From the Past to the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland

Abstract

Contested understandings about the past continue to reify the divided character of post-Troubles Northern Ireland. In particular, the unresolved legacies of the extension of English control over Ireland in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries through warfare and plantation continue to structure daily lives in the province. Yet the archaeological record of this period complicates the accepted dichotomous narratives through highlighting complexity. These nuances, however, have been lost in recent decades as an overly simplistic model of colonizer versus colonized has emerged as the dominant political paradigm. The management and presentation of sites associated with the process of plantation can arguably create the space necessary to bridge the divide, and to challenge accepted understandings. Cross-community engagement in the process of archaeological discovery and interpretation on plantation-period sites in Northern Ireland highlights the critical role archaeology can play in peace and reconciliation in post-conflict societies.     

The Northern Ireland Conflict: A Framework for Discussion1

At the Dublin Antipode Conference of March 1978, a debate occurred on the Northern Ireland question. In what follows we present extended versions of two of the papers (those by Boal and Anderson). We have also included other pertinent material in the form of Pringle's essay and Perron's review. Hopefully both of these papers will add a further dimension to the debate. In the case of Anderson's paper, due to both time and space limitations, the editorial collective reduced his original work substantially.     

The Intellectual Internment of a Conflict: The Forgotten War in Northern Ireland

One of the most enduring ideas about the Northern Ireland conflict is that it has been rigorously studied. This is a myth. The stark absence of analysis of its military and international dimensions makes the conflict one of the least understood of modern times. Scholarly studies of Northern Ireland have been insulated from influences in the wider academic world by the dominance of hitherto unchallenged images about the crisis. These images support a dominant orthodoxy that has confined intellectual investigation of the 'Troubles' to Northern Ireland itself, sustaining a view that little of value can be gained from studying the military nature of the conflict. This orthodoxy is one to which, depressingly, the international relations community has been only too willing to contribute to justify its fear and neglect. Not only does this reflect poorly on academic practice but it has also helped to engender a dangerously distorted image of the conflict that bodes ill for the future.     

Northern Ireland,employment and the law

Employment Equality in Northern Ireland, vols I‐III Eithne McLaughlin (series ed.), 1997 Belfast, Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights ISBN 0.9527.5280.8

Vol. I. Fair Employment Law in Northern Ireland: Debates and Issues Denise Magill & Sarah Rose (eds) pp. 202

Vol. II. Policy Aspects of Employment Equality in Northern Ireland Eithne McLaughlin & Padraic Quirk (eds) pp.197

Vol. III. Public Views and Experiences of Fair Employment and Equality Issues in Northern Ireland John McVey & Nigel Hutson (eds) pp. 170     

A shared future: territoriality,pluralism and public policy in Northern Ireland

This paper addresses the making of post-conflict public policy in Northern Ireland. In particular it considers an extended consultation process, A Shared Future: Improving Relations in Northern Ireland, initiated in January 2003 by the Community Relations Unit of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as a response to the statutory requirement to further ‘good relations’ as specified in the 1998 Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland Act (1998). This public consultation process invited responses to a set of core principles for a plural but socially cohesive society and a series of policy options for fostering ‘good relations’. In this paper we discuss the Shared Future process within the context of the consociational underpinnings of the 1998 Agreement and the ways in which it foregrounds ideas of cultural diversity and pluralism but fails to engage adequately with the temporal and spatial dimensions of identities in Northern Ireland. Secondly, we explore both the difficulties of making policy that will encourage a pluralist but cohesive polity in a context in which territoriality dominates identity at state, local and even individual scales, and the problems of the ways the Shared Future policy seeks to replace ethnocratic or ethno-nationalist markers with those of ‘normal’ identities in ‘normal’ capitalist material space. We conclude with reflections on the limitations of consociational democratic practices in a society that has democratically mandated political parties promoting territorially-based ethno-nationalist ideologies.     

Equity, Diversity and Interdependence: Cultural Policy in Northern Ireland

This paper examines the new presence of "culture" within politics in Northern Ireland and attempts by cultural policymakers and community activists to constructively shift the meanings of "identity", "tradition" and "heritage". It focuses on the work of the Community Relations Council and the strategic development of its three principles of equity, diversity and interdependence, in relation to specific controversies about culture in Northern Ireland and wider debates about pluralism and multiculturalism. The distinctive configuration of questions of pluralism and culture in Northern Ireland highlights the ways in which multicultural theory is shaped by its geographies of development and circulation and how ideas of culture and multiculture work in different places and travel with sometimes ambiguous effects. At the same time, the pragmatic combination of optimism, realism, encouragement and critique in cultural policy in a context of continued division and political instability complicates familiar accounts of the geographies and politics of multiculture.     

Sexual citizenship in Belfast,Northern Ireland

In this article we examine the contours and construction of sexual citizenship in Belfast, Northern Ireland through in‐depth interviews with 30 members of the GLBT community and a discursive analysis of discourses of religion and nationalism. In the first half of the article we outline how sexual citizenship was constructed in the Irish context from the mid‐nineteenth century onwards, arguing that a moral conservatism developed as a result of religious reform and the interplay between Catholic and Protestant churches, and the redefining of masculinity and femininity with the rise of nationalism. In the second half of the article, we detail how the Peace Process has offered new opportunities to challenge and destabilise hegemonic discourses of sexual citizenship by transforming legislation and policing, and encouraging inward investment and gentrification.     

Partition,consociation, border‐crossing: some lessons from the national conflict in Ireland/Northern Ireland

ABSTRACT. Outlining Ireland's long history of ethno‐national conflict, and the recent protracted ‘peace process’ in Northern Ireland, contextualises a critique of the problems underlying such conflicts, and the difficulties in transforming externally imposed conflict management into self‐sustaining conflict resolution. It is argued that the problems and difficulties are deeply rooted in a thoroughly modern complex of nationalism, ethnicity, sovereignty and representative democracy. These are knotted together in a common denominator of territoriality, and the nub of the problem is the ‘double paradox’ of democracy's undemocratic origins in the present. Territoriality, the use of bordered geographical space, is a powerful and ubiquitous mode of social organisation which simplifies social control. But it can grossly oversimplify and distort social realities, particularly at borders and especially where territory is contested, thereby reinforcing other distorting simplifications typically found in ethno‐national conflicts. In consequence, radical remedies are needed if the problems are to be overcome. Making ethno‐national peace paradoxically calls for more creative border‐crossing conflicts around other issues.