• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Paradox and Unionist Identity Marion Ashleigh Rebecca Perry BSc (Hons) Politics with Criminology Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ulster University Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD May 2018 I confirm that the word count of this thesis is less than 100,000 words ii Contents Page List of Tables v List of Figures vi Acknowledgements vii Declaration viii Summary ix Part One: Identifying Paradox 1 Chapter One: Introduction 2-22 1.1: Introduction 2 1.2:Background to the research 3 1.3:Methodology 10 1.3.1: Literature review 11 1.3.2: Interviews 12 1.3.3: Ethics 15 1.4:Thesis structure 18 1.5: Conclusion 22 Chapter Two: Paradoxes of British Identity 23-53 2.1: Introduction 23 2.2: The United Kingdom paradox 25 2.3: The Britishness paradox 32 2.4: British questions 39 2.4.1: The constitutional union of the United Kingdom 40 2.4.2: The social union of the United Kingdom 45 2.4.3: The economic union of the United Kingdom 49 2.5: Conclusion 51 Chapter Three: Paradoxes of Unionism 54-80 3.1: Introduction 54 3.2: The paradox of allegiance 55 3.3: The paradox of identity 65 3.3.1:British, yet different 67 3.3.2: Unionists identify with Britishness, but they are not accepted by 71 the British who think they are Irish 3.4: Unionist questions 74 3.5: Conclusion 80 Chapter Four: Paradoxes of Unionist Britishness 81-105 4.1: Introduction 81 4.2: The paradox of belonging 84 4.2.1: Schrödinger’s Unionists – what’s in the box? 84 4.2.2: Descartes: identity and the importance of self-awareness 86 iii 4.2.3: Baudrillard and the hyperreality of Unionist Britishness 90 4.3: The paradox of elective affinity 93 4.4: Questions of Unionist Britishness 99 4.5: Conclusion 104 Part Two: Investigating Paradox 106 Chapter Five: Questions of belonging 107-152 5.1: Introduction 107 5.2: Identity and Allegiance? 108 5.3: Contract and Solidarity? 120 5.4: Difference and Unity? 135 5.5: Conclusion 150 Chapter Six: Questions of British Union 153-177 6.1: Introduction 153 6.2: Anxiety and Reassurance? 156 6.3: Self-rule and shared rule? 166 6.4: Instrumental and non-instrumental Union? 173 6.5: Conclusion 175 Chapter Seven: Questions of European Union 178-205 7.1: Introduction 178 7.2: Contract not Solidarity? 179 7.3: Difference not Unity? 191 7.4: Neither Identity nor Allegiance? 197 7.5: Conclusion 203 Chapter Eight: Questions of political narrative 206-234 8.1: Introduction 206 8.2: Integration or Disintegration? 208 8.3: Peripheral or Mainstream? 221 8.4: Optimism or Pessimism? 226 8.5: Conclusion 232 Part Three: Concluding reflections 235 Chapter Nine: Re-stating the Union 236-259 9.1: Introduction 236 9.2: Re-stating the paradoxes 240 9.3: Re-investigating the paradoxes 245 9.4: Resolving the paradoxes of Unionism 252 9.5: Conclusion 258 References 260-333 Appendices 334-356 Appendix One: Ulster University ethics form 334 Appendix Two: Project description for participants 346 iv Appendix Three: Participant recruitment letter 350 Appendix Four: Consent form 352 Appendix Five: Interview questions 353 v List of Tables Table Title Page 5.1 Breakdown of participant’s identity by preference stated during 111 the interview 5.2 Number of participants with only one identity 113 5.3 Identity by order stated by participants 115 5.4 Identity by 1st and 2nd preference as stated by participants 117 5.5 Examples of explanations given by participants 119 6.1 Examples of responses on the Scottish independence 157 referendum given by participants 7.1 EU referendum voting inclination of participants 180 8.1 Summary of participant’s responses on whether the Union 214 could break vi List of Figures Figure Title Page 5.1 Breakdown of participant’s first preference identity 110 5.2 Britishness with options 145 6.1 Chart showing the number of participants who mentioned 160 Irish Nationalism whilst discussing the Scottish independence referendum 7.1 EU referendum voting inclination of participants 181 7.2 Breakdown of participant’s inclination to vote in EU 183 referendum based on age 7.3 Breakdown of participant’s inclination to vote in EU 183 referendum based on gender 8.1 Participants’ response to the question ‘Can you envisage the 213 Union breaking?’ 8.2 Threats to the Union as raised by participants 227 vii Acknowledgements Writing a thesis is a monumental task and I have been blessed to have had the support of numerous wonderful and fantastic people during this time. I would like to extend my warmest gratitude to my supervisors Professor Arthur Aughey, Professor Cathy Gormley-Heenan and Dr Máire Braniff for all of the help and support that they have given me throughout this process. Their advice and feedback truly was invaluable and helped to push me to the best of my ability. The staff and lecturers of the School of Applied Social and Policy Sciences have my heartfelt thanks for all of the advice and support that they have given me. I would also like to thank the staff of the Research Graduate School for helping me with all things paperwork related over the years. To my wonderful fellow PhD students in 2D02: without your collective support, tea and sympathy this thesis would have been a very lonely experience. A huge thank you goes to my participants who were extremely gracious in agreeing to partake in my research. Without their insight this thesis truly never would have been written. It has been a pleasure to hear and to represent their views. This would not have been achieved without the encouragement of my friends and family. They have been there for me through the highs and the lows and have never once lost confidence in me. Words cannot express my gratitude to Philip for his love and support. Finally, to my mother and grandfather: you have always supported and encouraged me to push myself no matter what. You knew that this thesis would be completed, even when I doubted it myself at times. I am more thankful than I can ever say. This thesis is dedicated to you. viii Declaration I hereby declare that with effect from the date on which the thesis is deposited in Ulster University Doctoral College, I permit 1. the Librarian of the University to allow the thesis to be copied in whole or in part without reference to me on the understanding that such authority applies to the provision of single copies made for study purposes or for inclusion within the stock of another library. 2. the thesis to be made available through the Ulster Institutional Repository and/or EThOS under the terms of the Ulster eTheses Deposit Agreement which I have signed. IT IS A CONDITION OF USE OF THIS THESIS THAT ANYONE WHO CONSULTS IT MUST RECOGNISE THAT THE COPYRIGHT RESTS WITH THE AUTHOR AND THAT NO QUOTATION FROM THE THESIS AND NO INFORMATION DERIVED FROM IT MAY BE PUBLISHED UNLESS THE SOURCE IS PROPERLY ACKNOWLEDGED ix Summary Unionism in Ulster is often considered to be paradoxical and paradox is commonly thought to make its politics radically incoherent. From this perspective, Unionists are simultaneously too British and not British enough, a perspective which lends itself to the explanatory categories ‘crisis of identity’ or ‘false consciousness’. The most celebrated formulation of paradox can be found in the title of Miller’s 1978 book Queen’s Rebels in which the contrast between formal allegiance and actual experience in Unionist politics is starkly asserted. This thesis explores systematically the notion of paradox in Unionist identity. Part One of the thesis – ‘Identifying Paradox’ – considers academic understanding of identity. This section examines how both Britishness and Unionism have been understood in terms of their respective paradoxes. Attention is then focused on the synthesis of Unionist Britishness in Northern Ireland and it is argued that the conceptual framework of elective affinity can be deployed effectively to contain and to explain the supposed radical incoherence of Unionist identity – a paradox resolving paradoxes. Part Two of the thesis – ‘Investigating Paradox’ - tests that conceptual framework on Ulster Unionist identity in a period of constitutional and political uncertainty in the United Kingdom, beginning with the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and ending with the 2016 European referendum and its aftermath. Semi-structured interviews with 34 Unionist politicians were conducted between 2015 and 2016 and their responses to questions on identity, the Union, Europe and the ‘narrative’ of Unionist Britishness are framed in terms of the paradoxes set out in Part One. Part Three of the thesis summarises the responses and concludes that the negative interpretation of Unionist paradox – especially the ‘crisis of identity’ trope - is misconceived. A much more positive reading of paradox is possible, one which shows that the paradoxes of Unionist Britishness are central and not marginal, as Miller thought, to politics in the United Kingdom. 1 Part One Identifying Paradox 2 Chapter One Introduction 1.1: Introduction: There is a something of a paradox in unionist identity which can be considered in terms of the distinctiveness, yet also the representativeness, of British identity within the context of Northern Ireland during a time of constitutional unrest across the whole of the United Kingdom. It is this concept of British identity in Northern Ireland and its ability to be perceived as both shared and separate from that of the rest of the United Kingdom that forms the basis of this thesis. What differentiates this research from others is that it observes identity in Northern Ireland at a time when Northern Ireland is now more central to British politics due to events such as the 2016 European referendum and the Conservative/Democratic Unionist Party deal following the 2017 snap Westminster Election.

Load more

  365

Copy Link