Content uploaded by Sheldon Ungar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sheldon Ungar on Apr 10, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Public Understand. Sci. 9(2000) 297–312. Printed in the UK PII: S0963-6625(00)13979-7
Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate
change versus the ozone hole
Sheldon Ungar
This paper begins with the “knowledge–ignorance paradox”—the process by which the growth of
specialized knowledge results in a simultaneous increase in ignorance. It then outlines the roles
of personal and social motivations, institutional decisions, the public culture, and technology in
establishing consensual guidelines for ignorance. The upshot is a sociological model of how the
“knowledge society” militates against the acquisition of scientific knowledge. Given the assumption
of widespread scientific illiteracy, the paper tries to show why the ozone hole was capable of
engendering some public understanding and concern, while climate change failed to do so. The
ozone threat encouraged the acquisition of knowledge because it was allied and resonated with
easy-to-understand bridging metaphors derived from the popular culture. It also engendered a
“hot crisis.” That is, it provided a sense of immediate and concrete risk with everyday relevance.
Climate change fails at both of these criteria and remains in a public limbo.
1. Introduction
Having done research on climate change since 1988, I routinely bring it up in conversations
pertaining to “strange weather.” Such events seem to have become more commonplace, and
whenever I suggest that the climate might be changing, others who know of my research
interests almost invariable ask the same question: “Is global warming real?”1I hedge in
answering, allowing that the vast majority of physical scientists in the area believe it is. My
interlocutors usually have little of substance to add. And I am forced to admit that after a
decade of clipping articles from Science and Nature, my sense that climate change is real
ultimately boils down to picking the experts you think you can trust.2
Not only is it a daunting task for members of the public to go beyond simple recognition
of the issue and grasp some of its scientific underpinnings, but the venues for doing so are
quite limited. Excepting perhaps the New York Times, few of the other mass media provide
sufficiently accurate, detailed, sophisticated, or concerted coverage to take someone much
beyond simple awareness of the issue.3For those willing to take the initiative, there are books,
films and Internet sites that afford a “social scientific” perspective on the issue. That is, a
passable grasp of the main scientific claims can be found. However, people remain utterly
dependent on experts for evaluating the global circulation models on which the whole game is
predicated. As Stephen Schneider put it, climate change mainly exists in the silicon chips of
supercomputers.4
Implicit in the preceding discussion is a model that reverses the conventional approach to
knowledge. Rather than starting with any expectations about the knowledge that the public
0963-6625/00/030297+16$30.00 © 2000 IOP Publishing Ltd and The Science Museum 297
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
298 S. Ungar
should possess, it takes ignorance as the starting point and the norm. Ignorance in this context is
not just a presupposition, but a social fact that can be deduced, observed and explained. Indeed,
the theoretical unfolding of what is termed the “knowledge–ignorance paradox” implies that
pockets of observed public knowledge are exceptional and require specific explanation. The
public’s grasp of scientific knowledge in particular is anomalous. Metaphorically at least,
scientific issues that manage to break through the veil of ignorance are akin to beacons that
spark obsessive interests or distress signals.
This paper first explicates how the explosion of knowledge gives rise to a knowledge–
ignorance paradox. It then outlines the roles of personal and social motivations, the public
culture, and technology in establishing consensual guidelines for ignorance. The upshot is a
sociological model of how the “knowledge society” actually militates against the acquisition
of scientific knowledge. Given this backdrop, it tries to show why the ozone hole was capable
of engendering some scientific understanding and public concern, while climate change has
not achieved a breakthrough in scientific comprehension. The ozone hole operated as a beacon
for two reasons. First, it was allied and resonated with easy-to-understand bridging metaphors
derived from the popular culture. Second, it engendered a “hot crisis.” That is, it provided a
sense of immediate and concrete risk with everyday relevance and strong emotional overtones.
Climate change fails at both of these criteria and remains in a public limbo.
2. The knowledge–ignorance paradox
Rapid developments in the quantity and complexity of information have occurred in practically
every field of human endeavor.5So great has been this growth that efforts to locate either
a “primary information sector” in the economy or to form a typology of “information
occupations” become so extensive as to be uninformative.6There has also been a “technization”
of work, whereby computerization leads to increased emphasis on the “creation and
manipulation of symbols to work on things.”7Many specialty domains face what amounts
to exponential growth in the volume and complexity of information.
Informational explosions spread throughout the economy affect not only what people
know, but the social distribution of ignorance as well. Martin Bauer employs the notion of a
knowledge–ignorance paradox to capture how the growth of specialized knowledge implies
a simultaneous increase in ignorance.8Julius Lukasiewicz observes that exponential growth
in the volume and complexity of information creates the prospect of “instant antiquity.” In
addition, one’s degree of grasp (the ratio of information the human intellectual can handle to
the volume of information available) “is quickly diminishing while one’s [degree of] ignorance
is on a fast rise.”9
Significantly, these analyses do not make the mistake of treating ignorance as the mere
statistical flip side of knowledge. Analyzing the distribution of the former rather than the latter
highlights different questions, since an overall rise in ignorance does not indicate how it is
constructed and distributed. Thus ignorance can be intentional or willful, a kind of refusal to
know specific things.10 While it is common to develop links between knowledge and the culture
and technology of virtual reality, I reverse this copula and develop a sociology of ignorance in
a culture of virtual reality.11
We begin with occupations. Role-incumbents in many specialized knowledge domains
may well feel besieged, although the extent of this will depend on the strategies used to manage
information pressures. Contrary to expectations, experts do not always optimize their use of
knowledge. Despite the fact that more women die of cardiovascular disease than any other
cause, a recent poll of family physicians revealed that 64 percent do not know that the symptoms
of heart disease differ in women and men.12
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture 299
Rather than simply falling behind, a more general strategy is to increasingly constrict
defined areas of specialization. What was noted about nuclear physics in the 1940s—
professional talk could not be conducted with colleagues in adjacent offices—has extended
to other realms of knowledge.13 As specialized knowledge domains are becoming ever more
onerous, experts are becoming more ill informed about related knowledge domains.
Assuming that human information processing capacity is more or less fixed, increases
in the time and (personal) memory demands imposed by the need to keep up in one’s field
serve to reduce the time and memory available to assimilate other information. Hence the
specialized knowledge–ignorance paradox predicts a decline in the stock of general information
and knowledge. The implications of the knowledge–ignorance paradox, however, go beyond
the specialization pressures that can besiege occupational role incumbents. Whether the
knowledge demands of one’s own occupational role are onerous or not, increases in the volume
and complexity of information have escalated the entry costs to virtually every other knowledge
domain.
Research on the knowledge gap hypothesis revealsthat prior knowledge in an area is critical
to understanding and assimilating new information in that area.14 Starting with conceptual
anchors for framing information, the gaining of knowledge in a field tends to follow a spiral
model, with new bits added to prior accumulations. But the narrowing and differentiation
of specialties means that the sheer number and diversity of conceptual anchors continue to
multiply. As proliferating technical terms and ideas (or what librarians call “twiggings”)
are overlaid with new facts and frequent revisions, specialty knowledge domains become
forbidding to outsiders. All but the most persistent non-specialists are effectively precluded
from keeping up with developments.
The entry cost hypothesis is not limited to individuals, however. Escalating entry costs
impact on the public culture in at least two ways. First, the media, as purveyors of information,
must take cognizance of the common information resources and probable motivations held by
their audience. For the most part, the anchoring concepts and operative “grammar” in any
domain (such as the logic of experimentation or of microwave communication) fall beyond the
resources that audiences can be expected to have. And while it is easy to recommend that the
media educate the audience, limitations in their resources to convey information (from time
constraints through accessible and lucid experts) coupled with limited audience forbearance
render the advice simplistic. To be understood and retain an audience, the media must either
avoid many topics or treat them in a superficial way.
At a second level, inflated entry costs put a damper on specialty knowledges as
conversational topics. The importance of talk is underscored by evidence indicating that
people learn more from others than from any other source of information.15 Talk, however,
is a social accomplishment that is facilitated by tacit agreements not to threaten the face of
others.16 Whether it deals with weighty matters or not, most talk is overlaid with expressive
rituals, as people seek to negotiate compatible identities and reciprocal acceptances. But it is
difficult for people to enact such rituals on topics they know nothing or next to nothing about.
For the most part, they are better served by withdrawing from the conversation. The upshot
is to erect speech barriers as more and more subjects become too specialized for ordinary
discourse.
Overall, then, the specialty knowledge–ignorance paradox fosters narrowly constituted
communities of experts whose arcane bubbles of shared knowledge overlap minimally with
others. The sheer weight of informational pressures at work, accompanied by heightened entry
costs and speech barriers in other knowledge domains, render spaces of ignorance pervasive.
However, ignorance and knowledge are not just randomly distributed. Both the popular culture
and technological developments endorse some kinds of information more than others do. They
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
300 S. Ungar
also help set consensual arrangements for being ignorant. Here we examine the roles of
personal and social motivations, the public culture, and technology in structuring the pool of
general knowledge. The ultimate aim is to show how these processes militate against scientific
knowledge in particular.
3. Motivations for knowledge and the popular culture
With specialized occupational knowledge, external constraints typically provide a strong
motivation to keep up with informational demands. This is not to gainsay a sustaining role to
personal motivations. However, it does throw into relief differences between occupationally
based specialty knowledges and the more general pool of information. In the latter case,
motivations are more diverse and often less compelling. There is also a far wider pool
of information, and people must deploy their attention even more selectively. Since they
need to strike a balance between knowledge and ignorance, an ecological competition for
attention between different domains of knowledge can be said to exist.17 Here we examine
how personal and social motivations, as well as technological developments, impact on the
types of knowledge people are likely to acquire (what are termed celebrity facts) and those
they are likely to avoid, resist, or overlook.
We begin with personal motivations. The Aristotelian claim that people have an innate
desire to be informed is not supported by extant research. Studies reveal that less than 10
percent of the population qualify as well-informed “cosmopolitans” or highbrows.18 Even
fewer appear to meet the criteria for scientific literacy.19 For most issues, the broad public is
at best semi-attentive, and more often inattentive. At the bottom, there is a sizable stratum of
“know-nothings.”20
If sheer fascination with knowledge provides little explanatory leverage, we know less
about the converse motivation: the acquisition of knowledge for its pragmatic uses. As
consumers of goods and services pertaining to diet and household products, health care,
insurance, investments, and so on, there are presumably good reasons to be informed. More
specifically, given the costs of acquiring (pragmatic) knowledge, it is hypothesized that
information is obtained on a “need-to-know” basis. Thus, asthma is not a pragmatic need-
to-know issue when no one you care about is asthmatic. In this case, the cost of obtaining
knowledge is generally too great given its lack of immediate relevance. Unfortunately, most
research on practical issues uses representative samples and does not differentiate need-to-
know learning from the acquisition of general knowledge.
A third motivation is what can be termed “good citizenship knowledge.” Whether it is
a platitude or not, the citizens of democracies are expected to be informed so they can make
intelligent inputs (however indirectly) into decision-making processes. Much of the extant
research is cast at the level of citizenship knowledge and focuses on topics that include history,
politics, science, and technology. Most studies in this domain find significant gaps between
research expectations and the public’s grasp, and typically deplore public ignorance.21
Whatever the theory, in recent years the organizations and institutions charged with
the task of upholding the model of the well-informed citizen have been increasingly under
assault. Museums and art galleries, libraries, public broadcasting, the arts, and universities
have suffered deep cutbacks in public funding.22 Both knowledge specialization and economic
disincentives have largely driven the public intellectual out of business.23 As public discourse
points to the economic challenge of globalization and the need for job-related skills, evidence
suggests that the ideal of the well-informed university graduate is being subverted by a business-
school orientation and the commercialization of universities.24
The fourth and most important motivation deals with the social utility of knowledge or
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture 301
information. Rather than focusing on what knowledge individuals have mastered, it asks what
information is in demand in particular social situations? For most persons without a calling
for knowledge, the social value of information is primary. For them, information is mostly
a conversational resource. In this context, Randall Collins emphasizes how much of social
interaction is made up of and depends on ongoing conversation.25 Social structure is animated,
realized, and reproduced in talk.
The conversational utility of knowledge moves the issue from within the individual into
the realm of popular culture. In tandem with the institutional devaluation of the ideal of
the well-informed citizen, it has become commonplace to observe that the popular culture
increasingly depreciates the intellect and fosters an egalitarian, anti-elitist conversational
ethos.26 Commentators note that there has been a leveling that denigrates “credentialed” talk
and cultivates commonplace knowledge built on what amount to, for present purposes, celebrity
facts.27
While anti-intellectualism is not a new phenomenon,28 it has reasserted itself in a more
virulent form for economic, political, and technological reasons. Sociological analyses suggest
that public resentment has increased as power and wealth have been accrued to a relatively small
elite with highly specialized and valuable knowledges. This new elite has created resentment
because it justifies large income inequalities on the basis of its knowledge and, unlike its
predecessors, has assumed little social responsibility.29
When this resentment is coupled with a growing distrust of politicians, the media,
public institutions, and many experts, scientists included, for their perceived distortions and
duplicities, it further diminishes the social value of the “truth” and the obligation of being
knowledgeable.30 As digital technology undermines the distinction between the real and the
unreal, one can invoke claims of deception or conspiracy to warrant a lack of interest in many
things.31 Not only can images be altered or fabricated in spectacular ways, but also the Internet
teems with so many competing claims and myths that the public has little shared basis for
assessing evidence.
Beyond such distorting effects, new technologies have had a signal impact on the types of
information people are likely to encounter and to find in demand in mundane conversations. As
a result of the symbiotic maturing of a number of technologies—television, video, computers,
the Internet, the World Wide Web—the core constituents of the popular culture are now so
prominent, omnipresent, and omnivorous that they can be considered hyper-realities. Whereas
museums and other markers of cultural and scientific literacy are typically of intermittent
interest and presence, through a combination of technology and social organization, “the urban
surface is a continuous screen, or a series of overlapping screens, onto which representations
are projected.”32 T-shirts, hats, shoes, backpacks, beach towels, billboards, posters, postcards,
“collectable” cards, calendars, mugs, candy, cartoons, magazine and newspaper articles, talk
shows on television, advertisements, films, the Internet, video games, toys, chain restaurants,
and even schools and universities, all provide screens for displaying the celebrity facts that
dominate popular culture.
By means of its unavoidable hyper-presence, the popular culture becomes familiar by
osmosis. It is literally “in the air,” and all but unavoidable. Significantly, there is systematic
evidence showing that highbrow Americans are increasingly imbibing elements of popular
culture.33 There has even been a “Disneyfication of Catholicism,” as the Church has signed off
on joint ventures with corporations like IBM and licensed the image of the Pope for mugs and
the like.34
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
302 S. Ungar
4. Science and the attention economy
The preceding analysis aims to afford a grasp of the attention economy in which scientific
claims must compete. For the general public, science is likely to be relevant for two of the four
knowledge motivations discussed above. Scientific knowledge has a pragmatic dimension,
encompassing phenomena like diet, health, safe-sex practices and so on. Perusal of the few
studies that examine scientific knowledge on a need-to-know basis reveals a limited grasp of
the key facts. Specifically—and quite surprisingly—researchers have found that most smokers
do not recognize that they are at increased risk for some cancers and for heart disease.35 Other
researchers report that few sexually active teenagers are aware of the risks of contracting a
range of sexually transmitted diseases.36
Scientific literacy is also central to the ideal of good citizenship. Issues like cloning,
nuclear waste, fluoridation of water, and pesticides have achieved celebrity standing in
public arenas. Scientific literacy for citizens is generally defined in terms of three
criteria: understanding the scientific approach, understanding basic scientific concepts,
and understanding scientific and technological policy issues.37 As previously noted, the
preponderance of the evidence suggests that the public perform poorly on all three of these
criteria.38 Depending on the specifics of the research, between five and 15 percent of the public
qualify as scientifically literate. Researchers regard such findings as worrisome and typically
raise questions about the adequacy of the education system.
The specialized knowledge–ignorance paradox provides a more socially embedded
explanatory approach to scientific illiteracy. The explosion of work-related knowledges not
only increases the overall amount of ignorance, but also the costs of acquiring knowledge in
other realms. The previous section outlined how various institutional forces—a long-standing
anti-intellectualism, resentment of the educated elite, a generalized distrust of politicians and
the media, and cutbacks to knowledge-bearing organizations—have helped discredit the idea of
being knowledgeable. Added to this discredit is an attention economy that puts a premium on
visual images associated with entertainment or, at best, “infotainment.” Both broadcast effects
(television, film) and public self-selection effects (T-shirt icons, video rentals, and individual
home pages on the World Wide Web) overwhelmingly favor an entertainment economy based
on celebrity facts.39
The screens on which the popular culture is exhibited can, theoretically, encompass almost
anything. Thus computers have rendered informational graphics—maps, charts, diagrams—
relatively uncomplicated and commonplace. But such graphics make up only an infinitesimal
part of the content carried on these screens. Rather, the images that predominate on these
screens derive from a popular culture that aims to be readily accessible to everyone. Through its
relentless and “fetching” presence, the popular culture serves as a ready-made, comfortable, and
relatively non-threatening resource for conversation.40 Virtually everyone can join discussions,
leaving “experts” without any trump card. And despite protestations that the elements of
popular culture are debased, trivial, or short-lived,41 they provide the connective threads of
information and conversation that tie us together. To take one example, AIDS soared on the
public agenda following admissions by Rock Hudson and Magic Johnson.42
Science is poorly equipped to compete in the attention economy that has grown up around
the popular culture. As an encoded form of knowledge that needs to be decoded to be accessible
to the public, scientific understanding occasions high entry costs and speech barriers. Gaining
a passable level of scientific literacy is time consuming and challenging. Our analysis of
the knowledge–ignorance paradox suggests that what people often lack is the motivation—a
payoff for the efforts to gain literacy in a scientific domain. Conversationally, there is little
return for being scientifically informed. Indeed, there is evidence suggesting that people are
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture 303
not particularly impressed by scientific acumen, while little public shame attends admissions
of ignorance.43 Complexity (especially mathematical), uncertainty, and competing claims—
what often amounts to a “bad news” syndrome—and the greater attractiveness of other, more
leveling topics, places a heavy burden on anyone trying to maintain conversational interest on
most scientific topics.
The potential for the popular culture to dumb-down conversation can be inferred from
research on people’s performance under more ideal conditions. As elaborated below, extant
evidence reveals that people have a poor grasp of climate change. But rather than examining
what people know, R. Berk and D. Schulman employed quasi-experimental designs to
determine the extent to which respondents can learn, assimilate, and use new information.44
Specifically, they examined the public’s “willingness to pay” in order to prevent various
hypothetical climate scenarios from transpiring. Respondents were provided an exemplar
for dealing with this type of problem. The results revealed that respondents were able to digest
complex information and make relatively informed decisions—results that fit reasonably with
mathematical models derived for payments. In this regard, Willett Kempton and colleagues
also found that their respondents could make complex policy inferences that were similar (“at
such a high level of detail”) to those made by scientists.45
The gap between such sound inferences and the seemingly intractable ignorance about
climate change suggests that the underlying problem is not the capabilities of the general
public as such. Research subjects, of course, perform in an artificial environment: They are
given a very specific task in a context that is presumably motivating and removes competing
diversions. In contrast, Russell Neuman summarizes research indicating that people approach
their information environment with a “semi-attentive, entertainment-oriented mind-set.”46 In
a conversation-as-usual context, most scientific issues are fettered by numerous discursive
liabilities. But most is not all; and the usual does not always prevail. Here we apply the logic
of the attention economy and the popular culture developed above to explain differences in the
public reception of the ozone hole and climate change.
5. Comparing the ozone hole and climate change
Research on these two atmospheric problems reveals significant differences in the public
understanding of both the basic science and the scientific and technological policy issues
involved. Using diverse but nonrandom samples, U.S. research reveals that people have limited
scientific knowledge about global warming and tend to confuse it with the ozone hole. As one
study concludes:
. . . our results are consistent with Kempton’s claim that “the ozone hole has arrived
as a concept in the U.S. public’s consciousness, but the greenhouse effect is entering
primarily as a subset of the ozone hole phenomenon, the closest model available.47
A similar confusion is found in New Zealand, where environmental consciousness is high and
climate change portends extreme consequences.48
At the policy level, the ozone threat again fares better than climate change. With the
former, people grasped the link between ozone loss and both Styrofoam and aerosol cans.
Concern generalized to action, as Americans voluntarily switched from aerosol cans, causing
a 50 percent drop in their sales even before legislation was enacted.49 There were also a number
of successful consumer boycotts, notably of McDonalds and of Styrofoam packaging. Still,
policy understandings remain limited. Data collected 15 years after the problem first emerged
reveal that few Americans connect ozone depletion with air conditioning and refrigeration.50
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
304 S. Ungar
Climate change has fared much worse. Kempton et al., observe that “lay informants
had virtually no knowledge of the policies for global warming actually being debated.”51
Thus not a single respondent mentioned energy efficiency as a possible solution. They also
misunderstand the idea of energy efficiency and its ramifications. Indeed, the public has, in
tandem with industry, steadily eroded conservation measures created in response to the two
oil crises. Statistics reveal that people are driving more, using more gas, and getting lower
mileage.52 The last statistic is particularly significant, for the fastest growing segment of vehicle
sales is in low-mileage vans, sport utility vehicles, and pickup trucks.
The greater public understanding and response to ozone depletion requires explanation.
One explanatory candidate that must be considered comes from the agenda-setting hypothesis.
More than 25 years of research on this hypothesis demonstrates that the amount of media
coverage of an issue is a major determinant of public awareness.53 The public relies on the
media for information about scientific issues, and greater coverage heightens the salience of
the issue and increases fear of and opposition to the specific environmental hazard.54 Events
that figure prominently in the media seem to be more “available” or retrievable from memory
and are regarded as more “representative” than events that attract less coverage.
Quantity of coverage does not appear to be decisive here. Data presented by Ungar
reveal that over the peak of their overlapping issue attention cycles (1987–1991), climate
change attracted more than twice as many stories as ozone depletion in the Readers’ Guide to
Periodical Literature and on the evening news broadcasts of the three major U.S. television
networks.55 While they received about the same amount of coverage in the New York Times,
climate change averaged more than twice as many congressional hearings and publications
as did ozone depletion. Finally, Ungar observes that more prominent scientists and scientific
organizations have come out over climate change than ozone depletion. Statements pertaining
to the former have been signed by a majority of living Nobel Laureates, and the Royal Society
of London broke 300 years of official silence on public topics to issue a warning about climate
change. Ozone depletion did not attract laureates or create media stars like Stephen Schneider.
Given this reversal of the conventional media agenda-setting effect, we are left with
Kempton et al.’s, explanation for the differential public reactions to the two social problems:
In sum, it appears that Americans are now familiar with ozone depletion, an earlier and
simpler concept with fewer causes and fewer consequences than global warming. The
assimilation of the greenhouse effect to a model of ozone depletion is an example of
syncretism, a process often documented by anthropologists in which new information
is assimilated to fit existing familiar concepts.... Butregardless of how we describe
it, this lay conceptual problem leads to inappropriate inferences.56
While we agree with the general thrust of this analysis, the question of why ozone loss
is “simpler” is not addressed. Certainly the public’s level of scientific illiteracy is sufficiently
high that the chemistry of ozone depletion is no more accessible than the chemistry of global
warming. In other words, while global warming is undoubtedly more complex than ozone
depletion,57 no reason or evidence is adduced to show that the ozone problem is simple—and
not just somewhat simpler but still largely incomprehensible.
Given the knowledge–ignorance paradox, the evidence showing low levels of general
scientific understanding, and the limited grasp of the ozone problem (i.e., ignorance of the
role of refrigeration and air conditioning), the claim that the ozone hole has arrived in the
public consciousness cannot be taken as self-explanatory. Rather, such an arrival can be
considered an anomaly in the broader context of demonstrated scientific illiteracy. Hence it is
necessary to provide an account of how the ozone threat broke through the veil of ignorance,
became reasonably understood, and engendered consumer boycotts and other actions. Here we
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture 305
examine two processes. Consistent with, but more radical than Kempton’s use of syncretism,
we argue that the availability of cogent templates from the popular culture rendered the ozone
problem potentially understandable. These bridging metaphors lowered entry costs and speech
barriers, especially since the social problem created the conditions for a hot crisis that served
as a beacon and gave rise to a sense of everyday relevance.
6. Bridging metaphors
The signal advantage of the ozone hole is that it can be encapsulated in a simple and
widely familiar “penetration” metaphor. Stated succinctly, the hole leads to the increased
bombardment of the earth by lethal rays. The idea of rays penetrating a damaged “shield”
meshes nicely with abiding and resonant cultural motifs, including “Hollywood affinities.”
These range from the shields on the Starship Enterprise to Star Wars, which encompasses
both the “megahit” movies and the Strategic Defense Initiative. The penetration model is also
ubiquitous in video games and children’s television shows. In addition, it is allied with a
theory that has arguably spawned more public interest than any other recent scientific idea:
the claim that an asteroid striking the Earth 65 million years ago caused the disappearance of
dinosaurs.58
It is these pre-scientific bridging metaphors built around the penetration of a deteriorating
shield that render the ozone problem relatively simple. That the ozone threat can be linked with
Darth Vader means that it is encompassed in common sense understandings that are deeply
ingrained and widely shared. The linkages are also neat, direct, and tightly coupled. The
importance of mundane metaphors that ordinary people are able to think with can be seen in
a comparison with climate change. The difference can be first grasped in the fundamental
metaphor used to frame each problem. It is apparent to anyone that the “hole” is an aberration,
something that a protective shield should not have. The greenhouse effect, in contrast, is a
benign and essential natural phenomenon. Global warming (or climate change) is an extension
of this phenomenon, creating the problem of finding the human “fingerprint” amidst highly
variable and complex natural processes.59
At a more fundamental level, there are apparently no ready-made metaphors in the popular
culture that mesh with and provide a simple schematic for understanding the science of climate
change. Even a minimally coherent account of why climate change is a threat involves a
series of loose postulates that span several scientific fields and transcend both the public’s
understanding of science and the information carrying capacity of most of the mass media.60
Thus, the model begins with an excess accumulation of various chemicals in the atmosphere
(the main culprit, carbon dioxide, was already present at lower levels of concentration); these
chemicals lead to the excess trapping of the sun’s rays after they rebound from the earth’s
surface; this leads to forecasts of a several-degree rise in temperature over the first half of
the next century; rising temperatures, in turn, lead to predictions of sea level rise and an
increase in extreme weather events; and finally, these events are expected to impact on forests,
agriculture, and so on, with the bulk of the impacts—but not necessarily all of them—expected
to be negative.
In the absence of a bridging metaphor that encapsulates a streamlined version of this
model, it is hardly surprising that greater media coverage of climate change noted above
has not brought dividends in understanding. Whereas practically every space-based video
game deals with the direct and typically dire consequences following from the penetration of
shields, there are no games that are even remotely linked to the indirect rebound effects of
climate change. To put it somewhat differently, ozone has clear affinities with core elements
of the popular culture, while climate change is an “outsider.”
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
306 S. Ungar
7. Hot crises
The greater comprehensibility of the ozone hole probably would not have mattered much if
the problem did not operate as a beacon. That is, the attention economy suggests that people
are highly selective in the information they take time to process. Bridging metaphors linked
to the popular culture afford an opportunity to learn about an issue; but they do not provide
the effective motivation to do so. Here we argue that the signal advantage of the ozone hole
was that it created the conditions necessary for a hot crisis. As a result of timing and luck, as
well as the cultural framing of the problem, the ozone loss gave rise to sense a personal threat
with everyday relevance. Climate change, in contrast, is not amenable to bridging metaphors
and is sufficiently future-orientated that it is unlikely to create or sustain a hot crisis.
The concept of hot crisis was developed to explain the reaction to Ebola Zaire:
Whereas journalists tend to view crises as any kind of trouble at all, hot crises entail
dread-inspiring events that are developing in unpredictable ways and are seen as
having the potential to pose an imminent personal threat to specific populations. Hot
crises are startling, as presumed invulnerabilities appear to be challenged. A palpable
sense of menace puts the issue “in the air,” as unfolding events are watched, discussed
and fretted over.61
Ebola engendered a hot crises as a result of its potent dread factor (gruesome and almost
certain death with blood oozing from every orifice) coupled with a sense of personal threat
due to the much-touted menace of “instant-distant infections.” That is, claims-making about
emerging diseases stresses that boundaries are porous and we are just “a plane ride away” from
a “chain of lethal transmission.” As a result of the coupling of dread and personal relevance,
the ozone hole also lent itself to a hot crisis with fertile practical and conversational overtones.
Scientists concerned with the impact of ozone depletion generally hold that the most
serious potential impacts of increased ultraviolet radiation are on the human immune system,
plant life, and aquatic ecosystems. But these threatened impacts have made little headway
in public arenas.62 Fortuitously for creating a hot crisis, the principle threat that came to be
associated with ozone depletion plays itself out in daily life and the public culture. That is,
leakage through the shield is tied to skin cancer, especially melanoma, its most deadly form.
The special significance and dread potential of cancer in the public culture is clear. It has
garnered a “war,” authorized the Delaney Clause banning all food additives that are found to
be carcinogenic in laboratory tests, and is the source of exaggerated fears.63 In this instance,
timing was superb, as President Reagan had skin cancers removed in 1985 and 1987. These
presidential cancers parallel the previously noted AIDS impacts of Rock Hudson and Magic
Johnson.
Since the ending of the Cold War erased the major source of anxiety in American society,
the public culture has embraced a variety of disasters.64 Starting with the revived fascination
with the Titanic and extending through new diseases (e.g., mad cow disease), as well as
earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes and tornadoes, disasters have been commercialized and
mythologized in books, movies, CD-ROMs, displays, and artifacts for sale.65 Ozone loss
meshed nicely with this disaster boom. Not only is it linked to the popular theory that a comet
striking earth extinguished the dinosaurs, but it transforms routine exposure to sunlight into a
potentially dangerous activity. When the gradual depletion of the ozone layer was supplanted
by the unearthing of an unexpected crater, it rendered the progression of the peril unpredictable
and ominous. Could the shield disintegrate?66
The ozone threat, then, was solidified and concretized by the widespread belief that the
thinning of the ozone layer holds everyday relevance for curbing exposure to the sun. Warnings
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture 307
about (over) exposure became commonplace, especially in family and women’s magazines.
The problem became a fertile source of interest, anxiety, and practical knowledge and action as
it redounded on the need to protect children.67 Warnings to avoid the sun between 11:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m. are obviously unrealistic for children (as well as outdoor workers, boaters and so
on). Hence metaphors about “safe sun” were boosted by the growth of a companion industry
encompassing sunscreens, lip gloss, sunglasses, UV-safe hats, clothing, umbrellas, awnings,
and so on. This commercialization of the threat, with its direct links to advertising, serves to
drive home the need for continual vigilance. The inclusion of an UV index in daily weather
reports further augments the presence, relevance, and staying power of the threat.
Thus, ozone depletion became an intrusive problem, motivating knowledge on an
imperative, need-to-know basis. While no direct evidence is available, it seems likely that
the issue of exposure to the sun is one that the public can discuss without feeling overwhelmed
or stupefied. Certainly articles and advertisements pertaining to safe sun are concrete and
comprehensible, often comparing the ozone layer to a sunscreen for the planet. The sun’s rays
can often be “felt,” and tans and sunburns afford palpable evidence of their (now dangerous)
effects. Noticing unexpected tans or burns (following cool or seemingly overcast days, when
the sun’s rays are not readily felt) brings home the need for vigilance. So too do reports of
increased rates of skin cancer plus dire warnings to watch for skin changes and inspect moles.
One indictor of the extent to which this threat insinuated itself into the public consciousness
is reflected in the firestorm that the Reagan administration blundered into. Interior Secretary
Donald Hodel misjudged the public mood when he advocated a “personal protection” plan
in the place of international action on the issue.68 Not only was his suggestion immediately
mocked (fish don’t wear sunglasses), but the gaffe is frequently referenced and is an available
tool for building a case for protection of the ozone level.
Climate change, in contrast, is not readily tied to concrete events capable of operating
as a beacon or sustaining a hot crisis. Scientists customarily define global warming as a
future-oriented problem, with effects predominately predicted for the middle or end of the
next century. From the point of view of the attention economy, a future-orientation creates a
clear liability. Specifically, concern about the future is discounted in institutional thinking and
in virtually every public arena.69 So stable and recurrent is this effect that economists routinely
devalue the future in their econometric models.
Efforts, of course, have been made to reverse this future orientation and to claim that
“strange weather” and the attendant increases in insurance losses are signs that climate change
is already occurring.70 While extreme weather events serve as the principal public “sign” of
climate change, they do not make good candidates for attention-commanding beacons. For the
most part, human beings lack the anchoring concepts required to follow and comprehend the
scientific logic underlying extreme weather impacts.71 Scientific predictions that the average
temperature may rise two to three degrees Celsius over the course of the next 50 years do
not appear overly threatening to North Americans who often experience far larger swings in
temperature over the course of a single day.
An even more disastrous problem comes from scientific predictions for the winter. Recent
models of climate producing mechanisms lead to predicted increases at both extremes of the
climate distribution: Summers could be hotter and dryer, winters colder and wetter. But public
understandings are limited to warming, not climate change as such.72 Thus, colder winters are
thought to belie predictions about global warming, when in fact they are consistent with
current models of climate change. Data collected by the author reveal that cartoons pertaining
to climate change routinely use examples of extreme cold or snowstorms to mock scientists’
claims.73 Similar attitudes are found in articles in Time magazine and the New York Times.
Confusion about scientific predictions is rendered worse by the efforts of most scientists
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
308 S. Ungar
to do good science. If global warming was put on the map by the concatenating weather
impacts of the summer of 1988, these events also brought a cautionary tale.74 Specifically,
James Hansen, a leading scientific advocate for climate change, evoked a concerted reaction
from the scientific community when he claimed with more than 90 percent certainty that the
events of 1988 were the effects of climate change. Since that summer, reputable scientists
routinely claim that any extreme impact or extreme weather season cannot be attributed to
climate change. Whether intentional or not, this dissociation effect has been abetted by the
media. In a study of the U.S. network news, Ungar found no correlation between coverage of
extreme weather events (heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, and floods) and stories on climate
change.75
The hedging and uncertainty that have congealed around climate change contrast sharply
with the treatment of ozone loss and skin cancer. The tightly coupled schematic built around
the latter is generally presented in the media without qualifications or caveats.76 However, the
ozone schematic is not immune to criticism. Besides difficulties in measuring levels of ozone
loss, the link between it and rates of skin cancer remains unproven.77 Indeed, ozone depletion
does not provide a unique or indisputable explanation for any increases in skin cancer, since
these can also be attributed to changes in lifestyle. But problems in measurement and the use
of correlations that might be spurious are disregarded. Overall, it seems that the Hollywood
affinities with ozone depletion are so simple, lucid, and tangible that they come close to being
regarded as an ontological reality. Altogether, then, ozone depletion seemingly fulfilled the
conditions for a hot crisis. With global warming, a future orientation and the absence of
bridging metaphors and threats linked to the popular culture effectively preclude such a crisis.
8. Conclusion
This paper develops around the knowledge–ignorance paradox. It starts with the claim that the
quantity of specialized information is exploding. The inverse, that ignorance is increasing (or
the degree of grasp decreasing), also follows. However, the manner in which this ignorance is
socially constructed and distributed is not a given, and the paper goes on to outline the factors
that appear to affect the costs and benefits of different types of knowledge. The upshot of these
processes is to create an attention economy that favors celebrity facts and militates against the
acquisition of scientific knowledge.
Science is an encoded form of knowledge that requires translation in order to be
understood. While there is some evidence that people can make reasonable scientific inferences
under ideal conditions, there does not appear to be sufficient payoff in day-to-day events and
conversation to endure the costs of scientific literacy. Hence—and this is consistent with the
bulk of the extant evidence—the paper takes scientific ignorance as the norm and suggests that
it is pockets of knowledge that require explanation. To break through the veil of ignorance,
scientific knowledge must be motivated.
Taking ignorance as a starting point has a number of research implications. Since this
approach assumes that most of the public is not motivated to be scientifically literate, general
surveys of scientific literacy are likely to be less informative than studies that approach scientific
knowledge from a need-to-know perspective. That is, researchers can identity sub-populations
with pragmatic reasons for acquiring a specific body of knowledge and then examine variables
related to knowledge. The need-to-know is itself a variable (heart attack victims presumably
have more need and motivation for knowledge than those with some history of the disease in
their family), allowing researchers to further search for amplification and dampening effects
on knowledge acquisition.
The paper also underlines the importance of a comparative approach. The ideas of bridging
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture 309
metaphors from the popular culture and hot crises seem to apply not only to the two atmospheric
issues discussed here, but also to Ebola. The latter spawned an outburst of attention and
concern, while diseases like malaria and the resurgence of tuberculosis go largely unnoticed.
In the same vein, there has been a strong resistance to genetically modified foods in Europe,
with barely a whimper in North America. Again, differences in bridging metaphors and the
sense of a hot crisis (encompassing mad cow disease, trust in regulatory authorities, as well as
the public roles of celebrities, scientists, and the media) would appear to offer a reasonable start
for explaining the differential reactions. Finally, the focus on ignorance raises the question of
the extent to which the public actually understands the issues that achieve celebrity standing in
public arenas? Since bridging metaphors can be inappropriate or misapplied, the public could
very well be concerned but relatively ill informed about such issues.
Acknowledgments
This paper was supported by a Trends grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research
Council of Canada. The author would like to thank Malcolm MacKinnon for helpful comments
on earlier versions of the paper.
References
1 S. Ungar, “Is Strange Weather in the Air? A Study of U.S. National News Coverage of Extreme Weather Events,”
Climatic Change 41 (1999): 133–150.
2 M. Shamos, The Myth of Scientific Literacy (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1993).
3 A. Bell, “Media (Mis)Communication on the Science of Climate Change,” Public Understanding of Science 3
(1994): 245–258; S. Ungar, “Is Global Warming Still Worth a Blip? A Study of Media Coverage in Three
Countries,” Delta 7: 6–15.
4 S. Schneider, Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century? (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books,
1988).
5 J. Lukasiewicz, The Ignorance Explosion: Understanding Industrial Civilization (Ottawa: Carlton University
Press, 1966).
6 M. Bauer, “Socio-Demographic Correlates of DK-Responses in Knowledge Surveys: Self-Attributed Ignorance
of Science,” Social Science Information 35 (1996): 39–68.
7 S. Barley and J. Orr, Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in U.S. Settings (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1997), p. 10.
8 M. Bauer, “Socio-Demographic Correlates of DK-Responses.”
9 J. Lukasiewicz, The Ignorance Explosion, p. 122.
10 M. Smithson, “Toward a Social Theory of Ignorance,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 15 (1985):
151–172.
11 M. Castells, The Information Age, Volume 1 (Oxford, Blackwell, 1996).
12 Nando.net, “Many Doctors Unaware of Women’s Heart Disease Symptoms,” Heart News Services, 21 November
1996.
13 I. Rowland, “The Renaissance Revealed,” New York Review of Books, November 6, 1997, 30–35.
14 J. Kleinnijenhuis, “Newspaper Complexity and the Knowledge Gap,” European Journal of Communication 6
(1991): 499–522; K. Viswanath and J.R. Finnegan Jr., “The knowledge gap hypothesis: Twenty-five years later,”
in Communication Yearbook 19, ed. B.R. Burleson (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), pp. 187–227.
15 W. Freudenberg and S. Pastor, “Public Responses to Technological Risks: Toward a Sociological Perspective,”
Sociological Quarterly 33 (1991): 389–412.
16 R. Collins, Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science (New York: Academic Press, 1974).
17 S. Hilgartner and C. Bosk, “The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model,” American Journal
of Sociology 94 (1988): 53–78.
18 R. Neuman, The Future of the Mass Audience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); R. Peterson
and R. Kern, “Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore,” American Journal of Sociology 61 (1997):
900–907.
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
310 S. Ungar
19 Bauer, “Socio-Demographic Correlates,”; J. Miller, “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review,”
Daedalus 112 (1983): 29–48.
20 S. Bennett, “ ‘Know-Nothings’ Revisited: The Meaning of Political Ignorance Today,” Social Science Quarterly 69
(1988): 476–490; Academics, researchers, and elite journalists who often bemoan the public’s lack of knowledge
need to recognize how atypical their own devouring curiosity or calling for knowledge actually is.
21 While research questions about the names of local politicians are typical, it is not clear why one should know
them. Such information is hardly edifying as such, and is mostly useful when one needs something from them.
Finding their names is the issue, pointing to a difference between what one knows and one’s capacity to find
information as the need arises.
22 F. Webster, Theories of the Information Society (London, Routledge, 1994).
23 R. Jacoby, The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe (New York: Basic Books, 1987).
24 D. Bercuson, R. Bothwell, and J.L. Granatstein, Petrified Campus: The Crisis in Canada’s Universities (Toronto:
Random House, 1997).
25 Collins, Conflict Sociology, pp. 114–152.
26 R. Anderson, Consumer Culture and TV Programming (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995); N. Graber, Life the
Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality (New York: Knoph, 1998).
27 M. Kingwell, Dreams of Millennium: Report from a Culture on the Brink (Toronto, Viking, 1996); Celebrity
facts in this context is a gloss for the celebrity, entertainment, sport, trivia, and the gossip and scandal talk which
seem to predominate in the popular culture and routine conversations. The aim of this paper is not to identify the
constituents of popular culture but to show how its relentless and omnivorous presence tends to drive out other
forms of knowledge. Conversation is at the center of the “Seinfeldian” universe. In its role in defining aspects of
the 1990s, this show pointedly upholds the dumbing down of talk. Examples include: “It’s so sad, all you know
of high culture comes from Bugs Bunny,” and “I prefer the company of nitwits.” In Frazier, the brothers suffer
due to an excess of high culture coupled with ignorance of low culture. Not knowing what a double-header is, for
example, becomes a source of embarrassment.
28 R. Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York: Vintage, 1962).
29 P. Newman, The Canadian Revolution 1985–1995: From Deference to Defiance (Toronto: Viking, 1995).
30 D. Powell and W. Leiss, Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication (Montreal:
McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997); N. Freudenberg and C. Steinspar, “Not in our backyards: The grassroots
environmental movement,” in American Environmentalism: The U.S. Movement, 1970–1990, eds. R. Dunlap and
A. Mertig, (Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Francis, 1991) pp. 26–38; Freudenberg and Steinspar cite substantial
evidence showing that grassroots activists reject the image of science as neutral, perceiving it instead as a tool in
the service of government and industry. In environmental and health areas, including AIDS, scientific claims are
often pitted against the truth-value of “local knowledge” or “lay epistemology.”
31 M. Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience,Superstition and Other Confusions of Our Time
(New York: Freeman, 1997); A Time/CNN poll reveals that 64 percent of Americans believe that aliens have
been in personal touch with human beings. That the government and most scientists unconditionally dismiss such
claims seems to be a strong point in their favor.
32 C. Dewdney, Last Flesh: Life in the Transhuman Era (Toronto: Harper Collins, 1998): 95–96.
33 Peterson and Kern, “Changing Highbrow Taste.”
34 M. Budde, “Embracing Pop Culture: The Catholic Church in the World Market,” World Policy Journal, Spring,
(1998): 77–86.
35 J. Ayanian and P. Cleary, “Most Smokers Don’t Recognize Health Risks,” Journal of the American Medical
Association 281 (1999): 1019–1021. Their findings presumably illustrate willful ignorance.
36 Reuters, “Many Teens Unaware of STD,” Yahoo News, 8 March 1999.
37 Miller, “Scientific Literacy.”
38 Shamos, The Myth of Scientific Literacy.
39 R. Barnard, D. Cosgrave, and J. Welsh, Chips and Pop: Decoding the Nexus Generation (Toronto: Malcolm
Lester, 1998).
40 M. Schudson, “How Culture Works: Perspectives from Media Studies on the Efficacy of Symbols,” Theory and
Society 18 (1988): 153–180.
41 E. D. Hirsch Jr., Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987).
42 M. J. Kalichman, “Public Attitudes Toward AIDS: A Review of Empirical Findings,” AIDS Education and
Prevention 6 (1994): 542–547.
43 S. Ungar, “The Effects of Others’ Expectancies on the Fabrication of Opinions.” The Journal of Social Psychology
114 (1981): 173–185.
44 R. Berk and D. Schulman, “Public Perceptions of Global Warming,” Climatic Change 29 (1995): 1–33.
45 W. Kempton, J. Boster and J. Hartley, Environmental Values in American Culture (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995),
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture 311
p. 131.
46 Neuman, The Future of the Mass Audience,p.13.
47 A. Bostrom, M. G. Morgan, B. Fischoff, and D. Read, “What do People Know About Global Climate Change: 1.
Mental Models,” Risk Analysis 14 (1994): 959–969.
48 A. Bell, “Climate of Opinion: Public and Media Discourse on the Global Environment,” Discourse and Society
5 (1994): 33–64.
49 K. Litfin, Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1994).
50 Kempton, et al., Environmental Values in American Culture,p.76.
51 Kempton, et al., Environmental Values in American Culture, p. 125.
52 J. Tagliabue, “Europe Takes to the Road in a Small Way,” New York Times, April 21, 1998, C1.
53 M. McCombs, and D. Shaw, “The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Research: Twenty-Five Years in the Marketplace
of Ideas,” Journal of Communication 43 (1993): 58–67.
54 A. Mazur and J. Lee, “Sounding the Global Alarm: Environmental Issues in the U.S. National News,” Social
Studies of Science 23 (1993): 681–720.
55 S. Ungar, “Bringing the Issue Back In: Comparing the Marketability of the Ozone Hole and Global Warming.”
Social Problems 45 (1988): 510–527.
56 Kempton, et al., Environmental Values in American Culture,p.68.
57 S. Ungar, “Social Scares and Global Warming: Beyond the Rio Convention,” Society and Natural Resources 8
(1995): 443–456.
58 E. Clemens, “Of Asteroids and Dinosaurs: The Role of the Press in the Shaping of Scientific Debate,” Social
Studies of Science 16 (1986): There are a variety of reasons why the mass extinction of dinosaurs is a captivating
scientific idea with mass appeal.
59 Scientists use the idea of “fingerprint” to capture the difficulty of finding the human signature in the climate.
People are more likely to notice a footprint, and a large one at that.
60 D. Hallin, “Sound Bite News: Television Coverage of Elections 1968–1988,” Journal of Communication 42
(1992): 5–24.
61 S. Ungar, “Hot Crises and Media Reassurance: A Comparison of Emerging Diseases and Ebola Zaire.” British
Journal of Sociology 49 (1998): 36–56.
62 Litfin, Ozone Discourses, p. 104.
63 While heart disease kills more than twice as many women as breast cancer, the latter gets most of the publicity.
64 Ungar, “Hot Crises and Media Reassurance.”
65 G. Colt, “The Strange Allure of Disasters,” Life, June, 58–75.
66 Recurrent ozone “holes” are anomalies due to the specific atmospheric conditions that are found at the poles.
Otherwise, depletion is expected to be gradual. Given the level of public knowledge, it is doubtful that there is a
general understanding of the special circumstances found at the poles.
67 Ungar, “Bringing the Issue Back In.”
68 Litfin, Ozone Discourses, pp. 105–106.
69 W. Cline, The Economics of Global Warming. (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 1992).
70 H. Barnard Jr., Global Warming Unchecked: Signs to Watch For (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992).
71 Ungar, “Is Strange Weather in the Air.”
72 Kempton, et al., Environmental Values in American Culture, pp. 80–81.
73 Ungar, “Is Strange Weather in the Air.”
74 S. Ungar, “The Rise and (Relative) Decline of Global Warming as a Social Problem,” Sociological Quarterly,33
(1992): 483–501.
75 Ungar, “Is Strange Weather in the Air.”
76 Thus many ozone reports are relegated to “news briefs,” suggesting that the story is not sufficiently interesting or
controversial to warrant an article.
77 I. Rowlands, The Politics of Global Atmospheric Change (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995).
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
312 S. Ungar
Author
Sheldon Ungar (Ph.D. York University, 1976) is Professor of Sociology at the University of
Toronto at Scarborough. His research in recent years has focused on social scares arising
from environmental and other issues (e.g., Ebola), environmental behavior and discourse,
and the knowledge–ignorance paradox. Phone: 416-287-7299; fax: 416-287-7283; e-mail:
ungar@scar.utoronto.ca
at UNIVERSITY COLORADO on January 6, 2010 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from
