Contemporary Justice ReviewAccepted – Forthcoming 2013
“Sometimes I wish I was an ‘ex’ ex-prisoner”:Identity Processes in the Collective Action Participation of Former Prisoners in Northern Ireland
Dr Clare D. Dwyer
School of Law, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Since the signing of the Northern Ireland peace agreement a plethora of community based prisoner self-help organizations have been established wherein former prisoners staff, manage and deliver services to colleagues. By forging and maintaining their collective identities through community based mutual aid, members of these self-help organizations have progressed to create not only individual change/assistance but have also developed and evolved to tackle serious wider social issues which impact on the members of their organizations. This article critically analyses how the conditions of a post-conflict society can influence both the development and evolution of these organizations and also how members situate their claims about the self in the organization and beyond. Using the social movement framework it is argued that the work of these self-help organizations have given rise to a new politics of identity … that is the ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoner.
Keywords: Identity; collective action; ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners; social movements; self-help
Introduction
Research on identity, collective action and social movements suggests that the relationship between identity and collective action is mediated by considerations of collective debate, social constructions and political goals (see Calhoun 1994; Hunt, Benford & Snow 1994; Meyer, 2002). Much of this literature focuses on the ways in which movements enable members to reflect on collective identity and political interests, experiment with new or transformed identities and alter the conception of self (Melucci 1995; Snow and McAdam, 2000). The argument in this article extends this line of inquiry by exploring how social movements in a post-conflict society (namely ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners (PMEP)[1]organizations in Northern Ireland), can offer its members the space to reflect on their conceptions of previously violent identities and move to develop a transformed notion of self as ‘peacemakers’. Such understandings of self and identity can subsequently create both openings and obstacles to inclusion and participation in a transitional society. ‘Politically motivated’ ex-prisoner (PMEP)organizations in Northern Ireland are social movements in the sense that they serve to articulate a collective identity and a political agenda. By applying the social movement lens to PMEP organizations in Northern Ireland for the first time, this article seeks to contribute to the understanding of the role identity plays in the mobilisation of social movements, particularly in regards to groups seeking identity recognition and inclusion in a post-conflict society.
How movements engage the ‘self’ of its members with its collective identity has had a number of important implications for the organizations’ dynamics, the movement’s success, and political outcomes. In the article, I aim to illustrate how the various social and political conditions in a post-conflict society have not only influenced the development and evolution of these identity based movements but also how members locate their claims about the self in the movement and beyond. The arguments in this article draw on the findings from in-depth semi structured interviews with ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners. A total of 35 interviews were carried out with Republican ex-prisoners (including the Provisional IRA, Official IRA and Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)), and Loyalist ex-prisoners (including Ulster Volunteer Force and Red Hand Commandos), and others involved in PMEP reintegration. The interview sample had a higher representation of members from the Republican community (68% compared to 32% from the Loyalist community). This imbalance was down to a number of factors including the fact that there are a higher number of Republican ex-prisoner organizations and representatives from the Republican community groups had a greater willingness to participate in the research. Interviews were conducted in order to explore the reintegration experiences of PMEP, focusing, in particular on the development of community based self-help organizations and the experience former prisoners have had with such organizations.[2]
Drawing on wider research on the reintegration experiences of former prisoners, this article provides a critical analysis of the relationship between ‘self-help’ and the process of both individual and collective identity construction in relation to PMEP organizations in Northern Ireland. Based on the findings from this research, I argue that these organizations have metamorphosised into agents for both political and social change. They can now be understood as social movements as they not only deal with the practical and every day issues of their users but they also give their users a larger platform for their voice to be heard within the wider political arena.[3] Using this ‘social movement’ framework, it is then argued that the work of these self-help organizations have given rise to a new politics of identity, namely the ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoner. In the sections that follow, I briefly review the literature on self, identity politics and social movements. I next provide background to the development and work of the PMEP organizations in Northern Ireland before moving to present an analysis on PMEP identities. In particular, I analyse the role identity has played in the mobilising members of the organizations in attempting to bring about progressive social change for group members and beyond. I conclude with discussions on the implications of the experiences of PMEP organizations on our understanding of collective action and social movements.
The Development of Collective Identities and Collective Action
Groups provide us with a sense of social identity and such identity is based on membership in a group or collective and is understood as ‘the individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of the group membership’ (Tajfel, 1972, p. 31). This concept of ‘social’, ‘group’ or ‘collective’ identity is constructed by group boundaries and material distinctions between members of the collectivity and others (see Meyer & Whittier, 1994). As such collective identities are understood as, ‘an interactive and shared definition produced by several individuals (or groups at a more complex level) and concerned with the orientations of action and field of opportunities and constraints in which the action takes place’ (Melucci, 1996, p. 44). These shared definitions have been described as definitions of reality, what the group defines as right and wrong and has a cognitive element that links the person to the cause. These definitions help a person link his or her beliefs to the larger groups same belief, thus attaching the individual to the group (see Taylor & Whittier, 1992; Melucci, 1996), and these cognitive definitions must be concerned with the groups’ action and the larger society in which the group is situated (Melucci, 1996). Therefore, cognitive definitions not only reflect a group’s feelings about itself, but in turn, they reflect the action of its members and their sense of self. Haslam et. al, contend that ‘groups are not simply external features of the world that provide a setting for our behaviour. Instead, they shape our psychology through their capacity to be internalised and contribute to our sense of self’ (2009, p. 2, own emphasis).
A wide variety of research examines the self and identity and theorists as diverse as Mead, (1934), Becker, (1971) and Cohen, (1994) have examined how individuals seek to ‘construct subjective meaning for their actions, relationships and identities’ (Collinson, 2003, p. 529). There is an understanding that identity is a kind of ‘interface’ or ‘conceptual bridge’ between the individual and society (see Snow & Anderson, 1987, p. 1338), with clear social and relational aspects, which ‘involves deep connections with others through shared histories and experiences, reciprocity, affection, and mutual commitments” (Wenger, 2000, p. 239). One notable similarity across these various traditions is the emphasis on reflexivity and self-consciousness. Collinson had noted that this reflexivity and self-awareness gives human beings ‘the capacity to envisage alternative realities and to re-construct and change our world … [and] exercise some discretion and control over our actions. It also enables us not only to “see” ourselves, but also to try to view ourselves as others may see us and to compare and contrast ourselves with others.’ (2003, p. 529). Influenced by theorists including James (1892) and Cooley (1902), and with an understanding that ‘we ourselves take the attitude that others take toward us’, Mead (1934) divides the ‘self’ into two aspects, the ‘I’ and the ‘me.’ The ‘I’ is the creator or the doer of actions within us and is the part of our selves that is impulsive and passionate, contributing to the makeup of the group and the society it resides in, making social change possible (Mead, 1934, p. 177-180). The ‘me,’ on the other hand, is the receiver of how others perceive us, internalizing the action of others. Mead understood that by generalizing the other through the ‘me’ is the part of ourselves that emulates and puts into action what society or the group expects of us (1934, p. 152-164).
This social interactionism perspective therefore focuses on how individuals and groups interact and, more specifically, how personal identity (‘the self’), is created through interaction with others. Of particular interest for the arguments in this article, is the relationship between individual action and group pressures. The symbolic interactionist perspective posits that subjective meanings are socially constructed and that these subjective meanings interrelate with objective actions (Blumer, 1969; Stryker, 1980; Prus, 1996). Furthermore, while the self assigns meaning through its interpretive interaction with all social objects, Gecas (1991) contends that only some of these objects will be organized in systems of self-meanings that are more significant for the self than other objects are. These systems of self-meanings are the self’s identities. Various identities compose the self, some more significant than others, some more motivating than others (see Gecas, 1991), for example the identity of ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoner. Consequently, elements of identity (including individual, social and collective) are not only the product of social construction but are as a result of constantly evolving, directed human agency, an agency itself influenced and mediated by existing societal structures and experiences of social interaction (for example the ex-prisoners identity seeking full participation in a post-conflict society). Most relevant for these discussions, these processes, often referred to as the ‘politics of identity’, have been understood as the, ‘construction of the symbolic boundaries and collective identities which provide the cognitive basis for normative order and social integration’ (Eder et al, 2002, p. 4).
The ‘Politics of Identity’ and Social Movements
Many expressions of politics of identity can share the common feature of being constituted by people who, through their group identity, previously felt marginalised (Taylor & Spencer, 2004). It is the added difficulties with identity, self-realisation and concerns with self-recognition and identity, which can give rise to ‘identity politics’ which can play out through ‘general efforts by status-based movements to foster and explore the cultural identity of members’ and can include ‘activism engaged in by status-based social movements’ (see Bernstein, 2005, p. 47/48). ‘Identity politics’ can therefore involve seeking recognition and legitimacy, where other people, groups or organizations are called upon to respond (Calhoun, 1994, p. 21). Furthermore, these identity politics attempt to positively restore previously devalued differences (Somers & Gibson, 1994, p. 53). Calhoun states that proponents of identity politics ‘offer claims to have difference recognised as legitimate’ (1994, p. 25), and that those making identity claims often ‘present them within a rhetoric implying that everyone is equally endowed with identity, equally entitled to their own identity and equally entitled to respect for it’ (Calhoun, 1994, p. 24).
However, identity politics also gives rise to a distinct set of issues around the topic of identity. It has been contended that if the goal of identity politics is to seek redress for marginalised groups then such groups are forced by the political process to embrace a particular identity as their exclusive identity, which in turn will only serve to ‘fix’ that identity in both political and legal terms (see Hekman, 1999). Brown (1995) also explores this particular issue of identity politics and notes how identity politics can involve embracing the identity of the political actors as ‘injured’, fixing an identity imposed and enforced by hegemonic political power. Although identity politics is about reconstructing these identities in a positive direction, such a new construction can become just as fixed as those identities they attempt to replace (see Brown, 1995). In order to overcome such issues, Brown suggests that there needs to be, ‘a shift in the character of political expression and political claims common to much politicized identity’ (1995, p. 75) and suggests, identity should be expressed in terms of desire rather than of ontology by supplanting the language of, ‘I am’ with the language of ‘I want this for us’ (1995, p. 75). Such a shift would create an opportunity to ‘rehabilitate the memory of desire within identificatory process … prior to wounding’ (1995, p. 75). Reflecting on Brown’s work, Bhambra and Margree have argued that such opportunity to rehabilitate the memory of desire would focus on the ‘future possibilities present in identity as opposed to the identity being foreclosed through its attention to past based grievances’ (2010, p. 65). In their work on identity politics, Bhambra and Margree assert that not only would a ‘reformed identity politics need to be based on desire for the future, but that the desire should actually be a desire for the dissolution (in the future) of the identity claim. The complete success of the feminist movement, for instance, would mean that feminists no longer existed, as the conditions that caused people to become feminist had been addressed’ (2010, p. 65). Relevant to the current study, this would therefore mean that the identity of ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoner would no longer exist if the conditions that perpetuates and challenges that identity were addressed. In order to address the particular conditions which maintain the negative consequences of certain identities many groups have, through version of identity politics, mobilised in different forms (including restorative justice projects, mediation forums and cross community initiatives) and many examples are commonly associated with the idea of social movements.
The ‘selves’ of social movement activists are influenced by the reciprocal relationships that exist between the individual, a social movement organization, and the social structure (see Reger et al., 2008), and groupings mobilise together to focus on specific social or political issues in order to bring about social change. Such social movements can, ‘… include diverse individuals and groups whose primary focus at any one time may vary tremendously, but who are united by a generally shared view of the world and their place within it’ (Meyer, 2002, p. 12). Social movement activists therefore align their self-identity with collective identity and expand their definition of self to include the collective identity of the movement (Gamson, 1992). Whilst a shared collective identity is necessary for the mobilisation of any social movement, Bernstein (2005) has argued that identity plays a number of roles in relation to social movements. Identity can also be a ‘goal’ of social movement activism, either gaining acceptance for a hitherto stigmatized identity (Calhoun 1994) or ‘deconstructing categories of identities’ (see Bernstein, 2005, p. 59). Often such identity constructions are ‘acted out’ through expressive and affective means and the movement essentially becomes the ‘focus for the individual’s definition of himself or herself, and action within the movement is a complex mix of the collective and individual confirmations of identity’ (Johnston et al., 1994, p. 8).
Central to such individual and group identity construction in collective movements is the concept of ‘framing’, which describes how activists make sense of their social worlds (Hunt, Benford & Snow, 1994). Movement frames are sets of beliefs and meanings that motivate and legitimate the activities of a social movement (Ray & Korteweg, 1999, p. 49). The concept and processes of framing are among the most important analytic tools for understanding the development and sustainability of a social movement organization. Moreover, as well as illuminating the social construction of social movements, framing can also offer insight to explore the question of how activist groups construct social issues (Tarrow, 1998). In this respect, Snow and Benford define collective action frames as ‘action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization’ (2000, p. 614).
Whilst the concept of framing has emerged and developed in relation to greater understanding of the dynamic features of social movements, the concept of ‘political opportunity structures’ provides insight on the emergence and development of social movements. The concept of political opportunity structures often refers to the state and political institutions, and research uses this concept to examine the interaction between social movements and social change, especially through policy change (Charles, 2004, p. 298). In much of the literature in social movements, the concept of political opportunity structures has therefore been regarded as a key element and condition to account for the mobilization and outcomes of social movements. Such discussions are significant to the current study, not least because Northern Ireland, as a transitional society moving away from conflict, has experienced significant institutional and policy changes. As a result, as in other transitional contexts (Arthur, 2010), many individuals and collectives have experienced various levels of reassessment of ‘who they are’ in a post-conflict society. Whilst identity and identity struggle have played a role during the conflict in Northern Ireland, identity has also taken a central place during the transitional phase of the conflict. Most relevant to this study is the identity of those with ‘conflict related’ convictions, namely ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners.