|
Geopolitical
Terminology
From early in the research process, it became clear that use
of terminology in relation to territorial categories was an important issue. We
found ourselves using and dealing with a wide variety of terms.
For example, the funding authority, the North-South Programme, uses the official
state terminology of Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, in everyday use,
researchers and participants tend to use a variety of terms and labels, such as
Ireland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, the south, the north, Ulster,
six counties, nine counties.
None of these is unproblematic and they reflect the contested
nature of geopolitical structures on the island. The highly contested nature of
terminology has been recognised and discussed by the project team. Each term is
politically loaded, whether it implies a partitionist, republican, unionist,
moderate or other perspective. As a project team, we were not concerned with
establishing a standard project terminology, but instead with displaying an
awareness of the issues and being reflexive regarding our own positions
(see Personal Reflections and Methodology sections), while at the same
time defining the research parameters clearly. HEA terminology
(Ireland and Northern Ireland) is used in official project documentation
(reports etc) for reasons of consistency. However, a more nuanced approach has
been taken to designing project promotional material, particularly in the
north, where we were concerned not to alienate anyone from the research. We wished
to promote participation in an all-island project, which meant including those
for whom the idea of ‘all-Ireland’ might be in itself troubling. In theory,
this means being aware of the contested nature of terminology at all stages of
the research – from design, through fieldwork, to writing. In practice, it has
meant producing more than one version of documents such as the
Information Sheet and Flyer.
Useful reading on contested geopolitical terminology
Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey, http://www.ark.ac.uk/,
(ARK, Northern Ireland Social and Political Archive) for results of surveys on political
identities and affiliations
Dunn, Seamus., and Dawson, Helen. (2000) An
Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living
Language of Conflict. Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press
Crozier, M. (ed.) Varieties of Irishness,
Belfast, Institute of Irish Studies, 1989 and 1990
Crozier, M. and Sanders, N. (eds), A Cultural
Traditions Directory, Belfast, Institute of Irish Studies, 1992. The
Cultures of Ireland Group was formed in the Irish Republic in 1991 to encourage
similar approaches south of the border.
Flackes and Elliott 1988 and 95
Aughey , A. (2004) Territory and Politics in the United Kingdom, J Coakley and J Todd (eds) Renovation or Revolution? New Territorial
Politics in Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Migration Terminology in an all-island context
The project aimed to explore
narratives of migration from, and return to, the island of Ireland from the latter half of the 20th century. We were interested in the
experiences of those who had left Ireland, north or south, had gone to live
anywhere else in the world (for at least one year) and had since then returned
to live in Ireland. We were also interested in including some stories of
cross-border migration on the island.
From the outset, we faced the
question of how to communicate this to potential participants and what kind of
terminology to use. A number of issues were of concern:
-
The term
‘migration’ is not commonly used in everyday practice. Yet, the term
‘emigration’ is also problematic for a number of reasons.
-
‘Emigration’ has
become an emotionally-laden term in an Irish context, being strongly associated
with 19th and 20th century mass migration, thus tending to
be used mainly in relation to long distance and ‘permanent’ migration. The
danger is that migration to England or Scotland, for example, or short-term
circulatory moves, may not be seen as relevant to the research by potential
participants. (see Thinkpiece no. 3:
Discourses of Migration).
-
The latter is of
particular relevance in the context of Northern Ireland, where a move to
England/Scotland/Wales may be seen by some as an internal migration within the UK, and therefore a term such as ‘emigration’ would have little applicability.
-
It also became
clear to us that the term ‘return migration’ has limited popular usage, when a
search of the Irish Times archives using that exact phrase yields 9
results (including one on birds and one on seals), while a search using the
phrase ‘returning emigrants’ yields 100 results.
Therefore it was necessary to design
project publicity and information using terminology that would be meaningful to
the public and would convey accurately what we were interested in. Our main
strategy was to use direct questions such as ‘Have you ever lived outside
Ireland/Northern Ireland…?’, instead of ambiguous phrases such as migration,
emigration, return migration.
Interdisciplinary
nature
The study of migration is necessarily interdisciplinary as
it is researched and studied from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. This
is reflected in the different disciplinary backgrounds of the research team,
which include anthropology, geography, history and sociology. This
interdisciplinary diversity has produced a valuable synergy in project design
and implementation. It has brought together different sets of literature,
theoretical frameworks and methodological practices and procedures, in a productive
way. It also means that dissemination of results will reach a variety of
different academic audiences.
Historical
contexts
The project recognises the shared yet divergent histories of
migration experienced on both parts of the island. Evidence suggests that
from 1776 to 1815 it is likely that Ulster supplied 80 per cent of Irish migrants (Parkhill, 1996). It appears that from the
1820s onward, Connacht and Munster had the highest rates of emigration (Akenson
1996). There were differences in emigration patterns, with Ulster people over-represented in flows to Canada and New Zealand in the 19th century,
and a greater propensity for migration to Scotland from the north-east of Ireland, and to England from the south and east of Ireland. Akenson (1996: 50) argues controversially
that “after partition in 1920, Ireland broke into two separate emigration
systems, tied together by a mirror-like symmetry”.
We felt it was important to design research which would be
sufficiently context-specific with regard to both parts of the project, without
losing the overall coherence. This meant that it was important to recognise
that the historical context of ‘recent return migration’ is not the same in Republic
of Ireland
and Northern Ireland. In the Republic, there has been a distinct phase of return migration, from the
mid-1990s onwards, representing a clear departure from the phase of mass
emigration that lasted approximately from the early 1980s to the early 1990s.
The research in the south therefore has been designed accordingly, with
a clear focus on those who emigrated in or around the 1980s/early 90s and
returned from about the mid-1990s on. In contrast, the patterns for Northern Ireland are more fluid, with emigration peaking in the 1970s and continuing at
lower levels through the 1980s, 1990s and to the present day. To complicate
this, the Census does not provide data on return migration to Northern Ireland. Return migrants to Northern
Ireland during the past 15 years or so may have emigrated
in the 1970s or before. The research in the north reflects this, with a
target group spanning those who emigrated anytime from the 1960s through to the
1990s.
Socio-cultural
and Political contexts
The different socio-cultural and political contexts in which migration
have taken place have influenced how the research has been conducted in the two
parts of the project. The realities of religious and sectarian divisions in
Northern Ireland have had to be taken into account in the research there, while
this was not significant in the southern research. The researcher in the north
had to deal with the issue of religious difference from the outset. In the
north, it meant that a key factor in recruitment of participants was a desire to
recruit representative numbers of people from different denominational
backgrounds. On the other hand, the timing of the research in the south meant
that the experience of economic growth and prosperity on return emerged as a key
theme, in a way that it did not in the north. In addition, discourses of
migration on both parts of the island have developed in different ways.
See Thinkpiece no. 3: Discourses of Migration
Northern interviews (J. Devlin Trew)
While it is always important as an ethnographer to be aware
of one’s own position with regard to the subject of study, in the North, this
was especially critical due to the sectarian nature of the Northern Ireland conflict (see Thinkpiece no.
2, ‘Telling’).
In my own particular case, having a parent from each background (Catholic and
Protestant, both working class from Belfast), it was necessary to understand my
own position and biases regarding aspects of the conflict, be they historical,
cultural or territorial. It was also necessary to find ways to represent this
to the interviewees and to community groups who invited me to speak about the
project. I felt it absolutely necessary to briefly relate my own background to
each interviewee prior to the interview. Ethically, I could not contemplate any
other option. In all cases, I believe this worked in helping to create an
atmosphere of trust and openness during the interview – a ‘safe space’ not only
for the interviewee but for me as well.
I also felt that I had to come to grips with the divided
nature of this society on a very local level and I began by looking at
demographics and voting patterns. I travelled widely around Northern Ireland by car in
the first months prior to the interviewing stage, with an eye to getting ‘the
lay of the land.’ This proved to be very helpful in getting a ‘feel’ for the
territorial complexities of the conflict in particular, and was also helpful in
establishing rapport when a potential interviewee made initial contact, as I
had usually visited their area. Place is important to people in Northern
Ireland – daily conversations often centre on discussions of places – so it was
important to know who lived where and the significance of local sites.
In terms of general publicity for the project, terminology
and representation were immediately key practical issues. I was particularly
aware that some people might be reluctant to participate in an ‘all-Ireland’
all-island project, and that they might not respond to advertisements which
used the term ‘Ireland’ rather than ‘Northern Ireland.’ I was also aware of the
reverse (though likely less) potential in nationalist areas. It was also
important that I not exaggerate the issue in my own mind. Nevertheless, I made
a point of understanding which publications represented which group and
tailored advertisements accordingly (e.g. newspapers are often associated with
one or the other group – this is generally known information, although
rarely stated).
My name also posed a slight difficulty. For example, I
habitually use my middle name, Devlin, professionally, which together with my
surname of Trew reflects the dual nature of my family background. I felt,
however, that it would be counter-productive and even decidedly unwise to
include it in advertisements (e.g. internet bulletin boards) aimed at unionist
or loyalist groups. There were, in addition, personal safety issues: I had to
regularly travel into ‘troubled’ areas, enter the homes of people I had not
met, or sometimes meet interviewees in public places.
During the interviews, I usually began by asking in detail
about the interviewee’s childhood and community. I felt that it was important
in terms of the conflict to understand the demographics and inter-cultural
contact in communities as described in the pre-conflict years to reveal and
contextualise subsequent changes. After that discussion, we usually followed a
more or less chronological sequence through their life trajectory. Most
interviewees embarked on the subject of the conflict without my interference. With
others, I trod very carefully and waited for a natural opportunity to discuss
it, or if that didn’t happen, brought it up at the end of the interview. While
most people were quite willing, even eager, to air their views about the
conflict, a few were quite reluctant and I did not pursue the subject beyond
the apparent point of comfort. Obviously, this relied on my own judgment –
there were perhaps people who became uncomfortable when the subject came up – I
can only say that I tried my best to avoid potential for discomfort.
Time was very important during the interviews, specifically,
that people be allowed the time to become comfortable with the process and the
equipment. Upon arrival and prior to beginning the actual interview, I usually
explained the process of interview and archiving – letting them examine the
equipment if they wished – and gave them a copy of the permission form which I
signed in their presence. At this stage, we usually discussed the issue of
confidentiality and I would suggest that they not sign the form until after the
interview, as they would then have a better idea of the discussion and what
restrictions, if any, they would like to make to the interview. I would then
also specifically outline how we would proceed through the interview – usually
following the life path and I would often start recording, with their
permission, during this time. Time was also important with regard to the
general discussion and particularly, to discussion of the conflict. Some
interviewees appeared to require settling into the interview before they felt
comfortable enough with the process and with me to discuss sensitive issues.
Southern Interviews (C. Ní Laoire)
The research in the south was shaped more so than the north
by its focus on a very particular group of return migrants – those who had
emigrated in or around the 1980s and early 1990s, and had returned from the
mid-1990s onward. The positionality of the research team is important here –
all four members of the team in the south are themselves return migrants, two
of whom were part of that particular cohort. This was helpful in some cases in
establishing a rapport with participants, and also may have been influential in
shaping the direction of the research. We were careful however to avoid the
pitfall of the researcher attempting
to over-identify with informants in an effort to evade otherness or to avoid
difference, as we were aware of the very heterogeneous nature of the return
migrant population (see Thinkpiece
2 on ‘Telling’).
Our own experiences of
return may have influenced the direction taken in particular interviews,
sensitizing us to particular issues, while simultaneously
closing us off to
others? It did mean that we were aware that some experiences of return
migration in contemporary Ireland are unacknowledged and unspoken for various
reasons, and we were concerned to provide people with a safe space in which to
articulate this.
Drawing on existing literature on emigration in the 1980s,
in the southern part of the project, we were concerned more centrally with
social class and occupational difference. Taking into consideration the debate
regarding the social composition of 1980s emigrants (Mac
Laughlin, Shuttleworth, and others), and the emerging available
information on characteristics of recent return migrants, there was a desire in
the southern project to include some of the main occupational groups of those
who had emigrated in the 1980s and early 1990s, and who seemed to have been
returning in recent years ( references). Some
specific target groups were identified as a result. These were the IT sector,
construction and the caring professions. These sectors were targeted in
particular, while we also included a broad spectrum of other occupations.
The coincidence of high rates of return migration with rapid
economic growth in the south has been reflected strongly in the narratives that
have been collected, with return migrants experiencing the ensuing changes in
society, everyday life and the workplace in different ways. As such, the
collection is a useful source of reflections on changes in Ireland in early 21st century, from the very unique perspective of return migrants. In a
similar way in the north, recent return migration has coincided with the peace
process and all of its ensuing social and political changes. The research has
been an opportunity for return migrants to reflect on their own experiences of
the differences between the society they left and the one to which they have
returned.
Managing a north-south project
The projects funded by the
North-South and Cross-Border Programmes are quite
unusual in terms of their cross-border nature. It
could be argued that there is to date a general lack of cooperation and
collaboration between researchers on both parts of the island, due in no small
part to the separate institutional and funding regimes within which researchers
operate.
Funding and incentives to encourage
north/south collaboration between universities and researchers have been
grossly inadequate. This has probably been compounded by elements of a
‘partition mentality’. Until recently, attendance by southern academics at
conferences in Northern Ireland was often quite poor and active collaboration
was very limited, and vice versa; many of us have had closer and more
significant working relationships with academics in Britain and continental Europe than with people on the other side of this island.
Clearly, projects that have a genuine all-island structure,
as opposed to collaboration between projects, are unusual, and they do have to
overcome a number of obstacles. In the case of this project, a number of key
issues emerged for us:
Obstacles to cooperation
One project,
two institutions
The administration of the project involved two different
university systems. This meant that administration was complicated by the fact
that practices and procedures were different in both parts, for example, in
relation to recruitment procedures, salary scales and financial management.
One project,
two currencies
Conversion of all project funds from euro to sterling was a
complicating factor in managing the project budgets.
Geographical
distance
The geographical distance and lack of direct transport
connections between Omagh and Cork were very significant factors for the
project. While the direct flights between Cork and Belfast and the use of
videoconference and audioconference facilities were extremely helpful in organising project team
meetings, they did not enable regular face-to-face contact between the
researchers themselves. This meant that at times the researchers worked in
isolation, and in retrospect, a bigger travel budget to facilitate more regular
researcher meetings would have been helpful.
Recommendations for future all-island projects
-
Ensure that
travel budgets allow enough for regular meetings between researchers in
addition to the more formal project team meetings.
-
Short study- or
work-visits between northern and southern partners might be helpful.
-
Such projects require a high level of trust and respect between
collaborators. It is helpful to keep an openness to questions of
difference and with regard to how
dilemmas/contradictions might be resolved.
-
The
authorities in Dublin and Belfast should now develop long-term strategic plans
for research cooperation within the island of Ireland, with a particular
emphasis on shared social, economic and cultural challenges.
Personal reflections on
participation
Some personal reflections by the project team on
participation in this north-south project.
Some of the challenges of participation in the project…
“I think one of the challenges was to keep the different
geo-political and social issues involved in both places continuously in play.
As soon as any assertion was made about migration in one place questions are
raised as to how it applies in the other and this is both a challenge and a
most productive aspect of the all-island approach”.
“The main challenge for me was to break out of the dominant
way of thinking that associates Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. Despite being very aware of this, it is easy to slip into it, especially in relation
to migration research, which has been dominated by studies of the Republic or studies of
the whole island but with little recognition of north-south differences”.
“The academic North-South discourse is still in its infancy
and is worthy of much more research investment across a variety of fields. Partition
has been and still is supported by the lack of such a discourse. We need to
move beyond the borders on both sides. We need to get to the point, for
example, where a Northern academic can feel it is acceptable to comment on
Southern affairs in their field and vice versa. Yes, of course this is
happening a bit, but not without huge anxiety and often bitter criticism. We
are all still obsessed with territorialities of the mind, with who has the
right to say this and who has the right to say that. And it is still terribly
easy to get sucked into this mode of behaviour, as it has, in my opinion,
become the ‘habitus’ of academic Ireland. We need to get beyond the point where
to conceive of and support all-island initiatives is considered necessarily
anti-British. We have a responsibility as an all-island project to get beyond
these borders in our research. We also have a responsibility to ensure that
project participants do not encounter these borders in us”.
Some of the rewarding aspects of participation in the
project…
“The project has been marked from
the outset by a spirit of open enquiry, a critical appreciation of the
differences between and within both societies and at the same time an
appreciation of the common experiences of many return migrants and the benefits
they can bring to the societies they come back to”.
“The rewarding aspect for me was the kind of questioning
provoked by the all-island study and the kinds of dialogue that these questions
gave rise to. Also, there is a creativity in bringing the different research
contexts together in one project and in finding appropriate/accurate modes of
representation for the issues that arise. While it might have worked as a basis
for comparison, the all-island approach worked, in my view, more as a kind of
shifting lens on the same phenomenon from different but overlapping
socio-political perspectives. These different political and social contexts
also threw up different categories around which to think migration. Overall
then, the different angles/perspectives unsettled the more received narratives
of migration in both places??”
“Being forced to re-think Ireland and migration has been
very valuable. Being exposed to different perspectives very enriching and has
helped me to see things in a different light. Simply having the opportunity to
take part in collaborative research has been very rewarding, as few
opportunities for such North-South collaboration exist, contributing to a gap
between researchers who would benefit from working together”.
“I think it is important that the North’s ghettoization
cease in terms of academic work on Ireland. This is reflected, I think, in the
fairly common attitude of many Northerners who feel that Southerners are
ignorant of their situation and experience. This project goes a way to enabling
a North-South discourse and it has been very rewarding to partake in this
process”.
Thinkpiece No. 1 (J. Devlin Trew)
Our
study has highlighted the fact that in spite of the increasing interest in, and a
growing body of literature about, Irish migration, very little of this
specifically explores migration from Northern Ireland, particularly relating
the experience of Northern Protestants. This conspicuous gap in Irish migration
literature is at least partly due to the additional complication to researchers
of sets of statistical data (census, etc) issuing from two jurisdictions where
data categories are not identical, thus making the direct comparison of
variables problematic. Nevertheless, generating a body of literature on Irish
migration which ignores Northern Ireland only serves to reinforce by default an
agenda of conflict. That the topic has elicited little apparent interest among
academics based in Northern Ireland itself is perhaps indicative of the degree
of societal malaise which surrounds the issue. Undoubtedly, the subject of
migration raises uncomfortable issues both economic and political; indeed, as
thousands depart, the apparent need for the state to face up to such problems
and implement change may in fact lessen. Describing the 1970s, when Northern
Ireland net migration rates peaked to their highest levels since the years
immediately following partition, one interviewee observed, ‘Who did not
consider emigrating?’ And yet, apart from bare mention in histories of the
period, little analysis of this phenomenon has taken place. Migration from Northern Ireland has more traditionally been viewed as an 18th century phenomenon – the
Ulster Scots Presbyterians who ‘built America.’ This jubilant narrative which
relates in fact to only one segment of the Protestant population, has,
nonetheless, underpinned Northern Unionism throughout the 20th
century; the power of its mythology still evident in artistic productions, such
as On Eagle’s Wing, (Northern Ireland’s answer to Riverdance) launched in Belfast in September 2004.
South
of the border, in Áras an Uachtarán
(official residence of the President of Ireland),
a candle is kept lighting in recognition
of the high levels of emigration that scattered its people around the world.
Indeed, in the newly revamped Article 2 of the Irish Constitution, the Irish
state promises to ‘cherish’ its Diaspora. But what about Northern Ireland? Does it even recognise its ‘Diaspora’? Has its government actively discouraged or
encouraged emigration? Does it welcome its returning migrants? And what is the
view of the ‘troubled’ homeland from the emigrant perspective? How do Northern
Irish Protestants, in particular, imagine their connection to home, or to the
Irish Diaspora?
Conceptualisation
Social research in Northern Ireland is in itself problematic because the pressure
on academics researching Northern Ireland not to take sides has led them to hide
behind a veil of 'objectivity', academic language and methods, and resist
the exploration of personal experience and emotion. This can be
defined as a lack of reflexivity on the part of the researchers;
a failure to take on 'the subjective and emotional aspects of sectarianism'.
As a result, the academic community tends to mirror and 're-enact'
divisions in the society rather than address them (Smyth and Moore
1996, Finlay 1999, and others).
Practice
Telling: the process in an encounter by which Northern Ireland people tell whether
a stranger is Catholic or Protestant, so named by Burton (1978)
and previously described by Harris (1972). Burton describes telling
as the everyday management of sectarian alienation. Harris outlines
the importance of employing telling to avoid offending others. But
as Burton and Finlay describe, telling is also used to create 'areas
of trust' as it helps to structure types of interaction.
This structuring is necessary because Catholics and Protestants
do not know how to interact because their restricted contact with
and knowledge of each other prevents real communication. Thus, they
argue that the divide between the communities is maintained by this
process of telling, the result being that inter-cultural communication
is problematic. Encapsulated in Heaney's 'Whatever you say, say
nothing' the phenomenon of telling is central to communication in
Northern Ireland (Finlay 1999).
It should be acknowledged that both interviewers
and interviewees engage in telling. Finlay states that telling is
essentially a way of managing emotions which are generated from the
northern conflict ("emotional
labour"). Telling has important implications for the construction
of narratives during the interview process and how they can be interpreted
afterwards.
Pitfalls / (pièges)
-
Danger of researcher (interviewer) identifying overly with informants
in an effort to evade otherness, to avoid difference
-
Self-construction as non-sectarian, moral, secular individual
may blind researcher to the informantís construction of
researcher (e.g. as a Catholic, Protestant)
-
There is a tendency of researchers to minimise problems that
telling imposes
-
Telling is a barrier to 'reflexive expression' for the researcher
due to the anxieties it provokes around issues of representation
Suggestions
Researcher must be aware of:
-
'critical positioning' (Marcus & Fischer 1986, Clifford
& Marcus 1986)
-
reflexivity that should not be overly burdened by 'confessionalism'
(what Finlay calls 'analytical reflexivity') and ethnographic
pretences to fair representation (Geertz 1989)
-
engaging with the 'dissonance' that may arise from the research,
don't suppress or avoid it.
References (Telling)
Burton, Frank. 1978. The politics of legitimacy: struggles in a
Belfast community. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus, eds. 1986. Writing culture:
the poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley; Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Finlay, Andrew. 1999. ''Whatever You Say Say Nothing": An Ethnographic
Encounter in Northern Ireland and its Sequel. Sociological Research
Online 4 (3).
Geertz, Clifford. 1989. Being here: whose life is it anyway? In
Works and lives: the anthropologist as author. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Harris, Rosemary. 1972, r1986. Prejudice and tolerance in Ulster:
a study of neighbours and 'strangers' in a border community. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Marcus, George E., and Michael M.J. Fischer. 1986. Anthropology
as cultural critique: an experimental moment in the human sciences.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smyth, Marie, and Ruth Moore. 1996. Researching sectarianism. In
Three conference papers on aspects of segregation and sectarian
division, edited by M. Smyth. Derry: Templegrove Action Research
Ltd.
Thinkpiece No. 3 (P. Mac Einri)
The differences between approaches to migration
research north and south, in my view, arise
because of the very different historical and conceptual discourses
concerning migration in the two parts of the island.
For the south, emigration is a central motif in the self-imagining
of the country and its place in the world. Notwithstanding the fact
that the post-Celtic Tiger generation may see matters very differently,
the centrality of emigration for all previous generations at least
since the Famine can hardly be denied. It is, moreover, a highly
patterned experience of emigration, with its attendant discourses
of deprivation and even victimhood, an emphasis on its rural nature
and a juxtaposing of the realities of departure against De Valera's
myth of an independent rural, self-sufficient Ireland. In that sense
emigration has always raised difficult questions about the nature
and even the viability of the southern state. It is perhaps too
early to say whether the economic boom of the 1990s has laid some
of these ghosts to rest, but at the least the phenomenon of return
migration enables the issues to be examined through the experiential
prism of those who left in the 1980s, a time of painful restructuring
and reorientation for Irish society and the Irish economy, only
to return to a radically different country.
None of this is to deny that the central and rather hegemonic discourses
of emigration in the southern state have not been inclusive- the
experiences of minorities (whether gay and lesbian, Protestant,
etc) have received insufficient attention, as have the experiences
of women migrants. But it is still, perhaps, possible to ask some
key questions about the nature of the state in which we grew up
by attending in a particular way to the experiences of those who
grew up here, left and returned again.
I do not see the same resonances
in the debates concerning migration and return in the North/Northern
Ireland. It is certainly possible to see elements of it - say, rural emigration
from Tyrone or Fermanagh - as being essentially similar in character
to what was happening across the border in Donegal or Leitrim. But
the dominant ethos of the state has been concerned with the continuity
of membership of a British and Unionist polity.
The issue of emigration as a failure of a young, independent state
does not arise in this context and movement within the United Kingdom
is inevitably constructed more as a matter of normal internal migration
than as a departure to a foreign country. Those of the nationalist
minority who emigrated presumably did not identify with this perspective
but, equally, were in practical terms somewhat excluded from the
'imagined community' of the southern state, even if in many cases
they found themselves living similar lives and working in similar
places once they emigrated. That said, 'partitionism' was
probably never very strong in the Diaspora, compared to the Republic
and sometimes Irish migrants of all political and regional
backgrounds got along much better away than they ever had at home.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these differences concerns,
precisely, the matter of return and the type of state one is returning
to. Without unquestioningly endorsing the benefits of the modernisation model, it
is probably true to say that, for better or for worse, the southern
state has gone through a once-for-all transformation which has made
it a profoundly different place from the Ireland of previous generations.
In Northern Ireland, by contrast, it seems to me that it is a little
early yet, after just over ten years of a fragile truce and
seven years since the Belfast Agreement, to say anything definitive
about the current and future prospects of social and economic stability
in Northern Ireland.
Above all, the south is now a society of immigration, and is beginning
to grapple with the implications and challenges of this status,
in a way that is not yet true in the North. Inevitably, these major
differences make direct comparisons difficult at times.
Note 1: Migration from the north of Ireland in historical
context (C. Ní Laoire)
Ulster emigration has its roots in the 17th and 18th
centuries, when Presbyterians dominated the migration flows, and
continued at a higher rate throughout the 19th century,
but with a shift in composition towards Catholics. The US and Canada
were important destinations during the 19th and 20th
centuries, with the vast majority of 19th century Irish
emigrants to Canada coming from Ulster (McAuley, 1996). Strong
emigrant connections exist with Canada, the US and Australia to the
present day. Two-thirds of Irish immigrants to Canada have been
Protestant, although not all from the North (Akenson, 1993; Elliott,
1988). There has been a long history of migration between the
northern part of Ireland and Scotland, characterised by a constant
flow of workers to Scotland from the eighteenth to the twentieth
centuries, although this has declined considerably in recent decades
(Hickman and Walter, 1997). Migrants also moved to English cities,
predominantly London and Liverpool in the 19th century,
but in recent decades England has become the most important
destination for migrants from Northern Ireland to Britain (Compton
and Power, 1991; Hickman and Walter, 1997).
Throughout the 20th century, Northern Ireland, like
the Republic, experienced continued out-migration. Emigration peaked
in the 1970s with the onset of the Troubles and with declining
employment in traditional industries. Migration from Northern
Ireland is a relatively under-researched area. According to McAuley
(1996), rates of Catholic emigration have been consistently higher
than Protestant rates, due in part to unequal access to labour
markets, although others argue that Protestants emigrated at higher
rates than Catholics in the 1970s and 1980s (Ó Gráda and Walsh,
1995). From the 1980s onwards, students comprised a significant
element of flows of migrants from Northern Ireland to GB, with
Protestants over-represented in this group (Compton and Power, 1991;
McAuley, 1996). However, a survey of Northern Ireland migrants
conducted in 1988 (by Compton and Power, 1991) suggests that among
all migrants, Catholics were still over-represented. These are
pre-ceasefire figures, and it may be that many earlier migrants are
now returning to Northern Ireland given the different political
climate. Recent migration figures show net in-migration during some
years in the late 1990s, although outmigration continues.
Note 2: Migration from the south of Ireland in
historical context (C. Ní Laoire)
Emigration was a constant feature of life in Ireland,
particularly from the provinces of Connacht and Munster, throughout
the 19th century, peaking in the middle of the century
during the Famine years, when it is estimated that 2.5 million left
the island, mainly for Britain and the US, between 1846 and 1855.
Emigration peaked again in the 1870s, and by 1890, it is estimated
that there were three million Irish-born living overseas. In all, it
is believed that eight million emigrated between 1801 and 1921
(Fitzpatrick 1984).
Emigration continued, albeit at lower rates, into the 20th
century, falling to about 17,000 per annum from the 26 counties in
the late 1920s and early 1930s as a result of tightened restrictions
on entry to the US. However, with a shift to Britain as the major
destination, rates of emigration increased again, peaking at about
41,000 per annum in the 1950s, a period of economic depression in
the Republic of Ireland. As the economy improved during the 1960s,
rates fell back, resulting in a period of positive net migration to
ROI in the 1970s, for the first time in the history of the state. It
is likely that a significant factor in this was the return migration
of earlier generations of emigrants. This period of growth was
short-lived however, as the economy entered a period of decline
towards the end of the 1970s, resulting in high unemployment and
mass emigration during the 1980s. Once again, Britain and in
particular London, was the main destination for emigrants, although
many also headed for the US (some illegally), continental Europe and
elsewhere. At its height, some 46,000 emigrated from the ROI in
1988-89. From the mid-1990s onward, a period of unprecedented
economic growth in the south has contributed to high rates of
in-migration, peaking in 2002 when almost 67,000 entered the state.
This is comprised of both returning Irish and non-Irish migrants,
with return migrants dominating numerically until 1999.
[All figures have been obtained from the NESC Report (1991),
The Economic and Social Implications of Emigration, and from the
Census of Population.]
Link to References on migration from Ireland in historical
context
|
