspiracy c a m p a i g n began o n D e c e m b e r 1 1 , 1 9 5 3 — t h e day t o b a c c o c o m p a n y executives first met and agreed to sched­ ule a meeting four d a y s later w i t h Hill and K n o w l t o n — t h e conspirators let their positivism get them into something of a pickle. At John W. Hill's insistence, they made a c o m m i t m e n t to science. T h e y may have been cyni­ cal, or they may have sincerely believed that science w o u l d vindicate their p r o d u c t . L o o k i n g back, their sincerity seems doubtful. Even before d o u b t w a s a c k n o w l e d g e d as their product, they began selling d o u b t . By the early 1 9 6 0 s , their cynicism w a s b e y o n d d o u b t . It w a s then that their c o m m i t -

ment to science became a c o m m i t m e n t to lie a b o u t particular facts in the name of d o u b t , while touting the truth of abstract principles as their mes­ sage. Their o w n scientists were telling them they had p r o b l e m s . Still they continued to fight science w i t h science. After the 1 9 6 4 Surgeon General's report, however, doubt, rather than science, became the industry's primary ideological w e a p o n .

2 2

There w a s no longer reasonable hope of scientific

vindication or that the industry could create a safe cigarette. Sowing d o u b t w a s steadily transformed from the dirty business of attacking particular scientists and studies and touting others into a wholesale attack on the science on w h i c h public health depends, w h i c h reached a crescendo in the battles over secondhand s m o k e in the 1980s and early 1 9 9 0 s . W h e n that c a m p a i g n succumbed to the w a v e of regulation of s m o k i n g in p u b ­ lic places that is still sweeping the country, and the industry negotiated a settlement w i t h state attorneys general, the public relations machine entered a n e w phase, the present phase, in w h i c h no n e w s is g o o d n e w s , and the best n e w s is no n e w s at all. In the end, the conspirators of D e c e m b e r 1 9 5 3 g o t exactly w h a t they w a n t e d : long life for their c o m p a n i e s and their p r o d u c t s , if not for their customers. T o b a c c o companies have w o n settlements that keep them alive, and they have rendered the w i d e s p r e a d k n o w l e d g e that they are market­ ing deadly products not n e w s . It is hard to imagine a better o u t c o m e for cigarette c o m p a n i e s . Ironically, they w o u l d w i n by losing. T h e industry public relations effort w o u l d succeed in m a n a g i n g this permanent crisis by first arguing that there w a s no controversy, then by keeping the c o n ­ troversy alive, and finally by returning to the position that there is no controversy. Some observers of this history have argued that journalists have played a role in this case of agnogenesis because they have not adhered strongly enough to journalistic standards of fairness, balance, objectivity, and facts. T h e y believe that journalistic ethics must be more strictly enforced to pre­ vent journalists from reporting the t o b a c c o industry's l i n e .

23

On the con­

trary, I w o u l d argue that this half-century public relations w a r has p r o v e n that these journalistic standards render journalism constitutionally unfit, in general, to deal effectively w i t h this kind of strategic manipulation of journalistic standards in the service of agnogenesis.

In order to not be accomplices in the social construction of ignorance, journalists must be more confident of w h a t they k n o w and h o w they k n o w it. Investigative journalism provides a model and a long-standing, successful alternative that employs an engaged conscience, empiricism and verifica­ tion, and the morality of the narrative f o r m as p o w e r f u l counterweights to the principles of objectivity, balance, and fairness.

24

M u c h of the best

journalism on t o b a c c o has been investigative journalism. Unfortunately, the business of journalism is not geared for regularly producing investiga­ tive journalism. Investigative journalism is the exception rather than the rule, but investigative journalism is not the only alternative. In 1 9 8 4 , a Newsday article headlined "Steering y o u n g people to a smoke-free future" provided an e x a m p l e of a moral narrative in a story that w a s not investigative. It ended w i t h a quote from Larry H a g m a n , the star of the hit TV s h o w " D a l l a s . " H a g m a n had enlisted in a c a m ­ p a i g n — t h e " N o n - S m o k i n g G e n e r a t i o n " — t o persuade kids that s m o k i n g w a s not c o o l . " W h e n I w a s a kid, all the role models s m o k e d , " H a g m a n said. " H u m p h r e y Bogart, John W a y n e , C l a r k G a b l e . T h e y s m o k e d , s o w e s m o k e d . " T h e Newsday reporter M i c h a e l Unger added his o w n kicker: " A l l heavy smokers, John W a y n e and H u m p h r e y Bogart died of lung can­ cer, and C l a r k G a b l e died of heart a t t a c k . " Somewhere inside a t o b a c c o c o m p a n y , a diligent w a t c h d o g scrawled on a clipping of the story: " W e should tell media: if y o u ' r e g o i n g to fight, fight f a i r . "

25

Industry insiders

k n e w that t o b a c c o c o m p a n i e s could a l w a y s survive in a fair fight, even while their customers continued to die.

NOTES T h i s chapter is based largely on d o c u m e n t s found in online t o b a c c o industry archives. T h e B a t e s n u m b e r refers t o a u n i q u e c o d e f o r r e t r i e v i n g t h e s p e c i f i c d o c u m e n t f r o m o n l i n e arc h i v e s . T h a n k s t o Lisa B e r o o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , San F r a n c i s c o , for d o c u m e n t s c o l l e c t e d i n searches c o n d u c t e d b y J o s h u a D u n s b y for m a t e r i a l s related t o j o u r n a l i s m a n d science writing in the archives. 1.

" A p r i l 9 , 1 9 6 2 M e m o r a n d u m t o C . C . Little f r o m J . M . B r a d y , S u b j e c t : T I R C P r o g r a m , "

L. Z a h n Exhibit 4, in Deposition of Leonard Z a h n , in C o m m o n w e a l t h of Massachusetts v. Philip M o r r i s Inc. e t al. (5/28/98), 9 1 - 9 2 , Bates 7 0 0 0 0 6 6 2 . 2.

A n i n t e r n a l d o c u m e n t o n a p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s c a m p a i g n for the c i g a r e t t e c o m p a n y

B r o w n a n d W i l l i a m s o n stated: " D o u b t is o u r p r o d u c t since it is the best m e a n s of c o m p e t i n g w i t h the ' b o d y of fact' that exists in the m i n d of the general public. It is also the m e a n s

of establishing a controversy. W i t h i n the business we recognize that a controversy exists. H o w e v e r , w i t h the general public the c o n s e n s u s is that cigarettes are in s o m e w a y harmful to the health.

If we are successful at establishing a c o n t r o v e r s y at the p u b l i c level, then

there i s a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o p u t a c r o s s t h e real facts a b o u t s m o k i n g a n d h e a l t h . D o u b t i s also the limit of o u r ' p r o d u c t . ' Unfortunately, we c a n n o t t a k e a position directly o p p o s i n g the

anti-cigarette

forces a n d

say that cigarettes

are

a

contributor to g o o d

health.

No

i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t w e h a v e s u p p o r t s s u c h a c l a i m . T r u t h i s o u r m e s s a g e b e c a u s e o f its p o w e r to w i t h s t a n d a conflict a n d sustain a c o n t r o v e r s y . If in o u r p r o - c i g a r e t t e efforts we stick to w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d fact, we can d o m i n a t e a c o n t r o v e r s y and o p e r a t e w i t h the confidence o f justifiable self-interest."

" S m o k i n g and H e a l t h P r o p o s a l , " in T h e Cigarette Papers, ed.

Stanton A. G l a n t z , J o h n Slade, Lisa A. Bero, Peter H a n a u e r , D e b o r a E. Barnes (Berkeley: University of California

Press,

1996),

1 9 0 - 1 9 1 . This passage

is

in

itself w o r t h y o f a n

e x t e n d e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . F o r n o w , suffice i t t o s a y t h a t t h e s l i p p e r y t e r r a i n b e t w e e n s e l l i n g d o u b t as a p r o d u c t and using truth as a m e s s a g e , is an apt m a r k e r of the transition u n d e r w a y in the industry's strategy at this time. T h e " k e e p c o n t r o v e r s y a l i v e " q u o t e c o m e s f r o m a handwritten note from industry files headed "Sterling" and dated 7 / 2 3 / 7 3 , in author's files, Bates n u m b e r illegible. 3 . D a v i d G r e e n b e r g , V i c H a n , Ellis W o o d w a r d , Jim P o n t a r e l l i , R i c k D a n i e l s , P e g g y Kasza,

"Draft m e m o r a n d u m on 'Resolution

&

Reconciliation Strategy'"

(3/17/98), Bates

2063532497. 4.

" ' S m o k i n g , H e a l t h and Statistics: T h e Story of the T o b a c c o A c c o u n t s , ' Script of

Presentation o f T . I . R . C . a n d T.I. F o r 'Inside H & K ' " (2/26/62), Bates 9 8 7 2 1 5 1 9 . 5 . Jennifer H o w a r d , " V e r b a t i m " (Interview w i t h Steven R . K n o w l t o n ) , T h e C h r o n i c l e o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n ( 8 / 1 2 / 0 5 ) , A 1 4 ; D a v i d T . Z . M i n d i c h , Just the Facts: H o w " O b j e c t i v i t y " Came to

Define American Journalism

(New

York:

New

York

University

Press,

1998),

1 2 - 1 3 . See a l s o Jeffrey L . Pasley, T h e T y r a n n y o f P r i n t e r s : N e w s p a p e r P o l i t i c s i n the E a r l y A m e r i c a n R e p u b l i c ( C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e : U n i v e r s i t y o f V i r g i n i a P r e s s , 2 0 0 1 ) ; Bill K o v a c h a n d Tom

Rosensteil,

The Elements of Journalism:

W h a t N e w s p e o p l e S h o u l d K n o w a n d the

P u b l i c S h o u l d E x p e c t ( N e w Y o r k : T h r e e R i v e r s , 2 0 0 1 ) ; D a n Schiller, O b j e c t i v i t y a n d the News:

T h e Public a n d the

Rise of C o m m e r c i a l Journalism

(Philadelphia:

University of

P e n n s y l v a n i a Press, 1 9 8 1 ) ; L e o n a r d W . Levy, E m e r g e n c e o f a Free Press ( N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d University Press,

1 9 8 5 ) ; M i c h a e l S c h u d s o n , D i s c o v e r i n g the N e w s : A Social History of

A m e r i c a n N e w s p a p e r s ( N e w York: Basic B o o k s , 1 9 7 8 ) ; Stephen J . A . W a r d , T h e Invention of Journalism

Ethics:

The Path

to

Objectivity and Beyond

(Montreal:

McGill-Queen's

University Press, 2 0 0 4 ) ; C h a r l e s E. R o s e n b e r g , T h e C h o l e r a Years: T h e U n i t e d States in 1 8 3 2 , 1 8 4 9 , a n d 1 8 6 6 ( C h i c a g o : University o f C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 8 7 ) . 6 . M i n d i c h , Just the Facts, 1 3 - 1 4 , 9 5 - 1 1 2 . 7.

Hill

Committee"

and

Knowlton,

"Forwarding

Memorandum

to

8.

" S m o k i n g , Health and Statistics," Bates 9 8 7 2 1 5 3 4 6 .

9.

Hill

Committee," 10.

Hill

(12/15/53),

Members

of the

Planning

M e m b e r s of the

Planning

(1953), 7, 3, http://www.ttlaonline.com/HKWlS/0375.pdf.

and

Knowlton,

"Forwarding

Memorandum

to

2. and

Knowlton,

"Background

Material

on

http://www.ttlaonline.com/HKWIS/0295.pdf;

the

Cigarette Industry

Karen

K. Jasa,

Client"

"Confidential/

Attorney Work Product to Allen R. Purvis, Re: S u m m a r y of Important D o c u m e n t s in John W. Hill C o l l e c t i o n " (5/7/90), Bates 6 8 0 7 0 4 7 0 7 . 11.

Hill a n d K n o w l t o n , Inc., " T o : T . V . Hartnett, C h a i r m a n , T o b a c c o Industry Research

C o m m i t t e e . F r o m : Hill a n d K n o w l t o n , Inc. Subject: R e p o r t o f Activities t h r o u g h July 3 1 , 1 9 5 4 , " Bates 8 2 1 0 6 8 2 1 . 12.

" J o h n W . H i l l II, H e a l t h a n d M o r a l i t y — T o b a c c o ' s C o u n t e r C a m p a i g n , "

Bates

2022849014. 13.

" J o h n W . H i l l II, H e a l t h a n d M o r a l i t y , " B a t e s 2 0 2 2 8 4 9 0 1 4 - 9 0 1 5 , 2 0 2 2 8 4 9 0 1 8 A ;

Hill a n d K n o w l t o n , Inc., " T o : T . V . H a r t n e t t , " Bates 8 2 1 0 6 8 3 8 . 14.

" S m o k i n g , H e a l t h and Statistics," 7, Bates 9 8 7 2 1 5 2 0 ; Jasa, "Confidential/Attorney

W o r k Product," Bates 6 8 0 7 0 4 7 1 2 . 15.

" S m o k i n g , Health a n d Statistics," Bates 9 8 7 2 1 5 3 1 - 1 5 3 2 .

16.

D a v i d Z i m m e r m a n , " E x p o s e ' J o u r n a l i s t ' C o n n e d C o l l e a g u e s for 3 5 Y e a r s a s S p y

for T o b a c c o , "

P r o b e Newsletter (4/99); D a v i d K a l s o n ,

(12/5/88), Bates Bates

515280990;

"Science Writers and Premier"

" K e y M e d i c a l Reporters Individual Analysis of C o v e r a g e , "

506122355/2358.

17.

Hill a n d K n o w l t o n , Inc.,

" C o n f i d e n t i a l Public Relations R e p o r t o n the T o b a c c o

Industry Research C o m m i t t e e , Tuesday, O c t o b e r 9 , 1 9 5 6 , " Bates 5 0 1 9 4 1 6 1 3 - 1 6 1 4 . 18.

Philip M o r r i s U S A C o r p o r a t e Affairs D e p a r t m e n t , "Strategy and Tactics C o m b a t i n g

S m o k i n g I s s u e s " (c. 1 9 8 5 ) , 7 , 1 3 , B a t e s 2 0 2 1 5 0 2 3 3 2 ; " D r a f t L T E t o N e w p o r t D a i l y N e w s , " Bates 2 0 4 7 0 0 9 0 3 0 - 9 0 3 1 ; " T o R i c h a r d Brady, Editor, M i l w a u k e e Sentinel" (10/4/89), Bates 2047009065. 19.

" M e d i a Accuracy and Fairness,"

Bates

2078323747;

Beverly Tolbert,

"Media

Fairness" (8/20/97), Bates 2 0 7 3 8 3 0 6 7 9 B ; " M e d i a Fairness P r o g r a m , " Bates 2 0 4 7 7 2 6 0 9 2 . 20.

Chris Cory,

"Better Science R e p o r t i n g "

(8/15/85),

Bates

2021273536;

"ETS

C o m m u n i c a t i o n / M e r c h a n d i s i n g , " Bates 2 0 2 3 8 5 6 0 4 0 - 6 0 4 1 ; " G o a l : Generate a M o r e Balanced M e d i a P r e s e n t a t i o n o f E T S I s s u e " (c. 1 9 9 1 ) , B a t e s 2 0 2 3 2 8 1 6 6 4 . 21. Bates

G r e e n b e r g et al., " D r a f t m e m o r a n d u m on ' R e s o l u t i o n & R e c o n c i l i a t i o n Strategy,'"

2065297762.

22.

After r e v i e w i n g internal d o c u m e n t s from the t o b a c c o industry, C. Everett K o o p , the

Surgeon General from 1 9 8 1 t o 1 9 8 9 , c o n c l u d e d "that the t o b a c c o industry w a s demoralized a n d in disarray in the m i d - 1 9 6 0 s , b u t the public v o l u n t a r y health a g e n c i e s a n d others did n o t t a k e the k i n d of decisive a c t i o n a g a i n s t the industry t h a t s o m e inside the industry e x p e c t e d and feared."

C. Everett K o o p ,

"Foreword,"

in T h e Cigarette Papers, ed.

G l a n t z e t al.,

xiv. In fact, it seems rather t h a t the industry learned a n d a d a p t e d in w h a t b e c a m e a m a j o r t u r n i n g p o i n t , first b y w i t h h o l d i n g s c i e n t i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e s u r g e o n g e n e r a l , t h e n b y w e a t h e r i n g t h e w a r n i n g l a b e l , a n d f i n a l l y b y r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t d o u b t w a s its p r o d u c t i n t h e realm of smoking and health. 23.

S e e , for e x a m p l e , M o n i q u e E . M u g g l i , R i c h a r d D . H u r t , a n d L e e B . B e c k e r , " T u r n i n g

Free S p e e c h into C o r p o r a t e S p e e c h , " P r e v e n t i v e M e d i c i n e 3 9 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , 5 7 6 - 5 7 7 . 2 4 . James S. E t t e m a a n d T h e o d o r e L. Glasser, C u s t o d i a n s of C o n s c i e n c e : Investigative J o u r n a l i s m a n d P u b l i c Virtue ( N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a University Press, 1 9 9 8 ) . 25.

M i c h a e l Unger, "Steering Y o u n g People to Smoke-Free Future," N e w s d a y (August

8, 1 9 8 4 ) , with handwritten note, Bates 2 0 2 3 6 5 0 5 5 3 .

Contributors

J O N

w a s a full-time e n v i r o n m e n t a l reporter and science

C H R I S T E N S E N

writer for t w e n t y years before deciding to return to Stanford University to w o r k on a P h D in history, after visiting for a year on a John S. K n i g h t Fellowship, a midcareer sabbatical for professional journalists. H i s w o r k has

appeared

News,

San

magazines, and E R I K

in

the New

Francisco

M.

Chronicle

and j o u r n a l s ,

Environmental C O N W A Y

York

Times

Book

Science

Review,

including Nature,

Times,

and

High

other

Conservation

Country

newspapers, in

Practice,

History. is a historian of science and t e c h n o l o g y at the Jet Pro­

pulsion L a b o r a t o r y , C a l i f o r n i a Institute of T e c h n o l o g y , Pasadena, C a l i ­ fornia. He has published t w o b o o k s , High-Speed Dreams: NASA and the Technopolitics of Supersonic Transportation,

1945-1999

(Johns H o p k i n s

University Press, 2005) and Blind Landings: Low-Visibility Operations in American Aviation,

1918-1958

(Johns H o p k i n s University Press,

2006),

e x a m i n i n g the intersection of aviation technologies and the natural envi­ r o n m e n t , and has recently c o m p l e t e d a history of atmospheric science at N A S A under contract to the N a t i o n a l Aeronautics and Space A d m i n i s t r a ­ tion. H i s contributions to this v o l u m e are d r a w n f r o m this w o r k . P E T E R

G A L I S O N

is the Joseph Pellegrino University Professor at H a r v a r d

University. His books include How Experiments End (University of Chicago Press,

1987), Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Uni­

versity of C h i c a g o Press Press, 1 9 9 7 ) , Einstein's Clocks, Poincaré's Maps: Empires of Time (W. W. N o r t o n , 2003), and Objectivity (with Lorraine D a s t o n , Z o n e B o o k s , 2007); he has coedited volumes on the relations be­ t w e e n science, art, architecture, and authorship. O v e r the last years he c o produced a d o c u m e n t a r y film on the politics of science, Ultimate Weapon: The H-Bomb Dilemma (2000), and in 2008, w i t h R o b b M o s s , completed a second, Secrecy, about the architecture and dynamics of state secrecy.

D A V I D M A G N U S , P H D , i s director o f Stanford University's Center for Biomedical E t h i c s , where he is associate professor of pediatrics. H i s research focuses on the history and p h i l o s o p h y of biology and bioeth­ ics, including issues in genetics, stem cell research, and biotechnology. He is the principal editor of a collection of essays entitled Who Owns Life? (Prometheus, 2002) and he is c o e d i t o r of the American Journal of Bioethics. He served on the Secretary of Agriculture's A d v i s o r y C o m m i t ­ tee on B i o t e c h n o l o g y and 2 1 s t C e n t u r y A g r i c u l t u r e and on the N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l A d H o c C o m m i t t e e o n Bioconfinement o f Genetically Engineered O r g a n i s m s . H e currently serves o n the C a l i f o r n i a H u m a n Stem C e l l Research A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e . A D R I E N N E

M A Y O R

is an independent scholar of folklore and the history

of science, and a Visiting Fellow in Classics, and the H i s t o r y and Philoso­ phy of Science, at Stanford University. She is the author of The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times (Princeton University Press,

2000),

Greek

Fire,

Poison

Arrows

& Scorpion

Bombs:

Biologi-

cal and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World ( O v e r l o o k D u c k w o r t h , 2003), Fossil Legends of the First Americans (Princeton University Press, 2005), and numerous scholarly and p o p u l a r articles on classical and in­ digenous natural k n o w l e d g e . D A V I D

M I C H A E L S

is research professor and director of the Project on Sci­

entific K n o w l e d g e and Public Policy at the G e o r g e W a s h i n g t o n University School of Public Health and Health Services. From 1998 to 2 0 0 1 , he served as the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Energy's Assistant Secretary for E n v i r o n m e n t , Safety and H e a l t h , where he had responsibility for protecting the health and safety of w o r k e r s , the neighboring communities, and the environment s u r r o u n d i n g the nation's nuclear w e a p o n s c o m p l e x . He is the author of Doubt

Is

Their

Product:

How

Industry's

Assault

on

Science

Threatens

Your Health ( O x f o r d University Press, 2008). M a n y of his publications, including

Manufacturing

Uncertainty:

Contested Science and the

Protec-

tion of the Public's Health and Environment (American Journal of Public H e a l t h , 2005), c a n be found at http://www.DefendingScience.org. C H A R L E S

w.

M I L L S

is John Evans Professor of M o r a l and Intellectual

Philosophy at N o r t h w e s t e r n University. He w o r k s in the general area of

oppositional political theory, and is the author of four b o o k s : The Racial Contract (Cornell University Press,

1 9 9 7 ) , Blackness

Philosophy and Race (Cornell University Press, Race:

Essays

in

White

Marxism

and Black

Visible: Essays on

1998), From

Radicalism

Class to

(Rowman

&

Littlefield, 2003), a n d , w i t h C a r o l e P a t e m a n , Contract and Domination (Polity, 2007). N A O M I

O R E S K E S

is professor of history and science studies at the Uni­

versity of C a l i f o r n i a , San D i e g o , and studies the historical development of scientific k n o w l e d g e , m e t h o d s , and practices in the earth and environ­ mental sciences. H e r 2004 essay " T h e Scientific C o n s e n s u s on C l i m a t e C h a n g e " (Science 306: 1686) led to op-ed pieces in the Washington Post, Los Angeles

Times, and San Francisco

Chronicle, and has been widely

cited, including in the New Yorker, USA Today, the R o y a l Society's p u b ­ lication, "A G u i d e to Facts and Fictions a b o u t C l i m a t e C h a n g e , " and the d o c u m e n t a r y film, An Inconvenient Truth. In 2 0 0 6 , she testified in the U . S . Senate on the history of climate science, and she will s o o n appear in " S i z z l e , " a c o m e d y a b o u t g l o b a l w a r m i n g . R O B E R T

N.

P R O C T O R

is professor of the history of science at Stanford

University and the author of Racial Hygiene ( H a r v a r d University Press, 1988),

Value-Free Science?

( H a r v a r d University Press,

1991),

Cancer

Wars (Basic B o o k s , 1995), and The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton Uni­ versity Press, 1999). He has held positions as Senior Scholar in Residence a t the U.S. H o l o c a u s t M e m o r i a l M u s e u m i n W a s h i n g t o n , D C (1994) and as Visiting Fellow at the M a x - P l a n c k - I n s t i t u t e for the H i s t o r y of Science in Berlin ( 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 ) ; he is also a member of the A m e r i c a n A c a d e m y of A r t s and Sciences. He is n o w w o r k i n g on h u m a n origins (especially c h a n g i n g interpretations of the oldest tools), a b o o k titled Darwin in the History of Life, a b o o k on gemstone aesthetics ("Agate Eyes"), and a b o o k on h o w and w h e n

t o b a c c o hazards c a m e to be r e c o g n i z e d (and

denied). He w a s the first historian to testify as an e x p e r t witness against the t o b a c c o industry, and continues to testify as a witness in cases w h e r e " w h o k n e w w h a t w h e n " is in question. L O N D A

S C H I E B I N G E R

is the John L. H i n d s Professor of H i s t o r y of Sci­

ence and the Barbara D. Finberg D i r e c t o r of the C l a y m a n Institute for

Gender Research at Stanford University. Her b o o k s include The Mind Has No Sex? Press,

Women in the Origins of Modern Science ( H a r v a r d University

1989), the p r i z e - w i n n i n g Nature's Body: Gender in the Making

of Modern Science ( B e a c o n , 1993/Rutgers University Press, 2004), Has Feminism Changed Science? ( H a r v a r d University Press, 1999), the prizewinning

Plants

and

Empire:

Colonial

Bioprospecting

in

the

Atlantic

World ( H a r v a r d University Press, 2004), and Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering (Stanford University Press, 2008). Schiebinger is the recipient of numerous a w a r d s , including the prestigious A l e x a n d e r v o n H u m b o l d t Research Prize. J.

M I C H A E L

S M I T H S O N

is a professor in the School of P s y c h o l o g y at

T h e A u s t r a l i a n N a t i o n a l University i n C a n b e r r a . H e i s the a u t h o r o f Confidence

Intervals

(Sage,

2003),

Statistics

with

Confidence

(Sage,

2000), Ignorance and Uncertainty (Springer V e r l a g ,

1989), and Fuzzy

Set

(Springer

Analysis

for

the

Behavioral and

Social

Sciences

1987); c o a u t h o r of Fuzzy Set Theory: Applications in es

(Sage,

Verlag,

the Social Scienc-

2006); and c o e d i t o r of Resolving Social Dilemmas: Dynamic,

Structural, and Intergroup Aspects (Psychology Press, tainty and Risk:

Multidisciplinary Perspectives

1999) and

(Earthscan,

Uncer-

2008).

His

p r i m a r y research interests are in judgment and decision m a k i n g under ignorance and uncertainty, social d i l e m m a s , applications of f u z z y logic, and statistical m e t h o d s . N A N C Y

T U A N A

is the DuPont/Class of 1949 Professor of Philosophy, Sci­

ence, T e c h n o l o g y , and Society and W o m e n ' s Studies and director of the R o c k Ethics Institute at the Pennsylvania State University. H e r research and teaching specialties include feminist science studies, w i t h p a r t i c u l a r attention to the intersection of ethical and epistemological issues in science, feminist theory, philosophy and sexuality, and environmental ethics. Her b o o k s include Engendering Rationalities (Indiana University Press, 2001), Feminism and Science (Indiana University Press, Sex:

Scientific,

Religious,

and

Philosophical

Nature (Indiana University Press, ana University Press,

1989), The Less Noble

Conceptions

of

Woman's

1993), Revealing Male Bodies (Indi­

2002), Race and the Epistemologies of Ignorance

( S U N Y Press, 2007), and

Women and the History of Philosophy ( C o n -

tinuum/Paragon H o u s e , 1992). She is series editor of the Penn State Press series

ReReading the Canon, and coeditor of the Stanford Encyclopedia's

entries on feminist philosophy. A L I S O N W Y L I E , professor o f philosophy a t the University o f W a s h i n g ­ t o n , is a philosopher of science w h o focuses on issues raised by a r c h a e o ­ logical practice and by feminist philosophy of science. H e r publications include

Thinking from

Things:

Essays

in

the

Philosophy

of Archaeology

(University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 2002), Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions (coeditor, O x f o r d University Press, 2007), Doing Archaeology as a Feminist (coeditor, JAMT 1 4 . 3 ,

2007), Epistemic Diversity and Dissent

(editor, Episteme 3 . 1 , 2006), and essays that appear in Embedding Ethics (Berg, 2005), Science and Other Cultures (Routledge, 2003), Feminism in Twentieth-Century Science (University of C h i c a g o Press, 2 0 0 1 ) , and

The Cambridge Companion to Feminism in Philosophy ( C a m b r i d g e

University Press, 2000).