National Identity

[pugio]

I'm not sure I agree. As someone once said, nowadays ideology is basically just a derogatory word for opinions one doesn't happen to agree with. Christianity is just as 'ideological' as atheism, for example, and anti-racism just as much as racism.

Even if it were possible, it would take a strange sort of indifference not to communicate one's understanding of the true and the good to one's own children, and I don't think this can be limited to a sort of privatised faith in certain religious propositions.

[maolsheachlann]

I think a lot of it has to do with the de facto extent to which something is controversial. Obviously, we express certain beliefs and assumptions in pretty much everything we do and say. However, I think parents and teachers should be wary of imposing a particular view of the world on a child if it is, in fact, a controversial and disputed view of the world, in the society that child is going to grow up into.

[pugio]

Like Christianity?

[maolsheachlann]

I would make an exception for religion. I think religion by its nature has to be treated differently from secular matters. We take religion on faith-- rationally grounded faith, based on evidence, but still faith-- and on revelation. It's different with other things. There is still faith involved, but it's more trust than faith (in experts, historians, government, consensus etc.).

[pugio]

I'm not talking about detailed questions of public policy so much as the values and principles governing them. While we must give a rational account of these, it seems to me that allegiance to them is grounded in much the same sphere as religious belief. I don't think, for example, the claim that all human beings are of equal worth is something that can be vindicated through study of empirical data and the consensus of academics and politicians. It is just as much an article of faith as divine benevolence.

Moreover, political and other temporal commitments are often entirely pre-rational in origin, and there is nothing wrong with this per se. For example, the desire to honour one's ancestors, of which nationalism might be one expression, generally proceeds from piety rather than ratiocination.

My point is not that partisan obligations should be shoved down kids' throats or anything like that; of course it behoves parents to nurture critical intelligence in their children. But I do not believe such a clear line can be drawn between 'religious' and 'secular' reasoning. Attempts to draw one usually assume a view of human nature that is excessively rationalist and individualistic.

[maolsheachlann]

Yes, I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing here. I do think it's important to pass on Irish culture and traditions to the younger generation. Because if it doesn't happen in Ireland, where will it happen? And the world will be much the poorer. I would say there is a big difference between teaching those and teaching 'nationalism', though perhaps some would disagree.

I agree that human equality would seem to need a mystical basis-- a point Chesterton often makes-- but the thesis of equality itself is not really controversial in our society, so I don't think it's problematic teaching children that everybody is equal.

[pugio]

Well, there are those who would say that, in practice, emphasising Irish culture and traditions in schools is implicitly nationalistic. There is something to that argument, not that it bothers me.

In itself, it is perfectly natural and healthy for an older generation to deliberately inculcate the younger with an inherited set of metaphysical and moral assumptions and social customs. And this does include a certain political sensibility. The content of a culture may always be contested by a new generation, but only on its merit – not on the basis that it was ‘imposed’ by the preceding generation.

[hibernicus]

My own view would be that there is a difference between education and indoctrination. I have no objection to commemorations of the Rising as a significant event; what worries me is when criticisms are ruled out in advance (e.g. the old image of Pearse the Second Jesus which was widely propagated at mid-century) or when there is deliberate distortion (e.g. the claims regularly made nowadays that the rebels wanted a secular state - this is true of some of them, but anyone who has read Michael Mallin's last letter to his wife, which proclaims inter alia "Ireland must remain Catholic. It is her only hope" knows this was not universally held to put it mildly. Bear in mind that Mallin was Citizen Army, not IRish Volunteer.)
In the same way, there should be a distinction between teaching Catholicism in a Catholic school and treating the teacher's personal crotchets as unquestionable Catholic doctrine (be those crotchets liberal or conservative) or distortions (e.g. talking as if the Penal Laws were unique in Europe at the time, or as if Catholics never persecuted Protestants).

[Young Ireland]

Mar 31, 2016 13:30:23 GMT pugio said:

Well, there are those who would say that, in practice, emphasising Irish culture and traditions in schools is implicitly nationalistic. There is something to that argument, not that it bothers me.

I would broadly agree with that view, in that I think that Irish culture and republican separatism (not necessarily SF/dissident) were in the past deliberately intertwined so that supporting one would naturally lead to supporting the other. The problem now is that this has been so successful that the two issues are inseparable to many people, be it in a positive or negative light.

Mar 31, 2016 13:30:23 GMT pugio said:

In itself, it is perfectly natural and healthy for an older generation to deliberately inculcate the younger with an inherited set of metaphysical and moral assumptions and social customs. And this does include a certain political sensibility. The content of a culture may always be contested by a new generation, but only on its merit – not on the basis that it was ‘imposed’ by the preceding generation.

The problem with this is that it can be and has been easily abused by those who want to push their own agenda. Unless a school has the explicit ethos of promoting Irish culture or nationalism (like a Gaelscoil) do I think that pushing a particular political worldview is reasonable. Otherwise, it is not the place of schools to be pushing a subjective, dubious (and in my view wrong) view of Irish history where there is broad scope for legitimate disagreement. (What about the view, which I hold, that Irish independence was worth pursuing, though not through the use of violence?)

[Young Ireland]

Meanwhile, Irish Monarchist shares his thoughts on the Rising, which naturally I strongly disagree with, but will link to here in the spirit of debate:

irishmonarchism.blogspot.ie/2016/03/irish-men-and-irish-women.html

[maolsheachlann]

Apr 2, 2016 21:23:04 GMT Young Ireland said:

(What about the view, which I hold, that Irish independence was worth pursuing, though not through the use of violence?)

Well, that is my view, too.

I don't think it's a good idea to abandon centuries of Irish tradition and culture out of a reaction against one historical moment, though. I imagine there isn't a single nation or culture in the world that has not defended or asserted itself in arms, rightly or wrongly, at some point in history. I think it would be mad, for instance, for English people to stop reading Kipling because he was the poet of Empire. Or for Germans not to read Nietzsche because of his use by the Nazis. To say nothing of the idea that they should cease to celebrate and preserve their entire culture because of Imperialism or Nazism!

The reaction against Irish nationalism on the basis of the IRA campaign always seems to me as excessive as libertarians who compare all state authority to Stalinism, or egalitarians who compare every supposed instance of inequality with Rosa Parks, or secularists who can only see sex abuse scandals and Magladen laundries in the history of the Irish Catholic Church, or feminists who label all men as potential rapists, and so on.

There's a rather hokey song called Ireland Boys Hurrah! which has this rather memorable verse, one which I think could be quoted in many instances (including the bashing of the Catholic Church which goes on in Ireland):

We've heard her faults a hundred times, the new ones and the old.
In songs and sermons, rants and rhymes, enlarged some fifty-fold.
But take them all, the great and small, and this we've got to say,
"Here's dear old Ireland! Good old Ireland! Ireland boys, hurrah!"

I realize, Young Ireland, you are not saying that individuals and groups should cease to celebrate and preserve Irish culture, that you are only talking about schools here. But to say that teaching Irish tradition and culture is now irreparably tainted with violent nationalism seems an example of the kind of excessive reaction I'm talking about here. And to the extent that it IS so tainted-- and I'm thinking about the Provisional IRA and the other terrorist groups of the Troubles here, rather than 1916 or the War of Independence-- I think there's all the more reason to redeem it from that taint.

(I hope you don't think I'm criticizing you particularly here, by the way. This is a tendency that we all fall into constantly. I think there are very, very few people who "see life steadily, and see it whole", as Matthew Arnold wrotes; who aren't prey to reaction and reaction against the reaction and so on. I think G.K. Chesterton was one of the very few thinkers who usually avoided this, although he didn't always. I certainly don't put myself in that category.)

[irishconfederate]

"Precluding some unlikely turn of events which would re-launch the Gaelic language movement throughout Ireland (it is strong now only in the North), language is not available to us as a distinguishing factor. Our English language, on the other hand, is a powerful linking vehicle, waiting to be loaded by us with new discourse and vision. The world, for as long as we can foresee, will continue to rank us, with Poland, Italy and so on, among the 'Catholic nations'; and that is a reasonably accurate view of us. But I doubt that the public assent and commitment to being a Catholic (or Christian) nation, which obtained in Ireland among ordinary people and public figures 30 years ago, and which has since disintegrated, could be restored in the near future. Consequently, I believe that the only option available to us is the constitutional one: I mean the creation of a new set of civic and economic institutions which, with its attendant socio-political philosophy and ethical values, would bond the nation and distinguish it from Britain and America." 

Does anyone disagree with the idea that an Irish identity needs to be founded and promoted which isn't based on Catholicism or the Irish language..........but is one which is distinguished in the world by a "constitutional" identity......like the identity of Switzerland and the USA?

Would be good to hear thoughts on it.........       

[maolsheachlann]

I find such a model of national identiity deeply uninspiring and unsatisfying. I'm not even sure it's true of America. Chesterton may have said America is the only nation in the world founded on a creed, and many Americans would make the same argument. I'm still not convinced. I think the Constitution and the ideal of freedom is PART of American identity, but not all of it. The specifics of history, climate, language(s), etc. are still part of it. Even in a melting pot like America, I think national identity is irreducibly particular. It might be complex, but it's still particular.

[irishconfederate]

It may be deeply uninspiring and unsatisfying but I think its the only option available to us and it would be prudent to run with it.

I do think that what makes America a nation is its 'set of civic and economic institutions which, with its attendant socio-political philosophy and ethical values'. Of course 'the specifics of history, climate, language(s), etc.' are still part of it but those specifics would not have been enough to found a nation or probably sustain it.

"The pillars on which all national identities rest, and by which they effectively achieve distinctiveness, are language, religion and constitution: all three together, or two or one of them. Language and religion are the most effective and fertilizing nation-builders because they reach deeply into minds and hearts. 'Constitution' is to be understood in the widest sense: not merely or necessarily a written document, but the nation's complex of political, legal and economic institutions, with their supporting or attendant ideology."

We have no option I think but to try and found some sort of 'United States of Ireland'.........

I don't think that has to be uninspiring.......imagining an identity in which the Catholics and anti-Catholics and new immigrants feel bound together and be Irish......I think such a thing is worth dying for.......imagining Dáil Éireann in Athlone........ I think such a thing is playful and liberating

Can I ask, with the Irish having now no distinct religion or language spoke, which could bind us all together in our daily life........what national identity do you think could be serviceable for us?

Thanks for post

[Young Ireland]

May 1, 2016 21:25:46 GMT irishconfederate said:

It may be deeply uninspiring and unsatisfying but I think its the only option available to us and it would be prudent to run with it.

I do think that what makes America a nation is its 'set of civic and economic institutions which, with its attendant socio-political philosophy and ethical values'. Of course 'the specifics of history, climate, language(s), etc.' are still part of it but those specifics would not have been enough to found a nation or probably sustain it.

"The pillars on which all national identities rest, and by which they effectively achieve distinctiveness, are language, religion and constitution: all three together, or two or one of them. Language and religion are the most effective and fertilizing nation-builders because they reach deeply into minds and hearts. 'Constitution' is to be understood in the widest sense: not merely or necessarily a written document, but the nation's complex of political, legal and economic institutions, with their supporting or attendant ideology."

We have no option I think but to try and found some sort of 'United States of Ireland'.........

I don't think that has to be uninspiring.......imagining an identity in which the Catholics and anti-Catholics and new immigrants feel bound together and be Irish......I think such a thing is worth dying for.......imagining Dáil Éireann in Athlone........ I think such a thing is playful and liberating

Can I ask, with the Irish having now no distinct religion or language spoke, which could bind us all together in our daily life........what national identity do you think could be serviceable for us?

Thanks for post

I would tend to agree with Irish Confederate on this in that I think that any future nationalism in this country should be constitutional in nature. I would personally look to the German Lander system as a model though since these drew on pre-existing regional identities whereas many US states have very arbitrary borders (especially the further west you go), which would be a hard sell for people here. Moving the Dail to Athlone would be a bonus for me: I'd be quite happy for local regions to have a greater say in their affairs regardless of whether it comes from Dublin or Athlone. That's my two cent anyway.