Deciding on what symbols to include in the questionnaire

In approaching the consideration of what Symbols of Irishness to select on the questionnaire it was felt that though authors like Fennell (1993) may claim that what is symbolically valued in contemporary Ireland concerning being Irish is essentially emotionally vacuous, such viewpoints

should not pre-empt - or then imply - that young people only invest some type of emotional vacuous-ness in their own self or collective identification. Though Fennell is correct on the modernising challenge upon the „image‟ of Irishness this does not immediately demand there is then no felt substantive „image‟ of Ireland understood and expressible for young people. There may still be substance in Irish identification - emotional uniting bonds - just not made of the substance that authors like Fennell propose grounding Irishness in.

Symbolic identification is a highly complex phenomenon and a great deal of consideration was given to both the selection of symbols and how to present these symbols. Accepting that different symbols could be received differently by young people it was felt that the symbols to be addressed should be presented as simplistically as was possible. Though this minimal presentation could not address how each student received each symbol - unless this could be countered by administering all the questionnaires personally and offering a commentary as students addressed each symbol, which would prove completely unfeasible as I rightly assumed some schools would only agree to assist in distributing the questionnaire if it was at the teachers discretion - it would help to focus in a direct manner the understanding of symbolic association.

Below is a Table listing the Symbols of Irishness posed and the order in which they were listed, also included is how I expected people to read each symbol towards Irishness:

Table 3.3 - Symbols of Irishness and valency

Symbols of Irishness Valency for Young People

Valency for the Generalised Other

Percent of Young people who addressed the question of personal identification

Percent of Young people who addressed the question of Generalised Other identification

GAA Positive Positive 96.3% (N=339) 95.2% (N=335)

Irish soccer team Positive Positive 96% (N=338) 95.5% (N=336)

U2 Positive Positive 93.2% (N=328) 91.8% (N=323)

Classic Irish

literature (e.g. Joyce) Neutral-Positive Positive 94.3% (N=332) 94% (N=331) Celtic Tiger Neutral-Positive Positive 94.9% (N=334) 95.5% (N=336)

Multiculturalism Neutral-Positive Negative 93.5% (N=329) 92.6% (N=326)

Alcoholic abuse Negative Negative 96% (N=338) 95.2% (N=335)

Welcoming to

strangers Positive Positive 95.7% (N=337) 94.6% (N=333)

Irish language Neutral-Positive Positive 96.3% (N=339) 95.2% (N=335)

The craic Positive Positive 95.2% (N=335) 95.5% (N=336)

Intolerance Negative Negative 92.3% (N=325) 91.5% (N=322)

Repression Negative Negative 88.9% (N=313) 87.5% (N=308)

Speaking the Irish

language Neutral-Negative Positive 95.5% (N=336) 95.2% (N=335)

Violent Negative Negative 94% (N=331) 94.9% (N=334)

The government Negative Negative 95.5% (N=336) 95.5% (N=336)

Political corruption Negative Negative 92.9% (N=327) 94.3% (N=332)

Learning/understandi

ng Irish history Positive Positive 95.5% (N=336) 95.2% (N=335) Irish folk music Neutral-Negative Positive 95.5% (N=336) 95.5% (N=336)

Friendliness/helpful. Positive Positive 94.9% (N=334) 95.5% (N=336)

Riverdance Neutral-Negative Positive 94.6% (N=333) 94.9% (N=334)

Catholic Church Neutral-Negative Positive 96% (N=338) 96.3% (N=339)

Spirituality - or

beliefs in god, Positive Positive 95.2% (N=335) 95.5% (N=336) Physically/geographic

ally mobile Neutral Positive 90.9% (N=320) 91.8% (N=323)

Well education Positive Positive 95.5% (N=336) 94.6% (N=333)

Creative, artistic and

talented Positive Positive 95.2% (N=335) 95% (N=334)

Socially co-operative

and helpful Positive Positive 93.8% (N=330) 94.9% (N=334)

The listing intended to highlight a mixture of symbols that have a long established association with Irishness - GAA, Welcoming to strangers, Irish language - with symbols that have a more contemporary application - Irish soccer team, U2, Celtic Tiger. Some values were designed to be read as negative towards Irish identification - Intolerance, Repression and Political corruption for instance - while other values were designed to be read as positive factors towards identification - such as The craic, Friendliness/helpfulness and Creative, artistic and talented. The listed Symbols of Irishness was of course in no way exhaustive; what about The Spire, Croke

Park, Tradition, 1916 Rebellion, Northern Ireland, United Ireland, Leprechauns, Money, Irish Anthem, Irish Flag, IRA, Lazy, Neutrality, Rural Ireland, Shopping and consuming, Confirmation or Communion, Racists, Workaholics, Community or Pride? On reflection however

two thing are noteworthy about what was offered; some Symbols of Irishness were listed far too broadly and loosely to give a reading that could suggest a given common meaning and the omission and inclusion of some symbols was a definite mistake.

Taking the first point it can be seen from the listing of Symbols of Irishness that some symbols are relatively unproblematic - GAA, Irish soccer team, U2, Irish language, Catholic

Church - and identify something that can possibly be commonly understood. However the

presentation of other Symbols of Irishness is far more problematic. For instance the symbol of

Violent was included as a concern with how young people may project a Generalised Other and

particularly how views towards Irishness may be impacted by the vista of the Troubles or the association of Irish people with violence. This approach was far too abstract to connect with how young people may symbolically interpret Violent and its inclusion was wasteful when another symbol could have been included, such as the Irish Anthem or Irish Flag for instance. Equally the notion of Physically/geographically mobile was included to garner how young people may interact with both the notion of the Irish Diaspora but also how they themselves may see Irish identity as mobile and not necessarily bounded to Ireland. Again this was far too abstract to expect an engagement that could be read as anything but highly problematic.

On the second point, on how the omission and inclusion of some symbols was felt to be a mistake, the consideration of Intolerance, Repression, Violent and Physically/geographically

mobile should hopefully have highlighted how their inclusion was a mistake and took away from

listing perhaps less problematical Symbols of Irishness. However what may have been more telling is the omission of any explicit reference to the National Question - such as United Ireland

or Irish Unification. Mac Gréil points out how from partition the position of Northern Ireland has „occupied a central place in attitudes and concerns of most Irish citizens‟ (1997:224). This „central place‟ can be seen in Mac Gréil own research findings where people in Dublin expressed overwhelming support for both Irish unification - 84% of people supported „A thirty-two County Republic with one central Government‟ (1997:246) - and opposition toward the suggestion of rejoining the Union - 92% of respondents opposed the notion of „The whole island of Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom again‟ (ibid). The mistake of omitting some symbolic representation of the National Question is felt to be limiting as it may have directly addressed how bounded/unbounded young people in Dublin feel Irish identity is. This could have been symbolically addressed if such a symbol, like a United Ireland, was seen to be significantly valued within the symbolic consciousness of young people and placing a symbol related to the National Question would certainly have positioned in the consciousness of young people the idea that this - a United Ireland - is perhaps one way people can and do negotiate Irishness.

It is not that consideration was not given to the inclusion of such symbols. It was felt that as there was more than adequate space in the questionnaire for students to articulate what they may have valued in Irish identity - either symbolically or practically - and if the National Question was within some young peoples‟ national consciousness then they could still express their feelings either though the category of Other within the Symbols of Irishness or indeed elsewhere on the questionnaire and some, though admittedly only a very small number of the overall sample, did express opinions on Northern Ireland. After careful consideration it was decided not to include any direct reference to the National Question and it is particularly with hind-sight - particularly with how Northern Ireland and the northern Irish were tackled within the focus groups - that a symbolic reference to the National Question can be seen as valuable for illuminating more fully young peoples‟ symbolic understandings towards Irishness. Along with these two limitations in the Symbols of Irishness presented to young people another problematic point relates to the request to estimate evaluations for a Generalised Other.