Women's history and the Irish Revolution - Part 1

The historian Professor Senia Pašeta of Oxford University. Picture: Irish World, 26 April 2018.

There have been many different historiographical approaches taken, and questions thrown up, in regard to the events in Ireland during the first quarter of the twentieth century, including the question of how to refer to the period. The events that occurred between around 1912 – the year the Liberal UK government introduced the third Home Rule Bill – and 1923 – with the cessation of hostilities in the Irish Civil War - are sometimes referred to as the Irish revolution. Some historians, however, have questioned whether what took place actually constituted a revolution at all, since it is widely acknowledged that the newly independent Irish state was of a conservative disposition in terms of its policies and in terms of the attitudes of its leaders towards economic and social issues. Certainly, after 1922, 26 counties of Ireland no longer constituted a part of the United Kingdom as they had done for over 120 years previously, and it is true that this situation had come about as a result of a period of both political agitation and armed struggle. Yet the fact that there was no obvious social revolution at this time (arguably the Land Acts of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had a more revolutionary effect in terms of their social implications[1]) has, for some historians, meant that the term ‘revolution’ is not applicable in the Irish case. Others have argued that the term cannot be used to describe what happened in Ireland at this time because it involved the creation of a new state rather than the overthrow from within of an existing one.[2] In this essay, however, the terms ‘Irish revolution’ and ‘revolutionary period’ will be used, partly for convenience, since it is useful to have a term which encompasses the whole of the period under consideration – alternative terms that have been adopted by some, such as “rebellion” or “War”,[3] are often applied only to specific events within the period – but also in recognition of the fact “that the events of the war and post-war period were felt by their proponents (and…their opponents too) to be a revolution.”[4]

During the years immediately following the civil war, historians of the revolutionary period tended to portray it in nationalistic terms, as the justified struggle of the Irish nation for independence and self-determination against the oppressive power of the imperialist British state. From the late 1930s, Irish historians had begun to take a more nuanced and less nationalistic approach, questioning – for example – the necessity for much of the violence involved in the revolutionary process. This ‘revisionist’ approach became more widespread during the 1960s, eventually becoming the mainstream historiography for several decades[5] and being given added impetus by the outbreak of the ‘troubles’ in the six counties of Northern Ireland.[6] Towards the end of the twentieth century, however, various other approaches and debates emerged and one of the most significant of these has been the growth in women’s history as it relates to the Irish revolution. The German historian Gisela Bock describes women’s history as employing a historiography in which women are not only “rendered visible” but also “placed at the centre” of historical accounts.[7] The move to accord women and women’s organisations and struggles their rightful place in the recorded history of the Irish revolutionary period is one instance of such an approach, and has led to new narratives and interpretations of the events of that period.

One very significant way in which the writing of women’s history has led to an altered perspective on the Irish revolution and its causes is in regard to the factors behind the decline, particularly after 1916, of constitutional nationalism and of the Irish Parliamentary Party which represented that ideological strand.

The swing in public opinion in favour of Sinn Féin and separatism and away from the Irish Party and the constitutional route to home rule had usually been interpreted, in both nationalist and revisionist understandings, as being in large part a consequence of three things: firstly, it was a result of the aftermath of the Easter Rising. The swift and summary executions of the Rising’s leaders, following trials by courts martial, resulted in an outpouring of sympathy for the rebels and their cause. As Charles Townshend has put it, “condemnation of the military proceedings” led to “a re-evaluation of the rebels themselves.”[8] The inaccurate identification of the Rising, by both the British authorities and the British and Irish press, with the name of Sinn Féin helped to popularise what had hitherto been only a marginal political party and to shift the balance of power away from the Parliamentary Party.[9]

A second reason often given for the shift in Irish public opinion away from support for the Irish Parliamentary Party and towards Sinn Féin relates to the failure of the UK government to implement home rule (the plan had been ‘shelved’ for the duration of the war) and a growing sense of mistrust as to the level of determination that existed within government to successfully implement it, especially in the light of the strong opposition from unionists and the failure of the Irish Convention to reach an agreement that would satisfy all parties. Because of these factors, it is argued, the constitutional route to a level of Irish independence seemed less effective than the more radical and separatist path advocated by Sinn Féin.[10]

Thirdly, the decision by John Redmond, the Irish Parliamentary Party leader, to support the British war effort led, as the war dragged on, casualties began to mount and the horrific nature of the conflict became more and more apparent and – crucially – as the threat of conscription began to loom large in Ireland, to a loss of faith in the ability of the Irish Party to stand up to Great Britain in defence of Irish interests and to a consequent mass transfer of support to Sinn Féin.[11]

Those historians who have looked at this period from the point of view of women’s experience, however, have drawn attention to the explanatory importance, in terms of the decline of the Irish Parliamentary Party, of the chauvinistic stance taken by that party towards potential women members. The fact that many of the women who went on to support Sinn Féin had originally been supporters of – and, in some cases, had attempted to become members of – the Irish Parliamentary Party is one reason why writers of women’s history concerning the pre-revolutionary period in Ireland have begun to focus more on the history of late nineteenth and early twentieth century constitutional nationalism than has been the case with more mainstream historians. For example, the historian Senia Pašeta’s book Before the Revolution[12] which, while not strictly written as women’s history, does have a strong focus on gender issues and on the activities and experiences of women, explores in detail the culture and politics of home rule supporters during this period.

It is clear that there were a significant number of women who supported constitutional nationalism and wanted to become involved in party activity, and who attempted to pressure the Irish Parliamentary Party into becoming a more welcoming environment for female members. However, as Pašeta has noted, the Party became “ever more resolutely opposed to female participation as the years passed”.[13] The result was that many moderate nationalist women either became discouraged by the resistance they experienced and eventually gave up the attempt to become involved in nationalist political activism altogether, or they simply washed their hands of the Irish Party and instead joined and became active in Sinn Féin. Even for those women who were not particularly politically active, or whose politics were not necessarily focused on a nationalist agenda, the contrast between the attitude of Sinn Féin towards potential women members and that of the National Party was such that it may have persuaded many women to choose Sinn Féin as the most worthy recipient of their vote in 1918.  This is a plausible interpretation of how Sinn Féin’s electoral victory in 1918 came about, particularly since that occasion marked the first time that women (albeit only those over the age of 30 and meeting certain property or educational qualifications) had been allowed to vote in general elections in the United Kingdom.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

---

[1] M. Laffan, The Resurrection of Ireland: The Sinn Féin Party, 1916-1923 (Cambridge, 1999), p. 3.

[2] C. Townshend, ‘Historiography: Telling the Irish Revolution’ in J. Augusteijn (ed.), The Irish Revolution, 1913-1923 (Basingstoke, 2002), pp. 1-16, p. 4-5.

[3] Townshend, ‘Historiography’, p. 2.

[4] Townshend, ‘Historiography’, p. 8

[5] K. Whelan, ‘The Revisionist Debate in Ireland’, boundary 2, 31.1 (2004), pp. 179-205,  pp. 187-191.

[6] R. Perry, ‘Revising Irish history: The Northern Ireland conflict and the war of ideas’, Journal of European Studies, 40.4 (2010), pp. 329-354.

[7] G. Bock, ‘Challenging Dichotomies: Perspectives on Women’s History’ in K. Offen, R. Pierson and J. Rendall (eds.), Writing Women’s History: International Perspectives (Basingstoke, 1991), pp. 1-23, p. 1.

[8] C. Townshend, Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion (London, 2005), p. 308.

[9] Townshend, Easter 1916, pp. 314-315.

[10] A. Jackson, Home Rule: An Irish History, 1800-2000 (London, 2003), p. 208.

[11] Marie Coleman, The Irish Revolution, 1916-1923 (Oxford, 2014), p. 33.

[12] S. Pašeta, Before the Revolution: Nationalism, Social Change and Ireland's Catholic Elite, 1879-1922 (Cork, 1999).

[13] S. Pašeta, Irish Nationalist Women, 1900-1918 (Cambridge, 2013), p. 8.