A Resistance to British Cultural Hegemony: Irish-Language Activism in West Belfast

Abstract

Abstract: In this article it is to be argued that not all Irish-language activism Belfast is revolutionary, but that rather, to use Williams' terminology, it has both alternative and oppositional ideologies as major components. While both alternative and oppositional Irish-language activists have recovered Irish language and are using it to challenge legitimacy of British cultural hegemony Northern Ireland, difference lies their ultimate goals.The reaction of British State to challenge of Irish-language activists has varied depending on form and perceived intent of Irish-language activist groups. While prior to 1980, attempts were made to exclude Irish language and culture from Northern Ireland, since 1989 State's approach has re-interpretation of Irish language and culture into Northern Ireland context. Mixed reaction to British government's efforts has resulted an impasse.IntroductionThe general focus of this article is an investigation of Irish-language activism Belfast, Northern Ireland, and British State's response to this symbolic challenge to its cultural hegemony. The analysis will address way which Belfast cultural groups, Sinn Fein and British government perceive and construct Irish-language activism.(f.1) Concentrating on nature and form of Irish-language activism and how it is perceived and responded to by those power, and drawing on work of Raymond Williams (1977, 1980), this ethnographic study will suggest ways which multiple meanings of resistance areas where liberation struggles are being fought, can be delineated and analyzed. The study is based on 15 months of in-depth research conducted war-torn environment of Belfast between February 1990 and May 1991.A. British Cultural Hegemony: The Struggle for Legitimacy1. The Theoretical Framework: Raymond Williams' Model of Cultural Hegemony and Counter-HegemonyElaborating on Gramsci's concept of hegemony, Raymond Williams (1977, 1980) developed theoretical model which he analyzed relationship between power and Williams asserted that in any society, any particular period, there is central system of practices, meanings and values, which we can properly call dominant and (Williams 1980:38). This social process of selection, while being tied to relationsof dominance and subordination, is at same time meaningful to both those power and powerless, because it represents a selection from and interpretation of people's history ... [which] touches aspects of lived reality, or experience of dominant and dominated alike (Roseberry 1989:26-27). As Williams (1977:115-116; 1980:39) explains, some of subordinate culture's meanings and practices are reinterpreted, diluted, or put into forms which support or at least do not contradict other elements within dominant culture. Hence, cultural hegemony is powerful that it does allow effective self-identification of dominated with what is always passed off as the tradition, and the significant past (Williams 1980:39). However, Williams (1977:115-116) continues, other subordinate meanings and practices are neglected, excluded, dismissed or demeaned. It is latter meanings and practices that are, Williams maintains, recoverable, and can be used by subordinate group(s) to challenge dominant Therefore, cultural hegemony is also vulnerable because it leaves room for resistance or counter-hegemony to develop.One of sources of this resistance is found what Williams calls residual Residual culture is not, Williams argues, equivalent to archaic culture, even though it has been effectively formed past, but instead consists of those subordinate meanings, practices and values that are still active cultural process . …