German Politi
cal 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, we received most of our 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?
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?
cal 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, we received most of our 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?
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?
.jpg)
4 comments:
I 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. Example - someone like Glenn Beck is going to go all out on Fox News when he is surrounded by like-minded people but put him in front of a more liberal group and he suddenly has less to say.
I 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.
I believe the spiral still exists, except for certain outspoken political junkies, especially of one certain party which will remain nameless.
Even 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.
Interesting topic!
thank's to the technologies
Post a Comment