The Irish language revival in Northern Ireland : "semi-planned" language planning and "counter-planning"

(1)

The Irish Language Revival in Northern Ireland:

“Semi-Planned” Language Planning and “Counter-Planning”

Frieda Schimmel (11656793)

Masters Thesis Conflict Resolution and Governance Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam

Supervisor: Martijn Dekker Second reader: Polly Pallister-Wilkins

Final date for re-submission: 29 August 2018 Word count: 22,545

(2)

Abstract

The debate in Northern Ireland over an Irish Language Act (ILA) has become deeply enmeshed in partisan politics. This research utilized multiple methods to assess the historical role of the Irish

language in politics, the arguments for and against the ILA, and ways in which the ILA debate can be separated from partisan politics. Analysis of historical legal documents, media analysis, individual interviews with key informants, and a small convenience sample survey comprised the dataset. Key findings are that the Irish language community is far more diverse than indicated by media and public debates; that questions of identity are heavily associated with the language; that support for an ILA is widespread and founded in international human rights frameworks; and that the language appears to have significant potential for empowerment and reconciliation. The findings are considered in the context of contemporary theories on minority languages in post-colonial situations, specifically Ndhlovu (2010) and Baldauf (2006). They are also examined through the framework of the Irish language revival as a social movement (Benford & Snow, 2000) with particular attention paid to the role of historical memory (Smith 2005). It is concluded that unplanned and non-official language activity does appear to be extremely valuable for the preservation of the Irish language. However, that alone is not necessarily sufficient if the lack of official status or recognition inhibits the development of the language community by allowing for additional and unnecessary obstacles on the basis of political or identity-based biases. In the case of the Irish language in Ireland and Northern Ireland, unplanned language activity appears to have contributed immensely to the preservation and revival of the Irish language, however, the lack of official status and protection by the state allows for the continuation of attitudes and policies which are seen as discriminatory by the Irish speaking community. Ultimately this analysis highlights the

importance of “semi-planned” and “unplanned” language planning in addition to support at the nation-state level.

(3)

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank my friends and family as well as my adviser, Martijn Dekker, for their patience and support through what has been a relentlessly chaotic ordeal.

I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to those who took the time to share their thoughts and experiences, for your contributions have made this research far richer than would otherwise have been possible.

Last, but by no means least, I would like to thank the family at Lagan Backpackers for making Belfast feel like home. In particular: Lena, Elyse, Anita, Marcus, Erin, Joris, Fuen, Marcus, Levi, Patrick, and of course, both Conors. Without such kindness, my time in Northern Ireland would have been far less rewarding.

(4)

“The Irish language belongs to us all… What I like to say is nobody owns

the Irish language, but it belongs to everyone… I think that’s a very

important concept”

(5)

I. Introduction

Research Questions

What is the role of the Irish language in politics in Northern Ireland? What are the arguments for and against the creation of an Irish Language Act and why do people hold these positions? How have “planned” and “unplanned” language activity contributed to the development of the ILA and the Irish language revival movement in general?

Aim and Relevance

The aim of this research is to understand the role of the Irish language in politics in Northern Ireland and to identify the arguments on both sides of the controversy in the ongoing debate over the passage of an Irish Language Act, which has become intertwined with partisan politics. It is my hope that this research will add a new angle to existing theories on minority languages in post-colonial contexts, historical memory, and framing and social movements as well as to make some sense of the highly complex situation in Northern Ireland and draw attention to the non-political components of the language debate and the non-partisan concerns of the larger Irish-speaking community.

Introduction

This research utilizes components from several theoretical works, specifically Baldauf’s (2006) and Ndhlovu’s (2010) theories on language planning and minority languages in post-colonial situations, Smith’s (2005) book on historical memory, and Benford & Snow’s (2000) work on framing processes and social movements. The situation in Northern Ireland, however, is extremely complex and even together, these theories paint only a partial picture of the reality described by interviewees and survey

respondents during the fieldwork portion of this research. Interviewees in particular had given

considerable thought to the issues and were quite articulate about their own experiences and opinions. The information gathered through these interviews illuminates several situations which indicate the need for further categories of language planning activity. For the sake of convenience, in this analysis, the terms used for these categories are “semi-planned” and “counter-planning” language activity.

(9)

What is an Irish Language Act?

An Irish Language Act (ILA) is legislation that would grant official status and establish specific provisions for the protection of the Irish language in Northern Ireland. Many different versions have been proposed containing a variety of different provisions. Most discussed here is the proposal of the non-political organization Conradh na Gaeilge (CnaG), which has been costed and which, according to advocates, has been approved by experts in the relevant fields (see Appendix A for full proposal and costs). It includes, among other things, provisions for giving the Irish language official status; ensuring the right to use Irish in governmental and public business; promoting the use of the language through the establishment of a translation centre and language courses; and the implementation of bilingual signage for roads and certain streets.

The NGO An Dream Dearg is a significant actor in the movement for an Irish Language Act. The group helped launch a social media campaign and a protest march in Belfast with the slogan “dearg le fearg” meaning “red with anger”. In 2017, the campaign experienced a surge after a series of decisions by unionist ministers that were perceived as regressive or discriminatory by many in the Irish-speaking community. The most significant was the decision by DUP minister Paul Givan to remove a relatively modest amount of funding (£50,000) from a bursary scheme for low-income students to study Irish in the Gaeltacht (the Irish-speaking region) known as the Liofa bursary scheme. The Liofa decision caused particular outrage because it occurred in the wake of a very expensive failed renewable energy incentive program (Renewable Heat Incentive – RHI), which was headed by Arlene Foster, a leader from the same political party as Givan. The RHI scandal resulted in an official inquiry and accusations of

mismanagement and corruption in parts of the government as well as a good deal of public outrage.

What are the major points of contention over the Irish Language Act?

The language debate has become enmeshed with the politics of the two major competing political ideologies in Ireland. Nationalism (traditionally associated with Irish/”Green” culture and Catholicism) is the political ideology with the goal of uniting Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland, rather than Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK. Currently, the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland is Sinn Féin (Irish for “We Ourselves”) and the second largest is the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDPL). The current leader of Sinn Féin is Mary Lou McDonald.

(10)

Unionism, on the other hand, is the political ideology preferring to continue union with the UK as opposed to pursuing a united Ireland. Unionism is traditionally associated with British/”Orange” culture and Protestantism. Currently, the largest unionist party in Northern Ireland is the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and the second largest is the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). At present, the DUP is led by Arlene Foster.

The Irish Language Act has become one of the battlegrounds for the larger debate between the parties (especially Sinn Féin and the DUP).

II. Background

Local Context

There is a vibrant and thriving Irish-speaking community in Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast, and Irish-language advocates have stated that the number of schoolchildren learning Irish is expected to increase dramatically over the next few years (Doyle, 2017). The growing number of people showing an interest in the Irish language makes it unlikely that this issue will fade from the spotlight anytime soon, thus making it even more important that a compromise be reached. In many ways, the issue of language of Northern Ireland is symbolic of the larger cultural struggle between the

Protestant/unionist community and the Catholic/nationalist community, which, in turn, can “be seen as a proxy, for some, of the armed struggle” (Mac Giolla Chriost 2014, p.6). The overall symbolic struggle is between British or Orange (Protestant/unionist/loyalist) culture and Irish or Green

(Catholic/nationalist/republican) culture. The real-world communities, however, are far more diverse and how each identity is defined can vary greatly between individuals or between subcommunities. Some unionists, for example, appear to base their unionist identity more on the shared heritage that links Ireland to Scotland, Wales, and the rest of the UK, with the Irish language and Gaelic culture as a part of that shared heritage, while others seem to focus on more recent history and define unionism in terms of the role of Britain on the island of Ireland and perceive unionist identity as British identity with Irish identity as its rival. Competition between identity groups is often construed as a zero-sum game wherein a victory for one group necessarily means a loss for the other. Thus, certain groups and individuals perceive the introduction of rights for Irish speakers as meaning, inherently, that the Protestant community has lost something, even if no one is necessarily able to pinpoint what is being “lost”.

(11)

In general, the English language has been associated with Protestant/unionist identity and the Irish language with Catholic/nationalist identity. Ulster-Scots has historically not carried the same marker in terms of identity, although there have been some recent attempts by certain unionist leaders to argue that the lesser status of Ulster Scots relative to Irish indicates a lack of recognition for British identity in Northern Ireland. English, on the other hand, is widely understood to have been used as a marker of British identity and a method of imposing British culture on the native Irish population during colonial times. Thus, many see the dominant status of the English language as evidence of the dominant status of British identity in Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, the identity groups discussed here do not have clear boundaries and are often defined differently depending on the individual. It is especially common, for example, for one to identify as “nationalist” or “unionist” yet not support that ideology’s major party (i.e., Sinn Féin or the DUP, respectively). It is important to emphasize here that there are subsets within the unionist community who speak and study Irish and many more who do not speak the language but are in support of an Irish Language Act nonetheless.

A final, very important element of the current context is Northern Ireland’s changing demographics. For the first time in history, unionists did not win a majority in the assembly (niassembly). The Catholic population across Ireland experienced a rapid decline during the Great Famine, significantly more so than the Protestant population, but that trend has slowly reversed in the years since. The Catholic population has been growing steadily and many expect it to overtake the shrinking Protestant population in the coming years (McWilliams, 2017). The Belfast Agreement contained a clause stating that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK as long as the majority of people prefer it, but that as soon as the majority would prefer union with the Republic of Ireland instead, the relevant governments (i.e., Ireland and Britain) must commence the process to make that a reality. This means that unionism is at risk not just of becoming a large minority in Northern Ireland, but of becoming a very small minority in a united Ireland. The dynamic nature of these power relations and the precarious position of unionist authority (by way of the prospect of losing the democratic majority) likely contributes to heightened emotions and a sense that the future of unionism is at stake.

The Debate

Through the lens of the media, debates around the Irish language are often painted as a two-sided political issue between Sinn Féin and the DUP, however in reality, this is not at all the case. The groups or organizations that support an Irish Language Act include the Alliance party, People before

(12)

Profit, the Green party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Irish government, the British government, the UN, the Council of Europe, and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The DUP, UUP, TUV, and Orange Order appear to be the only significant groups that oppose an Act. Public debates regularly feature a unionist political leader and a representative from a non-political advocacy group such as Conradh na Gaeilge or another prominent member of the Irish language community such as Linda Ervine of the TURAS centre. Occasionally politicians such as Naomi Long of the Alliance party have joined the debates to voice their support, but for the most part, those advocating for an Act are not representing any political party. This is one example of how support for an Act is largely based outside of the political arena whereas the individuals who speak out in opposition tend to be heavily involved in unionist politics. Below is a brief summary of the most common arguments and counterarguments used by supporters and opponents of an Act.

Arguments for an Act

One argument made by advocates is that there is a small but significant community of Irish speakers in Northern Ireland who wish to live their lives through the Irish language and currently lack the funding or resources to be able to do so. Opponents to the Act have criticised this, arguing that the Irish language already receives more funding than any other minority language in Northern Ireland. In response, advocates have pointed to issues like the decision to remove funding from the Liofa bursary scheme to illustrate how this funding is not guaranteed and is subject to the whims of political officials, which, they argue, is why an Act is necessary.

One point that activists emphasize is that the language is a matter of human rights and should be given the same provisions and protections as any other regional or minority language in Europe. Advocates argue that domestic and international support for an Act is overwhelming and point out that the UN, the Council of Europe, and Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission have declared their support for an Irish Language Act (see “Broader European Context and Standards for Minority Languages and Indigenous cultures” for more detail).

Advocates also cite the Good Friday Agreement’s clause on equal respect and status for both communities as a reason to establish more provisions for the Irish language, as well as the obligation contained in the Saint Andrew’s Agreement of the British government to implement an Irish Language Act based on the experience of Scotland and Wales. The agreement regarding an Irish Language Act was made by the British government and not the DUP, which, argue DUP politicians, is why their party is not

(13)

obligated to implement an ILA. This point has been quite contentious, since advocates insist that it was a binding international agreement between the governments of Ireland and Britain and the failure to ensure the establishment of an Act is a failure to uphold the terms of the agreement, while many unionist leaders maintain that since the DUP did not make the commitment, they have no such responsibility to move forward with an Act.

A final argument which is used occasionally is that an Irish Language Act would be a form of redress for the historical oppression of Irish culture and language. However, advocates from Conradh na Gaeilge made it clear that they would prefer to avoid going down that path and focus instead on the present and the future.

Arguments against an Act

A document published by the TUV (Appendix B) lists the arguments that they have against an Irish Language Act. Many of the grievances are things such as that an ILA would make it a “criminal offense” to refuse to cooperate with the Irish Language Commissioner, although no such clause exists in Conradh na Gaeilge’s proposal and advocates insist that it was never on the table. The document also expresses a fear that an Act would “create gross inequality in employment and increase divisions”. Some proposed Acts have included provisions for quotas for Irish speakers in the government and civil service, although activists have stated their willingness to compromise on that particular issue and many

challenge the notion that such quotas would constitute discrimination, even if they were part of the deal.

One of the early arguments against an Act was that it will cost £30-40M per year and is simply too expensive. However, Conradh na Gaeilge has since costed their proposal (which advocates state has been evaluated by experts) and the predicted cost is now known to be approximately £3.8M per year (see Appendix A for complete proposal and costs).

Another common argument is that the current demand for an ILA is the “politics of hostage” and that unionism cannot indulge this by giving in to Sinn Féin’s demands (see “Findings: How have the Irish language and the ILA been used by political parties as part of their ideological positions?: Unionist Framing of the Irish Language” for more on this topic). Advocates, however, have pointed out that the majority of supporters for an Act are not affiliated with Sinn Féin in any way. Moreover, as one interviewee from Conradh na Gaeilge explained, accomplishing tasks in the assembly can be quite difficult due in large part to the petition of concern, which allows a relatively small minority from one

(14)

community to veto any proposed legislation. The petition of concern is one of the main reasons advocates have cited for why it is crucial to get an Act implemented before returning to the power-sharing government: they believe that if power power-sharing resumes as before, the Act will never get passed.

Arlene Foster has also released a statement on behalf of the DUP stating: “I respect the Irish language and those who speak it but in a shared society this cannot be a one-way street. Respect for the unionist and British identity has not been reciprocated” (Smith, 2018). Unfortunately, she does not elaborate on the specific ways in which unionist and British identity has not been shown respect. One possibility is that this statement refers to the Ulster Scots language, which has occasionally been brought up with regard to the issue of reciprocity for unionist identity. The DUP has declared that they absolutely will not sign on to a standalone Irish Language Act but would be willing to implement a joint Act that also covers Ulster Scots. Advocates, however, argue that these languages are not at the same stage of development and that linguistics experts agree that joint legislation would do a disservice to both languages, thus, it is necessary to have independent legislation based on the specific needs of each language. The advocates who were interviewed for this research also expressed that they would support an Ulster Scots Act if there is legitimate demand for it. The argument outlined in this statement by Foster could also be merely an example of the perception amongst some Northern Irish politicians that “equality” means any gain for one community must be balanced with some gain for the “other” community. Others, however, would contest this perception and instead argue for a definition of ‘equality’ as meaning that each culture or tradition should have equal status, representation, and right and ability to express their identity.

Another frequently-made argument is that Irish language protection would be “discriminatory” to those who do not speak Irish or that kids would be forced to learn Irish. Nothing in Conradh na Gaeilge’s proposed Irish Language would require anyone to lean Irish and it does not appear to contain any discriminatory clause. Closest would perhaps be the creation of certain government jobs that would only be open to Irish speakers, however, these positions would be open to anyone who is able to communicate through the medium of Irish, including members of the Protestant or unionist community who are willing to learn the language.

Some unionist leaders have dismissed the need for an Act entirely by pointing out that the Irish language already receives more funding than any other “minority” language in Northern Ireland. Advocates respond to this claim in multiple ways, such as by pointing to the language’s status as the native language of Ireland and therefore not the same as other minority languages; by pointing to decisions like the removal of funding from the Liofa bursary scheme as evidence that this funding is

(15)

subject to the whims of politicians; or by citing the Belfast and Saint Andrew’s Agreements which promised both communities/identity groups equal status and equal claim to Northern Ireland, thus the Irish language ought to be placed on par with English rather than minority languages.

The final and perhaps most emotionally significant argument is that the Act is a “threat” to British identity and that it lies “at the heart of [Sinn Féin’s] culture war against all things British” (Appendix B, p.2). Unfortunately, there is little elaboration on this point, although language advocates have their own theories as to why this claim is made.

Broader European Context and Standards for Minority Languages and

Indigenous Cultures

It is useful to consider the ILA in the context of the broader European approach and standards for dealing with minority and indigenous languages which should, in theory, have some influence on the UK’s policies for the Irish language. There are two major legal frameworks to consider: The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as statements by the local human rights commission (The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission).

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

Most sections of the draft Irish Language Act proposed and costed by Conradh na Gaeilge (Appendix A) are specifically supported by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, to which the UK is a signatory. The charter states, for example, that policies should be based on “the recognition of the regional or minority languages as an expression of cultural wealth” (Part II; Article 7; Section 1; Paragraph a). The Charter also specifies that:

“The adoption of special measures in favour of regional or minority languages aimed at

promoting equality between the users of these languages and the rest of the population or which take due account of their specific conditions is not considered to be an act of discrimination against the users of more wildly-used languages” (Part II; Article 7; Section 2)

(16)

This paragraph of the Charter has particularly significant implications for the ILA debate in that it appears to discredit the claim that protections for Irish speakers would constitute discrimination towards English-speakers by clearly specifying that the taking of special measures aimed at promoting equality for minority languages “is not considered to be an act of discrimination against the users of more widely-used languages”.

The Charter also outlines specific obligations relating to education in Article 8 which are consistent with Conradh na Gaeilge’s proposed Act, such as that the state must ensure that pre-school, primary school, and secondary school education is offered through the relevant minority language in areas where there is demand. Article 9 contains commitments to offer criminal and civil court

proceedings through the minority language in question as well as to provide and accept documentation through the language, all of which is also in accordance with CnaG’s proposal. Article 10 lays out responsibilities regarding administrative authorities and public services and Article 11 deals with regional languages in the media. The proposal offered by Conradh na Gaeilge is also compatible with these two articles.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

A second important contextual framework is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which the UK is also a signatory. The Declaration acknowledges the importance of respecting indigenous peoples’ “cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources”, and Article 8 specifically states that,

“1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(17)

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.”

This article implies that the British state does have an obligation to provide redress for the forced assimilation and historical destruction of Irish language and culture, although the extent to which the DUP or other unionist parties in Northern Ireland share this obligation is a separate matter entirely and is not addressed in this analysis.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

In addition to the European Charter and UN frameworks, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) has published several documents on their website that outline their support for an ILA and specify what they believe an Act should contain. In their most recent document (published in May of 2015), they state that “The Commission welcomes the proposals to place the protection of the Irish language on a statutory footing” (NIHRC 2015, p.1). The report includes more details on the specifics of what an Act might contain and what else needs to be resolved, such as that:

“The commission welcomes the repeal of the Administration of Justice (Language) Act (Ireland) 1737 as a means to remove restrictions on the use of Irish in the courts. However, the

Commission notes that the repeal of this legislation lies within the remit of the DoJ and

recommends that the nature of the cross-departmental commitment to delivery is made clear in the next stage of the process (para 34)” (NIHRC 2015, p.1)

Repealing the ban on the use of Irish in the courts is only one small part of the Act which advocates are pushing for, but the NIHRC is supportive of broader legislative protections for the Irish language as well.

Independently, both of these frameworks and the statements of support by the local human rights council carry their own individual sets of implications for the Irish language debate but altogether, they paint the picture of a clear atmosphere of support for an Irish Language Act at the local, regional and international level.

(18)

III. Theoretical Framework

This research draws upon and combines multiple bodies of theory. Ndhlovu (2010) builds upon theories of minority language resistance to discuss the role of unplanned language activity in several post-colonial African contexts. Baldauf (2006) offers more specific definitions of “micro” and “macro” language planning which fit closely with Ndhlovu’s (2010) consideration of “language planning from below” and “language planning from above”. Benford & Snow’s (2000) writings on framing and social movements inform analysis of the role of framing in the social movement for an ILA while Smith’s (2005) book on historical memory is relevant to understanding how historical memory can be used by actors as part of framing processes to influence perceptions of the Irish language and the Irish Language Act.

The findings offer a slightly different angle on Ndhlovu’s (2010) discussion of the role of “planned” and “unplanned” language activity in the preservation of minority or regional languages by highlighting the importance official language policies can have even in the presence of effective “unplanned”, “micro planned”, and “semi-planned” language planning activity. Current works in the field of language planning and policy (LPP), including that of Ndhlovu (2010), generally focus on “planned” and “unplanned” language activity, but most involve little discussion of “micro” language planning or space for other types of “planned” activity outside the realm of government. The findings of this research suggest the need for two additional, partly overlapping categories of language activity. These are “semi-planned” activity and “counter-planning” activity. “Semi-planned” activity involves elements of both “unplanned” and “micro” planned language activity and includes actions such as spontaneous community mobilization and self-empowerment through the medium of Irish as well as the development of Irish-medium schools despite a lack of support from the state. “Counter-planning” activity is “micro-planned” or “semi-planned” language activity organized in overt or covert resistance to “planned” activity at the national level (e.g., the use of the Irish language by the IRA). Contemporary work in the field of language planning and policy suggests that there will continue to be an important role for “micro” and “unplanned” language activities in promoting the Irish language and eventually moving forward with an ILA. Perhaps more importantly, it also indicates that unplanned language activity will likely continue to be extremely important for the survival of the language even after the passage of an Act.

This theoretical framework links the field of language policy and planning to social movement theory through the concept of “counter-planning” or language planning as a social movement. The

(19)

findings offer some evidence in support of Benford and Snow’s (2000) theory on framing and social movements which are used to help determine which actions (planned and unplanned) taken by language activists have contributed most to the success of the revival movement as well as the role of historical memories play in the formation and development of collective action frames. Language activists themselves pointed to certain elements of their campaign as having been particularly useful in terms of the campaign’s development, many of which align with Benford and Snow’s (2000) theory on social movements as well as Smith’s (2005) writings on the role of historical memory.

Minority Languages in Post-Colonial Contexts

Drawing on postcolonial resistance theories, Baldauf (2006) offers a definition of language planning as “directed by, or lead[ing] to, the promulgation of a language policy(s) – by government or some other authoritative body or person” (p.149). Distinct from “language plans”, language policies “are bodies of ideas, laws, regulations, rules and practices intended to achieve some planned language change” (p.149). “Unplanned” language planning, on the other hand, has been defined by Ndhlovu (2010) as “covert or everyday instances of language use, by ordinary men and women, in a manner that can be considered as challenging conventional or officially recognised planning regimes” (p.177). Ndhlovu (2010) claims that “unplanned” language planning is the only effective way to resolve standard language imposition because language planning from below only reproduces and legitimizes “the hegemonic version of languages as standardized systems” which are espoused by the dominant regime (p.189). Instead, “it is up to speakers of minority languages to deploy their linguistic resources in those areas that are least regulated by government policy” (p.178).

Ndhlovu (2010) discusses several post-colonial situations where regional or minority languages struggle against state-imposed standardised languages. He claims that “formal or conventional language planning does not constitute a viable weapon for liberating local communities from hegemonic linguistic impositions” (p.184). He argues this is because “Language planning from below does not resolve the problem of standard language impositions: all it does is to reproduce and legitimise, at local community level, the hegemonic versions of languages as standardised systems” (p.189). Ndhlovu (2010) does not use the terms “macro” and “micro” language planning, but his phrase “language planning from below” appears to refer to the same or at least a similar concept. This research suggests that “micro” language planning, if done effectively, does not necessarily reinforce hegemonic ideologies. In the context of a strong identity group with different values and with a relatively unusual approach to language, “micro”

(20)

planning at the community level can be an effective method for reviving minority languages and can potentially lead to the development of an official language policy (e.g., the ILA) at the national level. Of course, whether or not this proposed national policy would be effective remains to be seen.

Ndhlovu (2010) also argues that language programs as part of the formal school system “do not constitute an effective strategy as they are susceptible to manipulation and control either by national governments or traditional authorities, or both” (p. 180) and that “The best platform for resisting and reversing linguistic imperialism is the informal one that is least regulated by official government policy or any other form of deliberate ‘policy-like’ intervention” (p.180). This research expands on this concept by showing the potential impacts of formal language planning in school institutions which themselves developed independently from official government policy. The findings suggest that there is space for “planned” language activity that does not conform to official language policy but which is still “planned” in the sense of being a formally instituted language policy. Other authors in the field of language

planning have touched on this issue, such has Baldauf (2006), who refers to this type of activity as “micro” language planning. “Micro planning”, according to Baldauf (2006),

“refers to cases where businesses, institutions, groups, or individuals hold agency and create what can be recognized as a language policy and plan to utilise and develop their language resources; one that is not directly the result of some larger macro policy, but is a response to their own needs, their own ‘language problems’, their own requirement for language management” (p.155)

Baldauf (2006) emphasizes the difference between this “micro planning” and “micro implementation of macro planning” which involves local, small scale planning work as part of the implementation of a central “macro” plan or policy. On the topic of agency, Baldauf (2006) notes that it “is more important in micro language planning studies, a number of which have argued that particular groups, e.g. teachers… are central agents in language policy development” (p.154). The findings of this research indicate that the actions (i.e., agency) of specific individuals engaged in “micro” language planning can be

instrumental in the revival of minority languages.

Baldauf (2006) also discusses “micro resistance to implementation of macro policy” in reference to actors exercising agency or responding to other situational factors in their implementation of a macro plan (e.g. teachers delaying the implementation of English as the new official language of instruction due to their students’ inability to understand English). This research, on the other hand, is largely

(21)

focused on “counter-planning” as a type of resistance to the implementation of macro policy by those who are rebels to rather than agents of the macro planning regime. The notion of “counter-planning” offers a conceptual link between the fields of language planning and policy and social movement theory. “Counter-planning” can be understood as language-planning activity that involves elements of

“unplanned” language activity by challenging the dominant language regime or status quo, so to speak, but which is also “planned” by individuals and organizations outside of government. Or, put another way, “counter-planning” is language planning as a social movement or as a challenge to the status quo.

Framing and Social Movements & Historical Memory

Benford and Snow (2000) describe three sets of overlapping processes (discursive, strategic, and contested) that are relevant to movement actors in the development, generation, and elaboration of frames of meaning. Most pertinent to this discussion are “strategic” and “contested” processes, which will later be utilized to highlight some of the processes that are play in the case of the Irish language movement in Northern Ireland. Strategic processes are “framing processes that are deliberative, utilitarian, and goal directed: Frames are developed and deployed to achieve a specific purpose—to recruit new members, to mobilize adherents, to acquire resources, and so forth” (Benford & Snow 2000, p.624). Social movement organizations undertake strategic efforts (referred to as “frame alignment processes”) to link their interests to the interests of potential constituents and resource providers (Benford & Snow 2000, p.624). Benford and Snow specify four of these “frame alignment” processes: frame bridging, framing amplification, frame extension, and frame transformation (2000, p.624). The first, “frame bridging”, involves “the linking of two or more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or problem” and can occur “between a movement and individuals, through the linkage of a movement organization with an unmobilized sentiment pool or public opinion cluster, or across social movements” (Benford & Snow 2000, p.624). The term “frame amplification” refers to “the idealization, embellishment, clarification, or invigoration of existing values or beliefs” (Benford & Snow 2000, p.624). The process of frame amplification is especially important to movements whose constituents are strikingly different from the beneficiaries of the movement and to “movements that have been stigmatized because their beliefs and/or values contradict the dominant culture’s core values” (Benford & Snow 2000, p.624). Frame extension “entails depicting an SMO’s interests and frame(s) as extending beyond its primary interests to include issues and concerns that are presumed to be of importance to potential adherents” (Benford & Snow 2000, 625). Frame

(22)

transformation refers to “changing old understandings and meanings and/or generating new ones” (Benford & Snow 2000, p.625). Each of these processes allows movement actors to share their frame with new audiences or through new networks of meaning.

“Contested Processes” refers to the variety of challenges which confront those who engage in movement-framing activity because “activists are not able to construct and impose on their intended targets any version of reality they would like” (Benford & Snow 2000, p.625). These framing contests “occur within complex, multi-organizational—and sometimes multi-institutional—arenas” (p.626)— which movement actors must take into account. Benford and Snow add that “social movement framing activity and the extent of its resonance are affected by the cultural and political environment, including the framings/counterframings of institutional elites” (2000, p.626). Another challenge confronting movement actors is media framing, since “social movement activists rarely exercise much control over the “stories” media organizations choose to cover… or how the media represent the activists’ claims” (Benford & Snow 2000, p.626). Benford and Snow refer to these contests as “frame disputes” and define them as “… essentially disputes over reality (present or projected)” (2000, p.626).

The concept of disputes over differing versions of reality is especially relevant in this discussion of identity in Northern Ireland and relates directly to Smith’s (2005) description of how identity groups can have dramatically different versions of reality based on contradicting narratives of history. These widely-held narratives are often the result of framing activities by public leaders, government officials, or movement actors. According to Smith, these historical narratives then play a number of different roles in situations of “ethnic” conflict. Firstly, they supply a “story” that assists in establishing group definitions and giving cohesion to the group (Smith 2005, p.xiii). Secondly, they provide groups with “negative material about each other that strengthens each group’s self-definition”, and thirdly, historical memories can be used to articulate grievances once a conflict is underway (Smith 2005, p.xiii).

Competing narratives of history can add further complications in situations of conflict. Smith explains that “Different aspects of history hold different levels of salience in the memory of the respective groups” (2005, p.36), which can create obstacles when groups need to reach an understanding on a contentious issue.

Historical narratives can have considerable importance in processes of signification as they are often used to produce meaning and a shared understanding among constituents, which can, in turn, feed into the formation and development of collective identity. As Smith (2005) explains in her book “Reckoning with the Past”, history is crucial to the formation of nations and of ethnic groups, “given that shared past experience, or the perception of shared past experience, is the strongest rationale for the

(23)

existence of the group” (Smith 2005, p.13). Historical narratives therefore have huge significance in the formation and development of collective identities and the accompanying frameworks that members of that collective use to make sense of the world around them. Smith goes on to explain that a person’s “sense of self is profoundly rooted in a particular view of events, and they will feel threatened in a deep way if someone tries to make them see these events differently” (2005, p.30), and that

“If an individual comes upon new information that elicits a construction basically incompatible with or invalidating to the core sense of self, it is likely that the new information will be rejected or redefined in order to fit the existing, rather impermeable constructs. It is also likely that this process of rejection and redefinition (called “aggression” by Kelly 1955) will be characterized by a high emotional charge and a great sense of urgency. In a sense, if one’s core sense of self, the identity, is threatened by the demands, behavior, or identity of another person, then psychic or even physical annihilation will seem to be imminent” (Smith 2005, p.30)

In other words, in situations of conflict or heightened tension, extreme reactions to relatively minor issues are not uncommon, simply because actors feel that their narrative of events is being challenged, thus undermining a key foundational element of their identity.

V. Methodology & Addressing Subquestions

The primary research questions used to organize this theoretical analysis are:

What is the role of the Irish language in politics in Northern Ireland? What are the arguments for and against the creation of an Irish Language Act and why do people hold these positions? How have “planned” and “unplanned” language activity contributed to the development of the ILA and the Irish language revival movement in general?

These research questions were broken down into three subquestions:

The first subquestion is, “What is the legal history of the Irish language?” To address this question, historical document analysis was conducted to identify laws that either promoted or

(24)

prohibited the use of the language. The documents were reviewed, and a timeline developed of legal milestones regarding the prohibition or use of the Irish language which is used to establish the historical context for the contemporary Irish-speaking community and the ongoing ILA debate.

The second subquestion is, “How have the Irish language and the ILA been used by political parties as part of their ideological positions?” This question was addressed by observing discussion of the ILA in public media. Media coverage was analysed to identify the key points made for and against the ILA and the dominant narrative portrayed by the media. This portion of the analysis summarizes the political side of the issue as well as common media narratives.

The third and fourth subquestions are: “How are the Irish language and the ILA separate from the unionist / nationalist political positions and what is the role of “micro-planned”, “semi-planned”, “unplanned”, and “counter-planning” language activities in the revival of the Irish language?” These questions are used to assess the non-political and community-based aspects of the campaign for rights for Irish speakers and to illustrate the ways in which common narratives in politics and the media are not always accurate. The primary source of information to address these questions was a set of four in-depth interviews with leaders, teachers, and activists who are passionate about the Irish language and working both in and out of the political sphere to promote the Irish language. The names have been omitted to protect their privacy, but the interviewees were:

- [1] A leader and teacher from the Turas centre in East Belfast. This individual was contacted through the Turas centre and was interviewed as a representative of the centre. They have specified that they are not involved in the political side of the issue and have absolutely no interest in getting involved with politics in the future.

- [2] & [3] Members of Conradh na Gaeilge who are organizers and facilitators for the Irish language campaign. Both were contacted through the Conradh na Gaeilge organization and were interviewed as representatives from the campaign. For them, the issue is political since it is about getting legislation, although both emphasised that they aim to keep party politics out of the campaign.

(25)

- [4] A Professor of Irish from a university in Belfast who was contacted through the university where they teach (a non-affiliated university in terms of religious designation). They were interviewed as a professor of Irish and a member of the Irish speaking community in general rather than as representative of the particular university.

No interviews were conducted with politicians specifically to assess the arguments for the Irish Language Act outside of a political context. These interviews were open-ended, narrative-style

interviews that covered the following topics: the role of the Irish language in Northern Irish society and politics; where interviewees believe the opposition comes from; whether or not there have been attempts to “weaponize” the language; why some unionists feel a distance from the language; ways in which the language is perceived as a “threat”; and the role of symbolism and identity in the debates around language and culture. A number of significant themes were then extracted from the interview responses and sorted into the following categories: the actual contents of an Act; the campaign itself; the relationship between Irish and unionism; identity and the relationship between Irish and

nationalism; grievances of the Irish speaking community; framing, perception, and equality; and the potential for reconciliation and empowerment.

A short, open-ended survey (three questions) was also used to gather additional data on the Irish-speaking community by inquiring about individual attitudes towards the language. The data gathered through the surveys was consistent with the data collected through interviews, just somewhat less detailed. I specifically did not mention politics in the survey so that individuals could share their own thoughts rather than falling back onto the same tired political mantras. The questions were:

1. Why do you study Irish/what you got you interested in the language? 2. What role do you see for the Irish language in Northern Ireland?

3. Do you believe that an Irish Language Act is necessary to protect the rights of the Irish speaking community in Northern Ireland? Why or why not?

The survey was rather limited in scope as only ten were distributed, all at the café of Cultúrlann McAdam Ó Fiaich on Falls road to Irish speakers or learners to gather data on personal motivations for engaging with the language. Ten surveys is by no means representative, but it does, however,

demonstrate a few important things. For example, that there is widespread agreement amongst the community that an Act is necessary (see Appendix D for full survey responses), and that individual

(26)

motivations for learning Irish are often tied to family traditions or being inspired by a specific family member. The survey environment was not controlled, and it is possible that some respondents spoke with one another about the survey, which may have affected how they answered the questions by, for example, making certain themes more prevalent than they otherwise would have been.

VI. Findings & Analysis

What is the legal history of the Irish language?

Firstly, to establish the historical context, primary source documents were used since other writings on history in Northern Ireland are generally heavily biased and tend to favour one community’s narrative over the other. The full documents are available online and several excerpts which are specific to language rights or other issues of cultural equality are included below. The content of these

documents supports the narrative of a long history of oppression of the Irish language (and Irish culture) by British authorities. These documents are also analysed to understand the extent to which they address both planned and unplanned language activities. The documents used for this portion of the analysis are the Statutes of Kilkenny (1367), the Irish Proclamation (1916), the Good Friday Agreement (1998), and the Saint Andrew’s Agreement (2006). The following is by no means a comprehensive history, but merely a summary of a few key events and how they relate to each other. There is also a brief note on the relationship between the Irish language and the IRA which is not based on a historical document, but which is a crucial component of the history of the language. These documents are critical to understanding the historical context in which a number of “unplanned” and “semi-planned” language activities took place that dramatically affected the preservation and development of the Irish language and which shapes the ongoing debates on the Irish language and the ILA. Ndhlovu (2010) suggests that these “unplanned” language activities played a larger role than these “planned” activities in the historical development of the Irish language and the Irish-speaking community.

1367 Statutes of Kilkenny

The first significant piece of legislation concerning the Irish language is part of the Statutes of Kilkenny from the year 1367. The following is a passage from the Statutes that deals directly with the use of the Irish language:

(27)

“III. Also, it is ordained and established, that every Englishman do use the

English language, and be named by an English name, leaving off entirely the manner of naming used by the Irish; and that every Englishman use the English custom, fashion, mode of riding and apparel, according to his estate; and if any English, or Irish living amongst the English, use the Irish language amongst themselves, contrary to the ordinance, and therof be attainted, his lands and tenements, if he have any, shall be seized into the hands of his immediate lord,

until he shall come to one of the places of our lord the king, and find sufficient surety to adopt and use the English language, and then he shall have restitution of his said lands or tenements, his body shall be taken by any of the officers of our lord the king, and committed to the next gaol, there to remain until he, or some other in his name, shall find sufficient surety in the manner aforesaid…” (translation by Hardiman 1998)

This is a very early example of legislation enacted by the British against the use of the Irish language in Ireland and provides evidence that the “politicisation” of the language is by no means a modern phenomenon. This statute outlines punishments for those who use the Irish language such as being committed to the gaol and having their property seized until they “find sufficient surety to adopt and use the English language”. Thus, this document demonstrates that the Irish language has a long history of being “politicized” to the disadvantage of Irish speakers since at least 1367. The Statutes of Kilkenny established a clear structure for the proliferation of the English language and British culture in place of Irish language and culture among both the native population and among colonial settlers, which continued until the early 18th century (Smith 2005, p43). This statute does not make a distinction between formal or planned use and informal or unplanned use of the language, but simply targets both by establishing a “macro” policy banning any use of the Irish language. Similarly, it also establishes English as the only accepted language of daily use, not only for official purposes but also extending to situations of ordinary individuals talking “amongst themselves”. Ultimately, this statute inhibited both “planned” and “unplanned” language activity by establishing a macro language policy that placed official restrictions on the language in general, including the informal, unofficial use of languages by individuals in their private lives.

(28)

Another significant and related element of the historical oppression of Irish Catholics in Ireland is the Penal Laws: a series of acts in the 16the and 17th century which prohibited and outlined

punishments for practicing the Catholic faith and banned Catholics from many sectors of social and political life (Encyclopædia Britannica; “Penal Laws”). The system of oppression put into place by legislation such as the Statutes of Kilkenny and the Penal Laws eventually gave rise to a resistance movement founded on the goals of equality and sovereignty— goals which were put forward officially in the 1916 Proclamation.

1916 Proclamation (i.e., the Proclamation of the Irish Republic or the Easter

Proclamation)

After centuries of sustained, systematic inequality, a resistance movement formed against British authority. In 1916, a group of revolutionaries drafted, signed, and put forth the Proclamation of the Irish Republic, outlining their aspirations for a free and equal Ireland. It is widely accepted that a majority of the signatories to the Proclamation were members of the non-political and non-sectarian Irish-cultural organization Conradh na Gaeilge, thus illustrating the complex but close relationship between the organization and the development of Irish nationalism. After the uprising, the signatories were all captured and executed by British authorities—an event which dramatically changed public opinion and perception of British rule in Ireland. An excerpt from the Proclamation reads:

“The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past” (1916 Proclamation)

The 1916 Proclamation of Independence laid out the official goal of Irish nationalism: to establish an independent republic which guarantees equal rights for all citizens. The Proclamation does not deal specifically with the Irish language, but the 1916 Proclamation is a hugely significant part of Irish history and it does have relevance to the issue of language as an element of culture insofar as it demands equal treatment and respect for “all children of the nation”. On the subject of “planned” and “unplanned” language activity, the concepts of “civil liberty” and “equal rights” do seem to indirectly challenge the

(29)

“planned” restrictions that had been implemented by the British government with regard to Irish language and culture. The history and evolution of the proclamation itself appears to further blur the line between “planned” and “unplanned” activity since ”unplanned” and “micro planning” activities by the non-governmental organization Conradh na Gaeilge (discussed more thoroughly in the “Findings” chapter) fed into the creation of Irish nationalism, which eventually gave rise to the formation of the Irish Free State and then the Republic of Ireland, thus illustrating how over time, “unplanned” and “micro” language-planning actors can take advantage of the changing political and social context to develop a full, “macro” language policy that is ultimately implemented at the nation-state level.

It is also useful to note that as the manifesto for Irish nationalism, the Proclamation outlines the ideals that lay the foundation for that social and political identity group. Many see the Irish language revival and the creation of Conradh na Gaeilge as having inspired, on some level, the development of Irish nationalism (see “Findings & Analysis: How are the Irish language and the ILA separate from the unionist / nationalist political positions and what is the role of “micro-planned”, “semi-planned”, “unplanned”, and “counter-planning” language activities in the revival of the Irish language?: Identity and the Relationship between Irish and Nationalism” for one interviewee’s description). After many failed attempts to achieve independence through parliament or other diplomatic means, many of those who resisted British rule in Ireland turned to more violent tactics such as the formation of paramilitary groups and eventually the Irish Republican Army (IRA).

The Irish language and the IRA*

There is not a single document that easily depicts the relationship between the Irish language and the IRA, but it is an important part of history that gives context to the current situation. The original IRA, founded in 1919, was a guerrilla organization against British rule in Ireland (Reynolds 2009). The group experienced a split around 1921 over the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and again around 1969 when the civil rights movement took off in Northern Ireland and many Catholics took action, demanding an end to discrimination, but were met with attacks by members of the Protestant community (BBC 2007; Taylor, n.d.). This second split occurred because some members felt that there was not enough being done to protect Catholic communities, so they broke off and formed the Provisional IRA (Reynolds 2009). Following the deaths of 13 unarmed Catholic civilians on the 30th of January, 1972 (known as Bloody Sunday), many people felt the IRA had failed to protect these Catholic enclaves and rushed to their defence, causing membership in the Provisional IRA to increase dramatically (Taylor, n.d.).

(30)

During the troubles, the Provisional IRA (calling itself simply “the IRA”) was the most active nationalist paramilitary group. Many members and suspected members were held in HMP Long Kesh prison without trial but with Special Category Status during the early 1970s (Mac Giolla Chriost 2014, p.4-5). In March 1976, the British government decided to get rid of Special Category Status and

redesigned the layout of the prison to “stymie their coherence as an incarcerated political community” (Mac Giolla Chriost 2014, p.5), but the prisoners “resisted the imposition of the new regime and the Irish language became a central feature of that resistance” (Mac Giolla Chriost 2014, p.5). The prisoners “were held in their cells for 23 hours per day and could not freely associate”, so they used “Irish lessons, shouted from cell to cell, in order to maintain their sense of togetherness, thereby sustaining their morale and psychological well-being” (Mac Giolla Chriost 2014, p.6). Protesting prisoners were also denied access to “educational materials and so they resorted to having Irish language teaching and learning material smuggled in to them” (Mac Giolla Chriost 2014, p.6). The Irish language had particular utility in this context because in addition to allowing for more discreet communication amongst

prisoners, it also offered them a way to maintain a connection with their Irish identity. The identity-based nature of the conflict and the imprisonment of IRA members created the conditions for the Irish language to be of significant practical and symbolic use, resulting in a notable increase in the use of the language as a form of rebellion.

The use of the Irish language by imprisoned IRA members offers an example of the impact of minority language speakers deploying their linguistic resources in areas which are not regulated by government policies, as discussed by Ndhlovu (2010; p.178), but in a manner falling somewhat outside of the “micro”, “macro” and “unplanned” categories that are typically used in the field of language planning and policy. This activity was partly a spontaneous reaction to circumstances, however, it quickly evolved into a form of “semi-planned” resistance to their English-speaking captors, falling somewhere in between common definitions of “unplanned” and “micro” planned activity. The “planned” elements of this activity were a form of resistance against the English-speaking authority which placed value only on the English language, making it a form of “counter-planning” intended to oppose the official language policy at the nation state level. Since language so often carries symbolic value in terms of identity, especially in this case, the revival and use of the Irish language became a powerful tool of resistance. The unique nature of this type of planning activity suggest the need for a new category of “semi” planned language activity which comprises some degree of organization but which still involves elements of spontaneity while also challenging hegemonic norms and values. It also

(31)

suggests a space for “counter-planning”, a type of “micro” planning which intentionally challenges or seeks to break down “macro” language policies and plans.

The continued importance of the historical relationship between the Irish language and the IRA to the current political context can be seen by ongoing references to the phrase “Tiocfaidh ár lá” (a phrase meaning “our day will come” which was historically used as a rallying cry for more extreme nationalists) in the news and in modern politics. Collective memories of history, and especially of the IRA and the Troubles, can vary greatly between communities and the framing used by public officials, movement actors, and political leaders can vary greatly, with different elements of history at the fore. This historical relationship likely contributes to the perception that the Irish language is a “weapon” of nationalist resistance groups and some unionist politicians have even specifically mentioned the role of the IRA in relation to current debates and politics around the Irish language.

1998 Belfast Agreement (i.e., The Good Friday Agreement)

After many years of retaliatory violence between the IRA and British authorities, negotiations resulted in the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998 which laid the groundwork for the formation of a power-sharing executive between the main parties in Northern Ireland. In addition to providing a framework for government, the agreement also contained several clauses pertaining to issues of equality and cultural sensitivity. The following excerpt from the Good Friday Agreement affirms the right of just and equal treatment for both communities:

“1. (v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities”

“1. This agreement provides for a democratically elected Assembly in Northern Ireland which is inclusive in its membership, capable of exercising executive and legislative authority, and subject to safeguards to protect the rights and interests of all sides of the community” (DFAT 1998)

The Irish language revival in Northern Ireland : "semi-planned" language planning and "counter-planning"