New in print: Strategies from the ivory tower

This is a useful first-year undergraduate collection of essays which discuss some of the themes surrounding the Peace Process; the real or perceived changes in Unionist and Republican thinking, social and economic issues, security strategies and so on.

In addition, one or two of the essays demonstrate very well how the British have attempted to exploit the notion of identity as a means of conflict management. For example, the chapter on education points out that initiatives for mixed schooling to combat cultural intolerance, such as the much-vaunted Education for Mutual Understanding programme, are in reality merely a means by which attention can be deflected away from the real causes of conflict: ``when the problem...is defined as a cultural one, as a clash of two competing identities, the solution is sought in education. However, when the problem is defined structurally...many people argued that the solution was to be found in institutional reform or constitutional change. It is the change in focus from structural inequalities to personal perception which has allowed the proposed educational initiatives to predominate.''

The chapter on gender as a theme of the process is also illuminating. The conflict is, of course, no more about gender than it is about religion but, as this essay suggests, the enthusiasm with which British establishment and media greeted the creation of the Women's Coalition (which also disguised their virtually non-existent mandate) would have had us all believe that certain individuals, by virtue of possession of a particular anatomical feature, are the cause of it all.

Again, instead of blaming government or institutions, we can blame testosterone. The problem lies with men and their incorrigible maleness. It is men who have failed, not the system. Get some fragrant, conciliatory, peace-loving women in, encourage them to spout meaningless platitudes about tolerance and understanding, avoid mentioning the border, and thereby solve the problem.

However, the bizarre conclusion drawn by several of the essays and the editorial framework is that in challenging and seeking to remove those very structural inequalities and injustices identified within the book - and thereby burying the tribal theory once and for all - Sinn Fein, by entering into electoral politics and this peace process, has somehow relinquished its republican ideals. This ignores the fact that the conflation of civil rights with national self-determination has existed within republicanism since 1798 and pursuing the former does not - as this book suggests without explaining on what logical, philosophical, sociological or any other grounds how this is so - mean giving up the latter.

Why or how does insisting on equality and justice for nationalists within the six county statelet - and then doing what is necessary to achieve that - mean acquiescence or recognition of that statelet?

Further, the book resolutely refuses to engage in any discussion of alternative strategies; it merely restricts itself to insisting that armed struggle is old-fashioned and futile and politics a sell-out. What would you do then? is not considered by either the editors or contributors as a valid question. But then taking refuge in ideologically pure ivory towers and doing nothing except criticising is not a new phenomenon amongst those who cherish the idea of British withdrawal, as I know many of these individuals do; it is simply the easiest option and it won't bring about a United Ireland.

By Fern Lane