The steady trickle of Irish self-stereotyping

Joep Leerssen

Two items in the British quality Press (Guardian and Observer) about Irish culture, from January 2018 and April 2019.

In one, German-born, Irish-raised Stephanie Preissner, co-writer of the Netflix comedy show Can’t Cope Won’t Cope, combines pop history and feminist denunciations of ingrained misogyny into Irish essentialist self-stereotyping: “It’s said that Irish people are funnier because they’ve developed humour as a coping mechanism for the terrible stuff that’s happened in our past [...] If that’s true, humour is bound to be ingrained in the DNA of Irish women given the horrors we’ve dealt with.”

In the other, the actress Jessie Buckley discerns some inherited poetic genius in her ancestry. As interviewer Barbara Ellen summarizes, “Buckley’s own singer/harpist/art teacher/music therapist mother has always been creative, as have all the family. Her father, a barman, writes poetry.” Says Buckley: “I think it’s in the Irish blood to have that musicality, creativeness, or, I don’t know, wildness.”

DNA? Blood? While any sexist gender essentialism would, I presume, be indignantly rejected by interviewers and interviewees alike, they have no inhibitions to fall back on ethnic-essentialist phraseology. Let’s by all means reject any DNA-related or genetically inheritable explanations for the steady, always-persistent Irish tendency towards auto-exoticist posturing. Or the lazy complacency of journalists to hoist these clichés as human-interest signalling flags in their headlines.

Sources: Shipla Ganatra, “Humour is ingrained into our DNA': meet the Irish women making TV's best comedies”, Guardian Friday 26 January 2018; Barbara Ellen, “Interview. Jessie Buckley: ‘It’s in the Irish blood to have that musicality, that wildness’”, Observer Sunday 7 April 2019. 

Latest Blog Posts

“Nice and Dutch” among the stars

Joep Leerssen

The Volkskrant reports (21 August 2019) that The Natherlands have the right to name a new exoplanet. The public have been asked to submit suggestions to a committee (oops, sorry, a “National Committee”, of course). Its president, Marieke Baan, is putting her hopes on a “nice, Dutch theme” for the name (een lekker Hollands thema), such as one of the Wadden islands or a painter (Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Bosch, Vermeer, etc). Banal nationalism takes to the stars — to infinity and beyond.

Continue reading

Englishness adds value

Joep Leerssen

As The Indepedent and other news media reported on 17 August 2019, the UK’s Arts Minister Rebecca Pow has placed an export ban on the painting Ferdinand Lured By Ariel (1850) by the Pre-Raphaelite John Everett Millais. The painting depicts a scene from Shakespeare’s The Tempest. The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest (RCEWA) recommended an export ban because of the detail of the natural life observed in the garden setting, and, more importantly, because the theme, the garden setting, and the artist were considered to be quintessentially English in character.
Pow called the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood “a key part of British history and this is why we must keep this important work in the country.” RCEWA member Peter Barder called the painting “a summation of everything English. A novel interpretation of an episode from Shakespeare, it is set in a minutely observed English garden in the summer. [...] Such close observation was unique to the Pre-Raphaelites, one of the very few distinctively British art movements. An epitome of its type and of Englishness, I hope a British institution will find the means to keep it in this country”.
The comments pinpoint the conscious invocation of tradition (and that meant, almost by default, English tradition) by the Pre-Raphaelites; they also show how that programme of “Englishness” has meanwhile become a key factor in the assignment of value to their work; what is more, an Englishness that reponds to the Pre-Raphaelite nostalgic taste for Shakespeare, country gardens, and Victorian eye-candy aesthetics.

Continue reading

Against Representativity

Joep Leerssen

As an imagologist I am often asked by my social-scientific or social-historical colleagues how I can determine the representativity of the literary material I study. If, in studying the English image of Italy, I draw on George Eliot and E.M. Foster, is that not a very restricted and rarefied data sample, almost a random stab in the dark? What wider conclusions could possibly be drawn from such a minute sample regarding ‘the’ image of Italy in England, or attitudes generally vis-à-vis Italy as current in England?

That ‘representativity’ challenge is irrelevant and pernicious, and should be rejected out of hand. It imposes on the humanities an entire set of assumptions and working methods that are alien and uncongenial to it, beginning with the idea  (too ingrained to be consciously reflected upon, let alone queried) that what we study are selected samples as proxy data for a larger whole – that larger whole being, ideally, society as such.
[....]

Continue reading