pure.qub.ac.uk web viewmotivated’ ex-prisoner (pmep) organizations in northern ireland are...

Contemporary Justice Review Accepted – Forthcoming 2013

“Sometimes I wish I was an ‘ex’ ex-prisoner”: Identity Processes in the Collective Action Participation of Former Prisoners in Northern Ireland

Dr Clare D. DwyerSchool of Law, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Since the signing of the Northern Ireland peace agreement a plethora of community based prisoner self-help organizations have been established wherein former prisoners staff, manage and deliver services to colleagues. By forging and maintaining their collective identities through community based mutual aid, members of these self-help organizations have progressed to create not only individual change/assistance but have also developed and evolved to tackle serious wider social issues which impact on the members of their organizations. This article critically analyses how the conditions of a post-conflict society can influence both the development and evolution of these organizations and also how members situate their claims about the self in the organization and beyond. Using the social movement framework it is argued that the work of these self-help organizations have given rise to a new politics of identity … that is the ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoner.

Keywords: Identity; collective action; ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners; social movements; self-help

Introduction

Research on identity, collective action and social movements suggests that the relationship between identity and collective action is mediated by considerations of collective debate, social constructions and political goals (see Calhoun 1994; Hunt, Benford & Snow 1994; Meyer, 2002). Much of this literature focuses on the ways in which movements enable members to reflect on collective identity and political interests, experiment with new or transformed identities and alter the conception of self (Melucci 1995; Snow and McAdam, 2000). The argument in this article extends this line of inquiry by exploring how social movements in a post-conflict society (namely ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners (PMEP)1

organizations in Northern Ireland), can offer its members the space to reflect on their conceptions of previously violent identities and move to develop a transformed notion of self as ‘peacemakers’. Such understandings of self and identity can subsequently create both

1


openings and obstacles to inclusion and participation in a transitional society. ‘Politically motivated’ ex-prisoner (PMEP) organizations in Northern Ireland are social movements in the sense that they serve to articulate a collective identity and a political agenda. By applying the social movement lens to PMEP organizations in Northern Ireland for the first time, this article seeks to contribute to the understanding of the role identity plays in the mobilisation of social movements, particularly in regards to groups seeking identity recognition and inclusion in a post-conflict society.

How movements engage the ‘self’ of its members with its collective identity has had a number of important implications for the organizations’ dynamics, the movement’s success, and political outcomes. In the article, I aim to illustrate how the various social and political conditions in a post-conflict society have not only influenced the development and evolution of these identity based movements but also how members locate their claims about the self in the movement and beyond. The arguments in this article draw on the findings from in-depth semi structured interviews with ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners. A total of 35 interviews were carried out with Republican ex-prisoners (including the Provisional IRA, Official IRA and Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)), and Loyalist ex-prisoners (including Ulster Volunteer Force and Red Hand Commandos), and others involved in PMEP reintegration. The interview sample had a higher representation of members from the Republican community (68% compared to 32% from the Loyalist community). This imbalance was down to a number of factors including the fact that there are a higher number of Republican ex-prisoner organizations and representatives from the Republican community groups had a greater willingness to participate in the research. Interviews were conducted in order to explore the reintegration experiences of PMEP, focusing, in particular on the development of community based self-help organizations and the experience former prisoners have had with such organizations.2

Drawing on wider research on the reintegration experiences of former prisoners, this article provides a critical analysis of the relationship between ‘self-help’ and the process of both individual and collective identity construction in relation to PMEP organizations in Northern Ireland. Based on the findings from this research, I argue that these organizations have metamorphosised into agents for both political and social change. They can now be understood as social movements as they not only deal with the practical and every day issues of their users but they also give their users a larger platform for their voice to be heard within the wider political arena.3 Using this ‘social movement’ framework, it is then argued that the work of these self-help organizations have given rise to a new politics of identity, namely the ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoner. In the sections that follow, I briefly review the literature on self, identity politics and social movements. I next provide background to the development and work of the PMEP organizations in Northern Ireland before moving to present an analysis on PMEP identities. In particular, I analyse the role identity has played in the mobilising members of the organizations in attempting to bring about progressive social change for group members and beyond. I conclude with discussions on the implications of

2


the experiences of PMEP organizations on our understanding of collective action and social movements.

The Development of Collective Identities and Collective Action

Groups provide us with a sense of social identity and such identity is based on membership in a group or collective and is understood as ‘the individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of the group membership’ (Tajfel, 1972, p. 31). This concept of ‘social’, ‘group’ or ‘collective’ identity is constructed by group boundaries and material distinctions between members of the collectivity and others (see Meyer & Whittier, 1994). As such collective identities are understood as, ‘an interactive and shared definition produced by several individuals (or groups at a more complex level) and concerned with the orientations of action and field of opportunities and constraints in which the action takes place’ (Melucci, 1996, p. 44). These shared definitions have been described as definitions of reality, what the group defines as right and wrong and has a cognitive element that links the person to the cause. These definitions help a person link his or her beliefs to the larger groups same belief, thus attaching the individual to the group (see Taylor & Whittier, 1992; Melucci, 1996), and these cognitive definitions must be concerned with the groups’ action and the larger society in which the group is situated (Melucci, 1996). Therefore, cognitive definitions not only reflect a group’s feelings about itself, but in turn, they reflect the action of its members and their sense of self. Haslam et. al, contend that ‘groups are not simply external features of the world that provide a setting for our behaviour. Instead, they shape our psychology through their capacity to be internalised and contribute to our sense of self’ (2009, p. 2, own emphasis).

A wide variety of research examines the self and identity and theorists as diverse as Mead, (1934), Becker, (1971) and Cohen, (1994) have examined how individuals seek to ‘construct subjective meaning for their actions, relationships and identities’ (Collinson, 2003, p. 529). There is an understanding that identity is a kind of ‘interface’ or ‘conceptual bridge’ between the individual and society (see Snow & Anderson, 1987, p. 1338), with clear social and relational aspects, which ‘involves deep connections with others through shared histories and experiences, reciprocity, affection, and mutual commitments” (Wenger, 2000, p. 239). One notable similarity across these various traditions is the emphasis on reflexivity and self-consciousness. Collinson had noted that this reflexivity and self-awareness gives human beings ‘the capacity to envisage alternative realities and to re-construct and change our world … [and] exercise some discretion and control over our actions. It also enables us not only to “see” ourselves, but also to try to view ourselves as others may see us and to compare and contrast ourselves with others.’ (2003, p. 529). Influenced by theorists including James (1892) and Cooley (1902), and with an understanding that ‘we ourselves take the attitude that others take toward us’, Mead (1934) divides the ‘self’ into two aspects, the ‘I’ and the ‘me.’ The ‘I’ is the creator or the doer of actions within us and is the part of our selves that is impulsive and passionate, contributing to the makeup of the group and the society it resides

3


in, making social change possible (Mead, 1934, p. 177-180). The ‘me,’ on the other hand, is the receiver of how others perceive us, internalizing the action of others. Mead understood that by generalizing the other through the ‘me’ is the part of ourselves that emulates and puts into action what society or the group expects of us (1934, p. 152-164).

This social interactionism perspective therefore focuses on how individuals and groups interact and, more specifically, how personal identity (‘the self’), is created through interaction with others. Of particular interest for the arguments in this article, is the relationship between individual action and group pressures. The symbolic interactionist perspective posits that subjective meanings are socially constructed and that these subjective meanings interrelate with objective actions (Blumer, 1969; Stryker, 1980; Prus, 1996). Furthermore, while the self assigns meaning through its interpretive interaction with all social objects, Gecas (1991) contends that only some of these objects will be organized in systems of self-meanings that are more significant for the self than other objects are. These systems of self-meanings are the self’s identities. Various identities compose the self, some more significant than others, some more motivating than others (see Gecas, 1991), for example the identity of ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoner. Consequently, elements of identity (including individual, social and collective) are not only the product of social construction but are as a result of constantly evolving, directed human agency, an agency itself influenced and mediated by existing societal structures and experiences of social interaction (for example the ex-prisoners identity seeking full participation in a post-conflict society). Most relevant for these discussions, these processes, often referred to as the ‘politics of identity’, have been understood as the, ‘construction of the symbolic boundaries and collective identities which provide the cognitive basis for normative order and social integration’ (Eder et al, 2002, p. 4).

The ‘Politics of Identity’ and Social Movements

Many expressions of politics of identity can share the common feature of being constituted by people who, through their group identity, previously felt marginalised (Taylor & Spencer, 2004). It is the added difficulties with identity, self-realisation and concerns with self-recognition and identity, which can give rise to ‘identity politics’ which can play out through ‘general efforts by status-based movements to foster and explore the cultural identity of members’ and can include ‘activism engaged in by status-based social movements’ (see Bernstein, 2005, p. 47/48). ‘Identity politics’ can therefore involve seeking recognition and legitimacy, where other people, groups or organizations are called upon to respond (Calhoun, 1994, p. 21). Furthermore, these identity politics attempt to positively restore previously devalued differences (Somers & Gibson, 1994, p. 53). Calhoun states that proponents of identity politics ‘offer claims to have difference recognised as legitimate’ (1994, p. 25), and that those making identity claims often ‘present them within a rhetoric implying that everyone is equally endowed with identity, equally entitled to their own identity and equally entitled to respect for it’ (Calhoun, 1994, p. 24).

4


However, identity politics also gives rise to a distinct set of issues around the topic of identity. It has been contended that if the goal of identity politics is to seek redress for marginalised groups then such groups are forced by the political process to embrace a particular identity as their exclusive identity, which in turn will only serve to ‘fix’ that identity in both political and legal terms (see Hekman, 1999). Brown (1995) also explores this particular issue of identity politics and notes how identity politics can involve embracing the identity of the political actors as ‘injured’, fixing an identity imposed and enforced by hegemonic political power. Although identity politics is about reconstructing these identities in a positive direction, such a new construction can become just as fixed as those identities they attempt to replace (see Brown, 1995). In order to overcome such issues, Brown suggests that there needs to be, ‘a shift in the character of political expression and political claims common to much politicized identity’ (1995, p. 75) and suggests, identity should be expressed in terms of desire rather than of ontology by supplanting the language of, ‘I am’ with the language of ‘I want this for us’ (1995, p. 75). Such a shift would create an opportunity to ‘rehabilitate the memory of desire within identificatory process … prior to wounding’ (1995, p. 75). Reflecting on Brown’s work, Bhambra and Margree have argued that such opportunity to rehabilitate the memory of desire would focus on the ‘future possibilities present in identity as opposed to the identity being foreclosed through its attention to past based grievances’ (2010, p. 65). In their work on identity politics, Bhambra and Margree assert that not only would a ‘reformed identity politics need to be based on desire for the future, but that the desire should actually be a desire for the dissolution (in the future) of the identity claim. The complete success of the feminist movement, for instance, would mean that feminists no longer existed, as the conditions that caused people to become feminist had been addressed’ (2010, p. 65). Relevant to the current study, this would therefore mean that the identity of ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoner would no longer exist if the conditions that perpetuates and challenges that identity were addressed. In order to address the particular conditions which maintain the negative consequences of certain identities many groups have, through version of identity politics, mobilised in different forms (including restorative justice projects, mediation forums and cross community initiatives) and many examples are commonly associated with the idea of social movements.

The ‘selves’ of social movement activists are influenced by the reciprocal relationships that exist between the individual, a social movement organization, and the social structure (see Reger et al., 2008), and groupings mobilise together to focus on specific social or political issues in order to bring about social change. Such social movements can, ‘… include diverse individuals and groups whose primary focus at any one time may vary tremendously, but who are united by a generally shared view of the world and their place within it’ (Meyer, 2002, p. 12). Social movement activists therefore align their self-identity with collective identity and expand their definition of self to include the collective identity of the movement (Gamson, 1992). Whilst a shared collective identity is necessary for the mobilisation of any social movement, Bernstein (2005) has argued that identity plays a number of roles in relation to social movements. Identity can also be a ‘goal’ of social movement activism, either gaining acceptance for a hitherto stigmatized identity (Calhoun

5


1994) or ‘deconstructing categories of identities’ (see Bernstein, 2005, p. 59). Often such identity constructions are ‘acted out’ through expressive and affective means and the movement essentially becomes the ‘focus for the individual’s definition of himself or herself, and action within the movement is a complex mix of the collective and individual confirmations of identity’ (Johnston et al., 1994, p. 8).

Central to such individual and group identity construction in collective movements is the concept of ‘framing’, which describes how activists make sense of their social worlds (Hunt, Benford & Snow, 1994). Movement frames are sets of beliefs and meanings that motivate and legitimate the activities of a social movement (Ray & Korteweg, 1999, p. 49). The concept and processes of framing are among the most important analytic tools for understanding the development and sustainability of a social movement organization. Moreover, as well as illuminating the social construction of social movements, framing can also offer insight to explore the question of how activist groups construct social issues (Tarrow, 1998). In this respect, Snow and Benford define collective action frames as ‘action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization’ (2000, p. 614).

Whilst the concept of framing has emerged and developed in relation to greater understanding of the dynamic features of social movements, the concept of ‘political opportunity structures’ provides insight on the emergence and development of social movements. The concept of political opportunity structures often refers to the state and political institutions, and research uses this concept to examine the interaction between social movements and social change, especially through policy change (Charles, 2004, p. 298). In much of the literature in social movements, the concept of political opportunity structures has therefore been regarded as a key element and condition to account for the mobilization and outcomes of social movements. Such discussions are significant to the current study, not least because Northern Ireland, as a transitional society moving away from conflict, has experienced significant institutional and policy changes. As a result, as in other transitional contexts (Arthur, 2010), many individuals and collectives have experienced various levels of reassessment of ‘who they are’ in a post-conflict society. Whilst identity and identity struggle have played a role during the conflict in Northern Ireland, identity has also taken a central place during the transitional phase of the conflict. Most relevant to this study is the identity of those with ‘conflict related’ convictions, namely ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners.

‘Politically Motivated’ Ex-Prisoners in Northern Ireland: A Case Study of Self-Help and Collective Action.

The conflict in Northern Ireland began in the late 1960s and formally ended in the mid-1990s. The main participants in this ethno-national conflict (referred to locally as 'the Troubles'), included Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups and state agencies, including the local police force and the British Army. During this period, over 3,600 people lost their lives and

6


thousands more were injured. The non-state actors (e.g. paramilitary groups including Irish Republican Army (OIRA), Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and Ulster Defence Association (UDA), claiming to ‘fight’ on behalf of their constituent communities, were responsible for almost 90 per cent of these deaths; a majority of their victims were civilians (see McEvoy et al., 2006). While definite reasons for this violence are complicated and subject to controversy, research on the conflict in Northern Ireland has illustrated that motivations have varied from the individual to the collective (see McAuley et el., 2009). Research has shown that the motivations for involvement in the conflict could be understood as a fusion of ‘experiential’ factors (driven by the onset of violence and brutality, and community violations), ‘ideological frameworks’ (strengthened by a strong sense of collective identity) and ‘structural’ factors (political leadership, social injustice and socio-economic positions) (see McAuley et el., 2009, p. 24). For example, societal and political marginalization of the Catholic/Nationalist communities prompted mobilization at the start of the conflict and many members joined Republican paramilitary organizations in reaction to ‘Loyalist and State violence, Unionist hegemony and State indifference towards the aggrieved Catholic communities’ (Shirlow et al., 2010, p. 130). Loyalists, on the other hand, were motivated by what they saw as active defence of the Union and Northern Ireland’s constitutional status as part of the United Kingdom, and saw themselves as defenders of their community against Republican violence (see McAuley et el., 2009). Various peace-building measures were considered throughout the duration of the conflict but it was not until the mid-1990s, after protracted talks and intense negotiations that the main paramilitary groups declared ceasefires.

The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998 and had as its political objective to bring an end to the conflict and included plans for a Northern Ireland Assembly with a power-sharing Executive, cross-border institutions involving the Republic of Ireland, and a body linking a devolved Assembly with both the British and Irish Governments. There were also provisions in relation to the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, the future of policing in Northern Ireland, as well as the early release of paramilitary prisoners. However, because the Government continued to formally resist the idea that the conflict and those in prison as a result should be afforded ‘political’ status, prisoners were released through a legalistic framework which set out both the conditions for release of prisoners on license and the mechanisms for prisoner recall (see Dwyer, 2007). All those belonging to paramilitary organizations on ceasefire were eligible for release and to date 452 ‘qualifying’ prisoners have been released under the provisions. However, distinct from a ‘blanket amnesty’, those released (similar to many PMEP released throughout the course of the conflict4), could have their licenses revoked if they re-engaged in criminal/terrorist activities and they also continued to hold a ‘criminal’ record.

It is well established that those holding ‘criminal’ records on release from prison can experience significant difficulties, including barriers to their social, economic and political reintegration (Laub and Sampson, 2001; Visher & Travis, 2003; Gadd & Farrall, 2004; Ward

7


& Maruna, 2007). In particular, research on holding a criminal record and the reintegration process for non-political or ‘ordinary’5 former prisoners has highlighted numerous difficulties including psychological and emotional trauma, re-establishing family life and community relations, political participation, education and training and gaining employment (see Uggen, 2000; Laub and Sampson, 2001; Padfield, 2011; Naylor, 2011). Such challenges, including the suspension of certain ‘rights and privileges’ can lead to incomplete citizenship (Uggen et al., 2006, p. 305). ‘Politically motivated’ ex-prisoners draw a clear distinction between themselves and those prisoners convicted of crimes that were not ‘politically motivated’ and consider their own incarceration to be part of a wider political struggle. They would contend that their political identity, political ideology and military focus set their prison experience apart from the experience of ‘ordinary’ prisoners (see McEvoy, 2001). Although, such a distinction is made, numerous studies have shown that on release PMEP have faced similar consequences of imprisonment. Including risks to physical and mental health, institutionalisation, family dislocation, addiction, education, job training and securing employment (see Grounds & Jamieson, 2003; Shirlow & McEvoy, 2008; Jamieson et al., 2010). Notwithstanding the various similarities shared between ‘ordinaries’ and PMEP in their attempts to reintegrate, it is important to highlight that ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners would resist the idea that they were in need of any ‘treatment’ or ‘rehabilitation’ of their value systems or ‘criminal’ motivations in order to ‘re-enter’ society. There is an understanding within the PMEP community that their reintegration is part of a wider political process and in order to fully reintegrate into post-conflict society numerous structural barriers need to be removed as part of a wider conflict transformation process.

Given the views of PMEPs of themselves as 'political', they refused to use the re-integrative services provided by government agencies and other government sponsored organizations, as they are viewed as catering for the rehabilitation of ‘ordinary’ ex-prisoners. As a consequence to their subsequent refusal to utilise the services of traditional reintegration agencies, a plethora of prisoner ‘self-help’ organizations (largely based on paramilitary factions) have been established, wherein former prisoners staff, manage and deliver services to their colleagues (see Dwyer & Maruna, 2011). These organizations have been engaged in exploring both the individual and collective consequences of imprisonment. Many of these groups were set up to assist PMEPs and their families in the areas of education, family breakdown, psychological and emotional support, trauma, welfare and legal representation (see Grounds & Jamieson, 2003; Shirlow et al., 2005; Shirlow & McEvoy, 2008; Jamieson, Shirlow & Grounds, 2010 and Rolston, 2011). A number of projects also work to remove the various legislative barriers, which have hindered the reintegration process (Dwyer, 2012). Although motivated by the need for re-integrative support for former prisoners, there are examples of organizations running educational and training courses, working with young people at risk, working with other community services and cross community work, and also implementing services which reach out to the wider society (see Shirlow & McEvoy, 2008; Rolston, 2011). The concept of self-help was paramount to these various former prisoner groups, coming from a history of political conflict, values were developed and practised by ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners in prison, which then continued on their release. This

8


informed the work of many of the self-help organizations, which saw themselves as trying to achieve a broader social impact which still maintained their collective post imprisonment identity. Members of these former prisoner organizations contend that they promote the ethos of self-help and mutuality, in particular, by supporting ex-prisoners’ and prisoners’ families in organising their own activities, promoting ownership of those activities, creating new opportunities, acting as a collective and building empowerment and confidence amongst their constituencies. Many of those working with former prisoners emphasised that the self-help setting helped to create an environment where former prisoners can express ‘who they really are’ and ‘what they really feel’, without a fear of betrayal.

Families and relatives of ex-POWs [‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners] should be able to leave past baggage at the door and the POWs should be identified as themselves, not just as who they were when they went to jail, and they should not be defined merely as ex- POWs (Republican Former Prisoner, cited in Tar Anall, 1997).

Given that much of the prison history in Northern Ireland was one of resistance to the tag of criminality, most PMEPs would bridle at the notion that ‘personal change’ or identity transformation was necessary for successful reintegration. Therefore, PMEPs would resist the idea that they should feel ashamed of their ‘ex-prisoner’ identity. One project worker told the author:

People are made to feel ashamed if they have a political past. It’s something they should be proud of, not ashamed of. They have a lot to give and a lot to offer (Project Coordinator of a Republican Former Prisoner Group, Interview with Author).

One former prisoner stated:

Stigma doesn’t apply to me in every sense and every context. In terms of applying for jobs - yes. But within the areas in which I have lived all my life, I would be regarded as a status symbol, a leader, a community leader to look up to. I am by virtue of the fact that I did a prison sentence, I have been through the mill, the hunger strikes and as a republican and that there carries with it a certain status … (Republican Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

Many former prisoners have argued that the difficulties and challenges associated with the label that makes them want to move away from the former prisoner identity. One former prisoner revealed:

I didn’t want to go into prison and if I will be harnessed with this here [ex-prisoner identity] all my life as a burden, it doesn’t go well for my future. I try to do anything I can to get away from it and I found the only thing I can do is to try and transcend it by going back to university and saying, look here, I have done my best here, accept my

9


merit, accept me for what I have done here (Republican Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

He added:

Sometimes I wish I was an ‘ex’ ex-prisoner … (Republican Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

In this sense PMEPs would claim that they are not seeking redemption or wanting to desist from ‘crime’ but rather are seeking equal participation in a post-conflict society and to be given the opportunity to contribute without having to encounter the various challenges faced as a result of serving a prison sentence and holding a criminal record. As noted above, identity politics can ‘offer claims to have difference recognised’ and those making identity claims often present them within a rhetoric implying that ‘everyone is equally endowed with identity, equally entitled to their own identity and equally entitled to respect for it’ (Calhoun, 1994: 24). This resonates strongly with those working with the former prisoner self-help organizations. One former prisoner stated:

It is not about recognition and being an ex-prisoner, or why anybody decided or ended up in jail. It was about recognising, even the community I come from, as an equal community (Republican Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

‘Politically motivated’ ex-prisoners would contend that they understand ‘who they are’ and understand their identity as an ‘ex-prisoner’, but like Snow and Anderson (1987), there is an understanding that identity can act as a ‘conceptual bridge’ between the individual and society. Depending on how society or ‘the other’ may view this identity could subsequently lead to various consequences which can impact on the individual’s ‘sense of self’, particularly if, according to symbolic interactionism, our sense of self is shaped by what we suppose others think of us (see Cooley, 1902 and Mead, 1934). There is evidence to support the idea that a number of ex-prisoners have committed to various projects and work connected with the self-help organizations in order to ‘give something back’ to the community and to feel valued in their efforts towards conflict transformation. PMEP interviewees also repeatedly echoed the theme of wanting to “give something back” and make a contribution to their communities and the wider society:

... the objective is not so much what can society do for ex-prisoners but what ex-prisoners can do for society and how can groups facilitate ex-prisoners like myself getting back into society and above all developing some form of conflict transformation programme which would help prevent young people getting involved in the paramilitaries (Loyalist Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

A lot of them find themselves in community work ... and there would be a number of them who would be working with other people. It’s about giving back to the

10


community and using their experiences in a positive way in the community ... there are a lot of things that ex-prisoners have to offer (Loyalist Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

Participating in these types of activities including conflict transformation, community development and transitional justice can therefore provide ex-prisoners with a new sense of purpose and result in moving away from the ex-prisoner identity to an adopt a ‘new self’ , a ‘new identity’ and a new set of goals:

The big benefit is the whole sense of ownership, the whole sense of identity, the whole sense of delivering a service with people who have been though the experience themselves. I think you can’t buy that (Republican Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

I would love to work with the council, in ... tourism, I studied tourism and culture and I got a first last year. I would like to make a contribution to ... the people ... especially the community in which I have lived in who I feel desire a lot better in this post cease-fire situation and peace situation (Republican Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

It is through this self-identity as a ‘leader’ or ‘transformer’ that PMEPs can feel a sense of purpose and meaning. Yet, ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners often see such work as a continuance of their struggle, albeit by peaceful means.

I must be worthy of something with this new dispensation. Things have moved for the ex-prisoner community, the ex-prisoner constituency (Republican Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

Therefore, although the PMEP community would claim to take ownership of their identity as an ‘ex-prisoner’ they are also aware that this identity has led to various consequences including exclusion, discrimination and marginalisation. In an attempt to seek redress as a marginalised group, the PMEP community have mobilised collectively in order to remove discriminatory barriers and to reconstruct their PMEP identity in a positive direction. There are many examples of former prisoner groups challenging legal barriers preventing full reintegration through both the courts and lobbying policy makers (see MeCoy et al., 2004; Dwyer, 2013).

In their research on how social movements contribute to the reconstruction of gender relations and society, Taylor and Van Willigen (1996) have demonstrated how self-help movements and collective action, which is geared towards a ‘politics of identity’, can both challenge and transform social policy. They found that collective identity is vital for self-help groups to connect the personal experiences of group members to the general wider problems. In other words, when collective identity formations are formulated through the work of self-

11


help groups that is then possible to produce social change and alter social practice. It is this construction and maintenance of a collective identity that can be fundamental to the success of any social movement, but there are many other factors, which can influence group mobilisation and group dynamics in their quest for positive recognition of their identity. Social movement literature has drawn attention to various dimensions that are present in a group’s mobilisation process (McAdam, 1988; McAdam et al., 1996), including (amongst others), ‘action frames’ and ‘political opportunity structures’ and it is these to which we now turn.

Interpreting PMEP Self-Help and Collective Action through Action Frames

The action frame approach refers to the interpretive schemes that individuals adopt in order to make sense of the world around them and to situate themselves within it (Goffman, 1974). Action frames also impart meaning to events, and ‘function to organise experience and guide (collective and individual) action…’ (Snow et al., 1986). PMEP self-help organizations have situated the issue of discrimination against former prisoners within an ‘action frame’. PMEPs encounter very particular barriers as a result of their ‘conflict related’ conviction. In consequence to holding a ‘criminal record’, PMEPs face numerous legal barriers, including accessing finance, accessing consumer credit licenses, securing service contracts, applications for taxi and bus operator licences, difficulty accessing insurance and mortgage facilities, inability to adopt children, inability to get compensation for tort claims against their person or property, restrictions on travel to the U.S.A, Canada, and Australia, and bars on employment in the civil service sector. Motivated by both collective identity and what they understand as collective discrimination, PMEP groups have mobilised in order to remove discriminatory practices against their group members. For example, a number of PMEP groups have mobilised to lobby government policies in order to remove various barriers to inclusion and have been deeply involved in the development of proposed equality law provisions. These have included lobbying for the inclusion of PMEP as a protected category in the proposed ‘Bill of Rights’ and Single Equality Act in Northern Ireland (see Dwyer, 2013). In their submission to the Bill of Rights consultation, a republican former prisoner group stated, ‘the fact that possession of ‘criminal’ records impacts on our client base in precisely the same way as common criminals, it is entirely wrong and contrary to the commitment of the Agreement and the political and historical reality of the conflict’ (Tar Isteach, 2010). One project worker told the author,

…as long as and until discriminatory legislation is done away with against ex-prisoners, there is a struggle and a battle there and I think that we are in the best place, in a coordinated fashion, to head that struggle and battle (Project Coordinator of a Republican Former Prisoner Group, Interview with Author).

For these social movements to succeed, they must construct frames that closely resemble the frames of the individuals they are attempting to mobilise (McAdam, 1988), and

12


by bridging their own movement’s action frames with the collective action frames of their supporters, they can mobilise a larger number of individuals (McAdam et al., 1996). Throughout this study the PMEP self-help movement have been successful in merging their own movement’s action frame with that of their members’ collective frame, not least because it is the members and the participants in the group who have ‘framed’ the organization’s aims, objectives and actions. Moreover, identity work often includes activities that individuals participate in, that support one’s self-concept (Snow and McAdam, 2000, p. 48) and therefore when a person is engaged in ‘identity seeking’ work, a person might seek out a group to identify with, because of the groups’ attractiveness (Snow and McAdam, 2000, p. 61). Reflecting on his work with the former prisoner group, one former prisoner stated,

It’s commitment to the project that holds us together, we’re all committed to making this a big success, not only for us as ex-prisoners but so that the community can look to us and say, ‘Look what they’ve done’ (Republican Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

Although PMEP groups continue to lobby on behalf of PMEPs and provide assistance to the PMEP community, many groups are now involved in broader community development projects. They are engaged in various conflict transformation projects which have focused on various aspects of transitional justice, including anti-sectarianism, truth recovery processes, outreach to victims groups, working with young people at risk and restorative justice projects in the community (see Shirlow& McEvoy, 2008; McEvoy and Shirlow, 2009; Dwyer & Maruna, 2011; Dwyer, 2012). Many members of the PMEP organizations identified the various projects they are involved with and highlighted the aim to expand beyond their initial identity as a ‘ex-prisoner’ organization so that it is utilised by the wider community so that they receive broader acceptance throughout Northern Ireland society:

It has become a community-based group and is no longer an ex-prisoner centre. We’ll never hide our background from anybody but it is seen as being community based (Project Coordinator of a Republican Former Prisoner Group, Interview with Author).

I think the community needs us as much as we are needed by the ex-prisoners. The wider community uses us. That is the whole point looking at reintegration, it is getting the ex-prisoners reintegrated back into their community. To that extent, here in [name of city] … we have definitely done that and now the wider community are using us as a community resource (Project Coordinator of a Loyalist Former Prisoner Group, Interview with Author).

Lipsky (1965) has noted that, the greater the possibility for social movement alliances, the more movements will pay attention to the preferences of potential supporters. Throughout the course of the peace process many of the PMEP self-help groups have developed networks and working relationships across many relevant bodies and organizations. By taking

13


advantage of the significant political changes these organizations and their members have continued to lobby relevant stake holders, the community and wider society in order to keep their issues within the political arena (see OFM/DFM, 2012). Therefore the mobilisation of the PMEP community can also (in part) be explained through the ‘political opportunity structures’ thesis.

Maximising Political Opportunity and Forms of Activism

Although political opportunity structures are used to describe the emergence of a social movement, they are also used to establish the outcomes of collective action (Tarrow, 1989, p. 33). Political opportunity structures have been described as ‘dimensions of the political environment that provide incentives for people to undertake collective action by affecting their expectations for success or failure’ (Tarrow, 1994, p. 85). It can therefore be argued that the peace process in Northern Ireland has provided a limited ‘window’ for the progressive development on issues affecting the PMEP community, particularly discriminatory barriers to full citizenship. One project worker commented:

There is no doubt that the peace process has given people the chance to look at things and get involved in things (Project Coordinator of a Republican Former Prisoner Group, Interview with Author).

McAdam notes that any change in a political system or any ‘restructuring of existing power relations’, be it through great demographic change or through events such as wars, causes a shift in the political opportunity structure. Such shifts have the potential to indirectly encourage or discourage challenging groups (1982, p. 41). This has been evident in the experience of PMEP organizations insofar as the transition from war to peace has allowed for the investment into particular groups which would otherwise have been ignored. Although a small number of reintegration self-help groups were developed in the early nineties to assist the return of PMEPs (see Shirlow & McEvoy, 2008), it was not until the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement that the number of self-help groups multiplied (particularly once they were provided with financial assistance, i.e. from the European Peace fund, see McEvoy & Shirlow, 2009; Rolston, 2007).6 One project coordinator has remarked,

There was thirty years of a struggle and imprisonment, but come 95 [1995] … it was amazing how many groups who had previously no interest in political prisoners, and then, all of a sudden there is this thing called peace money from Europe, and they have an interest… (Former Prisoner and Project Coordinator of a Republican Former Prisoner Group, Interview with Author).

The transition from ‘war to peace’ in Northern Ireland has also allowed for the mobilisation of PMEP organizations because of the ‘unfreezing’ of political and social relations and the changing political attitudes (also see Gormally et al., 2007). A number of

14


project workers commented on how the changing attitudes of the wider society have been welcomed and how it has enabled their groups to build on their existing work,

…when we started here, a lot of the statutory groups just sat back, they didn’t know what to expect, but they’ve seen the work we’re doing and they know we’re genuine. I think they thought there was going to be a pile of hooded gunmen standing at the front door… (Project Coordinator of a Loyalist Former Prisoner Group, Interview with Author).

…I think we are a professional organization and I think people do appreciate that, regardless of what their political view is. They look at you as an organization, whereas they may not agree with your principles, they do accept that you are working as a professional organization… (Project Coordinator of a Republican Former Prisoner Group, Interview with Author).

Mobilised groups often, at times need to fulfil two, often conflicting objectives simultaneously, which include threatening elites and winning over the public (Della Porta & Diani, 1999). Many former prisoners have commented on their work on attempting and succeeding in winning public support for both their members and the work of the group,

I had a girl who worked in a group outside [city name] and said ‘ex-prisoners ... what!! ... dreadful’. She called into the office the other day and sat and had a cup of tea with me. It is changes like that that we have been able to achieve and you know, change within her and her group, where before the door would have been slammed in our face. We have really moved on here (Project Coordinator of a Loyalist Former Prisoner Group, Interview with Author).

Many participants to this study emphasised that their overall objectives are to ensure that PMEPs fully integrate into society, that all discrimination barriers are removed, to change the attitudes of wider society and to reconstruct the ex-prisoner identity in a positive direction. One coordinator stated that essentially their aim is to work so that there is no longer an identity of ‘political’ ex-prisoner,

Regardless of whether this group is here or not, the work with the ex-prisoners in the community will be on-going, until there is no such thing as a political ex-prisoner (Project Coordinator of a Republican Former Prisoner Group, Interview with Author).

This strongly resonates with Brown’s (1995) discussions on ‘injured’ identities which were further developed by Bhambra and Margree (2010), which suggested that identity politics should be focused on future possibilities present in identities and should not only be based on desire for the future but also that that desire should be based on a desire for the dissolution of identity claims. One former prisoner commented:

15


When does an ex-prisoner cease to be an ex-prisoner, and the long-term effects of everything? The demonization of people because of their political viewpoints. Not to mention the difficulties that prisoners would have faced in prison during that period. That’s not going to be dealt with overnight. So I could see it lasting for a least at generation, because even children of ex-prisoners will be seen as different (Republican Former Prisoner/Project Coordinator of a Republican Former Prisoner Group, Interview with Author).

Therefore, only by removing the conditions that perpetuate the continuation of marginalised identities (i.e. discrimination, obstacles to reintegration) will such identities (‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoner) cease to exist and former prisoners would become ‘ex’ ex-prisoners’.

Conclusion

The social movement perspective can illuminate the efforts of ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoner organizations in numerous ways including the motivating role identity recognition has in the development and sustainability of any mobilised group. It also draws attention to how identity acceptance or identity reinterpretation can also become the goal of social movement activism. Moreover, the study of PMEP organizations in Northern Ireland can advance our understanding of collective action and social movements in several fundamental respects. Firstly, the signing of the peace agreement provided an opportunity for those who were involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland to consider their role in a post-conflict society and develop a transformed sense of identity (both individual and collective). Whilst former prisoners claim they do not wish to transcend the label or identity of ‘ex-prisoner’, they wish to be given the opportunity to escape the consequences of the label and to find a new sense of self. Many have attempted to do this through their work with PMEP organizations. So although many former prisoners would argue that they do not wish to transform their identity or status as a ‘ex-prisoner’, it is inevitable that their identity will ultimately evolve, for example, from someone who has served a prison sentence, to that of someone involved in the transforming of oneself, others and the wider political and social landscape. Moreover, it is contended that we should not ‘… ignore the self nor the longing people have to transform the self, that we make the conditions for the wholeness such that they are mirrored both in our own beings and in social and political reality’ (hooks, 1989, p. 32). Participants in this study would claim that many members of the PMEP community have a longing to be given the opportunity to transform the self in order to reach self-potential and fully participate in post conflict Northern Ireland as one PMEP explained:

To inhibit and to somehow curtail the potential of a human being and allow that person to believe this is where he goes and this is where he can’t go, I think this is a massive sin in itself and there is something really terribly wrong here, in that you are

16


saying ‘you are there and this is where you are going to stay’ (Republican Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

An analysis of the development and work of PMEP organizations can further advance our understanding of collective action, particularly in regards to how the transition from conflict to peace can exacerbate levels of mobilisation and collective action by groups, who previously felt marginalised and who continue to feel excluded from certain aspects of a post-conflict society. Whilst it has been noted that ex-prisoners wish they could transcend the consequences associated with the ‘ex-prisoner’ identity to become an ‘ex’ ex-prisoner, it is evident that those associated with the self-help organizations use that identity collectively to deliver a message of continued exclusion. As Tazreiter and Morris have argued, movement activism tends to ‘reveal the irrationality upon which existing forms of inclusion/exclusion are based within the state system’ (1996, p. 6 as cited in Ercegovac, 1999). This therefore, enables marginalised groups seeking redress to create their own political structures and define one’s space in which political action may occur according to the dictates of society rather than the dictates of the state (Gamson, 1992; Melucci, 1995). Through their culture or organizational form that social movements communicate the possibility of difference, and for this reason that building a collective identity is so important as it enables them to deliver a coherent message (Martin, 2001, p. 366). All the groups in this study understood that one of their key aims was to deliver a coherent message and influence state policy for progressive social change. Reflecting on their work one former prisoner concluded:

Now I am in a position to fight the legislation and make people aware and highlight it, that’s the most important thing. I am more greatly aware of all the barriers and how there are limits put on my potential. It [ex-prisoner identity] still affects me. I hope … that all the efforts that I have made take away this status labelling of me as a criminal … simply on human merit and I have come out and I have said ‘hold on here I going to achieve something on merit and want that to be recognised’ (Republican Former Prisoner, Interview with Author).

By forging and maintaining their collective identities through community based mutual aid, members of these PMEP organizations would claim that they have progressed to create not only individual change/assistance but have also developed and evolved to tackle serious wider social issues which impact on the members of their organizations. Through a shared collective identity, and motivated by the continued exclusion and discrimination of their group members into full civic society, these organizations have evolved into a significant social movement, lobbying on behalf of a new politics of identity, that is the ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoner. This self-help movement, through collective action and geared towards a politics of identity have worked for the reassessment of particular understandings attached to the PMEP identity. From former prisoner, participant in the conflict, to former prisoner, participant in a post-conflict society. Many members of the PMEP community would contend that they will continue to work to reinterpret the ex-prisoner identity from a possible spoiler of peace, where certain exclusions and

17


marginalisation need to remain, to contributors to the process, seeking full inclusion in a post-conflict society. The removal of the remaining barriers to their full inclusion into post-conflict society and eliminating the negative consequences associated with their identity will provide ‘politically motivated’ ex-prisoners the opportunity to become ‘ex’ ex-prisoners’.

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank Professor Shadd Maruna and Professor Kieran McEvoy for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. She would also like to gratefully acknowledge the two anonymous referees for their helpful comments.

Notes

18

1Prisoners were deemed as ‘politically motivated’ if they were serving a ‘conflict related’ sentence and were convicted of scheduled offences during the conflict in Northern Ireland. Scheduled offences are those offences listed as an appendix to the various Emergency legislation in Northern Ireland (including Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, 1978, 1996). Those convicted of schedule offences were members of, or had connections to, various paramilitary organisations including (but not limited to); the Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA), Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) from the republican community and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and Ulster Defence Association (UDA) from the loyalist community. The majority of those who had ‘conflict related’ convictions had their case heard before a single judge in a special juryless court (Diplock court, see Jackson & Doran, 1995) and subsequently served their sentence in a very distinct prison regime (see McEvoy, 2001 for further discussions).2 A mixed methods research approach was undertaken which involved the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. Data was also collected through a survey with 69 Republican and Loyalist former prisoners, the results of which are not reported in this article. For detailed discussion on the methodology and research process, see Dwyer (2010).3 PMEP organisations have developed from within both Loyalist and Republican communities. Republican former prisoner organisations work with and lobby on behalf of Republican former prisoners and the Republican community. Loyalist former prisoner organisations work with and lobby on behalf of Loyalist former prisoners and the Loyalist community. However, the various paramilitary factions share similar goals for their members, including, working towards to removal of barriers preventing the full inclusion of politically motivated ex-prisoners in post-conflict Northern Ireland. 4 It has been estimated that during the course of the conflict, over 30,000 people were imprisoned as a result of their participation in the conflict (Jamieson et al., 2010).5 This term is used to refer to those individuals convicted and processed through ‘ordinary’ criminal courts (as opposed to Diplock courts), who serve their sentences in ordinary or ‘traditional’ prison settings. Such individuals have also been referred to locally as ‘ordinary decent criminals’, a colloquialism from Northern Ireland for prisoners who are not ‘politically motivated’, in other words do not have a ‘conflict related’ conviction (see McEvoy, 2001; Guelke, 1995).6 The Republican group, Tar Anal, and the Loyalist group, the Ex-Prisoners Interpretive Centre (EPIC), existed prior to the end of hostilities. Since then, a large network of over 20 organizations associated with the PIRA was developed and works within the umbrella network of Coiste na n-Iarchimi. On the Loyalist side, EPIC continued and developed a number of regional groups. Other Loyalist groups include REACT, Charter, Prisoner Aid and Post Conflict Resettlement Group and LINC. Smaller organizations include An Eochair and EXPAC. For a more general description of some of these efforts, see Shirlow and McEvoy, 2008; Dwyer, 2010).

References

Arthur, P. (Ed.) (2010). Identities in Transition: Challenges for Transitional Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Becker, E. (1971). The Birth and Death of Meaning. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Bernstein, M. (2005). Identity Politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 31 (1), 47–74.Bhambra Gurminder, K. & Margree, V. (2010). Identity politics and the need for a

‘tomorrow’. Economic and Political Weekly, 45 (15), 59-66.Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.Brown, W. (1995). States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Calhoun, C. (1994). Social Theory and the Politics of Identity. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Social

Theory and the Politics of Identity (pp. 9-36). Oxford: Blackwell.Charles, N. (2004). Feminist Politics and Devolution: A Preliminary Analysis. Social Politics 11 (2), 297-311.Cohen, A.P. (1994). Self Consciousness: An Alternative Anthropology of Identity. London:

Routledge.Collinson, D.L. (2003). Identities and Insecurities: Selves at Work. Organization, 10 (3), 527-47.Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner’s.Della Porta D. & Diani, M. (1999). Social Movements: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.Dwyer, C.D. & Maruna, S. (2011). The role of self-help efforts in the reintegration of

‘politically motivated’ former prisoners: implications from the Northern Irish

experience. Crime Law and Social Change, 55 (4), 293-309. Dwyer, C.D. (2007). Risk, Politics and the ‘Scientification’ of Political Judgement: Prisoner

Release and Conflict Transformation in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Criminology, 47 (5), 779-797.

Dwyer, C.D. (2010). “Sometimes I wish I was an ‘ex’ ex-prisoner…” Release and Reintegration: The Experience of ‘Politically Motivated’ Former Prisoners in Northern

Ireland. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queen’s University Belfast.Dwyer, C.D. (2012). Expanding DDR: The Transformative Role of Former Prisoners in

Community-Based Reintegration. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 6 (2), 274-295.

Dwyer, C.D. (2013) “They might as well be walking around the inside of a biscuit tin”: Barriers to Employment and Reintegration for ‘Politically Motivated’ Former Prisoners in Northern Ireland. European Journal of Probation, 5 (1), 3 – 24. Eder, K., Gisen, B., Schmidtke, O. & Tambini, D. (2002). Collective Identities in Action: A

Sociological Approach to Ethnicity. Aldershot: Ashgate.Ercegovac, P.A. (1999). Competing National Ideologies, Cyclical Responses: The

Mobilisation of the Irish, Basque and Croat National Movements to Rebellion Against the State, Unpublished D.Phil. Thesis, Department of Government and Public Administration, University of Sydney. Available at: http://www.nationalismproject.org/articles/Pero/title.html.

Gamson, W.A. (1992). The Social Psychology of Collective Action. In A.D. Morris & C. McClurg Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory (pp. 156-173). New Haven: Yale University Press.Gecas, V. (1991). The Self-Concept as a Basis for a Theory of Motivation. In J. Howard & P.

Callero (Eds.), The Self-Society Dynamic: Cognition, Emotion and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gormally, B., Maruna, S. & McEvoy, K. (2007). Thematic Evaluation of Funded Projects:

Politically-motivated Former Prisoners and their Families. Monaghan: Border Action. Grounds, A. & Jamieson, R. (2003). No Sense of An Ending: Researching the Experience of

Imprisonment and Release amongst Republican Ex-prisoners. Theoretical Criminology 7 (3), 347-362.Guelke, A. (1995). The age of terrorism and the international political system, London: New

York, Tauris Academic Studies, I.B. Tauris Publishers.Haslam, S.A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T. & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-

being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58 (1), 1-23.

Hekman, S. (1999). Identity crises: Identity, identity politics, and beyond. Critical Review of International Social and Political, Philosophy, 2 (1), 3-26.

Hooks, B. (1989). Talking back, thinking feminist, thinking Black. Boston: South End Press.Hunt, S., Benford, R. & Snow, D. (1994). Identity Fields: Framing Processes and Social

Construction of Movement Identities. In E. Larana, H. Johnston, & J. Gusfield, (Eds.), New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity (pp. 185-208). Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.Jackson, J. & Doran, S. (1995). Judge Without Jury: Diplock Trials in the Adversary

System. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Jamieson, R., Shirlow, P. & Grounds, A. (2010). Ageing and Social Exclusion among Former

Politically Motivated Prisoners in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Changing Ageing Partnership.

Lipsky, M. (1965). Protest and City Politics. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.Martin, G. (2001). Social Movements, Welfare and Social Policy: A Critical Analysis’ Critical Social Policy 21 (3), 361-83 (Reprinted in N. Deakin, C. Jones Finer, & B. Matthews (Eds.)

(2003) Welfare and The State: Critical Concepts in Political Science (pp. 69-87). London: Routledge.McAdam, D. (1982). 'The Classical Model of Social Movements Examined' Political Process

and the Development of Black Insurgency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D. & Zald, M.N. (Eds.) (1996). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilising Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press.McAuley, J.W., Tonge, J. & Shirlow, P. (2009). Conflict, Transformation, and Former Loyalist Paramilitary Prisoners in Northern Ireland. Terrorism and Political Violence, 22 (1), 22–40.McEvoy, K. & Shirlow, P. (2009). Reimagining DDR: Ex-combatants, leadership and Moral

Agency in Conflict Transformation, Theoretical Criminology 13 (1), 31-59.McEvoy, K., Shirlow, P. & McElrath, K. (2004). Resistance, Transition and Exclusion: Politically Motivated Ex-prisoners and Conflict Transformation in Northern Ireland. Terrorism and Political Violence, 16 (3), 646-70.McEvoy, L., McEvoy, K. & McConnachie, K. (2006). Reconciliation as a Dirty Word: Conflict, Community Relations and Education in Northern Ireland. Journal of International Affairs 60 (1), 81–106.McEvoy, K. (2001). Paramilitary Imprisonment in Northern Ireland: Resistance, Management and Release. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mead, G. (1934). Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Melucci, A. (1995). The Process of Collective Identity. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans

(Eds.) Social Movements and Culture (pp. 41-63). London: UCL Press.Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Meyer, D. & Whittier, N. (1994). Social movement spillover. Social Problems, 41, 277-98.Meyer, D. Whittier, N., Robnett, B. (2002). Social Movements: Identity, Culture, and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.OFMDFM. (2012). Report of the Review Panel, Employers Guidance on Recruiting People

with Conflict Related Convictions. Belfast: OFMDFM.Prus, R. (1996). Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: Intersubjectivity and the

study of human lived experience. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Ray, R. & Korteweg, A.C. (1999). Women's Movements in the Third World: Identity,

Mobilization, and Autonomy. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 47-71.Reger, J., Myers, D.J. & Einwohner, R., (Eds.), (2008). Identity Work in Social Movements.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Rolston, B. (2007). Demobilization and Reintegration of Ex-Combatants: The Irish Case in

International Perspective. Social and Legal Studies, 16 (2), 259-80.Rolston, B. (2011). Review of Literature on Republican and Loyalist Ex-prisoners. Belfast:

OFMDFM.Shirlow, P. & McEvoy, K. (2008). Beyond the Wire: Former Prisoners and Conflict

Transformation in Northern Ireland. London: Pluto Press.Shirlow, P. Tonge J. & McAuley, J. (2010). Continuity and Change in the Discourse of Former Republican Prisoners. In K. Hayward & C. O’Donnell (Eds), Political Discourse and Conflict Resolution. London, Routledge.Shirlow, P., Graham, B., McEvoy, K., Purvis, D. & Ó hAdhmaill, F. (2005). Politically Motivated Former Prisoner Groups: Community Activism and Conflict Transformation. Belfast: Community Relations Council.Snow, D. & Anderson, L., (1987) Identity Work Among the Homeless: The Verbal

Construction and Avowal of Personal Identities. The American Journal of Sociology, 92 (6), 1336-1371.

Snow, D. & Benford, R. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.

Snow, D. & McAdam, D. (2000). Identity Work Processes in the Context of Social Movements: Clarifying the Identity/Movement Nexus. In S. Stryker, T.J. Owens & R.W. White (Eds.), Self, Identity, and Social Movements (pp. 41-67). Minneapolis, Minn: University of Minneopolis Press.

Snow, D.A., Rochford, E.B., Worden S.K., & Benford R.D. (1986). Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review, 51 (4), 464-481.Somers, M.R. & Gibson, G.D. (1994). Reclaiming the Epistemological “Other”: Narrative

and the Social Constitution of Identity. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Social Theory and the Politics of Identity (pp. 37-99). Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell.

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic Interactionism: A Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin-Cummings.

Tajfel, H. (1972). Experiments in a vacuum. In J. Israel & H. Tajfel (Eds.) The context of social psychology: A critical assessment (pp. 69-119). London: Academic Press.Tar Anall. (1997). Coordinator’s Report. Belfast: Tar Anall.Tar Isteach. (2010). Submission to the Consultation on the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Belfast: Northern Ireland Office. Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Taylor, G. & Spencer, S. (2004). Social Identities: Multidisciplinary Approaches. Routledge.Taylor, V. & Van Willigen, M. (1996). Women's self-help and the reconstruction of gender:

The postpartum support and breast cancer movements. Mobilization: An International Journal, 1 (2), 123-142.

Taylor, V. & Whittier, N. (1992) Collective identity in social communities: Lesbian feminist mobilization. In A.D. Morris & C.M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7 (2), 225-246.

pure.qub.ac.uk web viewmotivated’ ex-prisoner (pmep) organizations in northern ireland are...

Documents