Dynamics of Emotive Campaigning in the 2015 Irish Same-Sex Marriage Referendum

• In Event: Campaigns and Crises in Ireland

Abstract

In 2015, Ireland became the first country in the world to approve of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples by national referendum. The referendum was a landmark moment in Irish political history, shattering the image of Ireland as a country beholden to Catholic religious doctrine and mired in social conservatism, which attracted significant international attention. It was also noteworthy due to the dynamics of public opinion throughout the referendum process, as evidenced by opinion polling, and the much higher intensity of campaigning (relative to previous Irish referendums).

This paper uses this exceptional referendum as a case study to explore the use and utility of emotive campaign rhetoric. The messaging strategies used by both pro- and anti-marriage equality campaigners are examined to establish their respective use of different semantic topics and emotional loading. Particular attention is paid to the emergent dynamics of the campaigns as their approaches changed over the course of the referendum.

Utilising text data gathered from Irish national print publications, a picture emerges of a tightly-focused and organised Yes (pro-marriage equality) campaign, exercising considerable message discipline and capable of delivering high-impact messages of equality and personal testimony - in sharp contrast to a more chaotic approach from a less organised No (anti-marriage equality) campaign. The paper also examines and explains the changes in the emotive strategies of both campaigns over time, with both sides using angry rhetoric in the early campaign and later moving to more optimised emotive messages (love in the case of Yes and fear in the case of No).

The findings of this paper present both a challenge and a contribution to our understanding of both referendum campaign dynamics and the use of emotive campaign rhetoric, which should be matters of interest to political scientists and political activists alike.

Author

• Luke Field, University College Dublin