Banana Republic

GCU Flexible Demeanour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfMwWLnpgGw

For whatever reason, the resurgent debate on abortion reminded me of the Boomtown Rats song "Banana Republic". For the younger folk, it was written following a hoopla around Dublin Corporation withdrawing planning permission for a concert by the 'Rats, which meant they had to hold it in Leixlip Castle instead. I've read Geldof saying it was expressing the frustration of, on the one hand, trying to shake off the received Catholic/Irish nationalist mindset and, when you'd escaped to England, finding out that there you were still trapped in this definition of being Irish, the very creature you were rejecting.

I've listen to the song again, for the first time in a long while. It's not perfect - what work could be? But I'll give him credit for producing, IMHO, something that at least connects to a discussion of Irish realities. Quite an amount of public discussion in Ireland tends to be an importation of debates that don't really apply here, or at least not in the same way. In the religious area(just to bring it back towards the interest of this forum), discussions about religion and education (say) which are inspired by born-again Christians looking to get Creationism on the science curriculum are largely irrelevant here. Our discussion about secularism is about quite different territory, and hasn't really been fully surfaced.

In fact, if an image of Irish born-again Christianity is Katie Taylor, it's hard to argue that it's a negative inlluence. Having a group of people that clearly express the values they want to adhere to could actually be an advantage. In our situation, the issues tend to be below the waterline. For the sake of argument, in some recent discussions it became apparent to me that some people thought that the National Maternity Hospital was some kind of State institution. In fact, the Archbishop of Dublin is the ex-officio Chair. What's it's formal governance? You tell me, I can't find it out. They don't seem to feel you'd care.

The formation of hospital groups - a major new policy initiative of our government, there isn't a single line that openly states or even asks how religious ownership of existing facilities will be addressed. A bunch of Creationists telling us the amendments they'd like to see to paragraphs XYZ of the Leaving Cert course would actually be a refreshing change from fairly pivotal issues not even emerging into public view.

So what's my point? I haven't a Jaysus clue, really. Actually, that's my point. This is a hard place to figure out, and you'd drown in the amount of bullsh*t that everyone comes out with.

swampgas

I think Ireland has a weird way of doing public dialogue.

I've lived outside Ireland for most of my twenties and thirties, so maybe I see it differently to people who have never left the country for very long. (I live in west Cork now and that was a whole other adjustment!)

Basically, if people don't know you, they won't be honest with you. They will tell you what they think you want to hear, even if it's what you really want is an honest answer.

Also there is this concept of "whatever you say, say nothing" - in other words, don't tell strangers (i.e. the general public) anything that might be contentious, or which could be held against you.

So I think a bigger problem Ireland has, especially with sensitive issues, is that people simply won't engage publicly.

Maybe this is why people feel happy to do baptisms and weddings even though they don't believe a word of it - basically anything said or done in the public sphere is implicitly just for show and has no bearing on what they really believe.

With this kind of hypocrisy and dishonesty built into the very fabric of society, how on earth can any sensible political conversation gain traction?

TheLastMohican

I think that swampgas is referring to rural thinking rather than urban. I know that in my dealings I would be quite reticent when discussing matters with any other than family/friends. This is especially true of farmers and the self employed. Call it insecurity or cute hoordom but it is there. When living in London for a decade, I embraced all and sundry. The reason probably was the unfamiliarity or the aloofness that one meets in cities. So you could be as open as anything and nobody gave a fuck.

swampgas

TheLastMohican wrote: »

I think that swampgas is referring to rural thinking rather than urban. I know that in my dealings I would be quite reticent when discussing matters with any other than family/friends. This is especially true of farmers and the self employed. Call it insecurity or cute hoordom but it is there. When living in London for a decade, I embraced all and sundry. The reason probably was the unfamiliarity or the aloofness that one meets in cities. So you could be as open as anything and nobody gave a fuck.

Irish social behaviour (IMO) can seem closer to China than to the UK or the US. There is a big emphasis on social cohesion and consensus. I suspect that decades of oppressive religious influence has reinforced a culture of conforming publicly while doing one's own thing privately. Maybe to the point where people don't feel any obligation, or see any value, to being honest in public.

As for "Banana Republic", it was quite provocative at the time. I was a teenager at the time, and I remember wondering what the song was so angry about - were the "black and blue uniforms, police and priests" - really so bad? It's only in the last decade that I've realised just how bad it really was.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

swampgas wrote: »

With this kind of hypocrisy and dishonesty built into the very fabric of society, how on earth can any sensible political conversation gain traction?

I don't disagree, and I don't have any answer. The point I try to keep in mind is that people, typically, adopt whatever strategy they find is successful. So if we see something like an avoidance of straight answers, it's that folk feel there's nothing to be gained by straight answers.

Now, actually taking that point and drawing some coherent conclusion out of it is something I find challenging. I just think the first assumption we need to make is "people choose this behaviour because it's what worked for them in the past".

TheLastMohican wrote: »

I think that swampgas is referring to rural thinking rather than urban.

Again, I've no doubt there's something in what you say. Yet, on the 'urban' side of things I'd be conscious of the extent to which debates here can be just mirrors of whatever debates are going on abroad. By which I mean, if you're an 'urban' atheist (just sticking with broad brush-strokes), then what better to do than have active and vigorous discussions about Creationism because, despite the best efforts of Edwin Poots, you can have such a discussion without having to confront anyone or anything that really matters in Irish life.

On the other hand, if we were to pursue the issue of changing the governance arrangements of the National Maternity Hospital to remove the Archbishop of Dublin's position as ex-Officio Chair (which I've subsequently found seems to relate to an Act passed in 1936 with very little debate), we'd actually need to have a discussion over who should own and control hospitals, and what ethics should apply. And, sure, there's no telling where that would end.

Now, again, if you were to challenge me and say "well, what exactly do you think it's all about", I'd have to shrug and say I don't know. I'm just conscious of a certain circular pattern to national debates. And of certain features that recur, particularly of the gap between the publically stated aspiration and the private practice.

Strangely enough, I think another work that at least attempted to get at it was John Waters' book "Jiving at the Crossroads", if it's still even in print anywhere. The book has a similar sense of confusion about it; I recall a particular image of him driving his fathers mail car in Roscommon with a few elderly rural passengers on board, listening to public, apparently liberal, discussions on RTE radio. I can dimly remember Mary McAleese commenting on how, when she first moved South, she was surprised how Roman Catholic ethos didn't pervade public discussion here (and, being an honest woman, she was happy to admit she'd hoped that it did - the Southern State was a disappointment in that respect.)

Yet, for all that (apparently) open and liberal debate, no real change. Because no issue of real substance was ever addressed. And, I'd suspect, the reason is that folk are happy enough with things as they are. Maybe teachers are happy enough if the governance of the primary school is nominally in the hands of an elderly priest who has trouble staying awake at board meetings, and is only seen in the place when the Communion class is getting instruction. I really don't know.