Abstract
AbstractThe following contribution is concerned with the relation of Dayé’s work on the RAND Corporation during the Cold War and the field of ignorance studies. In doing so, I aim to emphasise the interconnection of three central themes that pervade Dayé’s work: secrecy, ignorance, and power. In an era of Cold War insecurity, marked by strategic attempts by both sides to obscure their own capabilities, a largely secretive organization emerged as a reliable source of knowledge, helping to guide decision-making in uncertain times and to generate policy recommendations. This not only raises significant questions about the power of certain groups or individuals to define what counts as policy-guiding knowledge, it also points to a form of ignorance that is highly productive. It not only affords the creation of new knowledge practices, but it becomes a force in itself that mobilizes the creation of further ignorance. While these connections are implicit in Dayé’s work, this study seeks to bring them to the forefront and to explore them in dialogue with classical sociological literature and in the context of seminal contributions to the field of ignorance studies. In order to do so, I will start with a brief elaboration on the secrecy that surrounded the work conducted at the RAND corporation, alongside a brief discussion of the notion of secrecy and elite power in the canon of classical literature in sociology, to then introduce the field of ignorance studies. From this angle, I will explore how a particular form of ignorance lies at the core of the workings at RAND and how ignorance studies might help to better understand the developing influence and rule of experts.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Reference21 articles.
1. Brodie, J. F. (2011). Learning Secrecy in the Early Cold War: The RAND Corporation. Diplomatic History 35(4). Oxford University Press: 643–670.
2. Crossley, A. M. (1937). Straw polls in 1936. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1086/265035.
3. Dayé, C. (2020). Experts, social scientists, and techniques of prognosis in Cold War America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32781-1.
4. Ghamari-Tabrizi, S. (2012). Cognitive and Perceptual Training in the Cold War Man-Machine System.Uncertain Empire: American History and the Idea of the Cold War. Edited by Joel Isaac and Duncan Bell:267–293.
5. Goffman, E. (1986). Strategic Interaction. 3. Paperback print. University of Pennsylvania Publications in Conduct and Communication. Philadelphia, Pa: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献