Language pollutionA B C D E F G H IJKL M N O P R S T U VXYZWmajority in more than two of the three sectors,
government, mass media and the public; (2)
when the majority opinion accounts for the
majority across the three sectors; (3) when the
majority opinion increases over time; (4) when
the majority opinion is escalating; and (5) when
the subject-matter ‘tends to stir up the “spirits”
inherent in individuals such as basic values,
norms, prejudices, antagonism and loyalty to the
collective or patriotism’.
Ito states, ‘When these conditions are met and
kuuki is created, it functions as a strong political
or social force, resulting in the minority side
becoming ever-more silent and acquiescent and
changing or modifying its opinion on policy, or
its members resigning from their positions.’L
Label libel A mcluhanism. Marshall McLuhan
(1911–80), media guru of the 1960s, wrote of
the way in which the mass media stick labels
on people, trap them in stereotypes, typecast
them, pigeon-hole them to the point that such
generalizations become invidious and thus a
mode of defamation.
Labelling process (and the media) Howard
Becker in a classic study, Th e Outsiders:Studies
in the Sociology of Deviancy (Free Press, 1963),
analyses the process by which certain social
actions or ideas and those who perform or
express them come to be defi ned as deviant;
and which he calls ‘the labelling process’: ‘Th e
deviant is one to whom the label has successfully
been applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour
that people so label.’
Becker’s work highlights the role that powerful
social groups and individuals play in defi ning the
limits of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour
through the labelling process. He argues that
certain groups within society – moral entre-
preneurs – are particularly able to shape, via
the mass media, new images of deviancy and
new defi nitions of social problems. See crisis
definition; issues.
Language See topic guide under language/
discourse/narrative.
Language pollution According to Gail and
Michele Meyers in The Dynamics of Human
Communication (McGraw-Hill, 1985), ‘when
language is used by people to say what in fact
they do not believe, when words are used,
sometimes unwittingly, sometimes deliberately,
to cover up rather than to explain reality, our
symbolic world becomes polluted. Th is means
that language becomes an unreliable instrumentwhat the prisoner sees: first a bowl of soup,
then the open door of freedom. Audiences were
convinced that the expression on the man’s face
was diff erent in each instance, though it was the
same piece of fi lm. See montage; shot.
Kuuki Japanese term, shared by the Chinese and
Koreans, meaning a climate of opinion requiring
compliance. In an article entitled ‘Th e future of
political communication research: a Japanese
perspective’ published in the Journal of Commu-
nication, Autumn 1993, Youichi Ito, Professor
at Tokyo’s Keio University, emphasizes that
kuuki refers less to generalities than specifi cs.
In ‘Climate of opinion, kuuki, and democracy’
in William Gudykunst, ed., Communications
Yearbook, No. 26 (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002), the
author states that kuuki, the pressure towards
compliance, refers ‘to a certain specifi c opinion,
policy, or group decision’; and this is usually
accompanied by ‘threats and social sanction’.
As the author points out, the phrase ‘climate of
opinion’ has a long history and was probably fi rst
used in the seventeenth century by the English
philosopher Joseph Glanville (1638–80). Ito
suggests a parallel with the German term ‘zeit-
geist’, meaning spirit of the times. He cites the
Russo-Japanese war of 1905, in which the climate
of opinion became in Japan one of fervent popu-
lar support for the war. Th e circulation of the
pro-war newspapers at the time grew dramati-
cally, while that of the anti-war press shrank.
Because kuuki, like zeitgeist, is more spirit than
the corporeal, it is neither as predictable nor as
controllable as more customary shaping devices.
However, when the climate is right, kuuki’s power
can carry a nation. Ito sees a strong connection
here with Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s ‘spiral
of silence’ (see noelle-neumann’s spiral of
silence model of public opinion, 1974).
Kuuki can work for good or ill. When it is
fi red by jingoism ‘it can be undemocratic and
destructive ... Th e most dangerous case,’ writes
Professor Ito, ‘is when kuuki is taken advantage
of by undemocratic groups or selfi sh and intoler-
ant political leaders. Even if the situation is not
as bad as this, kuuki can make people’s viewpoint
narrower and limit their policy options.’
Ito explains how kuuki may be nurtured by
the media, by government or by the strength
of public opinion. Each is a source of infl uence
upon the others, operating in a tripolar way.
Where two of the major actors work in unison,
or alliance, the dominant partnership can force
the third actor into line. Ito lists fi ve conditions
in which kuuki operates to powerful effect:
when (1) the majority opinion accounts for the