Strategic ignorance and global governance: an ecumenical approach to epistemologies of global power

Abstract

How can we account for the role of ignorance and knowledge in global governance? It is a contention of earlier scholarship in international relations and political sociology that knowledge production is tightly coupled with rational action – regardless of whether knowledge widely influences different stakeholders or not. This scholarship equally tends to assume an ignorance‐knowledge binary relationship that associates ignorance with powerlessness and knowledge with power. This is a view we dispute. Calling for a new approach to the study of ignorance and knowledge in international politics, our article builds on research from ignorance studies, science and technology studies and critical race theory to derive a novel typology of epistemologies of power in which truth and ignorance are defined and combined in a plurality of ways. Approaching differing epistemologies of power in the transnational realm in a general or ‘ecumenical’ manner, we identify weaknesses in earlier approaches to the study of knowledge production in global affairs, and present four new concepts: ‘factual determinism’, ‘cynical realism’, ‘unseeing proceduralism’ and ‘hopeful constructivism’. Through this framework, our article calls for greater recognition of the constitutive role that ignorance plays in operations of power on a global scale.

“I don’t think anybody really knows”: Constructing reflexive ignorance in climate change adaptation

“…It has been suggested that the vexed debate over climate change and decarbonization has been worsened by a political era of “alternative truths” and “fake news” (Innes, 2020; Mallard & McGoey, 2018). This debate can be understood through the “knowledge‐ignorance paradox,” in which “the exponential growth in the volume and complexity of information” has, somewhat ironically, produced ignorance (Ungar, 2000, p. 298).…”

“…This suggests that strategic ignorance can be purposive—that is, keeping certain aspects of knowledge away from particular actors can result in a positive outcome. Thus, rather than assuming that ignorance consists simply of a lack of knowledge, it is more useful to explore how ignorance is produced, and to what ends (Mallard & McGoey, 2018). While McGoey’s (2012a, 2012b) concept of strategic ignorance can certainly be assigned to some of the disruptions to action on climate change, we suggest that this can also be seen as a reflexive movement.…”

Strategic ignorance and crises of trust: Un-anticipating futures and governing food supply chains in the shadow of Horsegate

“…Although this point is rarely developed explicitly, such artful cultivation of ignorance is arguably woven intricately through apparatuses of anticipatory government (Mallard & McGoey, 2018). The anticipation of retrospection introduced earlier in this paper (Caduff, 2014;Hinchliffe et al, 2017) clearly forms an important component of the 'temptations' towards strategic ignorance which Adrian describes, and similar anxieties about future accountability for present day decisions feature prominently in existing accounts of the mobilization of ignorance in response to regulatory scrutiny (for instance Heimer, 2012;McGoey, 2007;Pénet, 2018).…”

Ignorance as an Outcome of Categorizations: The “Refugees” in the Polish Academic Discourse before and after the 2015 Refugee Crisis

“…Scholars "build" both categorizations and ignorance 41 that interact with other forms of knowledge in a highly unpredictable and unexpected manner. Their endeavors result in revealing some truths about the studied phenomena and simultaneously offering misinterpretations thereof, 42 thus opening up venues for new research. Reflexivity and the ability to critically address the earlier categorizations is scholars' professional and moral 43 responsibility.…”