lengthy book written by a QUB academic sums up
almost everything that is known and thought about
nationalism in Ireland; all the way from the 11th
to the 21st centuries. It sets the particular
episodes and figures of 'Irish freedom' within
the framework of the general theories of nationalism.
written by an academic, the book has the advantage
of being accessible to the general reader. The
book is very useful for its outline of the many
polemics and controversies that have arisen in
debates about particular periods (for example
was 1916 legitimate etc). The author's erudition
is remarkable, and his ability to thouroughly
carry out such an ambitious task is impressive.
there are some bizarre omissions in the book:
O Donovan Rossa is not mentioned, but his wife
is, The Strabane Weekly is quoted, but
there are no references to significant publications
such as The Catholic Bulletin or The
Wolfe Tone Annual which had a critical impact.
Burke, Marx and Mill's positions on Ireland are
discussed, but Tocqueville is omitted.
book creates a certain confusion in that it subsumes
Republicanism and Nationalism under the category
of 'Irish Nationalism'. However, both concepts
have a different lineage, Republicanism being
rooted in the people (demos) and nationalism in
an ethnonational community (ethnos). Republicanism
is based on universal principles, it is internationalist
rather than nationalist; whereas nationalism is
particular. Tone's Republicanism was not even
Irish but imported from revolutionary France.
It is the democratic element within Irish Republicanism
that distinguishes it from Nationalism. Self-determination
and sovereignty are articulated in the language
of universal democracy.
author is good on how Nationalism has often contaminated
Republicanism with ambivalent results, for example
when it has been mixed up with Catholicism (just
think how hunger strikes were embedded within
the culture of Catholic martyrology) and restrictive
definitions of culture (as if supporting certain
types of sports was intrinsically connected to
the Republican project). He is understanding but
not supportive of his subject matter; hence his
frequent use of terms such as "zealotry"
and "solipsism" to characterise it.
English is generally critical of the Republican
and Nationalist position on Unionism, partition
and the British connection. He argues that they
have "fundamentally misread" the phenomenon
of Unionism (pp.249-251, 363). By focusing on
a so-called 'external' actor (the British state),
they failed to grasp that the real opposition
was 'internal' (the Unionists).
what Republicans argue is that the people who
consider themselves British subjects have no incentives
to come to terms with the rest of the people of
Ireland so long as the British government give
them unconditional guarantees. It is not that
they misjudge the strength of unionist opposition,
but that unconditional British guarantees (such
as the 'consent principle') give Unionism an artificial
strength that allows it to prevent political change
which it would not be able to prevent on its own.
The British presence institutionalises internal
divisions and make them harder to solve.
1998 Nobel Peace Prize laureate John Hume puts