 |
We fell out, as people often do. Nevertheless, I still have some splendid memories of times spent with him and I have taken this opportunity to share a few thoughts.
We collaborated on a number of scholarly projects and I am (perhaps unreasonably) quite proud of what that cooperation produced. Kevin often stayed at our house, sometimes for many weeks at a time (at one point I thought he would never leave – he liked my wife’s cooking!). I would also visit him in Liverpool, and our paths would often cross in Belfast whilst meeting Anthony McIntyre, Liam O’Ruairc or some other Republican activist. On occasion we travelled abroad together to attend conferences. I can therefore say with confidence that I knew Kevin Bean very well. I would also suggest, with the greatest respect, that I knew him at least as well, if not rather better, than Marianne Elliot, whose recent obituary of Kevin has caused some controversy.
It is, of course, entirely acceptable to “gild the lily” when writing obituaries. It is common practice, if not an unspoken convention. However, Elliot’s effort in this regard clearly stretches the boundaries of what might be deemed acceptable. Naturally academics are prone to misinterpretation (I have read Marianne Elliot’s history of the Catholics in Ulster and I did not agree with key elements of that either) but her eulogy has, albeit perhaps inadvertently, touched upon some very sensitive territory.
For a start, two of the words featuring most prominently in the title of Elliot’s obituary, “courageous” and “honourable”, are contentious, not least because I do not think Kevin would have used them to describe himself. Neither would I. This requires careful explanation.
Kevin, in his disarmingly honest way, often described himself to me as “a coward”. I don’t think he was, but he recognised his own weakness in this regard. He was perhaps measuring himself against the Republican activists he often interviewed. As bench-marks go that one would be difficult to emulate. I know how frightened he was when we were arrested on the night of the Omagh bomb. It was very uncomfortable, and made much more so by the 200 plus copies of the Sovereign Nation we had in the boot of our car. Absolutely no-one could, or should, apportion blame for such anxiety.
More difficult to justify, however, was his conduct during the course of his research on “dissident” Republicans. It is here that Elliot gets it wrong. Implying that Kevin Bean was a victim of nefarious machinations perpetrated by fellow academics is nonsense. There is an old adage which suggests that sometimes it is better to stay silent and appear to be a fool, rather than venturing forth an ill-advised opinion, thereby removing all possible doubt. Marianne should consider very carefully the impact of her words in this context. Kevin Bean bought into an ESRC-funded project that was fatally flawed from the very start. The grant application, written by Prof. Jon Tonge, pledged, as part of the research process, to make all information available to the British security services. In short, it was an absolute shocker (and I believe Prof. Tonge would now admit to what was, at the very least, a spectacular error of judgment). Myself and other friends implored Kevin to withdraw and distance himself from the project but his academic vanity prevailed. It was left to Dr. Marisa McGlinchey to rescue that particular project. Yet even during the period when they both tried to reassure Republicans that the ESRC terms would not be fulfilled, Kevin’s support for her was equivocal to say the least. Indeed, in one specific instance, Kevin’s failure to back up his colleague left her very vulnerable. This was not the act of a “courageous” man, and perhaps that word should not have been deployed “front and centre” in his obituary.
As for “honourable” let’s just say that Kevin was a bit of a rogue. He knew it and he acknowledged it to his closest friends. However, I do know for a fact that he loved his long-time partner, Pauline. What was less well known (and was perhaps underplayed by Marianne Elliot) was the fact that Kevin had a very strong sense of duty toward, and affection for, his wife Sue and family. Inevitably this made things complicated, and some people were undoubtedly deeply hurt as Kevin tried to chart a course through conflicting commitments. Perhaps Kevin was more to be pitied than scorned because I know his conduct and his situation caused him some sleepless nights. He knew his funeral would be awkward. I hope his Catholic funeral mass can induce some forgiveness on all sides.
Where Marianne Elliot is on much safer ground is in her account of Kevin as an educator and political activist. Kevin Bean was a pedagogue with an extraordinary talent for relating information to people (quite an accomplishment when you have been seen in public wearing a velvet hat and bow tie!). Kevin also maintained his commitment to Marxism and clearly believed in the emancipation of the working class. In an era when political principles are traded like livestock Kevin Bean stood his ground. This was something he could be rightly proud of. I respected Kevin’s politics and I admired his activism.
Please don’t get the impression that I am in any way bitter about the way Kevin has been portrayed in recent days. Other people are entitled to their opinion, I just have a different perspective. I knew a different Kevin. He was a great character, just flawed like the rest of us. I will remember a man that was incredibly charming, intelligent, witty, thoughtful and the most wonderful company. When I picture him in my mind he is always laughing. Hearing of his untimely death was deeply upsetting because, despite our differences, I know that he was a good man, and they are an exceedingly rare breed. I missed him, and I will continue to miss him. He was one of a kind.
It is, of course, entirely acceptable to “gild the lily” when writing obituaries. It is common practice, if not an unspoken convention. However, Elliot’s effort in this regard clearly stretches the boundaries of what might be deemed acceptable. Naturally academics are prone to misinterpretation (I have read Marianne Elliot’s history of the Catholics in Ulster and I did not agree with key elements of that either) but her eulogy has, albeit perhaps inadvertently, touched upon some very sensitive territory.
For a start, two of the words featuring most prominently in the title of Elliot’s obituary, “courageous” and “honourable”, are contentious, not least because I do not think Kevin would have used them to describe himself. Neither would I. This requires careful explanation.
Kevin, in his disarmingly honest way, often described himself to me as “a coward”. I don’t think he was, but he recognised his own weakness in this regard. He was perhaps measuring himself against the Republican activists he often interviewed. As bench-marks go that one would be difficult to emulate. I know how frightened he was when we were arrested on the night of the Omagh bomb. It was very uncomfortable, and made much more so by the 200 plus copies of the Sovereign Nation we had in the boot of our car. Absolutely no-one could, or should, apportion blame for such anxiety.
More difficult to justify, however, was his conduct during the course of his research on “dissident” Republicans. It is here that Elliot gets it wrong. Implying that Kevin Bean was a victim of nefarious machinations perpetrated by fellow academics is nonsense. There is an old adage which suggests that sometimes it is better to stay silent and appear to be a fool, rather than venturing forth an ill-advised opinion, thereby removing all possible doubt. Marianne should consider very carefully the impact of her words in this context. Kevin Bean bought into an ESRC-funded project that was fatally flawed from the very start. The grant application, written by Prof. Jon Tonge, pledged, as part of the research process, to make all information available to the British security services. In short, it was an absolute shocker (and I believe Prof. Tonge would now admit to what was, at the very least, a spectacular error of judgment). Myself and other friends implored Kevin to withdraw and distance himself from the project but his academic vanity prevailed. It was left to Dr. Marisa McGlinchey to rescue that particular project. Yet even during the period when they both tried to reassure Republicans that the ESRC terms would not be fulfilled, Kevin’s support for her was equivocal to say the least. Indeed, in one specific instance, Kevin’s failure to back up his colleague left her very vulnerable. This was not the act of a “courageous” man, and perhaps that word should not have been deployed “front and centre” in his obituary.
As for “honourable” let’s just say that Kevin was a bit of a rogue. He knew it and he acknowledged it to his closest friends. However, I do know for a fact that he loved his long-time partner, Pauline. What was less well known (and was perhaps underplayed by Marianne Elliot) was the fact that Kevin had a very strong sense of duty toward, and affection for, his wife Sue and family. Inevitably this made things complicated, and some people were undoubtedly deeply hurt as Kevin tried to chart a course through conflicting commitments. Perhaps Kevin was more to be pitied than scorned because I know his conduct and his situation caused him some sleepless nights. He knew his funeral would be awkward. I hope his Catholic funeral mass can induce some forgiveness on all sides.
Where Marianne Elliot is on much safer ground is in her account of Kevin as an educator and political activist. Kevin Bean was a pedagogue with an extraordinary talent for relating information to people (quite an accomplishment when you have been seen in public wearing a velvet hat and bow tie!). Kevin also maintained his commitment to Marxism and clearly believed in the emancipation of the working class. In an era when political principles are traded like livestock Kevin Bean stood his ground. This was something he could be rightly proud of. I respected Kevin’s politics and I admired his activism.
Please don’t get the impression that I am in any way bitter about the way Kevin has been portrayed in recent days. Other people are entitled to their opinion, I just have a different perspective. I knew a different Kevin. He was a great character, just flawed like the rest of us. I will remember a man that was incredibly charming, intelligent, witty, thoughtful and the most wonderful company. When I picture him in my mind he is always laughing. Hearing of his untimely death was deeply upsetting because, despite our differences, I know that he was a good man, and they are an exceedingly rare breed. I missed him, and I will continue to miss him. He was one of a kind.
⏭ Mark Hayes has published widely on a variety of subjects. He is a republican and a Marxist, unapologetic on both counts.
Excellent obituary Mark.
ReplyDeleteI too liked Kevin - had him staying with me in Belfast for weeks. Stayed with him quite a few times in Colne where I met his lovely family and his wonderful wife at the time, Sue. We attended Liverpool games together at Anfield and elsewhere. And then of course you named him 'The Organizer' after our London fiasco!!! He took some stick over that.
The parting of the ways was difficult as I had regarded him as a great friend but he simply opted for the institution, leaving Marisa McGlinchey in the lurch.
When I heard he was ill I was so sad and began to inquire with yourself and Marisa about reaching out to him but before we could move he died.
As for Jon Tonge - another likeable rogue!! I believe he meant very well but didn't appreciate to the full the sensitivities at the the other end. My own view is that it was never his intention to let anything into the hands of the state but that did not stop the noise of his pitch frightening the horses.
In the end Marisa rescued the project from whatever folly dogged it.
One thing I do find funny is Kevin getting a funeral mass. FFS Mr Bean!!
EDS Kevin (Eternal Dreamless Sleep).