Thoughts on Anarchist Polling

thoughts on anarchist polling

polling people yourself to find out what they think can be educational for the poller and activate the autonomy of those polled -- it just depends on what approach* you take. most polling utilizes the "silently orienting the discussion" technique so common to authoritarians everywhere who can't loosen up and let things go wherever they may but need instead to feel as if they are controlled; like the blathering of the typical meeting hogs or community leaders, their subject matter is degraded by their objective manner of speaking.
issues considered "sensitive" by the sense-dulled, once brought up in a manner assuming a foregone conclusion about the subject, can no longer give rise to any creative discussion, much less to the improvising of solutions by all.
for instance, when a poller asks a question like, "is the military doing well in Iraq?" assuming that there is a way to do "well" at killing people, the possible responses, "yes," "they could do better" or "no," implicitly discourage one from answering, "all military forces should be immediately dissolved." to ask whether all military forces should be dissolved immediately´ would be equally too limiting.**
the elites (many a supposed "radical" included) never really want to know anyone's opinion but that of their own clique (which even they have constantly to decipher; writing public, clear doctrines isn't their style), and so they never ask any good questions in the polls Chomsky refers so much to -- I'm sure he'd prefer polls such as the following proposition describes, but for now he has to content himself with the sadly over-framed questioneering of the pollsters.
remember: as in the great "landslide of common ground," people are heavily specialized by this culture. It tries to make what "people" are thinking, "public opinion," into something easily and summarily identifiable. The culture is one of labeling, of a "class" consciousness, which can only be consciousness trapped in an idealized, one-sided bourgeois or proletarian mentality; it is a culture of "position," of "status," of social passwords comfortingly demonstrating one's silly obsessions in common with another. A great knowledge of sports details, of political details, of the personal details of the lives of others or celebrities (whether on the movie houses or in the houses of government), is prized -- and one often can win a particular prize for demonstrating that specialization: social acceptance. Searching the social web to get a sense of opinion on a particular subject lands the uninitiated into a confusing, pretentious flood of references, from falling back on other people's names, to byzantine dissections of details of other people's ideas -- a whole ocean of petty details to drown in. Without a thorough understanding of one particular conception of a certain concept, comprehension becomes sometimes impossible. So steer clear of questions that invoke prepared answers from any side, and try instead to activate other people's autonomy by introducing hitherto untrained, spontaneous responses.***
Give it a shot -- a lot! if you might not incite a riot, at least talking to random people makes you realize how stuck you've been in your social circle. Put all your craft, wit, and wisdom out into the streets, out for free, and everywhere in everyday life.
You can post your results here if you want.

****
* RECIPE FOR ERUPTION
to make for interesting anarcho-polling activities take:
1 cup spontaneous creativity
1 tbsp. free association
2 tbsp utter non-hierarchical humanness
a couple ounces of naked honesty
and a dash of love.
mix together thoroughly and throw out in the street.
around you will sprout the most beautiful many-colored plants...

** some good sample questions:
asking people what they know about the way money works
asking what they have heard about anarchy
asking what they think about their body
asking how they like having to work
asking whether the boss does a good job
asking where they (think they) are going
asking what they've learned lately
...
*** leave it open ended.
instead of "are people (corporations) paying too much (too little) in taxes," ask "are corporations people?" or "are religious institutions god?" or "can taxes ever really be correctly used by governments?" in other words, instead of "is the government wasting your tax dollars?" try asking "is government a waste of tax dollars?" or "is money itself really a good enough compensation for your life?" instead of asking a person for his or her age, "race," level of education, or marital status, try asking whether they think age necessarily conveys any greater knowledge, or whether they are concerned by the discovery of the fact that race is an unscientific concept. ask what initiation rites society has forced them through recently, or what they think about the institution of marriage itself. any number of possibilities exist outside of the normal concepts we have been given of things, and introducing the fact of their existence alone is enough to start fruitful things rolling.