Beyond 'dehydrated history': Towards an anthropology of the history of the Great Irish Famine (Cecil Blanche Fitz Gerald Woodham Smith, John Mitchel)

This dissertation is a case study of how the history of the Great Irish Famine has been invoked and used in the Republic of Ireland and the United States. Through interviews and textual analysis, it examines the tension between popular and academic history; the latter, if unable to satisfy the public, could be criticized as "dehydrated." This dissertation suggests that, on the one hand, the various versions of history may not be taken as equally truthful and, on the other hand, that the differences between academic and popular history can be occasionally exaggerated. To think beyond the "dehydrated history," as this dissertation proposes, is to rethink the complexity involved in the academic-popular divide. Such a re-examination may provide a more measured understanding of the claim---common in anthropology and history---that the past is plural rather than singular.; The core of this dissertation contains analyses of three main sources of Famine memory and/or popular history: (1) the findings of Irish local historians; (2) the writings of the Irish nationalist John Mitchel; and (3) the work of the British amateur historian Cecil Woodhan-Smith, The Great Hunger. The conclusion is that the multiplicity of the past has its limits; it does not provide justification to the Mitchelite claim that Ireland actually produced enough food to feed its people during the Famine. On the other hand, this dissertation takes the emotive nature of a factually-correct popular history like Woodham-Smith's as an acceptable approach of telling the story. The claim of incompatibility between The Great Hunger and academic history is unsustainable under close examination; and part of the Irish historical profession deserves criticism for promoting such a claim. In order to carry out its function of arbitrating important historical debates and properly representing the multiplicity of the past, the historical profession must do a better job.; While providing measured criticism of the historical profession, this dissertation also cautions the reader not to politicize the entire Famine controversy---a tendency sometimes manifested in another widespread claim that the Famine has been "silenced" in Ireland. Overall, this dissertation suggests that, in dealing with historical controversies like that of the Famine, one must think more carefully of what silence means---and of history, collective memory, politics, "revisionism," and so on. It also suggests that both history and collective memory should be considered as ways of representing society; in spite of their remaining differences, they bear similar societal significance and can be investigated in similar ways.