Blumer Public Opinion and PO Polling

8/10/2019 Blumer Public Opinion and PO Polling

1/9

Public Opinion and Public Opinion PollingAuthor(s): Herbert BlumerSource: American Sociological Review, Vol. 13, No. 5 (Oct., 1948), pp. 542-549Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2087146

Accessed: 24/10/2010 16:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Sociological Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2087146?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2087146?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa


2/9

PUBLIC

OPINION

AND PUBLIC

OPINION

POLLING*

HERBERT

BLUMER

University

f

Chicago

T

HIS paper presents

ome observations

on

public

opinion nd on public

opin-

ion polling s currently

erformed.t

is hopedthat hese bservations

illprovoke

the discussion

orwhich, understand,

his

meeting asbeenarranged.

he observations

are not along the line of

what seems

to be

the chiefpreoccupationf students f

pub-

lic opinion

polling, o wit, the internal

m-

provement

f theirtechnique.nstead,

the

-observationsre designed o invite ttention

to whether

ublic opinionpolling actually

deals

with

ublic pinion.

The

first bservationswhich I wish

to

make are

in the natureof a prelude.

They

come

from mere ogical crutiny f

public

opinion olling

s

an

alleged

form f scien-

tific nvestigation.

What

I note

is the

in-

abilityof public opinion

polling

to

isolate

public opinion

as an abstract r

generic

conceptwhich ouldthereby ecome hefo-

cal

point

for

the

formation

f

a

system

of

propositions.

t

would seem needless to

point

out that

n an avowed cientific

nter-

prise seeking o study

a class of empirical

items

nd to

develop

seriesof generaliza-

tions

bout that lass

it is

necessary

o iden-

tify

he

class.

Such dentificationnables

dis-

crimination

etween he nstances

which all

within he class

and those

which

do

not.

n

this

manner,

he

generic

haracter

f

the ob-

ject of studybecomesdelineated.When the

generic bject

of

study

s distinguishable,

t

becomes

ossible

o focus

tudy

n that

ob-

ject

and

thus

to learn

progressively

ore

about that

object.

n

this

way

the

ground

s

prepared

for cumulative eneralizations

r

propositions

elative

o thegeneric bject of

investigation.

As far s

I

can

judge,

hecurrent

tudy f

public opinion

y polling gnores

he

simple

logicalpointwhichhas justbeen made. This

*Paper read before

the annual meeting

of the

American Sociological

Society

held in New

York

City,

ecember

8-30, I947.

can

be seen

throughhree bservations.

irst,

theres

no

effort,eemingly,

o

try o

dentify

or to

isolate

public

opinion

s an object;

we

arenot

given ny

criteria

which

haracterize

or

distinguish

ublic

opinion nd

thuswe

are

not able

to say

that a

given

empirical

n-

stancefalls

within he

class

of public

opinion

and some

other

mpirical

nstance

alls

out-

side

of the

class

ofpublic

opinion.

econd,

there s

an absence,

s far s I can

determine,

of using specific tudiesto test a general

proposition

bout

public

opinion;

this

sug-

gests

that

the students

re

not studying

generic

bject.

This suggestion

s

supported

by

thethird

bservation-a

paucity,

f not

a

complete

bsence,

of

generalizations

bout

public

opinion

despite

the

voluminous

amount

f polling

tudies

fpublic

opinion.

It

mustbe

concluded,

n

my udgment,

hat

current ublic

opinion

polling

has not

suc-

ceeded n solatingublic pinions a generic

object

of

study.

It

maybe

argued

that

the

isolation

f

a

generic

bject,

specially

n the realm

f

hu-

man

behavior,

s a goal

rather

han n

initial

point

of

departure-and

that

consequently

the-present

nability

o

identify ublic

opin-

ion

as a

generic

bject

s not damning

o

cur-

rentpublic

opinion

polling.

This should

be

admitted.

owever,

what mpresses

me s the

apparent

bsence

of

effort

r

sincere

nterest

on thepartofstudentsfpublic pinion oll-

ing

to move

in the

direction f

identifying

theobject

which

hey

re

supposedly

eek-

ingto

study,

o record,

ndto

measure.

be-

lieve

it

is

fair to

say that

those

trying

o

study public

opinion

by

polling

are

so

wedded

o their

echnique

nd

so preoccupied

with he mprovement

f

their

echnique

hat

they

hunt

side the

vital

question

f

whether

their echnique

s

suited

o the

tudy

f

what

theyare ostensiblyeeking o study.Their

work s

largely

merely

making

pplication

f

their echnique.

hey

are not

concerned ith

independent

nalysis

f the nature

f

public

opinion

n

order

to

judge

whether he ap-

542


3/9

PUBLIC OPINION

AND

PUBLIC

OPINION

POLLING

543

plication

f their echnique its hat

nature.

A few

words re in orderhere on an

ap-

proach

that consciously

xcuses tselffrom

any

considerationf sucha problem.

refer

to the narrowoperationalist ositionthat

public

opinion onsists fwhat public opin-

ion

polls poll. Here,curiously, he

findings

resulting romn

operation,

r

use of an in-

strument,

re

regarded s constitutinghe

object

of

study

nstead

of being some con-

tributoryddition o

knowledge f theobject

of

study.

he

operation

eases to be

a

guided

procedure n behalf f

an object of nquiry;

instead he

operation etermines

ntrinsically

its

own

objective. do

not care to consider

here theprofoundogicaland psychological

difficultieshat attend

he effort o develop

systematic

nowledge hrough procedure

which

s not a form f directed

nquiry.

All

that

wish

to note s that he

results f

nar-

row operationalism, s

above specified,

merely

eave or raise hequestion fwhat

he

resultsmean.Not having

conceptual oint

of

reference

he results remerely isparate

findings.

t

is

logically ossible,

f

course,

o

use suchfindingsodevelop conceptualiza-

tion.

fail

to

see anythingeingdone nthis

direction

y those

who

subscribe

o the nar-

rowoperationalist

osition n theuse ofpub-

lic

opinion olls.What s

logically npardon-

able

on

the

part

of

thosewho

takethe nar-

row operationalist

osition s for themto

holdeitherwittinglyr

unwittinglyhat heir

investigationsre a

studyof publicopinion

as this

erm

s conceived

n

our

ordinary

is-

course.Having rejected s unnecessary he

task of

characterizing

he

object

of

inquiry

for

he

purpose

f

eeing

whether

he

nquiry

is suited o the

object

of

nquiry,

t

s gratui-

tous and

unwarranted

o

presume

hat

after

all

the

nquiry

s

a

study

f

the

object

which

one refuses

o

characterize.

uch a

form f

trying

o

eat

one's

cake and have t

too

needs

no further

omment.

The

foregoingeries

f

ogical

bservations

has

been made

merely

o

stress

he absence

of considerationfa generic bjectbythose

engaged

n

public opinion

polling. Appar-

ently,

t

is

by

virtue

f this

absenceof con-

sideration

hat

they

re

obtuseto

the func-

tional

nature

f

publicopinion

n

our

society

and to questions

fwhether

heir echnique

is suited

to this

functional

ature.

n this

paper

intend

o udge

the

uitability

fpub-

lic opinion

polling

s a

means

of studying

publicopinion.This shallbe donefrom he

standpoint

f what

we know

ofpublic

opin-

ion

n

our ociety.

Admittedly,

e

do not

know

greatdeal

about

public opinion.

However,

we know

something.We

knowenough

about

public

opinion

frommpirical

bservations

o form

a

few

easonably

eliableudgments

bout

ts

nature nd

modeof functioning.

n addition,

we can make

somereasonably

ecure

nfer-

ences bout

thestructure

nd functioning

f

our society

and

about collectivebehavior

within ur

society.

This combined

ody

of

knowledge

erivedpartly

fromdirect

em-

pirical

observation

nd

partly

from

eason-

able inference

an serve

appropriately

s

means

of udging

nd assessing

urrent

ub-

lic

opinion

polling

s

a device

for tudying

public

opinion.

Indeed,the

features

hat

I

wish

to note

about

public

opinion

nd

its

setting

re so

obvious and commonplace hat I almost

blush

to

call themto

the attention

f

this

audience.

would

not do so

were

t

not

pain-

fully

lear

that he tudents

f

current

ublic

opinion

olling

gnore

hem ither

wittingly

or unwittingly

n

their

whole

research

ro-

cedure.

shall

indicate

by

number

he fea-

tures

o

be

noted.

i.) Public

opinion

mustobviously

e

rec-

ognized

s

having

ts

setting

n a

society

nd

as being function fthat ociety

n

opera-

tion.

This

means, atently,

hat

publicopin-

ion

gets

s

form

rom

he

ocial

framework

n

which

t

moves,

nd

from

he social

proc-

esses

n

play

n

thatframework;

lso

that

he

function

nd role

ofpublicopinion

s

deter-

minedby

thepart

t

plays

in the

operation

of

the

ociety.

f

public

opinion

s

to

be

stud-

ied

n

any

realistic

ense ts

depiction

must

e

faithful

o its

empirical

haracter.

do

not

wishto

be redundant

ut

I find tnecessary

to say thattheempiricalharacterfpublic

opinion

s

represented

y

ts

composition

nd

manner ffunctioning

s a

part

of

a

society

in

operation.

2.)

As every

sociologist

ught to

know


4/9

544

AMERICAN

SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

and as every

ntelligent

ayman

doesknow,

society as an

organization.

t is

nota mere

aggregation

f disparate

ndividuals.

A hu-

man society

s composed

f diverse

indsof

functionalroups.n ourAmericanocietyl-

lustrativenstances

f functional

roups re

a corporation,

trade

association,

labor

union,

n

ethnic roup,

farmers'

rganiza-

tion.

To a

major

extent

ur total collective

life

s made

up of

the actions

and acts of

such

groups.

These groups re

oriented

n

differentirections

ecause

of special

in-

terests. hesegroups

iffer

n

terms

f their

strategic

osition

n

the ociety

nd in terms

of opportunities

o act. Accordingly,hey

differn termsof prestige nd power.As

functional

roups,

hat is

to say as

groups

acting ndividually

n

some

corporate

r

uni-

tary

sense,

such

groups

necessarily

ave

to

have some

organization-some

eadership,

somepolicy

makers,

ome individuals

who

speak

on behalf

f

the

group,

nd some

ndi-

viduals

who take

the nitiative

n

acting

on

behalf

f the

group.

3.)

Such functional roups,

when they

act,have to act throughhe channelswhich

are

available

n the

ociety.

f

the

fate f

the

proposed

ctsdepends

nthedecisions

f n-

dividuals r groups

who re

ocated t strate-

gicpoints

n the

channels f

action,

hen

n-

fluence

and pressure

s brought

to

bear

directly

r indirectly

n suchindividuals

r

groups

whomake

thedecisions.

take

t that

this

realistic

eature

f the

operation

f our

American

ociety

requires

ittle

explication.

If an actionembodyinghe

interests f

a

functional roup

uch as

a farmers' rgani-

ization

depends

for ts realization n

deci-

sions

of

Congressmen

r

a

bureau

or

a set of

administrators,

hen fforts

n behalf f

that

action

will

seek to

influence

uchCongress-

men,

bureau,

r administrators.

ince n ev-

ery

ociety

o

some

degree,

nd

n

our

Ameri-

can society

o a

large

degree,

here

re

indi-

viduals,

committees,boards,

legislators,

administrators,

nd executives

who

have

to

makethe decisions ffectingheoutcome f

the

actions

of

functional

roups,

uch

key

people

become

the

object

of direct nd

in-

direct

nfluence r

pressure.

4.

The key

individuals eferred

o

who

have to make thecrucialdecisions re

almost

inevitably onfronted

ith the necessity

f

assessing

he

various

nfluences,laims,

de-

mands, urgings,

and pressuresthat are

broughtobear on them.nsofar s they re

responsivend responsible

hey re boundto

make such an assessment

n

the process

of

arriving

t theirdecisions.

Here I want

to

make the trite emark hat

n

making

heir

assessments

hese

key

individuals ake

into

account

what

they udge

to be

worthy

f be-

ing taken nto ccount.

5.) The above

pointsgive a crudebut es-

sentially

ealistic

icture

fcertain

mportant

ways

n which

ur

society perates.

he

fifth

feature wishtonote s thatpublicopinion

is formed nd expressed

n

large

measure

through

hese

ways

of

societal

operation.

This point requires

little laboration.

he

formation

f

public

opinion

ccurs s a

func-

tion f

a

society

n

operation.

state

he

mat-

ter n

thatway

to

stress hat

the

formation

of

public opinion

oes

not

occur

through

n

interaction

f

disparate

individuals who

share

qually

n

the

process.

nstead

the for-

mationof publicopinionreflects he func-

tional

composition

nd

organization

f so-

ciety. he

formationf

public pinion

ccurs

in large measure hrough

he

interaction f

groups. mean nothing soteric y this

ast

remark. merely

efer o the commonccur-

rence fthe eaders

r officialsf

a

functional

group aking standon behalf f the

group

with eference

o

an issue

and

voicing

xplic-

itlyorimplicitly

his

tand

on behalf f the

group. Much of the interaction hrough

which ublic pinion

s

formed

s throughhe

clash

of these

group

views

nd

positions.

n

nosensedoes such group

iew

mply

hat t

is held

n

equal

manner

nd in

equal degree

by

all of themembers

f

the

group.

Many of

the members

f

the groupmay subscribe o

the

view

without

nderstandingt,manymay

be indifferentbout

t, manymay share

the

view

only

n

part,

and

many

may

actually

not

share he

view

but

still

not

rebel gainst

therepresentativesfthegroupwhoexpress

the

view.

Neverthelesshe

view,

s

indicated,

may be introduced

ntothe forum

f

discus-

sion

as the

view of

the

group

and

may

be

reacted o

as such.

To

bring

ut this

point

n


5/9

PUBLIC

OPINION AND

PUBLIC

OPINION

POLLING

545

another

way,

one need

merely

note that

n

the

more

outstanding

xpressions

f view

on

an

issue, he

ndividuals lmost

lways

peak

either

xplicitly

r

implicitlys

representa-

tivesofgroups. wouldrepeatthat n any

realistic

sense

the

diversified

nteraction

which

gives

rise

to

publicopinion s

in

large

measure

etween unctional

roups

nd not

merely

etween

isparatendividuals.

I

think

hat t is also

very lear

that

n

the

process

of

formingublic

opinion, ndivid-

uals arenot

alike

n

influence

orare

groups

that

are equal

numerically

n

membership

alike

n

nfluence.

his

s so

evident s

not to

require

laboration. t

is enough

merely o

point out thatdifferencesn

prestige,

osi-

tion, nd influencehat

characterize

roups

and

individuals

n

the

functional

rganiza-

tions

fa

societyre

brought

nto

play

n

the

formationf

publicopinion.

The

picture f a

series f

groups nd indi-

viduals

of

significantly

ifferent

nfluence

n-

teracting

n

the

formation

fpublic

opinion

holds

true

quallywell with

referenceo

the

expression

f

public

opinion.By

expression

ofpublicopinion meanbringinghepublic

opinion o bear on those

who

have to

act

in

response opublic

pinion.

his

expressions

not

in

the form f a

paradeor

arrayof the

views of

disparate

ndividuals,

n

an

open

forum.

Wherethe

views

are

voiced

n

open

forum

hey

re

likely,

s has been

ndicated,

to be in

one

way

or

another

he

xpression f

group

views.

But in

addition o

thevoicing

of

views

n

the

open

forum,he

expression f

public opinion s in the form f direct n-

fluence

n

those

who

are to

act

in

response

to

public pinion.

hrough

uch

means

s let-

ters,

elegrams,

etitions,

esolutions,obbies,

delegations,

nd

personal

meetings

nterested

groups nd

individuals ring

heir

iews nd

positions

o bear

on

the

key persons

who

have

to

make the

decisions. am

not con-

cerned

with

whether

uch

forms f

expressing

public

pinion hould

ccur;

merely

ish o

emphasize

hat

n

any

realistic

onsideration

ofpublicopiniontmustbe recognizedhat

such means

of

expressingublic

opinion

do

occur.

A

society

which

as

to act will

use the

channels

f

action

hat t

has in

ts

structure.

6.)

The

last

feature f

public

opinion hat

I wish to

note s that n

any

realistic ense

public

opinion

onsists f

the

pattern

f

the

diverse

iews

nd

positions

n

the ssue

that

come to

the ndividualswho

have to

act

in

response o thepublicopinion. ublicopin-

ion which

was

a

mere

display,

r which

was

terminal

n

its

very

expression,

r

which

never came

to

the

attention f

those

who

have

to act on

public

opinion

would

be

im-

potent

nd

meaningless

s

far s

affecting

he

action or

operation

f

society

s

concerned.

Insofar

s

public

opinion

s

effective

n

so-

cietal

action

t becomes o

onlyby

entering

into

thepurview

f

whoever,

ike

egislators,

executives,

dministrators,nd policymak-ers, have to act

on

public

opinion.

To me

this

proposition

s

self-evident.

f

it be

granted,

he

character

f

public

opinion

n

terms of

meaningful

peration

must be

sought

n

the

array

of

views

and

positions

which

nter nto

the

consideration

f

those

who have

to

take action

on

public

opinion.

It is

important

o

note

that

the

ndividual

who

has to act on

public

pinion

as

to

assess

the

public

opinion s it

comes

to his atten-

tion, ecauseofthevery act hat hispublic

opinion

omes

to him

n

the form

f

diverse

views

nd

usually

opposed

views.

nsofar s

he

is

responsive

o

publicopinion

he

has to

weigh he

respective

iews.

How

this

ssess-

ment

s made s

an

obscure

matter.

ut

one

generalization

ven

hough

rite,

an

be

made

safely,

o

wit,

that

the

ndividual

akes

nto

account

different

iews

only

to

the

extent o

which

such

views

count.

And

views

count

prettymuchon thebasis of how the indi-

vidual

judges the

backing of

the

views

and

the

implication

f

the

backing.

t

is

in

this

ense,

gain, that

the

organizationf

the

ociety

with

ts

differentiationf

prestige

and

power, nters

nto

the

character

f

pub-

lic

opinion.

As was

explained

bove,

the

key

person

who

has to

act on

public

opinion

s

usually

ubject o

a

variety f

presentations,

importunities,

emands,

riticisms,

nd

sug-

gestions hat

come

to him

through

he

var-

iouschannels nthecommunicativetructure

of

society.

Unless

one

wishes

to

conjure n

his

imagination

very

fanciful

ocietyhe

must

dmit

hat

he ervant

f

public

pinion

is

forced

o

make an

assessment

f

the ex-


6/9

546

AMERICAN

SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

pressions

f public

opinion

hat

come

to

his

attention

nd

that n this ssessment

onsid-

eration

s

given

oexpressions

nly

othe

x-

tent

to

which

they

are

judged

to count.

The foregoingix featuresre, I believe,

trite

utfaithful oints

bout

public

opinion

as

it

functions

n our ociety.

hey

may

erve

as

a background

or heexamination

fpub-

lic

opinion

olling.

may

state

herethat

n

this

discussion

am

not concerning

yself

with

theproblem

fwhether

he

ndividual

opinions

ne gets

through

he polling

nter-

view

rereasonably

alid.

My discussion,

n-

stead,

s concerned

ith

the

question

fthe

value

ofpoll

findings

ven

f onemakes

the

dubious

ssumptionhat he ndividual pin-

ions

that re secured

re

valid.

In

my udgment

he nherent

eficiency

f

public

opinion

olling,

ertainly

s

currently

done,

s

contained

n its

sampling

rocedure.

Its

current

amplingrocedure

orces

treat-

mentof

society

s

if

society

were

onlyan

aggregation

f

disparate

ndividuals.

ublic

opinion,

n

turn,

s

regarded

s being

quan-

titative

distribution

f

individual

pinions.

This wayoftreatingociety nd thiswayof

viewing ublic

opinion

mustbe

regarded

s

markedly

nrealistic.

he

best way

I

can

bring

his out

is

by

making

ontinuous ef-

erence

to the

common ense empirical

b-

servations

f

public

opinion

hatwere

noted

previously.

We

do

notknow

at

all whether

individuals

n

the sample

represent

hat

por-

tion of

structuredociety

hat s participat-

ing

in the

formation

f

public

opinion

n a

given ssue. That the samplewill catch a

number

fthem,

r even

a larger

umber

f

them,

s

very

ikely.But,

as

far s

I

am able

to determine,

here

s no

way

n

current ub-

lic opinion

olling

o know

much bout

this.

Certainly

he mere

fact

that

the

nterviewee

either ives

or

does

not

give

an

opinion

oes

not

tellyou

whether

e

is

participating

n

the

formation

f

public

opinion

s

it is

being

built

up

functionally

n

the

society.

More

important,

ssuming

hat

he

ample

atches

the ndividualswhoare participatingn the

formation

f

the

given

public

opinion,

no

information

s

given

of

theirpart

in this

process.

ne cannot

dentify

rom

he ample

or

from the

replies

of those constituting

thesample

the socialnitch f the

ndividual

in

that

portionof the social

structure n

which the

public opinion s

being formed.

Such

informations not given n

the con-

ventional tems f age,sex,occupation, co-

nomic

status, educational

attainmentor

class status.These are

rarely hemarksof

significant

unctional

osition

n

the forma-

tion

of publicopinion

n a given ssue. We

do not know

from he

conventional ind of

sample or from he

responses f the inter-

viewee

what

nfluence,

f

any,he has in the

formation r

expression f

public opinion.

We

do not know

whether e has a following

or

whetherhe

doesn't.

We do not know

whether r nothe is speaking nbehalf f a

group r

groups rwhether e

even belongs

to functional

roups nterestedn

the ssue.

If

he does,perchance,

xpress he views of

some such functional

roup,

we

don't

know

whether rnot

that

group s busily t work

inthe

channels fsociety ogive

vigorous x-

pression o theirpoint

of view.We do not

even

know

whether

e,

as

an

individual,

s

translating

is

opinioninto

what

I

have

termed reviouslyeffectiveublicopinion.

In

short,we know

essentially

othing f

the

ndividualn

the

ample

with

eferenceo

the

ignificance

f

him

r ofhis

opinion

n

the

public pinion hat s

beingbuiltup or which

is

expressing

tself

unctionally

n

the opera-

tionof

society.

We

do not know

whether

he

individual

as

the

position

f

an

archbishop

or

an

itinerant

aborer;

whether e

belongs

to a

powerful

roup aking vigorous

tand

on the ssue or whether e

is a

detached e-

cluse

withno

membership

n

a functional

group;whether e is

bringing is

opinion o

bear

in

some

fashion t

strategic

oints

n

the

operation

f

society

r

whethert

is

iso-

lated

and

socially mpotent.

We do notknow

what

role,

f

any, ny

ndividual

n

the sam-

ple plays

n

theformationf the

public

opin-

ion

on

which

e is

questioned,

nd

we

do not

knowwhat

part,

f

any,

his

opinion

s

given

has

in

the

functional

ublic opinion

which

existswithreferenceo the ssue.

What

has

just

been said

with

referenceo

the

ndividual

omponent

f

the

publicopin-

ion

poll applies

collectively

o

the

total

find-

ings.

The

collective

indings

ave

no

assur-


7/9

PUBLIC

OPINION AND

PUBLIC

OPINION

POLLING

547

ance of depicting ublic opinion n

a

given

issuebecausethese indingsgnore heframe-

work and the

functional

perationof

the

publicopinion.

f this

s

not clear

fromwhat

has alreadybeensaid, would ike to point

out

theenormous

ifficulty

hatoccurswhen

one seeks

to

assess

the

findings

f a

public

opinion oll

in

terms f theorganizationf

society

withwhich n

administrator,egisla-

tor, xecutive,

r

similarly laced person

has

to contend.

As I have stated arlier uch

an

individualwho is presumably esponsive o

public pinion as

to assess

publicopinion s

it comes o his attentionnterms f thefunc-

tionalorganization

f

society

o

which

he

is

responsive. e has to view thatsociety n

termsof groups

of

divergentnfluence;

n

terms

f

organizations

ith

different

egrees

of

power;

n

terms f

ndividuals ith ollow-

ings;

in

terms

f indifferent

eople-all,

in

other

words,

n

terms

fwhat nd whocounts

in

his part

of

the social

world.This

typeof

assessment

hich

s

called for

n

the nstance

of

an

organized ociety

n

operation

s

well-

nigh mpossible

o

make

in the

case of

the

findingsfpublic opinion olls.We are un-

able

to

answer uch

questions

s

the

follow-

ing:

how

much

power

nd

influence

s pos-

sessed

by

thosewhohave

the

favorable

pin-

ion or theunfavorablepinion;who

re

these

people

whohave the

opinion;

whom

do

they

represent;

owwell

organized

re

they;

what

groupsdo they belong

to

that are

stirring

aroundon the

scene

and that

are

likely

to

continue

o do

so;

are those

eople

whohave

thegiven pinion erymuch oncernedbout

their

pinion;

re

they oing

o

getbusy

nd

do something

bout

t; are theygoing o get

vociferous,militant,

nd

troublesome; re

they

n the

position

to

influence owerful

groups nd individuals ho are known;does

theopinion epresent studied olicy f sig-

nificant

rganizations

hich

will

persist nd

who re

ikely

o

remember;

s the

opinion n

ephemeral

r

momentary

iew

whichpeople

will

quicklyforget?

hese

samplequestions

showhowmarkedlyifficultt s to assessthe

resultsof public opinionpolling from he

standpoint

f the

hings

hat

have to

be taken

into account

n

workingn an organized o-

ciety.

This

difficulty,

n

turn, ignifies hat

current

ublic

opinion

ollinggives n inac-

curate nd

unrealistic

icture

f

public

opin-

ion

becauseof

the

failure o catch

opinions s

they

re

organized

nd as

they

operate

n

a

functioningociety.

What have

said will

appear

to

many

s

distinctly

nvalidon

the

ground

hatpublic

opinion

olling

has

demonstrated

hat

t can

and

does

detect

ublicopinion

aithfully,y

virtue

of

its

marked

success

in

predicting

election

eturns.

his

contention

eeds

to

be

investigated

arefully,

articularly

ince in

most

circles

olling,

wherever

pplied,

s re-

garded as

intrinsicallyalid

because of

its

rather

pectacular

uccess n

predictinglec-tions.What think

eedsto

be

noted s

that

the

asting f

ballots

s

distinctlyn

action f

separate

ndividuals

herein

ballot cast

by

one

individual as

exactly he

same

weight

as

a ballot

cast

byanother

ndividual.

n

this

proper

ense, nd in

the

senseof

real

action,

voters

constitute

population f

disparate

individuals,

ach

of

whom

has

equal

weight

to the

others.

Consequently,

he

sampling

procedure

hich

s

based on

a

population f

disparate ndividuals s eminentlyuited to

securing

picture

f what

he

voting

s

likely

to

be.

However,

o

regard he

successful se

of

polling

n

this

area as

proof f its

auto-

matic

validitywhen

pplied

to an

area

where

people do

not

act

as

equally

weighted is-

parate

individuals

begs

the

very

question

under

onsideration.

would

repeat hatthe

formationnd

expression

f

public

opinion

giving

iseto

effective

ublic

opinion

s not

an actionof a population fdisparatendi-

viduals

having

qual

weight

ut

s

a

function

of

a

structured

ociety,

ifferentiated

nto a

network f

different

indsof

groups nd

in-

dividuals

having

differential

eight

nd

in-

fluence

nd

occupying

ifferent

trategic o-

sitions.

Accordingly,o

my

mind,

he

uccess

attending

olling

n

the

prediction

f

elec-

tions

gives

no

validity

o

the

method

s

a

means of

studying,

ecordingr

measuring

public

opinion

s it

forms

nd

functionsn

oursociety.

There is

a

very

mportant

ontention

n

this

connection

hich

has

to be

considered.

The contentionan

be

stated s

follows:

An

election

y

public

ballot

s

in

itself

n


8/9

548

AMERICAN

SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

expressionf

public

pinion-and,

urthermore,

it

is

effective

nddecisive

xpression

f

public

opinion.t

is,

n

fact,

heultimate

xpression

f

public

pinion

nd thus t

represents

he

proper

normfthe xpressionfpublic pinion.n theelectionyballot ach

voter,

naccordance

ith

the

basic

principles

f

democracy,

as

his

say

as

a

citizen nd

has

equal

worth

o

every

ther

citizen

n

casting

is

ballot. f

election

y

ballot

be

recognized

s

the

genuine

eferendum

n

which

true

public

opinion

omesto

expres-

sion, then

the

preeminence

f

current

ublic

opinion

olling

s the

device

or

recording

nd

measuring

ublic

pinion

s

established.

or, ub-

lic

opinion

olling

ith

ts

currentorm

f

sam-

pling

as

demonstrated

hat t can

predict

elia-

blyandeffectivelyheresults f theelection.

Accordingly,ublic

pinion

olling,

n

tself,

an

be

used

s

a

type

f

referendumo

record

nd

measure

he

rue

pinion

f

the

public

n

ssues

in

the

nstancesf

which

he

public

oes

not

go

to

the

election

olls.

Thus,

public

pinion

ol-

ling

yields

more

eliable

nd

accurate

icture

of

public

opinion

han

s

represented

y

the

confused,

ndefinite,

lanted,

nd

favor-ridden

expressions

f

opinion

hat

come

ordinarily

o

the

egislator,

dministrator,r

executive

ho

hastoactonpublic pinion.hepublic pinionpoll

tells

us

where

eople

tand.

t

gives

s

the

vox

popUl.

My

remarks

ith

eference

o

this

onten-

tion

will

be

brief.

t

should

be

evident

n

analysis

hat

he

ontentions

actually

nor-

mative

plea

and

not

a

defense

f

polling

s

a

method

f

study

f

public

opinion

s

such

public

opinion

unctions

n

our

society.

he

contention

roposes

that

public

opinion

be

construedn a particularway,to wit,that

public

opinion

ught

o

be

an

aggregation

f

the

opinions f

a

cross

ection

f

the

popula-

tion

rather

han

what t

s

in

the

ctual

func-

tioning f

society.

To

my

mind t

is

highly

questionable

whether

n

the

day

by

day

op-

eration

f

our

society

ublic

pinion

ught

o

be of

the

nature

osited

y

the

public

pinion

poll.

Many

appropriate

uestions

ould

be

raised

bouthow

and

to

what

extent

ublic

opinion

s

expressed

t

the

lection

olls,

nd,

moremportant,hethertwouldbepossible

or

even

advisable

for

public

opinion,

n

the

form

f

an

aggregation

f

equally

weighted

individual

pinions,o

function

eaningfully

in

a

society

with

diversified

rganization.

However,

uch

questions

need

not

be

raised

here. t is sufficiento

notethat f one seeks

to

justify ollingas a

method f

studying

public pinion ntheground

hat he ompo-

sition f

publicopinion ught

o

be

different

than what it is, he is not establishinghe

validity

f

the method

orthe studyof

the

empirical

world

s

it

is.

Instead,he is hang-

ing

on the

oat-tails f a dubious roposal or

social reform.*

In this aper have

presented riticismsf

publicopinion olling s a

method or he

recording

nd

measurement

f public opin-

ion.

These criticisms ave

centered round

the distortion

hat stemsfrom he use of

a

sample

n

the

form

fan aggregationfdis-

parate individuals

having equal weight.

These criticisms

houldnotbemisinterpreted

to mean hat uch

sampling

rocedures

in-

valid

wherever

pplied

or

thatwhereveroll-

ingmakesuse of

such a sampling rocedure

such

polling

s

intrinsicallynvalid.Clearly,

the criticism

pplieswhen

such

a

sampling

procedure s used

to

study matterwhose

composition

s an

organizationf

nteracting

parts

nstead f

beingmerely

n

aggregation

of ndividuals.Where hematterwhich ne s

studyings

an

aggregation

f

ndividual nits

then the

application f the

samplingpro-

cedure

poken

of is

clearly

n

order.

make

thisbanal statement

nly

to call

attention

o

thefact hat there

re

obviouslymany

mat-

ters about

human

beings

nd

their onduct

that

have ust

this

character f

being

n

ag-

gregation

f ndividuals

r

a congeries

f n-

dividual

ctions.

Many

demographic

atters

are ofthisnature.Also,many ctions fhu-

man

beings

n a

society

re

of this nature

-such

as

castingballots,

purchasing

ooth

*

I refer o such a program s

dubious because

I believe the much needed

improvement f public

opinion in our society should be in

the process by

which

public

opinion organicallyfunctions, .e., by

arousing,

organizing, nd effectively irectingthe

opinion of

people who appreciate that they have

an interest n a given issue. A reliance,

nstead, on

a

mere

referendum

y

an

undifferentiated ass,

havinggreat

egments f ndifferencend non-partici-

pation, s unlikely o offer desirable

public opinion.

At the best, n my judgment, uch a

referendum

could operate

as a corrective upplement nd not as

a substitute.

The important question concerning

the directions n which

public opinionmight ecure

its much needed

improvements, of course, outside

of

the scope of this paper.


9/9

PUBLIC OPINION

AND

PUBLIC

OPINION

POLLING

549

paste,

going to

motion

picture

hows,

and

reading

newspapers.

uch

actions,

which

liketo

think f

as

mass actions f

ndividuals

in

contrast o

organized

ctions of

groups,

lendthemselveseadily o thetypeofsam-

pling

hat

wehave in current

ublic

opinion

polling.

n

fact,

t is the

existence f

such

mass

actions f

ndividuals hich

xplains,n

my

udgment,

he uccessful se in consumer

research

f

sampling

uch as is

employed n

public

opinion

olling.

What

find

uestion-

able, and

what his

paper

criticizes,

s the

use

of such

sampling

with

ts

implicit

magery

and

logic

n

the

tudy

f a matter

which,

ike

theprocess fpublicopinion, unctionss a

moving

rganization

f

nterconnected

arts.

The

last

item

wish to

consider

riefly

refers

o

the

interesting

nd

seemingly

af-

fling

uestion

f

how

one should

r can

sam-

ple

an

object

matter

which

s a

complicated

system

f

interacting

arts,

having

differen-

tial

influence

n

the

total

operation.

erhaps

the

question

n

itself

s

absurd. At

various

times I

have

asked

different

xperts in

sampling

ow

one

would

samplean

organic

structure. ith single xceptionhese ndi-

viduals

ooked

t

me

askance

as if

the

ques-

tion

were

diotic.

But

the

problem,

think,

remains

ven

though

find

t

difficult

o

state.

n

human

ociety,

articularlyn

mod-

ern

society,

we

are

confronted

ith

ntricate

complexesof

moving

relations

which

are

roughly

ecognizables

systems,

ven

though

loose

systems.

uch

a

loose

system s

too

complicated,

oo

encumbered

n

detail

and

toofastmovingobe describednanyoneof

its

given

cycles

of

operation

dequately

and

faithfully.

et

unlesswe

merely

want

to

speculate

bout

it

we

have

to

dip

into

t

in

some

manner

n

order o

understand

hat

s

happening

n

the

given

ycleof

operation

n

which

we

are

nterested.

hus,

using

he

pub-

lic

opinion

rocess n

our

society

s an

illus-

tration

we are

able

to

makea

rough

harac-

terization

s

to

how

t

functionsn

the

case,

let

us say,

of a

national

ssue.

However,

f

we

want oknowhow tfunctionsnthecase of

a

given

national

ssue,we

are

at

a

loss

to

make n

adequate

description

ecause

of

the

complexity

nd

quick

movement

fthe

cycle

of

its

operation.

o,

to

know

what s

going

on,

particularlyo

know

what

s

likely

o

go

on

in the

atter tages,

we have to dip n here

and there. he problems

f where o dip in,

how to dip in, and how far to dip in are

what have n

mind n

speaking f sampling

an organic tructure.

I

suppose,

s

one

ofmyfriends as pointed

out,that

the answer o the

problem equires

theformulationf

a

model.We have

no

such

model

n the

nstance

f publicopinion s

it

operates

n

our

ociety.My

ownhunch

s

that

such

a model houldbe

constructed,

f t can

be

at

all, by workingackwardsnstead f

by

working orward.

hat is, we ought o begin

with hosewhohaveto act on publicopinion

and movebackwards long the lines of the

variousexpressions f public opinion that

cometo

their ttention,racing hese xpres-

sions backward through

heir own various

channels

nd in

doingso, noting he chief

channels, he key points

of importance,nd

the

way

in which

ny

givenexpression as

cometo developand pick up an organized

backing ut

of

what nitiallymusthave been

a

relatively morphous

ondition. erhaps,

such a

model,

f

it could be workedout,

would allow the developmentf a realistic

method f samplingn place of what seems

to

me to

be

the

highly

rtificialmethod

f

sampling

sed

n

current ublicopinion oll-

ing.

DISCUSSION

THEODOREM. NEWCOMB

University f Michigan

ProfessorBlumer has long been known s a

formidable ritic, nd

I am

sure there

re many

otherswho shared with me the anticipation f

seeing

him turn

his

battery

of

high-powered

guns upon the practitionersf public

opinion.

In my udgment, is guns n this nstance

have

misfired. his is not to say thatthosewho

study

attitudes y samplingmethods re beyond

riti-

cism; even

a lessercritic han

Professor

lumer

could pointto many hortcomingsn their art.

It

may truly

be said of

all

of

them,probably,

that n one

way

or

another

heyhave

done what

they ught

not to

havedone and thattheyhave

not done what theyought o have done,and in

some of

them there s littlehealth ndeed. His

targetwas

thus

an

easy one,

and I want

to raise

the question

of

why

t

is

that

he has neverthe-

less, n my udgement,missed t.

The first eason, think,

s that

he was not

quite selective nough

n

his

aim. I wish

he had

Documents

Blumer Public Opinion and PO Polling