Ghosts of the Somme

Jonathan Evershed

Description

Once assumed to be a driver or even cause of conflict, commemoration during Ireland's Decade of Centenaries came to occupy a central place in peacebuilding efforts. The inclusive and cross-communal reorientation of commemoration, particularly of the First World War, has been widely heralded as signifying new forms of reconciliation and a greater "maturity" in relationships between Ireland and the UK and between Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland. In this study, Jonathan Evershed interrogates the particular and implicitly political claims about the nature of history, memory, and commemoration that define and sustain these assertions, and explores some of the hidden and countervailing transcripts that underwrite and disrupt them. Drawing on two years of ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Belfast, Evershed explores Ulster Loyalist commemoration of the Battle of the Somme, its conflicted politics, and its confrontation with official commemorative discourse and practice during the Decade of Centenaries. He investigates how and why the myriad social, political, cultural, and economic changes that have defined postconflict Northern Ireland have been experienced by Loyalists as a culture war, and how commemoration is the means by which they confront and challenge the perceived erosion of their identity. He reveals the ways in which this brings Loyalists into conflict not only with the politics of Irish Nationalism, but with the "peacebuilding" state and, crucially, with each other. He demonstrates how commemoration works to reproduce the intracommunal conflicts that it claims to have overcome and interrogates its nuanced (and perhaps counterintuitive) function in conflict transformation.

In ways determined variously by its hostility, intolerance and even criminality, but also its socio-economic vulnerability and political marginalisation, ‘Loyalism’ as a label or ethnographic category represents particular forms of ‘deviance’ (Hobbs 2001). This, in turn, has rendered at least some of my research what Raymond Lee (1993) has termed ‘sensitive’, in that it has involved (and in a sense continues to involve) particular ‘intrusive’ and ‘political’ threats, as well as threats of sanction for both myself as researcher and certain of my participants. In all instances it is the ethical duty of the ethnographer, as far as possible, to protect their respondents, and this duty is all the more acute in instances where a failure to do so could result in sanctions. For instance, even to claim membership of the UVF or the UDA is proscribed under UK law and to be revealed to be a current member of either organisation carries a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years (Home Office 2015). As far as I am aware, none of my respondents were active or current members of a proscribed organisation, but this represents only one particular form of the ‘guilty knowledge’ I have risked acquiring over the course of my research. Much of this knowledge is, on the face of it, fairly innocuous – who does or does not like whom and for what reasons – but in a close-knit community this kind of information can be extremely sensitive, with potentially damaging consequences when ‘they’ can read what ‘we’ write (cf. Lee 1993: 5; See also Brettell ed. 1996).

Becker (1967, cited in Fielding 1982: 91) has suggested that “one should refrain from publishing items of fact or conclusions that are not necessary to one’s argument or would cause suffering out of proportion to the scientific gain of making them public”. I went one step further than this by choosing not to ask questions about expressly illegal activity in the first place. These questions were, in any case, unlikely to be answered by respondents fully aware of the legal issues raised by the so-called and ongoing Boston Tapes controversy. For each of my respondents, the specific boundaries of the research were clearly laid out, and lines drawn as to what information I was prepared to be privy, what activities I was prepared to observe and in which I was prepared to participate (cf. Polsky 1971). Complete anonymity can never be guaranteed, particularly in a context where crucial clues to identity can inhere in information as seemingly innocuous as a street name (Lee 1993: 186). However, all reasonable steps to protect the identity of my respondents has been taken. To this end – and in consultation with respondents – names have been changed and the biographical information pertaining to each interlocutor has been kept to a minimum.

In sum, this research has involved complex ethical and moral negotiations and some compromises on my part which have at times been quite emotionally challenging. The problem of balancing the will to speak out against or challenge forms of intolerance and prejudice versus maintaining good relationships with my respondents has often been difficult to negotiate. Cassell (1988) has argued that in order to gain access to the field it is possible and even desirable to temporarily adopt the views of respondents, and at the very least, it is often not for the anthropologist to openly condemn particular ideas or actions where they are encountered in their setting. Particularly in the early stages of my fieldwork, building relationships with ‘gate-keepers’ to gain ‘access’ (Reed 2012: 209), I found it difficult to judge what I ought or ought not to say, how to respond to certain kinds of provocative questioning or how much of myself – my own views, beliefs and opinions – I ought to reveal. In the end, however, building and maintaining relationships with respondents or interlocutors ‘in the field’ is really no different to building relationships more generally, even where those interlocutors hold views and engage in forms of behaviour which are at odds with or jar with one’s own. Honesty (with the exception of a few white lies which are the stuff of social grace), integrity, flexibility and importantly, a good sense of humour and the capacity to both give and take a good ‘slaggin’’ (cf. Rodham 1998) have all been fundamental to developing reciprocal relationships based on trust, openness and mutual respect. While I have not come to share the worldview of my respondents, I will always have a profound and enduring respect for their opinions, and gratitude for the patience, kindness and generosity they have shown me.

(excerpted from chapter 2)

Foreword

Acknowledgements

List of Figures

List of Tables

List of Acronyms

Introduction

1. (Re)theorising Commemoration

2. ‘What does it mean to follow a ghost?’: Locating ‘the field’ and the ethics of empathy

3. Policy, peacebuilding and ‘the past’ during the Decade of Centenaries

4. Peace as Defeat: Loyalism and ‘culture war’ in the ‘new’ Northern Ireland

5. ‘Our culture is their bravery’: Commemoration and the ‘culture war’

6. The Golden Age: Memory work and Loyalism’s conflicted hauntology

7. Dupes no more? Loyalist commemoration and the politics of peacebuilding

Postscript: All changed, changed utterly?

Bibliography

Sujets

• Political Ideologies
• HISTORY
• POLITICAL SCIENCE
• Histoire
• Primera Guerra Mundial
• World War I
• Irish nationalism
• Unionism in Ireland
• Ireland
• Stephen Ireland
• Belfast
• Première Guerre mondiale
• Europe

Informations

• Publié par: University of Notre Dame Press
• Date de parution: 30 mai 2018
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9780268103880
• Langue: English

Extrait

GHOSTS OF THE SOMME
GHOSTS OF THE SOMME
Commemoration and Culture War in Northern Ireland

JONATHAN EVERSHED
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME PRESS NOTRE DAME, INDIANA
University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 undpress.nd.edu
All Rights Reserved
Copyright © 2018 by University of Notre Dame
Published in the United States of America
Title page image: “The Road to the Somme Ends,” https://extramuralactivity.com/2013/01/11/the-road-to-the-somme-ends/ .
Image courtesy of Extramural Activity.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Evershed, Jonathan, 1989– author.
Title: Ghosts of the Somme : commemoration and culture war in Northern Ireland / Jonathan Evershed.
Other titles: Commemoration and culture war in Northern Ireland
Description: Notre Dame, Indiana : University of Notre Dame Press, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2018011948 (print) | LCCN 2018012581 (ebook) | ISBN 9780268103873 (pdf) | ISBN 9780268103880 (epub) | ISBN 9780268103859 (hardcover : alk. paper) | ISBN 0268103852 (hardcover : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Somme, 1st Battle of the, France, 1916—Centennial celebrations, etc. | World War, 1914–1918—Northern Ireland—Anniversaries, etc. | Great Britain. Army. Division, 36th. | World War, 1914–1918— Ireland— Influence. | Collective memory—Northern Ireland. | Group identity—Northern Ireland. | Political culture—Northern Ireland. | Ireland—Politics and government—21st century.
Classification: LCC DA962 (ebook) | LCC DA962.E84 2018 (print) | DDC 940.4/272—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018011948
∞ This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).
This e-Book was converted from the original source file by a third-party vendor. Readers who notice any formatting, textual, or readability issues are encouraged to contact the publisher at [e-mail]
For Ray Silkstone
Who taught me about arguments:
how to make them and how to hear them
The future to come can announce itself only as such and in its purity only on the basis of a past end …. The future can only be for ghosts. And the past.
J. Derrida, Spectres of Marx
CONTENTS
Foreword
Dominic Bryan
Acknowledgments
List of Illustrations
List of Abbreviations
Introduction
ONE . (Re)theorizing Commemoration
TWO . “What does it mean to follow a ghost?”: Locating “the Field” and the Ethics of Empathy
THREE . Policy, Peace-Building, and “the Past” during the Decade of Centenaries
FOUR . Peace as Defeat: Loyalism and the Culture War in the “New” Northern Ireland
FIVE . “Our culture is their bravery”: Commemoration and the Culture War

SIX . The Ghost Dance: Memory Work and Loyalism’s Conflicted Hauntology
SEVEN . “Dupes no more”? Loyalist Commemoration and the Politics of Peace-Building
Postscript: “All changed, changed utterly”?
Notes
Bibliography
Index
FOREWORD
The use of the poppy as a symbol of commemoration can be dated to the years following the First World War. In Australia and New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada, the practice of wearing the poppy and laying wreaths at cenotaphs serves as an annual reminder of those who have given the “ultimate sacrifice.” The political power of the poppy places it at the center of the nation’s story, a story that is physically structured in cenotaphs and memorials at the center of city, town, and village and is worn close to the heart by citizens every November in an apparently simple and universally agreed on statement of remembrance.
A closer examination of the narratives surrounding the avowedly simple poppy, however, reveals a distinct lack of agreement, great inconsistency, and, often, contention. In each country in which the poppy is worn the narratives about it differ significantly, as the particularities of each nation’s relationship with war and sacrifice demand more nuanced readings of its symbolism. Very often it is a particular battle around which the national narrative is structured. In Australia, it is the stark story of the Battle of Gallipoli that provides the focal point. The narrative encompasses a scathing critique of Britain’s incompetent and clumsy handling of the invasion of Turkey in 1915, while it simultaneously asserts Australia’s rightful place among the nations and profiles a white, masculine (and increasingly contested) ideal-type for the Australian citizen.
In the United Kingdom, the design and prevalence of the poppy has become considerably more pronounced in the twenty-first century. The simple flower has become larger, more embellished, and even jewelencrusted. Prominent British sports teams now have their array of international players wear an embossed poppy on their shirts during the month of November, and the few who refuse to do so are widely and roundly condemned. The international football teams of England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have demanded the right to wear the poppy at international matches, defying the rules of FIFA, the football world’s governing body, about the display of political symbols. Commemoration has become both more enforced and more controversial.
The complex and conflicted symbolism of the poppy is nowhere better illustrated than in Ireland. The same years that saw it first worn as a symbol of remembrance also saw Ireland divided into two states. Northern Ireland became a devolved region of the United Kingdom, while the other twenty-six counties took dominion status before eventually becoming the Republic of Ireland. The First World War did not provide a suitable narrative, nor the poppy a suitable symbol, for the southern state, where the 1916 Easter Rising delivered the story of sacrifice around which national identity was structured. But in Northern Ireland, a story of sacrifice for Ulster and for the empire sustained relationships with the British “mainland.” Like the Australian soldiers at Gallipoli, the soldiers of the 36th (Ulster) Division at the Battle of the Somme came to symbolize a gallant and foundational sacrifice for King and country.
This sophisticated and detailed book by Jon Evershed offers us real insight into the contemporary politics and poetics of commemoration. In particular, it examines the narratives and practices of commemoration by groups of working-class Unionists in Northern Ireland. It explores how and why, in Belfast, the poppy has migrated from its traditional habitat on lapels and at the foot of memorials in the early weeks of November to appear year-round in “Loyalist” paramilitary murals and on the uniforms and instruments of marching bands during the parades of the summer months. It helps to explain why it is not uncommon to see people in Northern Ireland wearing a poppy at any point throughout the year, or even to see it etched in people’s skin as part of a tattoo. In Northern Ireland, the sacrifice of which the poppy is symbolic belongs to complex narratives and divisive claims about British sovereignty, citizenship, and identity on the island of Ireland.
And yet, as Jon Evershed maps, the 1998 multiparty Agreement has helped to create a new environment in which the poppy and its story have increasingly been salvaged and reclaimed in the Republic of Ireland and, consequently, in which a narrative of common sacrifice by Protestant and Catholic, British and Irish, on the fields of France and Flanders has been constructed and rehearsed. This narrative has been encouraged by both the British and Irish states in the name of peace-building, to the point that it appears to threaten the particularity of the loyalty—and the identity—of some of the Unionists of Ulster.
Conflicting narratives, driven by the politics of group identity, are plotted throughout this book. Importantly, it captures a moment in time, “a decade of centenaries,” by and through which these politics are currently framed and negotiated. As a work of anthropology, people and their practices are central to the analysis. What people say and what people do when they commemorate are captured through Evershed’s ethnography, and he provides a challenging commentary on the social, cultural, and political role of remembrance. This volume is therefore an important case study of commemorative practice, of the will to commemorate, and of the politics of remembering.
Dominic Bryan Belfast, July 2017
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This book was born of my PhD research, which—with the generous support of an Arts and Humanities Research Council scholarship for which I am immensely grateful—I was privileged to undertake at the Institute of Irish Studies, Queen’s University Belfast. For more than fifty years, the Institute has continuously sought to interrogate and broaden the boundaries of Irish Studies scholarship, and my research benefited immeasurably from the encouragement and support I received from my colleagues at Queen’s. I feel very lucky to count so many leading scholars not only as peers, but as friends. They have helped to make Belfast a second home.
To my former supervisors, Dominic Bryan and Evi Chatzipanagiotidou, my sincerest thanks. I could not have asked for better, more thorough, or—when it mattered—more motivational support and guidance. My examiners, Neil Jarman and Eric Kaufmann, contributed significantly to polishing and refining the manuscript. The work