Community Discourses of Language Reclamation through Irish Medium Youth Work

ABSTRACT

This article presents community discourses of Irish medium youth work (IMYW) in the North of Ireland as a component of a wider community goal of language reclamation. This is a secondary data analysis of interviews conducted by the author which places the findings within the historical context of colonisation and present-day language reclamation efforts. Gaeilge has been the subject of language reclamation efforts in the North of Ireland since the late 1960s with this form of language activism including social and economic activism. This analysis connects the material and cultural disadvantages that young Irish speakers face with a youth work methodology that is grounded in language and community rights as well as social justice. The findings illustrate that despite governmental commitments to Gaeilge, discriminatory views and decisions remain which in turn inspire this growing community in their project of language reclamation in which young people are at the centre.

KEYWORDS:

• Community regeneration
• decolonial youth work
• Gaeilge
• Irish medium youth work
• language reclamation

Introduction

The Gaeilge (Irish language) reclamation movement has been a growing feature of the social, political, and linguistic landscape of certain parts of the North of Ireland since the late 1960s. Typically referred to as Athbheochan na Gaeilge, or the Irish Language Revival (Armstrong, 2012; Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2021; Ó Baoill, 2007), this movement is in fact closer to reclamation efforts in post-colonial settings in other parts of the world due to its emphasis on self-determination, decolonisation, community and educational transformations, rather than on simply increasing the number of speakers, as is the case with revival efforts (MacKenzie et al., 2022). Reclamation efforts are evident in direct-action approaches that have generated an urban Gaeltacht (Irish-speaking area), Irish language cultural and community hubs, Irish language media, and a boom in Irish-medium education (IME) and Irish Medium Youth Work (IMYW), all of which seek the right to speak the language (Leonard, 2018).

Irish medium youth work (IMYW) is an informal education service that emerged from the formal IME sector and now comprises its own youth work sector. IME is a form of immersion education, where children primarily from English-speaking homes are immersed in Gaeilge. This form of education has been driven by parents with its roots in community regeneration and consequently producing linguistically competent and socially and politically empowered young people (Ó Baoill, 2007). Developed by past IME pupils, IMYW provides social opportunities for young people to speak Gaeilge outside of school. In line with youth work’s basic principles, attendance is voluntary, and this extends to language use with young people given the freedom in their own space to choose which language they wish to speak. Moreover, IMYW largely exists in areas of high social deprivation, which are traditionally Catholic¹ areas including West Belfast, Foyle, and North Belfast, the three most deprived Assembly Areas in the North of Ireland, respectively (Devlin et al., 2018). The context of social deprivation and linguistic choice is vital to understanding the political empowerment experienced by young people engaged in IMYW as language reclamation activists connected social deprivation with language rights and reframed the question of Gaeilge as a question of social justice and decolonisation. The connection between social deprivation and colonisation in the North of Ireland will be further elaborated upon throughout this article.

IMYW has received media attention on several occasions in recent years for being at the sharp end of discriminatory funding cuts in 2017 and again in 2022 (BBC News, 2017a; Móna, 2022). The funding cuts in 2017 resulted in the closure of four IMYW clubs in Belfast, while the funding cuts in 2022 threatened to close all IMYW clubs in the North of Ireland. However, this decision was quickly reversed due to the pressure exerted by those involved with IMYW, language activists and supporters. This was a youth-led response which showcased the political empowerment of those attending the services and their commitment to protecting them (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2021).

This paper presents a secondary data analysis of interviews and focus groups conducted by the author when she worked for the youth organisation, Fóram na nÓg (“Youth Forum”), as a research co-ordinator in 2021. Various stakeholders of IMYW, such as parents, language activists, and language officials, were interviewed in order to build upon research conducted with young people who attended IMYW (Neill & McArdle, 2023). This project was initially commissioned by Fóram na nÓg to articulate the reality of IMYW, including its linguistic, community, and political value, as well as the barriers faced by this growing youth work sector in the hope that bespoke funding schemes would be created and supported. This data is rich in community knowledge, lived experiences, and decolonial desires, and so the findings are re-analysed and presented as representations of community discourses of language reclamation through IMYW. As a movement that seeks to disrupt colonial legacies of harm and to connect the indigenous language to community and educational endeavours, this is particularly relevant to the experiences of IMYW. Using this frame of analysis allows for a bigger picture to capture the social and linguistic transformations produced by the Irish language community.

The colonial context of Gaeilge and the origins of the reclamation movement will be briefly discussed before discussing the overt cultural hostility that Gaeilge and Gaeilgeoirí (Irish speakers) still face in the North of Ireland, mainly at the hands of the second largest party, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). This will be followed by a brief account of the model of IMYW. The data collection and methods of analysis will then be discussed before presenting the findings of the research and placing these findings within a larger discussion of colonialism and language reclamation.

Colonisation and language shift

The context of English colonialism in Ireland provides an important backdrop for understanding the linguistic and social landscape in which IMYW operates. Colonial discourses in Ireland date back to the 12th century with Gerald of Wales’, Topographia Hibernica, wherein the native Gael were described as savage by custom, citing appearance, sexuality, and language as some of these customs in question. In line with colonial practices in other regions, this survey also identified Ireland as a site of wealth extraction. Despite this survey and its accompanying colonial rationale, England’s attempts to colonise Ireland were rather ineffectual in this period, failing to have any real effect beyond the Pale.² Following the Reformation in the 16th century and buoyed by Spain’s colonial success in the Americas, England refocused its colonial gaze on Ireland (Palmer, 2009). During this period, the colonial discourse shifted from one of the Gael as savage by custom, as identified by Gerald of Wales, to savage by nature (Carroll, 2003). Carroll points to two texts to illustrate this shift: Richard Stanihurst’s a Description of Ireland which claimed that the Gaels were derived from ancient European barbarity (1577), and John Derrick’s Image of Ireland (1581) which described the Gael as “this graceless cursed race” (2003, p. 69).

These colonial discourses informed English colonial practices resulting in land displacements which were formalised in law and operationalised through force in the form of land grabs and plantations (Ohlmeyer, 2023). The Plantation of Ulster in 1609 planted 30,000 Scots in Ulster with Sir John Davies, the architect of the plantation, stating: “If the civil persons who are to be planted do not exceed the number of natives. [they] will quickly overgrow them as weeds overgrow the good corn” (in Carroll, 2003, p. 65). This statement illustrates the colonial ideology behind this operation: non-natives described as civil, while the “natives” were “weeds” which had to be eradicated or controlled. This plantation was accompanied by rapid deforestation and urbanisation as the capitalist mode of production took hold in Ireland. Some theorists view these historical processes as separable from colonialism and therefore dispute the applicability of Ireland’s to postcolonial theory (see Laird, 2015). Much of the analytical framework employed in this paper relies on the postcolonial outlook articulated by Edward Said, one of the most influential figures in postcolonial theory, in his afterword in Carroll and King’s (2003) Ireland and Postcolonial Theory. In this afterword Said (2003) supported the use of postcolonial analyses in Ireland and argued that understanding coloniality in Ireland is crucial to understanding Irish identity and history. Said further argued that one of the strengths of this analysis “is that it widens, instead of narrows the interpretive perspective, which is another way of saying that it liberates instead of further constricting and colonizing the mind” (2003, p. 179). It is an analysis which also supports the central claim of this paper that the movement is one of language reclamation, rather than revival.

The colonial expansion of this period included a colonial cultural conquest which would result in a dramatic decline in Irish speakers, an overlooked aspect in the colonisation of Ireland according to Palmer (2009). Indeed, as a carrier of culture, language informs our relationships with the self, others, and the land (McCarty et al., 2018). Thus, our relationship to language also informs our relationships to systems of power and the people within those systems, shaping our conceptions of power and, indeed, our hegemonic consciousness—the internalisation of ruling class values, beliefs and worldviews (Gramsci, 1971). According to Gramsci (1971), this is how the dominant class generates consent for their rule and political and economic structures. In instances of colonisation, hegemonic consciousness is deployed alongside linguistic and cultural conquest which is accompanied by the ongoing threat or use of violence to achieve both mental and physical domination. This echoes Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s analysis of colonialism where he writes that “the bullet was the means of the physical subjugation. Language was the means of the spiritual subjugation” (2005, p. 9). Here, we see a mirroring of hegemony: physical force pressure and consent manufactured through a discursive invasion of the mind.

The 19th century witnessed the implementation of a more sophisticated and systematic manner to attempt to eradicate Gaeilge through the education system, utilising the dual-techniques of coercion and persuasion that comprise hegemonic rule (Ó Tuathaigh, 1991). In 1831, the education system was reformed in accordance with the National School system within which the bata scoir or tally stick was used to tally the number of uses of Gaeilge which would then correspond to the number of beatings a child would receive (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2013). Not only did this method generate feelings of shame and inferiority in children, it also encouraged them to inform on their peers for using Gaeilge to save themselves from beatings, thus dismantling social solidarity in favour of deference to colonial authority. This speaks to the colonial process experienced in Kenya outlined by Ngũgĩ Wa Thiong’o (2005, p. 11) where “children were turned into witch-hunters and in the process were being taught the lucrative value of being a traitor to one’s immediate community.” Furthermore, English was established as the language of wealth, intelligence, and civility; while Gaeilge occupied the position of shame, stupidity, poverty, and inferiority among the native Catholic population, with this religious characterisation continuing to the modern day (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2013). When Ireland was partitioned in 1921, the six north eastern counties fell under the rule of a sectarian Ulster Unionist parliament, a time when sectarian violence by the State’s security forces was already normalised. Gaeilge was lingua non grata due to its association with the minority Catholic population (McMonagle & McDermott, 2014).

Language and community reclamation

The establishment of the Orange State³ in 1921 was bolstered by gerrymandering and widespread disenfranchisement of the Catholic population. The voting system at the time meant that only ratepayers were entitled to a vote; for each £10 paid in rates, one vote was awarded, with up to five votes available. The higher rates in affluent areas resulted in a voting system that was rigged towards the wealthy. Furthermore, houses were allocated according to the desire of local councillors. This biased housing allocation combined with gerrymandering in certain electoral wards meant that local Protestant councillors served their own interests of allocating houses to Protestant voters (Farrell, 1976). Employment meant wealth, which meant a house, which meant a vote. As Sir Joseph Davidson pointed out in the 1930s: “It is time Protestant employers realised that whenever a Roman Catholic is brought into their employment it means one vote less” (Farrell, 1976, pp. 136–137). Out of these circumstances, and with the support of liberal Protestants, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) was formed. However, NICRA’s emphasis on political representation within existing government structures failed to capture the attention of the North of Ireland’s small Irish-speaking community who were more interested in decolonisation and community regeneration (Mac Seáin, 2010).

In his memoir, Séamus Mac Seáin (2010) notes that he and his fellow Gaeilgeoirí (Irish speakers), who branded themselves as Pobal Feirste⁴, had very little interest in achieving civil rights in what they perceived as an anti-Gaeilge, anti-Irish sectarian state (Mac Seáin, 2010). Rather, they aimed to promote the use of Gaeilge and to do so through meaningful tactics that would have a material impact on the lives of the Catholic community with one activist noting: “We felt that the Irish language had to become more than just a cultural pursuit, that it had to become involved in people’s lives, it had to become involved in the well-being of the general community if it was to be taken seriously” (O’Reilly, 1999, p. 43). This represents a point of departure from the small body of Irish speakers who existed in Belfast at the time, whose interest in Gaeilge was based on patriotism and did not extend beyond political discussions within the premises of the Gaelic League centre in West Belfast (Mac Seáin, 2010). Pobal Feirste’s approach is the very essence of language reclamation: a decolonial community-based pursuit that aims to intervene in the colonial legacies of harm that produced language shift in the first instance, arguing that those power structures must be challenged (Leonard, 2018). Language reclamation calls for an emphasis to be placed on the community’s contemporary needs while asserting the importance of self-determination and empowerment to meet those needs (Henne-Ochoa et al., 2020). This approach differs from language revival efforts with Henne-Ochoa et al. (2020) pointing out that the term “language revival” implies that the language simply fell out of use, thus masking the role of colonialism in language shift. In contrast, the term “reclamation” denotes action in reclaiming that which was taken through settler-colonialism (Leonard, 2018). The indigenous, Miami Tribe, Oklahoma, scholar Wesley Y. Leonard (2018) who developed the reclamation framework argues that languages must be viewed as embedded in social relations with communities and the land upon which they are spoken. Language reclamation is a decolonial intervention in colonisation (Leonard, 2019), which requires vigilance and constant activism in order to avoid yielding to the dominating power structures of colonisation.

Moreover, Pobal Feirste recognised that they were a minority within a minority and understood the material impact that sectarian impoverishment had on their larger community (Mac Seáin, 2010). They were exasperated with what they viewed as the “talking shop mentality” of other Irish speakers and instead committed themselves to direct action and bought a plot of land on the then outskirts of Belfast where they built houses and thus established the urban Gaeltacht, Gaeltacht Bhóthair Seoighe⁵ in 1969 (Armstrong, 2012). Shortly after construction, sectarian attacks led to the burning of the nationalist housing estate of Bombay Street in West Belfast. The government at the time was reluctant to rebuild the houses, leaving dozens of Catholics homeless. Pobal Feirste intervened in this instance and re-built the homes as they viewed this as an opportunity to serve their community and to empower them through demonstrating that collective action can enact tangible change. They also sought to tackle the chronic issue of unemployment within the community through establishing co-operatives on an industrial estate in the upper Springfield area, a stone’s throw away from Bombay Street, where the unemployment rate was 34% (Mac Seáin, 2010). Within these co-operatives, Gaeilge was promoted by the activists who were increasingly demonstrating the relevance of Gaeilge to the improvement of their lives. This was a case of modelling the language, where Gaeilge was visible on signage within the co-operatives and those in leadership positions were all language activists who constantly highlighted the connection between social deprivation and colonisation, and in turn connecting decolonisation with social justice (Mac Seáin, 2010).⁶ For these Gaeilgeoirí, they were not simply interested in increasing the numbers of speakers, as is the case in revitalisation efforts. Instead, they wanted to reclaim the language as a vehicle for decolonisation and to create positive social transformations based on improving the material conditions within their own community while emphasising education, the very essence of language reclamation projects.

By 1971, there were nine children due to commence school in the Gaeltacht and Pobal Feirste took the decision to establish their own school, Scoil Ghaeilge Bhéal Feirste (Belfast’s Gaeilge School), despite threats of legal action from the Department of Education. In a letter written to Séamus Mac Seáin, one of the language reclamation activists, department officials wrote that “the Ministry’s view that such instruction given entirely through the medium of Gaelic would not constitute ... efficient and suitable instruction” with Gaeilge further characterised within the letter as a “deficiency” (Mac Seáin, 2010, pp. 108–109). Despite this, Pobal Feirste persevered and they established the first IME school outside of the confines of the formal education system, relying on their own fundraising efforts and the creation of their own resources. While Scoil Ghaeilge Bhéal Feirste benefited from a teacher from Donegal for its first three months, the intensity of the Conflict, or the Troubles, drove her back across the border, leaving a gap which was filled by the women of Bóthar Seoighe who took up positions as teachers (Mac Seáin, 2010). The tenacity and determination continued and by the mid-1980s they were accepting children from outside the Gaeltacht to attend the school, thus beginning the immersive model of IME. By 1984, the school had also achieved official recognition and was in receipt of state funding. While IME would continue to face problems with achieving state recognition and funding, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement⁷ outlines statutory commitments to IME, an indication of how important an issue IME had become to the republican community.

The language reclamation movement was bolstered by the republican movement’s language activity both inside and outside of prison. The northern Irish conflict from the late 1960s to 1990s (The Troubles) witnessed the large-scale imprisonment of some of those involved in the conflict, particularly republicans who used the language as a tool to emphasise the political nature of their imprisonment and reject the British state’s label of criminality (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2021). While official figures are not available, Shirlow and McEvoy (2008) have estimated that 15,000 republicans were incarcerated compared to 5,000–10,000 loyalists, which contributed to feelings of victimisation and oppression within republican communities. During the 1980s, republican prisoners in Armagh and the H-blocks taught themselves and others Gaeilge, which was then emphasised through republican propaganda outside of prison walls. The resurgence of Gaeilge within this context of the colonial penal system three centuries after England’s colonial expansion in Ireland is noteworthy. As mentioned, this expansion relied upon the combined use of physical force, and cultural, linguistic, and mental conquest: tactics which continued into the 20th century. Within these jails, prisoners were subjected to the constant threat and use of brutal force at the hands of Her Majesty’s Prison Service. The British government’s policy of criminalisation sought to diminish the political motivations of the republican movement, thus hoping to break prisoners and discourage outside support (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2013). This produced the opposite effect intended by colonial forces, with prisoners leading a counter-hegemonic movement of which Gaeilge was front and centre, inspiring a new generation of Irish-speaking children in IME (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2013).

Having begun with only nine pupils in 1971, there are currently over 7,000 pupils enrolled in IME, though some of these pupils are still fighting for their right to formal and informal education in the sector (Jackson, 2022). Belfast and Derry have the highest proportion of pupils enrolled in IME, although IME is available in every county in the northern state (Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta⁸, n.d.). Ó Baoill (2007) notes that the impact of the students who passed through IME in west Belfast, in particular the secondary school Coláiste Feirste, could be felt on the surrounding community. Indeed, past-pupils of Coláiste Feirste would be instrumental in the creation of an IMYW sector as part of a wider community-based infrastructure surrounding the IME schools. The IMYW created social opportunities for the use of Gaeilge outside of school in recognition that schools alone are not enough to reclaim languages (Wilson & Kamanā, 2009).

Cultural hostility

The magnitude of this support in the CNR community and the increase in places in IME schools meant that Irish language educational commitments were written into the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement (1998) with promises made that “the British government will in particular in relation to the Irish language, where appropriate and where people so desire it ... place a statutory duty on the Department of Education to encourage and facilitate Irish medium education⁹ in line with current provision for integrated education.” These Irish language commitments were further reinforced in the 2006 St Andrew’s Agreement where an Irish Language Act (ILA) was promised that would increase protections and commitments made to the language. Despite this commitment, the Stormont¹⁰ and British governments failed to implement the ILA, something that would inspire a series of protests involving young Irish speakers. Moreover, the educational commitments were reemphasised by Justice Treacy in a court ruling in 2011 in favour of Coláiste Feirste against the Department of Education who, he found, had failed in their statutory duty toward IME. In his ruling, he stated that support for IME should have “practical consequences and legislative significance” (Coláiste Feirste v. Department of Education, 2011). Provision for informal IME, that is, IMYW, was included in this provision. Despite this and despite numerous promises to enact an ILA, the government continued to fail in their statutory duty and in 2016, the DUP (which was then the largest party in the Local Assembly) began a series of assaults upon young Irish speakers (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2021).

The 2016 Local Assembly Elections witnessed a reshuffle of ministerial positions with the DUP gaining the Department for Communities and also the Department of Education, two departments with various responsibilities and commitments to Gaeilge. In December 2016, the media broke stories of a scandal involving a Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) which was overseen by the DUP. This scandal offered generous subsidies to various properties to burn wood pellets where for every £1 that was burnt the government would subsidise £1.60, resulting in a bill of close to £500 million to taxpayers (BBC, 2016). In the midst of this scandal, the DUP’s Communities Minister, Paul Givan, axed a scheme valued at £50,000 that paid for working class children to attend Irish language colleges in the Gaeltacht¹¹ in the summer months. These summer trips are common in summer months for pupils across the island of Ireland and allow young people to be immersed in Gaeilge and in Gaeilge speaking regions for three weeks. The axing of this scheme in the context of the RHI scandal generated public outrage and in January 2017 the campaign group, An Dream Dearg, burst onto the scene and drew widespread support from both sides of the North’s political communities who recognised the injustice in the political scandal (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2021). This support and protests ultimately reversed the decision and revived calls for an implementation of the promised ILA to warrant against further attacks. The DUP responded unsympathetically to the growing calls for an ILA with Arlene Foster¹² stating her party’s commitments against an ILA and the Irish language community, claiming that “If you feed a crocodile it will keep coming back for more” (Brennan, 2017).

Following this stance, in March 2017, Irish medium youth clubs were issued with a notice that there would be no funding available for their groups effective immediately, rendering dozens of youth workers unemployed and hundreds of Irish-speaking young people without a youth service. The youth clubs became important sites of politicisation, organisation, and mobilisation, with youth workers and young people working collectively to reverse the decision under the banner of An Dream Dearg (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2021). The activists orchestrated a protest outside of the Education Authority’s headquarters¹³, where a sit-in ensued and hundreds of letters written by young people were delivered. The decision was reversed almost immediately. The impact of two quick victories on these young people was empowering: they viscerally understood the connection between collective action and political victories. In May 2017, a march was called by An Dream Dearg for an ILA, which saw young people take central roles in both the organisation and the composition of the march. The success of the march in drawing in crowds of four to five thousand people empowered the Irish language community and reaffirmed the value of collective action amongst the community (BBC News, 2017b). This also armed sympathetic politicians and lobbying groups with evidence that language rights were an important issue for voters which must be accommodated by the British government. This resulted in renewed promises in the 2020 New Decade New Approach agreement that saw the reformation of the political institutions at Stormont. However, in February 2022, IMYW services would once again come under funding attacks which threatened the closure of their clubs, sparking youth-led outrage and protests against this which would reverse this decision similarly to what occurred in 2017, generating further empowerment among young people. This outrage combined with the British government’s failure to keep their renewed promise and indeed to uphold their statutory duty regarding IME (and therefore IMYW as an informal type of IME), inspired another march which centred young people in May 2022 which would see 17,000 people in attendance according to the organisers, with mainstream news sites simply stating that “thousands” attended (Ní Aodha & Young, 2022).

Irish medium youth work

The model of IMYW captured by Neill and McArdle (2023) is based on 40 interviews with young people who attended IMYW and identifies five characteristics of this type of youth work: the Irish language, space, approach, belonging, and ownership, with the Irish language emerging as the dominant theme informing the identity of the young people and giving meaning to the four other characteristics (Neill & McArdle, 2023). These characteristics are all intertwined with space appearing as a key theme due to the paucity of dedicated Irish language spaces. This has resulted in young people feeling “squeezed in and squeezed out” in English-speaking spaces where their identity as Irish speakers is marginalised (Neill & McArdle, 2023, p. 228). However, this negative situation is countered by the approach adopted by youth workers who promote the creation of an organic learning process in an informal, experiential, and enjoyable environment. The approach and space within which IMYW takes place contribute to a sense of belonging characterised by camaraderie, solidarity, intimacy, and closeness. Gaeilge is viewed as a connector which binds young people to each other and the wider Irish language community (Neill & McArdle, 2023). This strengthens their individual identities and the subsequent importance they place on the language. IMYW provides a safe space for them to speak Gaeilge, contributing to feelings of ownership and participation. This ownership is generated by a “fearless” approach to youth work which challenges the political exclusion experienced by young people (Neill & McArdle, 2023, p. 229). Neill and McArdle (2023) found that young people felt that their clubs required activism and active engagement to ensure future growth and development, resulting in a heightened political consciousness among young people, owing to their participation in Irish language campaigning around the issue of an ILA. Further, young people felt a personal connection to the collective community efforts to challenge cuts to Irish language services and their participation in public protest reinforced their feelings of ownership. These findings should be viewed within the context of a youth work sector that has come under increasing control by the state in a manner that stifles the opportunity for combating social disadvantage and which reinforces social inequalities through socialising young people into hegemonic power structures (Cooper, 2012). The cuts cannot, therefore, be simply understood as the consequence of austerity policies enacted by UK Conservative government under Prime Minister David Cameron (2010–2016); they are the consequence of colonial practices that lived on in political attitudes, as well the RHI corruption scandal. The findings from young people are echoed below by older community members who are in direct contact with the young people as youth workers, fellow activists, or teachers.

Methods

The present study is a secondary analysis of research conducted by the author for the Regional Voluntary Youth Organisation, Fóram na nÓg. The initial study aimed to build on Neill and McArdle’s (2023) model to develop a snapshot of the impact of IMYW on the Irish language community beyond the young people engaged in the services, including members of staff within the youth service. A total of 17 interviews were conducted during the original data collection process across the months of June to August 2021. The interviews were conducted in accordance with Fóram na nÓg’s ethics policies and each interviewee consented to their real name being used. For the purposes of this paper, only those published by Fóram na nÓg were analysed in keeping with the data protection policy under which the interviews were conducted. Thus, this study can be more accurately defined as a secondary data analysis of the research published by Fóram na nÓg in the form of extracts within the body of the report.

The proximity of the reseacher to Fóram na nÓg opens up the possibility for selection bias regarding the re-analysed extracts. However, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the report aimed to provide a snapshot of IMYW, including its strengths and weaknesses, to heighten awareness and to allow for adequate supports to be installed by the Education Authority (EA) who funded the report. The initial study aimed to assess and report the state of IMYW from the perspective of various stakeholders (e.g., practitioners and parents), while this study aims to present community discourses of IMYW and to relate these discourses to a language reclamation framework.

The participants of this study were involved in IMYW, either as practitioners or parents, as well as those involved in the promotion of Gaeilge either through employment or activism. Participants involved in youth work were all selected from the same youth clubs as those involved in Neill and McArdle’s original 2023 study to ensure continuity in creating this broad snapshot of the impact of IMYW. The activists and Irish language sector employees involved in the study were comprised of people who work directly in supporting the IMYW clubs within the context of the linguistic network development of Gaeilge.

Themes were developed a priori using a deductive approach that was guided by a language reclamation framework which initially categorised the data as either “Colonial” or “Resistance” with the latter responding to the former. Anything that related to colonial realities or decisions, such as a lack of space or funding cuts, was categorised as Colonial. Conversely, anything that related to actions against either colonial realities or decisions was categorised as Resistance. Three themes were developed following this initial categorisation: (a) Colonised space; (b) Varying degrees of coloniality in the state; and (c) Political Participation and Community Regeneration.

This secondary analysis seeks to place the findings within the historical context of colonisation which has produced cultural and material disadvantage that Gaeilgeoirí find themselves embroiled in. Further, these findings speak to a radicalism in decolonisation efforts that will be placed within the process of language reclamation.

Findings

The findings demonstrate that compared to mainstreamed youth work services that are conducted through English, IMYW is under-resourced, with inadequate funding schemes and no suitable buildings. Moreover, there is very little awareness of the social, political, and linguistic value of IMYW outside of the Irish language sector, resulting in feelings of frustration for those involved. Given the colonial context outlined above, this should be viewed as an active legacy of colonialism which provides additional context to the reclamation efforts. The most hopeful finding of the study explored the political empowerment of young people and how this contributed to the community regeneration of the areas in which they live and IMYW is situated.

Colonised space

The material impact of the cultural hostility on the youth service provision was a universal reality among youth workers who were interviewed. Each IMYW practitioner interviewed brought up the specific problem of constrained space and inadequate facilities. No Irish medium youth club exists in a fit-for-purpose building and some must rent and share rooms in English medium clubs. Eamonn Carlin, an Irish medium youth worker in Derry, noted in his interview:

Ceann de na deacrachtaí is mó atá againn de bhrí nach bhfuil ionad againn féin go bhfuil muid ag baint úsáid as ionad an EA sa cheantar agus cé go bhfuil an-fháilte romhainn ar an drochuair, níl sé ar fáil dúinn ach oíche amháin i rith na seachtaine. Mar sin de, dá mbeadh muid ag iarraidh oíche nó dhó eile a chur ar fáil ní bheadh áit ar bith ann dúinn.

One of our biggest difficulties is not having our own centre which means that we need to use the EA centre in the area. Although we are warmly welcomed, it is only available one night a week, unfortunately. Therefore, if we wanted to provide an extra night or two, we would have nowhere to do it. (Interview with author, July 2021)

Caoimhe Ní Chatháil who worked for Foras na Gaeilge, an organisation that provides additional funding to some IMYW services, noted that renting rooms is not sufficient as she argued people connect language with spaces.

Tá a fhios againn go nascann daoine teanga le daoine agus le háiteanna so má tá siad ag siúl isteach in áit a raibh ranganna ióga ann trí mheán an Bhéarla nó damhsa, in intinn s’acu tá siadsan ag rá “Labhraím Béarla anseo.” So tá muidne ag iarraidh go mbeidh áit ar leith, lonnaithe ar leith gurbh féidir le daoine óga siúl isteach agus tá a fhios acu go mbaineann an áit seo leis an Ghaeilge, “labhraím Gaeilge anseo” agus is rud sort fó-choinsiasach atá ann. So, sílim nach leor é a bheidh ag amharc ar seomra a fháil ar cíos.

We know that people connect language with people and with space. So, if they’re walking into a space where there were yoga classes or dance classes in English then in their mind they’re saying, “I speak English here.” So, we want them to have their own space - a place where young people can walk in and they know that Irish is used in this place and they say, “I speak Irish here,” and it’s subconscious. So, it’s not good enough to be looking to rent rooms. (Interview with author, June 2021)

These excerpts from Carlin and Ní Chatháil’s interviews clearly indicate that IMYW is connected with a decolonisation of space, as spaces are required that demarcate it from English-speaking spaces. This is difficult to achieve when youth clubs are renting rooms for a matter of hours each week in centres which are in high demand and frequently used by other (non-Gaeilge speaking) groups as Carlin pointed out. This is an issue for young people (as Neill and McArdle’s [2023] participants attest to) and is noted by young Irish speakers as an injustice. Indeed, an audit conducted by Mac Siacais for Fóram na nÓg (2021) found that 100% of IMYW clubs did not have suitable accommodation. The denial of this provision combined with the suggestion of renting rooms in English spaces illustrates, arguably, a dismissive attitude toward young Irish speakers and the failure to facilitate their social and linguistic needs. This also represents a failure of the statutory obligations to the facilitation of IME, of which IMYW as a non-formal form of education falls under, within the Good Friday Agreement.

Varying degrees of coloniality

Varying degrees of coloniality was the most frequently recurring theme emanating from the data analysis, indicating a core frustration still felt by Gaeilgeoirí regarding a lack of understanding about the underpinning relevance and importance of IMYW. This lack of awareness often becomes manifest when the Irish language community interfaces with public authorities, educational institutions and the wider public. Participants expressed experiences of varying degrees of coloniality within the state, ranging from ignorance to outright attacks in the form of job losses. Similar to the previous theme, this provides the backdrop for understanding the reclamation movement through articulating the colonial reality still faced by Irish speakers. Joe Doherty noted that IMYW is still viewed “as youth work through Irish ... but at the end of the day it’s a community thing and it’s a driver for language revival” (Interview with author, July 2021).

Former Irish medium youth worker, Conchuir Ó Muadaigh, who now works as Advocacy Manager for Conradh na Gaeilge, an organisation that promotes the use of Gaeilge, expressed a similar view. For Ó Muadaigh, IMYW is intimately tied with language revival and rights, however his own experiences with the state authorities point to a disregard to those rights:

In my own case, I lost my job as a youth worker in March 2017 as a result of the EA taking a policy decision without language screening its impact on the [IMYW] sector and that resulted in the closure of all the IME youth clubs across Belfast. An example of how a policy decision impacted the IME youth sector disproportionately in comparison to its counterpart in the English medium sector. Ultimately, it took a youth-led campaign to have this decision overturned and the funding restored. There is a misunderstanding over what IMYW is and, even when some do understand it, it isn’t reflected in their policies or in their local area plans or how they set up their new funding schemes. There needs to be some sort of mechanism when new schemes are developed that they are language screened to ensure that they don’t have an adverse impact on a certain sector. (Interview with author, June 2021)

Here, we see Ó Muadaigh linking discriminatory funding decisions with the community empowerment and activism of those people whose services were cut.¹⁴ These experiences of coloniality as articulated by youth workers are felt by the young service users with Neill and McArdle (2023) noting that the attacks on their own services led to the closure of their clubs which inspired a wave of activism by young people in favour of an Irish Language Act (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2021). This activism which connected youth work with community and Gaeilge should be viewed as language reclamation activism.

Political participation and community regeneration

Emerging from this backdrop of adversity is an empowered community which centres the political participation of young people in asserting their linguistic and youth service rights. Maria Perkins, a youth worker in the English-medium sector whose sons attend IMYW noted the connection between this backdrop of coloniality and activism by those connected with IMYW:

Young people who attend those centres essentially know that their right to education at times can be denied because of the language. And as a result of that their right to informal education is often denied. You know, the funding seems quite piecemeal in comparison to other youth work projects. But there’s something about that, when your rights are denied. It’s created this community of young people who want to do something about that. So you’ve got a very visible, very vocal community of young people. And actually one that puts young people to the forefront to lead the campaign of change, more than any other youth projects I’ve seen. (Interview with author, June 2021)

Perkins quite clearly draws a connection between the denial of young Irish speakers’ right to informal education in the form of youth work with community activism. This is a youth work methodology embedded in language reclamation which centres young people and aims to create an awareness of their rights and their place within society starting from their own positions as speakers of an indigenous language in a colonised land. The process aims to instil confidence in these young people to encourage clear articulation of their own political and social aspirations while emphasising the needs of the community. This is a very deliberate process, as stated by both Conchuir Mac Siacais and Conchuir Ó Muadaigh. Instrumental in building the IMYW sector, both practitioners stated that they aimed to promote critical thinking amongst young people, to allow them to “identify within the context in which they existed” (Conchuir Ó Muadaigh, interview with author June 2021). Emma Ní Bhaoill, who attended IMYW as a young person and now works as a leader in charge of Club Óige na bhFál (“Falls Road Youth Club”) on the Falls Road, attested to this aim when she recalled her own experience of this critical education process by stating that no one’s views were “shoved down your throat ... there were always open conversations” (Interview with author, June 2021).

Promotion of critical thought and the accompanying political awareness emanating from this process results in social action and active political participation. Young people are active in social justice campaigns such as LGBTQ+ rights, welcoming asylum seekers, and other international solidarity campaigns (such as Palestine and Cuba Solidarity). Relating this approach back to Gaeilge, Emma Ní Bhaoill recalled how when she attended IMYW they changed the social landscape, “by literally going out into our own community and displaying quotes of the Irish Proclamation which related to children’s rights and erecting our own Irish language street signs” (Interview with author, June 2021). In this instance, the young Gaeilgeoirí reclaimed space and their language within their communities. Furthermore, many of these youth clubs are based in areas such as Upper Springfield in West Belfast, ranked amongst the highest in the North in terms of social deprivation indicators (Devlin et al., 2018). In response to this social reality, members of this IMYW club in west Belfast have been involved in the sporadic provision of free community breakfasts as inspired by the Black Panther movement to meet the needs of the surrounding community. Indeed, Michaeline Donnelly, a youth worker from Omagh with a background in the Irish language reclamation movement, observed that “Irish medium youth work is community work” (Interview with author, August 2021). Indeed, this is not just a form of youth work that emphasises Gaeilge, but one that emphasises language reclamation through meeting community needs in a decolonial matter that promotes mutual aid and Gaeilge. One of the most notable contributions of these young people in recent years has been their involvement in the Dream Dearg campaign to achieve an ILA. Sara Boyce, a parent who works as a campaign organiser with the human rights NGO, Participation and Practice of Rights Project, relayed her impression of youth involvement in an Dream Dearg through her daughter’s participation:

I didn’t really get the feeling of tight control over it, which is what you normally see .... They were given their space to just go ahead. I think it was the energy and the positivity and the connecting up very organically through the kids as well - starting up from where they were at in a way that connected them .... They did really feel the whole connection to language and that sense of claiming your rights and kids as rights-holders. With the chanting and the singing and stuff, they had a sense of “this is ours, these are our rights and we’re not on the back foot here.” So there was a sense of entitlement and the starting point was one of equality and “this is ours.” (Interview with author, July 2021)

This echoes Maria Perkins’ earlier observations regarding her perceptions of youth prominence in Irish language campaigning and is in line with the emphasis placed on self-determination by language reclamation movements globally (Phyak & De Costa, 2021), with young people given the space to express their political aspirations and indeed to act upon them. Feargal Mac Ionnrachtaigh, Director of Glór na Móna which up until 2021 oversaw the IMYW clubs in Belfast, notes that the political empowerment of young people as indicated in their participation in An Dream Dearg is at the centre of both IMYW and the language reclamation movement more broadly:

We build school communities, the language, the school, the heritage work is all connected together and in the middle of it you have youth work ... which is why when An Dream Dearg exploded in 2017 it was all young people. So if there was no youth project, there was no Dream Dearg .... We talk about language planning, regeneration, revival. All that can’t go anywhere unless there’s young people, young leaders, and a space for young people to bring the language to life outside of school .... The essence of what we’re doing is community development and youth work is one of the ways to do that. (Interview with author, June 2021)

These community discourses of IMYW show that it is a youth project deeply embedded in the promotion of Gaeilge, the protection of language rights, and the development of the community in which they live to secure services for themselves and for those coming behind them. This is the very essence of language reclamation. This is a movement that connects the indigenous language with education and centres community in a bottom-up manner, prioritising youth participation, to meet the needs of the community (Leonard, 2017; Phyak & De Costa, 2021).

Discussion

Legacy of colonialism

Ngũgĩ Wa Thiong’o (2005) points out that the aim of colonialism is to control wealth, both the production of it and its distribution, thus it is unsurprising that issues of funding cuts and under-resourcing are part of the daily reality of those involved in IMYW. Cultural subjugation and poverty are intimately related in instances of colonisation, with Gaeilge historically aligned with poverty, stupidity, and inferiority by English colonial forces (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2013). IMYW services are all based in areas of high social deprivation with the young people who attend these services facing issues of under-resourcement and ignorance by the educational authorities despite commitments made toward Gaeilge and IME (including IMYW) indicating the continuing strength of colonial ideologies. The linguistic landscape where IMYW occurs reflects colonial power dynamics, with English omnipresent and Gaeilge existing in small pockets. The under-funding and under-resourcing by the Department of Education has reproduced this linguistic dynamic with IMYW “squeezed in and squeezed out” of English-speaking spaces where they can rent a room and can occupy space in an insecure and temporary manner where they can neither claim ownership over the space nor establish it as space run by Gaeilgeoirí (Neill & McArdle, 2023, p. 228). This is an ongoing colonial reality where the indigenous language and the needs of the community who speak it are squeezed out in favour of the political agenda of the colonial power structures.

Language reclamation

These findings provide an insight into the community discourses that surround IMYW as articulated by language activists in the North of Ireland. Interviewees consistently linked IMYW with community regeneration, implicitly connecting the marginalised position of Gaeilge with economic and social injustices within the communities in which they are based. These injustices are all legacies of colonialism in Ireland, where land and wealth were displaced and Gaeilge marginalised. IMYW represents a community endeavour to intervene in this colonial legacy of harm through political empowerment in a youth work process that provides young people with opportunities to make sense of their own realities in an environment where Gaeilge is the dominant acoustic.

The role of Gaeilge in this process is vital to encouraging young people to think about the political and social environment in which they as Gaeilgeoirí exist. The magnitude of the under-resourcing of their services further serves as an entry point for political engagement, connecting their personal experiences to political structures (Neill & McArdle, 2023). The young people who attend IMYW, journey past clubs with much more generous funding, better facilities, and travel opportunities beyond the scope of IMYW (Neill & McArdle, 2023), indicating that the issue is not one arising from austerity. Further, this is a process that inspires young people to pursue a career in IMYW with Conchuir Mac Siacais noting the regenerative nature of IMYW and Emma Ní Bhaoill’s (and others) reality speaking to it.

Thus, this is not simply a revival effort aimed at increasing speakers, but one that seeks to disrupt the colonial reality of language shift and social deprivation through community empowerment and language reclamation. This mirrors other reclamation efforts globally where an emphasis is placed on the social and political structures that produced and maintains language shift and connects those structures to the community’s contemporary needs (Leonard, 2017). Indeed, parallels can be drawn to learning by observing and pitching in (LOPI), an informal method of learning that occurs in other Indigenous communities (Henne-Ochoa et al., 2020). LOPI emphasises learning outside the classroom in informal, intergenerational contexts, which emphasises collaboration particularly in community activities (Henne-Ochoa et al., 2020). This rings familiar to IMYW, as collaboration occurs in all kinds of settings as a result of, ironically, the lack of adequate funding which means that bespoke buildings are not available. While LOPI is not defined as a form of youth work, IMYW should be understood as existing on a continuum with LOPI, particularly given the context of language reclamation in which they are both situated. IMYW is an informal form of learning which involves community engagement and collaboration on an intergenerational basis.

Conclusion

IMYW is not simply youth work through the medium of Irish: it is a vital part of the Gaeilge reclamation movement that seeks to provide a space for the political empowerment and participation of young Gaeilgeoirí in the ongoing process of decolonisation in the North of Ireland. This is an informal educational service that continues to face attacks from funding streams informed by colonial ideologies. Despite these attacks, the young people within and surrounded by the empowered community of Gaeilgeoirí continue to choose to attend IMYW and have become active participants in the language reclamation movement (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2021; Neill & McArdle, 2023). Gaeilge is central to this process of political empowerment, as it shapes their conceptions and narratives of inequality and informs their resolve to participate in the reclamation of their language. In contrast to the trend of youth work becoming more attendant to a neo-liberal agenda (Cooper, 2012) IMYW continues to operate on a basis that emphasises a language reclamation agenda, prioritising community regeneration and decolonisation in a bottom-up manner. This is a continuation of the foundations put in place by the early language reclamation activists, Pobal Feirste, who connected colonialism with social injustice and decolonisation with social justice and acted on that basis. IMYW encourages young people to make sense of these connections to ensure that language activism is not only just concerned with increasing use, but with intervening in the colonial conditions that have produced language shift and disrupting legacies of harm through meeting the needs of the community and connecting community with language and education outside of the classroom.

Acknowledgements

My thanks to the Irish language community who participated in this research and to my supervisors, Drs Mel Engman and Cathal McManus who provided guidance in the drafting and publication process of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Fionnghuala Nic Roibeaird

Fionnghuala Nic Roibeaird is a PhD candidate at the Queen’s University of Belfast. She is currently investigating the relationship between Gaeloideachas (education through the medium of Irish) and community regeneration in west Belfast. She is a product of Gaeloideachas and has experience as a language activist and as a researcher for the Irish language youth work organisation, Fóram na nÓg.

Notes

1. Religion was used as a social marker during the colonial consolidation of Ireland with Irish Catholics marked as inferior to the Protestant planters (Mac Ionnrachtaigh, 2013). Those in the Catholic community are generally associated with either Irish Nationalism or Republicanism, while those in the Protestant community are generally associated with either British Unionism or Loyalism. Generally terms like Catholic and Protestant are used as short-hand for denoting the dominant political traditions in the North of Ireland.

2. The Pale was established in the 12th century following the Norman invasion of Ireland and was the site of English rule in Ireland. The Pale was situated in the east of Ireland, spanning from Dundalk in County Louth to Dalkey in the south of Dublin.

3. The Orange State is the name given to the parliament that ruled the North of Ireland following partition in 1921 until Direct British Rule in 1972. “Orange” refers to the Orange Order, a Protestant fraternity that was established in the 18th century with the aim to uphold Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland.

4. Pobal can be used interchangeably to mean “people” or “community” with Feirste referring to the river Farset from which Belfast gets its name. Pobal Feirste roughly translates into “People of Belfast.”

5. A Gaeltacht is an area where Gaeilge is spoken. Bóthar Seoighe is the Irish for “Shaw’s Road” which is where this Gaeltacht is situated.

6. The co-operatives ended in 1976 when the British Army took control of the site until 1999. The site was in ruins and the community activists were awarded £200,000 in compensation. While there was no expectation for members of the co-operatives to learn Gaeilge, the esteem they held it in is indicated in their decision to donate the total amount of compensation to two fledging IME schools, one which was in the area and another in County Down (Misteáil, 2023).

7. The Belfast, or Good Friday Agreement, underpins the peace agreement following the Conflict and is the document which established the political institutions and frameworks in the North of Ireland.

8. Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta is the official representative body for IME in the North of Ireland.

9. These commitments pertain to IMYW as a non-formal means of IME.

10. Stormont is the name of the Local Northern Ireland Assembly.

11. The word “Gaeltacht” technically means any area where Gaeilge is spoken, however in this context it refers to small and geographically scattered areas generally along the west coast of Ireland in rural areas such as Donegal and Galway which are officially recognised by the Irish state as Irish-speaking areas (O’Rourke and Brennan, 2019).

12. Arlene Foster was the then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party.

13. The Education Authority is funded by the Department of Education and has responsibility over the formal and informal education system, that is, schools and youth work services.

14. See Mac Ionnrachtaigh (2021) for further detail on this youth-led campaign.