In 1969, in what was then a secret and internal memo of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company, the company identified the strategy and tactics it would use to counter what it saw as anti-cigarette forces. These strategies and tactics would not be well known until the memo became public in 1979. At that time it was revealed that “Big Tobacco” had been using a strategy of obfuscation in order to continue selling their product. The memo stated, “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also a means of establishing controversy.” Their goal was to obfuscate – to spread confusion and doubt about whether smoking caused cancer, for their personal and organizational financial benefit, regardless of what the scientific evidence indicated.
Ignorance is defined as the lack of knowledge or information. There is (or should be) no shame in ignorance. The world is a complex place. The time it takes us to become experts in one body of knowledge often keeps us from learning in another body of knowledge. It has been said that to develop expertise in one area means to learn more and more about less and less. So, it should be expected that we have knowledge gaps – or areas of ignorance – in our fund of knowledge or knowledge base.
There is a cultural challenge that arises when we don’t recognize our own ignorance (or simple lack of knowledge in a particular area). In this circumstance, some may support ignorance in the guise of balanced debate. There is a commonly held view that to reach a rational conclusion there must be two opposing views. It was this commonly held view that gave “Big Tobacco” its ability to obfuscate the medical and health links between smoking and cancer. But not every side of a debate is factually valid or supported. Imagine if today a rational, educated person entertained a debate on the topic that the world is round (as opposed to flat). While there are people who support the idea that the earth is flat, as a society, do we need to consider this viewpoint as a rational, fact-based discussion?
This flat earth example may seem trivial, but there are still people who continue to debate what to most others seem obvious. To understand this type of denial of facts, we must consider, as a culture, how ignorance is shared or spread. It tends to occur first when a person or group of people don’t understand a concept or set of facts. Second, it spreads more rapidly when there is a group of people who can benefit (personally, financially, or otherwise) from the obfuscation. This is what gave Big Tobacco its power to obfuscate for so long.
It will take a committed and dedicated culture to create a scientifically educated and literate society to reduce our susceptibility to ignorance and obfuscation. Only when we agree to educate each other and ourselves will we as a society and culture begin to connect with each other in a way that diminishes obfuscation, in a way that keeps people and organizations from profiting from the ignorance of others.
As a culture, we can begin to do this by reaching across culturally ethnic, racial, and religious boundaries. If we begin to reach out to people who don’t look like us, worship like us, and/or come from a different background (particularly if we can connect with a child that is different than us), then we can create an opportunity to connect with another human being based on empathy (rather than disconnect through apathy – because they are different). I believe it will be these types of connections that will allow us to educate each other, our society, and our culture, in a way that will diminish obfuscation, allowing us to see that we all share the same round world and as far as we know, it is the only place in the universe that will sustain humanity.
Keep cultivating your culture!