The Myth of Objectivity in Public Opinion Polls
Based on the work of Pierre Bourdieu
Public opinion polls are often presented as objective tools for measuring the attitudes and beliefs of society. However, as renowned French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argues, the reality is far more complex. Polls are not neutral instruments; they are shaped by social demands, political agendas, and methodological choices that can create the illusion of consensus where none truly exists.
Public Opinion Does Not Exist
Bourdieu begins by challenging three core assumptions underlying opinion polls:
- That everyone is capable of having an opinion on any issue.
- That all opinions are equally significant and meaningful.
- That the very act of asking the same question to everyone presupposes a consensus on what issues are important.
These assumptions, he argues, lead to distortions in poll results, even when methodological standards are strictly followed. For example, the idea that everyone can or should have an opinion ignores the reality that many people may not have the knowledge, interest, or context to form a meaningful response. Excluding “no answer” responses or forcing respondents to choose from pre-set options can artificially inflate the appearance of consensus.
The Influence of Social and Political Context
Polls are often criticized for technical flaws, such as unrepresentative samples or leading questions. While some of these criticisms are valid, Bourdieu points out that the deeper issue lies in the way polling organizations select which topics to study. The questions asked are often dictated by current political events or the interests of those commissioning the research, rather than by the genuine concerns of the public.
For instance, after the events of May 1968 in France, the number of poll questions about education skyrocketed, reflecting the political climate rather than a spontaneous surge in public interest. This demonstrates how the “problematic” of public opinion research is shaped by political needs and social orders, not by neutral scientific inquiry.
The Illusion of Consensus
One of the most significant effects of opinion polls is to create the impression that there is a unified “public opinion”—a kind of average or consensus that can be expressed in percentages (“60% of people support…”). In reality, public opinion is a complex system of forces and tensions, and reducing it to a single number obscures this complexity.
Politicians often use the results of polls to legitimize their actions, much like invoking divine support in the past. The phrase “public opinion is with us” serves to justify policies and reinforce existing power structures.
How Polls Manufacture Agreement
Bourdieu identifies several techniques that polls use to manufacture the appearance of consensus:
- Ignoring or excluding “no answer” responses, which can be significant, especially among certain groups (e.g., women, less-educated respondents, or those less politically engaged).
- Forcing respondents to answer questions they may never have considered, leading to superficial or contextually irrelevant answers.
- Assuming that all respondents interpret questions in the same way, when in fact social class, education, and personal experience heavily influence how questions are understood and answered.
For example, questions about educational reform or political participation may be interpreted as moral issues by some and political issues by others, depending on their social background. This means that the same question can elicit fundamentally different responses, not just in content but in meaning.
The Role of Social Class and “Class Ethos”
Bourdieu introduces the concept of “class ethos”—a set of internalized values and predispositions shaped by one’s social background. Many so-called political opinions are actually expressions of this class ethos, and interpreting them as purely political can be misleading.
For instance, working-class respondents may appear more “authoritarian” in their answers to questions about family or social order, but may be more open to structural changes in society when it comes to issues of power and class relations. The failure to distinguish between ethical and political principles in polling leads to oversimplified and often inaccurate conclusions about social attitudes.
The Limits of Polls in Predicting Social Change
Traditional opinion polls ignore both the influence of organized interest groups and the latent predispositions that may not be expressed as explicit opinions. As a result, they are poor predictors of how people will act in times of crisis, when issues become politicized and people are forced to choose sides based on group affiliations and mobilized interests.
In reality, opinions become forces only when they are mobilized and organized. The “public opinion” measured by polls is often just an artifact—a statistical aggregation of responses to pre-formulated questions, not a true reflection of the dynamic and contested nature of social attitudes.
Conclusion: Public Opinion as a Construct
Bourdieu concludes that public opinion, as it is commonly understood and measured by polls, does not truly exist. What exists are formed and mobilized opinions, organized around explicit interests and pressure groups, and underlying predispositions that may never be articulated as opinions. The process of polling, by aggregating individual responses to pre-set questions, creates the illusion of a coherent public opinion, but this is a construct, not a reality.
Understanding the limitations and biases of opinion polls is essential for anyone seeking to interpret their results or use them as a basis for policy. Rather than accepting poll numbers at face value, we should critically examine how questions are framed, who is being asked, and whose interests are being served by the production and dissemination of “public opinion.”