German Political Scientist Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann developed the Spiral of Silence theory back in 1972. She suggested that when our opinions do not match those of the majority we become silent and refrain from voicing those opinions out of fear of social isolation. Researchers have found fairly strong support for this theory—particularly when those opinions concern moral or ethical issues. However, the world has changed dramatically since 1972—particularly the way we communicate publicly. Have new communication technologies influenced the Spiral of Silence theory?
In 1972, one would receive most of the news from television, radio, and newspapers. Today, new communication media abound and old media are dying. In 1972, news was disseminated fairly uniformly from three fairly similar television networks. Individuals who expressed a minority view that differed from that presented on the nightly news might be sanctioned with derision, silence, or nonverbal cues of disapproval (sneering, eye rolling, etc.) from others Of course, the primary place one could express a minority view back in 1972 was in conversation. Not many people could present their views publicly (exceptions might be writing a letter to the editor or participating in a public protest).
Today, the opportunity for individuals to speak out publicly about issues that concern them has increased dramatically. Indeed, people can make their views know publicly all without ever engaging in conversation with close friends or acquaintances. The Internet has opened doors for people to express their minority opinions publicly and still retain anonymity. The proliferation of media outlets (multiple television channels, Internet, etc.) allows virtually all minority viewpoints a hearing. So, what do these changes in technology mean for the Spiral of Silence theory?
Do we feel more or less threatened in a conversation to express an unpopular opinion? Are we more or less likely to stand up for our viewpoint in a group of people who do not agree with us?
I agree with this theory. Those who don’t agree with the majority, often risk getting shredded apart. Society almost never forgives individuals who are against “common sense.” Just look at what happened to the protestors of the Brazilian dictatorship.
But that’s all back in the world of the generatopm X’s, Baby Boomers, and Veterans. In the world of generation Y’s (our generation), this theory simply doesn’t apply. Today the norm is disagreement. The dissonance comes from young people, very young people who aren’t afraid to question, contest, and protest.
Online communities, chat forums, and social networks, are the greatest proof of this. It’s very common to see young people joining online communities where they criticize the very businesses they are applying to be a part of. They say what they think without any filters. The spiral of silence is over. Today it’s cool to disagree! And people are actually the opposite of what Noelle-Newman argues. And they are admired and respected, precisely for that.
Today we have the great freedom of being able to say what we think. I believe that generation Y and the generations after them will really benefit from this freedom, which no other generation has experienced up until now. They probably won’t realize how valuable this freedom is, for they haven’t experienced the sourness of not being able to really say what they think, as those before them did. So it seems that the theories of communication will have to silence the very spiral of silence.
What do you think? Does the Spiral of Silence still hold? Are you more or less willing to say what you think about controversial issues in face-to-face conversations than you were 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago?
think it still holds, but with a few changes. I think that media is so segregated that everyone is able to find a format that fits their point of view. So if one feels uncomfortable voicing their opinion all they need do is move on over to the next forum until they find "their people" and then speak away.
ReplyDeleteI have never feared expressing my opinion, which is not always good, of course. What I have tried to do, though, is express my opinions in a non-belligerent, non-confrontational manner. My goal is friendly, respectful disagreement, if there is disagreement. And, obviously, being able to LISTEN with an open mind is important also.
ReplyDeleteI believe the spiral still exists, except for certain outspoken political junkies, especially of one certain party which will remain nameless.
ReplyDeleteEven though the internet has given voice to many opinions which would otherwise have been kept in silence, I believe it has also served as a catalyst that has given some people the courage to speak out face to face.
I too believe that the spiral still exists. For example, blogging began as an online digital diary of a persons opinions and thoughts on a variety of topics but it rapidly became political.
ReplyDeleteVarious companies started crawling the weblogs and terminating employees for expressing their opinions about work. They were expressing opinions that were damaging to certain companies image.Something that started as a way to vent frustrations, to express opinions and find like thinkers became a disjointed on line public forum.
If this is the case, the spiral will exists as people will silence their own thoughts and not voice their opinions out of fear of any persecution.
I think that the spiral does not always exists. In a world of change, it is sometimes the minorities that come up with ideas that suggest, pushes and catalyses changes to the current systems in place to better benefit the society.
ReplyDeleteThis theory can also be applied to group communication. For example, if a group has a dominant leader or a few outspoken individuals, there will be a tendency for the others who are less dominant and introverted to follow behind what the dominant ones say or do even if they find that the decision of the few dominant ones are ridiculous. Perhaps, that's just a way to prevent one from being ostracised.
ReplyDeleteThe spiral can also be an effect of propaganda by regimes and administrations. Take the U.S. political scene for example, where Bush's followers attempted to silence critics by calling them unpatriotic and suggesting they "hated America," Obama's followers deal with opposition by calling them racists. In neither case are these charges generally true but they have considerable propaganda appeal, especially when rallying the faithful and silencing the opposition.
ReplyDeleteSpiral of silence, frankly, is a theory I have never been able to get behind. While it works well in more collectivist societies or individualistic societies which are under stress, it is more problematic in Western democracies during times of peace where people are less afraid to express their views, even when they are in the minority. This may lead to political apathy.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Spiral of Silence seems to break down in the online world. The anonymity one has in online chats or bulletin boards should lessen an individual’s fear of speaking out. An individual’s quasi-statistical sense may be skewed in an environment where people can select what sites they visit. Indeed, there is strong evidence people practice selective exposure and seek out sites that support their point of view.
ReplyDeleteOne's perception of the distribution of public opinion influences one's willingness to express opinions.
ReplyDeleteThe spiral of silence demonstrates why people are unwilling to express their opinions (publicly) when they are not believed to be in the majority.
People feel an increasing pressure to conceal their views and opinions when they believe they are in minority.
Individuals perceptions of the opinions of others is a critical factor in determining their willingness to express those opinions.
This is very true and I too am guilty of this sometimes, but i dont see it as a fault it is human nature, but I do admire people that speak up!
ReplyDeleteThis is why sometimes I am dying to say something in class then I cower away and sit back to admire everyones guts. With a group of friends face to face ,it is easier to express opinions but online, although i have lots of friends I can sometimes feel like a stranger and remain silent too.
Too many people talk but they say nothing.
ReplyDeleteOthers,are so self-absorbed that they deny to listen. They just need a pair of ears. I guess this is our society now--apathetic.
Excellent. Thanks for your thoughts with this great image. For myself, I find I often don't express my opinion because I'm afraid of offending someone, I guess because I'm too "nice". In my natural mode, I am blunt and sometimes extremist, but I can't always present myself like that. I'm far too self-conscious. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing it up -- it's important to think about, to see what we do ourselves and/in comparison to what we see others do, and what we think of it. Human interaction is so intricate.
:) I agree with Mala about the "care" of the sensibility of the other persons ... but it depends obviously on which persons it is about... beyond the perception of the simple opinion of these others, I think that it's more important to "guess" their opening of mind...
ReplyDeleteNot giving your opinion is always taken as an opinion itself. Omission is an action. Now what do people interpret from our opinions explicit or implicit... that´s always foreign terrain.
ReplyDeleteWhen we realize how difficult and intricate in fact is communication between us, it is certainly almost a miracle that we are still alive as a species and that we had achieved this level of socialization and communion (even when we believe it´s little, it is a lot, given all the obstacles, in fact).
On Facebook, I have noticed an interesting trend: some of my friends who are normally introverted and shy in person are a lot more vocal and seem to have fewer qualms about voicing their opinions on the site. They post status updates sharing their thoughts on issues, comment on others’ posts, and provide links to websites, articles, photos and videos about topics that they deem important, even creating interest-specific groups to attract those who are keen to participate in online discussions on key causes.
ReplyDeletePart of this phenomenon might be psychological. Maybe we feel a certain degree of safety on social networking sites because they give us the option not to have to engage in physical, face-to-face interactions with those who might disagree. On these interfaces, there is no need to worry about potentially negative consequences arising from differences in opinion, such as ridicule, humiliation, confrontation, and isolation.
If social networking sites can embolden even the shiest of us to voice our true opinions, could they be the answer to breaking the spiral of silence on contested issues