Question
Theory one: Spiral of silence theory
Originally, the theory focused on traditional types
of media such as newspapers and television. Yet, as the theory attracted new
attention over the years, the application of its concepts to new media emerged
(Eilders & Porten-Chee, 2015). Later in the chapter, we will include a
brief discussion of the newer research integrating online communication and the
Spiral of Silence Theory.
Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence Theory is
important to address for several reasons. The theory “directly relates to
speech freedom, which is the cornerstone of our democracy” (Liu, 2006). Further
it is a theory that weaves communication and public opinion, two critical areas
in virtually any democracy around the globe (Donsbach, Salmon, & Tsfati,
2013). Third, it has intellectual roots in six fields (Donsbach, Tsfati, &
Salmon, 2014). Finally, Spiral of Silence scholars have made efforts to make
their theory culturally relevant in societies where media remain important and
influential (Neill, 2009). To this end, while the theory resonates with those
interested in public opinion, it also has relevancy for those interested in the
effect that media has upon us.
Although many years have passed since the theory’s
original expression, the concept of public opinion “is particularly encumbered
by the thicket of confusion, misunderstandings, and communication problems”
(Noelle-Neumann & Petersen, 2004, pp. 339–340). Further, writers continue
to state that public opinion is more important than ever (Claussen & Oxley,
2016). Attempting to provide some understanding of this key term in the theory,
Noelle-Neumann (1984, 1993) has provided some clarity. She appropriately
separates public opinion into two discrete terms: public and opinion.
She notes that there are three meanings of public.
First, there is a legal association with the term. Public suggests that it is
open to everyone, as in “public lands” or “public place.” Second, public
pertains to the concerns or issues of people, as in “the public responsibility
of journalists.” Finally, public represents the social-psychological side of
people. That is, people not only think inwardly but also think about their
relationships to others. The phrase “public eye” is relevant here.
An opinion is an expression of an attitude. Opinions
may vary in both intensity and stability. Invoking the early French and English
interpretation of opinions, Noelle-Neumann notes that opinion is a level of
agreement of a particular population. In the spiral of silence process, opinion
is synonymous with something regarded as acceptable.
Putting all of this together, Noelle-Neumann defines
public opinion as the “attitudes or behaviors one must express in public if one
is not to isolate oneself; in areas of controversy or change, public opinions
are those attitudes one can express without running the danger of isolating
oneself” (p. 178). So, for Carol Johansen, her opinion on spanking would not be
regarded as acceptable by her breakfast club. Because she fears being isolated
from her particular early-morning community, she silences her opinions.
With public opinion as our backdrop to the theory, we now
explore three assumptions of the Spiral of Silence Theory. Noelle-Neumann
(1991, 1993) has previously addressed these assertions:
·
Society threatens deviant individuals with isolation; fear
of isolation is pervasive.
·
This fear of isolation causes individuals to try to assess
the climate of opinion at all times.
·
Public behavior is affected by public opinion assessment.
The second assumption of the theory identifies
people as constant assessors of the climate of public opinion. Noelle-Neumann
contends that individuals receive information about public opinion from two
sources: personal observation and the media.
Noelle-Neumann (1991) states that people engage in a
quasi-statistical ability to appraise public opinion. A quasi-statistical sense
means that people are able to estimate the strength of opposing sides in a
public debate. They are able to do this by listening to the views of others and
incorporating that knowledge into their own viewpoints.
The cumulativeness of the media refers to the
process of the media repeating themselves across programs and across time.
Frequently, you will read a story in the Page 378morning newspaper, listen to
the same story on the radio as you drive to work, and then watch the story on
the evening news. You may also pull up a website during the day and find the
story there. Noelle-Neumann calls this a “reciprocal influence in building up
frames of reference” (1993, p. 71). It can become problematic when the original
source is left unquestioned, and yet, four media (newspaper, radio, television,
and the Internet) rely on that source. The theory suggests that conformity of
voice influences what information gets released to the public to help them
develop an op Finally, consonance pertains to the similarities of
beliefs, attitudes, and values held by the media. In fact, events or news items
are frequently shared by multiple news agencies (e.g., the Associated Press,
etc.).
The Train Test
For Spiral of Silence theorists, examining whether
or not people will speak out requires a methodology that is clear, testable,
representative, and replicable. To support her claims, Noelle-Neumann
conceptualized the train test (or plane or bus as well). The train test is an
assessment of the extent to which people will speak out with their own opinion.
According to the Spiral of Silence Theory, people on two different sides of an
issue will vary in their willingness to express views in public. Text
following: There
are various ways of speaking out—for example, hanging posters, displaying
bumper stickers, and distributing flyers.
Men (ages 45–59) from large cities are more likely
to speak out.
People are more likely to voice an opinion if it
agrees with their own convictions as well as fits within current trends and the
spirit of the era.
People will voice an opinion if it aligns with
societal views.
People tend to share their opinions with those who
agree with them more than with those who disagree.
Theory two: Face-Negotiation theory
Kevin’s conflict with Professor Yang underscores
much of the thinking behind Face-Negotiation Theory (FNT) by Stella
Ting-Toomey. The theory is multifaceted, incorporating research from
intercultural communication, conflict, politeness, and “facework,” a topic we
explore later in the chapter. Face-Negotiation Theory has cross-cultural appeal
and application because Ting-Toomey has focused on a number of different
cultural populations, including those in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and
the United States. As Ting-Toomey (1988) comments: “Culture provides Page
461the larger interpretive frame in which ‘face’ and ‘conflict style’ can be
meaningfully expressed and maintained” (p. 213). Ting-Toomey asserts that
members from different cultural backgrounds have various concerns for the
“face” of others. This concern leads them to handle conflict in different ways.
These comments form the backdrop to Face-Negotiation Theory (FNT).
Ting-Toomey bases much of her theory on face and
facework. Face is clearly an important feature of life, a metaphor for
self-image that pervades all aspects of social life. The concept of face has
evolved in interpretation over the years. It originates with the Chinese who
have two conceptualizations of face: lien and mien-tzu, two terms describing
identity and ego (Ho, 1944).
Erving Goffman (1967) is generally credited with
situating face in contemporary Western research. He noted that face is the
image of the self that people display in their conversations with others.
Ting-Toomey and her colleagues (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Yokochi, Masumoto, &
Takai, 2000) observe that face pertains to a favorable self-worth and/or
projected other worth in interpersonal situations. People do not “see”
another’s face; rather, face is a metaphor for the boundaries that people have
in their relationships with others. In essence, then, face is the desirable
self-image that a person wishes to convey to another based upon society’s
interpretation of what is “appropriate and successful” (Samp, 2015, p. 1).
Goffman (1967) described face as something that is
maintained, lost, or strengthened. At the time of his writing, Goffman did not
envision that the term would be applied to close relationships. As a
sociologist, he believed that face and all that it entailed was more applicable
to the study of social groups. Over time, however, the study of face has been
applied to a number of contexts, including close relationships and small
groups.
As we noted earlier, Ting-Toomey was influenced by
research on politeness. In a general sense, politeness is concerned with
appropriateness of behavior and procedures as they relate to establishing and
maintaining harmony in relationships (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2012). In particular,
politeness theorists (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987) contend that people
will use a politeness strategy based on the perception of face threat.
Politeness theory suggests that a single message can provoke more than one face
threat and can both support and threaten face needs simultaneously, and that politeness
and face threats influence subsequent messages. Drawing on over a dozen
different cultures around the world and based on field work of at least three
languages (Feng, 2015), politeness researchers discovered that two types of
universal needs exist: positive face needs and negative face needs. Positive
face is the desire to be liked and admired by significant others in our lives;
negative face refers to the desire to be autonomous and unconstrained.
When communicators’ positive or negative face is threatened,
they tend to seek some recourse or way to restore their or their partner’s
face. Ting-Toomey (1994a), following Brown and Levinson, defines this as
facework, or the “actions taken to deal with the face wants of one and/or the
other” (p. 8). Ting-Toomey and Leeva Chung (2005) also comment that facework is
“about the verbal and nonverbal strategies that we use to maintain, defend, or
upgrade our own social self-image and attack or defend (or ‘save’) the social
image of others” (p. 268). In other words, facework pertains to how people make
whatever they’re doing consistent with their face. Ting-Toomey equates facework
with a “communication dance that tiptoes” between respect for one’s face and
the face of another.
The paper
will be organized into the following sections:
1. Introduction
2. Summarize Theory One. Be sure to
include citations from the orange text and other sources to explain the theory
and also be sure to include any key elements that you will be using in your
application.
3. Apply the theory by providing two
examples from your home life, work life, current or historical events, or
film/television to illustrate the theory.
4. Summarize Theory Two. Be sure to
include citations from the orange text and other sources to explain the theory
and also be sure to include any key elements that you will be using in your
application.
5. Apply the theory by providing two
examples from your home life, work life, current or historical events, or
film/television to illustrate the theory.
6. Conclusion
In addition
to citing your text, you must cite at least three other sources.
Answer
