dialectics of story and community

I was struck in the early sections of Glassie's book by the emphasis on egalitarian social gatherings and the resonance they have with other daily practices. Analyzing the conversation/story between Michael Boyle and Francis O'Reilly, Glassie argues that they come to unity, but one that does not cover over their differences in perspective, loyalty, etc:

"Through courteous challenge, parry, thrust, and the search for points of agreement, Michael Boyle and Francis O'Reilly were thrown into discord, into the need to clarify their separation so they could resolve, rather than covering to forget, their difference. They ended in unity, not in mere totality--in union, not in separate but equal independence. Each man got to tell his tale and hear the other's, but in delicate face-on grappling he also gained approval for his own story and learned the essence of the other's political and religious positions. Together they prepared the way for deeper future communication" (137).

Glassie goes on to contextualize this conversation and the others he recorded within the political turmoil and violence that affected the lives of so many in Ireland during the time period, and in other ways attempts to keep from falling into easy romanticization of the process of finding unity described here. As other writers have noted in their posts this week, this is an easy tendency to submit to, and one that leads to well known problems of cultural elitism and worse. However, there does seem to be something admirable in the process described here, and in the ceilis; the grappling that Glassie sees in the debates over aspects of the history being told offers an alternative to violent confrontation (violent revolt, etc) as a means of achieving mutual recognition in difference. Equally important, he's careful not to consign the inhabitants of Ballymenone to some idyllic and static past bubbled within a cosmopolitan present. Exploring tradition and individual creativity he does describe convention as only constraint, but also as something that opens space for meaningful (mutually understandable) expression within these horizons. Of course, applying something like this dialectical process and creation of shared significance to a larger arena is not without complications, if possible at all. Furthermore, as Glassie notes briefly in a few spots, there are those who are left out of these cultural practices of storytelling and communal expression, whether by personal choice, circumstance, or other reasons. This keeps the narrative from a too easy endorsement of the culture described. Still, as an attempt to understand the possibilities contained within certain cultural practices and their role in structuring everyday life, the book has a compelling argument for the value of community.

Andy DuMont