‘Surrender or Act…’

                   On the day that the UK is due to leave the EU, Struan Kennedy (PhD student, Northumbria University) reflects on what Brexit will mean for Northern Ireland. 

It would be impossible not to notice how Brexit has increased polarisation across the UK. This is even more blatant in an already deeply-divided society such as Northern Ireland. So it appeared as a topical piece of graffiti near the iron gate on Northumberland street, separating the Falls/Shankill areas. I wish to focus on this public message as well as some historical uses of the phrase ‘No Surrender’ when reflecting on its significance in relation to Brexit negotiations. It is also worth considering the subject matter of the mural that was selected for this amendment. Why choose a celebratory display of the United Nation’s ‘International Peace Day’ (21^st September)? Surely a rather ironic surface to undermine the EU when they have been a loyal supporter and major financial contributor through many initiatives, including community-led projects designed to improve post-conflict relations. The following is a summary of peace-funding:

PEACE I (1995-1999)

PEACE II (2000-2006)

PEACE III (2007-2013) Total contribution of EUR 1.3 billion

PEACE IV (2014-2020) value of EUR 270 million[1]

               In addition to the above the EU spent £600 million as Structural Funds on Northern Irish economic revitalisation and development. Two decades of substantial good will and European human rights law underpinning the Good Friday Argument of 1998 were perhaps factors why the vote in 2016 ended up 55% remain[2]. Of course such generous support from the EU should come as no surprise given that maintaining and collaborating in the name of peace was at the core of the European project following the calamity of the Second World War. Member states have since bonded closer through the single market, the Euro, the Schengen area and common policy areas. How then did we get to the point where atop the towering bonfires lit before the annual Orange marches read a sign: ‘Brexit. IRA. Scum’ and above that, fluttering in the flames, was the EU flag[3]?

                         The construction of Loyalist identities are a fluid process involving collective remembering, values, myths and norms[4]. Yet elements within this process are noteworthy for a remarkable historical consistency. An ideology of conflict provides structure to a well-known narrative. Starting with the Plantation of Ulster, theirs has been a separate community, distinct from the numerically superior native Irish. Since then the view of the Protestant people suffering besiegement and massacre, from the 1641 rising to the Troubles, has endured. Just as telling are the methods attributed to this community’s survival and success: stout resolution and resistance to compromise, though ultimate victory can never be secure. This requirement for sustained resistance aligns past experiences— through the reshaping of narratives— to present concerns[5]. Memory matches up past and present with the two often meeting on walls. Walls are heavily loaded with meaning, for both communities, with one foundational loyalist memory being the 105-day siege of Derry in 1689. For many, the city’s old walls convey contemporary fortitude with the siege’s battle cry of ‘No surrender!’ appearing in many places on and around ‘peacelines’[6].

                  This stark rhetoric can also be frequently found in political language. The lexicon of the DUP references deceit and deception, at times directed to groups within the wider scope of unionism. Commentators have noticed a ratcheting up of emotive terms since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement (AIA) in 1985[7]. Another feature ever lingering in the background is the notion that the union itself is in danger, gradually eroded by, among other things, a developing relationship between the British and Irish governments. Hence, crisis and constitutional insecurity were both integral to and indivisible from the peace process— or, as some perceive it, the ‘final battle for Ulster’[8]. Throughout this ‘battle’ nothing British was safe from becoming a target for demonisation or even supposed extinction. Into this arena of suspicion enters the EU, not as protector of loyalist culture, but as another potential agent to diminish it. This only increases a sense of insularity for this ‘island behind an island’ as one loyalist put it: ‘You don’t trust the Irish Government, the British Government or the Europeans so there is that danger people feel of being backed into a corner’[9]. Let us now consider more closely what this danger in the corner might be.

               For Unionists the backstop symbolises separation between them and the rest of the UK. Conceived as some vague technocratic solution during May’s tenure it amounted, in the words of Arlene Foster, to ‘annexation’ by the EU[10]. It would subject Northern Ireland to rules and regulations set not in Westminster but Brussels, rendering the province to some as a de facto colony of the EU capital. A loss of regional power bears a troubling resemblance to direct rule of 1972 when the conflict spiralled out of control. A wider implication is that such move could be interpreted as a first step on an ever-shortening road toward a united Ireland. This was cause for alarm and anxiety during the peace process, with the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) stating that the ‘North/South’ bodies created to share common issues across the border would serve as the ‘foundation stones for an All Ireland administration’[11]. This stance isn’t without some justification, in 1972 politician Garret FitzGerald wrote that membership in the European Community would ‘likely be uniformly directed towards a path to a united Ireland’[12]. A different reading is offered by Professor Kearney who argued that a new common European identity could shift emphasis away from restrictive nationalism and toward a unity of ‘hearts and mind’[13]. As tempting is it is to commit to this euro-idealism for its ability to assuage unionist fears, Grinheim reminds us that this middle ground would be difficult to develop given the historical convictions of both British and Irish identities[14].

                        Away from a traditional ideology that posits a zero-sum conflict we can find alternative perspectives capable of disrupting the established order. Just two years after the historic paramilitary ceasefires the Progressive Unionist Party’s manifesto promoted core ideas like commonality, equality and plurality, claiming the party was anti-sectarian and open to any citizen regardless of creed or colour[15]. Their leadership felt that a break with earlier divisive practices could allow for reflection on similarities as the working class of both sides had bore the brunt of violence and continue to live with major disadvantages. The more inclusive embrace of this strand of loyalism has a firm grip on reality in recognising a whole range conversations as opposed to strict binary positions. One binary, ‘dominance vs. defeat’, has required loyalists to maintain the former to avoid the latter in the future, the threat of such consequence perpetuating a no-surrender attitude. A need for nuance shines light on vastly differing interpretations of a crucial vote’s outcome. During the Good Friday referendum the result was sold differently to the two communities: to unionists it was a fixed settlement, to nationalists it was provisional[16]. Echoes can be heard ricocheting between some Leavers staunchly committed to setting the result in stone and Remainers differentiating between the 2016 vote (an advisory referendum) and any future ‘People’s Vote’ (confirmatory).

                   However complex the border issue is in the current impasse, it is just one part of a political puzzle that makes up post-conflict Northern Ireland. Whilst the UK at large has been embroiled in the Brexit process, the institutions of power-sharing— the heart of the peace accord— have been in the doldrums for more than 1,000 days. With such prolonged shutdown, it’s little wonder that some of the political muscle memory is beginning to atrophy. Truthfully, even when Stormont was operational, peace in Northern Ireland was almost always a fragile one. Thus in 2016, Brexit entered this potential powder keg as a new accelerant[17]. Though some have accused such forecasts as fearmongering, security concerns have been raised by those intimately familiar with the Troubles. Prominent loyalists have warned of the ease to which a constitutional question can sleepwalk backward into a militarized answer. Others relate any similarities through their own past motives: ‘I was 20 when I joined the UVF…If I was 20 now, I would be looking for something to join’[18]. Likewise a leader of the other major loyalist paramilitary group, the UDA, believes a hard border manned by ‘uniforms’ would be a target for dissent Republicans and subsequent tit-for-tat response from loyalists[19]. Whether are not a violent backlash materialises, there can be little doubt that Brexit is simmering just beneath the surface as ‘an unwelcome layer of complexity on top of the complexities we already have’[20].

                 Faced with such grim prospects a nation often turns, rightly or wrongly, to its leader to guide it through a period of chronic uncertainty. In this particular respect we can see a resemblance  during two political crises straddling the Irish Sea. Following the AIA, Rev. Ian Paisley opened his morning service thusly: ‘we hand Mrs. Thatcher over to the devil that she might not learn to blaspheme’[21]. Though initially heard only by his minority Free Presbyterian denomination, Paisley’s influence as leader of the DUP reached a far wider audience. For Paisley any form of negotiation whether with republicans or British or Irish governments represented weakness and even surrender. While preaching in church, Paisley also asserted that the EU ‘challenged the distinctive Christian moral standards of Northern Ireland’[22]. Whilst admittedely lacking the fire and brimstone speechifying, Prime Minister Johnson has recently and repeatedly been challenged over his use of language, specifically in his conscious and consistent refusal to refer to the officially titled ‘Benn-Bill’ in lieu of the more inflammatory ‘Surrender Act’. Johnson seemed unable or unwilling to see any causality between what he as leader says to acts of hate taken by others. Examples in his emotive vocabulary such as ‘betrayal’, ‘capitulation’ and ‘traitor’ even featured in death threats. That those who implored for moderation were women is no coincidence and the harsh reality of this toxic environment was commented on by the Speaker of the House: ‘female members and members of our ethnic minority communities have been disproportionately subject to that abuse and those threats’[23].

                     The sensitivites around surrender bring us back to the defaced mural, a surface onto which current animosity around Breixt coalesces with earlier repeated cycles of historical usage. It’s a surface where the past uncomfortably mingles into the present. Yet both uses draw attention to a need to reclaim the middle ground that lies between binaries. On this middle ground dialogue is not dangerous and ‘compromise’ is not a dirty word. It is here that we stand a better chance of accepting the mobility of circumstance and not lock ourselves into statically principled positions. If such acceptance is reached then perhaps we can engage constructively, listening as a chorus of voices rather than opposing mobs trading singular slogans.

_____________

References

[1]          Diána Haase & Marek Kołodziejski ‘Northern Ireland PEACE programme’ from ‘Fact Sheets on the European Union’ European Parliament (04/2019) <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/102/northern-ireland-peace-programme> [accessed 26/9/19]

[2]          Sally Hayden ‘Could Brexit Unite Ireland? Uncertainty Reigns North of the Border’ Time magazine (19/7/16) New York City <https://time.com/4410151/northern-ireland-brexit-united-ireland-vote/> [accessed 24/9/19]

[3]          Ibid

[4]           James White Mcauley ‘Still ‘No Surrender’? New Loyalism & the Peace Process in Ireland’ in ‘Politics and Performance in Contemporary Northern Ireland’ p.58 Issue 1 by American Conference for Irish Studies, University of Massachusetts Press (1999) Amherst

[5]          Ibid p. 69

[6]          Emily Ravenscroft ‘The Meaning of the Peacelines of Belfast’ Peace Review (2009), 21:2, 213-221, DOI: 10.1080/10402650902877450

[7]          Mcauley ‘Still no surrender?’ p. 75

[8]          Ibid p. 75

[9]          Simon Carswell ‘Loyalists on Brexit: ‘‘There will never be a united Ireland’’ Irish Times (11/7/19) Dublin <https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/loyalists-on-brexit-there-will-never-be-a-united-ireland-1.3952819> [accessed 24/9/19]

[10]         Naomi O’Leary ‘In Brexit talks, Belfast loyalists see risk of return to violence’ Politico (21/9/19) Arlington, VA <https://www.politico.eu/article/in-brexit-talks-belfast-loyalists-see-risk-of-return-to-violence/> [accessed 22/9/19]

[11]         Mcauley ‘Still ‘No Surrender’? p. 66

[12]         Jeson Ingraham ‘The European Union and Relationships Within Ireland’ CAIN (1998) <https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/europe/euireland.htm> [accessed 24/9/19]

[13]         Ibid

[14]         Ibid

[15]           James White Mcauley ‘Still ‘No Surrender…’ p.60

[16]         O’Leary ‘In Brexit talks…’

[17]         Ibid

[18]         Ibid

[19]         Carswell ‘Loyalists on Brexit…’

[20]         Tom Roberts, director of the Ex-Prisoners Interpretative Centre and former member of the Ulster Volunteer Force, a loyalist paramilitary group quoted in Beatriz Rios ‘Brexit impact in Northern Ireland: When peace is at stake’  EURACTIV.com (28/2/19)<https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/brexit-impact-in-northern-ireland-when-peace-is-at-stake/> [accessed 28/9/19]

[21]         Ingraham ‘The European Union…’

[22]         Ibid

[23]         Paula Sherriff, Tracy Brabin, Anna Soubry and Lib Dem leader, Jo Swinson all argued for the Prime Minister to moderate his inflammatory language from Backlash in Commons over Boris Johnson’s language BBC News  (25/9/19) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49833623/backlash-in-commons-over-boris-johnson-s-language> [accessed 30/9/19]

How to Organise a Postgraduate Conference (Part 6): The Conference Itself and After

In the sixth and final post of this series, Tim Ellis (PhD Candidate, Teesside University) offers advice to Postgraduates and other ECRs looking to organise a conference. 

In our last instalment, we talked about getting the, last-minute little things sorted in advance: 

How to Organise a Postgraduate Conference (Part 5): Getting the Little Things sorted

In this post we discuss what you (the organiser) should do during the the conference itself, and what you should think about doing afterwards.

You’ve done all the hard work now. The conference itself is the fun part, and the thing you’ve been waiting for. If you’ve done your prep well, everything should fall into place. Your speakers, keynotes, audiences, caterers, volunteers, chairs and fellow committee members should all be able to get on with their roles in hand. You’ve got this!

But… that shouldn’t mean you should simply rest upon your laurels, sit back and do nothing. If you’ve been in charge of organising the conference, then make yourself known and take the credit! Whilst you definitely shouldn’t micromanage, it’s still important to keep an eye on the following few things.

During the Conference:

• Introduce yourself to everyone who’s come along. Make everyone feel welcome. After all, networking is good for your career. Smile, shake hands and say hello to everyone!
• Check everyone’s OK. Are there dietary requirements? Might they be bringing children or partners along? Have you got decent facilities for those with disabilities? Is there a quiet room for those who may need it? Sort these things out at the beginning.
• A good idea is to say something at the start of the conference, even if just a few words. Thank everyone for coming and give a quick run-through of the ‘housekeeping’ matters.
• Whilst papers are being presented, it’s a good idea to have at least one organiser in each panel. That way if something goes wrong (99% of the time it’ll be IT related), they should be someone on hand to deal with it. Keep contact details and procedures for first aid, IT emergencies and fire drills close to hand and in your mind.
• On that note, a nice thing to do is to live-tweet the conference. This way, people who have not been able to come along, can at least follow the conference in some way. One tweet and a pic per paper is all you need to do here. You don’t need to tweet reams and reams. Check in advance, of course, that your speakers are happy with photography.
• At social elements of the conference- e.g. wine receptions, breaks, lunch and the conference dinner, again, circulate and make sure everyone’s OK. You might find someone for some reason hasn’t yet got their food- this is the kind of thing you need to stay on top of.
• When everyone leaves, say your ‘thank yous’ and goodbyes. Show some appreciation.
• When it’s all finished order a huge pizza, the beverage of your choice and collapse into a heap in front of the cinematic magnum opus that is Mean Girls.

After the Conference:

That’s the end or is it…? Try to have a think about your post-conference actions. The best conferences will have a legacy. Aside from thanking your attendees and speakers once more via email (you can never thank people enough!), after the event, here’s some things you should think about going forward:

• Write up a review of the conference and post it on a blog (your own, or someone else’s). Or even, better still, get someone else who didn’t organise it to do it, and that way you’ll have a neutral review of how things worked.
• On that note, ask for feedback. The best feedback is anonymous, so you might want to leave forms at the end, for people to fill out. Ask your supervisor/mentor for their opinion as to how things were: what went well, what could you have done differently? You might also want to have this discussion with your other committee members.
• Do you want to publish your conference papers? What about a special edition of a journal article, or how about an edited collection? Ask your attendees whether they’d like to contribute to this. Putting this together is a huge task in its own right, and there aren’t enough words here to go into the details of this, but at least think about doing it.
• If you also felt that everyone at the conference got on well and had a lot to talk about, you might want to think about creating some kind of network out of it. If you feel that your conference has created a new space for your speakers and attendees, what about a new academic society for your attendees? Equally you might want to think about a sequel, should there be a follow-up conference or event? Could it be annual or biennial?
• Lastly don’t be afraid to take credit where it’s due. Put it on your CV. Going forward, think about what skills you’ve developed from this. Budgeting? Time management? Project Organisation? Communication skills? Networking? These are all important things that employers (both academic and non-academic) look for.

If you’ve got to the end, read this and organised your conference, then well done! Give yourself a pat on the back! And hopefully, this won’t be the last one you organise.

 

 

How to Organise a Postgraduate Conference (Part 5): Getting the Little Things sorted

In the fifth of a six-part series, Tim Ellis (PhD Candidate, Teesside University) offers advice to Postgraduates and other ECRs looking to organise a conference. In our last instalment, we talked about putting together the conference programme:

How to Organise a Postgraduate Conference (Part 4): Putting Together your Programme

In this post we discuss the many little things (mostly related to catering, accommodation and just generally making your attendees feel at home) that will need to be managed in the last few months, weeks and days before your conference is due to take place. 

The period in between finalising the conference programme and the conference itself (ideally 3 months or so) is a good time to finalise and sort out catering and general housekeeping. This entails lots of little tasks. The list below is by no means prescriptive and is very much dependant on the scale and nature of your conference, but here are some things that you’ll probably needto take care of.

The bigger your conference is, the more time in advance things should be done. Take stationary: a very professional, large scale conference may have glossy printed programmes, branded pens, tote bags etc. In this case, orders should be done months in advance. Or it might be the case (as it was with us) that we just did the programmes on Microsoft Word and then printed them at the university. Every attendee got a free supermarket pen. In which case, you can do this a few days beforehand.

Below is a list of suggestions, with a rough timeline. Above all, the key thing to do in the months/weeks before the conference is to keep in touch with your attendees.

 

The months before:

• Send out a ‘travel pack’ to all your attendees (speakers or otherwise). This should include travel directions (including the long-distance route to your venue’s town/city via car, train, bus and plane and also the short walking route from the town/city centre or transport hub to your venue). You should also send out a list of suggested accommodation venues which are good value for money. If you’ve negotiated a discounted rate with a hotel- advertise this or prepare a list of nearby visitor attractions (particularly those of a historical nature!) for attendees.
• Finalise numbers: speakers, total attendees, those attending the conference dinner and those booking accommodation. Set a deadline for when you need these numbers and pester people regularly (within reason) until they’ve got back to you.
• Book (or reimburse the costs for) your keynotes’ accommodation and travel. It may be cheaper to book accommodation and transport at some times more than others. Costs may go down over time, but then shoot up again in the last few weeks or days.
• Recruit volunteers. In addition to your conference committee it’s good to have people who can man your conference’s reception area at the front and help with various little tasks on the day. The best people to ask are fellow students (PG or UG).

 

A month before:

• Confirm final numbers with venue catering and restaurant for conference dinner. Usually a month before is fine, but check with your chosen venue.
• Send your attendees another email, if nothing else, to confirm what is happening. Attendees like to be kept in the loop and checking in regularly will help them out. Be available to answer any questions and deal with any queries.
• A good thing to do at this stage is to ask your speakers to send on their Conference PowerPoints in advance. Check at this stage what their audovisual (Do they have a powerpoint? Do they have a video/film? Do they need speakers) requirements will be. Meet with IT people at your venue to make sure everything is in place.
• Get in touch with your chairs and remind them of their duties. Send them their speakers’ bios, so they can introduce them.

 

A week/a few days before:

• Meet with everyone concerned with organising the conference to finalise everything that will happen on the day. Make sure volunteers know what they are doing. Check in with catering, IT, restaurant and chairs also.
• Check in with your speakers once again. If they haven’t already, remind them to send on their PowerPoint presentations. Send and remind them of directions, and your contact details in case they get lost. Make sure they have a map.
• Buy miscellaneous supplies. In our case, one of us went to the shop a day or two in advance and bought spare pens. What about name badges? Avoid fancy ones that clip onto breast pockets. They presuppose male attendees in suits and shirts with pockets and tend to discriminate against non-male attendees. Go for the simpler, cheaper option and just use stickers. They also have the advantage of allowing people to write whatever they want. They might not have an institution and may just be an independent scholar. Equally, they may want to include the pronouns they’d prefer to be addressed with.
• Get some signs laminated (see below). It’s also nice to maybe laminate a poster for the conference and display it on your front desk/at various points in the campus.
• Thank the people who have agreed to come and help your conference! Thank your volunteers, others on the conference committee (if you’re the chair), any senior staff members who’ve mentored you throughout the process, and any chairs. Buy them a small present and a card. These people have given up their time to help you put on a conference, so show some appreciation!

 

On the day:

• Gather your team for one final pep talk and make sure everyone is clear on where they need to be and what they need to do. A final check with catering services and the restaurant is also a good idea.
• Put signs up at useful points in campus/premises to help people find the exact venue/room.
• Set up a reception table outside your room (if possible) and put out your pens, papers, flyers and posters. Do this before the advertised start time, in case of any early arrivals.
• Contact your speakers, if you want, to check if their journey is going OK, and to see if there are any delays you might need to work around.
• Set up your rooms- think about tables, chairs and IT. Preload your speakers’ PowerPoints. Top tip: Use your conference poster as a desktop wallpaper- this is easy to do, but can make your conference look just that little more professional.
• Wait for your attendees, smile, greet and enjoy!

 

An artistic impression of what it’s like to welcome attendees to your conference

 

How to Organise a Postgraduate Conference (Part 4): Putting Together your Programme

In the fourth of a six-part series, Tim Ellis (PhD Candidate, Teesside University) offers advice to Postgraduates and other ECRs looking to organise a conference. In our last instalment, we talked about creating and disseminating a Call for Papers (CFP). 

How to Organise a Postgraduate Conference (Part 3): Getting the Word Out

This week, we discuss the best way to go about organising a programme.

So, the deadline’s come, and you’ve been pleasantly inundated with a good few abstracts and proposals for your CFP- now you need to put together a programme.  First things first, decide who will be responsible for assembling your programme; choose a ‘programme steering group’ if you will. Ideally, make sure you have two people for this task. It’s good to have more than one opinion, but equally, there’s truth in the saying ‘too many cooks spoil the broth.’

The steering group should then arrange to sift through the abstracts to make up a programme. Book a room in advance, ideally for the full day, if you don’t already have a room of your own. Make sure you have plenty of desk space. In advance of the meeting make sure that each member of the ‘programme steering group’ has a copy of each submission and has read them before the meeting.

How you pick the abstracts is up to you, and there’s no right way to do this. The problem that we faced was that we initially planned to have three panels of three papers each, which would have meant nine standard speakers and two keynotes. However, we received over twenty abstracts, all of which, without exception, were of a very high standard.

First, we picked out those abstracts which we felt to be of such an outstanding quality that they absolutely had to be included in the programme (Group 1). These abstracts were detailed, very well-written, and moreover, explicitly addressed the terms of the Call for Papers. We then highlighted proposals where, whilst the subject matter was very interesting and the research showed potential, there was need for a little further finessing and honing (Group 2). This then left us with a third group: in this case, these papers were still of a very high standard, but were just a little short of the standards set by the first two groups (Group 3).

We then looked at those abstracts in Group 2 to decide which would join those in Group 1 to make up the programme. The key criterion here was: which abstracts will best make up a programme of coherent panels, where the papers will ‘speak’ to each other effectively? After much deliberation (and we had to be ruthless here), we had our nine papers. We then introduced our initial draft of the programme to our supervisors. Their response was: ‘Well if you have more than 20 or so papers, why don’t you make some more room, and accept a few more?’

In the end, we ended up choosing all of the abstracts in Groups 1 and 2, and we were also able to give some of those in 3 a spot on the programme. In order to accommodate everyone, we went with the option of having parallel panels. Now, not everyone is a fan of this- as it means that your audience will not be able to hear every paper. The counter-argument to this is that it is much better to have more people there (thus giving attendees a greater number of speakers to meet and chat to), than to make sure that no paper is missed. And so, we went with it.

Several hours into planning a programme 

The next thing to do is to send out a draft to your presenters, thanking them, and informing them their paper has been selected. Be prepared at this stage to change the programme- some attendees may only be able to present at certain times, and some attendees may have changed their plans, and may no longer be able to attend. Be flexible! You should also contact those applicants whose abstracts were not selected, and gently let them know that, on this occasion, you have not been able to accept their paper. You can still, of course, invite them to attend your conference!

Once everyone has confirmed attendance, and you have finalised the programme, it’s time for the fun part- you can now publicise the conference programme! Use the same channels and networks you used to get out the Call for Papers. At this stage, it’s a good idea to set up an Eventbrite page for the conference—this is one of the easiest ways to keep track of your attendees, and as we also understand, you can use this to manage your income from registration fees, if you’ve chosen to do this. You may get people who, whilst not interested in presenting, would like to attend the conference, so that they can hear the papers and meet new people in the field. Remember to set a closing date for registration- this way you can finalise numbers well in advance of the conference for catering etc.

Some attendees might make very good chairs for panels, so keep track of who’s coming along. In preparing our conference, one of the chairs we had initially pencilled in had to pull out at the last minute. We ended up asking a fellow PhD student who was just attending (and not presenting at the conference). As it happens, she had similar research interests to the speakers on the panel. She accepted, and whilst she had never chaired a conference panel before, she turned out to be a natural at it! Sort out your chairs after the programme of papers and presenters is ready- ideally, the chair’s experience should match the papers being presented, though it doesn’t have to be an exact fit of research interests.

Chairs are useful because they make running the conference much easier- they can help the panels to run smoothly whilst you take care of the admin. A good chair will introduce the speakers on the panel, make sure everyone keeps to time and then co-ordinate questions from the audience. As to who can serve as panel chairs: conference committee members, keynote speakers, other speakers, attendees and members of staff at your university can all do this- there’s no hard and fast rules. Just a) make sure no-one is chairing a panel they are speaking on and b) make sure no-one is overstretched.

 

How to Organise a Postgraduate Conference (Part 3): Getting the Word Out

In the third of a six-part series, Tim Ellis (PhD Candidate, Teesside University) offers advice to Postgraduates and other ECRs looking to organise a conference. In our last instalment, we talked about the four key foundations of an effective conference: money, keynotes, date and venue.

(https://neehip.wordpress.com/2019/07/03/how-to-organise-a-postgraduate-conference-part-1-develop-a-vision-assemble-a-team/).

This week we talk about putting together a Call for Papers and getting the word out.

So, you’ve got the funding, the keynotes, the venue, the time, date and place. Congratulations! Now for the fun part, getting the word out.This is the stage that me and Séan found ourselves in by October 2018. We had about four or five months before the conference. The first thing we needed to do was to create a brand ‘identity.’ This meant a logo and a poster for the conference.

Designing one was easy to do: in this case, PowerPoint is your friend. A top tip is to get training in poster presentation, if your university offers it. A few simple techniques can make a very effective, professional, and sleek-looking poster that can go a long way in promoting your conference.

I designed a poster by using an eye-catching photograph  (one I had taken on the Belfast-Dublin train of a river estuary flowing into the Irish sea on a summer’s day), with a few simple text boxes detailing the basic info of the conference, and logos of the organisations (Teesside University and BAIS) who had been kind enough to support us. My own top tip for poster design is to use white text boxes, over a photo background, which are ever so slightly transparent. This has the effect of making a little of the background photo visible, whilst making the text still readable. Overall, it’s a very pleasing effect. You can then reproduce this poster across lots of different media: put it on your website, stick it on social media or print it out and stick it up anywhere it might get noticed.

Our Conference Poster

After designing the poster we designed our Call for Papers (CFP). This effectively took the form of two sides of A4. The poster took up half of the first page of the CFP. Your CFP should basically look not too dissimilar to your pitch. Explain what the conference is about, and what its vision is; but you should also include a list of suggestions for paper topics, basic information about the conference, and importantly, ways in which potential attendees can apply to present a paper. When setting out possible topics, the key phrase is ‘Subjects of papers could include, but are, by no means, limited to…’ Again, the key here, as with the pitch, is to make it specific enough to get the right papers, but wide enough to attract reasonable interest. The usual way to apply is to ask for a brief abstract (usually 200-300 words), as well as a brief CV. To make sure we got the right sort of papers, we stipulated that abstracts should indicate ‘how the proposed paper addresses the conference theme of “New Directions in Irish History.”’

Make sure you set a deadline for the CFP, and make sure it’s the right deadline. Leave a couple of months (ideally 3-6) between the CFP deadline and the conference itself. This gives you plenty of time to sort through the proposals, put together a programme (and then change it if you get last minute drop-outs), advertise the programme to people who might not be keen to present, but are happy to attend and just listen to papers, and sort out admin re. your speakers (we’ll discuss this in another post).

The key is then to get the word out. To do this, me and Séan literally split the world down the middle. We drew a line that went down the Irish sea, separating Ireland and the Americas off from Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. The rationale for this was that, whilst Séan got a smaller part of the world, he got the part of the world where there was the most activity in Irish studies and Irish History. I left Séan to get the word out to the Western Hemisphere of the world whilst I focussed on the East. I started with Great Britain- here I made a list of EVERY history department at EVERY university in Great Britain and compiled all the email addresses of the person/people in that department who had a research interest in anything remotely approaching or relating to Irish history. It was hard work, but it gave me a lot of useful insight into the state of history research in the UK, so it was definitely worth it. I also made a (shorter) list of various learned societies and organisations who might be interested in our conference. Naturally, the BAIS was one, but we also got in touch with the Royal Historical Society and Social History Society who very kindly sent our CFP in their E-newsletters and put details up on their websites.

I then found a very useful list of contacts for Irish studies in both continental Europe and Asia via the European Federation of Associations and Centres of Irish Studies. Along with a few names I knew personally, I then sent the CFP off to a smaller mailing list for this part of the world. I was surprised to learn, via this process, that there is actually a huge amount of interest in James Joyce studies in South Korea and Japan! Working on the assumption that any interest in Irish History in Africa was likely to be concentrated in South Africa; I made a list of all the history departments at universities there also, and I then applied the same methodology to Australia and New Zealand.

Social media is keen for conference promotion. Twitter is absolutely key here- and is an essential; we made sure that we created a twitter account for our conference. But you should also think about creating a Facebook page/event, using LinkedIn, Academia.edu and even Instagram. Every little helps. In addition to this, we made use of our personal networks, and emailed people we knew and asked for their help. Whenever we got in touch with anyone, we asked them to pass on the details to anyone they knew who might be interested.

EnterTLDR: This is the line, right? You speak to everyone you know and you send them the Call for Papers, right? 

How to Organise a Postgraduate Conference (Part 2): Fundamentals- Keynotes, Money, Date and Venue

In the second of a six-part series, Tim Ellis (PhD Candidate, Teesside University) offers advice to Postgraduates and other ECRs looking to organise a conference. In our last instalment, we talked about the first step of organising a conference: deciding who it should be for, and what it should be about (https://neehip.wordpress.com/2019/07/03/how-to-organise-a-postgraduate-conference-part-1-develop-a-vision-assemble-a-team/).

This week we talk about the four key foundations of an effective conference: money, keynotes, date and venue.

Keynotes:

At an early meeting of our conference committee, our supervisors gave us a very useful piece of advice: sort out the keynote speakers and then let everything flow from that. For a PG conference, the cost of your keynote speakers’ travel, accommodation and catering will represent a substantive chunk of your budget.

Why have keynote speakers? There are two good reasons: first a really interesting and inspirational keynote can give your conference a solid USP, and create a real buzz, and thus attract attendees and presenters. Second, an experienced keynote can help to situate a PG conference within a wider context of research which incorporates tenured, more senior academics, as well as Postgraduate students.

Therefore, it’s important to get this sorted early on. For us, Dr Caoimhe NicDhabheid and Dr Erika Hanna were natural choice. Caoimhe is currently doing very exciting research in the history of emotions, Erika in the history of visual culture (I am reliably informed that the latter has a book out soon, which is available to pre-order: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Snapshot-Stories-Visuality-Photography-1922-2000/dp/0198823037/ref=sr_1_4keywords=erika+hanna&qid=1563283794&s=gateway&sr=8-4).

We had also met both Erika and Caoimhe previously at various other conferences and events, and so it was reasonably easy to ask both to come. There are two takeaways here: think of someone who will be a good fit for the conference vision and use your networks.

 

Erika Hanna (Bristol) giving her keynote paper

Funding:

By the summer of 2018, both Caoimhe and Erika were able to indicate their interest (though had not yet confirmed officially). We could then work out a rough budget: a lot of this budget was the keynotes’ transport and accommodation costs. The rest was mostly catering: tea and coffee at various points throughout the conference, lunch on one of the days. Try to think about other costs: Is there a venue booking fee? Will you give your attendees free stationery? How about travel bursaries for attendees? What about an evening wine reception? Are there any other incidentals? Try to have a budget which is reasonably detailed, though it doesn’t have to be set in stone. This is helpful as it can then make it easier to get funding. If you’ve got a budget and a pitch ready, then great- you can now look for funding. Roughly speaking you can consider five sources of funding.

• Ask attendees to pay a small fee. We didn’t do this- though this isn’t necessarily a bad idea, provided that the cost is reasonable. For a PG conference, a fee of around £25 for two or so days is quite reasonable. It also means you don’t have to go through the paperwork of applying to someone else for money. The flip-side of this is that you will have to manage lots of different incomes (i.e. fees) as well outgoings. This will mean setting up a bank account, having a conference treasurer and keeping up to date with your accounts.

• Ask your University. We did this, and it worked well. The university funded 80% of our budget. The advantage here, is that, usually, the university will be your first choice of venue, and may also provide the catering. This has the advantage of streamlining everything. Thanks to the help of our Supervisor, Roisín Higgins who fought our corner with our School’s and University’s Administration and Finance Office, we had a budget of about £1000 of University money on the conference.

• Ask a learned or academic society. Often these societies have small pots of money which you can apply for, to fund conferences, research and conference travel, and other expenses for Postgraduate Students. There are two advantages that come with this. First, successfully applying to external sources of funding is a great boost for your CV. As my supervisor has often reminded me ‘Money gets money.’ If you can show you’ve applied successfully for funding in the past, you stand a better chance of funding your research in the future. Second, the society in question may support you in other ways, on top of your funding. In August 2018, Séan and I applied for an additional £250 from the British Association of Irish Studies (BAIS). I believe that we were successful because we a) supplied a detailed budget, b) made it clear how the conference aligned with the aims of the BAIS, and c) made it clear how the conference would promote the BAIS to prospective members. Thanks to this funding, we had a little more wiggle-room with our budget. In addition to the funding, a special thank-you must go to the BAIS Communications Secretary, Lloyd/Meadbh Houston, who made sure that our Conference was promoted on the BAIS’s E-Newsletter.

• Ask a governmental body. Occasionally, local and national governmental bodies will support academic conferences and the like. One option which was potentially open to us was to ask the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs. Although we didn’t end up going down this option, it can be worth it. In May this year I went to a Conference in Mallorca which had a wine and tapas reception sponsored by the Irish Embassy in Madrid. This has definitely convinced me of the desirability of applying for funding from them in the future!

• Go private. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a local or national business to sponsor your conference, in return for advertising. I once met someone who held an Irish History Conference in Israel, which was sponsored by Guinness. In addition to sponsorship, the conference was provided with free Guinness. A win-win situation indeed.

 

How it feels to gain conference funding

Date:

Once you’ve got the keynote(s) and the funding covered, you can now proceed to your next step: set a date and time. This should primarily be dependent on your keynotes’ availability. Conferences usually run throughout the year, and there’s no ‘right time’ of year to organise your conference. Here are some options:

• January: This is usually a quiet time of year. Venues are generally available to book. Often academics might have very limited teaching or assessment to do at this time, as formal teaching will have finished, though students may be still finishing assignments. The downside to this is that a) the weather is rubbish, b) going straight into a conference after Christmas can be stressful.

• February-March: Again, a relatively quiet time of year. Most academics will be back on with teaching, but at the same time, it’s not ludicrously busy. The weather is likely to be slightly better, and you have a month or two after Christmas to get your head together. Ultimately, we opted for February as the date for our confernece, and it worked rather well.

• Easter time: The Easter break is generally a free period in terms of teaching etc. But in most cases, it’s only a three-week window, and often people may be on holiday for a few days. Stay clear of the time around the Easter weekend.

• May-June: This two month-ish period is when exams and assessments take place. People may have availability issues then. The flip side to this is that the weather is nice and it’s before the main conference season, so availability might not be that bad.

• Summer: People have less other commitments at this time, but may already be attending several other conferences. Ideally, you will want to avoid a clash with another conference, particularly one close to your own research interests. Check well in advance for possible clashes. Whilst some people make an effort to attend multiple conferences in quick succession, others, particularly ECRs, may prefer to spread out their conference attendance to reduce the concentration of costs.

• Early Autumn: Tricky again- a very busy time of year for most academics starting the new year. Added to which you have the difficulty of going straight into running a conference after a summer break. The flip side is that you can have a full summer without teaching responsibilities to prepare and sort it. The weather is quite nice too.

• Mid-Autumn: Much the same as an early spring conference- not a bad time to host a conference. Weather not great though.

• December: Whilst there are upsides and downsides to all other times of year, I would really avoid organising a December conference. Still a busy time of year academically, but with the added bonus/downside of Christmas. Nope.

 

The downside of summer conferences

Venue:

As has been previously hinted, this would normally be at your university, though a conference can also work very well at a commercial venue such as a hotel. When choosing a venue think about practicalities: Is the room the right size? Obviously, there should be enough room for as many guests as you anticipate. At the same time, having a room that is too big can make the conference feel needlessly intimidating, and too many empty seats is not a good look. Think also about whether you will have parallel panels- do you need more than one room? Having ‘lobby’ space for a buffet/drinks and informal networking is also good idea. What chairs and tables might you need? You should aim to have a ‘front desk’ where attendees can register, and perhaps a desk in each room where panels are taking, where speakers can sit for questions.

A good conference also will consider different needs- the best conferences are diverse conferences. Is the venue accessible for a range of different abilities: e.g. wheelchair accessibility and facilities for those who use hearing aids? You should also think about a quiet/private room on site: those who need a prayer room or a calm, relaxing space will find this useful. At our conference, Caoimhe brought her baby (Maedbh) along, so make sure there is space for those who have babies or young children too.

Once all three of the above are secured, you now have a conference with a vision, time, date, venue and keynote to advertise to speakers and attendees. In the next instalment, we’ll discuss just how you can get the word out and advertise your conference.

The Blueshirts, Fascism and Masculinity, 1932-36

Killian Dockrell is a BA Graduand (soon to be graduate) of Exeter College, University of Oxford. His BA thesis explored the role of masculinity in the political culture of the Blueshirt movement in Ireland. He tells us more about his research here:

My undergraduate thesis explored masculinity amongst the Blueshirts. The Blueshirts were a right-wing movement that existed in Ireland from 1932-36 and have often been dubbed ‘Ireland’s fascists.’

The Blueshirts began as the Army Comrades Association (ACA) in February 1932, to protect those who served in the Free State National Army. They quickly assumed an anti-IRA and anti-Fianna Fáil stance. The organisation’s character changed following Fianna Fáil’s electoral victory in 1932. As the ‘republican’ party, Fianna Fáil shared support with those who sympathised with and were active in the IRA, releasing numerous IRA prisoners after coming to power. The ACA became something of a paramilitary force protecting Cumann na nGaedheal meetings. The movement adopted the blue shirt uniform in April 1933. Under Eoin O’Duffy, who assumed leadership in July 1933, the organisation became more explicitly political, particularly during the ‘Economic War’ of the 1930s. The Blueshirts merged with Cumann na nGaedheal and the National Centre Party in September 1933 to form Fine Gael, with O’Duffy as president. O’Duffy was forced out a year later, replaced by Ned Cronin. Cronin’s Blueshirts remained within Fine Gael before being wound up in 1936. The O’Duffyite splinter became the outwardly Fascist National Corporate Party in 1935, before being also wound up in 1935. Histories of the Blueshirts have largely focused on high politics, particularly the ‘fascist question’ – the extent of their fascism, their corporatist programme, and lack of long-term success.[1.]

Since Joan Scott’s seminal article on the importance of gender to social power relations, historians have increasingly embraced the importance of masculinity studies to analyse gender ‘as a whole’. [2.] Masculinity is itself a ‘field of power’. [3.] As Michael Kimmnel and Michael Messner have reminded us, specifically looking at masculinity is also important because masculine hegemonies are normalized to the extent of invisibility. [4.] This is as true of Ireland as elsewhere. Yet, Maria Luddy noted as recently as 2016 that ‘Irish historians have rarely utilized gender theory or postmodernism to understand that history’. [5.] Yet, Irish masculinities forged within the context of British colonialism experienced major change after 1922.

My undergraduate thesis explored masculinity amongst the Blueshirts. The Blueshirts were a right-wing movement that existed in Ireland from 1932-36 and have often been dubbed ‘Ireland’s fascists.’

The Blueshirts began as the Army Comrades Association (ACA) in February 1932, to protect those who served in the Free State National Army. They quickly assumed an anti-IRA and anti-Fianna Fáil stance. The organisation’s character changed following Fianna Fáil’s electoral victory in 1932. As the ‘republican’ party, Fianna Fáil shared support with those who sympathised with and were active in the IRA, releasing numerous IRA prisoners after coming to power. The ACA became something of a paramilitary force protecting Cumann na nGaedheal meetings. The movement adopted the blue shirt uniform in April 1933. Under Eoin O’Duffy, who assumed leadership in July 1933, the organisation became more explicitly political, particularly during the ‘Economic War’ of the 1930s. The Blueshirts merged with Cumann na nGaedheal and the National Centre Party in September 1933 to form Fine Gael, with O’Duffy as president. O’Duffy was forced out a year later, replaced by Ned Cronin. Cronin’s Blueshirts remained within Fine Gael before being wound up in 1936. The O’Duffyite splinter became the outwardly Fascist National Corporate Party in 1935, before being also wound up in 1935. Histories of the Blueshirts have largely focused on high politics, particularly the ‘fascist question’ – the extent of their fascism, their corporatist programme, and lack of long-term success.[1.]

Eoin O’Duffy and his Blueshirt followers

Maurice Manning argued that the Blueshirts were only fascist ‘in appearance’, rather representing the final spasms of civil-war violence. [7.] This has been partly contested by Cronin’s view that the organization was at least ‘para-fascist’ – attached to fascist forms, but afraid of authentic fascism, and allying itself with the existing power structures of the Catholic Church, Army and Government. [8.] Fearghal McGarry emphasises that there was a genuine sense of crisis in Irish democracy in the 1930s. McGarry also highlights the potential of masculinity as an analytical category in his biography of Éoin O’Duffy [9.] Exploring the significance of masculinity in the Blueshirts should indeed be a fruitful line of enquiry, given the well-established links between masculinity and international fascisms. [10.] Thus, whilst decoding gender within the movement’s more ‘Irish’ or civil-war-focused politics is essential, a full appreciation of Blueshirt masculinities also entails viewing this subject through a wider, international, fascist prism. My thesis looked at three elements of Blueshirt masculinities – patriotism, physical culture and violence.

Patriotism:

The first section argued that Blueshirts constructed an alternative discourse, dismantling the privileged link between republicanism and manly patriotism, to emphasize their own gendered ‘Irishness’. The character of patriotism within Irish masculinities was fundamentally altered post-1922 with the creation of the Irish Free State. Ireland in the 1930s was far from nationally secure. Large parts of the population still sought the Republic which had been abandoned in 1922, whilst the recovery of the North topped political party manifestos from across the Treaty divide. Fianna Fáil revitalised the issue when they came to power in 1932, suspending annuity payments to Britain, and removing the oath to the British Crown in 1933.

Blueshirts recognised that patriotism was a powerful discursive space for demonstrating their masculinity. Anti-Treaty slurs that pro-treaty Blueshirts had abandoned the republic and cowered before British imperialism were emasculating, because they slandered their Irishness. Blueshirts responded by differentiating republicanism from patriotism. They argued that abandoning the republic was not cowardly but logical. They constructed an alternative framework of manly patriotism that emphasised civic contribution, work-ethic and industry, as well as an enlightened nationalism based on justice and the cultivation of Irish culture.

Cartoons from the era in United Irishman depict De Valera leading his followers on an endless treadmill towards ‘THE REPUBLIC’, or bringing Irish agriculture crashing to the ground to free it from the ‘ENGLISH MARKET’. Caricatures also maligned the intellectual attainment of IRA men against the cultural capital of Blueshirts who put on drama productions of Irish legends and Irish language classes. This was coupled with an attack on republicans using the ‘corner boy’ slur. The stereotype of an unemployed Republican shouting “Up the Republic” from a street corner whilst contributing nothing to the nation was seen underpinning IRA attacks on cinemas in the 1930s. The myth of Blueshirt constancy and reliability against republican fickleness and opportunism also stretched back to divided memories of the 1920s. Thus, Blueshirts feminised republicans who claimed patriotism simply as a consequence of their republicanism.

This was also ‘fascistised’. Later Blueshirt rhetoric stressed the importance of racial purity and ‘IRELAND FOR THE IRISH’. [11.] Fianna Fáil directed their attack on foreign emasculation squarely at reliance on the British market. The Blueshirts’ fascistic take on Irish nationhood looked to racial purity and the supremacy of the Irish male within Irish society. This was coupled with an emphasis on Ireland’s young men as are‘the first truly national generation of modern times’.The youth of the 1930s were particularly important given their maturations within a newly free nation, and the perception of crisis in contemporary Ireland. They were endowed with palingenetic potential.

The eponymous ‘blue shirt’

Physical Culture:

The construction of Blueshirts as a model citizenry to dominate inferior Irishmen and women was also explicitly physical, and my second section focused on physical culture. Broadening the scope of Blueshirt physical culture beyond organised athletics to include hitherto underexamined discussions of sportsmanship and corporeal education show that a politicised physical culture was a positive construction of Blueshirt masculinities, satisfying real and imagined needs.

It is now recognised that the male body was a crucial canvas for fascist ideologies. Fascism was a ‘vitalistic philosophy’, which sought to counter moral and physical decline. Thus sport and gymnastics moulded the Fascist superman. Manganargues that muscle in international fascisms was not only a sign of physical strength and superiority over other races, but of preparation for conflict. The male body for Blueshirts, as international fascisms, was ‘superordinate because it was superior in purpose – the achievement of supremacy’. [12.]

Ernest Blythe, a Cumman na Ghaedheal senator, wanted physical culture to be an essential part of the Blueshirt programme. He and O’Duffy believed that discipline and proper deportment were developed through immediate and vicarious participation, shaping the incipient masculinity of Blueshirts as future citizens. [13.] ‘Physical Culture’ columns in United Ireland argued that corporeal perfection allowed one ‘attain efficiency, unity of action and purpose’. [14.] Machismo diet advice counselled upon muscularity rather than fashionable leanness, and weekly exercise routines focused on the muscular development of the trunk, arms and shoulders. [15.] For women however, the expectation was that the advice contained in the physical culture columns would provide ‘wellbeing, self-confidence, and improve the carriage’. [16.]  It was the male body that was prepared for agency, and a dynamic role befitting the responsibility of the male Blueshirt.

Blueshirts did not make explicit the connection between attaining ‘physical perfection’ and the demonstration of physical superiority in confrontations with Republicans. Nonetheless, the latter was a crucial aspect of their masculinity and changes how we should view the ideologies around physical culture outlined above. For example, the trunk, arms and shoulders which featured so prominently in bodybuilding articles were perhaps not uncoincidentally the same muscles used throwing a punch in a street fight. Papers advertised Blueshirt supremacy in street battles as they overcame armed republican mobs ‘with only hands and fists’ and suggested ‘there are many parts of the country where the IRA and associates have been taught the wisdom of minding their own business’. [17.] Both athletics and street violence allowed the Blueshirts to show their physical prowess and demonstrate masculine dominance.

The movement believed that sport had didactic potential, making physical culture a space for the maturation of masculine ideals of discipline and proper deportment that would mould Blueshirt boys into model citizens. Blueshirts also stressed the importance of health for male agency, with a muscular focus on corporeal education and the male body. Explicit links were not made between these ideas and combat efficacy in the Blueshirt press, but implicitly they corresponded to the performance of physical supremacy. Blueshirts used the street battle, and athletics as examples of their dominance over alternative republican masculinities as well as over women. This was suggestive that they were the only body that could save the state from lawlessness and violence, but also that they were the superior body to lead a future Ireland. In a very real sense then, Blueshirt physical culture was about preparation for ‘conflict’.

Newspaper coverage of Blueshirt sports

Violence:

My final focus therefore was upon the complex role of violence in Blueshirt masculinities. The Irish tradition of rebellion gave a martial quality to Irishness which favoured men. However, the position of militarism within Irish masculinities was challenged by the creation of the Free State. Regan argues that Free State leaders prioritised stability over innovation. [18.] Knirck further suggests that militarism became subversive for the ruling Cumann na nGaedheal party, because it was associated with those who lost the civil-war. [19.] Law and order, rather than heroic violence, became hegemonic. Thus Blueshirt outwardly sought to emphasise a rational constitutionalism that marginalised martial republican masculinities. Yet, this discourse was in tension with one that emphasised honour and underpinned more proactive Blueshirt violence. This tension was partially contained by an emphasis on discipline.

Blueshirts emphasised a restrained masculinity that played to their state-building credentials. United Ireland insisted that the ‘proudest boast of any Blueshirt is that they have never broken the law’. [20.] It was expected Blueshirts would retaliate appropriately if provoked, but they were not instigators. Blueshirt legality and thus defensive violence were a product of the treatyite tradition of law and order to which the Blueshirts belonged, which made them morally superior to anarchic republicanism.

R.W Connell has argued that dominant masculinities assert power via effeminisation, and by dehegemonising alternative masculinities. [21.] Blueshirts also empowered their ‘constitutional’ approach to violence by emphasising the undesirability of martial republican masculinities. This meant dismantling the ‘warrior-hero’ trope that many continued to associate with the IRA. The IRA were maligned as communists and pub-bound layabouts. This appealed to class stereotypes of the feckless, feral republican, inscribed since colonial days. Republican ‘Bolshevism’ was interpreted as a threat to man’s right to own property and thus provide for their family. Accusations of land-grabbing by an IRA-supported Fianna Fáil drew upon connections between masculinity and land-ownership in Irish society. Landlordism, rent and loss of land were all forms of emasculation

Blueshirts also challenged IRA representations as noble warriors of the Republic by stressing their conspiratorial cowardice and clandestinity. Blueshirt papers tended to describe the IRA as ‘unscrupulous gun bullies’ who intimidated the public with their weapons. Stereotypical IRA dress, which had previous connotations of a heroic guerrilla-fugitive struggling against British occupation, was now seditious. By emphasising IRA conspiracy, cowardice and secrecy, Blueshirts suggested that IRA violence was not manly but skulking and subversive. If accepted, this argument dehegemonised IRA masculinities, giving cultural resonance to Blueshirt constitutionalism and ‘defensive’ violence.

Nevertheless, a concurrent strand of Blueshirt masculinity paradoxically saw proactive violence as a necessary part of defending the state. Department of Justice files show that Blueshirts were engaged in broader patterns of antisocial aggression that went beyond anti-annuity action as part of the Economic War and were directed against the influence of political opponents. Much was made of the street fight as a demonstration of Blueshirt honour and prowess. It was said that ‘in every conflict, the Blueshirts have come out victorious’. [22.] In one account of a ‘Battle Royale’ in Cork, the piece makes clear that tensions began in the confusing environment of a pub brawl, and no pretence is made that a mob started on Blueshirts rather than vice-versa.[23.] A similar disregard for legality was made in an editorial on Blueshirt graffiti in 1934. This argued that, although graffiti was an act of vandalism, ‘we cannot leave activities of this kind entirely to them’. [24.]  The editorial encouraged depictions of the Blueshirts’ St. Patrick flag as well as slogans which would demonstrate the movement’s tenacity. [25.] Allowing republicans take the lead painting slogans and intimidating treatyites was emasculating. It played to republican slurs that treatyites were cowards who hid behind a barricade of constitutionalism and backed away from fights – including the fight for the Irish Republic.

Blueshirt violence consisted of direct aggression, but also provocation and goading. The organisation made a point of returning to areas where they encountered opposition. In 1934 they returned to Cong, Co. Mayo, to organise a revenge attack on one Thomas Collins in the interval between a concert and a dance. [25.] Much of the violence in rural Ireland was competition over limited recreational space – masculinity was territorial. Beyond the ‘defensive’ or economic war violence against the state’s annuity collection, there were broader patterns underpinned by Blueshirt self-respect and honour that attempted to purge republican influence and calumny from the local community.

Blueshirts believed that discipline allowed the movement to navigate the boundaries of legality without compromising their principles. United Ireland was critical of suggestions that Blueshirt tackling of the IRA was a ‘usurpation of the state’, arguing that it was ‘such a disciplined civic spirit that creates order and gives security’. Blueshirts also competed with the Catholic Church over dancehall legislation, holding illegal all-night dances in contravention of curfews enacted under Church pressure. [26.]  Nonetheless, there remained deliberate ambiguity over violence. United Ireland never explicitly praised Blueshirt aggression, only incited it. The parameters of what constituted ‘disciplined’ action were never explored. Violence remained potentially destabilising, and its controversy would ultimately split the movement in 1934.

Conclusion:

My thesis argued that Blueshirt masculinities should be situated in both an ‘Irish’ context of civil war politics but were also highly fascitised. Fascism perpetrated the organisation’s social relations, going beyond the fascist liturgy, corporatism and anti-parliamentary rhetoric accounted for in previous historiography. Masculine discourses prioritised the construction of an elite citizenry to lead the nation. They emphasised the palingenetic potential of racial purity and male youth to the Irish nation. They stressed a politicised physical culture that prepared the male Blueshirt body for ‘conflict’. Blueshirts also engaged in considerable violence against their political opponents. Thus, whilst Blueshirt masculinities were constructed in opposition to republican ones, they were also fascistised, and looked towards a future free of sectionalism.

By shedding light on the national question’s volatility, physical competition for supremacy in rural Ireland, and the scale of violence in the 1930s, these discourses also reinforce revisionist views that there was a democratic crisis in 1930s Ireland. By consequence, they further demonstrate a real potential for Irish fascism in the 1930s. This was because much within these discourses was positive, existing to satisfy particular treatyite needs for a patriotic, muscular Irishness to represent the ‘national will’ and lift the nation from crisis.

Endnotes

1. See M. Manning, The Blueshirts, (Dublin, 1970); M. Cronin, The Blueshirts and Irish Politics, (Dublin, 1997).
2. W. Scott, ‘Gender as a useful category of Historical Analysis’, American Historical Review, 91:5 (1986), pp. 1053-75.
3. Tosh, ‘What Should Historians do with Masculinity? Reflections on Nineteenth-century Britain’, History Workshop Journal, 38:1 (1994), pp. 180-181.
5. S. Kimmel and M. A. Messner, Men’s Lives, (New York, 2013), p. x.
6. Luddy, ‘Gender and Irish History’ in A. Jackson (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History, (Oxford, 2017).
7. Manning, Blueshirts, p. 241.
8. Cronin, Blueshirts, 62.
9. McGarry, Eoin O’Duffy: a self-made hero, (Oxford, 2005), p. 270.
10. See K. Theweleit, Male Fantasies, (Cambridge,1987); B. Spackman, Fascist Virilities: Rhetoric, ideology and Social Fantasy in Italy, (Minneapolis, 1996).
11. The Blueshirt, 8 June 1935
12. A. Mangan, ‘Global Fascism and the Male Body: ambitions, similarities, dissimilarities’ in J. Mangan (ed.), Superman Supreme: Fascist Body as Political Icon – Global Fascism, (London, 2000), p. 3.
13. Reminiscences, 48,300/2, Eoin O’Duffy Papers, National Library of Ireland
14. United Ireland, 28 October 1934.
15. United Ireland, 1 December 1934.
17. United Ireland, 9 December 1933; United Ireland, 28 October 1933.
18. . Regan, The Irish Counter-Revolution, 1921-1936: Treatyite Politics and Settlement in Independent Ireland, (Dublin, 1999), p. xii.
19. Knirck, Women and the Dáil: Gender, Republicanism and the Anglo-Irish Treaty, (Dublin, 2006), p. 26.
20. United Ireland, 24 February 1934.
21. W. Connell, Masculinities, (Cambridge, 1995), p. 77.
22. United Ireland, 28 October 1933.
23. United Ireland, 29 September 1934.
24. United Ireland, 29 September 1934.
25. JUS/8/114, National Archives of Ireland.
26. United Ireland, 7^thOctober 1933.
27. JUS/8/134, National Archives of Ireland.

Acknowledgements:

The author would like to acknowledge the support of Tim Ellis, who suggested the approach of gender as well as masculinity. The author is also grateful to his supervisor, Marc Mulholland, whose weekly chats about ‘toxic masculinity’ and cracking twitter feed made this possible!

How to Organise a Postgraduate Conference (Part 1): Develop a Vision & Assemble a Team

In the first of a six-part series with NEE-HIP this summer, Tim Ellis (PhD candidate, Teesside University) draws on his experiences of organising a conference, the New Directions in Irish History Conference, held earlier this year in February, and offers some advice and tips to Postgraduate students wanting to organise a conference of their own.

In February this year, my colleague, Séan Donnelly, and I organised the New Directions in Irish History Conference at Teesside University. We welcomed speakers and attendees from across Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, the United States, Denmark and Germany. The papers presented covered a wide variety of new and exciting approaches to Irish history research, and we were absolutely bowled over by the response we got to our Call for Papers.

Without wanting to blow our own trumpets too much, we feel that this conference was a success. This series of blog posts are a guide, based on our own experiences, which we hope will prove of some use to Postgraduate students and Early Career Researchers seeking to organise their own conferences. This is intended as just a guide and it is isn’t meant to be prescriptive. Every conference is different- the main thing is to think about what you want to do, and how you will achieve it. We do recommend you read all of the posts in this series before you start planning, so that you can get an idea of the process as a whole.

Step 1: Decide on a Vision and Assemble a Team

OK, this might sound a bit pretentious, but every conference needs a vision. You need to decide what the conference is for, and just as importantly, who the conference is for. Before you do anything else, you need a pitch in order to get people on board. Try to set this out over two sides of A4 paper. Think of this as a very rough draft of your Call for Papers.

The key to a good conference theme is something that has a degree of novelty. When you write a research proposal, you should sketch out the state of scholarship, identify the gaps in that scholarship, why that gap needs to be filled, and then how you intend to fill those gaps. The same principles apply with a conference pitch. A good conference pitch has a clear theme and a vision. It is neither too specific, nor too broad. Make it too specific and you might not have enough interest, or enough presenters. Papers presented may end up being too similar and might seem to end up repeating each other. Equally though, if you make it too broad, you can lose your unique selling point (USP), and end up with a conference where individual papers and panels simply do not work together, because their subject matter is too diffuse. It also might mean that potential attendees may only see the value in attending bits of the conference, as the other parts may be too different from their research interests.

It’s also important to get a simple, yet effective name for the conference. Your name should clearly signify what the conference is about, but also, it should be simple enough to be memorable. If your name seems to be a sentence or more, then think again! Keep your title simple and people can remember. One conference I presented at (shout out had the very simple, yet very chic title of ‘#LeaderImage’. Simple, memorable, yet equally very descriptive, as the conference explored the role of masculinities in visual images of political leaders.

We feel our conference also worked because we did just that. The name of the conference was ‘New Directions in Irish History’ and was aimed at PG students and Early Career Researchers. In our pitch we proposed a conference that showcased methodologically and theoretically innovative research. This gave the conference a unique selling point, whilst at the same time, we suggested (though did not prescribe) a wide variety of perspectives. These included: Oral history, Memory, Visual Culture, Gender, Political Culture, Intellectual History and Transnational History.

Our Conference Poster

The point at which you start planning a conference is entirely up to you and depends very much on the scale of the conference itself. For some of the larger, more prestigious conferences that are associated with a particular academic society or association, that are regular annual or biennial events, the planning and organisation might begin as much as three or four years in advance. Often in this case, the date and venue are confirmed two or so years in advance, and a detailed bid to host the conference has to be made before this. With a Postgraduate or ECR conference lasting one or two days, however, a year in advance is easily sufficient.

Sean and I started brainstorming ideas for the conference in the Spring of 2018 over cups of oolong tea (yes, we are pretentious) in Quilliam’s Tea House in Newcastle. By June 2018, we more or less had a clear idea of what we were going to do. We then sat down with our two supervisors and started planning the conference formally. The four of us, in made up a de facto conference committee. A good conference committee will usually have clear division of responsibility. You don’t have to have a formal chair, vice-chair, secretary, treasurer and so on; but make sure everyone knows what their responsibilities will be over the coming months. How often you meet is, again, up to you, and depends on the type of conference you are organising. However, it is a good idea to meet about once a month (with longer breaks over the summer and Christmas). Whilst formal minutes and an agenda are not necessary, it is worth setting out, in advance, what the meeting will discuss, and then, afterwards writing up a list of actions and making sure everyone is aware of what your ‘to-do list’ is.

Pretentious tea is a great help when organising a conference 

In our next post, we will discuss the fundamentals of organisation: Money, Keynotes, Date & Venue. 

Tim Ellis can be found on Twitter @6howff. 

 

 

 

 

 

Conference Review: “Burke, borders and bridges”: The 21st Conference of Irish Historians in Great Britain, Northumbria University, 7-9 September 2018.

NEE-HIP members Tim Ellis (Teesside) and Jack Hepworth (Newcastle) attended this conference in Newcastle, back in September. Here’s what they made of the three days.

The biennial Conference of Irish Historians in Great Britain is one of the most prestigious gatherings of Irish history scholars outside Ireland. The 21^stconference was held at Northumbria University in September, with the theme of the conference being ‘Conflict and Reconciliation: The History of Irish Political Ideas.’ Papers dealt with issues from the early modern period right up to the present day, and a huge array of scholarly talent was on display. Over two and a half days, attendees were treated to a smorgasbord of panels, lectures, roundtables and informal discussions.

 

Panel A: Early Modern Ireland:

The conference kicked off with a warm welcome on the Friday afternoon from Drs James McConell and David Gleeson. The first panel then explored early modern topics, and featured presentations from Dr Ian Campbell (Queen’s University Belfast- QUB and Matthew Ward (Oxford). Dr. Campbell spoke about how Irish Scotists rejected Thomist thought and approached rights-based arguments. Dr Campbell argued that today’s liberal scholarship can obscure political thought at odds with prevailing tendencies today. Mr Ward is currently working on Hobbesian theory and its interpretations in Ireland. Ward spoke about Edward Synge’s The case of toleration (1725), locating Synge’s thought in the contexts of the Reformation and Lockean theory, and describing how Synge’s experience of the Irish parliament tested his commitment to religious toleration. A particularly commendable feature of this panel was the speakers’ ability to communicate the ideas of the early modern period to an audience which was made up (mostly) of ‘late modern’ scholars. This panel certainly got the conference proceedings off to a strong start.

 

Panel B: Ireland in the long eighteenth century:

After an enjoyable dinner at the Biscuit Factory, discussions continued into the evening. The Conference then reconvened to discuss Ireland’s long eighteenth century. Dr Catriona Kennedy (York) discussed Irishwomen’s networks at the turn of the eighteenth/nineteenth century. Kennedy showed how women of different ideological hues, across both Great Britain and Ireland (including Hannah Greg, Elizabeth Hamilton, Lady Amelia Stewart and Maria Edgeworth) used epistolary networks to share and discuss ideas of social reform. As Kennedy argued, the existence of this network demonstrates how women did not merely have practical influence on philanthropy, nor were they ‘only echoes’ to the ideas of the men in their lives; but in fact offered a broad project of enlightened reform which drew on multiple intellectual influences. Dr Ultán Gillen (Teesside) then moved on to discuss the theme of counter-revolutionary thought over the French Revolutionary period. This topic has been under-explored by historians. Counter-revolutionary thought was not simplistic or homogenous- but rather had local, national and transnational aspects to it. It also included multiple ideological planks. Both the Protestant ascendancy and much of the Catholic population espoused distinct strains of counter-revolutionary thought. As Gillen concluded, this ideology employed a common language of liberty, constitution and enlightenment- that was not merely reducible to Burkean ideas. This panel thus reminded its attendees that no body of ideas should ever trivialised. Seemingly simplistic ideas exist in different contexts, can be heterogenous and can have multiple layers of complexity.

 

Dr Catriona Kennedy discussing Irishwomen’s intellectual networks at the turn of the eighteenth/nineteenth centuries. 

 

Panel C: Ireland in the long nineteenth century:

Following a short break, the next panel discussed intellectual history in Ireland’s long nineteenth century. Edmund Burke re-emerged in the first paper, as Emily Jones (Manchester) spoke about how Burke’s ideas were translated into nineteenth-century British political thought. Dr Jones noted how Whigs and Tories alike adopted and adapted some components of Burkean thought. James Stafford (Bielefeld) traced the origins of the Irish land question back to French revolutionary ideas and transnational thought on peasant proprietorship, at a time when Ireland had enjoyed relative economic prosperity. Colin Reid (Sheffield) spoke about Alexis de Tocqueville’s and Gustave de Beaumont’s journey through 1830s Ireland and how these thinkers interpreted the aristocracy in Britain and Ireland. This panel was particularly effective at illuminating an important theme in Irish intellectual history: the complexities of translating concepts across time and space.

 

Dr Colin Reid, overlooked by Alexis de Tocqueville.

 

Holy Jesus Hospital and Historiography:

Part of the afternoon was given over to a two-hour long break. This gave some attendees the opportunity to visit the nearby Holy Jesus Hospital: a fascinating, centuries-old building given over to service the poor of Newcastle. This break (a feature of every one of these conferences) meant that attendees were not too fatigued later on in this afternoon and worked very well. Re-energised, everyone gathered to hear papers on Irish historiography from Dr Ciaran Brady (Trinity College, Dublin) and Dr Margaret O’Callaghan (QUB). Ciaran Brady, an experienced scholar Irish historiography, gave an entertaining paper on the 19^thCentury historian, John P. Prendergast. Prendergast, started as a respected historian for Irish nationalists, but over time, increasingly espoused a unionist perspective. This shift could be traced to Prendergast’s understanding of the theme of ‘conquest’ in Irish history, which as it emerged was complex, and not easily pigeon-holed. Dr O’Callaghan’s paper explored the history writing of Alice Stopford Green. Stopford Green’s writing drew upon multiple different intellectual influences: Irish home rule, new liberalism, anti-imperialism and the Celtic revival. All of these influences figured in her writing of Irish history.

 

One of the carvings from Holy Jesus Hospital.

Lecture: ‘The future of the Irish border’:

Following this panel, attendees decamped to the Tyneside Irish Centre to hear Dr Katy Hayward’s (QUB) lecture on the Irish border. It was heartening to see that this event was well-attended by members of the Irish community in the North East, as well as academics. In an intellectually stimulating, yet lucid lecture, Hayward explained the many complex issues at stake in the future of the Irish border after Brexit. Indeed, a key point from this lecture was that the Irish border is not merely one continuous, homogenous entity. Since 1921, the qualities of the Irish border have shifted and changed, almost continuously. It is both a border for goods and a border for people. For instance, in the 1930s, during the Anglo-Irish Economic War, whilst the movement of people was relatively easy, the movement of goods (due to the impact of tariffs) was rather difficult. Following Brexit, the border will likely be harder in some places, and softer in others. Its future remains ambiguous. The British Government does not, yet, have a clear programme for the future of the Irish border, nor do the people of Northern Ireland have a clear preference as to how they would vote in a hypothetical border poll. With this point in mind, it is therefore essential that any proposals, discussions and agreements remain as free from ambiguity as possible.

 

Dr Katy Hayward discusses the ‘Border question.’

 

Dinner at Blackfriars:

After a long, but thoroughly enjoyable day, attendees were escorted to Blackfriars restaurant (a building which dates back to the thirteenth century) for the main dinner of the conference. Professor Theo Hoppen (Emeritus, Hull), gave the after-dinner speech. Professor Hoppen belongs to a unique group of historians in these islands who has proven himself capable of writing exceptional work on both Ireland and Great Britain. Not only has Professor Hoppen written on nineteenth century Irish history, he is also the author of an instalment of the New Oxford History of England, The mid Victorian Generation: 1846-86. Hoppen’s after-dinner speech was very inspirational and incorporated insights from a long career spread across several different countries.

Panel D: The twentieth century:

Bright and early on Sunday morning, the conference reconvened to discuss the twentieth century. This panel was a particularly strong showcase of Irish history research in the North East of England. Seán Donnelly (Teesside University and NEE-HIP contributor) gave a very sophisticated paper on political thought in 1920s Ireland. Donnelly argued that the political rhetoric and programme of the Cumann na nGaedheal government constituted a fusion of an older republican tradition of ‘civic virtue’ with a distinctly postcolonial emphasis on maintaining ‘moral discipline’ in the eyes of the world. Dr Sarah Campbell (Newcastle) gave a very insightful paper on the politics of memory and the Northern Ireland Civil Rights movement. The tenth and twentieth anniversaries of ‘68’ were rather sombre occasions, which fixated on the ‘lost promises’ of the movement in light of the ‘failures’ of the Troubles. In comparison, since the 1990s, memories of the movement have been more positive, with some presenting the 1998 Good Friday Agreement as the culmination of the promises of Civil Rights. One memory, nonetheless, remains hotly contested: the SDLP (Social Democratic and Labour Party) argues that Sinn Féin, has ‘rewritten’ history to construct a role that it did not play in the movement. Connal Parr (Northumbria) offered an enlightening paper on the other side of the Northern Irish political divide. Dr. Parr argued that we need to get away from the stereotypical image of the ‘tattoo-pocked’ loyalist lifting weights and reading comics in prison Rather, Ulster Loyalism was indeed a productive source of much political thought. Both in and out of prison, loyalists found a variety of spaces to discuss matters as diverse as Yeats’ poetry, town planning and the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.

 

Seán Donnelly explores shifts in the historiography of 1920s Ireland. 

 

Round table: The Good Friday Agreement:

Following seamlessly from the previous panel, conference attendees were treated to a round table discussion on the ‘Good Friday Agreement at twenty.’ This included Sarah Campbell, Thomas Dolan (Edinburgh), Katy Hayward, Thomas Leahy (Cardiff), Peter Leary (University College, London), and Connal Parr. The panel discussed how successful the GFA had been. Contributors acknowledged the Agreement’s success in drastically reducing violence in Northern Ireland but questioned its socioeconomic legacy at a time when issues such as poverty, unemployment, and poor housing continue to acutely affect the region. Contributors also discussed the international dimensions of the Agreement and Ireland’s future in a changing world post-Trump and post-Brexit. On the whole, contributors agreed that whilst the Good Friday Agreement has left many of its promises unfulfilled, it still has much potential and possibility, and should, by no means, be regarded as an end-point to the Northern Irish Peace Process.

 

Conclusion:

Commendably the conference included a range of contributions which covered a wide variety of topics. Whilst they were many strong female speakers, they were still clearly outnumbered by male speakers. Nonetheless, there are many talented doctoral and post-doctoral female scholars of Irish history in Britain, and therefore, future conferences should hope to have equal gender representation of speakers. Whilst the number of themes and topics addressed were indeed wide, a sense of coherence across the conference was clear. A common theme to many papers was the strong permeation of international intellectual currents into Ireland over the centuries. This offered a strong refutation of treatments of Ireland as backward, insular and untouched by modernity over the centuries. The final panel on the Good Friday Agreement, for example, reminded us, that in some ways, the agreement may well have been innovative for the wider political future of these islands.

 

Nourishment for body and mind. 

 

Whilst the scholarly contributions (which took the form of both interesting papers and stimulating discussion) to the conference were of a very high standard, it also must be said that, as an event it ran very smoothly. Across the three days, Dr James McConnell (Northumbria) who oversaw the conference’s organisation, ensured that everything came off without a hitch. Registration for PhD students cost £100 which included, in addition to two and a half days of panels, two dinners (offered at Newcastle’s own Biscuit Factory and Blackfriars restaurants), two breakfasts and two lunches, along with ample tea, coffee, soft drinks and wine for all attendees. In addition, optional accommodation was only an extra £60 (for both Friday and Saturday night). Northumbria and Dr McConnell thus clearly excelled themselves this year. Irish history scholars, should therefore, look forward, with anticipation, to the next conference, held In Cardiff in 2020.

***CALL FOR PAPERS*** – New Directions in Irish History Conference

Tim Ellis and Seán Donnelly (both of Teesside University) are currently organising a conference for Early Career Researchers in Irish History- Here’s the Call for Papers: 

The Decade of Commemorations has brought about an unprecedented flowering of research in Irish history. The purpose of this conference is to pose the question: where next? This conference will incorporate papers exhibiting fresh theoretical perspectives and innovative methodologies encompassing papers on a wide range of themes and subject-matter from early-career researchers.

The conference will take place at Teesside University on 22-23 February 2019. Keynote speakers will be Dr Erika Hanna (University of Bristol) and Dr Caoimhe Nic Dháibhéid (University of Sheffield).

We invite early-career researchers from across the discipline to contribute to the ongoing methodological and theoretical diversification of Irish history by presenting their research at this conference. We are open to perspectives which broaden and expand the interpretive remit of the discipline. Subjects of papers could include, but are, by no means, limited to:

• Women, gender, sexualities and masculinities in Ireland.
• Ireland in global, transnational, colonial and postcolonial context.
• The use of oral, material and visual culture as historical sources.
• Intellectual history.
• Popular religious and political cultures.
• Commemoration, memory and post-memory.
• The self, emotions and interiority.
• Ritual, performance and musicology.
• Migration and diasporic histories.
• Archaeology and the landscape.
• New perspectives on Irish historiography.

 

It is our hope that these fresh perspectives will enable us to better understand the complex range of intellectual forces that continue to shape the development of this constantly evolving discipline.

To be considered as a speaker, please forward an abstract (max: 300 words) and a brief CV to newdirectionsinirishhistory@gmail.com by 4 January 2019. Any informal queries can also be sent to this address. Abstracts should include a clear title and should indicate how the proposed paper addresses the conference theme of ‘New Directions in Irish history.’

Each speaker will be allocated 20-minutes to present their research, with 10-minutes set aside for questions.

For more information about the North East of England–Historians of Ireland (NEE-HIP) network,  launched to facilitate professional engagement and exchange of ideas among the growing number of early-career researchers working in the region, visit our blog: https://neehip.wordpress.com/about/.

This event is generously supported by Teesside University and the British Association of Irish Studies (BAIS).

Follow us on Twitter @NewConference.

Our facebook event can be found by following this link : (https://www.facebook.com/events/251738612155379/?notif_t=plan_admin_added&notif_id=1539945673625640).