Wilful Ignorance: An Apologists History

‘Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity – Martin Luther King jr (u.d.)

In the age of information, ignorance is a choice; one of anti-intellectualism. ‘Willful ignorance’ then becomes arguably one of the single most important mechanisms by which public discourse has moved in the direction of in so‐called ‘post‐truth politics’ – as an important phenomenon to understand, evaluate and ultimately combat. 

Firstly, we must consider the origins of ignorance.

Ignorance (noun) defines a lack of knowledge and information surrounding a particular subject or object. Hence, the word ‘ignorant’ (adjective) defines a person who lives in a state of being (morally or ethically) unaware, moving into the realm of being wilfully ‘disobedient and intentionally deliberate’ (in nature) when a person is unaware that they are perpetuating problematic behaviors and opinions. In this respect, the premise of a ‘wilful act’ as intentional, conscious and entirely directed toward achieving a goal becomes an important factor to consider when categorising problematic behaviours under this umbrella.

‘Contradictory information creates imbalance in the human body. Neuro-chemicals are released to help delete or distort the divergent data’ (2018) defines author and founding editor of AllTopStartups Thomas Oppong as rationale for why acts of willful ignorance persist in today’s post-truth society. If this is to be believed, then an apologist as an individual who offers an argument in defence of something controversial – as being ‘not responsible for the behaviour of my ancestors’ for example – is no longer viable rhetoric in the continued blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and/or well-founded arguments in favour of anti-racist processes because they fundamentally contradict with their own existing personal beliefs. In this way, apologists operate as agents who are (or at least appear to be) devoid of the satisfactory minimum amount of knowledge – hence comforted within the bubble of plausible deniability – that allows for the practice of racist behaviours. 

In contrast to willful ignorance however, the argument of self-deception – in which false beliefs believed with absolute conviction – can also be discussed. In this respect, it is near impossible to judge whether somebody is willfully ignorant or truly deluded. Whilst the distinction between the two is subtle, it is important; willful ignorance is ultimately more adaptive than self-deception – therefore more receptive to a change – which has interesting implications for moral judgment and ethical evaluations especially within both a legal and political context. The concept of ‘willful blindness’ as Heffernan explains originates from 19th century legislature [law] used to describe a situation in which a person seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally keeping yourself unaware of facts that would render the individual liable or implicated; ‘the very fact that willful blindness is willed, that it is a product of a rich mix of experience, knowledge, thinking, neurons, and neuroses, is what gives us the capacity to change it.’

Similarly, the notion of racial illiteracy (to be distinguished from the term ‘race literacy’ as conceptualised by Lani Guinier, a professor of law and critical race scholar at Harvard University) developed by sociologist F.W. Twine enters this conversation as ‘a form of racial socialisation and anti[-]racist training [of] cultural strategies and practices designed and employed by parents to teach children of African and Caribbean heritage’ [to] respond to and counter forms of everyday racism.

These include:

1. Detect, document, and name antiblack racist ideologies, semiotics, and practices.
2. Provide discursive resources that counter racism.
3. Provide aesthetic and material resources that valorise and strengthen their connections to the transatlantic culture of black people.

On this topic, Robin DiAngelo as a white-American, female academic speaking explicitly about white fragility in anti-racist terms characterises racial illiteracy (2012) as key in ‘ongoing institutional white control, while reinforcing individualism and the illusion of meritocracy […] leaving us with simplistic explanations for racial inequality. All of us have a part to play, but the ultimate responsibility for addressing racism lies with those who control the institutions — white people’ (DiAngelo, 2011).  

‘It’s not really happening you are imagining it’ becomes a harmful rhetoric to qualify the behaviours that cognitive psychologist Albert Bandura argues are ‘[…] driven to do [in order to] build self-worth; so people transform harmful practices into worthy ones, coming up with social justification, distancing themselves with euphemisms and numbers, ignoring the long-term consequences of their actions’. 

Brutal honesty is socially unacceptable in our culture. 

But what if we blame an individual for their motives that led them to be self-deceived in the first place? What if we think that they became self-deceived because it served their interests? 

In response, we ponder upon the famous words by Martin Luther King Jr that reads ‘the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy’.

Topics for this ToR may include, but are not limited to:

• Racial Illiteracy and Inequality
• ‘Individualism
• Divide & Rule Rhetorics
• Historicism of ‘Whiteness’
• Artefacts and the labelling found in Museums, the art industry 
  • (incl. Representation and Digitisation)
• Post-Racial (Discourse)
• Anti-Blackness
• Ethics of Social Media

Bibliography:

• Kaczmarczyk, A & Allee-Herndon, Karyn & Roberts, Sherron. (2018). Using Literacy Approaches to Begin the Conversation on Racial Illiteracy. The Reading Teacher. 10.1002/trtr.1757. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1757
• Winddance T. F, (u.d.) Racial Literacy In Britain: Antiracist Projects, Black Children, And White Parents – in Contours: A Journal of the African Diaspora: https://web.archive.org/web/20060910183846/http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/contours/1.2/twine.html
• DiAngelo, R. (2017). What Does It Mean to Be White?, Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang US. available from: <https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1848-7> [Accessed 21 July 2019]
• DiAngelo, R (u.d) – “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism”
• Heffernan, M. (2012) – Wilful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at our Peril.  Simon & Schuster UK; UK ed. edition (2 Feb. 2012)
• Sullivan, S & Tuana, N.A (2007), Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance. State University of New York Press.
• “A White Side of Black Britain: The Concept of Racial Literacy,” in Ethnic and Racial Studies, (a special issue on racial hierarchy) vol. 27, no. 6 (November 2004): 1–30.

Submission Guidelines: 

Submissions can be, but aren’t limited to:

Written pieces:
Please submit in MS Word format. We suggest that 500-800 words is the best length. Please also submit an image along side your work, this should be no less than 2000px wide and 300 dpi.

Visual Work: 
Image should be no less than 2000px wide and 300dpi. We suggest that 3 – 6 images are best. Please clearly title images and attach captions and project blurb in a separate word document.

Film: 
Please send an open link and blurb in a Word document.

Sound:
Please send an open link and blurb in a Word document.

Please submit using the button below