Violence and the Constitution of the Novel

According to Lloyd, “For nationalist historiography, the violence of Irish history is symptomatic of the unrelenting struggle of an Irish people forming itself in sporadic but connected rising against British domination” (p.125) This statement made me think of not just the Irish resistance, but the resistance to colonial discourse throughout the entire British empire. Irish violence is only one example of how a racial stereotypes are constructed in order to discredit and suppress an indigenous people. British colonial discourse involves a relationship between power and knowledge. The ways people are conceived (knowledge) tend to fall within certain hierarchical formations (power). The British empire used the military force, education, language, culture (social practices) , and phenotypical grouping in order to make indigenous people (the colonized) fall into a colonial relationship.

The British used rules of inclusion and exclusion within the discourse of truth and morality based on the prior assumption that their culture was superior. This also shows a dualistic method of thinking (good/evil, civilized/primitive, teacher/pupil) which in other words is a system of positives and negatives. Often times when a colonizer invades and occupies a geographical region it forces a diverse number of peoples with many discourses to somehow merge to create a single identity. This the problem with this dualistic way of thinking is that it leaves no room for gray areas and diverse peoples.

During colonialism in Ireland, the British used not only military force and violence to suppress the indigenous people but also used education and religion (through missionaries) to impose the correct language (English) and enforce the idea that British culture (especially literature) was the superior example that must be practiced in order to be considered legitimate. This could explain why the Irish (the subaltern in the British empire) are stereotyped as violent. As Lloyd writes, “...from the perspective of dominate history, the subaltern must be represented as violence.” (p127) The Irish literary traditions (including oral tradition) were objectified by the British rule and associated with violent resistance in order to group the entire island of people as violent (and therefore must be ruled and taught the correct discourse). This marketed (to British citizens) the necessity to maintain authoritarian rule over the Irish and further increase racism and hatred towards them.

So this brings a question: If Irish literature is based on oral structure and other languages, such as Gaelic, are they assimilating into the British idea of what is correct in the use of English to create literature or create a unified history and identity when there previously was none (that is black and white)? First let's consider the previous idea that says through stereotyping the Irish and their literary structures as being violent and inferior supports and benefits the colonizer (British).

As Llyod says, ...that which can not be assimilated to the state can only be understood only as outside the law, disruptive and discontinuous, unavailable for narration; ...the history of the state requires a substrate which is counter to its laws of civility in which it represents as outrageous and violent, in order that the history of domination and criminalization appear as a legitimate process of civilization and the triumph of law.” (p.127)

Llyod is saying that subaltern or (colonized) have a dual history. One that is their own filled with authentic or original culture (although ranging in diversity throughout the occupied area) and one that is imposed or forced by the dominant occupier (colonizer). Llyod explains it, “on the one hand they play out own discrete and complex formations and traditions; on the other, occluded by their difference from dominant narratives and forms and by those forms themselves they are nonetheless 'intertwined with [the history] of civil society and thereby with the history of States and groups of Sates'” (p127)

This would seem to say that the group of people in Ireland have not assimilated into British culture through using the English language. They more so have maintained their own diverse culture and identity through the use of an imposed and enforced language. In doing this the binary oppositions created by Britain become deconstructed. The occupied (or colonized) people insist upon taking up the position of having a unique identity apart from what is being imposed upon them. They become the creator of their own knowledge about their own culture (no matter how diverse) rather than act as a subject to authoritarian imposed culture (that considers itself superior). Even though this happens, the colonizer (Britain) will see this alteration of “correct” English and market or define it as inferior...thus connecting it violence. In doing this is stereotypes the Irish people as naturally being violent and justifies the occupation and rule. As if to say that those people need superior British rule and culture to function as a society.