WHAT IS A SPHERE-OF-SILENCE ARTICLE?
public opinion, free speech, and mass communication theory
“Spiral of silence” should not be confused with the “spiral of science” or the “sphere of science,” which are not theories at all. The “spiral of silence” theory began in the 1980s with the publication of Elisabeth Neumann’s book of the same name but subtitled “Public Opinion - Our Social Skin.” Although sometimes used broadly in Political Science, the theory falls specifically under mass communication. Its premise is that people with a minority opinion or viewpoint are less likely to express their opinions on an issue if they believe there will be some kind of retribution for doing so. I prefer to refer to this theory as a “sphere” rather than a “spiral,” because a sphere indicates an area of power, control, or influence. Neumann’s original spiral of silence dealt with Nazi Germany, but for my purposes here, retribution is not as severe as it was under Hitler. I am also more interested in the sphere of silence as it regards free speech, public opinion, and critical thinking in institutions of higher learning.
Under the sphere of silence, retribution can come in the form of censorship or isolation from the majority. The censoring and isolating will be employed with prohibitive and obstructive measures. There will always be a few people who are unafraid of that type of retribution. They are not afraid to challenge public opinion on a certain issue, especially if they are expressing their own opinions professionally and responsibly in the sincere hopes of effecting change for the better. According to the spiral of silence theory, such people in the minority will help produce stability over time and are actually good for the issue.
Regarding my sphere of silence, college students should be taught at least to listen to alternative opinions, especially those that are not vitriolic or irresponsibly expressed. When students get what they think are facts from just one source, then they likely do not have all the facts. One professor’s opinion is not necessarily a fact, and to make an informed and sound decision on some issue, one needs as many facts on the issue as feasible. Neither society nor the American educational system needs another set of clones that blindly follows the will of a select few currently in power. One of the main purposes of education is to show students how to think rather than what to think. Colleges should not produce students with closed minds. History has ample evidence of the shortcomings and pitfalls of the type of system comprised of those characteristics.
However, some professors in academia actually encourage students to ignore or silence people with whom they disagree. They encourage students to take steps that would actually keep others from listening to those people whose opinions vary from their own. They will not publish in journals, accept for conferences, distribute through email listservs, nor post online articles that contain opinions contradictory and critical of the majority. They practice the absolute that if the speaker with a different opinion is not with us, then he is against us. Some professors take a confrontational approach, and go as far as to encourage their students to do the same, in order to effect change on some speaker’s issue. They investigate the messenger for foibles and then vilify him or her instead of the message. They publicly deride the speaker instead of his opinion, which is a sure sign that they have lost the argument and that their own opinions are not buttressed with sound logic, reason, and evidence. Whereas they cannot discredit the opinion directly, they try to bring opprobrium to the speaker instead.
Prohibitive and obstructive actions such as these are not only unprincipled and careless, they are academically immature. Although a confrontational approach might effect change on the issue, it will never cause a person to change his or her opinion on that issue. The main goal in any rational discourse should be to change the person’s opinions, thereby causing a change in his or her actions. Changing a person’s actions with confrontation and without actually changing the person’s opinions, produces an ephemeral result. In the end, then, no one wins and the issue continues to be nothing more than a divisive tool used simultaneously by the majority and the minority. Because the issue is confined in the sphere of silence, though, only the majority seems to be heard. Consequently, only a select few in the majority hear the minority.
The description above, in part or in whole, is what constitutes an issue in a sphere of silence article.