Not All Blarney Is Cast in Stone: International Cultural Conflict in Northern Ireland

Abstract

A core characteristic of world politics is the presence of communal conflict over ideas of national identity, inextricably bound to ideas of cultural identity. Increasingly, foreign policy decision-makers realize the importance of considering cultural factors in their calculations of how peoples will define the "self" that seeks "determination." Although a collective's culture changes over time (through interaction with others and in response to external events), scholars and policy analysts sometimes treat identities as static, monolithic, and derived from cultures that rarely change. This leads policymakers to underestimate the extent to which culture influences and can be influenced by foreign policy. This paper integrates work in political science and psychology into a content analysis-based method for examining three major ways in which culture impinges on communal conflict. The utility of the approach is demonstrated with a case study of the Northern Ireland conflict from 1984 to 1986, which shows how the rhetoric of the competing nationalist/Catholic leaders (John Hume and Gerry Adams) was the site of debate over group culture, how differences in the rhetoric reflected different cultures of the conflict, and how the conflict has been affected by the foreign policy decisions of other actors.A core characteristic of world politics is the presence of communal conflict over ideas of national identity, inextricably bound to ideas of cultural identity. Conflicts that have dissolved multinational states such as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia demonstrate how the "principle of self-determination still has the power to destroy weak territorial states whose populations see them as empires"

Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations

“…This discursive maneuver had real empirical effects, including arguably the passage of NAFTA. Grove and Carter (1999) make an important contribution to this area of research through their study of the interaction between the persuasion attempts of Gerry Adams and the persuasion attempts of John Hume to sway their countrymen in Northern Ireland to respond to the initiatives of third parties to the conflict there. Comparing the rival discourse of the two men, Grove and Carter are able to analyze the horizons of possibility for each man and the groups that follow them.…”

Resolving Nationalist Conflicts: Promoting Overlapping Identities and Pooling Sovereignty—The 1998 Northern Irish Peace Agreement

“…A 1996 poll found that supporters of Sinn Fein (Republicans) were more likely than SDLP supporters (Nationalists) to say that peace talks would fail, to support unification with the Republic, to seek reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and to approve of American interest in Irish affairs. 12 In addition, in previous elections (1986by-election, 1987UK Parliamentary elections, and 1989, votes for the SDLP increased relative to those for Sinn Fein, further demonstrating differences in support of their respective positions (Grove & Carter, 1999). Finally, regarding voting behavior, vote transfers between Sinn Fein and SDLP are relatively modest compared to the solidarity of Unionist transfers (Whyte, 1991).…”

“…Moreover, the two parties' leaders (John Hume of the SDLP, Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein) have defined Irish identity differently. In an analysis of speeches by Hume and Adams in a 2-year period (1984)(1985)(1986), Grove and Carter (1999) found that although both leaders used the terms "Catholics," "nationalists," "Irish," and "this community," the meanings of each of these terms differed tremendously. Before and after the negotiation of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement (AIA), Hume stressed that the "primary political group is the community of Northern Ireland, including Protestants."…”

“Grab the Signatures and Run”: Federal Unity Strategy in Canada from the Referendum to Patriation

“…Conflicts, especially over such issues as the ratification of a constitution, often include contention concerning the identity of the parties. Claims aimed at justifying political positions typically rely on characterizations and labels of groups (see Grove and Carter 1999;Carter 2006). McAdam et al (2001) argue that identities depend largely on interaction among people and constantly are subject to redefinition and reshaping.…”