Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence theory has been constantly disputed since its formation in the 1970s, in terms of its key assumptions and what it represents coinciding with an ever-changing media environment for individuals to navigate through. The model basis for this theory still having continued contemporary relevance today is questionable, as this essay will explore behavioral changes in individuals, with regards to social interactions progressing towards an online rather than offline world, which affect and undermine the original model of the Spiral of Silence. The basic assumptions of the theory are that people will not voice their true opinion if they believe that their opinion is in a minority, and will in fact conform to the majority to avoid isolation, an isolation that the environment around them threatens in order to achieve societal cohesion. People are more willing to speak out if they believe their opinion to be part of a majority, therefore they will have greater support for what is said. This willingness to speak out creates a perception that the majority view is greater than it is, which causes a spiraling effect. A spiraling effect in the silence of the minority, and the majority view transitioning from the public opinion to a ruling opinion. This is the main framework and cycle that this theory operates on. This is a very basic definition of the model; countless variables are at play here which can alter and nullify in some cases the effects of the spiraling. This essay will aim to explore protean examples which leave holes in the Noelle-Neumann dated model.
The acceleration of technology in the last few decades has changed the world as we know it. The developments of online interaction have altered human social behavior in more ways than we could imagine. The online age we find ourselves in now leaves much of the Spiral of silence model to be questioned. The model is becoming something obsolete (Matthes et al., 2018). Noelle Neumann based her theory for face to face interactions between individuals. The introduction of an online environment means much more of this spiraling effect must be studied on this platform. In an online environment, a clear majority opinion is harder to identify compared to an offline environment. Therefore, a minority opinion may be voiced without fear of isolation. This fear of isolation becomes superannuated even further due to anonymity as an option in an online environment. Online apps like Facebook and Twitter have a multi-choice privacy status built into their app, to allow users to choose exactly who they want to share with and how they want to share their opinion and information, unfortunately, this isn’t always the case as this essay will examine later. Some apps are built purposely for the power of anonymity. Reddit is a very popular news aggregation and discussion website. People can create profiles and usernames that do not give away any part of their real identity and can post freely their opinions and partake in other people’s online discussions also. According to 2020 Reddit statistics, there are 430 million active monthly users. A recent Reddit post found on the front page titled “This new gay teen subculture is really annoying”, was posted by a user named Kayasphotgraphs. It was posted in the unpopular opinion subreddit. This instigated a lengthy debate between multiple users. The anonymity was key here as users voiced their true opinions independent of the opinion climate. Within Reddit, there are multiple opinion climates and multiple topics of discussion it is impossible to know what the dominant opinion is in general. There are fewer social cues in an online world which empowers less intimidation (Matthes et al, 2018).
A new mode of interaction like the example above enables people to not be so aware of the opinion climate around them. A key assumption of the theory is that the silencing effect can only occur when the topic of discussion contains a moral premise. However, evidently, online discussions involving anonymity like the one above containing a clear moral issue accelerate conversation among users, hence why it made it to the front page of the forum. This completely contradicts this assumption. The model is under doubt as our lives transition from an offline world to an online world of social interaction.
Moreover, interestingly in some cases, a quasi-statistical analysis, a key assumption of the Spiral of Silence theory, which subjects use to gauge the media environment is still relevant in today’s world, in fact perhaps more than ever. Individuals still observe perceptions of their climate rather than the real climate of opinion, the online discussions mentioned are a prime example. These perceptions are extremely valuable in terms of how we view our perception of ourselves, our behaviors, and our judgments, even in the political realm alone, perceptions can hugely alter poll results from the poll predictions. However, in an online arena, how unbiased is the environment of information the individual is receiving? If you have access to the internet you can literally search for anything, and find any answer to any question that is on your mind. We have an abundance of information at our fingertips but that does not mean we use it all to our advantage. Eli Pariser (2011) talks about this idea of a “Filter Bubble”. When we read a piece of news on the internet, the search engine algorithm personalizes our search to suggest more sites like it that agree with our opinion. We are bombarded with information, but it is carefully selected as information we can conform to. We arrive at the point of the bubble; we receive information that only reinforces our beliefs due to the personalization of our online world. This concept can result in political polarization. Political polarization is more prevalent than ever before, enabled by this online world. This causes audience members to receive a distorted view of public opinion. (De Wit et al, 2019) explain that in the last twenty years the position of either liberal or democrat in America, instead of any in-between position, has risen to over 20 percent. A modern example is politicians using Twitter for political reach, tweets often consisting of emotive language rather than formal tones. Donald Trump has dominated the political sphere on Twitter with his account. “The Lamestream Media wants us to fail. That will NEVER happen!” (Trump, 2020). This is an emotive response rather than a piece of information containing undeniable facts. “A shift towards more polarizing and laden content” (De Wit et al, 2019). These ideological outlets lead to fragmentation in society. A silencing factor is much less likely in these online battlegrounds for debate due to selective exposure as people are more confident in their views due to what they have read. However, recently Twitter has banned political advertising, meaning political reach must be earned and not bought. This would result in a greater balance of opinions being shared. The spiral of silence theory could become more visible online because of choices made like this of Twitter. A clearer majority group may appear on social media sights like this with the decline in polarization, however, whether a silencing effect will occur is unclear. The relevance and power of Noelle Neumann’s theory are still under question as behaviours online continue to change, particularly in the political sphere.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Considering selective exposure, the fear of overexposure is more of a lingering issue rather than the original model’s theory of the fear of isolation of individuals in society. The internet and particularly, websites like Reddit and Facebook allow for self-expression to take place. People can create personal profiles, describe themselves, and their lifestyle, and share information. They can share as much or as little as they want to, which controls the level of anonymity. In terms of discussing something they are interested in or a hot topic, an individual can post, it for just them or for everyone to see. However, it is harder to keep a life private when you create a profile online and begin to achieve social capital in this environment. Keeping your individual information visible to an acute amount can soon become difficult, Fox and Warber (2014). People within your online environment have the ability to share, comment, dislike your posts and form their own individual opinions towards them or they could simply not say anything but still promote and expose your post to a wider audience via sharing. This creates multiple opinion climates and a “Click Speech” style, where people like and share without producing their own message, Matthes et al (2018). People can join a Facebook page with just one click or support a fundraiser with one click, this action would then appear on friends’ pages to be engaged with in whatever way they please. Sharing someone’s post can be done without any self-production, Lim (2015). It creates a problem of exposure; one cannot simply isolate a certain topic to a certain social group without it being dispersed across multiple networks and outside groups. A simple example of this, creating a private page for a birthday on Facebook. A certain number of individuals within your network can see this page as they have been added. However, there is an issue with plus-ones, suddenly an outside network is aware of an event or topic. A private topic can become a public one which can lead to overexposure on a network, a fear that has perhaps become dominant. A key assumption of the model is under question here as isolation may not be a governing concern anymore in the online world, we now live in.
As mentioned previously, conforming to the majority is in decline among individuals. There is less fear online, opinionated posts are open to a global audience to read and dissect. The originally coined term for non-conformists in society was the ‘hard cores’ or the ‘Avantgardes’ (Noelle Neumann, 1974). This would have been the small group of individuals that were not afraid to speak out against the majority and were not lacking any self-esteem. The minority and the silencing of them defined by Noelle Neumann is perhaps evaporating. This surge of online interaction has allowed a voice from every side to be heard. The power of social media sites and news outlets online can bring non-conformists to a global spotlight. Politicians and people in powerful positions are using this online universe to reject conformity if that is what they believe in. Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo has rejected Trump’s statement to initiate a lockdown in New York state. The coronavirus has turned into a global pandemic in recent months and has brought the entire world to a standstill. Trump should not have the authority to initiate a lockdown, it should be illegal. This is not Wuhan: Andrew Cuomo as cited in Kimbell (2020). An example of non-conformity to a majority at an international level. The majority here is the entire rest of the world. The power of the online sphere to grant individual attention at an international scale like this, encourages powerful people to have controversial or minority opinions and express them in order to make political gain. Over time there is increasing conformity to group norms, Newcomb (1948) cited in Scheufele and Moy (2018). These types of opinions and expressions spread across the world media eventually become rationalized and somewhat understood, even when they seem outrageous at the time of reporting. The spiral effect could be reversed in this way. Rather than conforming to the majority, a strong minority could grow from a global story like the one above. Moreover, this majority is becoming more and more unclear as online media begins to take control. Individuals are subject to a ruling “public” opinion, what this “public” represents and is composed of is uncertain (Scheufele and Moy, 2000). The conformity aspect of the model is ever-changing, and this theory’s contemporary relevance is uncertain in a modern, predominantly online platform.
A cultural factor must be examined however when it comes to conformity issues and the spiral of silence model. Outspokenness and personality characteristics like this, which affect the majority views, vary across different cultural backgrounds. Donsbach and Stevenson (1984) cited in Scheufele and Moy (2000) highlight continued problems in research in examining the variables at play for adapting a public situation to multiple cultural and social conditions in a society. Cultures can vary in needs and wants, a collectivistic culture like China displays discretion in expressing individual opinions, what they say, and how they act is incredibly important to the environment they are in. Some cultures are more individualistic, for example, in the USA, there is a prioritization of a person’s individual needs and wants over anything else. The image of the self in a private and public setting is of utmost importance. With these cultural differences come a range of conflict styles as mentioned by Rahim (1983) as cited in Scheufele and Moy (2000), an individualistic culture would promote dominating and integrating styles, being of high concern for the self and low concern for others. Donald Trump is an exceptional example of this individualistic culture in the USA today. Trump continues to emphasize the importance of making America great again, satisfying individual American needs, and wanting each American to be an example of the best that humanity can offer. Following this, cultural factors have changed since the introduction of the Internet. The power of anonymity as mentioned before has brought along with it a blurred sense of what culture is online. Is online culture, its own culture, separate from pre-existing cultures in an offline world? The styles of conflict for an offline situation don’t apply here. Online culture has its own set of rules and social cues that have evolved since its introduction, these arguments against the original Spiral of Silence model.
It is evident that there are multiple variables at play that dispute and wrangle with the original assumptions of Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s ‘Spiral of Silence theory. Its contemporary relevance is fading. In an era of accelerated technological development, an online environment continues to surprise with its new abilities in terms of advancing social interaction between individuals. Basic assumptions of the model involving face-to-face settings are being replaced, re-shaped, and reconstructed to concur with an ever-evolving virtual society.
References
- De-Wit, L et al. (2019) Are social media driving political polarization? Available at: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/is_social_media_driving_political_polarization Accessed: March 30th, 2020.
- Fox, J & Warber, K (2014) Queer Identity Management and political self-expression on social networking sites: A co-cultural approach to the spiral of silence. Journal of communication. Vol 65, p79-100. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12137
- Gearhart, S and Zhang, W (2018) Same Spiral, Different Day? Testing the spiral of silence across issue types. Communication research. Vol 45(1), p34-54. DOI: 10.1177
- Kimball, S (2020) New York Gov. Cuomo says Trump has no authority to impose quarantine: ‘It would be illegal’. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/28/ny-gov-cuomo-says-trump-has-no-authority-to-impose-quarantine.html Accessed: March 31st, 2020.
- Lim, M (2015) Many Clicks but Little Sticks: Social Media Activism in Indonesia: Social Media Activism in Indonesia. In: Nishant Shah, Puthiya Purayil Sneha, Sumandro Chattopadhyay (Hg.): Digital Activism in Asia Reader. Lüneburg: meson press 2015, S. 127– 154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/1318.
- Matthes, J et al. (2018) The spiral of silence revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceptions of opinion support and political opinion expression. Communication Research. Vol 45(1), p3-33. DOI: 10.1177/0093650217745429
- Scheufele, D & Moy, P (2000) Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Vol 12(1) p2-28. DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/12.1.3
- This new “gay teen” subculture is really annoying (2020) Available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/frnlv4/this_new_gay_teen_subculture_is_really_annoying/ Accessed: March 31st, 2020.
- Tsfati, Y et al. (2014) Exposure to ideological news and perceived opinion climate: Testing the media effects component of the spiral of silence in a fragmented media landscape. The International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol 19(1) p3-23. DOI:10.1177
- https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump (2020) Accessed: March 30th, 2020.
Stuck on your essay?
