In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter Four Parnell and Beyond: Nationalism in These Islands, – () There are four nations coexisting in these islands. Nationalism, while present in all, has taken a different course in each of them. Exploring why this should be so is the theme of this lecture. In these four nations, national identity was never beyond controversy. Indeed, concepts of what constituted “Irishness,” “Welshness,” “Scottishness,” and “Englishness,” changed over time, thus putting a question mark against Enoch Powell’s belief that “the nation is the ultimate political reality,” or Parnell’s statement that “no man has the right to fix the boundary of the march of an nation.”“Nation” is a term riddled with ambiguity; nonetheless the phenomenon of “nationalism ” shows no signs of disappearing. Today, in the Irish Republic, nationalism may well be in decline, but it seems to be on the upsurge in the United Kingdom, with unforeseeable consequences. I define nationalism for our purpose as referring to political movements aiming at a great measure of independence for a group of individuals who see themselves as members of a “nation.” But what is a “nation”? Benedict Anderson’s definition of “Imagined communities” stresses the role of the imagination. Other commentators emphasize the problematic character of nationhood. How do nationalists recognize members of their nation? Is it language? Religion? Race? A combination of all three? Clearly there is plenty of room for disagreement and the history of nationalism contains many examples of disagreements, which led to violence. If I imagine a community, which I call a nation and define you as a member of it, can I use force to compel you to accept inclusion ? What validity does the idea of “nationhood” possess? Who decides? 111 And how do nationalist movements come into existence? The answer seems commonly to lie in a shared sense of grievance or a feeling of being forced to defend a set of values. But here again there is plenty of room for the role of imagination. One man’s grievance may be another’s blessing. The term “nation” is so riddled with ambiguities that we can only treat any nationalist movement on its individual merits. What definition of the nation did a particular nationalist party have in mind? Or were there several definitions?—a state of affairs which could lead either to internal discord or to generalized vagueness, aimed at avoiding disunity. Parnell’s grandiose phrase—“no man hath the right to fix the boundary of the march of an nation”—is an example of such ambiguity. As leader of a political coalition drawing support from the catholic church as well as its declared enemy, the Fenian movement, Parnell was compelled to be vague or else to resort to silence (as was indeed the case for much of his later career). Parnell deliberately seemed to become a symbol at such times and hence all things to all men. It was only when the chips were down after the split of  that he turned to court a specific constituency—the Fenians and the Dublin working class. Until then he maintained a magnificent ambiguity which was part of the reason for his success. Was Charles Stewart Parnell himself Irish? He was of Protestant background . He was English-speaking. He was half American. He had an English university education. If his definition of Irish included himself we may assume that Irishness for him was based upon the notion of “territoriality ,” that is, that those born and living within this island are by definition Irish. But what about those who were born in Ireland and now lived in England , Scotland, or Wales or in North America, Australia, or New Zealand? Are they also Irish? The territorial nationalist says “no.” (This was the view of the “Klein-Deutsch”—the little Germans of Bismark’s Germany.) Little Irelanders must surely take this view. But Parnell himself was not consistent. He ordered Irish-born voters in Britain to vote Tory or Liberal, according to his wishes. He made overtures to the Irish in the United States. But since territoriality was no longer the criterion, how were the Irish to be recognized? It could not be language, since they spoke English. For many it was the Catholic religion, but Parnell could not accept a definition which excluded him. The answer seems to be that it was those who defined themselves as Irish. They saw themselves as Irish. They saw themselves as part of an imagined community, though not all of them can be termed nationalists since...

Share