GFA: The Anchoring Point for British Meaning on Irish Desire

[Cael]

There is nothing more disturbing than the desire of another. The desire embodied in the articulated demand of Republican Ireland has been a trauma for the British state at several points throughout the last ninety years. This demand has activated several drives in the British ruling elite (e.g. fear, loathing, suspicion), followed by recognition and finally some form of political action. British rulers may ask themselves "Why do I desire to address the problem of Irish unrest?" and the answer must come "Because I desire to......." In other words the answer to the problem must always be framed in the desire of the British - not of the Irish.

In the twenty five years before the GFA the British could find no other solution but rather crude metaphoric subtitutions. The subjectivity of the individual Republican activist was diminished and finally obliterated in official discourse by the substitution of signifiers such as "terrorist" "gunman" "man of violence" "cowardly thug". His or her activity was signified as "mindless violence" "pathological gangsterism" ect. Naturally, such a discourse legitimised British desire in Ireland - to the point of equating this desire with objective reality, and as such completely veiling this desire so that it could be said not to even exist. British law was The Law. Republican desire, on the other hand was highlighted as something highly perverse, dangerous and unintellegible.

It was not a very good solution, however, as the ethical acts of Volunteers such as Bobby Sands constantly reiterated a pure desire that was difficult to obfuscate by metaphoric substitution.

The words chosen to convey any speaking being's desire are always saturated by pre-configured meaning and the idealogical content of the discourse he speaks from within. Such ethical acts as the Hunger Strikes exposed an inconsistancy in thought as carried thoughout the speech of the British and their native allies. They subverted British desire by threatening to expose it as subjective desire and not the Objective Law.

The GFA has so far proven a useful (to the British) form of recognition and political action. The anomaly of calling Volunteers who are willing to give their lives for their cause "mindless thugs" "pathological terrorists" and "Godfathers" is neatly solved by saying "Yes, indeed, we will let them all out of prison now, because they were indeed fighting for equal rights as British citizens - and thats exactly what we are going to give them." Neutralisation, resolution, reconciliation and a civil commitment to equal law and order for all. The Law. Law and Order. British desire does not exist in this new order - its what the Irish themselves voted for. Respect for normative living, esteem-appropriate speech and thought - assimulation, incorporation. Those who remain outside the loop are not to be refered to as Republicans (Republicans were fighting for the right to become Crown Ministers), but are to be dismissed as "dissident republicans."

Irish desire is normalised, de-pathologised, de-traumatised and homogenised - by the force of British desire embodied in the production of meaning and expressed in the GFA.

[jerryp]

Sorry, would you run that by me again ?

[smiffy]

There is nothing more disturbing than the desire of another.

Except for the film Saw 2.

[joemomma]

The GFA is back on the psychoanalyst's couch I see. Franz Fanon has a lot to answer for.

[smiffy]

The GFA is back on the psychoanalyst's couch I see. Franz Fanon has a lot to answer for.

Still, though. Take me out is incredibly catchy.

[Pidge]

Ah, Cael, I see you've been here.

[Worldbystorm]

There is nothing more disturbing than the desire of another. The desire embodied in the articulated demand of Republican Ireland has been a trauma for the British state at several points throughout the last ninety years. This demand has activated several drives in the British ruling elite (e.g. fear, loathing, suspicion), followed by recognition and finally some form of political action. British rulers may ask themselves "Why do I desire to address the problem of Irish unrest?" and the answer must come "Because I desire to......." In other words the answer to the problem must always be framed in the desire of the British - not of the Irish.

Really? Sometimes it's kind of nice. And if you mean you're speaking metaphorically or in a psychological sense I'd still argue sometimes it's kind of nice.

Er...how about the entirely natural desire to have a polity that is peaceful? Or perhaps another vestigial or residual loyalty or sense of obligation to a national minority which has pledged it's allegiance. What about considering that the nature of the British state has changed so significantly during this period, from centralisation to devolution, from elitist rule to more broadly based democratic representation, from limited male suffrage to general suffrage, from a monocultural state to a multi-cultural one, from being a colonial power to not being one, etc, etc. But no, it's all about desire.

In the twenty five years before the GFA the British could find no other solution but rather crude metaphoric subtitutions. The subjectivity of the individual Republican activist was diminished and finally obliterated in official discourse by the substitution of signifiers such as "terrorist" "gunman" "man of violence" "cowardly thug". His or her activity was signified as "mindless violence" "pathological gangsterism" ect. Naturally, such a discourse legitimised British desire in Ireland - to the point of equating this desire with objective reality, and as such completely veiling this desire so that it could be said not to even exist. British law was The Law. Republican desire, on the other hand was highlighted as something highly perverse, dangerous and unintellegible.

Well that's silly stuff to begin with, making a similar but rather less convincing case that Baudrillard. Was Sunningdale a 'metaphoric substitution', the Assembly of the early 1980s, the AIA? As for discourse shaping meaning, how does that weigh up in terms of 'terrorists' becoming 'politicians' while simultaneously holding onto their weapons, 'parity of esteem' and so on. Or, 'no internal solution', as the British government has also said, which indicates, rather less than metaphorically that sovereignty is shared or diluted.

It was not a very good solution, however, as the ethical acts of Volunteers such as Bobby Sands constantly reiterated a pure desire that was difficult to obfuscate by metaphoric substitution.

So British obfuscatory and corrupt, Irish non-obfuscatory and pure. This Irish essentialism and uniqueness doesn't really make any sense if your argument is meant to be one of principle. After all, a hunger strike can equally well be metaphoric substitution, and indeed was. Although it's also rather sad to see how so many different people invest so many different meanings and conclusions in and from it.

The words chosen to convey any speaking being's desire are always saturated by pre-configured meaning and the idealogical content of the discourse he speaks from within. Such ethical acts as the Hunger Strikes exposed an inconsistancy in thought as carried thoughout the speech of the British and their native allies. They subverted British desire by threatening to expose it as subjective desire and not the Objective Law.

I keep noting this, but you claim to be a teacher, and no doubt in your haste and eagerness to get the words on the page it's difficult to keep up, but ideological is spelt rather differently to the way you spell it. What about ethical acts such as assassination of non-combatants, no warning car bombs, short or wrong warning car bombs, and yes, some of us recall CIRA had (as merle has pointed out before, rather a lot to do with Omagh as well as RIRA). As for exposure, you'd swear we all came on this with no thoughts about it at all other than to be welched by the Brits. Not so, Cael. Not so.

The GFA has so far proven a useful (to the British) form of recognition and political action. The anomaly of calling Volunteers who are willing to give their lives for their cause "mindless thugs" "pathological terrorists" and "Godfathers" is neatly solved by saying "Yes, indeed, we will let them all out of prison now, because they were indeed fighting for equal rights as British citizens - and thats exactly what we are going to give them." Neutralisation, resolution, reconciliation and a civil commitment to equal law and order for all. The Law. Law and Order. British desire does not exist in this new order - its what the Irish themselves voted for. Respect for normative living, esteem-appropriate speech and thought - assimulation, incorporation. Those who remain outside the loop are not to be refered to as Republicans (Republicans were fighting for the right to become Crown Ministers), but are to be dismissed as "dissident republicans."

But none of this makes sense Cael, because normalisation was attempted under Labour in the late 1970s and it didn't work. Volunteers, and the Republican support base refused to buy into it. And no wonder. There was no RoI input, no cross-border/all-island structures, no vote by the Irish people to underpin it, etc. 1998 symbolised the antithesis of that approach. And if you read the GFA, despite what edifice says, you'll see that it's rooted in this island and the people of this island working together. I could make as equally a specious a case that the GFA is the embodiment of Irish 'desire', specious because I'd simply be emulating your own, rather high falutin conceptual framework to try to frame socio-political events in an entirely artificial and inappropriate way.

Irish desire is normalised, de-pathologised, de-traumatised and homogenised - by the force of British desire embodied in the production of meaning and expressed in the GFA.

Look, I'm all for contextualising meaning within 'mythic' concepts. But the key word is contextualise. Not to believe that myth alone is the agency by which events unfold. This is all great stuff, but what does it mean, except for being yet another dissident, and rather pretentious analysis of the problem (entirely skating over the existence of those who live on this island who have zero identification with 'pure' Republican non-obfuscation) with absolutely no strategy for the future.

[badinage]

I think someone needs a girlfriend

[Pidge]

I think someone needs a girlfriend

Dude, you're on the internet...

[badinage]

Dude, you're on the internet...

well I don't know about you, but I post from work....

I also managed to squeeze in two episodes of Prison Break and the pilot of Deadwood in today's action-packed workday...

Deadwood was f*cking disappointing goddammit, after all I'd god-damn heard about it. That show seems to think excessive f*cking language is all you need