ECMI Minorities Blog. Debates on Language Rights in Northern Ireland: Beyond Parallel Structures?

Philip McDermott & Mairéad Nic Craith

2024-07-19

The Cultúrlann (Irish language cultural centre) in the city of Derry. Organisations such as these promote language and culture and have been involved in campaigns for better Irish language legislation.

*** The blog posts are prepared by the authors in their personal capacity. The views expressed in the blog posts are the sole responsibility of the authors concerned and do not necessarily reflect the view of the European Centre for Minority Issues. ***

Authors: Philip McDermott & Mairéad Nic Craith | https://doi.org/10.53779/ABVA2667

* Dr Philip McDermott is a senior lecturer in sociology at Ulster University in Northern Ireland. He has published widely on issues relating to cultural identity in post-conflist settings. p.mcdermott@ulster.ac.uk

* Professor Mairéad NicCraith is Professor of Public Folklore at the University of the Highlands and Islands, Scotland. She is the author of several books exploring identity politics and language issues in the Northern Ireland and European context. Mairead.niccraith@uhi.ac.uk

Introduction

January 27^th 2024, was a momentous day in Northern Ireland as the devolved government convened for the first time in two years and appointed Sinn Féin’s (SF) Michelle O’Neill as the region’s very first Irish nationalist First Minister. Emma Little-Pengelly, of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was nominated as Deputy First Minister. While both roles are defined as equal under the terms of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Peace Agreement, O’Neill’s new position as ‘First’ minister can be deemed as more than mere symbolism. This change reflects subtle demographic shifts which have the potential to impact on debates about Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the years ahead. The devolved government in Belfast collapsed in 2022 after the DUP withdrew its support from the mandatory power-sharing coalition government. This was in protest at the post-Brexit deal agreed between the UK and the European Union. Many unionists have felt that the arrangements after Brexit, which aimed to avoid a hard border on the island, created trading borders between Northern Ireland and Great Britain (in the Irish Sea). This, for unionists, was not a post-Brexit solution but instead economically and symbolically dissipated the region’s status as a constituent part of the United Kingdom. In this environment, the added dimension of rights and identity claims have come to be situated within a brittle landscape. One such issue relates to the question of language rights and policy – especially pertaining to the Irish language but also to the Ulster-Scots language tradition.

Policy and Legislative Developments 2016-2024

Affinity to either the Irish language, or the regional vernacular of Ulster-Scots, have often, rather simplistically, been aligned to Irish or British identities respectively. The government have collected figures on the speaking of Irish in the region since 1991 and on Ulster-Scots since 2011. The 2021 census illustrated that 12.4% (228,660 people) of the population aged 3 and over had ‘some knowledge’ of Irish. This represented an increase from 10.7% in the 2011 Census. The respective figure for Ulster-Scots is 10.4% or 190,600 people. The previous census recorded 8.1% of the population with some knowledge of Ulster-Scots. As Nic Craith notes, while census figures may not provide the most effective data in determining daily use, or even in capturing actual levels of fluency, they do indicate people’s affinity towards each language. Even for non-speakers of either language, the recognition (or non-recognition) in law and policy can inculcate deep emotion aligned with individual and collective senses of their identity.

Decisions and policies around language are often controversial and are sometimes viewed alongside Northern Ireland’s constitutional question. For example, the enhanced visibility of Irish, in particular, can be viewed by many in the unionist political establishment as a cultural route to unification of the island. Stipulations around language rights have been evident at several stages of the ongoing peace process from the late 1990s. At the end of the 30-year conflict known as the ‘Troubles’, which cost the lives of more than 3,500 people and left over 50,000 injured, a peace process instigated a regional devolved government. This was built on a principle of powersharing, under a rubric of ‘parity of esteem’. The public domain, for example, was expected to be more open to the recognition of both British and Irish traditions. The 1998 Peace Agreement and the later 2006 St Andrew’s Agreement espoused government commitments to develop better policies for regional languages such as Irish and Ulster-Scots. However, while the peace process agenda noted the desirability of incorporating language rights more fully, actual implementation and agreement on this has proven volatile in the intervening two and a half decades.

A further barrier to the development of language rights and the implementation of policy has been political instability. In the tumultuous period after the Brexit referendum, the Belfast government was inactive between 2017-2020 and then again between 2022-2024. Indeed, the 2017-2020 hiatus was partly a consequence of failures to implement local language legislation for Irish. In this governance vacuum, Westminster proceeded to approve several pieces of legislation directly from London. Ironically, such legislation would probably have failed to pass through the local system of governance in Northern Ireland due to frequent ethno-political bickering. Among the changes introduced was the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 which aimed to advance the status of both Irish and Ulster-Scots. Undeniably, the Act’s implementation was a culmination of many other factors including several decades of activism and the increasing use of a rights-based discourse from individual speakers, advocacy agencies and social campaigns. Examples of these include a campaign for better Irish language rights such as the Dream Dearg (the Red Crew) led by young people. These campaigns had advocated for better recognition of language rights through public marches, consistent lobbying of government, and social media campaigns. In many ways the 2022 legislation was also a culmination of their actions.

The Act contains provisions around the need to recognise the diversity of identities and cultures in Northern Ireland and provides a potential framework for the management of linguistic and cultural diversity. Regulations include the establishment of an Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, the aim of which is to build cultural pluralism and establish two language commissioners to support the development of Irish and Ulster-British traditions (including the Ulster-Scots language). Both roles will also be expected to determine standards for public authorities – especially in relation to the visibility and use of the languages by such bodies. However, at the point of writing, neither commissioner has been appointed by the First and Deputy First Ministers. Further details about the establishment of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression and its role have also not been formulated. Neither has the level of collaborative work required across both language traditions – a point to which we shall return.

A further variable in the fortcoming policy landscape is the recent change in government in the UK with the Labour Party, under the premiership of Keir Starmer, winning a landslide general election in July 2024. In the early years of the peace process, Starmer acted as a human rights advisor on issues relating to policing in Northern Ireland and for that reason he is likely more aware of identity matters in the region than his recent predecessors. While the implementation of the Identity and Language Act is largely the responsibility of the devolved administration in Belfast, pressure is likely to come from Westminster, and indeed from the Irish government in Dublin, if these issues start to destablise the political process in Northern Ireland. Whether or not the change of government has a positive influence on the implementation of the Identity and Language Act remains to be seen.

Language Policy as Reconciliation Policy?

Despite the views and actions of political elites in relation to language, the realities amongst the general population are often more complex and fluid. Many advocates of both Irish and Ulster-Scots argue that each should be viewed as apolitical and separate from political antagonism. One example of this is the increased number of those from the protestant/unionist tradition who have joined Irish language classes established within their own communities. These approaches suggest that the wider plural agenda of the peace process in some sections of society created conditions where some people feel free to learn, speak or engage with a language previously associated with their ‘enemy’ but of which they are curious. There does, however, continue to be evidence of the more entrenched ethnolinguistic interpretations where the actions of such learners are viewed with suspicion by others within their own communities. Irish or Ulster-Scots can thus continue to be rejected because of their perception as badges of certain types of political identity.

Given these complex circumstances, the introduction of the Identity and Language Act is not a simple task. Rather, the implementation needs to consider more seriously the wider dynamics of peace and reconciliation. As noted, language matters have often been considered as amongst the most intractable of issues and due to the nature of the political structures in Northern Ireland have required cross-community consensus in their implementation. This includes in seemingly mundane decisions such as the enhanced visibility of Irish and Ulster-Scots through public signage. Such actions are sometimes considered as contentious given the symbolic meaning of language and the already existing segregated nature of territory in the region. Indeed, in many cases signage in local council areas have been vandalised and defaced.

We argue that in the implementation of the Identity and Language Act, mechanisms are required that foster the conditions for better collaboration between different communities on language matters. Inculcating respect for linguistic diversity and cultural pluralism is noted in the Identity and Language Act as a core function of the new Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. We argue that cross-fertilisation around linguistic heritage should be a core element of the new body’s work, lest language policy itself becomes a continuing, or even exacerbated, battleground of identity politics. Trends in Northern Ireland’s language policy, thus far, follow an approach defined in the academic literature on pluralism as ‘accommodationist’, rather, than intercultural. In this context, policy objectives and structures appear to focus on a notion applied to much of Northern Ireland’s consociational system of governance that “high fences make good neighbours”. In other words, policy for Irish is viewed by many political elites as an accommodation for those from the Irish nationalist tradition, while policy around Ulster-Scots is similarly viewed in the same way to those from the unionist population.

Despite the upcoming establishment of an Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, it is possible that at best a politics of linguistic accommodation will continue and at worst a politics of antagonism will take hold unless the Act’s implementation is situated strongly within wider considerations around reconciliation. At the opening session of the reconvened regional Assembly on 27^thJanuary 2024, it was widely assumed that the nationalist Sinn Féin party would opt for the communities ministry, which includes responsibility for areas such as Irish language policy. Instead, the DUP's Paul Givan took the role. The DUP also obtained the portfolio for education, a hugely important area in the context of any language movement. Givan’s party has frequently been amongst the most sceptical in the advancement of Irish language rights which led to some trepidation among Irish language activists that the DUP would be unsympathetic and/or obstructive in furthering the Identity and Language Act. Commenting about this on Twitter (formerly X) Dr Padraig Ó Tiarnaigh, communications manager with the advocacy agency Conradh na Gaeilge wrote:

An incredibly disappointing afternoon at Stormont for Irish language community. No mention of Irish language rights, legislation or Commissioner as priorities in any opening speeches. DUP walk away with Communities (Irish lang) & Education (IME) [Irish Medium Education]. Storm clouds ahead 😪 Droch lá [bad day]

On the first day of nominations of ministerial portfolios in the Northern Ireland Executive it was also notable that speeches from both the First and Deputy First Ministers focused on broader assertions around the need for respect of diversity and equality, rather than laying out how these principles would specifically apply to the Identity and Language Act. In March 2024, evidence was presented to a government committee for the first time through the medium of Irish using interpretation which was a positive starting point. However, at the time of writing this piece (July 2024), commissioners have still not been appointed. On 10^th June 2024, the Deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly (of the DUP), noted during discussions in the Northern Ireland Assembly that the delays were largely caused by the bureaucracy. She commented, “[t]hey are public appointments. They are also statutory bodies. They are brand new. Therefore, considerable work has been done on their establishment through the legislation. Because they are public appointments regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments”.

In principle, the forthcoming appointment of new language commissioners in Northern Ireland might seem like progress, but reservations have been expressed at an international level about the potential implications of these roles. Reporting on the UK’s implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (December 2022), a committee of experts suggested that the proposals for the Language and Identity Act “further contribute to the sectarianism surrounding cultural questions” because “the naming of a commissioner for Ulster Scots as for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition unnecessarily conflates this minority identity with a distinct political one”. Thus, the conflation between a regional linguistic identity and a national identity has the potential to be institutionalised further in this process and continue to build high walls between neighbours.

Beyond Parallel Structures

As we have indicated, language issues are far more significant than is often recognised for stability in Northern Ireland. In our own research over the past two decades, we have observed how language rights in the region are continually framed around a simple interpretation of an ethno-political divide which often fails to recognise the more complex experiences of identities at grassroots level. This is frequently the case in many other post-conflict settings. Our research has also considered how political elites have frequently failed to acknowledge the existence of small groups and individuals who engage with and learn a language not ordinarily associated with their own political tradition. We explored this phenomenon in a previous article where we analysed how and why protestants/unionists, in particular, have started to engage with Irish language learning projects whilst not compromising their own senses of Britishness. These occurrences have arisen despite resistance from others in their ‘own’ community.

A key aspect to our argument is the need for policy interventions which support the development of distinct types of dialogue about language and which have transformative potential. These are:

1) Intracultural (dialogue within a particular community)

2) Intercultural (dialogue across/between communities)

The example of protestants learning the Irish language and simultaneously discussing the nature and relevance of the language to them within their own community settings can be viewed as an example of intracultural dialogue. A later cross community initiative about language heritage involving both unionist and nationalist communities together might be considered as an example of intercultural dialogue. Both types of work we argue are important and should be publicly financed as they potentially play an important role in bridging and building longer-term support from the wider population and in the success of language policy and legislation itself.

A challenge though is that often in Northern Ireland intracultural projects can be construed as what has come to be termed as ‘single identity’ work. This is because such interventions involve members of the one ethnoreligious/ethnopolitical grouping. Therefore, these approaches can be criticised as potentially divisive as they are viewed as segmenting different communities and also as inward facing or insular. However, we argue that this type of work need not be considered negatively as ‘single identity’, but rather can be multi-vocal and potentially empowering to marginalised voices within a given community. Intracultural dialogue such as that of unionists learning Irish, and indeed of Irish nationalists engaging with Ulster Scots heritage and tradition, is significant if it occurs within safe spaces/locations that such communities are familiar with like community centres or local libraries. These settings provide an environment for new conversations to occur about the fluidity and complexity of cultural identity. A further reason for the significance of this intracultural work is that such conversations lay the foundations for later and necessary intercultural dialogue which bridge across communities.

Historically, there has been a lack of a formal, long-term structure at state-level in Northern Ireland to support the complexity of such dialogue on the language issue both within and across communities. This is despite international recognition that dialogue is a necessary factor in language policy, such as in the OSCE’s Ljubljana Guidelines on Integration of Diverse Societies, which note that “integration policies should include measures that encourage cross-community dialogue and interaction based on tolerance and mutual respect. This covers a broad range of initiatives in various fields, including education, media and language policy” (2012, p.21) [our emphasis].

Without further clarity around the roles of the commissioners and the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, language policy in Northern Ireland may become simple rhetorical gestures. While bringing forward legislation on the two languages simultaneously clearly has merits, lack of specific planning risks further entrenchment of the ‘tit-for-tat’ approaches which has characterised recent developments. In our view it is time to move beyond the parallel structures that have dominated the linguistic landscape in Ireland for decades.

One area that we suggest requires further innovation is in the use of available data. Recent censuses have allowed people to record their ability in Irish and Ulster-Scots, as well as numerous other languages associated with immigration. However, there is an opportunity to report more widely on the numbers who have identified ability in both Irish and Ulster-Scots. At present, there continues to be an implicit “either-or-assumption” when government agencies report on the data which reflects the parallel/segmented thinking in this area. Our view is that there is potentially a group who speak and feel good-will towards both forms of speech and that the narratives of these individuals can be drawn on as a resource which could be highly influential in bringing about wider positive change.

We argue that the role of the two commissioners needs to be framed within a strongly collaborative context to facilitate the necessary dialogue within and across communities. Also the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression should have a crucial position in establishing and facilitating formal collaborative working between the two commissioners. This early stage of the implementation of the Identity and Language Act is the perfect moment to develop such bridging mechanisms between the two commissioners. The potential of an Office of Identity and Cultural Expression to foster intra and intercultural dialogues is huge, but it will require a bold and forward-looking strategy which recognises opportunities for collaboration within and between different language groups. Time will tell if we go beyond simple parallel structures or see an appreciation of the important role of the region’s shared language heritage in fostering reconciliation. In this context, the implementation of language legislation and the need to advance community relations should not be separated.

ECMI Minorities Blog. Debates on Language Rights in Northern Ireland: Beyond Parallel Structures?

Introduction

Policy and Legislative Developments 2016-2024

Language Policy as Reconciliation Policy?

Beyond Parallel Structures

Further Reading

ECMI Founders