Educational Research - the Ethics and Aesthetics of Statistics

66 N. Grube
5.4 The Suggestive Aesthetics of Charts: The Clearness of Social
Coherence or Camps, the Security of Prediction Due to
Reliable Observation and Permanent Comparison
In Section 5.5, I will focus on some statistical charts in order to analyse how pollsters
try to create a new dualistic national narrative that aims to unify the nation. I will
focus on some techniques of questioning and on the presentation of data. The translation
of analyses of opinion formation into numerical data (Manhardt, 2008; Keller,
2001) suggested non-scrutinised evidence and often divided the population into
two contrary camps. Since the late 1940s, pollsters have observed the process of
democratisation of Germany. To this end they created questions that divided the population
into two parts: one part that was ready for democracy and the other part that
was not prepared to participate in political decisions. This division often becomes
manifest in questions that contain short pseudo-dialogues. Let us consider examples
of questions pertaining to the values of freedom and equality. Two contrary opinions
are presented in two silhouettes. One says, ‘I think that freedom and equality
are equally important. But if I had to choose between the two, I would consider
personal freedom more important, that is, for people to be able to live in freedom
and not to be restricted in their personal development’. The other says, ‘Certainly
both freedom and equality are important. But if I had to choose between the two,
I would consider as much equality as possible to be more important, that is, for no
one to be underprivileged and for class differences not to be so strong’ (Noelle-
Neumann, 1995, p. 33, 1998, p. 331). The respondents have to rate themselves in
accordance with one of these two statements. Differentiated opinions or precise definitions
of the two terms freedom and equality are not presented. Another example
of this dualistic approach to questioning demands that the respondent decide if he
or she is in favour of authoritative or parliamentary government (Noelle-Neumann,
1995, p. 28). Other dichotomic questions forge the respondents to confess their happiness
or their sorrows about German unification. In another case the respondents
have to come out in favour of democracy or of a different form of government.
These divisions indicate that only a selected portion of citizens is authorised to participate,
whereas the remainder has to obey and adapt to governmental guidelines
or prevalent social norms. The complexity of political attitudes is reduced to questions
that evoke dualistic answers: ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, ‘Agree’ versus ‘Not agree’. For
example, the Allensbach pollsters judged responses to the questions ‘Do you think
most people can be trusted’ and ‘Are you for or against capital punishment’ as indicators
for democratic capabilities in the era of the Cold War and German unification
(Noelle-Neumann, 1995, pp. 38, 39). Both questions construed two artificial camps
(Fig. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3):
The democratic camp is the one that rejects the death penalty and trusts most
people. The other mistrustful part endorses the death penalty and seems to be
unprepared for democracy – it favours authoritarian forms of government. This
division of the confused post-war Germans into two clear groups suggests the possibility
of rational, efficient and successful government of the people as a whole.
This is because these charts and numbers eliminate social diversity by merging