What do you think?
Rate this book
La espiral del silencio: Opinión pública: Nuestra piel social
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann propuso en este libro de referencia la teoría de la espiral del silencio; una aportación fundamental para analizar la relación entre los medios de comunicación y el control social.
Partiendo de la teoría según la cual la opinión pública es una forma de control social, La espiral del silencio se ha convertido en un libro de referencia por su importante contribución no solo a la progresiva construcción de una historia de la opinión pública, sino también a la comprensión del comportamiento de los votantes en general, o al esclarecimiento de las relaciones entre el hombre moderno y los medios de comunicación.
Este libro es un texto de lectura obligatoria para los científicos sociales y para todos aquellos que sientan curiosidad por conocer un poco más el papel de la opinión pública en la sociedad contemporánea. En esta obra, Noelle-Neumann estudia la opinión pública como una forma de control social en la que los individuos adaptan su comportamiento a las actitudes predominantes sobre lo que es aceptable y lo que no.
Partiendo de la teoría según la cual la opinión pública es una forma de control social, La espiral del silencio se ha convertido en un libro de referencia por su importante contribución no solo a la progresiva construcción de una historia de la opinión pública, sino también a la comprensión del comportamiento de los votantes en general, o al esclarecimiento de las relaciones entre el hombre moderno y los medios de comunicación.
Este libro es un texto de lectura obligatoria para los científicos sociales y para todos aquellos que sientan curiosidad por conocer un poco más el papel de la opinión pública en la sociedad contemporánea. En esta obra, Noelle-Neumann estudia la opinión pública como una forma de control social en la que los individuos adaptan su comportamiento a las actitudes predominantes sobre lo que es aceptable y lo que no.
336 pages, Paperback
First published June 7, 1982
27 people are currently reading
1084 people want to read
About the author
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann
42 books5 followersElisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1916 – 2010) was a German political scientist. Her most famous contribution is the model of the spiral of silence, detailed in The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion – Our Social Skin. The model is an explanation of how perceived public opinion can influence individual opinions or actions.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
October 24, 2012
I read this for a grad school course to familiarize myself with the spiral of silence - a communications theory stating that in general people who see their opinion as not being held by most of the people around them fall silent and don't speak up about it. This silence of the minority (or perceived minority) increases the sense that the opinion is not held by many others, which in turn increases the silence, in a spiral pattern. Why do we do this? To protect our "social skin" - we fear isolation, a very real consequence of disagreeing with the crowd.
It's an interesting theory and one that we can all probably think of good anecdotal evidence for, but I was glad to see some of Noelle-Neumann's original research that helped her formulate the theory, as well as her very deep dive into historical discussions and interpretations of the phenomenon.
One fascinating aspect of this is Noelle-Neumann's description of our "quasi-statistical sense." We are really, really good at knowing what the general opinion of those around us is. Collectively, we're as good as any statistical analysis. The mass media, however, throws a big wrench in the process, especially when the majority opinion of media creators is different than the majority opinion of the public.
This book is also a really good introduction to the concept of public opinion and the difficulty over the past few hundred years of getting a handle on what it really is.
Looking forward to reading the current research on this theory!
It's an interesting theory and one that we can all probably think of good anecdotal evidence for, but I was glad to see some of Noelle-Neumann's original research that helped her formulate the theory, as well as her very deep dive into historical discussions and interpretations of the phenomenon.
One fascinating aspect of this is Noelle-Neumann's description of our "quasi-statistical sense." We are really, really good at knowing what the general opinion of those around us is. Collectively, we're as good as any statistical analysis. The mass media, however, throws a big wrench in the process, especially when the majority opinion of media creators is different than the majority opinion of the public.
This book is also a really good introduction to the concept of public opinion and the difficulty over the past few hundred years of getting a handle on what it really is.
Looking forward to reading the current research on this theory!
Want to read
June 2, 2019Referenced by Paster Bob
May 23, 2015
Querida Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann:
Gracias por ser una lectura amena. Vos junto a Vincent Price, Perre Bourdie y Michelle Wolton me valieron un 10 en el parcial de Opinión Pública. Tkm.
Con cariño,
Flor.
Gracias por ser una lectura amena. Vos junto a Vincent Price, Perre Bourdie y Michelle Wolton me valieron un 10 en el parcial de Opinión Pública. Tkm.
Con cariño,
Flor.
February 20, 2011
A fascinating work. Noelle-Neumann addresses an interesting feature of politics. When a group of people think that they are in the minority, they tend to become passive (the opposite of the underdog effect, when being in the minority energizes one). This book explores why that is the case. While the argument might not satisfy all, it is an important book to consider.
August 11, 2024
I recently grew an interest for understanding how or why people can be so easily mislead. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a researcher and professor of communication who has worked for polls institutes in West Germany (she worked in the 1960s onward) nails here a striking concept: the spiral of silence. What is it?
At the core, it's very simple. It's the idea that public opinion acts as a form of social control. On the one hand, people who think that their beliefs are so unpopular that they would put them at risk to be isolated/ ostracised should they voice them keep quiet about them, while whose believing, on the contrary, that theirs are popular and/ or part of a consensus will be very vocal about theirs. The result, of course, is a sort of vicious circle whereas opinions seemingly unpopular are being censored/ self-censored by those embodying them, resulting in them being perceived as a minority even if they in fact are a silent majority; whereas opinions seemingly popular are being drummed out at every levels (e.g. politics, medias...) even if they are everything but shared by most of us. She offers multiple examples, ranging from politics (e.g. electoral results in West Germany) to disparate topics stirring (at least then!) passionate reactions (e.g. smoking in the presence of non-smokers; smacking children as a way to discipline; nuclear energy etc.).
Personally, I found the spiral of silence to be a fascinating concept because it puts us face to face with what makes a society cohesive -for better or for worse. For example, she insists that, in matters of debates, it has nothing to do with the validity of arguments on either side but with how confident or not the supporters of a view over another will be in sharing theirs, based on their perception of what the majority may think. As such, it can obviously be very dangerous, since opinions which are in fact everything but shared by a majority can nevertheless end up by controlling a social narrative, simply because they are perceived to be so. However, it can also be a good thing, as it can ensure the censorship of opinions which could be otherwise divisive and/ or dangerous to social cohesion. Morale has nothing to do with it. Again, it's about how we perceive ourselves in light of others, and how certain ideas are more likely to be perceived as being probably popular, even if they are everything but.
There are chapters where she attempts to retrace the history of public opinion as a concept, how it emerged, and how its understanding evolved over time to become what we make of it now. Quite frankly, I kind of switched off a bit at that point as I was far more interested in how public opinion works in our current societies. Nevertheless, there are also brilliant chapters on the mass medias, as the medias remains the main source of reference when it comes to assess what is popular or not, what is acceptable to voice or not, what narrative is in charge and which isn't (read: what views you should probably support if you don't want to be isolated). The press indeed is a powerful instrument -it can reflect public opinion accurately; it can shape it to start with for better or for worse; it can, also, be seriously at odd with it (as some sort of establishment flying counter to the silent majority) contributing to various phenomenon which are no less fascinating (e.g. the bandwagon effect; the looking glass self; or, more importantly, plural ignorance etc.).
All in all, here's a very engaging and accessible read given the complexity of the topic and that of the issues surrounding it. I cannot but recommend it highly to anyone even vaguely interested in politics and/ or the medias, let alone critical thinking as a whole. If you want to understand how some views and ideas can so easily take hold of the public narrative, even when being everything but consensual (let alone for the common good) then this book is for you. Brilliant!
At the core, it's very simple. It's the idea that public opinion acts as a form of social control. On the one hand, people who think that their beliefs are so unpopular that they would put them at risk to be isolated/ ostracised should they voice them keep quiet about them, while whose believing, on the contrary, that theirs are popular and/ or part of a consensus will be very vocal about theirs. The result, of course, is a sort of vicious circle whereas opinions seemingly unpopular are being censored/ self-censored by those embodying them, resulting in them being perceived as a minority even if they in fact are a silent majority; whereas opinions seemingly popular are being drummed out at every levels (e.g. politics, medias...) even if they are everything but shared by most of us. She offers multiple examples, ranging from politics (e.g. electoral results in West Germany) to disparate topics stirring (at least then!) passionate reactions (e.g. smoking in the presence of non-smokers; smacking children as a way to discipline; nuclear energy etc.).
Personally, I found the spiral of silence to be a fascinating concept because it puts us face to face with what makes a society cohesive -for better or for worse. For example, she insists that, in matters of debates, it has nothing to do with the validity of arguments on either side but with how confident or not the supporters of a view over another will be in sharing theirs, based on their perception of what the majority may think. As such, it can obviously be very dangerous, since opinions which are in fact everything but shared by a majority can nevertheless end up by controlling a social narrative, simply because they are perceived to be so. However, it can also be a good thing, as it can ensure the censorship of opinions which could be otherwise divisive and/ or dangerous to social cohesion. Morale has nothing to do with it. Again, it's about how we perceive ourselves in light of others, and how certain ideas are more likely to be perceived as being probably popular, even if they are everything but.
There are chapters where she attempts to retrace the history of public opinion as a concept, how it emerged, and how its understanding evolved over time to become what we make of it now. Quite frankly, I kind of switched off a bit at that point as I was far more interested in how public opinion works in our current societies. Nevertheless, there are also brilliant chapters on the mass medias, as the medias remains the main source of reference when it comes to assess what is popular or not, what is acceptable to voice or not, what narrative is in charge and which isn't (read: what views you should probably support if you don't want to be isolated). The press indeed is a powerful instrument -it can reflect public opinion accurately; it can shape it to start with for better or for worse; it can, also, be seriously at odd with it (as some sort of establishment flying counter to the silent majority) contributing to various phenomenon which are no less fascinating (e.g. the bandwagon effect; the looking glass self; or, more importantly, plural ignorance etc.).
All in all, here's a very engaging and accessible read given the complexity of the topic and that of the issues surrounding it. I cannot but recommend it highly to anyone even vaguely interested in politics and/ or the medias, let alone critical thinking as a whole. If you want to understand how some views and ideas can so easily take hold of the public narrative, even when being everything but consensual (let alone for the common good) then this book is for you. Brilliant!
April 16, 2023
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s “The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion - Our Social Skin” is a great book and I recommend it to anyone interested in sociology, political science, communications, cultural studies, anthropology, media studies, history, philosophy, or the mechanisms underlying the emergence of social issues or of social control. That being said, for a German author that pays so much attention to social and political context and who was a young adult during World War II to write a book about these issues that doesn’t mention, in any significant way, the phenomena related to the rise and fall of Hitler is weird in a way that’s hard to ignore. It would be like if I was to write a book about how prejudice takes hold, root it an American context, and then neglect to mention the nation’s long periods of experimentation with slavery or Jim Crow even when those things had been going on during my lifetime. If I was an anonymous reviewer for the book, I would have felt compelled to bring up the issue since it’s such a paradigmatic illustration of many of the points the author tries to make that almost *every single author anywhere in the world who writes about related issues grapples with what happened in Germany between 1933 and 1945.* I’m not going to speculate why the author doesn’t touch on the issue and I really don’t know, but I think it’s a significant oversight. In fact, it’s such a glaring oversight it almost seems inappropriate to refer to it as an oversight. It was definitely a scholarly and creative choice. I don’t think the book needed to be focused on those issues, but it seems strange not to mention them almost at all, especially since the book gives so much information about German political and intellectual history both before and after the Nazi period.
The book is a great companion to Timur Kuran’s book on preference falsification. In fact, it was citations in Kuran’s book that led me to look into this book. I’m glad I did. The authors offer different perspectives on public opinion but their perspectives are in my view largely complementary. What I this Noelle-Neumann’s book could do a better job of is morally problematizing these mechanisms. At times, she seems to view almost all individuals as simply pulled along by public opinion. She recognizes that some people don’t find themselves influenced in this way but fails to give a meaningful account of explaining why these pressures act more decisively on some people than others.
The highlight of the book for me was the analysis of how different historical thinkers and actors have responded to public opinion and how they have understood it.
The book is a great companion to Timur Kuran’s book on preference falsification. In fact, it was citations in Kuran’s book that led me to look into this book. I’m glad I did. The authors offer different perspectives on public opinion but their perspectives are in my view largely complementary. What I this Noelle-Neumann’s book could do a better job of is morally problematizing these mechanisms. At times, she seems to view almost all individuals as simply pulled along by public opinion. She recognizes that some people don’t find themselves influenced in this way but fails to give a meaningful account of explaining why these pressures act more decisively on some people than others.
The highlight of the book for me was the analysis of how different historical thinkers and actors have responded to public opinion and how they have understood it.
September 27, 2021
Une intéressante lecture qui à l'époque de sa parution (1984) a probablement été plutôt révolutionnaire puisqu'aujourd'hui, en le lisant, j'ai l'impression que ce sont des observations plutôt courantes et qui semblent presque enfoncer des portes ouvertes.
Il est toutefois très intéressant de s'attarder aux raisons et aux études qui montrent comme l'opinion publique force ou forme le silence ou la dissimulation d'une opinion minoritaire (à plusieurs exceptions qui sont soulevées, analysées et traitées dans l'essai) et comment ces opinions publiques peuvent forger les politiques et les changements sociaux. On traite aussi de l'influence des médias dans cette forge de l'opinion publique et des possibilités de déviation de celles-ci.
Mon étude de cas préféré de l'essai est lorsqu'un débat n'est pas présent dans l'opinion public, la première personne a amener le débat (dans les médias) va forger les bases et les termes du débat qui va suivre (bref, peut le pousser dans une direction précise) avant la cristallisation de l'opinion publique après un certains temps puis finalement la fatigue va pousser à passer à un nouveau sujet.
L'essai est bien documenté, de nombreux sondages et analyses sociologiques (surtout allemandes) viennent supporter la thèse de l'autrice et on a aussi le droit à une petite histoire de l'opinion publique en philosophie ainsi qu'un retour sur les thèses qu'elle a apporté dans l'édition de base et des observations qu'elle peut en tirer neuf ans plus tard (1993).
P.S.: C'est aussi une très drôle de coïncidence que je finisse ce livre pendant l'élection allemande après le départ d'Angela Merkel (26 septembre 2021) puisque l'essai traite amplement des questions autour de l'influence des médias, de l'opinion publique, etc. dans les élections avec de nombreux sondages et études. Je jure que ce n'est pas arrangé avec le gars des vues!
Il est toutefois très intéressant de s'attarder aux raisons et aux études qui montrent comme l'opinion publique force ou forme le silence ou la dissimulation d'une opinion minoritaire (à plusieurs exceptions qui sont soulevées, analysées et traitées dans l'essai) et comment ces opinions publiques peuvent forger les politiques et les changements sociaux. On traite aussi de l'influence des médias dans cette forge de l'opinion publique et des possibilités de déviation de celles-ci.
Mon étude de cas préféré de l'essai est lorsqu'un débat n'est pas présent dans l'opinion public, la première personne a amener le débat (dans les médias) va forger les bases et les termes du débat qui va suivre (bref, peut le pousser dans une direction précise) avant la cristallisation de l'opinion publique après un certains temps puis finalement la fatigue va pousser à passer à un nouveau sujet.
L'essai est bien documenté, de nombreux sondages et analyses sociologiques (surtout allemandes) viennent supporter la thèse de l'autrice et on a aussi le droit à une petite histoire de l'opinion publique en philosophie ainsi qu'un retour sur les thèses qu'elle a apporté dans l'édition de base et des observations qu'elle peut en tirer neuf ans plus tard (1993).
P.S.: C'est aussi une très drôle de coïncidence que je finisse ce livre pendant l'élection allemande après le départ d'Angela Merkel (26 septembre 2021) puisque l'essai traite amplement des questions autour de l'influence des médias, de l'opinion publique, etc. dans les élections avec de nombreux sondages et études. Je jure que ce n'est pas arrangé avec le gars des vues!
January 6, 2025
Aunque el término ‘opinión pública’ sea relativamente moderno, la preocupación por lo que puedan decir los demás sobre nosotros es ancestral e instintiva y puede rastrearse en la obra de los primeros filósofos o incluso en textos tan remotos como el Antiguo Testamento o la Odisea. A esa opinión recurrimos como termómetro antes siquiera de lanzar nuestras propias ideas al ágora social, no sea que caigamos en el ridículo o, peor aún, acabemos siendo excluidos por nuestros semejantes. De esos miedos y de ese encogimiento expresivo, procede ‘La espiral del silencio’ que describió la politóloga alemana Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann en su célebre ensayo. Un texto donde también aborda cómo se forma y se conforma esa ‘opinión pública’, su volubilidad y los diversos intentos de muchos por tratar de entender sus mecanismos con la esperanza de poder manipularlos.
Algunas referencias a la política alemana de los setenta les sonarán demasiado lejanas a muchos lectores, pero, aún así, continua siendo una gran propuesta para estos tiempos en que los debates dialécticos se han transformado en combates de monólogos y donde, a las espirales de silencio, deberíamos añadir otras tantas burbujas ideológicas infladas por algoritmos informáticos tendenciosos.
Algunas referencias a la política alemana de los setenta les sonarán demasiado lejanas a muchos lectores, pero, aún así, continua siendo una gran propuesta para estos tiempos en que los debates dialécticos se han transformado en combates de monólogos y donde, a las espirales de silencio, deberíamos añadir otras tantas burbujas ideológicas infladas por algoritmos informáticos tendenciosos.
March 27, 2025
In this book, there wasn't anything particularly shocking for me. I feel like I already knew most of the concepts discussed. However, I still appreciated certain aspects of the book, particularly how it provided examples from different time periods, authors, and cultures. The way it explored the phrase public opinion—its definition and how it has been understood by different philosophers and thinkers—was fascinating.
One part I truly enjoyed was reading about tribes and their perspectives on public opinion. It was interesting to see how they manage and navigate public perception in their societies.
The most striking part for me, though, was an idea that, while obvious, was also surprisingly eye-opening. It's the idea that when we hold an opinion,we tend to assume that most people share our viewpoint. For example, if you support a particular political party, you might think that the majority of people support it too. We unconsciously correlate our personal opinion with the "public opinion", even though we don't exactly know whether it's true or not.
One part I truly enjoyed was reading about tribes and their perspectives on public opinion. It was interesting to see how they manage and navigate public perception in their societies.
The most striking part for me, though, was an idea that, while obvious, was also surprisingly eye-opening. It's the idea that when we hold an opinion,we tend to assume that most people share our viewpoint. For example, if you support a particular political party, you might think that the majority of people support it too. We unconsciously correlate our personal opinion with the "public opinion", even though we don't exactly know whether it's true or not.
January 31, 2022
Excelente! Este livro demonstra como as pessoas, por medo do isolamento e perseguição da opinião pública, preferem permanecer em silêncio do que expor/defender no acredita em público. O retrato do que estamos vivendo hoje no Brasil e no Mundo. Basta se levantar contra o establishment pra ser acusado de negacionista ou propagador de fake news e discurso do ódio. Um ataque ferrenho a liberdade de expressão e opinião. Graças à Deus que mesmo diante desse cenário assustador, algumas pessoas se posicionam para quebrar essa espiral do silêncio, não temendo às represálias ou perseguições.
December 19, 2023
I'm a layperson (not a psychologist or scientist in this field). I found the book very interesting at times. It got bogged down with things such as the original use of the phrase public opinion and how public opinion is defined, detracting from the book.
The quote by John Locke that there are three laws: the spiritual law, civil law, and the law of fashion (or public opinion) is spot on. Also, the fact that people prefer to be wrong than to be isolated - making the law of fashion the most powerful law was also very insightful.
The quote by John Locke that there are three laws: the spiritual law, civil law, and the law of fashion (or public opinion) is spot on. Also, the fact that people prefer to be wrong than to be isolated - making the law of fashion the most powerful law was also very insightful.
Want to read
February 2, 2021A possible selection for April's Global book club.
April 23, 2021
Es interesante, pero es muy "estudiante"
June 27, 2022
Everybody should read this book!
It is a magisterial and complex study about the human nature, the public opinion and our social behaviors.
One of the best books I have ever read!
It is a magisterial and complex study about the human nature, the public opinion and our social behaviors.
One of the best books I have ever read!
May 11, 2024
La teoría de la espiral del silencio me ha parecido interesantísima. Ahora, la historia conceptual de la opinión pública no me ha cautivado en absoluto.
April 26, 2022
El vaig llegir per classe.
May 5, 2008
If I had to pick one book that helps explain what's going on with the democratic primary right now, this would be it (though long after this mess is resolved, this book will still be relevant). Instead of being infuriated and confused by the momentum swings, you could understand exactly why and how those swings happen by reading this book.
The premise: What other people think about an issue affects what we think about the issue. This is something we don't like to admit b/c we think of ourselves as rational, independent decision makers. Noelle-Neumann presents a lot of convincing data from elections and psychology experiments that show that our perception of the popularity of an opinion affects our willingness to publicly declare that opinion, which in turn can make it less popular, hence the "spiral of silence." We live in an era where public opinion has become increasingly visible through constant polling and internet opinion aggregation via blogs and search tools. As I see it, this means that elections will be less about mainstream media spin or (god forbid) the candidates' stance on issues, but rather about the portrayal and perception of public opinion.
Its a pretty quick, easy read. All the experiments are explained in a straight-forward manner, and like all good social science, it applies some classical philosophy (Locke) to an everyday phenomenon, presents a beguilingly simple theory that has a lot of explanatory power, and backs it up w/ lots of good data. This isn't wild speculation or wishful thinking, and something about the fact that the theory was formulated long before the popularization of the internet makes it all the more appealing. Its not just another "blogs and YouTube are totally changing politics!" paean to democratizing new media. Good stuff.
The premise: What other people think about an issue affects what we think about the issue. This is something we don't like to admit b/c we think of ourselves as rational, independent decision makers. Noelle-Neumann presents a lot of convincing data from elections and psychology experiments that show that our perception of the popularity of an opinion affects our willingness to publicly declare that opinion, which in turn can make it less popular, hence the "spiral of silence." We live in an era where public opinion has become increasingly visible through constant polling and internet opinion aggregation via blogs and search tools. As I see it, this means that elections will be less about mainstream media spin or (god forbid) the candidates' stance on issues, but rather about the portrayal and perception of public opinion.
Its a pretty quick, easy read. All the experiments are explained in a straight-forward manner, and like all good social science, it applies some classical philosophy (Locke) to an everyday phenomenon, presents a beguilingly simple theory that has a lot of explanatory power, and backs it up w/ lots of good data. This isn't wild speculation or wishful thinking, and something about the fact that the theory was formulated long before the popularization of the internet makes it all the more appealing. Its not just another "blogs and YouTube are totally changing politics!" paean to democratizing new media. Good stuff.
November 22, 2020
No puedo más que estar agradecido con este libro que me abrió una puerta para escapar de la visión habermasiana de la opinión pública y el espacio público. Mi tesis no hubiera sido posible sin el aporte de Neumann, rifada y muy accesible para leer. Debería ser más leída!
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews