权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Irish Political Thought under the Union: Visions of Representative Government, 1798-1922

联盟下的爱尔兰政治思想：代议制政府的愿景，1798-1922

基本信息

批准号：
AH/T00195X/1
负责人：
Colin Reid
金额：
$ 15.68万
依托单位：
University of Sheffield
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Fellowship
财政年份：
2020
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2020 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FT00195X%2F1
关键词：
Irish Political Thought under Union

项目摘要

The political history of Ireland has long been interpreted through the lens of violent conflict. Over the course of several centuries, political relations within Ireland, and between Ireland and Britain, were marked by profound differences in national allegiance and religion, with politics, in turn, assuming a seemingly intractable character. But conflict in Ireland was not simply the result of primordial hatreds; it was sustained by clashing interpretations of contemporary political ideas about the nature of government. The American and French Revolutions, which helped transform the understanding of representation, propelled ideas of popular sovereignty and democracy into the political mainstream, revolutionising relations between states, nations and citizens across Europe. Ireland was certainly not immune from these wider international and intellectual trends. The Act of Union of 1800 created a multi-national parliamentary state. This settlement was then contested by generations of Irish political activists and thinkers who drew on the language of representative government in order to recast the terms of the British connection. The political frameworks that predominated in Ireland were underpinned by divergent conceptions of legitimacy, drawing on such ideas as democracy, popular sovereignty and historical continuity. Within each of the main ideological alternatives, the constitutional setup of the polity, together with its relationship to the seat of empire, was starkly different. The fundamental area of contention was the constitution of representative government. The sectarianism and violence unleashed in public life were symptoms rather than causes of this ideological antagonism. In exploring the hitherto uncharted terrain of political ideas in Ireland in the era of the Union, this project pioneers a new approach to Irish historical writing. The violence, instability and successive crises that marked the British-Irish connection remain the chief focus of existing historiography, yet this emphasis has deprived these disputes of all serious intellectual content. Above all it has obscured the significance of disagreements over the nature of representative government. Accordingly, this project breaks with a narrowly high political approach, which has tended to concentrate on the activities of the political elite, and examines instead the philosophical assumptions that underpinned the range of constitutional proposals from incorporating union to devolution and federalism. Political representation raised profound and all-encompassing issues. Consequently, the project explores its central theme across the political spectrum, from Tory notions of conditional unionism and contractarian allegiance, to the development of republican conceptualisations of the 'sovereign people'. Through an examination of the political thought of such figures as Henry Grattan, Arthur O'Connor, Thomas Addis Emmet, John Wilson Croker, Isaac Butt, Robert Holmes, John Mitchel, W. E. H. Lecky, Thaddeus O'Malley, Eoin MacNeill, Alice Stopford Green, Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington, and Patrick Pearse, the multiple meanings ascribed to representative government in the Ireland of the Union are thrown into sharp relief. The Union framed the political landscape for successive generations in Ireland across the long nineteenth century, forming the structure under which formal power was wielded. Ideas of representative government profoundly challenged the Union: much of the print culture after 1800 hosted an open-ended debate about the Union's legitimacy and legacy. Beginning with this material, it is possible to track debates across the entire period, and in the process investigate continuities and change in political vocabulary. In this way, this project will offer an intellectual history of the Union, and will therefore offer the first sustained study of political thought in Ireland during the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries.

爱尔兰的政治史长期以来一直是通过暴力冲突的透镜来解释的。几个世纪以来，爱尔兰内部以及爱尔兰和英国之间的政治关系在民族忠诚和宗教方面存在着深刻的差异，而政治则呈现出看似棘手的特征。但是，爱尔兰的冲突不仅仅是原始仇恨的结果;它是由对当代关于政府性质的政治思想的冲突解释所维持的。美国和法国革命有助于改变对代表制的理解，推动人民主权和民主思想进入政治主流，彻底改变了整个欧洲国家，民族和公民之间的关系。爱尔兰当然不能幸免于这些更广泛的国际和知识趋势。1800年的《联合法案》建立了一个多民族议会制国家。这一解决方案随后受到几代爱尔兰政治活动家和思想家的质疑，他们借鉴代议制政府的语言，以重新塑造英国联系的条件。在爱尔兰占主导地位的政治框架是以不同的合法性概念为基础的，这些概念借鉴了民主、人民主权和历史连续性等思想。在每一种主要的意识形态选择中，政体的宪政结构及其与帝国所在地的关系都截然不同。争论的基本领域是代议制政府的宪法。在公共生活中爆发的宗派主义和暴力是这种意识形态对抗的症状，而不是原因。在探索联盟时代爱尔兰迄今未知的政治思想领域时，该项目开创了爱尔兰历史写作的新方法。暴力、不稳定和接连不断的危机，标志着英国和爱尔兰的联系，仍然是现有史学的主要焦点，但这种强调剥夺了这些争端的所有严肃的知识内容。最重要的是，它掩盖了对代议制政府性质的分歧的重要性。因此，这个项目打破了狭隘的高度政治的方法，这往往集中在政治精英的活动，而不是审查的哲学假设，巩固了从合并联盟到权力下放和联邦制的宪法提案的范围。政治代表性提出了深刻和全面的问题。因此，该项目探讨了整个政治光谱的中心主题，从有条件的工会主义和契约忠诚的保守党概念，到“主权人民”的共和概念化的发展。本文通过对亨利·格雷、亚瑟、奥康纳、托马斯、阿迪斯、埃米特、约翰·威尔逊·克罗克、艾萨克·巴特、罗伯特·霍姆斯、约翰·米切尔、W. E. H.莱基、撒迪厄斯·奥马利、约恩·麦克尼尔、爱丽丝·斯托普福德绿色、汉娜·希希-斯凯芬顿和帕特里克·皮尔斯等人的著作中，关于联盟中的爱尔兰的代议制政府的多重含义得到了清晰的体现。在漫长的19世纪，联邦为爱尔兰的几代人塑造了政治格局，形成了行使正式权力的结构。代议制政府的思想深刻地挑战了联盟：1800年后的大部分印刷文化主办了一场关于联盟合法性和遗产的开放式辩论。从这些材料开始，可以跟踪整个时期的辩论，并在此过程中调查政治词汇的连续性和变化。通过这种方式，该项目将提供一个联盟的思想史，因此将提供在爱尔兰在十九世纪和二十世纪初的政治思想的第一个持续的研究。