The Spiral of Silence

How fear of social isolation is fueling populism and political correctness.

The spiral of silence is an influential media theory.

The fear of guilt-by-association is so powerful that individuals would consider supporting a cause they strongly disagree with — from fear of social isolation.

However, this can also be a breeding ground for populism when society is deeply polarised.

So, what’s going on here?

The Spiral of Silence for Fear of Isolation

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s well-documented theory on the spiral of silence (1974) explains why the fear of isolation due to peer exclusion might prompt contrarian thinkers to silence their genuine opinions.

As the dominant coalition gets to stand unopposed, they push the confines of what’s acceptable down a narrower and narrower funnel (see also the opinion corridor).

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann's well-documented theory on the spiral of silence (1974)
The downward spiral of silence.

The spiral of silence can lead to unwanted effects, in this case — populism:

Group A is opposed to populism and against allowing populists to participate in democratic contexts (extreme position).

Group B is opposed to populism and against allowing authorities to impose limits on free speech (non-extreme position).

First, vocal leaders of both groups enter into debate.

Group B leaders accuse Group A of imposing limits on free speech, which might lead to fascism, but this can’t stick since Group A holds anti-populist positions across the board.

Group A leaders accuse Group A not for wanting to safeguard free speech but for being populist supporters. This unity creates a false dichotomy that sticks.

Group B see their vocal leaders being publicly outed as populists, a label that Group B fears. So they enter a state of cognitive dissonance (1957) and silence moral conviction to avoid becoming social outcasts.

As this behaviour spirals, Group A eventually fractionates into two vocal groups, one inside the spiral of silence (relative extreme position) and one outside (relative non-extreme position).

The result: The margin for “error” diminishes while the group of “silenced” people steadily grows.

The significant issue here is that Group A tends to assume moral superiority (by adopting a more robust position), which allows them to resort to pro hominem arguments (also known as an honour by association and the logical inverse of ad hominem arguments).

Deep into the spiral of silence, the remaining vocal group might be widely unsupported — and might also be completely unaware of this weakness due to their unchecked superiority complex.

Also, they might be wielding a disproportionate influence on minorities.

At this point, the playing field is opening up for a vocal leader who’s ready to claim that populist position that, ironically, a majority opposed from the start. Resorting to previously successful arguments of moral superiority doesn’t affect a populist leader.

And, as the vocal minority finally asks for broad support to combat the emerging populists, there aren’t enough people left to heed their call.

Suffice to say — the spiral of silence is considered real — and extremely dangerous.

Photo by Jessica F on Unsplash.

.

Avatar of Jerry Silfwer
Jerry Silfwerhttps://doctorspin.org/
Jerry Silfwer, aka Doctor Spin, is an awarded senior adviser specialising in public relations and digital strategy. Currently CEO at KIX Communication Index and Spin Factory. Before that, he worked at Kaufmann, Whispr Group, Springtime PR, and Spotlight PR. Based in Stockholm, Sweden.

Grab a free subscription before you go.

Get notified of new blog posts & new PR courses

🔒 Please read my integrity- and cookie policy.

Social objects matter in PR — getting people to talk with each other about strategically chosen topics is a cornerstone in modern PR.
Most popular