Wesleyan University

Reconstructing Culture in Historical Explanation: Narratives as Cultural Structure and

Practice
Author(s): Anne Kane
Source: History and Theory, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Oct., 2000), pp. 311-330
Published by: Wiley for Wesleyan University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678014 .
Accessed: 19/06/2014 14:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Wesleyan University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History
and Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Historyand Theory39 (October2000), 311-330 ? WesleyanUniversity2000 ISSN: 0018-2656

FORUM ON CULTUREAND EXPLANATIONIN HISTORICALINQUIRY

2.

RECONSTRUCTING CULTURE IN HISTORICAL EXPLANATION:

NARRATIVES AS CULTURAL STRUCTURE AND PRACTICE

ANNE KANE

ABSTRACT

The problemof how to access and deploy the explanatorypower of culture in historical
accounts has long remainedvexing. A recent approach,combining and transcendingthe
"cultureas structure"/"cultureas practice"divide among social historians,puts explana-
tory focus on the recursivityof meaning, agency, and structurein historicaltransforma-
tion. This article arguesthat meaning constructionis at the nexus of culture,social struc-
ture, and social action, and must be the explicit target of investigationinto the cultural
dimension of historical explanation.Through an empirical analysis of political alliance
duringthe IrishLandWar,1879-1882, I demonstratethathistorianscan uncovermeaning
constructionby analyzingthe symbolic structuresand practicesof narrativediscourse.

I. INTRODUCTION

While it is now widely accepted that culture-symbolic systems of embodied

meaning by which people understandtheir experience of the world, and in turn
act upon it-is as constitutiveof social structure,social order,and social change
as materialand institutionalforces, and causally significantin historical events,
transformations,and processes, the problem of how to access and deploy the
explanatorypower of culture in historical accounts remains vexing. For some
time, social historiansand sociologists were divided over whethercultureand its
causal capacity should be analyzed as structureor as practice.' Recently a more
fruitful approachthat combines and transcendsthe "cultureas structure"/"cul-
ture as practice"conundrumputs explanatoryfocus on the recursivityof mean-
ing, agency, and structure-or more specifically, the mutual transformationof
social structure,social action, and culturalsystems-in historicaltransformation.
Exemplarsof this approachinclude Ansell's analysis of how an organizingsym-
bol, the strike, that emerged throughdiscursive interactionbetween competing
unions contributedto the realignmentof the French working class in the late
nineteenth century; Mabel Berezin's investigation into the creation of Italian
Fascist identity throughpublic spectacle in piazzas, the symbolic core of Italian
community;andWilliam Sewell, Jr.'sexposition of how the symbolic interpreta-
tion of an event-"the taking of the Bastille"-led to the creationof a new sym-
bolic concept-"revolution," and a new meaning of political sovereignty.2
1.Fora discussionof thesedifferentconceptualizations
of culture,see WilliamSewell,Jr.,"TheConcept(s)
of Culture'"
in Beyondthe CulturalTurn,ed. VictoriaBonnellandLynnHunt(Berkeley,1999),35-61.
2. ChristopherK. Ansell, "Symbolic Networks: The Realignmentof the FrenchWorkingClass,
1887-1894," AmericanJournalof Sociology 103 (1997), 359-390; Mabel Berezin, TheMakingof the
Fascist Self (Ithaca, N.Y, 1997); William Sewell, Jr., "Historical Events as StructuralTrans-
formations:Inventingthe Revolutionat the Bastille,"Theoryand Society 26 (1996), 245-280.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 All these worksrecognize,if only implicitly,thatthe foundationunderlyingthe
reciprocityof social action, social structuring,and the reproductionand transfor-
mationof culturalsystems, is meaningconstruction,the process of using cultural
models to make sense of experience.Whethermundaneor extraordinary,experi-
ence is the encounteringof specific structuralconditions(both materialand non-
material)and events (rangingfrom the behaviorof other actors,to the fall of the
stock market,to a change in political regime). How individualsand collectives
respond,and the specific action they take, depends on how they interpretevents
using symbolic systems of understanding,or culturalmodels, which themselves
are subjectedto interpretationwhen they are used. Meaning constructionis thus
at the nexus of culture,social structure,and social action, and must be the explic-
it targetof investigationinto the culturaldimension of historicalexplanation.In
this article,I review a theoreticalframeworkdevelopedfor studyingmeaningcon-
struction,which assertsthatmeaning structureand meaningconstructiontogeth-
er form the basis for culturalexplanationin historicalprocesses.3Then through
empiricalanalysis,I demonstratemore fully how historianscan uncoverthe reci-
procal processes of social action, culturaltransformation,and social change by
analyzingthe symbolic structuresand practicesof discourseand narrative.
In my sociological research,the problem of political alliance in social move-
ments has been a centralconcern, and I've researchedit empiricallythroughthe
study of the Irish Land movement and War, 1879-1882. The Irish Land War
began in late 1878 as a tenantfarmerprotestmovementagainsthigh rents, evic-
tions, and landlordintransigencein the face of an agrariancrisis precipitatedby
the European-wideagriculturaldepression of the late 1870s and Ireland'scon-
secutive crop failures in 1877 and 1878. Seizing the opportunityfor mass mobi-
lization and renewal of Irish political energy,the nationalistmovement immedi-
ately harnesseditself to the agrarianagitation.United underthe organizationof
the Irish National Land League (INLL), a movement of farmers, political
activists, nationalistpoliticians,ruraltownspeople,and Catholic clergy began in
the springof 1879 the LandWarcampaignagainstlandlordismand Britishdom-
ination.The immediateresult of this phase of the land movement was the Land
Act of 1881, which drasticallychangedthe structureof Irishland tenure,and led
soon afterwardto the dismantlingof landlordismin Ireland.4It also contributed
mightily to the end of Britishrule in Ireland.5
As importantas the success of the land movementis to Irish history,what has
fascinatedme is how unlikely this success was, given the diversityand contention

3. Anne Kane, "TheorizingMeaning Constructionin Social Movements:Symbolic Structuresand

Interpretationduringthe IrishLandWar,1879-1882," Sociological Theory15 (1997), 249-276; Kane,
"Narrativesof Nationalism:ConstructingIrish National Identity during the Land War, 1878-1882,"
National Identities (forthcoming,2000).
4. By establishing commissions to determinefair rents and by allowing tenants the right to sell
their interestin a holding (based on improvementsthey might have made), the Act essentially creat-
ed a form of co-possession between landlord and tenant, whereas before the landlord maintained
absolute propertyrights.
5. For a discussionof the social and politicaloutcomesof the LandWar,see Paul Bew, Landand the
NationalQuestionin Ireland(Dublin,1978);PhilipBull, Land,Politics,and Nationalism(Dublin,1996).

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RECONSTRUCTINGCULTUREIN HISTORICALEXPLANATION 313

among its constituentmembers. How was it that diverse social groups-tenant

farmers, nationalists, clergy, and townspeople-with conflicting agendas built
enough solidarityfor a successful social movementagainstthe joint power struc-
ture of landlordism and British rule? With the exception of the Catholic
Emancipationmovement of the 1820s, no previous campaignfor Irish indepen-
dence, tenantrights, or Catholic freedom had been productive,owing largely to
the inability of nationalists,tenantfarmers,and the Churchto formulateshared
understandingsof these issues. In fact, the three groupshad historicallythwarted
the goals of one another,and hence themselves, in protectingtheir own self-per-
ceived interests.The diverse culturalorientationsof these groups, due in part to
their differentialexperienceof British rule, led to near intractablepolitical divi-
sions amongthem.Furthermore,these groupsfragmentedinternally,along "class"
lines (small, middle, and large farmers)political lines (constitutionalfederalists
["HomeRulers"]and radicalseparatists),and doctrinaldifferences(ultramontane
and Irishpatriotic[withinthe Gallicantradition]).Conflictwithin the groupspro-
duced as big an obstacle to political alliance and movementmobilizationas con-
flict between the groups.Whatthen made the land movementthateruptedin 1879
different?How do we accountfor the successful alliance and mobilizationof the
tenants,nationalists,and CatholicChurchduringthe LandWar?
Most cultural analyses of political alliance look at movement ideology and
identity as the site for transcendenceof conflicting,and constructionof new, cul-
tural models. I agree that the Irish tenantfarmers,nationalists,and clergy were
able to forge an alliance largely because they constructeda new ideology, one
that encompassedyet transcendedthe diverse and conflicting symbolic systems
broughtto the land movementby these and other groups. However,unlike most
other analyses mine begins from a more fundamentalassumption:as meaning
constructionallows people to come to sharedunderstandings(the basis of iden-
tity, ideology, frames of collective action, and specific discourse), and as shared
understandingsare crucialto alliances, solidarity,and mobilization,being able to
explain and analyzemeaningconstructionis fundamentalto understandingpolit-
ical alliance and mobilization,as well as a host of other movementprocesses. In
this articleI will arguethatculturalexplanationof historicalprocesses and trans-
formations,such as social movementsand theiroutcomes, must uncoverthe con-
structionand transformationof meaning, and that in this historiansmust begin
with the investigationof the structuresof culture.
Explainingpolitical alliance in social movements provides an excellent case
study to address the issue of culturalexplanationin historical processes. First,
social movementsdramaticallyexhibitnecessarycomponentsof recursivity:social
structures(political regimes, economic systems, and social institutions),cultural
systems (ideologies, identities, religions), and social action (activities of move-
ment participantssuch as demonstrations,eviction resistance,and boycotting,the
and response of dominant power through arrests, violence, and concessions)
mutuallyinfluence one another.In orderto act in unison and effectively, diverse
participantsin a social movement must forge new understandingswhich both
employ and often transformtheirculturalmodels and structuralconditions.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The most effective way to uncover meaning in culturalmodels, to chart the
transformationof meaning and symbols in conjunctionwith action, conditions,
and events, and to witness the emergence of new culturalmodels is to study the
"active"componentof culturestructures,namely narrative.Narrativesare stories
that embody symbolic meaning and codes of understanding;through "story-
telling" meaning is publicly shared,contested, and reconstructed.Thus, through
analysis of narrativesthe historiancan access the causal power of culture,both
as structureand as practice.
I presentmy argumentin two main sections: one lays a theoreticalfoundation,
the otherprovides an empiricalanalysis of meaning transformationand political
alliance. The theoreticaldiscussion focuses on the structureof meaning and the
dualrole of narrative,in concertwith social action,structuralconditions,andcon-
tingentevents, in both the maintenanceand transformationof meaning.Because
it is impossible here to analyze and discuss all the transformationsof meaning
which helped build political alliance in the movementthroughoutthe LandWar,
in the empirical section I confine myself to examining the transformationof a
majorand contentioussymbolic principleof land movementideology, "constitu-
tional."Specifically,I analyze the narrativesof the Irish Land Movement which
representedand articulatedconflicting groups and their discoursesregardingthe
proper path-radical militancy ("Retribution")or moderate constitutionalism
("Conciliation")-to achieving the movement's goals. I show that through the
collision of narrativemeaning and understanding,in conjunctionwith collective
action and contingent events (especially the repressiveresponse of the govern-
ment), the diverse groups reconstructedtheir sharedunderstandingof "constitu-
tional,"and createda new narrativeof Irishpolitical action.

II. MEANING,METAPHOR,AND NARRATIVE

I understandmeaningto be an emergentproductof a constructionprocess involv-

ing the analytically separablevariablesof cultural structuresof meaning, peo-
ple's vital interests(from spiritualwell-being to materialpower), social structur-
al conditions, and contingent events. Therefore,to understandhow meaning is
constructedwe must find the conditions and mechanisms which bring together
these variables,and which facilitate and allow change. However, meaning con-
structionmust be analyzedin the first and last instance in referenceto the inter-
nal, or the semiotic, structureof symbolic systems. I do not claim a causal prior-
ity of symbolic systems over humanagency, contingentevents, or other structur-
al conditions. However, people do refer first to cultural models as they try to
make sense of situations,and shapetheirstrategiesfor action. My assertion,then,
is that the locus of meaning, and thereforethe condition for meaning construc-
tion, is symbolic structures.
More specifically, I assert that culture's autonomy rests on the metaphoric
natureof symbols and the patternedrelationshipof symbols within a structure,
and thatthis characteristicof symbols is a fundamentalkey to understandinghow

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RECONSTRUCTINGCULTUREIN HISTORICALEXPLANATION 315

meaning is constructedand why it can change. As metaphors,symbols strongly

but ambiguously signify social relationships, conditions, and experiences
through associations of similarity and difference among separate entities.
Symbols connote multiplemeaningsand evoke variousemotions associatedwith
particularmeanings. Because they are polysemous, symbols are transformable.
The particularpower and specific use of symbols is dependentboth on theirrela-
tionship to other symbols in a symbolic structure,and on how people interpret
them. Because meaning is embodied in the specific arrangementof symbols in
culturalmodels, and culturalmodels are the firstpoint of referencewhen people
interpretexperience,these structuresshould be the initial theoreticaland analyt-
ic focus in studyingmeaning construction.
This is not to diminish the importanceof interpretationand action in the con-
structionof meaning. In fact, as it turnsout there is "tangible"overlap between
culturalstructureand culturalpractice.Indeed, two elements of culturalmodels,
narrativeand discourse, are also modes of symbolic action.
Combiningvariousperspectives,we can define discourse structurallyas orga-
nized sets of symbolic meaning and codes6 representinga patternof opposition
and distinction,7and as "symbolic practice through which people create and
reproducetheir culturalcodes for making sense of the world."8Steinbergpoints
out thatdiscourse as practice"quintessentiallyinvolves dialogue situatedin par-
ticularsocial contexts."9Structurallythen, discourse intertwinesparticularsym-
bolic codes with social relationshipsand conditions, thereby articulatingmean-
ing and understandingof specific issues and problems. Put into practice, a dis-
course asserts a particularargumentin dialogue with others.
During the LandWar,an evolving Discourse of Retributionorganizedvarious
symbolic codes into a culturalmodel of militant claims for social and national
independence.The radicalDiscourse of Retributionemergedin oppositionto the
longstandingand moderateDiscourse of Conciliation,embracedby groups both
within and outside the movement. Narrativesstructured,organized, and articu-
lated the beliefs embeddedin each discourse.
I understandnarratives,including myths, to be stories that embody symbolic
codes. Thus, narrativesare configurationsof meaning,throughwhich an individ-
ual and/orcommunitycomes to understanditself. Narrativesalso afford a vehi-
cle of communicationand interactionbetween social actors. Both the symbolic
structuraland practicalaspects of narrativeare achievedthroughemplotment.As
Somers and Gibson put it, "Above all, narrativesare constellations of relation-
ships . . . embedded in time and space, constituted by causal emplotment."10

6. JeffreyAlexanderand Philip Smith, "TheDiscourse of AmericanCivil Society: A New Proposal

for CulturalStudies,"Theoryand Society 22 (1993), 157.
7. MargaretSomers, "ThePrivatizationof Citizenship:How to Unthinka Knowledge Culture,"in
Beyond the CulturalTurn,ed. Bonnell and Hunt, 129.
8. MarcSteinberg,Fighting Words:Working-ClassFormation,CollectiveAction, and Discourse in
Early Nineteenth-CenturyEngland (Ithaca,N.Y, 1999), 14.
9. Ibid.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Throughemplotment,narrativesexplain experience,evoke emotion, engage par-
ticipation, and normativelyevaluate courses of action, all crucial functions of
interpretation.
Narrativesare logically structuredby plot (the story line) and emplotmentis
the configurationof particularevents and actors into the story line-temporally,
sequentially, and contextually.Thus, a narrativeexplicitly connects and con-
structs networks of relationshipsinto meaningful wholes, not only among the
events and actors but also social structuresand institutions.For example, one of
the primarynarrativesof the Irish people is "The Conquest,"the story of a cen-
turies-longprocess of invasions, wars, and land confiscations by the British in
orderto subjugatethe Irish.The logic, or the "theme"of the narrative,11 is British
domination,and the narrative,in its variousrenditions,connects people, events,
and institutionsacross years, decades, and even centuries.
Through their configurativecapacity, narrativesexplain to people who they
are, why they are experiencinga particularsocial condition, and what the rela-
tionships of social solidarity and opposition in which they are situated are. In
otherwords,narrativesprovidethe basis for an individualor groupto make sense
of the world as it is experienced.This explanatorycapacityis crucial to interpre-
tationand understanding:"we, as individualsand collectives, come to be who we
are by being located and locating ourselves ... in social narratives."12
This locating of self in a narrative,and thus identifyingwith others who share
the same narrativeaccount of their experience and sentiments, results from
engagement with a particularnarrative.Engagement takes two forms. First,
because narrativesare symbolic structures,and thereforeambiguousand polyse-
mous, a narrative'sspecific meaning derives from the listener's interpretationof
it. Second, narrativeconclusions are often vague: as told, the story is still unfold-
ing, and the ultimateoutcome relies on the listener's action. For example, how
tenantfarmersimaginativelylocate themselves, and their potential action, in the
narrativeof "The Conquest"is crucial to real outcomes. If farmersact, both in
their imaginations and in reality, in defiance of British domination they may
regain the land of Irelandfrom the landlords;if they cannot envision rebellion,
they will continuetheir deferentialstance and never be landowners.Thus narra-
tive engagementguides action: "People act . .. or not in part accordingto how
they understandtheirplace in any numberof given narratives."'13
Beyond the cognitive dimension, narrativesalso evoke strong collective emo-
tions, such as pride, shame, rage, and loyalty, because they are organized and
anchoredby sacred symbols. The most sacred symbol in land movement narra-

10. MargaretSomers and Gloria Gibson, "Reclaimingthe Epistemological Other:Narrativeand

the Social Constitutionof Identity"in Social Theoryand the Politics of Identity,ed. Craig Calhoun
(Lonidon,1994), 59 (italics in original).
11. For a discussion of the types and components of narrative,including theme, see Margaret
Somers, "The NarrativeConstitutionof Identity:A Relational and Network Approach,"Theoryand
Society 23 (1994), 605-649.
12. Ibid., 606.
13. Ibid., 618.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tives, whetheragrarianor nationalist,radicalor moderate,was the land. Indeed,
in importantsymbolic ways Irelandand the land are synonymous.As we analyze
the major narrativessharedduringthe Land War,for example "The Conquest,"
"TheConfiscation,"and "theFamine,"we will see land as the sacredand central
symbol organizing the meaning in each. The emotions that narrativesevoke
become extended to strong feelings of affinity with others who share the same
memory,reverence,and emotion for the sacred being or object.'4
As the dominantsymbol standingat the relationalcenter in various webs of
meaningand competingdiscourses,the sacred symbol of the land was "multivo-
cal"-different groups and people understoodits meaningin differentand some-
times opposingways.15Yet as Ansell points out, dominantor sacredsymbols have
the powerful capacity to join together conflicting discourses. In his otherwise
excellent study,Ansell omits a crucialmiddle step between the emergenceof an
organizing,or dominant,symbol and the transcendenceof conflictingdiscourses;
that step is narrative.In the empiricalanalysis that follows, we will see how the
sacredsymbol "land"became connectedwith the constitutionalprinciplein emer-
gent movement narratives,and how the reconstructionof what "constitutional"
meantcombinedthe competingdiscoursesof Retributionand Conciliation.

III. THE NARRATIVEAPPROACHTO MEANING CONSTRUCTION

DURING THE LAND WAR

In my analysis below, I draw out and on narrativesthroughwhich the struggle

over land movement ideology, identity, goal setting, and strategywas fought.16
These narrativeswere of three types. First, representativesof all the land move-
ment groupsemployed traditionalor public narrativesin theirdiscourse: narra-
tives aboutBritishdominationandconfiscationof the land, the Famine,land con-
solidationand tenantdispossession, and the heroic strengthof the Irish. Second,
many events that occurredduringthe Land War were immediately narrativized
and integratedinto one of the contendingdiscourses.For example, the 1880 gen-
eral election proved to be a major contingent event in the Land War.Not only
were Gladstoneand the Liberalsreturnedto power,but middle-size tenantfarm-
14. For discussions and examples of sacred symbols and collective identity and action, see Bruce
Lincoln, Discourse and the Constructionof Society (Oxford, 1989) and SimonettaFalasca-Zamponi,
"Of Storytellers and Master Narratives:Modernity,Memory, and History in Fascist Italy,"Social
Science History 22 (1998), 415-444.
15. See Victor Turner,The Forest of Symbols:Aspects of NdembuRitual (Ithaca,N.Y., 1967) for
the seminal discussion of dominantsymbols, andAnsell, "SymbolicNetworks,"for an elaborationon
Turner'sconceptualization.
16. My reconstructionof the process by which Land Movementparticipantstransformedmeaning
duringthe IrishLandWaris based on textualanalysis of discussions, debates,and speeches at the hun-
dreds of land meetings which occurredfrom 1878-1882, as well as other arenasof movement action
such as local LandLeague branchmeetings, eviction protestsand demonstrations,and courthearings.
The generalatmosphere,"goings-on,"and most importantlythe speeches, debates, and discussions at
these sites of movement activity were well reported,verbatimin the case of discourse, by two types
of reporters-newspaper and police.
17. For a discussion of types of narratives,especially "public,"see Somers, "TheNarrativeConsti-
tution of Identity."

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ers helped unseat the majority of "ascendency"(landlords) Irish M.P.s from
Parliament,and install pro-LandLeague and nationalistM.P.s in their stead. The
election was considereda victory for the LandLeague, and the powerfulrole ten-
ant farmersplayed in it was immediatelynarrativizedand incorporatedinto the
moderateand conciliatorydiscourse of largerfarmersand Home Rulers.
This constructionof new narrativesindicates that discursive struggle often
develops over particularnarratives,or more specifically, how certain events are
given narrativeform. As Ronald Jacobs points out, "the same event can be nar-
rated in a number of different ways and within a number of different public
spheresand communities." 18 Competinggroupsoften refer to the same event but
narrativizeit differentlyto promotetheirown discursiveposition.19For example,
radical nationalistsand small farmeradvocates dismissed the importanceto the
movementof the 1880 generalelection and increasedpolitical power largerfarm-
ers claimed as a result.Accordingto the former,the LandWarwould not be won
in Parliamentand the power of tenantfarmersand all the Irishlay in militantcol-
lective action in Ireland.The crucialtheoreticalpoint is thatthe narrativeitself is
contestedterritory.
Finally, political struggle and the collision of narrativemeaning and under-
standingproduces new "master"narratives.This is the third type of narrative,
which I understandto be a narrativestructurethat brings together intertwined
stories in a particularpattern,and thus presents specific symbolic meaning, and
representsand defines a specific collectivity. The empiricalfocus of this article
is demonstratinghow in the discursiveprocesses of the land movement,through
the sharing and contention over narrativesregardingtheir history, their current
situation, importantcontingent events, and their future, the Irish constructeda
new masterpolitical narrativebased on the reconstructionof the symbolic prin-
ciple "constitutional."

IV. NARRATIVES,DISCOURSE,AND MEANING CONSTRUCTION

IN THE LAND MOVEMENT

As the land movement gained strengthin the west of Irelandduring 1879, col-
lective action was guided by an emerging ideology based on a Discourse of
Retribution that fused radical nationalism and small farmer culture. The
Discourse of Retributionembodied two principalmeanings:on the one hand, it
signified thatcompensation,redress,andjustice must be obtainedfrom landlords
and the British; on the other, it suggested retaliation and punishmentfor the
wrongs and consequent sufferingsinflicted upon the Irish and Ireland.The dis-
course of retributionargued that when the land is returnedto the farmer,and

18. Ronald Jacobs, "Code, Co-Text, and the Rodney King Beating,"American Journal of Soci-
ology 5 (1996), 1241.
19. For a discussion of narrativecompetitionin giving meaningto an event see Lincoln, Discourse
and the Constructionof Society; Alexanderand Smith, "The Discourse of AmericanCivil Society";
MarshallBattani,David Hall, and Rosemary Powers, "Culture(s')Structure(s):Making Meaning in
the Public Sphere,"Theoryand Society 22 (1997), 781-812.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
political and social independencefrom Britainis obtained,the Irishwill havejus-
tice and prosperity.That landlordswould lose their property,and Britain would
lose an importantcomponentof its empire, seemed just punishmentand redress
for the damage they had togetherwroughtin Ireland.
The Discourse of Retribution opposed the longstanding Discourse of
Conciliationfrom which moderatereformersof the land and political structures
operated.Conciliation representedcompromise, accommodation,and patience.
Those subscribingto it-the largertenantfarmersin the south and east, as well
as much of the Catholic clergy and hierarchy-advocated gradual,and constitu-
tional, reform of land tenure laws and British dominationthrough,respectively,
the prevailingmodel of land reform,the "3Fs,"20and the Home Rule movement.
Importantly,conciliation honoredthe propertyrights of landlordsand the impe-
rial legitimacy of British rule.
Yet, the policy of compromise and accommodationwith the British govern-
ment, and endeavoringto change laws throughthe Parliament,had historically
yielded little but frustration.For decades, Home Rulershad made no headwayin
achievingself-government,the Churchwas denied the CatholicEducationBill it
so desperatelywanted, and no real land reformhad come from the much herald-
ed Land Act of 1870. Radical movement activists believed that only militant
activity would achieve change: refusing to pay "rack"rents, mass demonstra-
tions, boycotting anyone sympathetic to landlords, eviction resistance, and in
generalunderminingthe status quo. Moderates,abhorringsocial disorder,main-
tained that steady constitutionalactivity would in the end yield social reform.
Thus, "constitutional"became the lynchpin of discursive conflict between radi-
cals and moderates.By analyzingkey narrativeunderstandingsin each discourse,
theircollision in public events, and the conjunctionof contingentevents, we will
see how the transformationof the meaning of "constitutional"contributedto the
changing contoursof the land movement.

V. THE NARRATIVESTRUCTUREOF THE DISCOURSEOF RETRIBUTION

The "Confiscation"myth was a central narrativeof retribution.Small tenant

farmersbelieved God had given the land of Irelandto the Irish, so that all could
subsist on it. Family enterprise, ties and allegiances, and religious faith-all
arrangedin relationshipto land-governed the attitudesand social relationships
of the small farmers. Narrativesrecounted at land meetings of small farmers
stressedGod's intentionthatthe land of Irelandbelongs to those who cultivateit;
and that the present land system was accountable for Ireland's suffering-its
poverty,massive emigration(the "exile"),and social strife. At a land meeting of
small farmers at Curry in the western county of Sligo, Fr. Peter Canon
O'Donohue proclaimedthat the purposeof the "wondrous"land movement was

20. The "3Fs"referto fair rent, fixity of tenure,and free sale of the tenant'sinterestin his holding
upon quittingit (or being evicted). Under this reformplan, land would be essentially "co-possessed"
by landlordand tenant.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 320 ANNE KANE

"[T]ofix the Irishtenanton thatland whereonhe was placed by his greatCreator,

the land thathas been given to him and to the fruit of which he has the most just
right and aboriginal title.... A free peasantry is now the universal cry, because
the cruel, heartless,landocracyhas been deaf to every cry for justice and mercy
andbecause of not having done theirduty to theirtenantryor theircountry."21 As
this narrativeexcerpt demonstrates,small farmers,clergy, and radical national-
ists believed the land was no longer being used as God intendedbecause it had
been unjustlyand brutallyconfiscatedby the English centuries ago.
This traditionalunderstanding-the injustice of confiscation-was regularly
invokedduringthe LandWar,especially in emotional dramatizationsof the past.
More important,movement activists began to innovateand connect the symbol-
ism of confiscation to other concepts that together suggested alternativeunder-
standings of how justice for tenant farmers would be obtained. For example,
early in the movementspeakersat numerousmeetings respondedto chargesthat
the land movement advocated illegal land confiscation. At a demonstrationat
Tuam, Co. Galway, P. J. Costello claimed that not only had landlordsobtained
land by confiscation, but continued to confiscate tenant farmers'property,and
indeed the latter'smotivationto be productive,throughexcessive rents and evic-
tions: "[We]come not as the advocatesof violence and crime ... (but) as the true
conservatorsof order ... to protest against, and ... preventthe landlordsfrom
confiscating the outlay and industryof the tenant farmers."22 At Drumsna, Co.
Leitrim, Michael Davitt23tied the concept of confiscation to a traditionaland
communalprincipleof land holding:"proprietary" belongs to those who arepro-
ductive and use the land well, not only for themselves but the nation. "Has the
land been conferredupon the landlordsof Irelandfor services renderedto Ireland
or to humanity?I say no ... they own the land of Irelandby virtue of conquest
and confiscation."24 And in Co. Mayo, at Gurteen,barristerJames Killen pro-
claimed that confiscationof landlordpropertywould be fittingrestitutionfor the
historical wrongs suffered by the Irish. "[Tjhe land of Ireland has been three
times confiscated,but always in favorof the aristocracy.[We] want a fourthcon-
fiscation, or rathera restitutionnow in favor of the people."25
In this way, the meaning of confiscation was transformed.A concept which
had represented historical wrongs and present injustice and suffering now
includeda call for compensation,a just componentof righteousretribution.This
metaphoric"transferof sense"26happenedas people reinterpretedthe traditional

21. Sligo Champion,Co. Sligo, Ireland,23 January1880.

22. Freeman'sJournal, Dublin, Ireland,22 September 1879.
23. Michael Davitt was the son of tenant farmers who had lost their farm in County Mayo
(Connaught).He served time in English prison for IRB (Irish RepublicanBrotherhood,the forebear
of the IRA) activity,but continuedpolitical organizingwhile interned.He returnedto Irelandafterhis
release in December 1877, and was a key visionary of the land movement. He co-founded the Irish
National Land League and, along with MP and Home Rule Leader,Charles StewartParnell,was co-
leader of the LandWarcampaign.
24. Freeman'sJournal, Dublin, 15 December 1879.
25. LimerickReporter,Limerick,Ireland,21 November 1879.
26. Paul Ricoeur, The Conflictof Interpretations(Evanston,Ill., 1974), 60.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EXPLANATION
IN HISTORICAL
CULTURE
RECONSTRUCTING 321

narrativespresentedat meetings in the context of the currentagrariancrisis and

the land movement, along with the emotional fervor both generated.

THEDEMANDFOR"PEASANT
VI. NARRATING PROPRIETARY"

The ideological structureof the early land movement also focused on the rights
of Irish farmers.This belief became embodied in the concept and demand for
"peasant proprietary."The initial movement demand was for immediate rent
reductionsand a land bill to afford some tenurialsecurity to the tenantfarmers.
Throughnarrativediscourse, however,these reformgoals soon became symbol-
ic of Irish tenant degradation,emphasizing their beggarly dependence on land-
lords. These understandingswere forcefully representedin the narrativeprovid-
ed by Michael Davitt at a majorland meeting in Tuam, Co. Galway:
All Ireland[is] calling on the landlordsto give that reductionof rent which in justice, fair
play and even humanitythey [are] bound to do. [However] the time [has] arrivedwhen
Irishmenshould ask themselves why privationand misery was ever to be the normalcon-
dition of tillers of the Irish soil? Had they forever to be struggling with poverty, and to
have famine periodically staring them in the face (cries of "no!") . . . the time at last
arrivedwhen men who thought themselves above the reproachof being slaved cowards
should take the place of ones that had ruined and impoverishedIrelandfor centuries.
What was the remedy? . .. a system of peasantproprietarysuch as that which existed
in all continentalcountriesandAmerica should be substitutedfor the system landlordism
which had impoverishedIrelandand degradedher people for centuries.27

Though Davitt's speech begins by "asking"the landlords for a reduction in

rents, it soon becomes a narrativeportrayingthe landlordsand the landlordsys-
tem as responsible for poverty, misery, and famine. The only resolution to the
injustice is peasantproprietary,a system alreadyprovenjust and efficient in the
advancedcountries of Europe and America. The strong implication of Davitt's
scenariofor attainingpeasantproprietaryis thattenantfarmersmust bravelystand
up and fight not only for their own rights to the land, but also to save Ireland.
But it is how the tenant farmers,as listeners, situate themselves in the narra-
tive that is really crucial, and contingent. How do I fit into this story; what does
it mean to me; how shall I act on this meaning?Especially importantis interpre-
tation of the resolution. Davitt's narrativeconcludes with the establishmentof
peasantproprietary,which because it is the opposite of landlordismwill not only
be just, but affordIrelandand her people prosperityand happiness.Yet the future
is uncertain:it will depend on how tenant farmersact. They have been "slaved
cowards"in the past; in orderto change the system tenant farmersmust change
themselves throughtheir action. And this action is guided by how they interpret
the narrative,and evaluate courses of action.

OFCONCILIATION
VII.THEDISCOURSE

In contrast,and partiallyin oppositionto the militancyof the west, the largerten-

ant farmersin the southernand easterncounties maintaineda moderateapproach

27. Freeman'sJournal, 22 September 1879.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
322 ANNE KANE

to landreformand nationalism.At the Louth (in the easternprovinceof Leinster)

TenantDefense Association meeting in January1879, a discussion of an eviction
exhibitstenantfarmerindignationover perceivedlandlordinjustice.Yet the farm-
ers and their supportersrecognized the rights of both the governmentand land-
lords. Rev. GeorgeTaaffee,P. P. Collon, proclaimed:"Thefarmersof Ireland...
should cry out against the terrible injustice to which they are exposed, and
demandfrom the governmentprotectionfor themselvesandproperties.The farm-
ers are as peaceable and law-abidingsubjects as those who have more power to
oppress and rob them."28At the same meeting, a tenantfarmer,0. J. Caraherof
Cardistown,spoke about organizingfor self-protectionand change in the land
laws, but also identifiedhimself as a subjectof the crown: "In the face of perse-
cution ... they should band themselves togetherand never cease in their efforts
to have such a change made in the law as will secure for every honest and law
abidingsubjecta right to live on the soil."29
Both passages reveal that these tenant farmersunderstoodthemselves to be
peaceable and law-abiding,not degradedand desperateas their counterpartsin
the west. They measure themselves as British subjects and by the standardsof
their rulers. The deferential, non-contentious, conciliatory understandingof
structuralrelationsis unmistakable,evidencedby this commentby tenantfarmer
Michael McCarthyat the WaterfordFarmers Club meeting in October 1879:
"[Weare not here] to wage war againstthe landlords,but to ask them to help the
farmersin theirpresentdepressedcondition."30 The understandingsportrayedin
these narrativesalso indicate that many farmersin the south and east considered
themselves British subjects,citizens who had the same rights and protectionsas
all otherBritishsubjects.Yet even at this early stage, cracksin the narrativestruc-
ture of conciliatory discourse is evident: for example, although they recognize
the authorityof landlordsand the British governmentas legitimate,they see this
joint power structureas oppressive and criminal(it "robs"them).

VIII. NARRATIVESOF RESISTANCE:TRANSFORMING

THE MEANING OF "CONSTITUTIONAL"

In November 1880, the British government-frustrated with its inability to stem

the growing insurgency and social unrest in Ireland-arrested Charles Stewart
Parnell(M.P.,Head of the Home Rule Party,and Presidentof the INLL) and thir-
teen other League leaders on charges of sedition. The arrestsand the threatof
coercion and movement repression, which became reality a few months later,
provokeda profoundsense of outrageand indignationamong the previouslycau-
tious andmoderatemiddle class, farmerandnon-agrarian,of Ireland.They began
to doubtthe British governmentwould accordthem the right to wage a constitu-
tional strugglefor land reformand political independence.

28. DundalkDemocrat, Dundalk,Ireland, 11 January1879.

29. Ibid.
30. Freeman'sJournal, 14 October 1879.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 In defianceof the governmentand landlords,tenantfarmersand their support-
ers opened thirty-sixnew branchesbetween the time of the arrestsand the end of
the year.As the movementgrew and strengthened,the culturalmodels of the rad-
icals and the moderatesclashed and converged;the sharingof often emotionally
structurednarrativescontributedto a transformedmeaning of "constitutional."
At a meeting to form a league branch in Ballyclough, Co. Cork, Dr. G. J.
Nealon provided a narrative,repeatedmany times in various forms, about why
the leaders had been arrestedand how the Irish must respond.
[A] great crisis has arisen . . . the leaders of the Irish people are about to be imprisoned
for ... workingto keep the people from famine and starvation.... How was the land sys-
tem to be abolished?Not throughthe British parliamentbut by the might, strengthand
determinationof the people. The Irish farmersshould then stand together . . . show they
are bound together as one man, determinedto be free. They must declare . . . in a voice
that would shake the empire . .. that they would no longer submitto the cruelty of those
landlords.3'

By using the emotionally chargedmetaphorof famine and starvationto sym-

bolize the resultof "lawful"landlordism,Nealon's narrativeunderminesthe gov-
ernment'sclaim that the arrestsare constitutional.It follows that the same gov-
ernmentwill never repairthe land to the Irish;in other words, it is futile to con-
tinue on a constitutional path to change, as long as "constitutional"means
accordingto Britishrules.
For the moderatefarmers,the arrestsand the imminentcoercion law exempli-
fied the tyrannyof English rule. As FatherJohn Robinson, curate for Dunsany,
declared at a demonstrationin county Meath "we . .. look on the Government
prosecutionof the noble Parnellandhis colleagues as a vile and degradingmove-
ment to place the iron heel of despotismon the neck of our sufferingcountry."32
The metaphorshere-"vile and degradingmovement"symbolizing the govern-
ment's action, and "the neck" symbolizing the land movement leaders-articu-
late the horrorand anger at the arrestsand prosecutionfelt by most of the Irish.
Moreover,the metaphors"ironheel" and "despotism"symbolize "constitution-
al,"furtherdemonizingthe conciliatorypath to reform.
In early December 1880, land meetings began to be prohibitedby proclama-
tion, sometimes by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Francis Cowper, sometimes by
the local magistrate,if eitherbelieved the meeting was called to threatenindivid-
uals or thatthe public peace would endangered.33 On January2, a day beforetheir
scheduledbut proclaimedmeeting, the people in the vicinity of Droghedaheld a
meeting in defianceof the government.FatherHenryM'Kee, the parishpriest of
Monasterboice,connected a narrativeof historical British coercion during the
Repeal Movementwith the oppressionthe Irish were presentlyexperiencing.
The Repeal agitationwas conducted,as they all know, in a legal and constitutionalman-
ner by O'Connell and yet the English Governmentof the day attemptedto quell it in the

31. CorkDaily Herald, Cork, Ireland,8 November 1880.

32. DundalkDemocrat, 24 December 1880.
33. T. W. Moody, Davitt and the Irish Revolution1846-82 (Oxford, 1982), 443.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
324 ANNE KANE

blood of thousands of their countrymen at the Clontarf meeting. Something like this
episode of 1843 had just been attemptedby the English Governmenttoday in Drogheda.
But the people would defeat their machinations,and by their good sense, prudence,and
forbearancewould baffle and circumventtheir foes.34

Father M'Kee's narrative tells how the British actions of the past are the same
as those of the present: base, dastardly, violent, and conspiratorial against the
Irish. Like the Repeal Movement, as symbolized by the Irish hero Daniel
O'Connell, the present land movement is constitutional and legal. The narratives
presented at land meetings in the southern and eastern counties in early 1881
increasingly portrayed the British government as the enemy of the Irish, and
envisioned the people of Ireland vanquishing her oppressive foe.
On January 24, 1881, Chief Secretary (for Ireland) Forster introduced the
"Protection of Person and Property Bill," empowering the government "to sus-
pend the ordinary law in selected districts of Ireland whenever that was deemed
necessary."35In effect, the Irish executive could arrest and imprison without trial
any person reasonably suspected of treasonable practices or agrarian offenses.
These coercion measures confronted the larger farmers, clergy, and moderate
nationalists of southern and eastern Ireland with the unmistakable reality of a
Liberal British government not tolerating a constitutional struggle for social jus-
tice in Ireland. At a meeting in New Ross, Co. Wexford, to support the by-elec-
tion parliamentary candidacy of John Redmond, Father P. M. Furlong provided a
narrative decrying the coercion measures imposed on the Irish:
Since the Union we have had 57 CoercionActions from the English Parliament;the 58th
is now being got ready for us. Our British rulers have strangledour national industries.
. . . they have left the people to starve and perish in the grasp of a murderousland-
lordism. When we complain and seek the redress of our grievances they answer us with
the coercion of a tyrant.36

At this point, Father Furlong's narrative draws on components of traditional

narratives, such as the Conquest and Famine, to explain the current event of a
new coercion measure. The British government is portrayed as not only tyranni-
cal, but ruinous for Ireland and her people. Having set the historical stage,
Furlong continues the story:
The other night Mr. Forsterin proposingthe ... CoercionAct in the House .. . pretend-
ed to feel great pain in taking that step and yet he supportedhis proposal by a speech
which [was] one of the most lying and infamous speeches deliveredeven in that house.37
... [T]o dispose the English membersin favourof [coercionhe laid] before them a tabu-
lated statementof supposedoutragesin Ireland,which I pronounceas vile and monstrous
a concoction as the devil in a brainfever could succeed in inventing.There have been . . .
outrages . . . perpetrated, however, not by the people but by the Government . .. in the
name of the law upon the homes and liberties of the people.38

34. Freeman'sJournal, 3 January1881.

35. F. S. L. Lyons, Charles StewartParnell (London, 1977), 145.
36. WexfordPeople, Ballina, Ireland,2 February1881.
37. Italics mine.
38. WexfordPeople, 2 February1881.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 This narrativeof Forster'sactions clearly depicts him as villainous,on parwith
the devil: not only are his proposed coercion measuresunjust,but he lied about
alleged outrageson the partof the Irish and feigned regretat having to take dras-
tic steps. Clearly,in this narrativeForsteralso symbolizes the Britishgovernment
which now is acting outside the law and any measure of justice, while it is the
Irish who continueto act constitutionally.
In county Carlow,at a meeting in Borris to protestcoercion, FatherRyan, the
Catholiccuratefor the town of St. Mullens, articulatedthe growing unity of the
Irish in the face of attacksby the LiberalBritish government:
I wish to express . . . strong dissent from that expression of the Chief Secretary. .. so
insultingto the Irishpeople-that the leadersof the local branchesof the LandLeague in
Ireland [are] ruffiansand that they [are] miscreants.... Mr. Forsterand Mr. Gladstone
insulted everythingthat is true, that is moral and that is law abiding in Ireland . . . he
insultedthe priesthoodandpeople of Ireland.... The people of Irelandand the priesthood
are the Land League of Ireland,and on the part of the priests of the county of Carlow,
every one of whom occupies a position in the executive of fifteen branches . .. [I hurl]
back into the teeth of Mr. Forsterhis insult.39

This narrativedirectedfrom a cleric not only to high governmentofficials but

to the Irish people as well articulatesthe symbolic basis of Irish unity: the Land
League representsIrelandand everythinggood in the Irish, and the priests and
the people arethe LandLeague. Besides reinforcingtheirties to the laity by mak-
ing these symbolic connections,the Catholicclergy increasinglyturnedattempts
to discreditthe League and its leadersinto affrontsto the Church.While Church
doctrinedemandssubmission,obedience, and loyalty to legitimateauthority,this
narrativeimplies that the unjustand dictatorialnatureof the British government
negated its claim to legitimacy.
At a well-attendedbranchmeeting of the CorkLand League, threeprominent
members expressed their dismay and indignation at the Government's action, and
then furtheredthe portrayalof it as unconstitutional.40
First,the branchsecretary,
Mr. O'Connor, proposed that the branch members pledge that in the event of their
committee being arrested, to elect others in their place, and "to do so as long as
the governmentmight continueto practicetheir tyrannicaland coercive policy."
Mr.Heffernan,a substantialtenantfarmer,in supportingthe resolution,declared:
"[I] enteredinto this movementbecause [I] believed it to be just and right, and [I
am] quite preparedto take the consequences.Englandcould not now muzzle the
country.They might patch up and bolster up a system of landlordism,but the
people of Irelandwould never be driven back to the old tricks."41Mr. Tracey,a
town commissioner, displayed the mixture of disbelief and indignation at the

39. Freeman'sJournal, Dublin, 31 January1880.

40. The following three excerpts are taken from the Freeman'sJournal,Dublin, 10 January1881.
41. Heffernanwas arrestedunderthe coercion act twice: firston May 12, 1881, chargedwith incit-
ing to riot and assault (releasedAugust 26), and October 15, 1881, chargedwith preventingpayment
of rent. State Paper Office, Protection of Person and Property (Ireland)Act, 1881, List of Persons
Arrested.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
actions of the government, demonstrating the transformation from one system of
belief (conciliation) to another (retribution).
[I do not] believe Mr. Gladstone,Mr. Forster,or Mr. Bright contemplatedcoercive mea-
sures for this country.[T]he acts of the league, not only in the city, but in the county of
Cork,were legal and constitutionaland they like to protectall and everyone.If the British
Governmentdenied to the people theirjust rights, it was the boundedduty of the people
to rise en masse, and to demandtheir rights and privileges from the Government.[I am]
no revolutionist. .. no communist;but ... the man who tilled the soil was entitled, as in
every countryin Europeto the benefitsof his labour.

Again, in narrating recent events Tracey portrays the actions of the movement
participants as not only legal and constitutional, but just. He admonishes the Irish
to rise up against British tyranny; yet, the phrase "demand their rights and privi-
leges from the Government" indicates that though militancy was in order, the
movement must remain constitutional even if the government was no longer.
Importantly, Tracey's narrative makes clear that the foundational reason for
rebellion is the land.
This transformed understanding of "constitutional" was echoed on March 13
by the newly elected M.P. for New Ross, and future leader of the Irish
Parliamentary Party, John Redmond:
The British constitutionas far as Ireland [is] concerned [is] a dead letter, representative
governmentfor Ireland[is] a mockery,and today Englandmight be proudof the fact that
she had created in this country a despotism such as [is] not to be found in any civilised
countryin the world. Let not the governmentdrive them, as [I believe] they deliberately
intend, into acts of bloodshed and violence (no, no). Let them keep their footing on the
groundof constitutionalaction (cheers). Let them ostracize any man who gave help to the
enemies of the countryby outrage(cheers). Second, let them not be intimidated(cheers).
[We] have a sad but proud history. Oppressionhad not dauntedtheir fathers-let it not
drive them from the supportof the great cause they supported. .. the holiest cause. Let
them meet English oppressionby passive resistance-they can not coerce or imprison a
nation.42

IX. THE EMERGENCEOF THE CONSTITUTIONALNARRATIVE

AROUND THE DOMINANTSYMBOL "LAND"

Redmond's speech indicates the emergence of a new master narrative of Irish

political action, based on the dominant symbol of the land and a reconfiguration
of the meaning of "constitutional." This master narrative combined, fused, and
ultimately transcended the oppositional discourses of Retribution and
Conciliation.
As the many narrative excerpts above suggest, the Land is sacred to the Irish
not only because it is the giver of life, and is the basis of social relations, but it
is symbolic of Ireland itself. At the outset of the Land War, small farmers, radi-
cal agrarian reformers and nationalists, and some clergy believed that neither the
landlords nor Britain had a legitimate right to the land or to Ireland because they

42. Freeman'sJournal, Dublin, 13 March 1881.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
had fraudulentlyobtainedit throughconquestand confiscation.Worse,insteadof
improvingthe land and Ireland,and thus providingfor all the people, the British
and the landlordscontinuedthe confiscationby stealing the fruitsof the land and
farmerlabor, and impoverishingIreland.This denial of Irish rights, to the land
and to the country, formed the justificatory basis for the righteous rebellion
against landlordismand British domination.A simple reform of the land laws
would only perpetuateinjustice and misery; the landlordsystem had to be abol-
ished and farmerownershipof land established.
Moderates,though subscribingto the historicalnarrativeof the Conquestand
Confiscation,felt themselves boundby the legitimateauthorityof the British and
the propertyrights of the landlords. Early narrativespresented by moderates
clearly demonstratethis belief, and the sentiment of deference both to British
rule and Irish landlords.Both the land and political system needed reform, but
changemust be constitutional,not insurgent.As long as Britainand the landlords
maintained their legitimacy, moderates in Ireland held to a Discourse of
Conciliation.
With the intransigenceof the landlords (continuing to evict and refusing to
lower rents) in the face of continuedagrariancrisis, and then the repressivemea-
sures of the governmentin the face of a growing social movement,the legitima-
cy of both declined. The narrativesof movementparticipantswho had formerly
embracedconciliationreveal the realizationthat first, theirrights as British sub-
jects were being denied, and second, that the governmentitself was acting arbi-
trarilyand tyrannically,not constitutionally.These narrativesbegan to conclude
that British rule was not legitimate, and that the Irish were justified in revolting
against both the governmentand the landlords.In the narratives,the landlords
increasinglyrepresentedthe British,or at least a "garrison"of Britishrule. Thus,
the narrativesbegan to deny landlords'rights to the land.
Narrativesof retributionand conciliation began to fuse in the understanding
thatbecause the Irishwere acting both in termsof justice (theirrights to the land
and the country) and in a constitutionalmanner,the land movement was com-
pletely righteous.And the more the British governmenttried to repress it, the
more it acted unconstitutionally.In fact, the British governmentwas now por-
trayed and understoodby all movement participantsas despotic. And the more
the legitimacy of the British government and the landlords waned because of
their own repressiveactions, the more the Irishhad a right, indeed an obligation,
to act militantly.As Redmondadmonishes,the Irishhad to meet English oppres-
sion with passive (yet militant)resistance.In sum, the new masternarrativewas
founded on the understandingthat Irish rights to their land and country,which
had been stolen and plunderedby the tyrannicalBritish and their henchmen,the
landlords,sanctionedthem constitutionallyto take back the land and the country.
Yet, they could not act like the British and the landlords.Thus, their cause had to
be fought nonviolently,throughthe Parliamentas well as throughmilitant col-
lective action, and graduallyif need be. The conclusion to the narrativewas vic-
tory, and a restorationof land to the farmersand rule of Irelandto the Irish.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 X. COMMENTSON THE IRISH LAND CASE

At the outset of the Irish LandWar,diverse and contentioussocial groups came

togetherarmedwith commonoppositionto landlordsandBritishdomination,but
situatedin differentialstructuralpositions and operatingaccordingto variedcul-
turalmodels. Movementparticipantsalso held differentgoals and strategies,as
representedby the oppositionaldiscourses of Retributionand Conciliation.Yet,
by the summerof 1881 the movementhad forced the Britishgovernmentto intro-
duce a land bill which led to agrarianrestructuring,and eventually the end of
landlordismand British domination.If we accept that the British government,
despite strong attempts to repress the movement, gave in to the movement's
demand for major land reform because of the latter's strength, we must still
explain how it was thatthe diverse and conflictinggroupsin the movementover-
came their differences to mount a unified campaign.We must also explain why
the LandLeague and the people it representedacceptedan outcome which many
had previously sworn themselves against. Because of their materialdifferences
and conflicting interests, instrumentalcompromise or negotiation between the
groups seems at best an insufficientexplanation.Instead,the preceding analysis
has tried to show thatthroughthe expressionof both culturaland materialinter-
ests in sites of public discourse,movementparticipantsbegan to form new under-
standings and meanings-about the land, proprietaryrights, and British rule.
Acting on those meanings,for example resisting evictions, and then interpreting
the Britishrepressiveresponse to those actions, stimulatedfurtherinterpretation
and meaning reconstruction.In sum, I argue the demand and acceptance for a
"conciliatory"land bill can be greatly explainedby the transformationof mean-
ing and symbolic understandingand structurewhich occurredduring the Land
War, especially the constructionof a new master narrativeof political action
based on a reconfigurationof the constitutionalprinciple.
Thoughparticipantgroupsjoined the land movementwith conflictingconcep-
tualizationsof British authority,the coercion measures the latter institutedpro-
voked shock, a sense of betrayal,anger,and indignationamong them all. Tenant
farmers, clergy, and movement leaders expressed and shared these emotions
throughnarrativesladenwith metaphorssymbolizingthe BritishGovernmentand
its actions, and the Irish and their possible reactions.These narrativesportrayed
land movementparticipantsacting lawfully and constitutionally;the Britishgov-
ernmentand landlordsviolated the "constitution"by not upholdingthe rights of
the Irish.Thus, "constitutional"became the badge of the land movement,not the
Britishgovernment.The concept of "constitutional," now in a militantconfigura-
tion, regained a sacred status and developed into the accepted route to justice,
because it had been symbolically disconnectedfrom the Britishgovernment.
This transformationof meaning contributedmightily to transformingthe two
conflicting discourses within the movement, Retributionand Conciliation,into
somethingnew and empowering.With the reconstructionof what "constitutional"
meant,radicalmovementparticipantscould acceptit. This acceptanceresultedin an

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 And it was by
ironic consequence-it rehabilitatedthe meaningof "conciliation."
conciliationthatthe LandWarwas temporarilysettledwith the LandAct of 1881.

XI. CONCLUDINGREMARKS:
THE NARRATIVEAPPROACHTO HISTORICALEXPLANATION

In this article, I have arguedand attemptedto demonstrateempiricallythat cul-

ture is causal in historical processes and transformationbecause symbolic sys-
tems aretransformable,andtransformedmeaningcan lead to new forms of social
action, contingent and unforeseen outcomes, and the restructuringof diverse
social structures.Meaning transformationresults from the process of interpreta-
tion (of conditions and cultural models) in which individuals and collectives
engage, a process which is highly indicative of voluntary agency. And social
action is the result of this interpretation.
Historicalstudies can be enrichedby a narrativeapproachto the construction
of meanings.By studyingthe "diversestories that varioussocial actorstell with-
in emergent situations to which they are mutually oriented . . . in different
ways,"43social historiansshould be betterable to explain the ruptureof relative-
ly strong structuresof meaning in the face of concrete, contingent,and dynamic
events, and the ensuing emergence of new culture structures.Return,for exam-
ple, to Sewell's analysis of the taking of the Bastille and the creation of a new
symbolic concept, "revolution,"and a new meaning of political sovereignty.
Thoughhe does not discuss narrativeas a symbolic structureandpractice,Sewell
shows that through the various and spontaneous accounts given by National
Assembly "orators,journalists, and the crowd itself' the taking of the Bastille
"revealeditself in the days thatfollowed as a concrete,unmediated,and sublime
instance of the people expressing its sovereign will."44Clearly,this "revelation"
and new articulationof meaning occurredthroughnarrativeconstruction,shar-
ing, and convergence.Sewell aimed at theorizing events in historical processes
and culturaltransformation;an integrationof an explicit narrativeanalysis into
the study would have more strongly demonstratedhow cultural structuresare
changed in and throughcontingentevents.
Both as pillarsof symbolic structuresand as vehicles for symbolic articulation
and transformation,narrativesare the consolidating component in a theoretical
model of meaning constructionand historical processes. They also provide the
methodby which to investigatethe recursiverelationshipof action, structure,and
culture.As this articledemonstrateswith the case of the Irishland movement,the
site where symbolic models-of the different tenant farmers,other participant
movement groups, and the movement as a whole-converge and collide is pub-
lic discourse.And the articulationof symbolic understandingsand beliefs which
underlie discourse was achieved primarilythroughnarrative.Methodologically,

43. JohnR. Hall, "PublicNarrativesand the ApocalypticSect: FromJonestownto MountCarmel,"

in Armageddonin Mount Carmel,ed. StuartWright(Chicago, 1995), 206.
44. Sewell, "HistoricalEvents as StructuralTransformations,"852.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
just as narrativesallow people to understandthemselves and each other,narrative
enables the analyst to identify and reconstructthe symbolic systems of groups,
and to see the conflict between differentsymbolic models. Finally, the narrative
approachallows us to follow changing symbolic projects-such as identity or
ideology-over time and in conjunctionwith other changing symbolic systems,
and "non-symbolic"structuressuch as political regimes and contingentevents.

University of Texas, Austin

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:02:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions