NEIGHBORS?”
Analysing post-conflict wall proliferation in the case of Belfast’s Falls-Shankill Peace Wall
Sofia Shield Student Number: 10499164 University of Amsterdam Granduate School of Social Sciences
MSc. Program in Conflict Resolution and Governance Fall 2016
First Reader: Dr. Polly Pallister-Wilkins Second Reader: Dr. Darshan Vigneswaran
Cover page photos (clockwise):
Tour group and tour bus visiting Falls-Shankill Peace Wall (Shankill side) Photo credit: Sofia Shield (Belfast, 2016)
Anti-government/British rule mural on Falls-Shankill Peace Wall (Falls side) Photo credit: Sofia Shield (Belfast, 2016)
Wall Graffiti on Falls-Shankill Peace Wall (Shankill side)
TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements………4 1) Introduction……….………..5 1.1 Background Information……….………5
1.2 The Focus of the Research……….……….8
1.3 The Bigger Picture………...…...10
2) Theoretical Framework…………...………12
2.1 Chapter Introduction: The significance of walls/borders……..………....12
2.2 A Wall’s Physicality………...………12
2.3 A Wall as a Security Structure………...………15
2.4 Wall Proliferation………..………17
2.5 A Wall as a Canvas………...……….………....18
2.6 Underlying Concepts of Border Studies………….………….………..21
3) Methodologies……….………..26
3.1 Overview/Why use the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall as a Case Study?.…...……….26
3.2 Written and visual sources.………..………...……...27
3.3 Observations………...………...27
3.4 Interviews………..………...…………...29
4) Findings and Analysis………...………...30
4.1 Introduction…..………..30
4.2 Segregation……….32
4.3 Resistance to change/Reliance on a top-down approach………..34
4.4 Live Memorial………..………..37
4.5 Youth and Education………..…....40
5) Conclusion………...……….43
5.1 Introduction………..……….43
5.2 Answering the research question and recommendations for the future……….…...43
5.3 Why this matters/looking at the bigger picture………....….44
Works Cited………....………..47
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people without whom this project could not have been completed. My interest in Belfast was first sparked when I was sent there by the Anne Frank
Stichting during my internship in 2013, and the original idea for this topic came about during a late-night conversation with my cousin Noam as we were driving between cities in Israel over winter holidays. I, of course, need to thank Professor David Laws for guiding me through the course and keeping positive energy in the room when everything seemed to be in disarray. Polly Pallister-Wilkins, whose knowledge of everything-border studies never ceases to amaze me, opened up my eyes to a whole field of studies that I didn’t even really know about, but have since fallen in love with. Thanks to Ariane for giving me the support I didn’t even know I needed. Niall deserves an extra special nod for introducing me to Belfast during my fieldwork, and taking me to wonderfully
interesting events. Paul and Micky also made my time in Belfast much more comfortable by helping me get to know the city and helping me with contacts for my research. My surrogate “Dutch family”-my “mom and dad” Dienke and Jan Erik, and my “brothers” Max and Robbie-donated their home for many hours of late night studying, their hugs and love for when I was feeling down, and their amazing cooking for when I was too crazed to prepare a meal for myself. Thank you for giving me a home away from home to come to during this process, and for providing me with the support and encouragement I needed, even when I didn’t know I needed it myself. Thank you to all of my friends, too countless to name, who either read chapters and gave feedback, or were just there to bounce a quick idea off of. Thank you to Studiemeesters for keeping me on track, and to my Skøllies for being my cheerleaders on and off the water. And of course, thank you to my mom and dad, Margrit and Harvey. Even with a nine hour time difference from Amsterdam to Los Angeles, you were always there for me to read, comment, or just to tell me that you believe in me. I hope that with this project, your little girl has made you proud.
It is surreal completing this masters thesis at a campus just blocks away from where my grandfather grew up. He and my grandmother were Holocaust survivors, and I looked up to them both as I saw them dedicate their lives to spreading messages of tolerance and hope to younger generations. My Opa had 6 “lessons” that were at the core of the
messages he gave those he spoke to: 1) don’t discriminate 2) don’t generalize 3) don’t be a bystander 4) work for peace 5) enjoy the simple things in life 6) we live in a wonderful country and we all need to work together to make this a better world, but this can only be achieved if people learn the lessons of the Holocaust.
It is with these lessons in mind that I embarked on my research for this project, and for that I would like to dedicate this project to the memory of my Opa and Oma, Jaap (Jack) Polak and Ina Soep Polak. Thank you for giving me the tools to thrive in your home city and to hopefully take the world by storm.
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Case of the Belfast’s Falls-Shankill Peace Wall 1.1 Background Information
Almost twenty years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement1, walls of up to twenty-five feet in height still divide Loyalist and Republican neighborhoods throughout Belfast and other areas of Northern Ireland (Lee 2013). The Falls-Shankill Peace Wall in West Belfast is the longest standing peace wall in the city (both in regards to physical length, and length of time since it was first erected), with its first iteration having been constructed in 1969 (“Peace Walls” 2013; Miller 2013). Since the Good Friday Agreement (which ended the Troubles in 1998), this specific wall has undergone two renovations (“Peace Walls,”2013). However, instead of making the wall lower in height, these two renovations each made the wall increasingly taller. Now this “peace wall” interface exists at ten meters high (in some areas) and about two miles long separating two divided communities (“Peace Walls,” 2013).
South of the peace wall is the Falls Road area, a neighbourhood that is home to a Catholic/Nationalist (or Republican) community, and north of this wall, in the Shankill Road area, resides a primarily Protestant/Unionist (or Loyalist) community (Foran 2013). For the purposes of this project the terms “Republican” and “Loyalist” will be those primarily used to distinguish between the two communities that are based around the wall, unless specification for exclusively religious or political beliefs are necessary. The divide between these two groups is based on historical context, and is cemented in a current context by practices such as neighbourhood segregation and the art that is depicted on the walls, and on buildings around the walls (Miller 2013).
Tensions between the British Protestant and Irish Catholic communities in the Belfast region can be traced back to the seventeenth century, with increase of industry and competition for work between British and Irish laborers. As Carolyn Gallagher
1 The Good Friday Agreement is the ceasefire agreement signed in 1998 that stopped the
violent conflict (“The Troubles”) that plagued Northern Ireland for about thirty years (Lee 2013).
explains, “When The Troubles erupted in 1969, and more so in the early 1970s, the same 19th century patterns of riot were to be found. There was extensive conflict between
adjacent neighborhoods of different ethnic composition” (Gallagher 2007, 151). Contextualizing the divide given the current climate, she continues by explaining that poorer, working class areas of Belfast are seeing an increase in segregation rather than a decrease, particularly if the area coincides with a zone where fighting occurred during The Troubles (Gallagher 2007).
Buckley and Kenney also discuss the “border streets” of the Shankill and Falls areas, explaining the origins of the term “peace wall”, which in its first iteration was referred to as a “peace line” (Buckley and Kenney 1995, 77). Buckley and Kenney describe,
These fences, usually of concrete and corrugated metal, at first were an
emergency measure by the army to separate rioting mobs of local Catholics and Protestants. They are now a permanent feature of the urban landscape, though the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has gradually replaced them with more normal-looking brick walls that have the same function. (Buckley and Kenney, 1995, 77)
The specification and understanding that the wall is now considered a “permanent feature of the urban landscape” holds particular significance in the context of this project.
Gallagher argues that the term “peace wall” was coined somewhat sarcastically (Gallagher 2007, 162). While the peace walls of Belfast were initially constructed as temporary solutions to stop the violence during The Troubles, more have been constructed in the time period after the Good Friday Agreement than initially existed during The Troubles (“Peace Walls,” 2013). At the end of The Troubles only 29 Peace Walls existed. Today, there are about 88 (McDonald, 2009). These walls have become part of the Belfast landscape, and part of the image of Belfast that is projected to the rest of the world. Gallagher adds, “Although few people expected these peace walls to disappear after the 1998 accord, even fewer expected their numbers to increase in its wake. […] The creation of more interfaces […] has negative ramifications for the city because the interfaces tend to create or exacerbate conditions of social deprivation” (Gallagher 2007, 163).
The political murals drawn on the walls draw flocks of tourists from around the world, many of them signing their names on the wall in Sharpie to feel as if they are a part of something historic. While some murals focus specifically on Northern Irish figures and events, portraits of international leaders such as Nelson Mandela also decorate murals on parts of the wall, as do quotes from people such as Bill Clinton and the Dalai Lama, in order to portray the conflict in Belfast in an international and relatable context (Miller 2013). By using quotes of respected figureheads like the Dalai Lama and by portraying international icons such as Nelson Mandela, who are generally universally revered (and whose opposition would for the most part not be viewed in a good light by the general public), each side strengthens their cause by indirectly comparing their causes and belief systems to those of these leaders.
Today, the walls (and specifically the Falls-Shankill Wall) are known for many things, including acting as a security measure between communities, and acting as a canvas for politically charged murals. Charles Foran describes the art on the walls as “iconic images from the bad old days and more recent examples of what remains a vibrant, essential public art form, most of it still deeply tribal” (Foran 2014, 370). While the wall was originally built to protect the Catholic side of the wall, nowadays “both sides consistently chuck rocks” (Foran 2014, 372).
In 2013 (some argue in preparation for United States President Obama’s visit to Northern Ireland) the Northern Irish government (known as Stormont), announced that it planned to have all peace walls taken down by 2023 (Henderson and McHugh 2013). This statement propelled discussion on both political and local levels as to whether or not the peace walls should be taken down.
Since 1998, Belfast has technically been at peace, and while that may be the case on the surface, it is crucial to understand the underlying tensions that remain, and the complexities that surround these tensions. Adele Lee comments on the topic as well by quoting Peter Shirlow to explain that the city has a “veneer of sophistication,” and that beneath this veneer, “problems of social truncation and political polarisation persist” (as cited in Lee 2013, 523). Shirlow uses data to express this, displaying that “80 per cent of Catholics and Protestants live in places that are over 61 per cent segregated” (Shirlow 2006, 102). Within a theoretical framework, Shirlow also expresses that this inherently
embeds identity issues within the context of place in the city of Belfast (Shirlow 2006). Components of identity such as religion and ethnicity dictate the areas a person can and cannot live in in certain areas of Belfast, which speaks to Shirlow’s point that place (in the context of Belfast) cannot be examined without taking identity issues into consideration. These nuances only enhance the current debate about whether or not the walls should be taken down.
In an interview with The Guardian, Duncan Morrow, (the province's Community Relations Council chief executive) expresses the uneasy feeling he gets from (what he calls) the “terror tourism” (or conflict and post-conflict tourism) generated by the walls and other sites commemorated for their significance during The Troubles (McDonald 2009). He also explains the challenge of the logistics of bringing down the walls, even if officials take a stance that advocates for bringing the walls down. Morrow states, "The walls went up because people didn't feel safe and the tragedy is that, once they are up, people hardly imagine feeling safe without them. So we have a big issue about not just taking walls down but how to make people feel safe after all that we went through" (McDonald 2009). This historical and current context which incorporates the complexity of the boundary-community (and inter- and intra-community) relations will be used to frame and inform the research that will be conducted for this project.
1.2 The Focus of the Research
Given its significance during the peace process and the impressive scale of its physicality, the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall has adopted many roles in the context of how the communities surrounding the wall interact with it. A case study will be used to provide an understanding on the proliferation and heightening and continued significance of the walls . The Falls-Shankill Peace Wall can fittingly be used as a specific case study to look at post-conflict peace wall proliferation in Belfast for a variety of reasons. Firstly, it is the oldest and longest peace wall in Belfast in existence today, and thus has existed during times of both conflict and peace. Secondly, it is a clear example of the post-conflict proliferation of these structures, as it has been built up in height twice since the Good Friday Agreement. Thirdly, it is a peace wall that is highly decorated with murals, and is the one that attracts the most tourism. Lastly, it is a structure whose surrounding
communities have voiced opinions expressing their desire for the wall to remain. This provides an interesting contrast to examine when compared to the national political rhetoric of creating plans for the removal of walls.
Given the pre-existing discussion surrounding the wall, and the findings from this research, this project will refer to the wall with the assumption that the wall has agency. This is an assumption that can be made, given that pre-existing literature already discusses walls as “adopting” or “playing” certain roles. This concept will be discussed further in Chapter 2. As an interface site of former and current conflict, the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall demonstrates many aspects of the complexities and intricacies of border politics and boundary politics. However through changing, complex, and fluid elements of these politics, the wall’s significance in society remains of consequence. This project aims to identify some of the reasons behind this maintained significance and proliferation.
This research will not be focusing directly on the long-standing tensions between the segregated Loyalist and Republican communities, but rather on the large physical structure that continues to divide them, and it will look at how these structures proliferate in a supposedly peaceful society, as well as at how the surrounding communities actively perform and engage with the wall to contribute to reinforcing and perpetuating the wall’s significance. The researcher will undertake an approach of studying the wall through its physicality, regarding size, structure, art, façade, graffiti, and surrounding environment, and how people actively engage with and contribute to that physicality in a way that legitimizes the wall. This will also introduce a discussion of some of the roles the wall plays using various wall and barrier theories. Furthermore, this project will provide an examination of who engages with the wall and who is actively involved in the discussion of whether or not it should come down (particularly in the context of the government promise that all peace walls will come down by 2023). This examination will look at who is vocal in the debate and who stays silent, as well as who is educated about the wall and who remains sheltered from the story behind the structure.
This project centers around the research question: What are some of the reasons that the peace walls in Belfast, and in particular the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall, have remained, proliferated, increased in height and number, and maintained significance in society in the period post the Good Friday Agreement?
1.3 The Bigger Picture
Falls-Shankill Peace Wall Graffiti (Shankill side) Photo credit: Sofia Shield (Belfast, 2016)
Wall politics play a large role in today’s current events, as can be seen not only in the case of the Peace Walls of Belfast, but in man-made borders such as the Palestinian-Israeli wall, and Donald Trump’s controversial advocacy for a wall along the United States-Mexico border. While the findings gathered from this research cannot necessarily be directly applied to these and other international cases, elements of the findings may be helpful in developing a more nuanced understanding of some of these cases. For example, understanding fear and security factors, as well as socioeconomic factors for why the Peace Walls are so important to Belfast residents, as well as whether the walls play a larger importance in making residents feel safe versus actually preventing violence, can provide perspective into Donald Trump’s arguments for the United States-Mexico border wall plan. As Blakely and Snyder assert, “Fear of crime has become an influential factor in nearly every aspect of our daily lives” (Blakely and Snyder 1998, 55). Consequentially, is it the aim of these walls to eliminate the threat, or to ease the fear of the threat? Questions like this will be used to help provide support for the larger academic and social significance of the findings that have been compiled through this research. Additionally, while the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall is consistently mentioned on tourism websites and
very briefly in news articles or academic papers, there is very little academic or historic literature on the individual wall, even though it is the longest and arguably the most famous of the Peace Walls in Belfast.
Thus, given the current international climate in which gaining an understanding of boundaries and walls is becoming increasingly important, and given the fact that this particular wall lacks significant presence in the academic literary sphere (despite its importance in Belfast society), this project will provide meaningful and useful insights to the field by answering the research question: What are some of the reasons that the peace walls in Belfast, and in particular the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall, have remained, proliferated, increased in height and number, and maintained significance in society in the period post the Good Friday Agreement?
Furthermore, the case of Northern Ireland (and specifically Belfast) can be looked at as an example for how and how not to manage post-conflict barriers and security structures, and post peace-agreement inter-community relations. However, if the walls remain an integral part of this plan, it is worth considering what kind of precedent that sets. For example, delegates from Kosovo visited Belfast to study the post-conflict peace process in order to inform decisions in their own country. When asked what they discovered, the delegates replied (in what may be considered a joke), “We need bigger walls” (Geoghegan 2015). Regardless of whether or not this response was intended facetiously, the implication that Belfast’s separatist and segregated approach to creating peace creates a model by which building boundaries, rather than creating integrated communities, becomes the norm. This adds to an increasingly separatist trope permeating global society in which coexistence without separating structures is deemed too idealistic. However, is this the mentality that should be passed on to future generations, and are these concepts truly unreasonable? The research conducted for this project aims to address some local opinions on this matter, as well as tackling the larger research focus of reasons behind peace wall proliferation in Belfast around the Falls-Shankill interface, as well as methods used to ensure this proliferation.
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework
2.1 Chapter Introduction: The significance of walls/borders
Walls, borders and barriers are very significant in the context of current societies, particularly when those societies exist in a post-conflict setting. Part of the reasoning for why these structures are so significant is because of the variety of roles they play and the variety of functions they adopt. In the case of the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall, this project will focus on the wall’s roles in three different sectors: the wall as a security structure, the wall as a canvas for art (by which it often spreads political and religious messages), and the wall as a tourism site. These roles will be explained and examined by considering wall physicality, walls as security structures, wall proliferation, walls as canvasses, and underlying concepts of border studies. While some of the wall’s roles have a more symbolic meaning or presence, many of the walls roles rely on the wall’s physicality, which is the point with which this theoretical discussion will begin.
2.2 A Wall’s Physicality
The imposing physical presence of a wall, such as the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall, is one factor that contributes to how the wall is legitimized, but legitimacy is not the only way in which the physicality of a wall plays a significant role. A wall’s physical structure impacts the surrounding communities both in how it acts as a security barrier and in how it acts as a canvas for the expression of art and ideas.
This section will focus on physicality rather than materiality. While a more
comprehensive and nuanced definition of materiality goes beyond quantification and goes on to encompass how those objects relate to culture, physicality has a more concrete focus on how the construction and material presence of an object interacts with its surroundings (Miller 2005).
In many cases, a wall or barrier exists in a public space. According to UNESCO, public space is defined as “an area or place that is open and accessible to all peoples, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level. These are public gathering spaces such as plazas, squares and parks. Connecting spaces, such as sidewalks and streets, are also public spaces” (“Inclusion Through Access to Public Spaces” 2016).
While the UNESCO definition focuses more on “connecting spaces” rather than spaces that divide, walls (if not on private property) can also be considered public spaces in some circumstances. Although in some cases a wall divides groups so that an area is not “open or accessible to all people,” this is often due to communal thought processes and culture more than concrete legal regulations. These thought processes and cultural can often restrict mobility and traffic patterns in border areas. A barrier or border dictates the movement and mobility patterns of those travelling in and around the border area. In and around a border area, a wall can also physically restrict movement, as well as limit and impact what people see and do not see, based on what side of the wall they are on. This physical limitation on visibility impacts broader perceptions, particularly in relation to stereotypes and ideas about the other (“non-visible”) community. This concept will be discussed later on in the chapter in the context of how it relates to security, and to political and religious influence.
Regarding the visual nature of a wall’s physicality, Yanow discusses the “visual-physical experience of standing at street level and looking upwards” at a large, imposing structure (Yanow 2013, 56). She describes the height as “imposing,” and explains that “visitors often experience this feeling of monumentality as distancing, rather than welcoming” (Yanow 2013, 56). This can be related to de Certeau’s arguments that the everyday, on-the-ground physicality of a city is a unique lens through which a city’s identity and structure can be viewed (as opposed to viewing the larger scope, such as a map or city plan) (de Certeau 1984). The imposing size or height of the wall, the proximity of how close people get to it, and the traffic patterns surrounding it are all nuances that must be considered. These, among other implications, are effects that the wall has on the surrounding area. In de Certeau’s words, “spatial practices in fact secretly structure the determining conditions of social life” (de Certeau 1984, 96).
Given that a wall restricts visibility of the “other” and the other side, a certain level of fear and uncertainty often develops and is cultivated in the form of “fear of the other.” “Fear of the other” and “othering” will also be discussed later in this chapter in relation to security, and to political and religious influence.
As a boundary remains for an extended period of time, it starts impacting the physicality and development of the surrounding area. This process supports and furthers
the acceptance of the permanence of the border as part of the urban landscape. Yanow explains the concept of “design gestures,” which refers to “how a building relates to its surrounding spaces, built and otherwise. Design may be used to suggest relationships, whether affirming or negating” (Yanow 2013, 53). She also mentions proxemics, “the social and personal spaces between people, and our perceptions of those spaces, that implicitly and tacitly shape human behavior and interaction,” as a factor in border
dynamics (Yanow 2013, 53). Yanow discusses the relationship between two built spaces, and how buildings appear in the context of their surroundings (Yanow 2013).
Sidaway notes, “the border exists not only as a system of signs (rivers, hitos, road signs, and so on) inscribed on the text(ure) of the landscape, but simultaneously in the texts, signed, sealed, and ratified, that declare and demarcate it” (Sidaway 2007, 170). Thus, while the wall impacts the narrative of the area and landscape in general, the narrative portrayed through art and writing on the wall itself also impacts the surrounding communities. These wall inscriptions and artworks can transform the wall into Low and Lawrence-Zúñiga’s concept of an “inscribed space,” where a person makes a physical lasting mark on a space in order to claim some ownership over the space (Low and Lawrence-Zúñiga 2003). The physical role of the wall may also be observed as transient and changing. As new artwork appears, and people write their names on the wall, the wall becomes an inscribed space, a place that is physically inscribed as a way for ownership, control or power to be asserted (Low and Lawrence-Zúñiga 2003). Thus, these writings and works of art add to the layers of meaning of tangible borders. Yanow argues that a critical element of border analysis is the interpretive relationship between meanings and objects (or artifacts). He states, “The two stand in a symbolic relationship: the artifact is understood to be the more concrete representation of the more abstract, underlying meaning(s)” (Yanow 2013, 44). Often, this underlying meaning connects with the larger goals of a wall’s purpose. These goals can tie into keeping certain people in, keeping others out, or governing general security practices.
2.3 A Wall as a Security Structure
The importance of a wall as a security structure goes beyond its physical presence as it starts influencing movement and perceptions in the surrounding communities. Despite this fact, it is still important to consider and examine the physicality of a wall as it relates to security.
A wall as a physical structure traditionally is constructed or implemented in order to provide some form of security (keeping certain people in or out, or controlling how those groups of people are allowed to move.) While this function was addressed in the prior examination of physicality, a wall’s security functions go far beyond the wall’s physical presence.
In her essay “How walls do work: Security barriers as devices of interruption and data capture,” Polly Pallister-Wilkins references Foucault’s assertion that security barriers (and the shift to security as a mode of government) create “a completely different problem that is no longer that of fixing and demarcating the territory, but of allowing circulations to take place, […] ensuring that things are always in movement, […] but in such a way that the inherent dangers of this circulation are cancelled out” (Pallister-Wilkins 2016, 4). Pallister-(Pallister-Wilkins uses Foucault’s statement to explain that walls do not necessarily aim to stop circulation and movement, but rather set out to control this movement and keep unwanted or “dangerous” parties out of certain areas. Pallister-Wilkins also discusses how physical barriers create opportunities for the production of other security practices (Pallister-Wilkins 2016). For the process of analysing a barrier, she stresses the importance of considering how security practices “could be performed without mobility first being interrupted by the architecture of the security barrier,” while being careful to acknowledge that certain security practice may exist between communities independent from whether or not a physical barrier exists (Pallister-Wilkins 2016, 7-8). This concept frames the case of the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall by helping to examine which elements of the security boundary are based on the physical boundary, and which are performative measures, which may have originated as a result of the wall, but are capable of lasting without the wall’s physical presence.
To frame this element of the role of this peace wall, the work of Blakely & Snyder (specifically their piece entitled “Separate Places: Crime and Security in Gated
Communities”) can be used. Although their research is focused on American soil, and the focus of this research is not specifically a gated community, the larger theoretical discussion about separation, segmentation and protection is useful and relevant to constructing a theoretical backbone for analysing the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall. Blakely and Snyder explain, “The drive for separation, exclusion, and protection that gated communities represent is just a part of the larger spatial pattern of segmentation” (Blakely and Snyder 1998, 67-68). Given the larger trends in Northern Ireland of separation and segmentation based on politics, ethnicity and religion (as well as other determinants, such as socioeconomic status), it is important to consider these separations on both an individualistic and holistic basis when examining the case of this specific peace wall in Belfast. Regarding the negative affects these separatist communities have on policy, Blakely and Snyder assert, “Allowing some citizens to secede from public contact and to exclude others […]aims directly at the conceptual base of community and citizenship […] The old notions of community mobility and mutual responsibility are loosened by these new community patterns” (Blakely and Snyder 1998, 69). The last crucial point presented by Blakely and Snyder that will be used for this project regards crime and fear, as they relate to separated communities. Blakely and Snyder state,
The seeming randomness of crime is also responsible for this heightened fear. Cities are viewed as the core area of crime, but no one can be certain they are safe. Youth and crime are now synonymous, and minority youth bear a disproportionate burden of this rising fear. Strangers of any description are an automatic inducement to fear and distrust. This is one reason that traffic is of equal or even greater concern to many neighborhoods that close themselves off in the new equation of social trust, traffic equals strangers, strangers are bad, and bad means crime. (Blakely and Snyder 1998, 56).
Thus, as crimes keep transpiring at interfaces in Belfast, regardless of whether or not they are happening at a decreased rate, the looming threat that crimes could affect local
communities provides reasoning for peace walls to remain and proliferate as security structures.
2.4 Wall Proliferation
Proliferation of both ideas and structures in the post-conflict Belfast environment has been an important part of how the peace walls maintain prominent structures.
Although proliferation is a term often associated with weapons, this project will use the concept in a slightly different context. “Proliferation” refers to a rapid increase in
quantity of something. Thus, it is fair to say that the peace walls have proliferated in this context in Belfast, particularly the wall at the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall (given that it has been built up in height twice). Peace wall specialists and academics Jonny Byrne and Cathy Gormley-Heenan explain the trend of and theory behind wall proliferation in their article “Beyond the walls: Dismantling Belfast's conflict architecture.” Byrne and Gormley-Heenan express, “These barriers have institutionalised the separation between the two dominant communities, reinforced different cultural identities and continue to illustrate the deep enduring antagonisms that exist between communities” (Gormley-Heenan and Byrne 2014, 448). Gormley-(Gormley-Heenan and Byrne suggest that the proliferation of walls insulate communities and thus solidifies traditional structures and views of community identity. They also note how this proliferation and segregation “sits uneasily with the popular narrative of the peace process in Northern Ireland and its successes” and “contradicts the popular narrative that Northern Ireland is a ‘normalised society’”
(Gormley-Heenan and Byrne 2014, 447, 448). Thus wall proliferation can also lead to other types of proliferation, such as continued or heightened trends of segregation, or increasingly tense cross-community relations.
To this point, Byrne also argues that the maintaining of peace walls challenges the achievement of real post conflict peace. However, others argue that the proliferation of these barriers provides the separation and security needed to prevent violence that would undermine the peace process, as can be seen in the argument of Blakely and Snyder in the previous section of this chapter. To this point, Byrne argues, “The fact that peace walls remain, as a requirement from a security perspective, raises questions as to the
government’s attempts to reconcile communities in the years after the paramilitary ceasefires and subsequent peace agreements” (Gormley-Heenan and Byrne 2014, 448).
2.5 The Wall as a Canvas
“Borders are frequently inscribed within narratives of statehood” (Sidaway 2007, 166).
The Falls-Shankill Peace Wall, like many other walls around the world, has become a backdrop for murals, statements, paintings, and graffiti, much of which has either underlying or overt political and religious commentary. The concept of the art and dialogue existing on a dividing structure is significant in itself, however the rhetoric of divisiveness and othering that is projected creates an equally significant impact
throughout the surrounding communities.
Local communities are heavily influenced by larger national political and religious rhetorics, particularly when the political and religious discourses are strongly linked. There is strong “othering” with regards to the outside community, as is seen in the theory described by Brons, who quotes Crang’s definition of othering as “a process (...) through which identities are set up in an unequal relationship” (as cited in Brons 2015, 70). Brons continues on the topic,
Othering is the simultaneous construction of the self or in-group and the other or out-group in mutual and unequal opposition through identification of some desirable characteristic that the self/in-group has and the other/out-group lacks and/or some undesirable characteristic that the other/out-group has and the self/in-group lacks. Othering thus sets up a superior self/in-self/in-group in contrast to an inferior other/out-group, but this superiority/inferiority is nearly always left implicit. (Brons 2015, 70).
This creates an almost tribal mentality within a community or neighborhood, as is described by McNamee and Lovett. They explain, “The tribal, the divided society […is…] an impingement, it’s a terrible restriction on your freedom of choice, and in many ways it’s an unconscious thing. Because you’re constrained you can’t grow up and mix with, make friends with the opposite community, the other sort.” (McNamee & Lovett 1987, 498).
Because these types of close-knit communities are so tightly linked to and bonded together by certain political and religious beliefs, they pass down their memories and history, and choose to educate their youth in very different ways. Thus, education through
collective memory, and education in a more formal schooling structure begins to promote certain ideologies. Education teaching methods can be used as tools for promoting political agendas, and this is not exclusive to education in the formal schooling sense (Brown 2011).
Along with passing on ideology to the younger generation, political parties use othering and tribal mentality to retain control over a certain community. As Soguk describes, “If there is any constant to borders in time and place, particularly in the order of the national territorial state, it is the logic of the statist and territorial governmentality, which political borders are compelled to reflect and embody” (Soguk 2007, 284). He goes on to discuss “cultural fences” and “class walls” as “powerful borders” (Soguk 2007, 285). In this sense, political parties can reinforce physical borders such as walls by
helping to create mental barriers against the group on the other side of the boundary. A heavily religious society, as is being studied in this project, creates strong links between general cultural practices and religious ideology. Camilla Orjuela describes the corruption or conflict that can occur when collective ethnic or religious identities become heavily politicized. She also explains that religious group identity may be used to solidify group dynamic (so leaders can ensure that they stay in power). Orjuela states that from a political perspective, two politically-active groups with separate ethnic or religious identities can result in the creation of two discourses of nationalism (rather than one united rhetoric), and a “polarisation between identity-groups” (Orjuela 2014, 755).
While fusing political and religious rhetoric into a powerful and coercive ideology, religiously-influenced governments also have to consider the parts of their political duties that pertain to the economic sector. Some governments turn to tourism as a way to boost their city or country’s notoriety and influx of capital.
Post-conflict tourism, or “dark tourism,” presents many financial prospects and opportunities for spreading specific political messages, but also raises questions of ethics in societies that are trying to rebuild in post-conflict contexts. Dark tourism, according to Foley and Lennon, is defined as the “phenomenon which encompasses the presentation and consumption (by visitors) of real and commodified death and disaster sites” (Lennon
and Foley 1996, 198). Mansfeld and Korman further classify dark tourism by dividing the field into subsections. As is relevant to this project, they explain “Conflict-Heritage Tourism.” They state that it “refers to sites where significant conflicts of individual and collective-national importance have taken place at various times” (Mansfeld and Korman 2015, 438). They also add that in some cases the location still contains ongoing conflict (Mansfeld and Korman 2015). Mansfeld and Korman also introduce another subcategory of dark tourism: “border tourism” (Mansfeld and Korman 2015, 437). They explain, “Border tourism is triggered by multi-layered aspects of interest such as political-security curiosity, personal and national heritage, attraction to ‘forbidden’ and liminal spaces, dark tourism, and various other touring purposes” (Mansfeld and Korman 2015, 437).
Residents in border areas must be analysed as actors when examining a border (particularly in a post-conflict setting), however the role of tourists and the tourism industry cannot be ignored. Sharpley and Stone’s book The Darker Side of Tourism uses Belfast specifically as an example of how sites of former tragedy can become modern tourist attractions (Sharpley and Stone, 2009). However, this role-shift from conflict site to tourist attraction comes with many challenges. Sharpley and Stone explain, “[T]ragedies, atrocities and disasters have the potential, through their representation and commemoration, to be exploited not only for commercial gain through tourism but also to convey political messages” (Sharpley and Stone 2009, 147). The authors proceed to ask from which perspective the stories of such sites should be told, a topic that is incredibly pressing in the case of Belfast, which is still so heavily divided post-conflict. Many of these messages painted on the walls use symbolism as a vehicle in order to be conveyed to the public.
With the current debate about whether or not the walls should come down, various opinions have emerged. Sarah McDowell, in her article “Selling Conflict Heritage through Tourism in Peacetime Northern Ireland: Transforming Conflict or Exacerbating Difference?” comments specifically on some of the groups responsible for political and commercial manipulation history of conflict, specifically in the case of Belfast. She explains,
Official agencies such as tourist agencies and local councils often treat conflict landscapes as commercial ‘products’, emphasising their political nature and
marketing them to outsiders. Conversely, agents within local communities such as community or ex-prisoner groups see the landscape as a political tool through which they can vie for external support and sympathy. (McDowell 2008, 405) These insights provide important information regarding the peace wall in financial and (both locally and internationally) political terms. Even so, these insights must be examined in a nuanced manner. Brunn et al explain that it is crucial to acknowledge and consider whose perspective is being examined in border settings (Brunn et al 2010). Signs, murals, and the overall environment will be viewed differently by members of either community on each side of the border, as well as by visitors belonging to neither of the two communities.
2.6 Underlying concepts of border studies
The three broad border studies concepts that will be used to frame the research and analysis for this project will be the concepts of complexity, agency and legitimacy. An understanding of the complex nature of borders and border studies is crucial to undertaking research that considers the various layers and dynamics of the environment. In literature and discussion, walls (including the Falls-Shankill Peace wall are discussed and referred to in ways that suggest the wall has agency. Although walls are inanimate objects, when they are discussed in these manners, it is important to understand the theories which allow them to be discussed as having agency and active roles in their surrounding communities. In order to remain relevant and significant, a wall must maintain legitimized over time. Thus, legitimacy theory also helps to create a foundation by which borders and walls can be more completely understood and examined.
Complexity theory has increasingly prominent significance in research conducted within the social sciences. Wastl-Walter explains that it is also becoming an “increasingly accepted component of border studies”(Wastl-Walter 2011, 1). As Paul Cairney explains, “Complexity theory identifies instability and disorder in politics and policy making, and links them to the behaviour of complex system” (Cairney 2012, 346). Cairney continues to contextualize the concept of complexity within a political science framework. He cites Geyer and Rihani in his explanation that complexity combats certain positivist beliefs
that include a “vision of society based on order, laws and progress” (as cited in Cairney 2012, 347). Cairney notes that approaching analysis of political behavior through the lens of complexity requires a more “holistic” rather than “individualistic” approach, and cites Blackman, Kernick, and Mitchell’s works to explain that complexity “seeks to explain why complex or system-wide behaviour emerges from the interaction between ‘large collections of simpler components’”(as cited in Cariney 2012, 347).
Sidaway incorporates the concept of complexity into border studies by quoting Wilson and Donnan, who state that all borders are “complex and multi-dimensional cultural phenomena, variously articulated and interpreted across space and time” (as cited in Sidaway 2007, 165). They continue by explaining “the ‘border’ must be interrogated for its subtle and sometimes not so subtle shifts in meaning and form according to setting” (as cited in Sidaway 2007, 165). Given that borders are tumultuous in nature, and that academics agree upon that, complexity theory is both relevant and beneficial when applied to border study cases. Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly notes, “Today, most scholars acknowledge that borders are complex and intimately related to the nature of their physical and human environment and that states, markets and culture provide important explanatory lenses” (Brunet-Jailly 2012, 634). Victor Konrad also specifies the application of complexity theory as a lens through which wall and boundary politics can be examined (Konrad 2015). Konrad explains the dangers of adopting a singular or linear approach to border politics and boundary studies by arguing that border lines must be looked at as active interactions that have various components (making an understanding of the system’s complexity necessary for a complete understanding of the border line), (Konrad 2015).
In Sidaway’s continuation of explaining border complexity, he also illustrates while the border is easy to find in person or on a map (as is necessary for its purpose as a physical barrier), this physicality does not always completely illustrate “where the representation of the border is, where it begins and ends and where its limits are” (Sidaway 2007, 198). An example of how this abstract concept is realized can be seen when certain groups of people travel by taking detours further than the physical boundary forces them to, in order to avoid entering a space occupied by members of a different group.
Konrad also states that complexities and clashes both create borders and are created by borders (Konrad 2015). Konrad writes, “As people construct boundaries they […] constantly evaluate and rationalize the meaning of the constructs. The border is not a single and coherent concept” (Konrad 2015, 5). The need to “rationalize the meaning of the constructs” will be discussed later in the chapter in the context of “legitimacy,” but the idea that the border is not singular in its identity complements the overarching theme of border complexity.
Border complexity is also addressed in the writings of Chris Rumford. Rumford explains the complexity of borders in relation to the shifting nature of their roles as they relate to state power (Rumford 2006). He explains that in a traditional setting, borders, which have both human and experiential elements, were crucial for the nation-state “in relation to management and regulation of the population”(Rumford 2006, 159). Rumford explains the changing nature of the context in which borders are used. While borders traditionally were primarily seen as “expression and measure of state power,” they are now less significant in that context and are focus more on “(selective) permeability to human mobility” (Rumford 2006, 159). Rumford adds, “Borders are no longer solely the preserve of the state, and societal actors can redefine borders or appropriate them for purposes other than those originally intended.” Thus, local actors can also engage with the border and impact it in certain ways (for example, with murals, tours, and with how the border is presented in education curricula) that shift the meaning of the wall in practice. These shifting meanings, and intended meanings that come from various sources, enhance a border’s complexity even further.
One lens through which to understand and view the complexity of a boundary area is through acknowledging the agency of the barrier. The wall or boundary is an actor in the environment that it exists in, and it has an effect and an affect on the people who interact with it. This assertion is supported by the principles provided in actor-network theory. John Law explains the heterogeneous network (which he claims is at the core of actor-network theory) as “a way of suggesting that society, organisations, agents and machines are all effects generated in patterned networks of diverse (not simply human) materials” (Law 1992, 380). Law continues his explanation of this theory by adding, “It is also that almost all of our interactions with other people are mediated through objects
of one kind or another” (Law 1992, 381-382). Succinctly, Law explains that objects have agency and contribute to the outcomes of social interactions. They “contribute to the patterning of the social” (Law 1992, 382). Using John Law’s reasoning it can also be asserted that walls are actors in relation to their surroundings, and that, as objects with agency, they have an effect on the other actors (such as people) they encounter. With different actors, a wall may play different roles, and those roles may be more symbolic or physical in nature. John Law makes the following statement that supports the above assertion,
I have insisted that punctualization is a process or an effect, rather something that can be achieved once and for all. Thus, actor-network theory assumes that social structure is not a noun but a verb […][It is] a relational effect that recursively generates and reproduces itself. The insistence on process has a number of implications. It means, for instance, that no version of the social order, no organization, and no agent, is ever complete, autonomous, and final. (Law 1992, 385-386)
In addition to asserting the role and agency of the wall, this statement from Law also addresses the changing and fluid roles of the wall over time, but also (as previously mentioned) between experiences with various actors. In the context of artifact studies (and given that a wall can be considered an artifact, can also theoretically be applied to wall studies), Yanow discusses agency of objects. He explains, “As the projections or embodiments of meaning, artifacts are not completely external to the world of their creators or of others engaging them (including researchers), and so their meanings must be interpreted. […] meaning cannot merely be perceived and grasped” (Yanow 2013, 44). While agency is not often talked about in the context of wall studies, the way in which the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall is discussed (as having agency) in the local context makes this concept a crucial part of this project’s theoretical base.
In the case of the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall, the barrier remains continually significant within the complex and shifting nature of a borderland environment. Paasi explains, “borders are not merely lines on maps or between states but elements that are inseparable from the emergence of the states that they enclose” (Paasi 2011, 16). Thus, borders remain a permanent part of the landscape, but if they are to stay relevant and
significant in the context of the evolving surrounding community, what sort of process must take place? One potential process to consider for this is that of legitimization and the way in which walls and borders are legitimized. Patty and Penn reference Tyler in their explanation of legitimacy as “the belief that ‘authorities, institutions, and social arrangements are appropriate, proper, and just’” (as cited in Patty and Penn 2011, 365).
Previously in this chapter, Victor Konrad was quoted as saying, “As people construct boundaries they […] constantly evaluate and rationalize the meaning of the constructs” (Konrad 2015, 365). The need to rationalize the reasoning or meaning behind a boundary can take form in processes of legitimization through which specific groups of people either indirectly or directly solidify or support the particular boundary structure as a permanent part of the culture and of the landscape. While legitimacy is often discussed within a legal context, many elements of wall complexity would be missed if a singularly legal approach was taken in looking at legitimacy for the case. In the case of walls and border areas, legitimization practices move beyond a legal practice, and thus a more nuanced approach that is more focused on physical and cultural legitimization will be used in the context of this project. Forms of these “culturally-focused” legitimization practices can include creating cultural significance for the structure by purposefully discussing or not discussing the wall in certain contexts, and advertising the wall as a tourist attraction (thereby inherently linking surrounding communities to the site). While legitimacy and theories behind processes of legitimization are not regularly or in a wide-spread context applied to wall studies, this project asserts that it is a crucial element in analyses of some walls and boundaries, such as the one examined in this research.
Chapter 3: Methodologies
3.1 Overview/Why use the Falls-Shankill as a case study?
This chapter will discuss the varied methods used to acquire and analyze data for the project. The project is a case study, and an overview of the reasons behind the choice of this specific case was previously argued in the Introduction Chapter. A more
comprehensive description of case study methodology, along with an explanation of how and why a case study will be used for this project, will be presented in this chapter. Multiple qualitative methodologies were used to complete the research for this project. This process of triangulation is necessary not only for strengthening the reliability and internal validity of the data acquired, but also for helping account for the complex nature of the topic (as has been described in the previous two chapters), which benefitted from being examined in a variety of ways. Written and visual sources were used to frame the pre-existing conversation surrounding the subject of the project, observation will be used to assess the physicality and to cater to the highly visual nature of the topic, and
interviews were conducted to provide more in-depth, personal narratives of specific groups of people who are significant in the conversation surrounding the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall. This chapter provides the reader with a comprehensive understanding and explanation of the methods used to carry out the project’s data collection and analysis, and an explanation of why these methods were chosen and used.
The purpose of collecting and analyzing this data was to use original research to build upon and enhance pre-existing research already conducted in the field.
The theoretical framework laid out in Chapter 2 was used as a basic structure for how to approach the research and how to analyze the data collected. This was operationalized by the use of the “theoretical categories” of how to approach wall studies (physicality, security, political/religious influence, and tourism) to organize approaches and findings. Qualitative data collection was chosen for this project based on the subject of the research, and the academic field of study within which the research was being conducted.
Given the limitations of the scope of the research (such as time frame, respondent availability and geographic location), select data collected in previous studies, in
analysis portion of this project. This use of preexisting academic literature helped fill information gaps left from research limitations, and helped directly build on work that has already been conducted. These sources were selected by conducting a search for recent studies that are relevant to this research (concerned with the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall or border studies in some way).
3.2 Written and visual sources
The primary way in which written and visual sources were used for the purposes of this project is through the analysis of news articles. These articles have been selected by limiting the articles to those written by news agencies in Northern Ireland, (while ensuring that the selected articles represent a variety and range of political views). Key words have been used to find these articles, and they were analyzed using a close reading process to look for mention of relevant themes (as explained in the theoretical framework by the four categories for wall analysis: physicality, security, political/religious influence, and tourism). The articles were also limited in regard to timeframe. Only relevant articles written from May 2013 onwards were examined. This date selection was made based on the government announcement released in May 2013, which stated the plan to have the peace walls taken down by 2023. While many articles talk about the peace walls in a variety of ways, a wide range of articles were examined and only the ones relevant to the context of this project were directly used in the analysis of the findings. Maps and preexisting photos will also be used to provide context and relevant information, but will not be analyzed as in-depth as the written sources for the purposes of this project.
3.3 Observations
A large portion of the data used for this project was collected through
observations conducted at the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall and in the surrounding areas. The areas around the wall are defined (for the purposes of this project) by neighborhood divisions assigned by local government. North of the wall the Shankilll area is included, and south of the wall the Falls neighborhood will be included. While personal bias is important to consider based on conducting observations, the researcher does not have any
personal connection or involvement in the conflict, and thus has tried to remain objective, and encounter both sides in equal amounts and on equal dates. Some of the observations used were collected while participating in tours of the area. For a completely objective analysis, equal amounts of observations from tours conducted by companies based on both sides of the wall would be used. However, there is bias in this information because the tourism industry in Belfast (for tours of the Peace Wall) is much more heavily based in the Republican area (the Falls). Regardless, any bias there is in the data is due to the imbalance in how the industry is dispersed, and not because the researcher believes one side’s narrative in the tourism industry is more important than that of the other side. While the research does carry biases from personal experiences, these experiences have no direct relation to the case being studied, and have no ties to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The theories presented in Chapter 2 not only informed how the research was conducted, but acted as a framework for how the findings are presented in this project. In summary, this project will analyze findings from tours of the area, general time spent examining, exploring and observing the area, and photos taken by the researcher.
An important consideration for how to conduct research in the most beneficial way for this project, was the examination of cultural impact on that which is being observed, as is explained by Clifford Geertz’s concept of “thick description” (Geertz 1973). In his explanation of thick description, Geertz states, “As interworked systems of construable signs (what, ignoring provincial usages, I would call symbols), culture is not a power, something to which social events, behaviors, institutions, or processes can be causally attributed; it is a context, something within which they can be intelligibly--that is, thickly--described” (Geertz 1973, 14). Geertz touches upon many elements of this
research. He notes that it is impossible for the ethnographer to present unbiased research, as the ethnographer impacts the account by turning the occurrence into an observation by inscribing (or writing down) what they saw (Geertz 1973). Christopher Coyne applies Geertz’ theory to a post-conflict, developed society in an effective and comprehensive way (Coyne 2007). Coyne particularly notes how communities use symbols to convey certain values. This attention to symbols was applied to the research conducted for this project.
Geertz also explains the threat to the ethnographer of becoming disconnected from the everyday world they are attempting to research. He writes, “The danger that cultural analysis […] will lose touch with the hard surfaces of life--with the political, economic, stratificatory realities within which men are everywhere contained--and with the biological and physical necessities on which those surfaces rest, is an ever-present one” (Geertz 1973, 30). To combat this threat, de Certeau’s concepts of considering the importance of everyday city life by physically walking through a city (as was discussed in the previous chapter) was applied to the research (de Certeau 1984). Geertz also asserts,
The claim to attention of an ethnographic account does not rest on its author's ability to capture primitive facts in faraway places and carry them home like a mask or a carving, but on the degree to which he is able to clarify what goes on in such places, to reduce the puzzlement--what manner of men are these?--to which unfamiliar acts emerging out of unknown backgrounds naturally give rise. This raises some serious problems of verification, all right--or, if "verification" is too strong a word for so soft a science (I, myself, would prefer "appraisal"), of how you can tell a better account from a worse one. (Geertz 1973, 16)
In order to provide “verification,” not only was the concept of thick description used, but triangulation to include interviews was incorporated as well.
3.4 Interviews
Interviews were also conducted to provide insight with two groups of people with important views in relation to the peace wall. These two groups are local academics and local community leaders. These two groups provided integral, unique understandings of relationships to the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall, without which it would have been
impossible to gather a complete grasp of the wall and its surroundings.
All of the interviews conducted for this project were done in a semi-structured format, and all were conducted in-person. The interviewee was asked to choose a location that was a comfortable and convenient setting for them, and they all chose either their office, or a café. These locations all happened to be either in the city center (towards the south, near Queens University), or north of the Peace Wall (in the case of Breandán Clarke, whose office is located in that area). All of the interviews were conducted within
approximately the same time frame (one and a half weeks elapsed between the first and last interview conducted), which allowed the interviews to be more reliably grouped together. A primary set of interview questions was used for all interviews. However, it is important to note that given the semi-structured nature of these interviews, not all of the questions were asked in the same order (or asked at all) in all of the interviews, in order to keep the pace and dynamic of the interview fluid and comfortable, and depending on if the interviewee shared the relevant information without certain specific questions being asked.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Photo credit: Sofia Shield (Belfast, 2016) 4.1 Introduction
Many factors come into play as influences and reasons for the maintained significance and proliferation of the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall since the Good Friday peace agreement. The most significant factors that were observed and discovered during this project can be divided into four categories. The first is that a perpetuated culture of segregation and othering has led to communities where division and separation are the norm, and mistrust of the other communities leads to perceived security needs for structures such as peace walls and security gates. The second is that given the fact that the peace walls have been somewhat effective in controlling interface violence
(regardless of whether this is causal or coincidental), there seems to be a general resistance to change. This trend is coupled with a seeming reliance on top-down
approaches to large-scale interface efforts. Although some community-based efforts and organizations are successful on a smaller scale, they do not seem to get much widespread attention or funding, and seem to only have very localized impact. The third observation is that the wall proliferation comes partly as a result of the Falls-Shankill Peace Wall acting as a live memorial. In current society, the wall has many uses for expression and memorialization. Belfast’s tourism industry has capitalized on the Falls-Shankill peace
Wall’s striking presence by incorporating it into many of the tours of the city. For locals, the murals that depict local residents who perished during the conflict often act as
reminders and memorials for the many friends and family members they lost during the Troubles. The last observation that will be examined in this section is how the wall is explained to the younger generation and how it is addressed in education practices generally.
4.2 Segregation
Photo Credit: Sofia Shield (Belfast, 2016)
As was described in the Chapter 1, division between the Loyalist and Republican communities has deep-rooted history in Belfast, and the current locational divisions are representations of close-knit communities that have existed for many generations.
Currently, on the either side of the Falls-Shankill interface, segregating practices are very apparent. On the Falls side, street signs are written in both English and the Irish Gaelic language, creating a visual reminder of exclusion to those who did not learn the language at school (as only private Catholic/Republican schools teach Gaelic). On either side, local heroes are honored with martyr-like portraits and clear reminders of who murdered them (using words like “murdered” to villanize the other community). Other murals garner local community pride, in order to keep the community spirit strong and unified.
In addition to the creation of an “in-group” and “out-group” dynamic, the wall has also become seen as a normalized security practice and measure. Thus, many of the local community members argue for the wall to stay up, arguing that this benefits the safety of
