During Wednesday’s class, we discussed chapters 1, 2, and 4 from Postmodern Interviewing, edited by Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein. Angela Speakman led the class discussion and brought up some interesting points about the book, not only in highlighting some of the most meaningful passages of the book but also by raising some thought-provoking questions. There is one particular aspect that stuck out to me during this discussion.
In chapter 2, Gubrium and Holstein call modern culture the “interview society.” Because interviews are so common, and have been for most of my lifetime, it never occurred to me that there was a way for society to be in which interviews did not play a large part. I took the importance of interviewing people about their own opinions for granted. On page 23, a survey is cited in which researchers ask people who are considered to be “informed” about the opinions and goals of other, “uninformed” people (informed people being officials, clergy members, etc.). It seems totally counterintuitive to go about gather information that way. After all, aren’t primary sources always considered to be better than secondary sources? Yet this is an instance of a very widespread practice where secondary sources trump primary sources.
But at the same time, the idea is not unlike voting practices in the United States. We are a democracy (supposedly, anyway), and to find out people opinions on who should be president we will ask them to ask the Electoral College to decide who they want to be president. I know it’s not that simple; nothing is. But that is what this process reminds me of. Wasn’t the Electoral College created for the same reason, to have informed citizens tell the government what the uninformed masses think? I think it is interesting to think about, anyway.
