The Spiral of Silence
As those of you who have read ID for a while know, I have often written about the "don't ask, don't tell" culture of Catholicism. We don't ask where people are in their lived relationship with God and we don't tell them the good news of Jesus Christ.
So I was fascinated to come across Communication scholar Elisabeth Noelle-Neuman's theory of the “spiral of silence". You can tell that I didn't major in communications because Neuman published this theory 25 years ago and it has been talked about endlessly since.
Neuman's idea is that most people have an intuitive awareness of the majority sentiment within a group, and most are less likely to speak up when they find themselves in the minority. The silencing effect thus reinforces itself: if a 40% minority does only 20% of the talking, they perceive themselves to be even more outnumbered than they truly are and are thus even less inclined to speak. Hence, the spiral into silence.
Neuman found that individuals avoid speaking out on controversial issues due to an innate fear of social isolation.
Because of this fear of isolation, people continuously scan their environment to try to assess the climate of opinion at all times. This would includes current and future distribution of opinion. If we think that our opinion is shared by the majority or that it is gaining ground in our culture/group, we are much more likely to talk about it openly.
And this is fascinating: If people find no current, frequently repeated expressions for their point of view, they lapse into silence; they become effectively mute. In other words, if we don't hear people about us or in the media talking about something, we literally don't have the language to think or talk about it ourselves. Most of us don't think completely original thoughts in completely original language. We are given categories and frameworks and language with which to think and talk about the world from those around us.
Neumann was concerned primarily with the role of the media in establishing the impression that certain beliefs are the belief of the majority but she also studied the role of interpersonal support in enabling people holding minority opinions to hold to them and talk about them openly. If interpersonal support decreases, the number of those who will talk about a minority opinion and eventually, even hold to it also decreases. A Christian culture that is silent about fundamental things produces Christians who will also be silent about these things with their families, their friends, and in the marketplace.
•Noelle-Neumann quotes Tocqueville about this dynamic in regard to the Catholic faith in revolutionary France.
People still clinging to the old faith were afraid of being the only ones who did so, and as they were more frightened of isolation than of committing an error, they joined the masses even though they did not agree with them. In this way, the opinion of only part of the population seemed to be the opinion of all and everybody, and exactly for this reason seemed irresistible to those who were responsible for this deceptive appearance.
The combination of our secularized post-modern culture without and our "don't ask, don't tell" culture within the Church has helped ensure that the Church's teaching on evangelization is a dead letter on arrival.
If we are to enable Catholics to buck the cultural tide and not only hold onto their own personal faith but share it eagerly with others, if we are serious about evangelization at all, we have to start talking about following Christ and intentional discipleship explicitly in our parishes. We have to both ask and tell on an on-going basis.

12 Comments:
There you go with the Protestant talkiness again, Sherry. You must have missed the cultural trend of the last 40 years, but for most Catholics, going to Mass, devotions, Eucharistic adoration, etc., are, to use your word "intentional" actions. No one goes to Mass anymore because their parents want them to or because it's habit. You are still quarrelling with the pre-Vatican II mindset, rather than confronting Catholic life as it actually exists. Traditionalists who go to Mass, etc., are also being "intentional" about it. They are not simply cultural Catholics. And what people DO, not what they SAY, is infinitely more expressive of their real faith than talking, talking, talking. The most personal encounter with the Lord is that of receiving the Eucharist or participating in Eucharistic adoration. It's not "talking" about Jesus. And examples are far more probative than listening to people recount their subjective experiences of Jesus Christ.
Janice Kraus
Janice, I don't see that Sherry misunderstands or is trying to denigrate any one's practice of the faith; rather, she's merely pointing out the fact that our human nature requires that we verbally reinforce the ideas and values that we espouse, and that's difficult to do in a minority environment.
Sure, there's a unity and sense of community that arises in our midst as we engage in liturgical or devotional actions together (all facing the Lord/the same direction rather than facing each other, as it were), but we must have a way, a shared language in which to verbally communicate with one another in order to apprehend, reinforce, and deepen our understanding of our experience.
The very fact of your continued engagement here testifies that we all have a need to explore our faith with the use of our brain - "love the Lord your God with all your... mind...", etc. - to talk about our faith, to teach, to preach. The Lord commands us to do so, in fact.
Discussion of our Catholic experience does not threaten the practice of it; rather, it strengthens and enhances it. I find it silly (not to mention flatly contrary to Scripture and Church teaching) that you would suggest otherwise.
Kathleen,
You can find it as "silly" as you wish, but a good example brings far more people into the faith than endless talking about it. Of course, that involves "talking," but not simply talking "about" Jesus, which is what is being proferred here. Far more intelligent and insightful are those of the faithful who PRAY, receive Holy Communion, and engage in Eucharistic adoration. This is communicating with the Lord, not simply talking about him. There's a big difference. Discussion of the "Catholic experience" is, at least as described here, a lot of navel-gazing and subjectivity.
Janice Kraus
By the way, Kathleen,
Our impetus, inspiration, and energy for evangelization or, indeed, anything that affects our lives as Catholics, properly comes out of the sacraments of initiation, specifically the Sacrament of Confirmation. It manifests itself in the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, the theological virtues, sanctification, etc. This is how communities are built up in Catholicism, not out of an artifically-composed community talking about itself. Catholics are supposed to live outside of themselves, not focus always on their own subjective reactions.
Janice Kraus
Janice, is it really your intention to consign all intellectual endeavor, the whole of Christian writing and lecturing on theology, philosophy, history, and the practice of the Christian faith to the trash heap? To suggest that no good Catholic should ever be found talking about Jesus, but only to Him? Or is it that only certain (certifiably holy?) people should be allowed to talk about their experience of Christ to others? Are we not worthy or something?
If so, I wonder why you bother - why you're at your computer typing messages instead of at Mass or making a Holy Hour. (Be assured that I myself do also make time for prayer and Mass; it's just that I regard this sort of conversation as part of my practice of the Faith as well.)
Once again, I hold that discussions of our Faith and our Christian experience reinforce our practice of it and make it more meaningful. I bear witness to this in my own life - the pursuit of God in the company of friends continually makes me a stronger Christian and a better communicator who is more sure and more knowledgeable (with first-hand knowledge!) about that which I speak.
And again, the very fact that you desire a back-and-forth human interaction over these ideas quite neatly proves Sherry's (and the researcher's) point. "Iron sharpens iron", as Proverbs says.
And our previous comments crossed - I appreciate your mention of the Sacrament of Confirmation, which I treasure having received. The spiritual and corporal works of mercy (instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, admonish sinners, etc.), the theological virtues, and learning how to overcome sin and live holy lives - this is precisely the content of these discussions and the practice of these virtues.
Like the discussion we're having right now! Do you realize that the more you deny that conversation between Catholics about their faith experience does any good, the more you undercut your own position?
(Someone please help me and correct me if I'm sinning or being uncharitable here, but I'm just perplexed by what I think Janice is trying to say.)
Dovetailing Janice's comments, I also have to wonder how we could be giving more weight to a contemporary "communication scholar"'s positivistic (and thus derogatory) view of silence than to our centuries-old monastic traditions. An atmosphere of silence is not always a "spiral" into fear of social isolation. Maybe, just maybe it's in part a disciplining of our already very loose tongues. Maybe, just maybe it's possible to enhance intentionality and community through monastic silence. Maybe, just maybe the practices and charisms of the Trappists, Carthusians, et al are more relevant for modern Catholics than the psychosocial models of "intentionality" and "community" that dominate Protestantism and modern American gnosticism.
Of course, "bad" silence does exist in Catholic parishes. But any Catholic solutions should re-source the great monastic traditions before taking any cues from Protestants or modern science. At the very least, any discussion of these matters should respect the mindset or phronema of our monastic fathers and mothers.
Kathleen,
Your comments illustrate that you don't get it. I'm hardly saying that we shouldn't participate in theological discussions. But, too often, the advice on this blog is redolent of chattiness about the subjective effects of one's conversion, not about theology (speculative or practical), or the corporal or spiritual works of mercy, either. Rather, it's all "boy, do I feel converted" kind of stuff. I'm not undercutting my own position; I'm simply saying that the impression I receive from this blog is not about theological erudition, but just ... feelings. And that's really neither here nor there. It's how one manifests one's conversion that counts and chiefly in the works of mercy, not in chatty-Cathy style displays in small, exclusive groups.
By the way, Kathleen,
I do theology for a living, so I'd hardly be the one to ban discussion of the faith.
But in general, as a practicing Catholic, if you want someone with whom to share your faith, the best way is to do that while engaged in the works of mercy, while seeing Christ in the less fortunate (in whatever way). That's truly sharing the faith.
The other way is through contemplative prayer, to join with Christ. Not to talk about Christ, but to talk TO Christ.
Janice Kraus (the above post was mine also)
Perhaps what we need is a theological re-purposing of our objective and subjective missionality within a framework of God-love.
Janice:
We are commanded by Christ himself and the whole apostolic tradition including Scripture and a vast number of magisterial references to preach Christ verbally which is exactly and precisely what I was talking about here.
The Church explicitly says that the witness of a holy life, though indispensible and powerful is *not* sufficient, that we must NAME Christ and propose the kergyma to others, baptized or not, who do not know him or are not following him.
This is not doing theology. Before someone can move into discussing theology and engage in contemplative prayer, they have to have heard and responded to the basic Gospel. Many, many millions in the west and elsewhere have not and so the need for initial verbal preaching of the Gospel is continual.
I won't waste time quoting the hundreds of magisterial references on the topic because we've done that before and you ignore them. Your argument is with the Church, not with Kathleen or me or anyone else here at ID. And that is not something we can help you with.
Of course, this blog isn't a venue for serious theological discussion. Blogs are not suited to that. I am already slammed with work and certainly don't have time to compose intricately argued blog posts on complicated topics. I save it for more appropriate venues: major addresses, theological symposia, the graduate course I have to write and offer next year at a graduate school of theology. This blog's purpose is evangelical (in the European sense)and frankly popular.
This post has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home