The Religious Conflict in Northern Ireland - Essay Example

Critically evaluate the religious conflict in Northern Ireland using both contemporary and traditional sociological theories. Examine the ways in which the conflict is developed and sustained by religious ideas, actions and organisations. Introduction The discord in Northern Ireland is not just due to a lack of political progress, it is also concerns what theoretical position it is best to take and the most appropriate explanatory perspective. The question has been addressed by a host of different disciplines including the political sciences, history, economics, psychology, sociology, and social anthropology. Within these disciplines there are different approaches and interpretations. What most of them share is that they differ considerably from the common notion of what is at the heart of the conflict. The popular perception usually centres on such things as gang warfare, tribal disputes, or religious animosity or perhaps even an inclination for straight-forward mindless violence. As is so often the case, this turns out to be, if not completely misguided, at least a gross over-simplification of a complex human phenomenon. One of the main aims of this essay will be to illustrate not just how popular myths as to the causes of the Troubles in Northern Ireland are misconceived, but also how some of the more serious attempts to understand the conflict have suffered from a limited appreciation of the multiple factors involved. In order to pursue this goal, it is first necessary to identify the main historical precursors that led to the conflict and the various strategies that were engaged by way of resolution. We will then be in a better position to assess the different theoretical frameworks that have suggested a way forward and to ascertain how they might be applied to the political reality of Northern Ireland from the perspective of religion and secularisation. Historical Perspectives. Even before England became a Protestant country, its brand of Catholicism was different to that of Ireland. Irish Catholicism was deemed to be idiosyncratic because it followed the northern Celtic tradition. So, though both countries were Catholic, differences had already begun to emerge in their respective religious identities. Henry II of England was the first to invade Ireland gaining control over the region around Dublin but the expansion of English influence did not occur until the 16th century with the reign of Elizabeth I. It was during this period that the Ulster clans allied themselves against the invading army. By the time of Elizabeth, however, England had already left the Roman Catholic Church. The break from Catholicism was essentially political and not doctrinal, the Anglican and Catholic services remaining almost identical. It was only after Henry VIII's death and the accession of Edward VI did the tendency towards Lutheran Protestantism begin. It was also during Elizabeth's time, in face of the threat from the Catholic Spanish, that English nationalism became wedded to Protestantism. Eventually, Ulster came to be dominated by the English and Irish leaders sought sanctuary in Europe. Their lands were confiscated and given to colonists from England. As English foreign policy had come into conflict with those of Catholic Europe, Ireland became a convenient 'back door' to European enemies. To counter this problem a program of colonial settlement called the Plantation was embarked upon. Although English settlers were at first encouraged, they were reluctant to take up the invitation and it was the Scots from Galloway, who were already accustomed to travelling to Ulster, who took up the challenge. With the arrival of the Scottish Presbyterians, the native Irish were banished to peripheral lands. There was no deliberate policy of populating Ireland with Scottish Presbyterians as, like the Catholics, they were regarded as dissenters by James 1 of England (Clayton 1998). The counties of Antrim and Down, where Presbyterians were most numerous, did not form part of the Plantation but were independently settled by individuals and families both before and after the Plantation. Here we see an emerging complex picture involving the movement of people independent of official policy and aspirations. Nevertheless, it is true to say that one group, the Irish Catholics, believed that their land had been stolen from them whereas the other, the settlers, supposed that their new-found land was under threat. The 1641 rising by the Catholics, however, was aimed at official settlers, not the Presbyterians, as the latter had been living relatively peacefully together with the native population. The 18th and 19th centuries served to reinforce the differences between settlers and the indigenous people and in 1798 there was an attempt, supported by Presbyterians, to oust the English from Ireland. It was not until the 19th century that Presbyterians and smaller sects came together as the 'Protestant people' in response to the growth in Irish nationalism. Successive attempts were made to overthrow the Union in 1840 with the coming of the Repeal movement and 1870 Home Rule movement, both parliamentary based. Other nationalist, like the Fenians and Republican Brotherhood were dedicated to overthrowing the Union by force. By 1884, and the Third Reform Act, Catholics became an electoral majority, a worrying turn of events for Protestants. During the First World War, in 1916, an armed rising by the Irish Catholics took place, which failed, and its leaders were executed, prompting widespread sympathy amongst the native population. This led to growing support for the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and its political wing, Sinn Fin. After an armed struggle between the IRA and Britain the southern part of Ireland became independent through the 1920 Government of Ireland Act. The partitioning of Ireland came about due to the Protestant wish to make sure that Ulster was not included in the provisions of Home Rule. This amounted to a little more than a demographic compromise. The new arrangement meant that Norhthern Ireland looked after its own domestic affairs while Westminster, in which Ulster was represented by MP's, had ultimate authority. But the struggle for a united Ireland continued throughout the early and mid 20th century. This was encouraged by the open discrimination against Catholics in nearly all spheres of Ulster society, including the social and political. The Civil Rights campaigns of the 1960's set out to put right these injustices, but ended in violence in 1969 when British troops were sent in to enforce order. This provided a spur to the newly formed Provisional IRA and events began to spiral out of control with the result that Westminster suspended the Northern Ireland government and imposed direct rule which continued until 1990's (Darby). Although there have been several attempts at power sharing during the period of the 'Troubles' all were a failure. New hope came with the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the mid 1980's whereby southern Ireland and British governments agreed to co-operate on matters that were of benefit to the future of Northern Ireland. This was opposed by the Protestants, but proved to be a useful mechanism serving to stimulate fruitful co-operation between the various protagonists. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 was an attempt to take the violence out of Northern Irish politics and broker a comprehensive peace deal. In the former, it has largely been successful, though the same hostilities amongst the key political players continues to exist. The search for a lasting solution to the 'Troubles', however, has been frustrated not simply because of the old enmities but also due to the fact that the IRA refused to fully disarm - though the recent announcement that the armed struggle is over and arms are to be put beyond use appears to be a step in the right direction. As Horowitz (1998) sums up the present state of affairs by stating that it would indeed be ironic if a comprehensive agreement were at last to come about in a period of growing moderation whereby those political parties on both sides who have been more likely to compromise increase the strength of the more extreme, polarised parties. In this respect, the two moderate parties, the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) and Social Democratic Labour Party (SDLP) have become overshadowed by the more extreme Sinn Fin and Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Analysing the Nature of the Conflict. A simple reading of the history of conflict in Ireland would seem to suggest that religion is where the root of the problem lies. Religion certainly seems to have played its part, but the question is how much of an influence did it have and what n was the nature of this influence. Some early commentators regarded religion as the prime motivator. Wallis and associates (Wallis et al 1986), for example, follow Durkheim in seeing religion, with its rituals and totems, as a sign helping to preserve social stability through the worshipping of a god. In this sense, an ideal is created to which society looks up to as a defence against uncertainty. In the case of Northern Ireland, religion is seen by Wallis as a badge of identity as part of the inter-group conflict. Bruce (1986) likewise tends to see religion as primary, the effects of which have been reinforced and exacerbated by differences in language, ethnic identity and economic circumstances to the extent that this was bound to lead to a deepening of religious divisions that became embodied in politics. Bruce also takes the view that, although Northern Ireland politics is religious and motivates parties such as the DUP, secular unionists can sometimes be driven to vote for such parties because the link with secular Britain cannot be guaranteed. It is not surprising that the religious explanation has held sway in some quarters when, for example, the Orange Order is open only to Protestants and Unionism sees itself as purely a religious organisation. In addition, many predictors of voter behaviour are based upon religious affinity (McAllister 1983) and intermarriage across the Protestant-Catholic communities is discouraged with schools tending to be divided according to religion (Whyte 1990). However, just because religion is used for political purposes this does not make it a religious conflict. Religion may inform and provide some nourishment to the conflict but this does not make for a religious dispute. Sectarianism usually means mutual dislike between Catholic and Protestant, yet we need to get at the root cause leading to this dislike before the true underlying determinants can be ascertained. For example, although the Orange Order may appear outwardly to be religiously formulated, it may be more accurate to define it in terms of culture, ethnicity and the need to maintain restrictive boundaries (Horowitz, 1977). We will have much more to say about this is due course. Marxists and republicans, for their own particular reasons, have emphasised the importance of imperialism as a determining factor in the conflict. In this regard, Marxists see the Protestants as eventually 'coming round' when they see the error of their ways. Nonetheless, both these groups have tended to downplay the role of the settler period in the dispute. Clayton (1998) believes that rather than seeing the conflict as one of religious rivalry this should be replaced with an analysis based on how settler colonial origins of the six counties still play an important role in the modern era. The settler mentality is regarded as particularly durable in Ulster with the province retaining the key elements of a settler society, including boundaries to ensure a Protestant majority with no guarantee of minority rights. From this perspective, religion becomes a way of realising identity that helps promote ethnic and settler colonial divisions but is not the cause of these divisions. Ethnicity has, in fact, been invoked by a number of theorists as the primary determining agent with religion merely acting as one means by which this can be reinforced. Ethnicity has been defined as those groups who believe in a common descent due to a correspondence of physical type or customs or memories of colonisation and migration (Sinnottir and Davis 1981). Once ethnicity has been established various means can be devised to accentuate differences such as emblems, banners and other cultural markers of identity (Jarman 1997). Ethnic conflict can therefore be determined in multiple ways - differences in religion, ethnic origin, settler/native provenance/nationality or structures of equality, all of which could be applied to Northern Ireland. Developments in ethnic conflict can be influenced by changing ethnic power balance as part of the wider struggle for power resources. Incentives for negotiation in this scenario depend not just on the changing ethnic demography but is also affected by the involvement of the British and southern Irish states, as well as international alliances and global process (Ruane and Todd 2003) e.g. the positive effects of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the general attitude of the West towards terrorism. McGarry and Leary (1995) similarly argue that the conflict is primarily ethno-emotional that involves a systematic quarrel between competing political organisations. They see ethnic communities as made up of kinship groups who share a subjective belief in a common ancestry, history and culture that becomes more pronounced in a situation where society is prone to antagonistic disputes, especially when this is on a nationalistic level. Communities may therefore have a real of imagined sense of kinship that helps to explain the persuasiveness and persistence of ethno-nationalism. This satisfies the need to belong and often leads to such slogans as 'an attack on one is regarded as an attack on all'. Although there is some support for the notion that the Northern Ireland conflict is based upon ethnicity, this view is by no means unanimous. For example, Taylor (2001) criticises the concept of consociationism that is based on ethno-nationalistic thinking. Consociationists see the conflict as an ethno-nationalistic dispute and the best route for a solution resides at the elite level where conflicting ideologies can be accommodated through constitutional engineering whereby collective group structures and interests are granted equality and autonomy. This requires the recognition of the prevailing divisions and plays down the role of integration. In fact, exposure to another group is seen as encouraging group solidarity rather than defusing it (McGarry and O'Leary 1995). Consociationism can thus be interpreted as a means of regulating conflict rather than transforming it. The social transformation model is offered as an alternative to consociationism precisely because it endeavours to transform the conflict, not regulate it, by extending democracy and challenge ethnicity, thereby cutting across ethno-national boundaries to create new relationships of mutuality and co-operation. This process is also envisaged to take place on a micro social level through such things as local democracy, encouraging integrated education and housing etc. People are regarded as active agents in this dynamic able to change things for the better whereas consociationism tends to ignore the individual as relevant to change by concentrating on elite structures. The Social Transformation approach to the conflict therefore takes a more 'bottom-up' view of how change can come about in Northern Ireland. In effect, the two approaches need not be seen as mutually exclusive, as given that the elite are able to remain sensitive to the views and needs of those they represent and can translate these into policies, there will be a positive interaction between 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' structures to the benefit of the peace process. In concluding this section on the more conventional socio-political approaches to the Northern Ireland issue, there seems to be some general agreement that the conflict should not be interpreted in terms of religion. Rather it needs to be seen from the broader perspective of an ethnic conflict that has come about through a number of diverse factors, including, amongst others, migration, territoriality, settlement, nationalism. discrimination, and international affairs. Religion has played a role but only one as part of a complicated multi-faceted dynamic. Alternatives to Traditional Theories Traditionally inclined theories have tended to approach the Northern Ireland conflict from a socio-political direction by looking at the key areas and proponents and examining how they might interact. Alternative theories tend to see the conflict from a much wider, detached standpoint by taking on board the finding of psychology, ethology, anthropology, evolution, and such like. Such approaches allow the complex behavioural aspects of the conflict to be investigated at a more fundamental level. This can provide useful insights both to how the conflict has arisen and been sustained as well as potential solutions. The starting point for considering the Northern Ireland situation from this position is in the disagreement amongst social scientists as to whether the conflict can best be seen in terms of a conscious, socially determined paradigm or, alternatively, comes out of an unconscious, irrational striving that ends in social dysfunction. Most of the theories we have been considering so far may be defined in terms of the former and tend to be classical. They focus on the macro side of the conflict involving the dynamic interaction between groups, whether this is at the institutional ethnic, class, or ideological level. The behavioural approach concentrates more on the individual and the role of the unconscious. The advantage of this line of attack is that it allows tacit motivational aspects that determine human behaviour to be brought into the debate. Behaviourists hold that there is an intimate relationship between conflict as expressed at an individual level and that which is found in the more general social arena. Simply put, behaviourists believe in the pre-eminence of the stimulus- response, the analysis of which can provide insights into whether humans possess traits that lead to aggressive behaviour. Extrapolating from the particular to the general thereby allows inferences to be made about human behaviour in broader terms. However, this kind of approach, although it might be applicable at the micro level for understanding the rudimentary mechanisms of behaviour, tends to ignore the fact that between a stimulus and a response there is a complex interplay of cognitive factors that intervene. The behaviourist additionally put forward the frustration hypothesis whereby the frustration of personal needs can lead to aggression. Unfortunately for this side of the theory, no direct link has been found between these two components. Similarly, with the biological/ethological approach, though animals might have an instinctive reflex to be aggressive in certain situations, in humans this has been shaped and transformed through social conditioning - which again underlines the importance of cognitive factors in understanding human behaviour. Behaviourists also believe that most if not all behaviour is learned by way of particular social circumstances, thus providing the context for aggression towards outgroups. Known as Learning and Social Identity theories, this process may be observed in how schools and parents in Belfast raise their children according to whether they are Protestant or Catholic. Creating a social identity in this way helps to create and cement social cohesion while, at the same time, simplifying external relations. Social identity theory, therefore, emphasises the importance of ingroups and outgroups in Northern Irish communities that are underwritten by kinship alliances (thereby echoing McGarry and Leary's kinship groups mentioned above). Behavioural and social identity theory obviously only takes account of a limited range of criteria in this debate. As we also need to take into account the cognitive aspects of human behaviour, macro theories can be useful in helping to bridge the gap. Group competition is the principal mechanism underpinning macro accounts that are consciously realised as part of a struggle for material resources and power. The term ethnic or sectarian, as applied to the various groups, in this reading of events, makes little difference, as the conflict in each case operates in the same way. The crucial fact is that each group has created a discrete identity to the extent that they view each other as the enemy or outgroup. We have already seen how important the concept of ethnic conflict theory has been for various investigators, particularly Horowitz. Horowitz (1985) makes the further useful point that the modern state has come to provide the framework for the playing out of the ethnic conflict. Moreover, because ethnic concerns have invaded all areas of institutional administration and government in Northern Ireland this has led to an overly convoluted situation that makes the task of achieving conflict resolution even more intractable. The goal of an ethnic group is ideally to gain control at the expense of the outgroup, so any mechanism that can be employed by the latter to frustrate the aims of the former is exploited. Translated into Northern Ireland politics, when the Civil Rights movement came to an end, the Catholics raised the stakes by making more extreme demands, autonomy now becoming the main aim, to further frustrate and put pressure on the Protestants. The demands were subsequently and successively raised further until zero-sum became the aim of both protagonists and a full-blown ethno-nationalist conflict broke out. Some authors argue that nationalism is rooted in mass sentiment and not in the motives of the elites (Cunningham), which reflects Taylor's critique of consociationism. The inference here is that legitimacy for action should be first gauged through such things as referenda. Cunningham also emphasises the fact that emotion is a powerful source of motivation in the Northern Ireland conflict as materialistic consideration might not always take priority because people often die for their passions as much as they do for their interests. Although both the micro and macro approaches make some interesting points, they do not take into account of each others biases and are therefore unable to offer a solution to the conflict. The need therefore arises for a theory that can satisfy this deficiency through assimilation of the various positions. This requirement has the potential of being met by combining the viewpoints of the Enemy Systems Theory and Human Needs Theory. Enemy Systems Theory is based on the premise that humans have a deep-seated psychological proclivity to categorise the world into opposites, e.g. good/bad, black/white, pleasure/pain, friend/foe and so on (Volkan 1990). Structuralist theory comes to much the same conclusion in analysing the way language is ordered. Categorisation of this order can be applied to both the individual and group and stems from the striving to attain identity. These dichotomies come to be fashioned in childhood through interaction with parents and family through to the group, community, etc., eventually leading to ethnic national identity. Furthermore, they can become the subconscious building blocks of prejudice and intolerance. Communities identity may become accentuated when a fault line runs through a society, such as exist between Protestants and Catholics, e. g. as represented in constitutional disputes and cultural differences. In conditions of threat, this fault line becomes accentuated and the sense of us and them increases. This may be fuelled even further by the fear of violence or annihilation. The fault line therefore deepens in both real and abstract terms engendering a siege mentality accompanied by intransigent slogans. Because this mentality nurtures an inward looking perspective, individuals are unable to see beyond their own concerns. At the extreme, it leads to mindless terrorism as the enemy on the other side of the fault line comes to be regarded as something less than human. These factors are entwined with the sense of loss that comes when land is taken away from a person or group as much as when someone close dies. In the case of republicans, they can be said to suffer from what is termed complicated mourning (which is akin to inconsolable grief) due to the loss of Ulster, whereas the Protestants suffered the loss of Stormont which was dissolved. These and other main points of Enemy Systems Theory can be summarised as follows. 1. Demonization - projecting negative images onto enemies, particularly leaders. 2. Dehumanisation - regarding humans as less than human. 3. Chosen Traumas - relates to a particular important loss that the group comes to be known by. 4. Conversion - whereby victims of a conflict become converted to terrorism. The above factors serve to prolong conflict and amplify historical antagonisms. Enemy Systems Theory, although behaviourally inclined, offers a potent analysis of conflict that can account for unacceptable behaviour, such as terrorism and ethnic strife. It also provides the opportunity of a synthesis that can combine elements of psychology with macro level theories of group conflict. Human Needs Theory takes the view that humans have rudimentary needs that require to be met if a stable society is to be achieved and maintained. It has some characteristics in common with behavioural/biological approaches in positing that, especially in times of conflict and adversity, individuals strive to satisfy basic, primordial, universal wants e.g. security, identity, etc. To achieve these goals it is necessary to gain control of the environment but because the need is innately defined it cannot easily be curbed (Burton 1991). This theory also relates to the Frustration-Aggression theory, that is if basic primordial needs are not satisfied, for whatever reason, then dissatisfaction arises with the frustration finally turning to violence. Seen from the standpoint of the Northern Ireland conflict, because fundamental needs can be controlled by institutions, it is incumbent on these institutions to ensure that such needs are met through the appropriate policies, otherwise conflict will inevitably ensue. The needs of both factions in Northern Ireland therefore require to be acknowledged and embodied in reliable institutions that have the appropriate powers to guarantee their satisfaction. Conflict Resolution Theory is about finding a permanent solution to a problem rather than just seeking to manage a situation or reach a settlement and emphasises the importance of individual power rather then power politics (Burton 1991). This approach shows the value in people working out their own problems with some help from extraneous parties who may act to encourage the process. In a conflict situation both parties require to be made aware of the fact that the other side may have just as many justifiable claims as themselves. Human Needs and Conflict Resolution Theory then, both highlight the necessity for change if a stalemate is to be avoided - a process that can only occur through what is termed two-track diplomacy. This strategy involves unofficial, informal negotiations, among lower-ranked and ordinary individuals. The aim is to influence public opinion, not by imposition from above, but through a softly-softly approach that attempts to win round public opinion in the quest for change and flexibility. It does not, however, take the place of elite negotiations but helps to supplement and complement them. As traditional approaches, almost without exception, have been a dismal failure, the two-track approach offers the best opportunity for reaching a permanent settlement. Its main advantage is the confidence-building measures instituted through community forums and workshops that can illustrate how change can lead from a zero-sum to a win-win situation. Stressing such things as cross-border co-operation to the economic advantage of both communities would be am example of this. These kinds of strategies should be aimed particularly at the working class of Northern Ireland who have been affected the most by the dispute. This will involve a gradual, long term process of confidence-building and there are some signs that this has already borne fruit in Northern Ireland in the slow march toward a permanent resolution. For the two-track approach, to be effective, however, sceptical, and often cynical, members of a community must first be convinced of the wisdom of informal meetings and the like. In a long-suffering and entrenched society like Northern Ireland, this will be no easy task, yet as the political situation continues to thaw, it is likely to become an increasing valuable one. Conclusion We have seen how the role of religion in this story is part of a complex matrix of socio-cultural factors and not the deciding issue. With the wisdom of hindsight it is possible to see how the various strands in the history of Ireland, of which religion was one, set the scene for strife. Ethno-nationalism provided a useful concept against which the conflict could be more usefully analysed. Despite the many years to do so, traditional approaches to the conflict in Northern Ireland have been unable to meet the challenge of creating a viable solution to the Troubles. This is because they were largely based on elite politicians who were detached from the events of local people and therefore attempted to resolve issues in terms of generalised abstractions that were imposed top down. Traditional approaches, in relying on mediation and negotiated settlements, have failed in Northern Ireland probably because the Catholics have had little to bargain with, whereas the Protestants had everything to lose. Due to this imbalance the likelihood of meaningful negotiations taking place was bound to be limited in the extreme. This may be one of the main reasons why some Catholics elected to resort to violence so they had something tangible to bring to the negotiating table. History seems to bear this out, when the British government went behind the scenes in holding secret talks with the IRA., this eventually led to the Good Friday Agreement. In the last resort, compromise from both sides seems to be the only available option and the twin-track approach seems to provide the best opportunity for achieving this. Although there is no overarching explanatory framework that can yet bring macro and micro theories together, there has been some progress with Conflict Resolution, Enemy Systems, and Human Needs theories. Perhaps the way forward would be to formulate how these theories might potentially be capable of being assimilated within the context of a psycho-social synthesis that shows how particularities can relate, in more specific terms, to general criteria. References. Burton, J. 1991. Conflict Resolution as a Political System. In, The Psychodynamics of International Relationships. Vol. II. Unofficial Diplomacy at Work. V. Volkan et al (eds). Lexington, MA: Lexington. Bruce, S. 1986. 'God Save Ulster!' The Religion and Politics of Paisleyism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clayton, P. 1998. Religion, ethnicity and colonialism as explanations of the Northern Ireland conflict. pp. 40-45 In, Rethinking the Northern Ireland Conflict - Culture, Ideology and Colonialism. David Miller (ed.) Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Cunningham, W. B. Theoretical Framework for Conflict Resolution. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ Darby, J. Conflict in Northern Ireland: A Background Essay. (From 'Facets of the Conflict in Northern Ireland'. Macmillan Press) http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ Horowitz, D. L. 1977. Cultural movements and ethnic change. American Academy of Political and Social Science, Annals. 433. pp. 6-18. Horowitz, D. L. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press. Horowitz, D. L. 1998. The Northern Ireland Agreement: Clear, Consociational, and Risky. pp. 89-105. In, Rethinking the Northern Ireland Conflict - Culture, Ideology and Colonialism. David Miller (ed.) Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Jarman, N.1997. Material Conflicts - Parades and Visual Displays in Northern Ireland. Oxford: Berg. McAllister, I. 1983. Political attitudes, partnership. and social structure in Northern Ireland. Economic and Social Review. 14 (3), pp. 185-200. McGarry, J. and O'Leary, B. 1995. Time for Peace - Explaining Northern Ireland. Oxford: Blackwell. McGarry, J. and O'Leary, B. 1995. Five Fallacies: Northern Ireland and the Liabilities of Liberalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 18 (4) p. 848. Ruane, J. and Todd, J. 2003. Northern Ireland - Religion, Ethnic Conflict and Territory. pp. 45-72. In, The Territorial Management of Ethnic Conflict. J. Coakley (ed.) London: Frank Cass. Sinnottir and Davis, E. E. 1981. Political mobilisation, political institutionalisation and the maintenance of ethnic conflict. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 4 (4). pp. 398-414. Volkan, V. D. 1990. An Overview of Psychological Concepts Pertinent to Interethnic and/or International Relationships. In, The Psychodynamics of International Relationships. Vol. 1. Concepts and Theories. Lexington, MA: Lexington. Whyte, J. 1990. Interpreting Northern Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wallis, R., Bruce, S., and Taylor, D. 1986. 'No Surrender': Paisleyism and the Politics of Ethnic Identity in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Department of Social Studies, Oueens University. Read More