Negative Silence: The unspoken future of Northern Ireland

The premise for finding common ground between unionism and nationalism in Northern Ireland in the 1998 Agreement centred on an accepted compromise regarding what the future of the province might be: continued union within the UK was assured but could be changed if unity with the Republic of Ireland was the will of the majority. In this way, Northern Ireland was suspended as if on a see-saw between the ‘two traditions’. As a consequence, the very success of power-sharing has made it difficult for parties to articulate a shared vision of Northern Ireland’s future. This paper identifies a ‘negative silence’ regarding the outlook for Northern Ireland and seeks to uncover some of its implications by analysing three of its constitutive elements. First, how the aspirational discourse of the four largest political parties has remained largely entrenched in oppositional gullies. Second, how the debate around the Shared Future framework and Cohesion, Sharing and Integration programme ironically embodies deep differences in political visions of a ‘shared’ future for Northern Ireland. Finally, interview-based reflections on how an inability to articulate a future for Northern Ireland affects the young ‘Agreement generation’ and their (dis)empowerment as citizens. The paper concludes that the thicker the fog of silence grows over the subject of Northern Ireland’s future, the bleaker this future is likely to be

Terry Eagleton, Postmodernism and Ireland

Terry Eagleton devoted considerable thought to the nature of postmodernism during the heyday of the postmodernist debate in the Eighties and Nineties, and always expressed strong reservations about it.1 It is worth noting that these reservations do not imply any hostility to formal experimentation, or to the registering of alienation in its postmodern form. Rather, he seeks to show how there might be a politically and morally engaged art which was very much of our time. His position is consistent with those he adopts in dealing with other subjects, and may be illuminated by reference to those works where he does so. Of all these other subjects, the most illuminating for understanding his work is that of Irish literature, for it was during this period that Eagleton became a major figure in Irish studies, and his thinking on postmodernist relativism was developed alongside his critique of revisionism in Irish historiography.

Fabricating Economic Development

This paper is concerned with the institutions of Irish economics; it is structured around two arguments each of which links to the thesis presented in Garvin’s Preventing the future (2004). Overall it will be demonstrated that Irish economics was shaped by intellectual trends experienced within economic thought globally as well as the social considerations that were peculiar to Ireland. The evidence presented indicates that firstly while Economic Development mattered to the Irish economy it did not matter for the reasons that most writers have suggested it did. It is argued for instance that much of the literature, regardless of academic discipline, presents the publication of Economic Development in 1958 as analogous to a “big bang” event in the creation of modern Ireland. However, such a “big bang” perspective misrepresents the sophistication of economic debates prior to Whitaker’s report as well as distorting the interpretation of subsequent developments. The paper secondly, by drawing on the contents of contemporary academic journals, reappraises Irish economic thinking before and after the publication of Economic Development. It is argued that an economically “liberal” approach to Keynesianism, such as that favoured by TK Whitaker and George O’Brien, lost out in the 1960s to a more interventionist approach: only later did a more liberal approach to macroeconomic policy triumph. The rival approaches to academic economics were in turn linked to wider debates on the influence of religious authorities on Irish higher education. Academic economists were particularly concerned with preserving their intellectual independence and how a shift to planning would keep decisions on resource allocation out of the reach of conservative political and religious leaders.