While running for the train this morning I grabbed a copy of Metro Herald from the vendor outside the station. Unsurprisingly, a picture of Queen Elizabeth adorned the front page, smiling benignly and holding flowers as she met with Trinity students yesterday. The accompanying article described the visit as an “extraordinary occasion”, while also giving more marginal coverage to a range of protests that marked the day. Inside, another article titled “Forget history, we’re here for the fashion” suggested that for many people the dresses worn by Mary McAlese and the Queen would form greater interest than any political or historical concerns. On the letters page, the subject of the Queen’s visit was again raised by a disgruntled reader proclaiming their “boredom” with the “negative comments” surrounding the visit. He suggested that “Now is the time to show that we’ve moved on and don’t hold petty grudges”.
While personally I do not find the protests by Sinn Féin and other republican groups especially constructive, and I certainly do not sympathise with the calls for violence espoused by some dissident groups, taking issue with the long history and the sustained impacts of British rule in Ireland hardly amounts to a “petty grudge”. I bring up this letter not because it is particularly insightful, but rather because it offers an example of what appears to be a relatively commonplace response to the British monarch’s visit; that is, the perspective that Ireland’s colonial past no longer matters, that we have overcome this heritage and that, in the context of contemporary globalisation and cosmopolitanism, suggesting otherwise amounts to an exercise in a futile and dangerous anachronism. This attitude is arguably an outcome of the transformations experienced during the Celtic Tiger period. The rapid changes to Ireland from the early 1990s seem to have brought with them a cultural amnesia, wherein Irish people forgot the nation’s troubled history and position within the political geography of Europe, in favour of an assumed identity as cosmopolitan citizens of a post-political age.
However, the inescapable fact remains that Ireland is a postcolonial nation. And as the post-colonial studies literature shows us, the affects of colonial rule do not suddenly cease upon the moment of emancipation.
Because of its geographical position, on the periphery of Europe but nevertheless within the area political designated as European, Ireland has occupied a particular (in many ways privileged) postcolonial position. Its geographical proximity to Europe and its cultural proximity to the US, its racial composition, and especially its access to the EU, have afforded Ireland opportunities for economic and structural advancement not offered to other former colonies. In many ways, it could be argued that Ireland’s position as a postcolonial nation within Europe mitigated some of the more trenchant outcomes of imperialism. It has not been the target of economically and politically neo-colonialist interventions (at least up until the recent IMF bailout). Postcolonial nations have frequently struggled to build any sort of functional state apparatus or economy. In regard to nations in Africa, for example, Simone (2004, p. 158) suggests that “Even though urban wages increased substantially in the postwar period – at an average of 116 percent increase between 1949 and 1955 – top wage levels for Africans in 1962 fell well below the bottom wage for Europeans. There was just not enough money to support a massive project of resocialization”. Only a small proportion of the populations in modern African nations are employed in the formal economy, while the informal sector has become increasingly important to the survival of many inhabitants. Similarly, the public sector has never recovered from the decimation left in the wake of the colonial powers leaving. While Ireland certainly experienced poverty in the postwar period, it didn’t experience economic and social problems anywhere near the scale of those experienced in Africa or Latin America. Moreover, the Celtic Tiger ‘economic miracle’ saw dramatic increases in GDP, wage levels, and standards of living. This was seen as evidence of Ireland’s escape from its postcolonial status, to be replaced by an identity as a global economic leader. Furthermore, the case of Ireland was used as a vehicle to hide the unequal nature of economic development, by suggesting that the Celtic Tiger offered an example of the benefits of a country opening itself up to the global market, and thus perpetuating a view that these markets offered an equal playing field.
One of the outcomes of the prevalence of free-market ideology over the last number of decades has been a disavowal of the role that history and geography play in contemporary economic, social and political contexts. Some of the popular reactions to the Queen’s visit to Ireland exemplify this perspective. While to an extent the deep ambivalence that the visit represents is being acknowledged and it is being seen as of ‘historic importance’, there is a latent underlying narrative constructing this as a straightforward diplomatic mission. This is achieved in large part by consigning British imperialism in Ireland to the category of ‘history’, something to be read about and studied but which bears little relation to realities as they currently stand. Part of her itinerary thus involves a series of ceremonial functions that symbolically gesture towards a reappraisal of British involvement in Ireland, but do so only opaquely and without formal apology for political violence and injustice that were the outcome of this involvement. Therefore, this history is both remembered and forgotten, remembered only briefly to be forgotten, forgotten for us to remember that as a nation we are now somewhere else, somewhere where this uncomfortable history can be comfortably remembered and forgotten.
But this imagination of the nation elides not only a whole section of Ireland’s past, but crucial ways of understanding its present. As protests organised yesterday by the Socialist Party pointed out, British imperialism did not end at the close of the colonialism era, but is ongoing in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq in the form of direct involvement in conflict, and in complex neo-colonial relationships with their former colonies. As Edward Said (1994, p.8) suggests, “…direct colonialism has largely ended; imperialism… lingers where it has always been, in a kind of general cultural sphere as well as in specific political, ideological, economic, and social practices”. The project of colonialism and the residual effects of imperialism have formed a colossal global project that continues to shape the world we live in. Ireland is no exception in this regard. Apart from the very obvious problems stemming from the political situation in the north, the Republic of Ireland on account of its colonial status started its independent march towards modernity with an economic and administrational deficit. The apparatus of governance and public administration that had been built up in other European nations were largely missing from the Free State inherited by the Irish people, and the nation has had to contend with a series of rapid transformations from this stunted base. This has had, and continues to have, significant implications for the Irish state’s ability to function. Mac Laughlin (1997, p. 3) argues that the country’s social problems stem from “…the fact that Ireland has become a postmodern society before becoming a modern nation”.
Far from effacing and erasing these challenges, the Celtic Tiger period exemplified their continued applicability. Faced with its postcolonial deficit – the weakness of its political system, the paucity of state-owned and indigenous industry, the high levels of out-migration – the state turned to the unsustainable policy of trying to attract foreign direct investment as a way of growing the economy. While, owing to a range of factors, this strategy was successful for a time, it still bespoke the limited mechanisms of the postcolonial state. These limited mechanisms were also mirrored in the levels of political cronyism and corruption that mired the property boom that was to follow. Of course, Ireland’s current economic crisis cannot be blamed entirely on its status as postcolonial. Much of the current problems faced by the country are very clearly the outcome of incompetence, greed, and under-regulation by Irish banks, politicians, and developers. However, rather than being tangential to these processes, the legacy of colonialism plays a key role in Celtic Tiger Ireland and its catastrophic aftermath. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the IMF/ECB bailout. Here Ireland draws closer to its spiritual neighbours on the postcolony than perhaps ever before. If Morgan Kelly’s apocalyptic warnings are anything to go by, Ireland could already be locked into a system of perpetual debt. In this regard, its status as a postcolonial nation may have increasing significance. So as the Queen visits these shores, rather than drawing divisions between those who have ‘moved on’ and those ‘living in the past’, perhaps we should be asking what this past really means for our present.
Cian O’ Callaghan
May 18, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Excellent argument
May 18, 2011 at 5:47 pm
WE did it to ourselves. Now move on!
May 18, 2011 at 10:17 pm
You argue how post-colonial studies should be read to understand Ireland then in the same breath you go on at length about how different Ireland is to other post ‘colonies’ – you want to have your cake and eat it.
Ireland is the exception to many rules and we don’t have most of the baggage that other British ex-colonies have, in fact we have much more in common with our former rulers than possibly any other colony (I’m talking about a monarchy heritage, being white, being an island nation, speaking gthe same language (yes I went there), having unfettered access to the UK to live and work there and much more).
Your post is nothing more than a last ditch attempt to give support to the tiny minority who refuse to let the past go and move on.
We support their football teams, we have relatives there, we’re totally mixed together genetically, we watch their TV shows, we wear their clothes, eat their food and laugh at Monty Python and Fawlty Towers, some of our best people (past and present) got their breaks there (Oscar Wilde, Terry Wogan, Graham Norton etc.
We have so much in common with the British it frightens some people to acknowledge it.
We’re not suffering from some kind of national PTSD, we’re in denial.
May 18, 2011 at 10:55 pm
@cybernoelie,
This post isn’t intended to ‘blame the British’ for all of Irelands problems. Nor is it an attempt to give support those who you say refuse to let the past go. I agree with you that the Irish have a lot in common with the British, and I am not making a case for any sort of Irish essentialism.
Most of what you suggest are shared cultural examples, which in many ways do overlap. We do share a lot.
However, I disagree with you that because of these reasons Ireland is the same as the UK or any other state in Europe. How the state functions in Ireland is the outcome of processes that are context specific, part of this context being the legacy of colonialism.
Ireland offers an unusual case of a postcolonial nation, but so too does every nation have its own unique experience. Is the experience of Senegal and Nigeria incomparable because both countries were under the rule of different imperial powers?
The point that I am making is not that old grievances should be brought back up or that having a good relationship with the UK is not something desirable. It is to acknowledge the role that Ireland’s colonial legacy does play – partially in terms of national imaginaries, but more so in terms of the how the state functions.
Cian
May 19, 2011 at 8:01 am
Just in case there is any doubt on the matter, Ireland is 100% responsible for Irelands problems, (well and Greenspan). We gave a mandate to a government for 15+ years who watched as personal debt rose (Mr Greenspan merely ensured that the debt was cheap), allowed the economy to become uncompetitive and even encouraged massive borrowing. We ignored ECB warnings on property bubbles and poo pooed anyone who had anything to say against the Irish “miracle”. The sheer arrogance and ignorance on display would could be considered hilarious if it wasnt so tragic.
One could say that this is all part of some inferiority complex inbred in us through colonialism or one could say that it is just the mentality of a small island nation which through having no natural resources nor opportunity has encouraged the best to leave and the remainder to remain behind convinced of their own success. Also is it not the case that in colonial times you were either colonising or being colonised? which would we rather have been?
The nation who has the most to gain from the Queens visit is Ireland, they are our largest trading partner, we are certainly not theirs.
May 19, 2011 at 2:11 pm
“However, the inescapable fact remains that Ireland is a postcolonial nation.” Says who?
Postcolonial studies are not really taken seriously within Irish academia any more, and I think few people would regard your opinion as an inescapable fact. Aside from the fringe of Marxist scholars on six-figure salaries who are in the process of retiring.
Ireland was a coloniser and it was (somewhat) colonised, but you can’t understand it by throwing around terminology that was designed to understand different situations. Much better just to look at the evidence and leave the theory to one side. Ireland is not a postcolonial country. Or, if it is, it’s so different from any other postcolonial country as to make the term useless.
Few other quick points. 1. it’s such utter, utter emotive nonsense to throw around words like imperialism in relation to the UK in Afghanistan today. 2. attracting foreign direct investment is the only thing that actually worked about the Celtic Tiger business; it’s the only thing that’s actually working now. The building boom is what really screwed us up. We tried being self-sufficient in the 1930s. I wouldn’t like to do that again. And isn’t the wholesale importation of postcolonial studies just another example of foreign direct investment? 3. And FFS every country in the world is locked into a system of perpetual debt; that’s how the system works.
Postcolonial theory is in an Irish context long past its sell-by date. I think you should move on, but even if you disagree I think you shouldn’t present as a fact what is at best an opinion.
May 19, 2011 at 2:38 pm
@ Sam Fitz
I don’t think it is true at all to say that postcolonial studies are not taken seriously in irish academia anymore. Postcolonial theories still form key influences on the discipline that I work in (geography) – and not only marxist perspectives either.
Ireland was a colony. Therefore Ireland is a postcolonial country. This is the context I am making the claim. I take your point that there are complexities around this, but I don’t think that the term is useless. Ireland has been written about in postcolonial context – see Edward Said’s Cutlure and Imperialism and Andrew Kincaid’s Postcolonial Dublin. Even if the context has changed in Ireland to such an extent that it is not directly comparable with many of the components of other post-colonial nations, it still has something to say to this literature, even if it is exploring many of the ways it differs.
In regard to the point you make about FDI, Im not saying there was essentially anything wrong with this. I agree of course that the building boom screwed us up, but it is also clear that the state did not invest in building up indigenous industry around FDI enough when they had the money. It is clear that Ireland cannot survive without FDI – which I think you can see as partially resultant from its colonial heritage. Of course this is one of many factors (and certainly open for debate), and it is perhaps unknowable to what extent this has had an influence, but I don’ think you can completely discard it either.
Cian
May 19, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Fair enough, but my overall point is that to present Ireland’s postcolonial status as a ‘fact’ is not appropriate, given that at this stage, many academics in many disciplines are discarding the term as useless and self-serving in an Irish context. The term ‘postcolonial’ does not simply mean ‘used to be a colony’, as you’ll be aware from your reading of Said – it has other connotations and consequences. And incidentally not many people agree with Said’s reading of Ireland either, much as they admire his work on other contexts.
Leaving all that aside, my major criticism of your article is that you take the term ‘postcolonial’ as an established fact and use that assumption to make other points that should be contested or, at least, better explained. One example – your views on FDI. Many of our competitors for FDI are also former colonies, with complex histories, such as India and Singapore. But many of our competitors for FDI are countries like Denmark and indeed France (that’s one reason for their hostility to our low corp tax rate). The assumption that our reliance on FDI has anything to do with colonialism strikes me as a good example of that tendency to miss out on other important possibilities. At the very least, you’re making a big leap without really explaining how you got there.
May 20, 2011 at 9:35 am
@ Sam Fitz
Thanks for your comments. All fair points. The term postcolonial does come with a lot of baggage (such is the nature of language), and maybe using a term like ex-colonial might be less loaded. I wasn’t trying to simplify the argument here by placing Ireland solely into a postcolonial context. I agree that this would miss on many important other possibilities. Your points on FDI are well taken. Clearly a host of factors now relate to how countries perform in global economies and this certainly cannot be reduced to how any country experienced colonialism. I do think though that while France is in competition with Ireland for FDI, they are less reliant on it than we are – again there are a host of reasons for this, some of which perhaps have legacies in colonialism. I do agree with you that this needs much more clarification and context however.
Cian
May 19, 2011 at 4:42 pm
I can’t believe I have to say this Cian but:
Just because Said wrote about Ireland in a post-colonial context doesn’t mean:
1. We are a standard post-colonial nation
and
2. What he said is gospel.
In fact Said has been slammed for his views by a lot of equally respected academics.
As for Kincaid, he refers to Derry as Lodonderry in his book which in and of itself is simply…it leaves me speechless considering the subject of his book – and he also has been severely criticized for not understanding the complexities of colonialism and imperialism and the differences between them.
“Ireland was a colony. Therefore Ireland is a postcolonial country.” You might as well say that if I’m born in a barn I’m a horse.
No one is denying that we were a colony but our ‘colonization’ was partly our own fault (we invited them in) and we largely colluded in it over the centuries plus it ignores the colonizing (and imperialism) role of the Catholic Church, who some would say did more damage than the British ever did.
I studied Planning and Development along with Sociology and the relationship between a people and their city is an extremely complex and fluid one with a multitude of interpretations.
“It is clear that Ireland cannot survive without FDI – which I think you can see as partially resultant from its colonial heritage.”
As I said earlier, you seem to be determined to blame the British for something.
The irish government, with the Catholic Church, decided to take a certain path back in the early days regarding our finances and industry which was disastrous to the nation. If it hadn’t been for Lemass in the late 50s early 60s and Lynch with the EEC we would still be in the dark ages – and they had to fight fellow politicians all the way (and the church who wanted to keep us poor and ignorant).
Back to my original point and your reply – I never said that Ireland was ‘the same’ as the UK, I simply said that we are not your typical ‘post-colonial’ nation – I do however agree with you to some extent in that in the weave of our political institutions and whatnot there are threads that can be traced back to being a colony – but how we unravel that weave and from what perspective is a very delicate balancing act (IMO).
May 20, 2011 at 9:37 am
cybernolie
I can assure you that I do not read Said or anyone else as gospel (not even you cybernolie). Yes, Said had been critiqued, but surely this doesn’t mean he has nothing useful to tell us. I take your point that Ireland as postcolonial (or maybe ex-colonial is a less loaded word) is not straightforward, but please believe me that my point was never to simplify by just attaching the tag postcolonial. I very much agree with you that the church have played a hugely significant role in the evolution of the state. I still do not wish to blame the British, however, but only to acknowledge the colonial heritage as part of an assemblage of processes that have produced both Ireland and Britain. From my understanding of postcolonial theory, one of its central imperatives is to break apart totalising theories, and to undermine the assumed ability of theoretical frameworks formulated in particular contexts to explain processes happening in places outside of those contexts. Said views imperialism as a global ‘project’ on the level of capitalism that has been very significant in shaping the world. I do not think therefore that he sees different nations fitting into a standard model of postcolonial, but rather seeks to examine how the experience of imperialism shaped different contexts relationally. Indeed it is problematic to assume that there is a standard postcolonial nation, but perhaps this type of totalising narrative is something that postcolonial theory itself is guilty of. I think Said’s contrapuntal reading of history is both cognisant of the need to avoid a ‘politics of blame’ and of various processes that operate together to cumulatively produce society and space. Through this reading it is not colonialism or the church, Britain or Ireland, but parts in play together. Personally I find this view useful in keeping things open, multiple, messy, contingent.
I am an urban geographer so I am well aware of the complexities in the relationship between people and place. My intent in this article was never to simplify the processes at hand, but the opposite; to complicate what I saw as a simplified narrative of Ireland that was being mobilised around the royal visit. Clearly the church and various other factors play important roles in the type of society Ireland is, but they do so as part of cumulative relationships, in which I think the colonial context also factors.
Cian
May 20, 2011 at 10:59 am
sorry also for the misspelling of your name – just noticed I was missing an e after I posted comment
May 20, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Semicolonialism, Joyce called it.
“The apparatus of governance and public administration that had been built up in other European nations were largely missing from the Free State inherited by the Irish people”
More noteworthy is the attitude of the population to “the apparatus of governance and public administration”. For the most part we still don’t have a sense of ownership of these things, it’s as if they belong to someone else and we’re trying to connive what we can out of them. The clientèlist approach to politics is part of this. Fianna Fail especially, still behave as a ‘slighty constitutional’ party.
May 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm
I have a pain in me hole with this post-colonial shite. It is nationalism wrapped up in fancy garb. If we’re comparing experiences we should be looking at the other European ex-colonies for comparison, not at ex-colonies of Britain in Africa. E.g. the Czech Republic as an ex-colony of the Hapsburg Empire, Greece as an ex-colony of the Ottoman Empire, Ukraine as an ex-colony of Russia, Poland and Lithuania as ex-colonies of Russia / Prussia and so on. Where does the cycle end, with Britain an ex-colony of the Vikings? Through the ages populations moved and displaced other populations, it happens. In this part of the world we had issues with Britain in the last 1000 years. It’s no better or worse than the experiences of populations in central Europe who had invasions by the Mongols, the Turks, the Germans, the Russians etc etc., not to mention smaller conflicts on the basis of locally contested nationalisms in the past century. It’s time to ditch the nationality based worldview and focus on class-based politics, and throw away the post-colonial baggage as part of that out-dated nationalist perspective.
May 21, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Cian your article is excellent and thanks for posting it. However I’d like to question the use of the term ‘postcolonial Ireland’. This springs from a discussion on the Vincent Browne show broadcast on Friday 20/05/2011, last night during which the term was used frequently.I was speaking to a friend of mine from Tyrone this morning who was convulsed with anger about the discussion on the show. In his opinion we have completely lost sight of what we define as ‘Ireland’.He reminded me that the 6 counties are still under British jurisdiction and as such the term ‘Postcolonial Ireland’ is not appropriate and is an acceptance of partition.I can’t describe his hurt and anger about this. He asked me if ‘southerners’ really believe that the six counties are not actually part of Ireland. During the Queen’s visit it was repeatedly stated that this was her first trip to ‘Ireland’ which is blatantly not the case if you consider Ireland as a 32 county entity. Despite my pseudonym I’m very sincere about what I’m saying here. To add, the Tyrone man is a firm supporter of the GF agrreement.
May 22, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Ruth
Thanks for your comments. You raise a very important point I think. Let me state that I am also a firm supporter of the GF agreement. I don’t think many people would want to return to previous conflict. Clearly the term ‘postcolonial Ireland’ holds significance in terms of the six counties, and raises a range of sensitive issues. Let me acknowledge that one of the many limitations of my own article here is that it fails to adequately address Northern Ireland. I am not sure I am in a position to really address the issues your raise, other than to acknowledge that I can understand the anger and upset your friend must feel. At NIRSA where I am based, we do a lot of work on an all island of Ireland basis, and I am aware that working in this context is often politically and culturally sensitive, and often not least in terms of the language and terminology that is used. In the ongoing process of peace and reconciliation, perhaps there needs to be more of a realisation of these sensitivities in how these issues are discussed in mainstream political discourse and commentary.
Cian
May 22, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Thanks for the prompt reply. I think it’s more than an issue of semantics however. The royal visit appears to have highlighted the belief held by many in the south that there is no such thing as the island of Ireland while stating at the same time that they were so moved by the Queen’s visit to the Garden of Remembrance. It’s a complete contradiction as those remembered in the Garden would not espouse this definition of “Ireland.” I could go on…