II. Ireland's Historical Position: 'Colonial' or 'European'Author(s): Brian WalkerSource: The Irish Review (1986-), No. 9 (Autumn, 1990), pp. 36-40Published by: Cork University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29735541 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 14:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Cork University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Irish Review(1986-).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

36 Walker

'right-liberal', 'left-liberal' ? with respect to liberal capitalism ? but also with

'right-conservative', 'left-conservative', and 'right-communist', 'left

communist'. That last pair do express the existing division of opinion in, say, the Soviet Communist Party, with 'left' indicating, as it actually does now in

Moscow, a critical deviation from orthodoxy towards the free market, private

property, etc.

IL Ireland's Historical Position ?

'Colonial' or 'European'

BRIAN WALKER

In recent years, in the field oflrish literary criticism, much emphasis has been

placed on setting Irish writing in its historical context, particularly its political and social context. This emphasis, however, has sometimes produced simplistic

approaches to Irish history, and has ignored the new understanding which

historians have of our past. One such questionable view is the analysis which

describes Ireland in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as either 'colonial'

or c post-colonial\ In what follows it will be argued that this approach is incor?

rect, and any understanding based on it will be misleading. A more accurate and

more helpful approach is to set Ireland, both north and south, in the nineteenth

and twentieth centuries, in its European context.

The colonial analogy for Ireland in the nineteenth and early twentieth cen?

turies is often accompanied by two other arguments which see southern Ireland

after 1921 as post-colonial and northern Ireland after 1921 as a continuation ofa

colonial arrangement. Such an account of Ireland's history is often cited as an ex?

planation for various failings, both north and south, and as the reason why mat?

ters such as religion remain important. (British rule, it is sometimes argued, has

sustained religious divisions, to divide the people). The situation in Northern

Ireland has been seen by some'as a colonial situation, and analogies have been

drawn, especially with Algeria. A closer look at modern Irish historiography,

however, would bring into question these assumptions, which a number of

literary historians (e.g. Seamus Deane, David Lloyd, David Cairns and Shaun

Richards) have taken up in their writings. It is by no means certain that Irish

literature or Irish culture 'inhabits the highly recognisable world of modern col?

onialism' (S. Deane, Civilians and barbarians [Deny, 1984], p. 18).

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Colonial/European 37

First, in the case of Ireland in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, we

should note that Ireland was not a colony but part ofthe union of Great Britain

and Ireland. Like Scotland and Wales, and unlike all British colonies, Ireland

sent parliamentary representatives to the sovereign parliament at Westminster.

From the beginning of the union there were no religious disqualifications to

voting and after 1826 there was no religious bar to standing for parliament. By 1911 indeed Ireland sent one M. P. to parliament for every 43,468 members ofthe

population compared with a figure of 73,612 for England and Wales. The period

ofthe union had many positive sides to it and various reforms, such as in primary education, were introduced ahead of England and Wales. It did of course have

negative sides, and a nationalist movement emerged to be followed by a

republican movement which successfully brought about secession from Great

Britain for 26 counties. At the same time, nationalists won a majority oflrish

seats only in the 1870s and support for the republican cause only became

widespread after 1916.

Thus for the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Ireland does not fit any

ordinary 'colonial' mould. If we look further back into Irish history we can find

evidence in other periods to substantiate this argument. As Tom Bartlett has

pointed out in a recent article ('A people made rather for copies than originals: the Anglo-Irish 1760-1800', in The International History Beview, xii, no. 1. Feb.

1990, pp 14-16), writers in eighteenth-century Ireland stressed strong differences

between Ireland and the various British colonies in their relationship with Great

Britain. Unlike the situation in the American colonies, the Irish parliament had

medieval origins, it had houses of Lords and Commons and made laws for

Ireland; it counted itself as a sister kingdom to Great Britain with a common

king. Unlike the colonial assemblies, the Irish parliament voted its own taxes.

The analogy of colonial Algeria with Northern Ireland has cropped up in some

writings of literary critics, and references have been made to Fanon and Camus

and their observations on violence. Again, the Northern Irish poet Derek

Mahon, who comes from a protestant background, has sometimes talked ofhis

cultural situation as comparable to that of Camus. Yet most political scientists

and historians would be very wary of pursuing such a simple comparison. Frank

Wright in his book, Northern Ireland: a comparative analysis (Dublin, 1987), pp

217-65, draws attention to some ofthe reasons why the situation in Northern

Ireland is very different from that in Algeria. The settlement of French colonswas

a nineteenth-century matter, while the settlement of Scots and English in Ulster

went back much further. The catholic population in Ulster enjoyed equal legal and electoral rights from early in the nineteenth century, unlike Algeria where

Muslim rights were severely restricted until well into the twentieth century.

Northern protestants are not an ?lite, unlike the French Algerians, but have a

mass base. While French Algerians were only 10% ofthe Algerian population,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

38 Walker

the protestants of Northern Ireland are around 64% of Northern Ireland, and

about 20% ofthe total population oflreland. Finally, the vast bulk oflrish na?

tionalists, especially the Irish government, have firmly rejected the idea of im?

posing a solution by force: unlike the FLN in Algeria which had wide support,

backing for the IRA is low, a fact which can be seen in the small support for Sinn

F?in ? around 11% ofthe electorate in Northern Ireland and under 4% in all

Ireland.

Therefore, it is incorrect to describe Ireland's situation in the nineteenth and

twentieth centuries, and earlier, as 'colonial' or 'post-colonial' pure and simple.

Obviously there were and are problematic connections between Ireland and Bri?

tain, but Ireland's development, north and south, cannot be seen simply in a

colonial context. Further, this description excludes perspectives which an ap?

preciation ofthe European context would allow. New books on the events of

1688-90 have emphasised the European dimensions ofthe Williamite wars; but

it is useful to remember that the forces which shaped modern European history have also been relevant to Ireland up to the present.

In recent years, partly due to some simplistic Marxist interpretations, once

fashionable but now questionable in the light of Eastern European changes, and

partly to irredentist versions of British/Irish relations, the European dimensions

of our problems have been ignored. Writers viewing matters in a purely British

context have also failed to see the value of this broader, more varied picture. The

great forces of religion and nationalism which have remained so influential in

Europe, including Ireland, are not properly appreciated if we take a 'colonial'

view ofthe situation in Ireland. For example, a number of studies on northern

literature have disregarded or played down the religious divide in Ireland as an

artificial division which arose from conquest and imperial policies. This argu? ment fits well the colonial 'model' of conflict and society.

Yet if we take the Irish situation in a European context we find that religious

division is not an 'artifice' but a real ideological conflict which has divided

politics in many parts ofthe continent, not just in the seventeenth century, but

right up to the present. Irish readers, used either to British and American

politics, where religion has not mattered for a long time, or to the colonial

model where the religious division in Ireland is seen as a manufactured force, will

be startled to read the work of political scientists such as Richard Rose, who, even in the early 1970s, diagnosed religion

as a major determinant in European

voting behaviour: in some countries they have identified religion and not class as

the main dividing force (Richard Rose ed., Ekctoralbehaviour: a comparative hand?

book London, 1974). These political scientists refer, not just to the pro testant/catholic divides of Holland, Germany and Switzerland, but to the divi?

sions between anti-church and church supporters in countries like Italy. Since

the late 1960s religion has become less important in Western Europe, but

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Colonial/European 39

recently religious and national divisions have emerged as very important in

Eastern Europe.

Setting Irish history, not in a 'British' or 'colonial' but in a European setting,

can bring special insights into the development of people and society in Ireland.

For example, when we see what happened in Germany, Switzerland, or Holland

in the late nineteenth century, we need not be surprised at the impact of

religious division in Ireland. At the same time, these countries show how this

problem was 'coped' with in various ways which allowed them to avoid the civil

strife we have suffered. Nationalist, or ethnic, divisions have also affected the

lives of people in many states: in some places, but not in others, success has been

achieved in managing this conflict. Our situation is so difficult because ofthe

way religious and nationalist divisions have strengthened each other.

In recent years, a number of historians have explored the intertwining of

religion and nationalist conflict in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Ireland. The complexity of sectarian division needs to be seen as

significant in its

own right, which a European dimension allows, but a 'colonial' framework fails

to take seriously. The European context allows us to make sense of these major forces. In the conclusion to a recent study, Ulster politics: the formative years, 1868

86 (Belfast, 1989) I have sought to explain the important changes of this period

by drawing parallels with developments in Western Europe: the 'colonial'

model was rejected because of the reasons given above and the mainstream

British context was not seen as offering adequate explanation for the special

developments in Ulster or the rest of Ireland.

In other areas of research, writers have dispensed with the colonial model as

having any real validity for understanding the development ofthe Irish society and people. For example, the political scientist Michael Gallagher, in his book

Political parties in the Republic of Ireland (Dublin, 1985), p. 147, specifically rejects the post-colonial model on various grounds: Ireland does not fit the usual col?

onial type of a poor dependent country and has many European features.

Gallagher has also argued recently that 'Northern Ireland appears to be too big and sufficiently distinctive politically from the rest ofthe island to be regarded

as

a "colonial enclave" '

{Irish Political Studies, vol. 5,1990, p. 28). In his writings the historical geographer and folklorist Estyn Evans often stressed the European context oflrish folklore and customs (see Irish folk ways, London 1957). On the

other hand, the art historian Brian Kennedy, in a recent article on twentieth cen?

tury Irish art (in Myrtle Hill and Sarah Barber eds, Aspects oflrish studies, Belfast

1990) analyses the influential forces within Ireland which established an Irish

school of art and makes no effort to see this school in a post-colonial way.

Clearly, then, there is a strong argument for literary critics to be less certain

about accepting the 'colonial' or 'post-colonial' model as a suitable context in

which to locate the lives and writings oflrish authors. Not only is this approach

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

40 Walker

dubious, but the European context may provide a more appropriate and more

helpful setting. Discussions about the impact of impending European unity should not blind us to the fact that we have always been part of Europe, and that

the factors which have inspired and divided continental Europeans have also af?

fected us profoundly.

Writing in 1947 in his book The Irish, Sean O'Faolain deplored the lack oflrish historical writing, apart from works which were 'nationalist, patriotic, political and sentimental'. Since then, especially in the last twenty years, there has been a

great upsurge in Irish historiography, covering a wide range of social, economic

and cultural topics, as well as reassessing much of our political history. Literary

critics who wish to understand the historical context of their writers should find

much material of value in this new work. It may even help them see how Ireland, with its own distinctive qualifications, some undoubtedly influenced by its rela?

tions with Britain, fits into what O'Faolain called 'the great general stream of

European culture'.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:38:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions