Further thoughts on republicanism and ideology

I have written about my objection to the notion of Russell as being a blind militarist.

It's not so much that I take objection to that slur per se but rather the idea that that makes one somehow deficient as a republican.

In my view, republicanism in its purest form is manifested by a "blind militarism". It is essentially apolitical.

Anyway, the further point I wish to make is that this expectation that republicans have politics, and indeed the right politics, is a recent one.

There is a related tendency to overly focus on theory and written works over activity.

I believe that there is a lack of theory in relation to republicanism, but in the sense that a coherent body of thought that expresses itself through behavior has not been adequately articulated in word. For example, what I have written above on Russell is an example of theory explaining what people do.

This is quite different from the notion that the actions of republicans were not directed and were senseless (blind) and needed to be given a theoretical framework. The difference is between saying that an implied theory is there but needs to be elucidated and saying that there is no theory there at all. The difference is between intrinsic theory and externally-provided theory.

One example of the new focus on theory is with James Connolly. Connolly left behind a large body of work but it is hardly representative. Yet increasingly they are poured over. Some treat his writings like scripture, citing passages and using them against political opponents in debates.

Others like Conor McCabe are more interested in the general thrust of Connolly's analysis rather than specific details here or there. Nevertheless he is part of a process to make Connolly about the theory first and foremost.

This is perfectly fine if done by socialists in the name of socialism, but Connolly is remembered by republicans as a republican; a martyr and patriot in deed. The theory is of secondary importance. That itself is a theoretical insight.

This is before we get into the actual problems of theory and the various interpretations in Connolly. The main one is the contradiction between nationalism and socialism which is arguably irreconcilable. That is for another time.

Another example of this excessive focus on ideology is with Seán Sabhat. Sabhat was traditionally remembered as a martyr and patriot. In recent years, though, there has been a tendancy to look at his letters to papers, his interests and his associations. Some have even suggested that Sabhat no longer be commemorated due to his bad views.

There is a logic to this. Once you decenter the importance of sacrifice and action, and place more emphasis on theory and having the correct theory, it is inevitable that the way in which we honour our patriot dead changes radically. James Connolly, one hero amongst several, attains a position so exalted as to be ahead of the rest of the pack. Seán Sabhat, a man who equally gave his life for Ireland, is diminished because of unacceptable views.