
Peter Murray
Related Authors
Daithí Ó Corráin
Dublin City University
Donal McCracken
University of KwaZulu-Natal
Andreas Hess
University College Dublin
Ray O'Connor
University College Cork
Hilary J Bishop
Liverpool John Moores University
Yann Bévant
Université Rennes 2 France
InterestsView All (22)
Uploads
Papers by Peter Murray
Liberalisation took political as well as economic forms. The state adopted an increasingly neutral attitude on religious questions. Trade union organisation was legalised. In the course of successive extensions of the parliamentary franchise statewide parity of political rights became institutionalised. But because of the radically uneven pattern of capitalist development to which it gave rise liberalisation produced a polarisation rather than an integration of Irish society.
Such uneven development in the course of industrialisation is the starting point for the theory of Internal Colonialism which argues that, as a result, a division between an English core and `Celtic' peripheral regions was institutionalised within the United Kingdom. It holds that subsequent reaction to the disadvantages suffered by the peripheries took the form of a broadly-based nationalism only when the cities of a disadvantaged periphery did not develop a cultural pattern which diverged from that of the surrounding rural areas. The supposed absence of such cultural divergences has been put forward to explain why most of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom: their presence has been seen as the reason why Scotland and Wales failed to follow suit.
In this thesis the case of Dublin is used to assess these arguments. The hypothesis that similarity or difference between urban and rural cultures had a decisive effect on the political outcome of British uneven development is rejected. In place of cultural divergence, it is argued that, to explain how Irish independence came about, it is necessary to examine the performance of the UK state in its role as manager of conflict within civil society in Ireland.
Following the solidification of Catholic Nationalist and Protestant Unionist blocs in the 1880s the UK government sought to widen the basis of consent for its rule in Ireland. In the course of expanding its role this state became both more colonial and more metropolitan. The autonomy of the state from indigenous social forces associated with its `overdevelopment' in a colonial context was exploited. But consensual rule also brought the extension of new political and social rights to the Irish population. Home Rule was not "killed by kindness" but a more complex and differentiated political environment was created as new grassroots movements emerged whose activities intertwined with the initiatives of the state in a series of specific fields of policy.
The expansion of the consensual elements of rule was, however, to be accompanied by the breakdown of the state's function of coercion. The conjunction of an intractable crisis over the third Home Rule Bill and the outbreak of a war which could only be waged by an unprecedented state mobilisation of social resources created a situation of `dual militarisation' in which the UK state first lost its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its Irish territory and ultimately forfeited the degree of qualified legitimacy it had enjoyed.
Liberalisation took political as well as economic forms. The state adopted an increasingly neutral attitude on religious questions. Trade union organisation was legalised. In the course of successive extensions of the parliamentary franchise statewide parity of political rights became institutionalised. But because of the radically uneven pattern of capitalist development to which it gave rise liberalisation produced a polarisation rather than an integration of Irish society.
Such uneven development in the course of industrialisation is the starting point for the theory of Internal Colonialism which argues that, as a result, a division between an English core and `Celtic' peripheral regions was institutionalised within the United Kingdom. It holds that subsequent reaction to the disadvantages suffered by the peripheries took the form of a broadly-based nationalism only when the cities of a disadvantaged periphery did not develop a cultural pattern which diverged from that of the surrounding rural areas. The supposed absence of such cultural divergences has been put forward to explain why most of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom: their presence has been seen as the reason why Scotland and Wales failed to follow suit.
In this thesis the case of Dublin is used to assess these arguments. The hypothesis that similarity or difference between urban and rural cultures had a decisive effect on the political outcome of British uneven development is rejected. In place of cultural divergence, it is argued that, to explain how Irish independence came about, it is necessary to examine the performance of the UK state in its role as manager of conflict within civil society in Ireland.
Following the solidification of Catholic Nationalist and Protestant Unionist blocs in the 1880s the UK government sought to widen the basis of consent for its rule in Ireland. In the course of expanding its role this state became both more colonial and more metropolitan. The autonomy of the state from indigenous social forces associated with its `overdevelopment' in a colonial context was exploited. But consensual rule also brought the extension of new political and social rights to the Irish population. Home Rule was not "killed by kindness" but a more complex and differentiated political environment was created as new grassroots movements emerged whose activities intertwined with the initiatives of the state in a series of specific fields of policy.
The expansion of the consensual elements of rule was, however, to be accompanied by the breakdown of the state's function of coercion. The conjunction of an intractable crisis over the third Home Rule Bill and the outbreak of a war which could only be waged by an unprecedented state mobilisation of social resources created a situation of `dual militarisation' in which the UK state first lost its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its Irish territory and ultimately forfeited the degree of qualified legitimacy it had enjoyed.
paper presented at Citizen Woman 1918/2018 seminar, Maynooth University, 7 March 2018
A darker side to his life is, however, alluded to in Rivlin’s remark that “how Edelstein came to be in Portobello Barracks after the unlawful shooting [of Francis Sheehy Skeffington and two other men during the period in which the 1916 Rising was being suppressed] remains a mystery”. This is one of four episodes in Edelstein’s career that this paper will discuss. The others are:
• the manner in which Edelstein became a target for allegations by James Larkin’s popular newspaper the Irish Worker as a radical Labour challenge to the dominance of allegedly corrupt Home Rulers in Dublin municipal politics emerged before the First World War;
• the results of the attention of the Dublin Castle authorities being drawn to Edelstein’s allegedly making money from the ability to help secure Commission of the Peace appointments that he claimed to possess;
• Edelstein’s publication of a novel, The Money Lender, which deals with Jewish emigration from Russia to Dublin and the accumulation of wealth by an immigrant Jew from loan-sharking.
References:
Hyman, L. (1972) The Jews of Ireland Shannon: Irish University Press
Rivlin, R. (2003) Shalom Ireland Dublin: Gill and Macmillan