It does seem extraordinary that this is the first comprehensive study of Irish language policy since the foundation of the Irish Free State in 1922. Given that Irish was taught with various degrees of enthusiasm or ennui to generations of pupils and students and was prominent in both constitutions and has symbolic echoes throughout all aspects of Irish life even when people want it ignored, this neglect seems to speak of something deep inside. Most contemporary histories of modern Ireland will give discussion of the language question the privilege of some footnotes or shunt it off into a siding.
And yet it remains, sorry about this, one of the central questions as to why there should be an Irish State at all, at all. Yes, there were questions about civil rights, discrimination against Catholics, the remnants of land domination and strands of wispy history, but there was no real, solid, demonstrative reason why Ireland should not remain part of the United Kingdom, apart from a few tweaks and tiny tunings which a little local cosmetic tailoring could mend.
The big challenge was the fragile nature of many Irish-speaking communities
The whole Irish “revival” sprang from a few sources. The first was that Irish speakers had been “worsted in the game” for hundreds of years, that their culture and speech were not paddywhackery and ignorant gobdawishness but the dignified language of ordinary people, their traditions, songs and stories were the major voice of the people for most of our history, and that they and their dignity should be given recognition in a new Irish State.
The obvious problem was what a new Irish State, obviously sympathetic, should do with these claims. The big challenge was the fragile nature of many Irish-speaking communities. The Gaeltacht Commission established in 1925 reported that Irish was spoken as a community language in 12 of the 26 counties. Some of these were unsustainable because of poverty, age, or the sparsely scattered nature of those communities, but others were vibrant and could thrive given opportunities and support. This commission was the first of many almost innumerable reports, surveys, investigations, delegations, hearings, inquiries, inspections, researches, recommendations, proposals, white papers, green papers, speckled papers or plans, strategic or action or other, regarding the language. John Walsh is to be highly commended for ploughing through the lot as it cannot have been easy and could easily clog up the mind of the sprightliest brain.
Britain’s heritage under threat from vandals targeting landmark sites
Paul O’Connell: Joe Schmidt ‘still has a bit of influence here’
Panoramic city views from Millenium Tower penthouse in Dublin docklands for €2m
Polish or Irish? ‘I wanted to fully integrate. But then I realised that you can be both and it’s not a problem’
The book is highly organised and examines blow-by-blow State policy or its lack with regard to education, Gaeltacht, law and broadcasting. It is always balanced, fair and measured and does not indulge in ideological speculation, although some of us would prefer a more argumentative approach.
Nonetheless, some things stick out, even by a kilometre. Why was it not possible, right from the start, to ensure that gardaí in the Gaeltacht were fluent in Irish, and post office officials, and court proceedings conducted in the local language? Why was it not possible for Irish speakers to live their lives in their own communities in their own language? Simple basic stuff is still a point of contention.
That Gaeltacht commission set up by the first Cosgrave government made radical proposals that any left-leaning humanist thinker would be proud of: free secondary school education, one free meal a day in schools, the redistribution of land. Just think about it! Yet the class nature of the new rulers could not make that leap of the imagination which might have transformed the country. When responses from government departments were not lukewarm or cautious, they were often openly hostile, not to say colonial. The Department of Justice opposed sending gardaí with Irish to the Gaeltacht and objected to making Irish the language of the local district courts. Yet, Walsh is fair to point out that many recommendations were accepted and did have a positive impact on future policy.
The rhetoric of the national language, however true, became shop-worn and cliched by the 1970s as embarrassment set in and began to be replaced by a discourse of human rights. This proved extremely useful as it was difficult for bourgeois liberals to openly oppose. As the State retreated with unspoken alacrity from its original stated aims the most innovative reforms came about as a result of community actions.
A language act providing for public services for Irish speakers was a result of unremitting activism
The burgeoning of gaelscoileanna happened by parental action, the setting up of Raidió na Gaeltachta and TG4 was because of community pressure often against the grain of an indifferent or antagonistic State, and the passing of a language act providing for public services for Irish speakers was a result of constant unremitting activism from Conradh na Gaeilge among others.
Most disgracefully, of course, was the decision by the State not to accept the status of Irish as a full official working language when we joined what was the EEC in 1973. This was an open door which puzzled the Europeans that we didn’t want to walk through. It took years of campaigning, led in particular by Pádraig Ó Laighin, for this to be reversed, thus ending decades of discrimination in employment against Irish speakers.
A major theme of the book is the contrast between the proclaimed ideals of the revitalisation of Irish and the often “lukewarm or hostile responses contained in internal documents from government departments”. It might be best described as —commission a report, mull over it, make pleasant positive noises, do a bit, procrastinate, encourage encouraging, find reasons to do little, say more nice things, commission another report and so it goes.
And yet, John Walsh’s book is a record of hits and misses, much neglect and some success. This in stark contrast to Northern Ireland, while not a major part of his study, is yet given good shrift. This fundamental study should be a basic text for historians who bother to deal with language policy since independence.
