Short Essay #2

Chris Love 5700434
Jan 26 2010

Short Essay #2 (Final Copy)

Fidelma Ashe's research article, The McCartney Sisters' Search for Justice: Gender and Political Protest in Northern Ireland is, in keeping with its subject matter, rigidly constructed. The article is a thorough examination of a recent political movement led by the sisters of a murdered Northern Irish man, Robert McCartney. Ashe's argument is roughly that this women-led campaign has brought to light the looming issue of gender differentiation in republican politics. Namely, the stereotypes of moral, matronly women and honourable, protective men.

But this essay isn't just a summary, it's a critique. I find that in her extreme tenacity in making her point, Ashe omits many of the details necessary for a thorough understanding of the issue. Furthermore, despite her exposition of this case, Ashe's own stance can be, at times, very difficult to discern (at least by the standards of a persuasive research article). To assess the degree to which these flaws affect the effectiveness of her article, I'll begin with a summary.

The McCartney sisters' demand is for the Sinn Fein (Ulster's republican political party, once a splinter of the original IRA) to look into the death of their brother Robert, who was killed in a bar fight. They insist that his murderers were never hunted because they were PIRA members (the still-active republican terrorist group of Northern Ireland), and that the 70 witnesses to Robert's murder were threatened by these men, and thus unwilling to testify to their identity. The sisters, though themselves republican, call for an end to all violent nationalist campaigns, and hold "the very specific objective of pressuring the republican movement to take action that would lead to the conviction of those involved in the murder of Robert McCartney" (Ashe 3).

Before and after their 2005 St. Patrick's day trip to the US, the McCartney sisters received tremendous media attention for their cause. However, their campaign's essence was overshadowed by the gender issues at play. This is Ashe's real concern. She proposes that the traditional conception of women in the republican landscape has been "apolitical, more oriented to peace, physically fragile and naturally suited to the private sphere" (Ashe 2). All the while, the men of the party have retained a more active and powerful role as those who stick their necks out for the cause (Ashe 2). Ashe starts off by assessing the positive impact this gendering may have, specifically the use of a matronly or familial identity as an active protest. For example, Donna McCartney giving an interview from her hotel room bed in America, without make-up, in her dressing gown. This intimacy, says Ashe, is used to break down the walls that separate the domestic sphere from the political, thus making way for stronger female influence in the party (Ashe 3).

But soon Ashe moves into the negative side of things, wherein journalists become more focused on the sisters' womanly qualities, such as their beauty or the neatness of their home (Ashe 4). This kind of media attention ends up only reinforcing the very stereotypes the sisters are working to overcome. Her eventual conclusion is that it is important for Sinn Fein and its followers to begin "mapping" the gender relationships that run through Ulster's republican politics (Ashe 6). Though the McCartney sisters have made great strides for their own cause, this case has only exposed the deep-set issues of party gender inequality.

Ashe demonstrates this point ably, and evidently has a firm understanding of republican interior politics. She seems to know all the ins and outs of her topic, and moves effortlessly through time and location. Unfortunately, she assumes that we, the reader, possess the same knowledge and ability. Ashe often moves straight into a new example with little or no background provided, such as her segue into the issue of hunger strikes in the 1980's (Ashe 5). Granted, a reader well-versed in the history of Northern Ireland's "troubles" may be able to follow easily enough. But one coming at this article not from an Irish history perspective but rather a feminist one would surely be left grasping at straws.

More to the point, Ashe leaves out even minor logistical details, such as the names of the three McCartney sisters, which are scattered throughout the text but never listed outright. This may be a choice on her part, perhaps assuming background knowledge on the reader's part, but in my opinion, details like that should not be overlooked. Another example is her repeated reference to the PIRA (Provisional Irish Republican Army) (Ashe 1, 2, 3) without providing any real background on the organization. What's the point of even including this detail if, to the average reader, the name means nothing? Without basic details like this, the article loses an air of structure.

I have done a lot of research over the years on Northern Ireland's troubles, and was able to fill in a lot of the blanks left by the author for myself. Ashe's point remains very strong. In my opinion, judging solely from the facts presented by the facts presented in the article, the McCartney case transcends the Sinn Fein party, and Northern Irish politics as a whole. It shows a lot about how male and female stereotypes remain so pervasive even to this day, especially under intense media scrutiny. In conclusion, Ashe nailed this argument, but should have taken the few measures required to make her article universally accessible.

Works Cited
Ashe, Fidelma. "The McCartney Sisters' Search for Justice: Gender and Political Protest in Northern Ireland." POLITICS: 2006 VOL 26(3), (2006): 161–167. EBSCOhost. Web. 31 Jan. 2011.

Short Essay #1

Chris Love 5700434
January 12, 2010

Short essay #1

It’s ironic that James L. Lopach and Jean A. Luckowski’s article should come off as so contrarian, considering their subject matter. But in Uncivil Disobedience: Violating the Rules for Breaking the Law, the authors make a strong argument that clashes significantly with our culture’s current sentiment towards the noble idea of civil disobedience. At first, one might almost think this article to be an argument purely in favor of this practice, with a lengthy description of a defiant eco-radical group called Earth First!. The authors go into great detail about one of Earth First!’s more recent protests (a relatively peaceful attack on a logging truck), and subsequently the activities of several more well-known radical activist groups such as ACT UP! (Gay rights), and the Catholic League. However, Lopach and Luckowski have a serious bone to pick with these would-be disciples of Gandhi and King. They describe these groups’ appeal to the history of civil disobedience as “shockingly selective”, in that they compare themselves to Gandhi and King readily without living up to the strict guidelines of true civil disobedience that these legends originally set out (252). At this point, the authors ask a question that encompasses their whole argument; are American students being taught the true meaning of civil disobedience? (252).
As if this lambasting wasn’t harsh enough, Lopach and Luckowski go on to compare direct quotes from the now-jailed ELF (Earth Liberation Front) member Craig Marshall with those from MLK Jr. King, sitting in his jail cell in 1963, was heard to say “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”(252-253). Evidently, the civil disobedience of King and Gandhi is not anarchistic, but rather leans heavily on religious order to police its own actions. This is contrasted with Marshall, who advocates burning of log trucks and forcing large corporations into bankruptcy. Though his activist group, ELF, claims to be founded in the philosophy of “deep ecology”, and uses this as justification for any number of illegal acts, Marshall lacks the respect for law and society that King had (253).
A huge part of the problem, the authors tell us, is flaccid education of civil disobedience brought on by the modern constructivist education theory. “When viewed simply as a student-centered methodology and poorly applied, constructivism can-and does-lead to inadequate teacher-led explanations like that of the ’unjust law’”. Because constructivism gives so much weight to the personal opinion and feelings of the student, the whole idea of interdependent society and civil conduct is all but lost (254). Lopach and Luckowski go on to cite numerous examples of these faulty curriculums, textbooks that give a superficial description of civil disobedience, yet all leave out certain necessary components of the idea like religious purification and the respect for societal laws (255).
In my opinion, Lopach and Luckowski are too adamant on the details of civil disobedience, and seem to be making a point that any dissenter who doesn’t follow the strict guidelines of King and Gandhi (including the wacky religious purification bit) is doing something wrong. They fail to acknowledge the possibility that a new kind of civil disobedience has arisen, not a wrong kind. Also, the lack of a religious undertone shouldn’t be a downside to an activist movement- what good is it? Half the time, religion is what’s being protested in the first place. Although, I’ll concede that their point about the self-interested student who may defy the law simply for his/her own pleasure or comfort, ie, dissenting not out of a moral obligation but simply because conforming would totally harsh their mellow. But on the other hand, if conformity to a particular law is so unpleasant for this student, and maybe so for countless other students, doesn’t that law need re-examining? Isn’t that the true meaning of civil disobedience?

Works Cited
Lopach, James J. and Luckowski, Jean A. “Uncivil Disobedience: Violating the Rules for Breaking the Law.” Education Next. (2005). Print.