{"title":"技术治理的悖论:民意调查的政治过程及其结果","authors":"Yaping Peng","doi":"10.1177/2057150X19892895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The logic of technical governance goes as follows: the knowledge of society can be obtained by the state via technology, and thus social problems are identified and solutions are found. Questions have been raised about whether technical governance would ever work. For many the answer is negative and doubtful. However, one defense remains: technical governance fails not because the idea is inherently flawed but because the technology is not good. Would technical governance succeed with better methodology and more technical rigor? In order to challenge this defense, this paper examines the operation of opinion polls—a form of technical governance supported by rigorous quantitative social research methodology—run by a sub-district government in the city ‘S’. In particular, this paper asks whether it is possible for a government-run poll to reflect manipulated public opinion, despite the strictest compliance with quantitative polling methodology. The finding of this paper gives an affirmative answer. It argues that on the surface, polls are statistical surveys, but in actuality they are a political process controlled by the government despite their compliance with all statistical requirements. The power structure of the local government determines the questionnaire items, their multiple-choice answers (the screening, compressing, and quantifying of social scenarios), and the final make-up of the public opinion index. The rigorousness of methodology does not guarantee the authenticity of ‘public opinion’ in final poll figures. More likely, the outcome is controlled by those who organize polls. Hence, quantifiable technical governance presents a contradiction: the state manufactures biased public opinions precisely when it is looking for unbiased public opinions. In the end, the government constructs an image of society that is its own reflection.","PeriodicalId":37302,"journal":{"name":"社会","volume":"6 1","pages":"102 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2057150X19892895","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The paradox of technical governance: A public opinion survey’s political process and its results\",\"authors\":\"Yaping Peng\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2057150X19892895\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The logic of technical governance goes as follows: the knowledge of society can be obtained by the state via technology, and thus social problems are identified and solutions are found. Questions have been raised about whether technical governance would ever work. For many the answer is negative and doubtful. However, one defense remains: technical governance fails not because the idea is inherently flawed but because the technology is not good. Would technical governance succeed with better methodology and more technical rigor? In order to challenge this defense, this paper examines the operation of opinion polls—a form of technical governance supported by rigorous quantitative social research methodology—run by a sub-district government in the city ‘S’. In particular, this paper asks whether it is possible for a government-run poll to reflect manipulated public opinion, despite the strictest compliance with quantitative polling methodology. The finding of this paper gives an affirmative answer. It argues that on the surface, polls are statistical surveys, but in actuality they are a political process controlled by the government despite their compliance with all statistical requirements. The power structure of the local government determines the questionnaire items, their multiple-choice answers (the screening, compressing, and quantifying of social scenarios), and the final make-up of the public opinion index. The rigorousness of methodology does not guarantee the authenticity of ‘public opinion’ in final poll figures. More likely, the outcome is controlled by those who organize polls. Hence, quantifiable technical governance presents a contradiction: the state manufactures biased public opinions precisely when it is looking for unbiased public opinions. In the end, the government constructs an image of society that is its own reflection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37302,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"社会\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"102 - 139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2057150X19892895\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"社会\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2057150X19892895\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"社会","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2057150X19892895","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The paradox of technical governance: A public opinion survey’s political process and its results
The logic of technical governance goes as follows: the knowledge of society can be obtained by the state via technology, and thus social problems are identified and solutions are found. Questions have been raised about whether technical governance would ever work. For many the answer is negative and doubtful. However, one defense remains: technical governance fails not because the idea is inherently flawed but because the technology is not good. Would technical governance succeed with better methodology and more technical rigor? In order to challenge this defense, this paper examines the operation of opinion polls—a form of technical governance supported by rigorous quantitative social research methodology—run by a sub-district government in the city ‘S’. In particular, this paper asks whether it is possible for a government-run poll to reflect manipulated public opinion, despite the strictest compliance with quantitative polling methodology. The finding of this paper gives an affirmative answer. It argues that on the surface, polls are statistical surveys, but in actuality they are a political process controlled by the government despite their compliance with all statistical requirements. The power structure of the local government determines the questionnaire items, their multiple-choice answers (the screening, compressing, and quantifying of social scenarios), and the final make-up of the public opinion index. The rigorousness of methodology does not guarantee the authenticity of ‘public opinion’ in final poll figures. More likely, the outcome is controlled by those who organize polls. Hence, quantifiable technical governance presents a contradiction: the state manufactures biased public opinions precisely when it is looking for unbiased public opinions. In the end, the government constructs an image of society that is its own reflection.
期刊介绍:
The Chinese Journal of Sociology is a peer reviewed, international journal with the following standards: 1. The purpose of the Journal is to publish (in the English language) articles, reviews and scholarly comment which have been judged worthy of publication by appropriate specialists and accepted by the University on studies relating to sociology. 2. The Journal will be international in the sense that it will seek, wherever possible, to publish material from authors with an international reputation and articles that are of interest to an international audience. 3. In pursuit of the above the journal shall: (i) draw on and include high quality work from the international community . The Journal shall include work representing the major areas of interest in sociology. (ii) avoid bias in favour of the interests of particular schools or directions of research or particular political or narrow disciplinary objectives to the exclusion of others; (iii) ensure that articles are written in a terminology and style which makes them intelligible, not merely within the context of a particular discipline or abstract mode, but across the domain of relevant disciplines.