|
|
|
Missing the Point
Lee Reynolds
This article is a
response to one written in a previous issue by John Nixon. Nothing demonstrates Nationalismıs inability at
understanding the Unionist community than their caricatures about Unionist
identity. (See The Other View, No.3 Pages 7-8) Nationalists persistently talk of
a crisis among Unionists that is certainly overstated and possibly does not
exist at all. Nationalists are also trying to mask where a true crisis lies.
Before I begin, it is necessary to remember that Irish nationalism wants an
identity crisis among Unionists. As an ideology based on identity many
nationalists believe that getting Unionists to accept Irish cultural identity is
an integral part of winning them over to the Irish political cause.
Identity is always evolving therefore debate about it
is natural. However, any healthy debate among Unionists about their identity is
to be subverted and twisted into a crisis. The false consciousness imposed upon
us by the English colonialists is finally faltering nationalistsı hope. (Never
mind the fact that the false consciousness theory is deeply insulting if not
bigoted, i.e., these Ulster Prods are so thick they canıt work out theyıve
been conned for centuries.)
As regards Unionist identity the central point is that
there is no such thing. Irish nationalism invented a cultural monolith in the
last century. This defined Irish as Gaelic, Celtic and Roman Catholic (although
they are becoming coyer about the Catholic bit). Unionism did not seriously
engage in the same exercise. For example, when the Rev Brett Ingram first
approached a Stormont minister to discuss events to mark the 50th anniversary of
the Larne gunrunning the reply he received was ³We donıt have to worry about
that kind of thing. We run the place.² This laissez-faire attitude to identity
enabled the broad sweep of identities Unionists have always had to continue and
flourish.
This is no surprise if you consider the origins of those who vote Unionist. They
come from Norman, English, French Hugenot, Scottish, Irish and probably some of
Welsh origins (maybe the odd Viking too). In religious terms you have the high
number of different churches that have significantly different theological
perspectives; for example Calvinist predestination to Arminian freewill, with
some Roman Catholic converts thrown in as well. This breadth of religious values
gives different social values to various Unionist communities and individuals.
The Unionist attitude to identity is also more relaxed.
The emphasis on singleness of identity is not as important to them. The
diversity of origin and the openness to multiple identity spawns multiple terms.
The range of terms is not a sign of confusion but a legitimate recognition of
the different origins and the multiple identities Unionists have. A personal
note may help explain my point. My place of birth, Ulster, has been subject to
cultural influences of a different type and longevity that make it distinctive
from the rest of the Ireland. I am an Ulsterman. (This identification with
Ulster means I find no difficulty in identifying with Cuchulainn.)
The three main cultural influences in Ulster are Irish,
English and Scottish. The area I grew up in and the cultural practices and
language of my family were Ulster-Scots. I am an Ulster-Scot. I am the son of a
Presbyterian and an Anglican and was sent to an Independent Methodist Sunday
School. I am a Protestant. The political institutions I identify with are
Westminster and the Monarchy. My family has regularly served in the British
Army. I am British. I believe in the value of the Union between Ulster and Great
Britain. I believe it offers the greatest potential for social economic and
political justice for everyone in Northern Ireland. I am a Unionist. I am a
member of the Orange Order, the Royal Arch Purple Chapter, the Royal Black
Institution and the Apprentice Boys of Derry. I am an Orangeman, Purpleman,
Blackman and Apprentice Boy.
This is basically how I see myself. I am not one single
thing I am all of these and most are co-terminus not co-determinant. I have no
doubts about any of these identities, I am confident about my identity.
Others may have similar experiences but use different
terms for example some call themselves Scotch-Irish instead of Ulster-Scots.
Some may say they were born in Ireland not in Ulster therefore they are Irish.
Others may merge the Ulster and British and call themselves Ulster-British. What
is included and what terms are used are up to each individual.
This attitude to identity is a healthy one. It is a
flexible approach more suited to the rapid changes of the modern world. It also
fits in well with the human rights context. Human rights allows each individual
to define himself or herself and in any number of ways that they wish. The
concept of being one identity or a number of co-determinant identities is
declining. We are moving inexorably to a post-nationalist world.
The greatest confusion among Nationalists seems to be
when Unionists use the term Irish. One term can have many meanings. Unionists
tend to use it primarily in a geographical sense not one that means Gaelic and
Celtic. They also donıt understand how someone can describe himself or herself
as British and Irish. Simple they are applying a different model of identity
that can cope with such diversity and their sense of Irishness is not based on
the anti-British/anti-English Irishness that nationalists subscribe too.
This also brings me back to my early point about where the real crisis about
identity lies. I believe it lies in Irishness. When the international fad to be
Irish is over and when Riverdance taps into our distant memories Irishness is in
trouble. In addition to its model of identity being outdated it has two key
problems, the changing relationship with Europe and the peace process.
Up until now the Republic of Irelandıs relationship
with Europe has been a positive one. Thus the addition of the European tag was
smooth. However, its relationship will become progressively less rosy. A few
prominent politicians have already begun to moot a more Euro-sceptic position.
The bigger threat is the peace process. Irishness was
beginning to mature. It was building on the confidence of the Celtic Tiger
economy and becoming more open with its identity, which reached its peak with
Mary Robinsonıs election.
However, the most conservative and aggressive attitudes
about Irishness are to be found in Northern nationalism and republicanism. (Is
it any wonder then that reaction to this cultural aggression is Irish Out?) The
peace process involved absorbing Northern nationalism and republicanism into the
Irish mainstream, the inclusion of which hindered the greater development of a
broader Irishness. The outcomes of the conservative Irishness retrenchment can
clearly be seen in the election of Mary McAleese and now the Roman Catholic
Churchıs attempt at a comeback with the tour of the relics of St Therese of
Lisieux.
The identities of Unionists may be confusing to others
but we each have a sense of what we are. Our model of identity can also cope
with the modern world. But can Irishness look to the future with the same
confidence?
Lee Reynolds works for the Ulster-Scots Heritage Council and serves on the
Management Committee of the Castle Cultural Society. As he states in his
article, Lee regards himself as an Ulster-Scot, a Protestant and a Unionist. He
is also a member of the Loyal Orders.
|