Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:43:59.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Importance of Public Meaning for Political Persuasion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2018

Deva Woodly
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There have been many retrospective analyses written about the marriage-equality movement since the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling that made marriages between people of the same sex legal in all 50 states. Most attribute that triumph to a stunningly swift turnaround in public comfort with and approval of same-sex relationships. However, public opinion data indicates that this narrative is inaccurate. In 2015, 51% of General Social Survey respondents declared that they found sexual relationships between people of the same sex to be “wrong” at least “some of the time.” Nevertheless, at the same time, 56% of respondents affirmed that people of the same sex ought to have the legal right to marry. This dissonance suggests that the most common narrative about the success of the movement misses something crucial about how political persuasion happened in this case, as well as the way that political persuasion happens in general. In this article, I show that the massive shift in support for same-sex marriage was likely not the result of large majorities changing their underlying attitudes regarding gay sexual relationships, but was instead the result of activists inserting new criteria for evaluating same-sex marriage into popular political discourse by consistently using resonant arguments. These arguments reframed the political stakes, changed the public meaning of the marriage debate, and altered the decisional context in which people determine their policy preferences.

Type
Special Section: The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 22 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Althaus, Scott. 1998. “Information Effects in Collective Preferences.” American Political Science Review 93(3): 545–58.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 2010 [1877]. Rhetoric. Ed. Meredith Cope, Edward and Sandys, John Edwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank, De Boef, Suzanna, and Boydston, Amber. 2008. The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boydstun, Amber. 2008. “Measuring the Scope of Political Communication.” Presented at Visions in Methodology, Ohio State University, October 2–4.Google Scholar
Brewer, Paul. 2003. “The Shifting Foundations of Public Opinion about Gay Rights.” Journal of Politics 65(4): 1208–20.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis and Druckman, James. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101(4): 637–55.Google Scholar
Coontz, Stephanie. 2006. Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Dardis, Frank E., Baumgartner, Frank R., Boydstun, Amber E., De Boef, Suzanna, and Shen, Fuyuan. 2008. “All Frames Are Not Equal: Framing and Conflict Displacement.” Mass Communication and Society 115–140. Accessed December 6, 2016. https://www.unc.edu/∼fbaum/Innocence/JOP_Framing.pdf.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001. “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?.” Journal of Politics 63(4): 1041–66.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. and Chong, Dennis. 2007. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–26.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1991. Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Fames Political Issues. Chicago: Uiversity of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kirk. 2006. “Gay Marriage Losing Punch at the Ballot Box.” New York Times, October 14.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. 1994. Reconceving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Klar, Samara, Robinson, Joshua, and Druckman, James N.. 2013. “Political Dynamics of Framing.” In New Directions in Media and Politics, ed. Ridout, Travis N.. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McAdam, Doug and Snow, David A.. 2009. Readings on Social Movements. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. 1993. “Public Opinion and Heuristic Processing of Source Cues.” Political Behavior 15(2): 167–92.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana and Soss, Joe. 1997. “Reading Public Opinion: The Influence of News Coverage on Perceptions of Public Sentiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 61(3): 431–51.Google Scholar
Nelson, Kjersten and Druckman, James N.. 2003. “Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’ Conversations Limit Elite Influence.” American Journal of Political Science 729–745. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/exportCitation/doi/10.1111/1540-5907.00051 Google Scholar
Nelson, Thomas and Kinder, Donald. 1996. “Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 58(4): 1055–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Oxley, Zoe M. and Clawson, Rosalee A.. 1997a. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91(3): 567–583.Google Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E. and Oxley, Zoe M. and Clawson, Rosalee A.. 1997b. “Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects.” Political Behavior 19(3): 221–46.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin, Shapiro, Robert, and Dempsey, Glenn. 1987. “What Moves Public Opinion.” American Political Sceince Review 91(1): 23–44.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Robin. 2012. “Interview with Barack Obama.” ABC Evening News, May 9. Accessed December 29, 2016 at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-robin-roberts-abc-news-interview-president-obama/story?id=16316043.Google Scholar
Sears, David O. and Funk, Carolyn L.. 1999. “Evidence of the Long-Term Persistence of Adults’ Political Predispositions.” Journal of Politics 61(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Sears, David O. and Lane, Robert. 1964. Public Opinion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkildsen, Nayda and Schnell, Frauke. 1997. “How Media Frames Move Public Opinion: An Analysis of the Women’s Movement.” Political Research Quarterly 50(4): 879–900.Google Scholar
Wedeen, Lisa. 2002. “Conceptualizing Culture.” American Political Science Review 96(4): 713–28.Google Scholar
Woodly, Deva R. 2015. The Politics of Common Sense: How Social Movements Use Public Discourse to Change Politics and Win Acceptane. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Woodly supplementary material 1

Woodly supplementary material

Download Woodly supplementary material 1(File)
File 68.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Woodly supplementary material 2

Supplementary Table

Download Woodly supplementary material 2(File)
File 20.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Woodly supplementary material 3

Woodly supplementary material

Download Woodly supplementary material 3(File)
File 73.6 KB