While the term “Anthropocene” has gained significant attention, it is important to note that the discussion of its terminology and status has yet to be concluded. Over the past two decades, many narrower “Anthropocene” narratives have been proposed to describe particular aspects of the problem, including “Thermocene”, “Capitalocene”, “Technocene”, “Urbanocene”, and more. This article presents an analysis of the concept “Agnotocene”. This concept explains the problems of the Anthropocene as a consequence of social mechanisms that create zones of ignorance where ecological criticism is discredited, the Earth’s depletion is denied, and corresponding scientific facts are called into question. The Agnotocene highlights that the solution to environmental problems on a planetary scale is not only political and economic but also epistemological. It includes questions about the legitimacy, accessibility, and relevance of knowledge but also requires a deeper understanding of how and why some knowledge is ignored, devalued, or suppressed. The aim of the article is to establish whether the Agnotocene can expand our understanding of global social problems related to climate change. The article proposes the definition of the Agnotocene as a direction of Anthropocene research focused on social relations, which arise on the basis of or as a result of artificial ignorance. Its special task is to detect the types, forms, and specific ways of social production of ignorance that underlie human behavior in the context of global problems of the Anthropocene, to discover the evolution of ignorance and the current “modes” of its activity, as well as to look for possible ways to adjust it in the interests of the social and climatic well-being of mankind. As an example of Agnotocene studies, the article proposes two arguments based on this interpretation. The first follows from how science has maintained the illusion of a fourth wall between an expert community and a layman for a long time, which means that climate solutions requiring citizen participation are not perceived with the expected rigor. The second argument presents climate skepticism as a natural result of the cultural development of intolerance to ignorance and uncertainty within the framework of non-expert rationality.
Read full abstract