Sociological surveys as a tool of pressure on society
Classical sociology asserts that conducting sociological surveys is one of the most effective ways of obtaining objective information about public opinion about a particular event, the activity of a particular person. In addition, a sociological survey, again in the classical interpretation, is an effective tool for determining civil attitudes at a selected time stage. However, applied sociology has long been transformed from a classical form into something special, and turned into one of the means of not taking into account public opinion, but its formation. Paying attention to published by specialized agencies, we sometimes do not notice how the information obtained has an impact on us. We are far from always aware of the fact that we are becoming a kind of victim of this information, because at the subconscious level, we are drawn to join the majority. But the problem is that the majority are not always the majority. Why? Yes, because quite often under the guise of the majority a certain snag slips, which draws attention to itself and pushes a person towards him. This allows customers (authors) of such sociological surveys, or rather, their results, to solve a whole range of problems of interest to them.
As an example with a previously prepared result, we can consider the following situation. A group of people living on the territory of one city is asked a question: how do they relate to the emergence of a petrochemical plant on the outskirts, which will give the city more 2000 jobs.
The question itself (and this question is taken in one of the regional publications) already contains the aspirations of the people who published this poll. Like, how else can you relate if 2 thousands of citizens will have the opportunity to work and earn ...
The published materials confirm the assumption: 64% of respondents expressed their "support", 19% expressed their "I do not support", the rest found it difficult to answer. At the same time, in such surveys, attention is drawn not only to the result, but also to the data on the number of respondents. Sociological analysis centers often provide information: 1817 people were interviewed in various parts of the city (regions, regions of the country). Who are these 1817 people? Why 1817, not 2658 or 1555? No one will ever give an exact answer to these questions, since the organizers of the surveys refer to the item on the anonymity of the respondents, and also to the sociological laws of the so-called “golden cut”. They say that a couple of weeks experts sat above the numbers, substituted them into formulas, used almost supercomputers for this, and eventually drank a couple of glasses of bitter and decided that 1817 would be just right ... Well, except for glasses, of course no one will say .
By the way, there is one more question here: did experts ever come up to someone on the streets, say, Levada Center or other similar agencies on the street? Honestly, how many years one has to trample these same streets - even if one sociological group of people with thick notebooks approached and asked something about a matter of concern to the city or country. Never! I do not exclude, it was only for me that could be destined to become an object of interest for sociologists, who, judging by the number of published surveys and their results, literally scurry about in our cities? 1817 is there, 5000 is here, 4385 is here ...
Where are all these people who are so "lucky" to create national or regional statistics? One gets the impression that the participants in such surveys are a certain caste who sits in their well-appointed apartments and goes out into the street just to be met by the very people with notebooks from some VTsIOM ... Or not the caste, but everything only "dead souls" ...
Returning to the survey of citizens about the construction of a petrochemical plant. After all, it could also be set differently. For example: Do you support the construction of a petrochemical plant if it is going to be built on the site, which before the beginning of this survey was indicated in the documents as a water protection zone? Agree that this is another calico. Here, people who are approached by a person from the sociological service (if, of course, approaches) will have a reason to think that some unclean things are happening with this plant.
And you can imagine an even tougher version of the same question: do you support the construction of a chemical enterprise in the city, if in the neighboring city the same completely burnt out after the explosion of the tank with reagents and in addition burned 500 ha of the forest? As they say, there is a reason for reflection ...
Naturally, such frank, let's say, guiding rhetoric is rarely used in questions, but it happens. Although it is often easier for the same “questioners” to simply concoct the result in advance in a form that is digestible for them, and then pass it off as something massive, popular. Why walk the streets, why bother using formulas and patterns, if you can determine in advance that 60-70 percent for the desired result is the most. And after all, you can go to the same street and get the opposite effect, then redo it anyway.
And we often peck on this bait. “Who does the people support?” Yeah, this supports, but this does not support, it means that I’ll support the first, and the second doesn’t — it’s not bad to fight off the team ... “Who would you like to see at the head of the region?” in addition - 70%, this is -15%, once this is 10%. And a person who considered a suitable candidate to be “razetogo” begins to doubt his preferences and speak to the published results of a sociological poll thanks for opening their eyes.
After this, underestimate our (and not ours too) sociological monitoring services. How can you underestimate if after the results of polls the media literally become in the queue. Like, is it possible not to use such objective information? We repent that we use ... To conduct our own - so there will immediately be citizens who will accuse us of having a highly specialized audience, the results of which cannot be extrapolated to all of Russian society. But the mentioned 1817 or 1555, it turns out, you can. Although in that case, almost no one raises the question of the composition of the respondents. But in objectivity, but for some reason the majority is confident on 100%. Statistics…
Information