The party faithful: Religion in politics in late nineteenth century Ireland and Germany

This dissertation considers the ways intense communal conflicts can be shaped and altered. Its purpose is to understand better the contemporary conflict in Ireland and to uncover the forces which manage conflict in deeply divided societies. In the nineteenth century the flames of sectarian conflict flared in Europe. Despite the intensity of these nineteenth century conflicts, in most of Western Europe today Catholic-Protestant conflict is significantly diminished. In Ireland, however, religion has never disappeared as a principal cleavage in society. Sectarian conflict remains intense and deadly, particularly in the six counties of Northern Ireland. This dissertation considers the problem of continued conflict on the island of Ireland from a comparative and historical framework. Using the pattern of Germany Catholic political mobilization in the late nineteenth century as a Weberian "ideal-type" of the process through which sectarian conflict was managed on the continent, this study identifies the unique evolution of the Irish situation. Whereas German Catholics developed an institutional pillar to defend themselves and protect their interests in the modern plural state, Irish Catholics developed a radical nationalist movement in this same period. Absent an institutionalized minority (Catholic) voice, the Union of Great Britain and Ireland lacked the means for channeling the sectarian conflict. Without addressing the issues of accommodation within the plural society in the nineteenth century, the Irish continue to be plagued by them north and south of the partitioned border. This study contends that much conflict resolution literature, liberal and pluralist theory neglects or mischaracterizes the role of exclusive voluntary associations in the amelioration of conflict. It asserts that voluntary organizations, if they are encouraged to do so, can provide the channels through which intense conflicts are managed. Exclusive mobilizations, even those which reinforce social cleavages, may be constructive political formations which allow for the channeling of differences. This argument enhances consociationalist theory by emphasizing that it is more than just parties which facilitate conflict management and by contending that the kinds of arrangements which bridge communal divisions in plural societies need not be conscious, formal or conciliatory.