rodo | The Spiral of Silence

Note: This was prompted by the current Supernatural discussion, but it is something I have been thinking about a lot, even before now. It is mainly about my own behaviour online and an attempt at rationalising it. This is also not meant to be a generalisation of fandom interaction in general.

The spiral of silence is a much discussed theory. It might or might not exist online, but I think it describes my posting habits very well, so I might actually be the proof of it's existence.

"The theory asserts that a person is less likely to voice an opinion on a topic if one feels that one is in the minority for fear of reprisal or isolation from the majority (Anderson 1996: 214; Miller 2005: 277)."

This happened to me several times already: If I get the feeling that I am in the minority (though I might actually be part of the majority, the numbers are irrelevant to this theory, it's more about what I perceive to be reality), I probably won't tell you my opinions. I learnt the hard way that it is often the best alternative to keep my mouth shut and sit on my hands until it's over. This however, only the case if the issue is an issue of morality. Issues like that include, but are not limited to, race, feminism and sexuality.

So, in order to determine whether I am part of the majority or minority, I will generally start to read what other people post on the subject, and what the reactions are to people who disagree. If the disagreement is discussed in a polite, non-emotional manner, I will probably post something or comment without fear of being shunned should I voice an opinion other people disagree with. If, however, (as is the case with the current Supernatural discussion) I feel as if my side is portraited as being morally wrong/inferior/stupid/evil, I will probably watch from afar until I feel it's safe to say something again. I like discussions, but as soon as things start to develop into an issue of morality, I start to fear reprisals should I say anything different than the perceived majority does.

These reprisals might be dog-piling, flaming, or simply an unpleasant argument with someone whose opinion I generally agree with and whom I like personally. I fear that someone might not like me anymore, to be precise. The spiral of silence can probably only be applied to describe my behaviour because I take online interaction far to seriously, but I can't help that fandom is part of my social life. I'm not sure I want to either. It's the same in RL as well, I am just generally better at judging if I things will turn unpleasant or not.

Last but not least: This is meant to be descriptive. I don't want to get people to change their behaviour, I just want to explain mine. I understand that it is probably difficult to be calm about something if you feel rather passionately about it (even though I am not a very passionate person), and I think that this is very important, because otherwise, nobody would be able to overcome a spiral of silence like the one I am caught up in. So, in a way, I envy anyone who does not feel this way about discussions in fandom.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If you're talking about the feminism/Dean's a misogynist discussions exploding all over the net, I know how you feel. It's getting very old knowing I'd be labelled a "woman hater" or not understanding the depth of the issue or whatever simply for not flipping out over a few words in a character's mouth. Staying far away from it.

Me again - I also do happen to be female, and the one I really hate seeing women use on women who disagree with them is "GTFO out of my gender". NICE.

Speaking as someone who doesn't watch Supernatural at all, but has been glancing at the debates...

...you seem to have missed the point.

It's not, "The mean feminists are making little old me feel bad!" but, "It bothers me when people make arguments that impose a value judgment, particularly a contemptuous one, on those that disagree with them."

Which is exactly what you are doing by characterizing people who are unhappy with Supernatural for feminist reasons as "flipping out over a few words in a character's mouth."

--Annwyd

....

What a succinct, charming way of saying, "You're so stupid I can't even be bothered explaining why."

Isn't it though?

or of not saying; "you are right, but I'll never admit it."

When someone condescendingly replies with something like "I'm so sorry you hate women", it's hard to see how they're not imposing a value judgement of their own.

If you're unhappy with a television show for any reasons, feminist or other, the sensible thing to do would be to watch something else.

- Supernatural-loving female feminist, TYVM

If you turned into your first couple of episodes of Supernatural and found that you hated the show, then yes, just walking away is the wise decision.

If you liked a show, but some aspect of it develops in a way you don't like, there is a long, loud, and proud fannish tradition of watching the show and telling everyone who'll sit still long enough exactly where it went wrong and how you would fix it. This is especially common when you like the characters but not the plots, or you like the fandom, but the show itself is inadequate in some way, or when you like most of the characters except one of the leads.

People do it all the time, they get pleasure from it, and I don't think that someone who is not in their heads can judge whether they're getting more pleasure or pain from the watching and bitching.

I've got absolutely nothing against people being critical or even downright vitriolic about fannish sources (providing they're not trying to crash other people's squee spaces). Lots of people derive great enjoyment from these activities. However, when I read posts in which people repeatedly express very strong moral and ethical objections to prominent aspects of particular series, I just can't help but wonder why they don't withdraw their support for the franchise by ceasing to consume the offensive material. To me it seems too much like complaining vociferously about the immorality of McDonald's business practices, but opting to eat there after work every night regardless.

Hmm.

I don't see the link.

When the mindset of a popular show seems to be deleterious towards a group of people, it seems to me that it's important to discuss it.

It is equally important, after all, to spread discussion of how and why MacDonald's is bad for you-- as it is to refrain from eating it yourself.

Except that, if you're just getting your SPN over the air or through a cable or through illegal downloads, you actually haven't given the CW any additional cash/ratings/eyeballs, what have you (unless you're one of the few, the proud, the Nielsen families.)

This is more akin to dressing up as Ronald McDonald for Halloween and passing out pamphlets explaining how McDonald's is exploiting teenagers.

Well put.

To anonymous; yes, there are women who are so very angry (and so very poor at expressing their anger) that they become insulting. I do hope you've noticed that not everyone expresses themselves that way.

The SPN issue should be-- could be-- more nuanced-- with some effort, it sometimes is.

Yes, I have noticed. But knowing why someone is insulting doesn't make me any more inclined to join the debate out in the open. As others in this thread have put, there's this whole "If you aren't with us you must be against us" thing that happens around the issues of the various -isms. Sometimes the debate IS rational. Sometimes it's interesting and lively and I learn things and pick up things I never would have, otherwise.

Sometimes, though, it's a wall of anger and hysteria that nothing, rational or otherwise, can penetrate. I get why it's there. I'm just not ready to expose myself to it. I don't always have the time or the emotional energy to wade into these wars, hence the Anon posting here.

Well, I completely approve of your decision to step away (for whatever that's worth) and I do it too-- less for the past couple of months, evidently.

Time and energy ebb and flow.

You still can't win even then, because there are those that claim that silence = not protesting = tacit approval. Not wanting to get screamed at somehow means you automatically disagree with the screamer? Come on, guys.

Yes, people do want to draw lines and put each other on one side or the other, don't they?

The Spiral of Silence

no subject

no subject

no subject

not OP

Re: not OP

Re: not OP

Re: not OP

no subject

no subject

no subject

Not the OP there but....

Re: Not the OP there but....

Re: Not the OP there but....

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject