Despite pervasive references to God

            Despite pervasive references to God, many people in the United states do not believe in God. Some of these individuals contend that the country’s constitution requires a separation between church and state, and therefore any religious references in tax-supported venues should be eliminated. However, this opinion may not be shared by the majority because over half the country affiliates with an organized religion ( lindner , 2004 ). Weather the media report on visits by the pope, present video clips of politicians leaving religious services each week, or solicit quotes for news stories from the continue to imply that religion is an integral part of people’s lives.

            The minority those civil libertarian who advocate extracting religion from public-supported activities- have been vocal regarding their opinions these hard-core dissenters have not blended into the background. Some of the effects of this hard core can be seen in that the pledge of Allegiance is no longer required in every school district. In fact, in 2002 a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the Pledge was unconstitutional in that it referenced God and violated the separation of church and state clause (Nieves, 2002) . Although the ruling was unsuccessfully appealed to the U.S Supreme Court, it prompted considerable discussion on the references to God in state-sponsored efforts. The hard core might also claim victory as they see villages end cities remove religious icons (nativity sets, crucifixes, and so forth) from city parks during holidays. And with media outlets covering such legal victories the hard core may be reconfiguring majority opinion.

            Noelle-Neumann (1993) indicates that the hard core consist of people like Don Quixote, a literary figure who, because of his outdated clothing and weaponry, found himself ridiculed, defected, and isolated. This tragic hero, according to Noelle-Neumann, had a desire to engender the respect of the world his endless and futile combats were testimony to his undying commitment to chivalry. She concludes, “the ‘hard core’ ” (like Quixote) remains committed to the past, retaining the old values while suffering the isolation of the present (p.218). She adds that the hard core is the minority at the end of the spiral of silence who defy any threats of isolation.

Critique and closing

The spiral of silence theory is one of the few theories in communication that focuses on public opinion. Indeed, the theory has been identified as an important foundation for examining the human condition ( Csikszentmihalyi, 1991). The consequence of studying public opinion as Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann proposes is identified by Mihaly Csikszentmihaly : “ in an electoral democracy, but indeed even in the most tyrannical forms of government … the right to lead and to decide must eventually rest on the agreement of a significant segment of the population” (p.2880). the theory has been called “ extraordinarily influential” (Kennamer, 1990,p.395) and “dynamic” (Merten,1985), meaning that it underscores the process nature of communication that we discussed in Chapter 1.  These assessments aside, we examine two criteria for theory effectiveness. Heurism and logical consistency.

 Heurism

The theory has attracted scholars, making it heuristic. Research have employed the Spiral of Silence Theory in their studies on a number of diverse topics, including whether the united state should declare English as its official language (Lin & salwen, 1997 ), religion in the classroom (Eckstein & turman,2002),the O.J.Simpson criminal trial (Jeffers, neuendorf,& atkin,1999), the popularity of radio stations (wedel,1994), affirmative action (Moy, domke, & stamm, 2001), chat rooms (mcdevitt, kiousis, & wahl-jorgensen, 2003), drinking behavior (neuwirth & Frederick, 2004). And smoking attitudes (shanahan, Scheufele, Fang, & Hizi, 2004). Such an array of topics suggests that theory and its prevailing concepts are worth exploring.

Logical consistency

Noelle-neumann’s theory has not avoided substantial criticism pertains to the lack of logical consistency in several of the terms and concepts. Charles Salmon and F.Gerald Kline (1985) feel that the spiral of silence fails to acknowledge a person’s ego involvement in an issue. At times, people may be willing to speak because their ego is involved in the topic (for example, if a promotion at work depends on assertiveness). Carroll Glynn, Andrew Hayes, and james shanahan (1997) raise the issue of various selectivity processes, such as cognitive dissonance, which we explored in Chapter 7. Individuals will avoid a topic that conflicts with their own views. Glynn and colleagues also note that there is little empirical support for the claim that people speak out only because they perceive support for their views. J. david kennamer (1990) supports this criticism: “[I]t is hard to imagine either the pro-life or the pro-choice sides of the abortion issue giving up the fight because they perceive themselves to be in the minority”

            Carroll Glyn and Jack McLeod (1985) note two additional shortcomings pertaining to the logical consistency of the theory. First, they believe that the fear of isolation may not motivate people to express their opinions. They claim that Noelle-Neumann did not empirically test her assumption that fear of isolation prompts people to speak out. Second, they argue that Noelle-Neumann does not acknowledge the influence that people’s communities and reference groups have on their opinions. They believe that she focuses too much on the media. Along with that concern, the fact that the development of the spiral of silence relies on the media in 1985 West Germany troubles Glynn and McLeod. They doubt whether the characteristic of the media then and there ( ubiquitous , cumulative , and consonant ) apply to the media in the United States today. During their examination of a U.S presidential election, Glynn and McLeod discovered little support for media bias. They do not question the relatively intimate bond among media in Germany, but they do wonder whether the theory has limited cultural application in the United States.

Noelle-Neumann has responded to several of her critics, notably in defending her emphasis on the media. She remains convinced that the media is instrumentally in public opinion. She writes that “by using words and arguments

Noelle-Neumann observes that with respect social issues such as cigarette smoking. Abortion right, or nuclear power people will either speak out or remain silent. Are there topics that people may not be so clear about? That is, are there times when people may have a more moderate position on a topic ? Explain what type of topics and when those topics would not elicit such a binary response as remaining silent.

 

Taken from the media to discuss a topic, people cause the point of view to be heard in public and give it visibility, thus creating a situation in which the danger of isolation is reduce” (Noelle-Neumann, 1985 p 80). She continues by nothing that not once did the spiral of silent process contradict the media‘s position on a topic (Noelle-Neumann, 1993). In terms of application across cultures, Noelle-Neumann agrees that any theory of public opinion must have cross-cultural applicability. However, she posits it is important to note that most U.S researchers desire a rational explanation for human behavior, but not all behavior can be explained sensibly. Still, she does accept that the train test may be limited in cross-cultural in cross-cultural adaption. As a result, Noelle-Neumann updates the version to read.

            Assume you are on five-hour bus trip, and the bus makes a rest stop and everyone gets out for along break. In a group of passenger, someone stars talking about whether we should support (insert topic) or not would you like to talk to this person, to get to know his or her point of view beter, or would you prefer not to? (p217)

Of course, you may doubt whether simply changing s train test to a bus test broadens the cross-cultural application of the theory.

The spiral of silence will continue to generate discussion among media scholars. The theory has considerable critics, and with a central emphasis on political discussion, researchers will continue to assess the theories.