Ireland 2016: 1916 in Retrospect
MA Thesis in European Studies Graduate School for Humanities Universiteit van Amsterdam
Author: Cathy Ryan 11107162
Supervised by Dr. Alex Drace-Francis Completed on the 1st of July, 2016
Table of Contents
Introduction...4
Site One: The Political Sphere...14
Site Two: The Physical Sites of the Rising...29
Site Three: The Private Sphere...42
Conclusion...52
Abstract
This thesis analyses the Ireland 2016 Centenary Programme in order to showcase the ways in which collective and national memory is subject to continuous change and evolution. Through its comparison between the current centennial celebrations and previous anniversaries marking Ireland’s seminal event, the 1916 Easter Rising, it aims to highlight how collective acts of remembrance are orchestrated depending on current circumstances and conjectures. In essence, it uses the Ireland 2016 Centenary Programme as a prism through which to explore the role of commemoration within societies, and to determine the myriad of factors which influence the manifestation of a past event within the present-day national frame.
Introduction
A commemorative ceremony held in Dublin Castle on the first of January, 2016, ushered in what will be a year of commemorative and celebratory events as part of the Ireland 2016 Centenary Programme. Indeed, Ireland 2016 marks the hundredth anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising, an event largely considered to have ignited Ireland’s struggle to break free from British rule. Taking place within the broader context of the Decade of Centenaries, the 2016 Centenary Programme has been described by the official organising body as a “once-in-a-century invitation to people of all ages, at home and overseas, to shape, and then to actively engage in, a diverse range of historical, cultural and artistic activities, all designed to facilitate reflection, commemoration, celebration, debate and analysis, and an active re-imagining of our future.”1 It is the aim of this thesis to determine the ways in which the events of 1916 are portrayed via the Ireland 2016 Centenary Programme. It will examine the myriad of events planned and the rhetoric used to describe them in order to ascertain how those involved in the organisation of the programme wish for the Easter Rising to be interpreted by a modern-day audience. Thus, its central research questions being; how is the 1916 Easter Rising being positioned within the present-day national frame via the Ireland 2016 Centenary Programme?
Ian McBride has pointed to Ireland’s tendency, more so than other cultures, to express its “values and assumptions through their representations of the past.”2 Indeed, he maintains that political and cultural life is often organised around the commemorative calendar.3 Given the multiplicity of commemorations which have taken place within Ireland, particularly in remembrance of the Easter Rising, they can therefore be used as a benchmark on which to compare this year’s programme. In this way, this thesis will seek to examine the ways in which this year’s centenary programme compares to previous anniversaries of the Rising, and determine the various points of similarity or difference. Such a comparison may prove illuminating as to why the interpretation or presentation of a particular historic event might be subject to continuous change and evolution.
In this way, the examination of the 2016 Centenary Programme falls into a greater category of analysis of how major historic events are positioned, and indeed repositioned, within the present-day national frame. In essence, this thesis could be considered as part of the wide and far-reaching category of memory studies. It will explore the role of memory, and more specifically the acts of collective remembrance and commemoration, in societies and nations. Overall, the Ireland 2016 Centenary Programme could be considered illustrative of the ways in which memory and national
1 “A Vision for Ireland 2016 Centenary Year,” Ireland 2016, accessed December 15, 2015, http://www.ireland.ie/about
2 Ian McBride, “Introduction: memory and national identity in modern Ireland,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, ed. Ian McBride (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 3.
history is subject to continuous change or reinterpretation, depending on the political and social climate.
While there has been extensive research into the role of memory within nations, and indeed nation-formation, this thesis will present a new prism through which this topic can be explored. The Ireland 2016 Centenary Programme is a current and on-going programme, and therefore the scope for large amounts of completed academic research is limited. Undoubtedly, there has been a surge in research into the history of Ireland, and the events surrounding the 1916 Easter Rising. Indeed as Ferriter remarks; “The story of the rising, its participants, victims and opponents is now a much more textured one thanks to the variety of material which has been uncovered about the individual and collective experience.”4 Numerous historical works have been published, such as Ferriter’s book, and this year has also seen a proliferation of websites aiming to actively engage people in learning about this aspect of Irish history.5 Moreover, national newspapers and other media outlets frequently provide coverage and commentaries on the programme of events which are taking place across the country. However, and in-depth analysis of the programme itself in the context of memory studies has yet to be completed. Moreover, while there has been extensive analysis of previous anniversaries, there has been little scope for comparison between the then and the now, given the timeframe. This thesis aims to fill this gap in its comparison of the 2016 celebrations to previous events. In doing so, it hopes to highlight how certain events are portrayed to suit the present-day national narrative.
Theoretical Framework and Literature Review:
The analysis will be guided by the following theories and concepts relating to nationalism and memory studies:
Collective Memory
As Jeffrey Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi and Daniel Levy have highlighted, “common sense” would imply that memory is a “fundamentally individual phenomenon.”6 Yet as the “founding father of contemporary memory studies,” Maurice Halbwachs, has outlined, the act of remembrance also involves a social dimension.7 In his seminal work, The Collective Memory, Halbwachs has established two forms of memory; while one form is inherently personal and “only available to ourselves,” the other constitutes part of the “common domain.”8 Memories constituent to this common domain can be 4 Diarmaid Ferriter, A Nation and not a Rabble: The Irish Revolution 1913- 1923 (London: Profile Books, 2015), 151.
5 For example; http://theirishrevolution.ie/, https://dublinrising.withgoogle.com/welcome/
6 Jeffrey K. Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi and Daniel Levy, “Introduction,” in The Collective Memory Reader, eds. Jeffrey K. Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi and Daniel Levy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 16.
7Ibid, 16.
8 Maurice Halbwachs, “The Collective Memory,” in The Collective Memory Reader, eds. Jeffrey K. Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi and Daniel Levy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 141.
recalled freely and easily given that they are based “on the memory of others” and “preserved in groups.”9 Indeed, basing their work on that of Halbwachs, Olick et al explain that “groups provide us with the stimulus to recall,” and in this way, all instances of individual remembering take place within a social context.10 As Jan Assmann has surmised; “Every individual memory constitutes itself in communication with others.”11 Overall, collective memory can be characterised as the interplay between the myriad of individual memories which exist within a group or society.
Following in this vein, Aleida Assmann has defined two forms of collective memory, those being cultural memory and political memory. She maintains that what is contained within the realm of cultural memory “perpetuates what a society has consciously selected and maintains as salient and vital for a common orientation and a shared remembering.”12 She outlines that institutions and large social groups do not ‘have’ a memory, but rather ‘make’ one for themselves, and in doing so, a collective identity is constructed. 13 In essence, collective memory has a considerable impact upon the composition of a collective identity.
National Identity
Indeed, Halbwachs states that collective memory “provides the group a self-portrait that unfolds through time.”14 Moreover, Jan Assmann maintains that groups “conceive their unity and peculiarity through common image of their past.”15 Such statements are very much grounded in Ernest Renan’s 1882 thesis regarding the formation of a nation, in which he states that nationhood is the result of a common “rich legacy of memories.”16 Anthony D. Smith also attributes the rise of national identity to a sense of “shared continuity...and shared memories of earlier periods.”17 Indeed, Smith maintains that these memories of the past can be woven into myths of origin and descent, which “constitute the primary definers of the separate existence and character of particular ethnies.”18 In essence, collective memories can provide the nation with a founding myth on which to base their national identity. In this way, it can be stated that a shared vision of the past gives rise to the nation, and a common identity 9 Maurice Halbwachs, “The Collective Memory,” in The Collective Memory Reader, 141.
10 Olick et al., “Introduction,” in The Collective Memory Reader, 19
11 Jan Assmann, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” in The Collective Memory Reader, eds. Jeffrey K. Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi and Daniel Levy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 213.
12 Aleida Assmann, “Re-framing memory. Between individual and collective forms of constructing the past,” in Performing the Past: Memory, History, and Identity in modern Europe, eds. Karin Tilmans et al. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010), 43.
13 Ibid, 42.
14 Halbwachs, “The Collective Memory,” in The Collective Memory Reader, 147.
15 Assmann, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” in The Collective Memory Reader, 213.
16 Ernest Renan, “What is a nation?” trans. Martin Thom, in Nation and Narration, ed. Homi K. Bhabba (London, 1990), 19, quoted in McBride, “Introduction: memory and national identity in modern Ireland,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, 1.
17 Anthony D. Smith, “National Identify and the Idea of European Unity,” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) 68 no. 1 (2009): 58, accessed 15 October, 2015,
amongst its populous. Indeed as Pascal Ory states; “plus encore qu’une territoire, une langue, une religion ou un régime, une nation, c’est un mémoire.”19
The ways in which this constructed national identity is upheld and perpetuated amongst societies have been outlined by a number of leading academics within the field. Indeed, Benedict Anderson, in his seminal work, Imagined Communities, puts forward the idea that the nation is, as the title suggests, “an imagined political community.”20 This community, Anderson maintains, is imagined due to the impossibility of each of its members knowing each other, yet still, there exists a communal sense of belonging and kinship. This phenomenon, as Anderson outlines, arose from the fundamental changes that took place within communities, which “made it possible to ‘think’ like a nation.”21 That is, the standardisation of time and the rise of print-capitalism. Indeed, Anderson claims that proliferation of novels and newspapers “made it possible for rapidly growing numbers of people to think about themselves, and to relate themselves to others in profoundly new ways.”22
The use of print and media to foster a sense of nationhood is further reiterated by Michael Billig in his book Banal Nationalism. Billig argues that although the concept of nationalism is not generally associated with stable and long-established (and typically Western) societies, the nation is, in fact, continuously flagged within daily life. He notes that politicians “typically reproduce the clichés of nationhood.”23 Moreover, the deixis of newspapers and other media also work to confer a sense of belonging to a nation. Indeed, Billig states that “small words, rather than grand memorable phrases, offer constant but barely conscious reminders of the homeland, making ‘our’ national identity unforgettable.”24
In this way, a sense of nationhood is continuously cultivated within societies, or ‘imagined communities’, by means of their interactions and encounters in everyday life. While the nation may be evoked most often via discreet channels of communication, there are also times when past and collective memories are vividly awakened to foster this sense of national identity, that is, the process of commemoration.
Commemoration
Indeed, a way in which collective visions of the past may be utilised in order to bolster a sense of collective/ national identity is through the commemorative process. Peter Burke outlines the various forms of commemorations, such as processions, pageants and parades, all of which “mark the 19 Pascal Ory, Une nation pour mémoire (Paris, 1992), 8, quoted in Jay Winter, “Introduction. The performance of the past: memory, history, identity,” in Performing the Past: Memory, History, and Identity in Modern Europe, eds. Karin Tilmans et al. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010), 17.
20 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (London: Verso, 1991), 6. 21 Ibid, 22.
22 Ibid, 36.
23 Michael Billig, Banal Nationalism (London: SAGE, 1995), 11. 24 Ibid, 93.
anniversary and evoke the memory of a historic event.”25 These types of commemorations are by no means a new phenomenon, and indeed by the eighteenth century they are considered “common practice.”26 The reason for such a proliferation in the conscious act of remembering was outlined by Pierra Nora’s in his seminal work Les Lieux de Mémoire. He maintains that the considerable changes and fluctuations that were taking place within society at this time caused a massive rupture, or “break”, with the past.27 Nora explains that lieux de memoir occur “at the same time that an immense and intimate fund of memory disappeared,” and the resulting absence of “spontaneous memory” meant that all acts of remembrance, such as anniversaries and celebrations, had to be deliberate and conscious.28 Ann Rigney and Joep Leerssen highlight that the nineteenth-century nation-building was “intimately linked to the self-reflexive cultivation of the past as a resource for collective identity.”29 Burke also notes that by the nineteenth century, centenaries reflect “the ‘nationalization’ of the past.”30 In this way, it can be stated that acts of remembrance, such as commemorations and centenaries, were used to cultivate a collective identity, and subsequently, a sense of belonging to a nation.
Although a nineteenth-century phenomenon, commemorations and centenaries are still common practice within a modern-day context. As Émile Durkheim has noted; “There can be no society which does not feel the need of upholding and reaffirming at regular intervals the collective sentiments and collective ideas which makes its unity and personality.”31 Paul Connerton maintains that they are a means by which the past is preserved,32 while Dominic Bryan states that this type of “culturally embedded practice” links the past to the present.33 In this way, Byran concludes that commemorations are “not about the past but about the present, and they are not about memory, but about identity.”34
25 Peter Burke, “Co-memorations. Performing the past,” in Performing the Past: Memory, History, and Identity in Modern Europe, eds. Karin Tilmans et al. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010), 106.
26 Ibid, 107.
27 Pierre Nora, “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire,” Representations 26 (1989): 7, accessed January 6, 2016, doi: 10.2307/2928520
28 Ibid, 12.
29 Ann Rigney and Joep Leerssen, Commemorating Writers in Nineteenth-Century Europe: Nation Building and Centenary Fever, eds (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), 5.
30 Burke, “Co-memorations. Performing the past,” in Performing the Past, 107.
31 Émile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (London: George Allen and Unwin), 16, quoted in Dominic Bryan, “Ritual, identity and nation: when the historian became the high priest of
commemoration,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, The Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, eds. Richard S. Grayson and Fearghal McGarry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 31.
32 Paul Connerton, “How Societies Remember,” in The Collective Memory Reader, eds. Jeffrey K. Olick, Vered Vinitzky- Seroussi and Daniel Levy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 338.
33 Dominic Bryan, “Ritual, identity and nation: when the historian became the high priest of commemoration,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, The Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, 25.
Methodology
This thesis will analyse the 2016 Centenary Programme in terms of the following themes; the role of the leaders who lead the Easter rebellion, namely Patrick Pearse, the notion of conflict and reconciliation, and the influence of religion. I aim to determine how these themes manifest themselves in three key areas; the political sphere, the physical sites in which the Easter Rising took place, and the sphere of private memory.
Themes
The role of the leaders:
Ian McBride has highlighted Ernest Renan’s thesis which maintains that “fundamental to the nation state was the cult of ancestors, a shared heritage of glorious triumphs and common suffering.”35 McBride states that nationalist ideology in Ireland was propagated by the “pantheon of republican leaders,” which includes those of the 1916 Rising.36 What is most notable about the role of the leaders was the way in which their story was transformed from one of rebellious hooliganism to sacrificial martyrdom. Indeed, it was the drawn-out executions of the leaders by British forces which had the most “profound impact” upon the mobilisation of a nationalist movement in Ireland.37 Róisín Higgins explains that “the images of the leaders of Easter Week became emblematic of the sacrifice that brought about the independence of the state.”38 In this way, the leaders of the rebellion constitute the role of the ‘founding fathers’ of the state, which Guy Beiner maintains is an essential factor in the construction of a national identity.39
David Fitzpatrick maintains that; “Life in Ireland has long been troubled by the recurrent, insistent, ceremonious invocation of the dead” 40 This thesis will aim to explore this persistent theme, and examine the ways in which the role of the leaders has been invoked in a present-day context.
35 McBride, “Introduction: memory and national identity in modern Ireland,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, 1.
36Ibid, 2.
37 Diarmaid Ferriter, A Nation and not a Rabble, 162.
38 Róisín Higgins, Transforming 1916: Meaning, Memory and the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Rising (Cork: Cork University Press, 2012), 205.
39 Guy Beiner, “Making sense of memory: coming to terms with conceptualisations of historical
remembrance,” Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, The Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, eds. Richard S. Grayson and Fearghal McGarry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 33.
40 David Fitzpatrick, “Instant history: 1912, 1916, 1918,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, ed. Ian McBride (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 184.
Conflict and Reconciliation:
Róisín Higgins describes how commemorations “select and narrate the story of the formation of nations.”41 However, this construction of one single narrative to describe the ascent of a nation can prove highly contentious, in that it denies the possibility of a more nuanced approach to historical reflection. Indeed, Peter Burke remarks that commemorations “are supposed to be performances of consensus, an agreed interpretation of the past linked to shared views of the present.”42 However, he points to a number of obvious issues pertaining to this statement, such as the simple fact that not everyone shares the same story. Moreover, he states that the “rituals may well be attempts to achieve consensus, identifying with the past and attempting to annihilate or deny distance or disagreement.”43
Undoubtedly, the commemoration has proved to be a highly contentious issue within society in Northern Ireland, and it has had a considerable impact upon North- South relations. Indeed, there are many who would maintain that the Golden Jubilee of the Rising in 1966 was a contributory factor in the outbreak of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. For example, McBride states that this commemorative event “spawned a new generation of Republicans in Belfast.”44 In subsequent anniversaries, Higgins notes that governments, both North and South of the border, have made a conscious effort to “neutralise” the adversarial message of the Rising.45 (She has also pointed to the absolute contradiction of condemning violence during the commemoration of a violent uprising).46 I would like to examine the ways in which the Centenary Programme has sought to overcome such issues in its presentation of the Rising in a modern-day context.
Religion
Catholicism and Irish nationalism are intrinsically intertwined. Indeed, in the wake of Irish independence it was in the context of the Catholic Church that the government sought to frame its new-found national image. Religious allusions manifest themselves in numerous national documents, even the Proclamation of a Republic was “enacted in the name of God.”47 Moreover, this rebellion took place on Easter Monday, and commemorations of the event continue to be centred on Easter Week. Finally, Higgins notes that; “Divested of their radicalism, the leaders of the Easter Rising became instead symbols for a conservative catholic state.”48 (Notable as well is the notion of
41 Róisín Higgins, Transforming 1916, 19.
42 Burke, “Co-memorations. Performing the past,” in Performing the Past, 108. 43 Ibid, 108.
44 McBride, “Introduction: memory and national identity in modern Ireland,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, 3.
45 Higgins, Transforming 1916, 15. 46 Ibid, 206.
martyrdom has religious connotations at its core). This thesis will seek to determine if religion continues to be a definitive feature in the framing of the Easter Rising.
Sites
The Political Sphere
Olick et al have stated that “Priests and politicians before and since have intuitively understood the cultic powers of the past to underwire solidarity and motivate action”49 Such a statement would appear to be based on the Hobsbawm thesis, which links the surge of national celebrations to a “crisis of legitimacy by established ruling élites.”50 In this way, political aspirations would appear to be inherent in national commemorations. This certainly relevant within the context of the Rising’s commemoration, which has been continuously subjected to debates of ‘ownership.’ As Higgins states, “whoever had ownership of the Rising had ownership of the entire nationalist tradition,”51 and it has generally been the political party Fianna Fáil which lays claim to this historic event most fervently.52
For the most part, official commemorations are organized by the government of the day. While it is the government who is the face of official state ceremonies, it also appoints members to a committee, who, in turn, devise a programme of historical and cultural events. In this way it is the government that controls the framing of the Rising within current discourse. I would like to analyse the ways in which the Easter Rising has been framed from a political perspective, and this shall be done by examining the speeches and statements of successive Taoisigh (Prime Ministers). Indeed, the language and rhetoric employed by political leaders will indicate which aspects of the narrative are emphasized, and which are downplayed, and ultimately illuminate the way in which the events of 1916 is presented within the present-day context,
The Physical Sites of the Rising
While there are a myriad of prominent sites in which the Rising took place, I would like to pay particular attention to the status of the General Post Office (GPO) and Kilmainham Gaol in commemorative ceremonies. The GPO was the headquarters of the Rising, and it was also the stage on which Pearse read the Proclamation, while Kilmainham Gaol was the site of the leaders’ execution. Consequently, these two sites have become, as Róisín Higgins states, almost “living participant[s] in the history of Ireland,”53 and indeed, they are the locus of many key commemorative events. I would 49 Olick et al., “Introduction,” in The Collective Memory Reader, 3.
50 McBride, “Introduction: memory and national identity in modern Ireland,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, 8.
51 Higgins, Transforming 1916, 7. 52 Ibid, 14.
like to determine the significance of the multiple events that have taken place here during the process of commemoration, which range from state commemorative ceremonies and parades, to the consecration and restoration of monuments. Such acts of commemoration can be considered with respect to Nora’s Les Lieux de Mémoire ,as well as Billig’s Banal Nationalism, and thus they represent an expression of national memory and nationhood within the public domain. In essence, I would like to analyse the way in which the collective memory of the Easter Rising manifests itself within these sites, and thus the public space on the whole.
The sphere of Private Memory
Joep Leerssen maintains that nowadays, history-writing is “concerned almost exclusively with underdogs,” that is, the representation of marginal groups and minorities.54 Indeed, Leerssen points to Renan’s theory, that although social cohesion was based on the cultivation of a single historical narrative, what was omitted or denied would eventually resurface.55 In the run-up to the 2016 centenary, there has been a proliferation of historical research into the memoirs of the Easter Rising generation completed by institutions such as Irish Life and Lore, as well as historians such as Roy Foster and Diarmaid Ferriter. This research has been enabled by the release of personal statements of those who bore witness to the Easter Rising by both the Bureau of Military History and the Military Service Pensions Board. Their aim is to provide a more comprehensive view of the events of 1916 by facilitating the inclusion of multiple perspectives. This, Guy Beiner maintains, “has breathed new life into academic and popular perceptions of 1916.”56 Through the examination of such personal witness statements, made accessible through online archives, I would like to consider the effect of such projects on the narrative of the Rising.
Anticipated Conclusion
Ultimately, the analysis carried out in terms of the political sphere, the physical sites and the private sphere will facilitate a comparison between the manifestation of memory between the public and the private domain. Indeed, there is potential for points of differentiation between the way in which the Easter Rising has been preserved both publically and privately. Furthermore, while the collective memory may differ between these three spheres, the comparison between this year’s programme and previous anniversaries will also illustrate how the representation of the Rising has varied over time.
54Joep Leerseen, “Monument and trauma: varieties of remembrance,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, ed. Ian McBride (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 218.
55 Ernest Renan, Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?, 8, quoted in Leerseen, “Monument and trauma: varieties of remembrance,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, 217.
56 Guy Beiner, “Probing the boundaries of Irish Memory: from postmemory to prememory and back,” Irish Historical Studies 154 (2014): 302 doi:10.1017/S0021121400019106.
In analysing these three sites in terms of the themes specified above, I hope to illuminate the intended metanarrative of this year’s programme. This may also unlock certain antagonisms regarding the commemoration of the Easter Rising. In comparing the various layers of representation, I aim to determine the motivations behind the promotion a certain message with respect to this historic event, and consider why its master-narrative may be subject to change over time. It is anticipated that the manner in which the Easter Rising has been portrayed via the Ireland 2016 Centenary Programme is the result of the way in which previous anniversaries have been received by general public. In essence, the process of commemoration may appear to be about the promotion of a coherent and cohesive national narrative, yet in reality, it is a multi-faceted and multi-representational act of collective remembrance.
Site One: The Political Sphere
Given that the Easter Rising was, for the most part, an insurrection against the British ruling regime in Ireland, this event can therefore be considered to be intrinsically linked to the Irish political sphere. Indeed, Roy Foster notes that the revolution subsequently “became part of the political landscape.”57 In essence, the Easter Rising is largely considered to be the seminal event which brought about an independent republic or as Róisín Higgins claims, “a central event upon which the necessary gimmick or myth of the nation could be hung.”58 Indeed, the way in which the events of Easter Week unfolded, namely the executions of those who led the rebellion, meant that 1916 “was subject to instant mythologizing,” thereby providing a conventional national narrative for state-formation.59 Consequently, it is a story which continues to be both evoked and invoked within the Irish political domain. As Foster notes; “commemoration, public remembrance and the manipulation of historic recollection had long been inseparable from Irish public life, creating a framework of activity which asserted national identity and underpinned the state”60
Within this section I would like to analyse the ways in which the events of 1916 have been presented from a political perspective. This shall be done mainly through an examination of the rhetoric used by political leaders in public speeches and sermons. Within the context of this centenary year, the statements made by An Taoiseach Enda Kenny conform closely to the wording of the commemoration’s official programme. Indeed, oftentimes, specific parts of his speeches appear to be taken verbatim from the Ireland 2016 Centenary Programme, which, in turn, was written in coordination with the Expert Advisory Group on Commemorations. In this way, it can be stated that the manner in which the Rising is presented from within the political sphere is indicative of the way in which the organisers of Ireland 2016 wish for the commemorative programme to be perceived overall. The analysis of the political sphere shall be carried out within the context of the themes specified above; the role of the leaders, violence and reconciliation and religion.
Role of the leaders
Ian McBride asserts that it is “indisputable” that themes such as injustice, persecution, endurance and deliverance have been “fundamental to the shaping of modern Ireland.”61 These themes essentially manifest themselves via the role of the revolutionary leaders. Indeed, Oliver McDonagh 57 Roy Foster, Vivid Faces: The Revolutionary Generation in Ireland 1890-1923 (London: Allen Lane, 2014) 302.
58 Higgins, Transforming 1916, 28.
59 Beiner, “Making sense of Memory: coming to terms with conceptualisations of historical remembrance,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, the Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, 15.
60 Foster, Vivid Faces, 289.
61 McBride, “Introduction: memory and national identity in modern Ireland,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, 5.
maintains that “the nationalist past...turns on subjection and struggle and takes heroic defeat as its recurring motif,” the locus classicus being Partick Pearse and his fellow leaders of the Rising.62 Foster notes that the ways in which their struggle have been evoked, namely the rhetoric of bloodshed, redemption and glory, follow the typical format of hagiography.63 This is very much aligned with Anthony D. Smith’s thesis regarding the correlation between myths of origin and descent and nationhood, in which he states “every nationalism requires a touchstone of virtue and heroism.”64 Indeed, the leaders of the 1916 Rising now constitute the role of the ‘founding-fathers’ of the state, and their ideals continue to be invoked within the present-day political sphere. It is the aim here to examine the manner in which their actions have been conveyed overtime, and to determine both the political intentions and implications this may have.
David Fitzpartick contends that “the focus of interest in commemorative studies has long since shifted from the original episodes and participants to politicised constructions of the past and the political functions of current ceremonies.”65 Indeed, the ‘invented tradition’ that is commemoration is often choreographed with an implicit political agenda. Fitzpatrick maintains that past triumphs or struggles are often employed by current organisers to both “authorize and justify their aims and actions” as well as “mobilize supporters in public affirmations of solidarity.”66 Undoubtedly, the struggle of the Rising’s revolutionary leaders, which has subsequently been construed into defiant heroism, is often invoked by political leaders to incite feelings of national pride amongst the Irish community. Speaking at the launch of the 2016 commemorations, Taoiseach Enda Kenny invited the Irish population to reflect on the lives of the 1916 leaders (who were notably qualified by the term ‘executed’). He described them as a “collection of strong willed, forward thinking individuals, some idealistic, some pragmatic, some poetic, some imaginative, some perhaps not Irish by birthright– an accurate description of modern Irish society today.”67 However, like all national myths, the perception of the men who led the Easter Rising has been subject to considerable transformation. As Fitzpatrick suggests, “the functions of commemoration vary according to the relationship between the dead and their celebrants.”68 Indeed, while in the present-day context, they are celebrated as the epitome of a distinguished Irish nationalism, at times they have been portrayed as the root cause for the troubles endemic in Ireland.
62 Oliver McDonagh, States of Mind: A Study of Anglo- Irish Conflict, 1780- 1980 (London, 1983), 1, quoted in McBride, “Introduction: memory and national identity in modern Ireland,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, 15.
63 Foster, Vivid Faces, 291.
64 Smith, Myth and Memories of a Nation, 65.
65 Fitzpatrick, “Instant history: 1912, 1916, 1918,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, the Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, 65.
66 Ibid, 184.
67 Enda Kenny, “2016 Commemorative Launch- Speech by the Taoiseach Enda Kenny TD,” (speech, Dublin, 13 November, 2014), Merrion Street, accessed 10 June, 2016,
http://www.merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/Speeches/2016_Commemoration_Launch_-_Speech_by_the_Taoiseach_Mr_Enda_Kenny_TD.html 68 Fitzpatrick, “Instant history: 1912, 1916, 1918,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, the Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, 184.
Indeed, from the beginning of the 1970s, Irish history was subjected a wave of heated debate amongst revisionist historians. Revisionism, which surfaced at the same time as a series “disastrous border campaigns,” can be characterised as an attempt to dispel the dominant national myth surrounding pantheon of illustrious Irish martyrs which had been cultivated since independence, and confront the country’s violent path to freedom as it were.69 As Kevin Whelan notes, a “consensus developed that ‘traditional’ Ireland was itself alone the principal root of all Irish problems.”70 Mark McCarthy highlights the effect of the revisionist debate upon the perception of the revolutionary leaders, which mainly took to form of “iconoclastic” reassessment.7172 McCarthy points to the impact of this overall climate upon commemorations, namely a subdued and downgraded seventy-fifth anniversary, and an overarching ambiguity towards the Rising’s legacy within the state.73
However, the mid-2000’s welcomed a post-revisionist era in Irish historiography, under which “the memories of 1916 were cast in a more positive light.”74 Post-revisionism developed a consensus that “Pearse’s fusion of catholic mysticism and militarism [was] essentially foreign or incidental to the republican tradition,” and a more “sympathetic” view of Irish nationalism was once again reinstated.75 This development largely coincided with both improved North-South relations facilitated by the peace process in Northern Ireland, as well as a flourishing economy in the Republic.76
Within this context of burgeoning prosperity, politicians sought to restore “the reputation of the 1916 metanarrative” and exploit its associated political opportunities.77 Indeed, in the lead up to the ninetieth anniversary of the Rising, then-Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, asserted his belief that “it is appropriate that the commemorative events should be organised to respectfully acknowledge the achievements and sacrifices of past generations and to inculcate an awareness and appreciation in modern Ireland of the events and issues of those times.”78 Ahern characterised the Rising as Ireland’s “inheritance,” and stated that its status must be protected from “those who will abuse it and from revisionist who seek to denigrate it.”79 He believed that it was time to “suitably recognise the self-69 Kevin Whelan, “The Revisionist Debate in Ireland,” Boundary 2 31, no. 1 (2004): 188
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/54264 70 Ibid, 189.
71 Mark McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916: Explorations of History-Making, Commemoration and Heritage in Modern Times (Surrey: Ashgate, 2012), 300.
72 For example, McCarthy describes how Pearse was portrayed as an “indecisive and tormented megalomaniac” by one revisionist historian; Ibid, 300.
73 McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916: Explorations of History-Making, Commemoration and Heritage in Modern Times, 318- 320.
74 Ibid, 355.
75 McBride, “Introduction: memory and national identity in modern Ireland,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, 33-34.
76 McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916, 335. 77 Ibid, 345.
sacrifice of our forbearers,” and this he did in a speech at the opening of the official Easter Rising exhibition at the National Museum in 2006.80 Indeed, he made numerous references to both the struggles and achievements of the “patriot dead,” and established a direct line of causality between the sacrifices they made for independence and the eventual prosperity of the state. Ahern also situated the Proclamation drafted by Pearse as a “cornerstone” of the Republic, as well as the “foundation” on which to build the future of the country. In espousing these republican ideals, Ahern sought to incite a “sense of community and duty” amongst the population in order to build a “strong” and “vibrant” society.81 In essence, the national myth of the founding fathers was invoked to instil a sense of national pride and to promote active citizenship and participation amongst the Irish community.
McCarthy notes that, around the time of the ninetieth anniversary of the Rising, “the notion of paying respect to the Easter Week rebels became acceptable once again”82 Indeed, this trend has continued in the 2016 centenary year. Speaking at the launch of the centenary commemorations, Taoiseach Enda Kenny stated that the Rising is an event which “demands appropriate commemoration,” as well as a moment that the population should be “rightly proud of.”83 Like Ahern, Kenny pointed to Pearse’s “inspiring” Proclamation, which “has shaped our view of ourselves and our nation.”84 He extolled the work of the revolution’s leaders, stating that they were engaged “in an extraordinary endeavour- the act of nation-building.” Elsewhere, Kenny defined the moment when Pearse read the Proclamation as “brave act of defiance that lit the torch paper leading to the culmination of centuries struggle for Irish freedom.”85 His, perhaps slightly hyperbolic, language is highly evocative of a national myth. Overall, recent political leaders have presented the aims of those who lead the Rising as the foundations on which the Irish state was built, and their courage and defiance is propagated as a source of national pride.
While the role of the leaders has undoubtedly been instrumentalized by politicians to promote active citizenship, the ideals of these ‘founding-fathers’ are also frequently used as a benchmark on which to judge to government of the day. Indeed, as Róisín Higgins notes, “throughout its commemorative history the Easter Rising has been an event through which the failures of the southern
80 Mark McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916: Explorations of History-Making, Commemoration and Heritage in Modern Times (Surrey: Ashgate, 2012), 355.
81
Bertie Ahern, “Speech by Bertie Ahern, then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), at the opening of the official exhibition of the Easter 1916 Rising at the National Museum,” (speech, Dublin, 9 April, 2006), CAIN, accessed 14 May, 2016, http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/dott/ba090406.htm82 McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916, 262.
83 Kenny, “2016 Commemorative Launch- Speech by the Taoiseach Enda Kenny TD,” (speech, Dublin, 13 November, 2014).
84 Ibid.
85
Enda Kenny, “Speech by the Taoiseach Enda Kenny at the launch of ‘The GPO: Witness History,’” (speech, Dublin, 25 March, 2016), Department of An Taoiseach, accessed 13 May, 2016,http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/News/Taoiseach's_Speeches/Speech_by_the_Taoiseach_Enda_Kenny_at_the_l aunch_of_%E2%80%98The_GPO_Witness_History%E2%80%99_on_25th_March_2016.html
state are held up for scrutiny even while the state itself is celebrating its independence.”86 Given that commemoration can be considered both a reflection on and a revival of the past, Higgins states that this presents a suitable opportunity in which to consider the ideals of the revolutionaries.87 Enshrined in the Proclamation, the republic envisaged by Pearse was one which guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and opportunities to all its citizens, and the pursuit of happiness and prosperity of the nation. Paramount to the Proclamation was that it be applicable to the island of Ireland as a whole. In this way, this issue of Partition was a major source of contention for subsequent anniversaries, and consequently, the ideal of a united Ireland continued to remain part of the political rhetoric of the major parties.88 In 1965, in the lead up to the Golden Jubilee, then-Taoiseach Séan Lemass stated that “we keep clearly in mind that the national aim is to secure the permanent reunification of the Irish people.”89 However, by 1966, he conceded that this aspect of the revolutionary aims remained largely unfulfilled.90 The continuing Partition resulted in considerable controversy for the government, and their organisation of the Golden Jubilee was largely condemned by prominent republicans, such as the sisters of Patrick Pearse. They stated that their brother had died for a thirty-two-country republic, and this had yet to be achieved.91 Indeed, as Higgins highlights, the desire to celebrate the achievements of the Republic despite ongoing partition presented the government with a political quagmire, their main concern being “how the failures of completion of [the Rising’s] agenda would be relayed.”92 Moreover, McCarthy notes that the Golden Jubilee was marked by “indifference and despair” by those who felt that the objectives of the Proclamation had not been fulfilled; not only did they lament partition, but also the decline of the Irish language, a poor economy, and urbanisation.93
In light of the of the Troubles in Northern Ireland and the subsequent peace process, Articles Two and Three of the Irish Constitution, which laid claim to the thirty-two counties of Ireland, were altered in the early 1990s. Consequently, the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Rising saw “no repeat of the calls for Irish unity that had been made twenty-five years previously.”94 Although the issue of reunification had therefore been side tracked, there remained a myriad of objectives of the leaders to which the government could be held accountable. Indeed, during the economic boom in the early 2000s, the ninetieth anniversary of the Rising was jubilantly celebrated within the context of growing prosperity. In a speech made by Taoiseach Ahern, he claimed that Ireland, “once an unlikely dream, is now reaching its stride and beginning to fulfil the hopes of those who fought and died for its 86 Higgins, Transforming 1916, 204.
87 Higgins, Transforming 1916, 58. 88 McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916, 33.
89 University College Dublin, Fianna Fáil Archive, Presidential Address by Seán Lemass to Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis, Dublin, 16 November 1965, quoted in Higgins, Transforming 1916, 33.
90 Ibid, 33.
91 McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916, 253. 92 Higgins, Transforming 1916, 61. 93 McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916, 188.
foundation.”95 Once again, Ahern evoked the perennial theme of struggle, yet this time he was referring to the “challenges of success, of prosperity.”96 In this way, Ahern sought to imply that the state the leaders had fought for had finally come to fruition as a result of this new-found economic stability, and thus their objectives had been largely achieved.
However, the subsequent colossal financial crash, which heralded the arrival of the Troika, led many to question the authority and legitimacy of the state.97 Indeed, Kevin Bean notes that the crisis fuelled widespread reflection on Ireland’s revolutionary origins, with “references to the ideals and hopes of 1916” becoming “commonplace.”98 For example, and an editorial featured in The Irish
Times worked to suggest the futility of Ireland’s past struggles, in that “having obtained our political
independence from Britain to be the masters of our own affairs, we have now surrendered our sovereignty to the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.”99 In a similar fashion, The Irish Examiner also printed a ‘Proclamation of Dependence’ on its front page.
In run-up to the 2016 centenary, Foster points to the inevitability of looking to the ideals of the revolutionaries, namely “equality of opportunity, a genuinely representative government and an investment in social issues.”100 Undoubtedly, there are a litany of issues facing the government of Ireland; homelessness and housing crises, and a water-charges debacle being but a few examples. However, the rhetoric of the political leaders surrounding these crises appears to mirror the myth of the revolutionary leaders themselves, in that they have taken the issue of abject struggle and transformed it into a source of national pride. Indeed, Mr Kenny has defined the centenary year as “an invitation to join us in remembering our past” and “reflecting on our achievements over the last 100 years.”101 It is a programme through which “we will proudly present to ourselves and to the world our achievements as a Republic and show how we took our place ‘among the nations.’”102 Through a myriad of speeches, the Taoiseach has praised the state and its people for their “endurance” through
95
Ahern, “Speech by Bertie Ahern, then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), at the opening of the official exhibition of the Easter 1916 Rising at the National Museum,” (speech, Dublin, 9 April, 2006).96
Ibid.97 Kevin Bean, “New Roads to the Rising,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, the Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, ed. Richard S. Grayson and Fearghal McGarry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 237.
98 Ibid, 237.
99 Editorial, “Was it for this?” The Irish Times [online] 18 November, 2010, accessed 26 May, 2016, available at http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/was-it-for-this-1.678424
100 Roy Foster, “We must not politicize 1916 for feel-good purposes of the present,” The Irish Times [online] 27 December, 2014, accessed 28 May, 2016, available at, http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/we-must-not-politicise-1916-for-feel-good-purposes-of-the-present-1.2048781
101Enda Kenny, “First State Ceremonial Event to mark the start of 2016 Centenary Year,” (speech, Dublin, 1 January, 2016), Merrion Street, accessed 10 May, 2016,
http://www.merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/News/First_State_Ceremonial_Event_to_mark_Start_of_2016_Centenary_Year.html
“World War, devastating economic crashes, and geo-political instability,”103 and has ultimately concluded that “we are a tenacious people with a remarkable capacity for endurance and self belief in the face of adversity.”104 Indeed, the rhetoric of this centenary programme, as espoused by political leaders, would appear to be firmly rooted in celebrations of achievements, as well as the Irish population’s seemingly perennial resilience in overcoming hardship.
Indeed, Kevin Bean maintains that many politicians seem “to prefer to cloak themselves in the idealism of the past to mask the deficiencies of the present.” Undoubtedly, political leaders wish to emphasise the past achievements of a revolutionary generation in order to detract from current socio-economic difficulties. The legacy of the revolutionary leaders has been propagated as a source of idealised inspiration, through which the Irish people can take pride in their national myth of origin, no matter their current circumstance.
Violence and Reconciliation
The centenary of the Easter Rising has been described as a year that “will belong to everyone on this island and to our friends and families overseas – regardless of political or family background, or personal interpretation of our modern history.” Such a statement, which so clearly strives to encapsulate every strand of Irish society, typifies the programme’s over-arching theme of inclusivity. Indeed, this aim of accommodating all those who wish to partake in the centenary year has been reiterated at every political opportunity. Speaking at the launch of the commemorative programme, Mr Kenny stated that his “guiding objective” was to ensure that “everyone’s voice can be heard” and to “make 2016 the best possible year of remembrance, reflection and re-imagining.”105 Mr. Kenny recognised the importance of the “full acknowledgement of the multiple identities and traditions which are part of the overall story,” and avowed that all official events will be “inclusive” and “non-partisan.”106 Overall, the Taoiseach stated that the “measured” and “reflective” programme would be devised on the basis of a full understanding of the island’s complex history.107
Such aspirations of inclusivity came at the recommendation of the Expert Advisory Group, which was appointed by the Department of An Taoiseach to aid the design of the programme. In order to ensure that the commemorations were carried out ‘accurately’, ‘proportionally’ and ‘appropriately’, it was this group of academics and historians who initially stated that the programme should “encompass the different traditions on the island of Ireland,” as well as “foster deeper mutual
103 Kenny, “Speech by the Taoiseach Enda Kenny at the launch of ‘The GPO: Witness History,’” (speech, Dublin, 25 March, 2016).
104 Kenny, “2016 Commemorative Launch- Speech by the Taoiseach Enda Kenny TD,” (speech, Dublin, 13 November, 2014).
105 Ibid. 106 Ibid.
understanding” of the various social groups which co-exist within the Irish population.108 Undoubtedly, their emphasis on “inclusivity, mutual tolerance and authenticity” was wholly endorsed by the Taoiseach and the government.109
This insistent trend of inclusiveness points to the antagonisms inherent in the commemorative process. Given that commemoration is often the construction of a singular narrative deployed for social cohesion, it can therefore be met with considerable hostility from those feel excluded from its one-dimensional frame. McBride maintains that the power of collective memory lies in its “ability to reduce complex historical processes to basic images and narrative type that answer specific ideological needs.”110 However, as Higgins notes, when consensus on this national narrative is fragile, or indeed contested, commemorations are subsequently “intense.”111 Higgins highlights that; “In a healthy society, commemorations offer a safe space for public debate, but in an already fractured society, the past has the capacity to explode into the present.”112 This is certainly applicable to Ireland’s commemorative history, with McBride believing that “the interpretation of the past has always been at the heart of national conflict.”113
Indeed, the fiftieth anniversary of the Easter Rising has been accorded a “pivotal” place within the history of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.114 For example, former Unionist leader, David Trimble claimed it triggered the destabilisation of Ulster, stating that it was “1966 that made 1968 inevitable.”115 While in the Republic, the Golden Jubilee of the Easter Rising in 1966 was characterised as a triumphant and jubilant celebration of nationalism and patriotism, its occasion in the North “managed to conjure up all of the ingredients that were necessary for a number of tempestuous encounters between nationalists and unionists.” 116 Ultimately, the Golden Jubilee presented the government in Northern Ireland with a difficult situation to negotiate, which effectively emphasises the ways in which commemoration can expose existing fissures within society.
108 “Remember, Reflect, Re-imagine,” Ireland 2016, accessed 2 February, 2016, http://www.ireland.ie/about#section-18
109 Kenny, “2016 Commemorative Launch- Speech by the Taoiseach Enda Kenny TD,” (speech, Dublin, 13 November, 2014).
110 McBride, “Introduction: memory and national identity in modern Ireland,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, 36.
111 Higgins, Transforming 1916, 19. 112 Ibid, 57.
113 McBride, “Introduction: memory and national identity in modern Ireland,” in History and Memory in Modern Ireland, 1.
114 Róisín Higgins, “‘The Irish Republic was proclaimed by poster’: the politics of commemoration in Ireland,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, The Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, eds. Richard S. Grayson and Fearghal McGarry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 56.
115 David Trimble, The Easter Rebellion of 1916 (Lurgan: Ulster Society Publications, 1992), 33, quoted in Higgins, “‘The Irish Republic was proclaimed by poster’: the politics of commemoration in Ireland,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, The Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, 56.
Overall, the primary concern for government officials, both North and South of the border, was that any form of commemorative event to mark the Rising would lead to a serious “breach of peace.”117 While nationalists felt entitled to assert their Irish identity, unionists claimed that any form of celebration of the “massacre” of British soldiers constituted a major act of provocation.118 The government was faced with the issue as to whether or not to allow commemorations in public spaces, knowing that a decision one way or the other would lead to an outbreak of violence by the opposing group. Ultimately, the government selected which parades and commemorative events could go ahead, and which could not.119 Although there were many attempts to diffuse the divisive nature of the 1966 commemorations, Higgins notes that the overall tension “hardened lines between and within political constituencies in the North.”120
In the following years, the escalation of violence in the North had a “profound impact” on the way in which 1916 was remembered within the public domain.121 Such issues surrounding the incisive nature of commemoration were not confined to the North alone, and indeed, the government of the Republic was equally forced to consider the implications of this highly politicised event.122 Their main
issue was to determine an appropriate manner in which to commemorate the rebellion given the level of paramilitary violence ongoing in the North. As Margaret O’Callaghan questions; “Why had the 1916 insurrection been morally and politically correct, whereas the current campaign of the Provisional IRA was not?”123 Ultimately, the then-Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, agreed to henceforth cancel
the military parade which had formed the central spectacle of the commemorative occasion, and the following wave of anniversaries of the Rising were subsequently characterised ‘muted’, ‘downgraded’, ‘sheepish’ and ‘spare.’124 For example, the meagre commemorations of the
seventy-fifth anniversary were organised in the spirit of “merely paying lip-service to the actions of the 1916 insurgents, whose historical legacy had been tainted by over two decades of bloodshed caused by paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland.”125
This unrelenting trend of violence consistently affected the way in which the Rising was commemorated throughout the 1970s, and indeed it continues to do so in the present-day context. O’Callaghan argues that the “protean” and “fugitive” nature of collective memory forced the government, both North and South, to “partially refashion public norms in relation to
117 McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916, 255. 118 Ibid, 256.
119 Ibid, 257.
120 Higgins, Transforming 1916, 3. 121 McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916, 278.
122 Margaret O’Callaghan, “Reframing 1916 after 1966: Irish governments, a National Day of reconciliation, and the politics of commemoration in Ireland in the 1970s,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, The Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, eds. Richard S. Grayson and Fearghal McGarry, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 209.
123 Ibid, 210.
commemoration” via the state apparatus.126 For example, the aim of peace and reconciliation was a
central feature of government rhetoric throughout the 1970s, with suggestions that should be not only a ‘national day of reconciliation,’ but also that St. Patrick’s Day should become the all-encompassing date on which the anniversaries of major events should fall (though, perhaps unsurprisingly, this never came to be realised).127 Continuing in this vein, the themes of “generosity and inclusion became an
important part of the narrative” in official commemorations by the early 2000s.128 Indeed, McCarthy
remarks that there developed a greater acceptance of the range of historical interpretations of Ireland’s history.129 For example, the inclusion of the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Somme in the
commemorative process in 1991 reflects the more pluralistic approach to public commemorations (The Battle of the Somme had been appropriated by unionists as a form of counter-celebration to that of the Easter Rising).130 By the 90th anniversary of the Rising, “inclusiveness and reconciliation
became commonplace in Irish commemorations policy.”131
Indeed, there was the admission that previous commemorations had been “one-sided affairs” and the new-found awareness of the need to recognise both the opponents and victims within the commemorative process.132 In this way, the 90th anniversary aimed to “recast the Rising in a new
positive light,”133 with Taoiseach Ahern highlighting the importance of “bridge-building.”134 Ahern
stated that “the time has come to acknowledge the shared history and shared experience of the people of this island, from all traditions, in the year of 1916, in an appropriate and respectful manner.”135
Ultimately, it is this political stance which continues to define the commemorative process for the 2016 Centenary Programme.
Indeed, the way in which the programme was organised seeks to “engage with the different traditions on our island and recognise the different narratives of today” in order to “imagine the future in ways that strengthen peace and reconciliation and respect all traditions as envisaged in the ideals of the Proclamation.”136 This goal was reiterated by Mr. Kenny at the launch of the programme, during which he stated the need “to appreciate the subtle inter-reliance and relationships between the 126 O’Callaghan, “Reframing 1916 after 1966: Irish governments, a National Day of reconciliation, and the politics of commemoration in Ireland in the 1970s,”in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, The Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, 208.
127 Ibid, 215.
128 Bean, “New Roads to the Rising: the Irish politics of commemoration since 1994,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, the Somme, and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, 233.
129 McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916, 349. 130 Ibid, 362. 131 Ibid, 431. 132 Ibid, 431. 133 Ibid, 362. 134 Ibid, 375.
135 Bertie Ahern with Richard Aldous, Bertie Ahern: The Autobiography (Hutchinson: London, 2009), 295- 296, quoted in McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916, 436.
136“The Themes for Ireland 2016,” Ireland 2016, accessed 2 February, 2016, http://www.ireland.ie/about#section-18
different traditions on this island,” and called upon the population to “embrace diversity.” He claimed that they need not be “afraid” of doing so, thereby implying that this polyvocal approach was the means by which the potential for conflict would be drastically reduced.137 He vowed to appreciate the loyalty of Unionists, “a loyalty that was to be written in blood on the Somme,” and indeed the official programme includes the organisation of a conference entitled ‘The Other 1916.’ The aim of this conference is to “re-imagine the narrative(s) of 1916” to highlight the broader context in which the Rising took place, namely the First World War.138
Moreover, this attempt at a more multi-representational approach has seen the inclusion of a state ceremony as Grangegormon cemetery to remember the British soldiers who lost their lives while fighting against the Irish rebels. Such an act, which pays tribute to the one hundred and twenty-five British soldiers who died, epitomizes the government’s volition to ensure that all aspects of the country’s revolutionary history are represented, and indeed, it marks a significant development in the way in which the Rising is remembered within the political domain. This transition conforms to Smith’s argument regarding the evolution of national myths. Indeed, Smith maintains that, in the short term, competing narratives of a certain historical event or myth work to heighten existing fissures in society. However, overtime, “they coalesce to form a community which, still riven by social conflicts, has become more unified at the level of history and culture.”139 Such a statement largely typifies the treatment of the Easter Rising within the sphere of Irish politics.
Roisín Higgins maintains that the over-arching legacy of the Easter Rising had been that it “brought republicanism from the margins to the mainstream of Irish nationalism and legitimised the physical force tradition.”140 Yet, overtime, there has been a deliberate and conscious effort made by politicians to renegotiate the Rising’s position within Irish history for the very specific purpose of social cohesion. For example, the Golden Jubilee saw the Rising “elevated to the centre-piece of the national story” in order to promote a distinct Irish identity, only to be “abandoned in official circles a few years later when it was no longer politically convenient.”141 As Guy Beiner states, memory is “continuously renegotiated within the political sphere.”142 In this way, it is clear that commemorations are orchestrated with a political agenda, and while they appear to be about the past, “they are actually about the present and future.” 143 Indeed, the way in which the portrayal of the Rising has evolved 137 Kenny, “2016 Commemorative Launch- Speech by the Taoiseach Enda Kenny TD,” (speech, Dublin, 13 November, 2014).
138 “The Other 1916 Conference,” Ireland 2016, accessed 3 May, 2016, http://www.ireland.ie/events/other-1916-conference
139 Smith, Myth and Memories of a Nation, 88. 140 Higgins, Transforming 1916, 6.
141 Ibid, 2.
142 Beiner, “Making sense of Memory: coming to terms with conceptualisations of historical remembrance,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, the Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, 21.
143 Bryan, “Ritual, identity and nation: when the historian became the high priest of commemoration,” in Remembering 1916: The Easter Rising, The Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, 24.
over time to eventually embrace diversity displays explicit political attempts to diffuse the divisive nature of its narrative.
Religion
Paul Connerton states that commemorative ceremonies act as a vehicle through which communities are reminded of their identity, which is “represented by and told in a master narrative.”144 He believes that the ritualization of the past is a “cult enacted,” and in this way commemorations are a way of continuously reaffirming ones identity.145 That said, while commemoration itself can be considered a pronouncement of collective national traits and traditions, the way in these ceremonies are organised in the context of the current day also illuminates the characteristics and concerns particular to contemporary society. As Anne Dolan remarks, the Golden Jubilee of the Easter Rising “told us more about 1966 than they did about 1916, and 2016’s efforts are not likely to be different.”146 Indeed in 2016, Taoiseach Enda Kenny characterised the narrative of 1916 as an “intrinsic part of our DNA,”147 thereby highlighting the extent to which it has become definitive of Irishness. It can therefore be stated that commemorations of the Rising have continuously been utilised as mass-affirmations of Irish identity. However, like all identities, its dimensions are neither “monolithic” nor “uniform,” but rather subject to continuous change and evolution.148
Indeed, Kevin Whelan notes that in the early stages of the new Irish Free-State, political leaders artificially constructed and Irish identity that was, in essence, “Catholic, not Protestant; rural, not urban; Celtic, not Anglo-Saxon; agrarian, not industrial; religious; not secular.”149 Slighted from years of civil unrest and war, Whelan maintains that Irish society collapsed back “into a gratefully provincial, pseudo-Gaelic, Catholic backwater.”150 Indeed, the new state endorsed a strict set of conservative values, namely the illegalisation divorce, suppression the feminist movement and censorship, and thus Irish identity became a stifling fusion of Catholicism and nationalism.151 In this
144 Connerton, “How Societies Remember,” in The Collective Memory Reader, 338. 145 Ibid, 338.
146 Anne Dolan, “Commemorating 1916: How much does the integrity of the past count?” The Irish Times [online] 2 January, 2015, accessed 15 April, 2016,available at
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/commemorating-1916-how-much-does-the-integrity-of-the-past-count-1.2052868
147 Enda Kenny, “Speech by the Taoiseach at the launch of Ireland 2016 Centenary Programme, Collins Barracks, Tuesday 31 March,” (speech, Dublin, 31 March, 2015), Department of An Taoiseach, accessed 10 June, 2016,
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/News/Taoiseach's_Speeches/Speech_by_the_Taoiseach_at_the_launch_of_Irel and_2016_Centenary_Programme_Collins_Barracks_Tuesday_31_March_2015.html
148 Robert Guerrina, Europe: History, Ideals and Ideologies (London, Arnold, 2002), 138-139. 149 Whelan, “The Revisionist Debate in Ireland,” Boundary 2, 183.
150 Ibid, 182. 151 Ibid, 183.
