I’d like to comment on a section of the documentary we watched today, particularly the part where Brendan Hughes discussed the IRA’s decision to kill Jean McConville, the mother of ten who they believed was passing information to the British Army. I found it troubling that Hughes was so adamant that she should’ve been executed, and that the main source of contention within the IRA was about where to hide her body, not about whether or not they ought to kill a mother of ten.
I think the IRA’s absolute certainty about executing McConville is a testament to the fact that sectarianism and adherence to absolute principles can promote dehumanization: they saw her as a traitor, and not a person just doing what she could to get by. Hughes’ testimony that he sees the decision as wrong now is a sign, to me, that he’s attempted to rationalize the things he’s done, but I still find it disturbing that he elaborated more on the conflict about disposing of her body than on the conflict that should arise in the decision to kill a mother of ten.
I admire Heaney’s honesty about his struggle with his principles in light of his identity in the scheme of the conflict. He is not absolute. I find comfort in the end of Exposure: he comes across to me as painfully human, being reminded of “The diamond absolutes”, yet knowing he is neither “internee nor informer”, and finding his place in exile, listening and interpreting the conflict around him – “feeling/ Every wind that blows”. I wonder if Heaney, in Hughes’ shoes, would have spoken out against the decision to execute McConville. In light of poems like Punishment, it’s possible that he would have resigned himself to silence, despite any empathy he might have felt for her. As I see him gaining a voice throughout North, and finding ways in which to discuss violence, I begin to think that Heaney did speak out against violence, particularly in poems like The Grauballe Man, where he emphasized the tragedy of death, “the actual weight/ of each hooded victim/ slashed and dumped”.
One Reply to “Brendan Hughes’ Absolutism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree that the black-and-white approach to the crisis in Northern Ireland would be troublesome, especially when the issue is extremely convoluted and every step towards reconciliation requires civil conduct in a violent, hate-filled environment. Not only do these principles often backfire, resulting in deaths of innocent people and collateral damage, but generalized assertions carried out in practice produce a tunnel vision that distorts reasoning and is susceptible of falling prey to the will of the mob.
This is precisely what Professor Doggett identifies as the issue with Nationalism as well. At its core, there is no binding agent between all people from one land or other besides the coincidence of birth in the same general area. Society is a diverse combination of all sorts of personalities, experiences, and values. It’s not rational to address issues affecting such a variety of interests with binary reasoning. Even on the streets the armed forces on both sides were immersed in chaotic battle, with people involved who were IRA, UVF, and civilian who all appeared virtually the same. How does one fight in a battle when they can hardly tell the difference between a civilian and the enemy?
In addition, I can’t imagine how Margaret Thatcher’s “tough on crime” comments were going to soothe tensions in Northern Ireland. I understand her position is difficult, but cracking down harder during such turbulent times only called for a stronger push back from Irish Republicans. These issues are complicated and require much delicacy when discussing them.