This has become an
increasingly hot topic, one that has been discussed many times
and that even led to the publication of a book about it (Denialism:
How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the
Planet, and Threatens Our Lives by Michael Specter).
We do not propose to rehash
or discuss all that has been said on this topic, but we do want
to offer a few comments that we think are essential to
understanding the role of denial, which then help see the more
subtle, less visible manifestations of denial.
As we often do, we
begin with a definition.
 |
Denialism
is generally seen as the refusal to accept
well-established theory, law, fact or evidence.
From this perspective, it
is a state of mind that refuses to accept or believe things.
It often includes rejection of information from authorities.
|
 |
The objects of
denial
Based on the definition of
denialism, we see that something is being denied. .That
something is the object of the denial.
For
example, the reality of the Holocaust and AIDS have
been seen as objects of denial (e.g., there was NO Holocaust,
there is NO AIDS epidemic). Denialism has also been
applied to those who deny climate change and/or global warming,
and/or human contribution to climate change/global warming.
We think it is CRUCIAL
to look for the object of denial. Why? Because some
will say they are not denying something, when in fact, they are.
They don't recognize the true object of their denial. In
other words, they will correctly state that they are NOT denying
A, while in fact they are denying B, which can be just as
significant as the non-existent denial of A.
Recently,
we saw a television show during which there was a discussion of
climate change. One of the panelists insisted she was NOT
denying climate change, or even global warming, but went on to
accuse the person on the panel, one who shared concerns about climate change, of
"scare tactics" and "bullying," saying he should stop doing that
if he wanted people to hear and respect what he had to say.
Can you see what she was
actually denying? No, it wasn't denial of climate change.
It was denial of fear such change could arouse, maybe even
should arouse.
To help clarify this, imagine
the following to scenarios:
A mother is standing in her
front yard and sees her son playing in the street. She
yells, "Johnny, get out of the street! There's a car
coming!" There really is a car coming.
A mother is standing in her
front yard and sees her son playing in the street. She
yells, "Johnny, get out of the street! There's a car
coming!" There really isn't a car coming.
The difference between these
two is that the first is not a scare tactic. There really
is a car coming and thus it really is appropriate for Johnny's
mother to be afraid and share that fear with Johnny, in hopes
that it will lead him to getting scurrying out of the street.
But the second scenario is a
scare tactic. There is no car. Johnny's mom may be
afraid one might come eventually, but she's just trying to
frighten her son into getting out of the street.
How does this apply to what
the woman was denying when confronting the person concerned
about climate change? She was saying he was doing
something like scenario 2, saying something untrue, or
exaggerated to scare and
motivate people. She was agreeing that there is climate
change but denying that it is something to be afraid of.
BUT, and this is a big but,
the man concerned about climate change is doing Scenario 1, he's
afraid, because he sees the threat as real, and he would like
others to agree, be similarly alarmed by the situation and do
something about it.
Denial Tactics:
Various tactics are used, especially in service of intentional
denialism by folks who have some sort of vested interest in
denying something. These same tactics are used by
propagandists who want to influence and/or obstruct how we see
reality. Here are five tactics often used:
Conspiracy theories – Dismissing the
data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in "a
conspiracy to suppress the truth".
Cherry picking – Selecting an
anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated,
flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look as
though they base their ideas on weak research.
False experts – Paying an expert in
the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.
Moving the goalposts – Dismissing
evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually
demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence.
Logical fallacies
– Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw
man, or red herring (See link below to read more about logical
fallacies).
Layers of defence used in denial
tactics:
Avoidance
- The first line of defence against disruptive information
is to avoid it.
Delegitimizing - The second line of
defence is to attack the messenger, by undermining the credibility of
the source.
Limiting – The final line of defence,
if disruptive information cannot be avoided or delegitimized, is to
rationalize and limit the impact of the disruptive ideas.
We don't know exactly why
folks deny reality. It probably depends on the person and
the thing being denied. But there have been at least three
possible reasons proposed:
We do offer a further
discussion of what we call the "head-in-the-sand" syndrome (see
below).
To
go to the brief introduction to intentional efforts to obstruct, or avoid reality