nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Irish Problem of Cohesion: When solidarity becomes groupthink

[Deleted User]

We have the good fortune to live in, arguably, one of the most successful and cohesive states in Europe. There is no serious class-antagonism like that which observed in England, Belgium or France.
We are prosperous, unlike other socially-cohesive countries in the Mediterranean and eastern bloc.
In some ways, we have a lot to be happy about. Irish social cohesion is an undeniable fact.

We have probably always been cohesive. We were cohesive when the nuns and the priests were running the show; we were cohesive when the banks replaced them.

Does our social cohesion give rise to groupthink, is it stagnant?

I was listening to David Quinn, of all people, on a podcast where he was harking on about Irish groupthink; saying it's been the same old story from the Catholic era to the so-called "woke" generation. Now, I dislike that man too, but he has a point.

Our society is so cohesive, that any disruptive ideas are immediately rubbished, or repudiated. There is a certain unwillingness to engage in debate about fundamental change, which is why we have neither socialists nor libertarians.

Sometimes we are a country of unimaginative, unintelligent centrists. Too afraid to rock the boat.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

listermint

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is there evidence that the better-educated were more prone to emigrate? Certainly the stereotype of the Irish emigrant for most of the period we are speaking of is a man of limited education who will work as a navvy or in some other unskilled occupation. Obviously that wasn't everybody — the Irish nurse was another stereotype — but I do question the suggestion that emigrants were, on average, better educated than those who stayed at home.

I honestly think that's emigrant think and doesn't actually play out in reality. There's ample talent based in various multinationals here with Irish people heading up entire European divisions within huge world wide companies.

The vast majority of emigrants from the island would have lower salary range employment opportunities at destination.

So tbh it's a bit of a nonsense.

Peregrinus

Is there evidence that the better-educated were more prone to emigrate? Certainly the stereotype of the Irish emigrant for most of the period we are speaking of is a man of limited education who will work as a navvy or in some other unskilled occupation. Obviously that wasn't everybody — the Irish nurse was another stereotype — but I do question the suggestion that emigrants were, on average, better educated than those who stayed at home.

sameoldname

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why was it (or why it might still be) conservative?

I am blaming (blaming is the wrong word) rural cohesion and an insular 'outlook' which naturally followed, but what caused it?

I'm not interested in blaming the RC Church here, as I come from a different flavour, and we were exactly the same. There is something in contemporary Irish history, say from 1870 onwards, which just detests disruptive movements until they must eventually be confronted.

If you look across Europe, minorities and minor political groups were typically able to express their opposition to the status-quo far more freely.

It must have something to do with the fact we didn't have an industrial revolution, and were slow to urbanise. In hindsight, this might be question for the historians.

Ireland was a poor country but with a generally well educated population. The well educated tended to leave the country and take their progressive ideas with them. Once Ireland started to become wealthy the well educated stayed and some of those that had left returned home and thus the country became more progressive. You see similar in Poland and the like. It will be interesting to see what happens there as the economy continues to improve.

One possible explanation perhaps?

[Deleted User]

Gbear wrote: »

With that said, Ireland was an extremely conservative country until quite recently, and still is in many ways.

Why was it (or why it might still be) conservative?

I am blaming (blaming is the wrong word) rural cohesion and an insular 'outlook' which naturally followed, but what caused it?

I'm not interested in blaming the RC Church here, as I come from a different flavour, and we were exactly the same. There is something in contemporary Irish history, say from 1870 onwards, which just detests disruptive movements until they must eventually be confronted.

If you look across Europe, minorities and minor political groups were typically able to express their opposition to the status-quo far more freely.

It must have something to do with the fact we didn't have an industrial revolution, and were slow to urbanise. In hindsight, this might be question for the historians.

Gbear

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I wouldn't call any of those movements disruptive. They were long overdue. Disgracefully overdue, even.

Ireland was late to modernise on all 3 examples, especially abortion and divorce.

That's partly because of our unusual constitutional arrangement, but if the public mood was faster to change, constitutional amendment wouldn't have moved at such a snail's pace.

We probably have the weather to thank for the success of the divorce referendum.

On this point, I think there's some merit. I think the momentum held by FF and FG created an unusually static political environment for an extended period of time. It seems fairly unusual that you'd have such a dominant duopoly in a multi-party proportional system. I think those entrenchments are starting to fray a bit, with SF creating another pole in politics. With this in mind, it's plausible that there was a bit of foot-dragging by a political establishment that took votes for granted and was afraid of tackling big issues.

With that said, Ireland was an extremely conservative country until quite recently, and still is in many ways.
The 8th Amendment was passed with a huge majority in 1983.
A more restrictive stance on abortion was introduced and only defeated very narrowly as recently as 2002.

There has been a huge change in Irish culture in my lifetime (I'm 31). Increases in wealth, internationalism and education have, IMO, massively accelerated the progression of Irish society. It's only natural that as you shift away from conservative, hierarchical society to a more independent progressive one, you're more likely to make significant changes.

[Deleted User]

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

This suggestion seems so far off the wall to me as to be almost ridiculous.

Have you missed the three big societal changes that the people have voted for here in the last few years, namely the legalisation of abortion, SSM and to a lesser degree the allowing of divorce.

I wouldn't call any of those movements disruptive. They were long overdue. Disgracefully overdue, even.

Ireland was late to modernise on all 3 examples, especially abortion and divorce.

That's partly because of our unusual constitutional arrangement, but if the public mood was faster to change, constitutional amendment wouldn't have moved at such a snail's pace.

We probably have the weather to thank for the success of the divorce referendum.

Hodors Appletart

This suggestion seems so far off the wall to me as to be almost ridiculous.

Have you missed the three big societal changes that the people have voted for here in the last few years, namely the legalisation of abortion, SSM and to a lesser degree the allowing of divorce.

We have a functioning albeit very disruptive trade union system in place for the public sector where teachers, guards, nurses regularly threaten to, or actually do go out on strike.

I get that there are other scocietal ills, most especially around housing/rental but Ireland is far from unique in that regard - the Swedish government has just fallen because of it and a plethora of cities in other western democracies are facing similar or worse issues in that regard - the thing is though, Ireland hasn't yet reached a critical mass of affected people and the majority hasn't deemed it a big enough issue (yet, I might add. I think the next election will see a change there, but that's at least 3 years away).

But to take another example, look at the water charge debacle. A critical mass of people protested and got that changed.

I wholly disagree with your argument, and I think it may somewhat stem from your own, or someone close to you, personal circumstance.

[Deleted User]

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

David Quinn is on the outside looking in now and he hates it. It's easy for him to castigate those inside than it is for him to ask how he ended up outside.

Do you know that logical fallacy, the appeal to hypocrisy, aka 'tu quoques'?

I think it applies here. Yes, Quinn's words ring hollow, but his beliefs do not detract from the fundamental point. We are such an integrated society, that fledgling disruptive moveents can never succeed. Anything confrontational is rejected.

That's been the general theme of the state since independence, whether the prevailing narrative was religious, nationalist, or liberal. Maybe it will change as we become increasingly urbanised.

I've been using words like 'cohesion' and 'ingrained' to describe Irish society, and 'insular' would be another one. I think it all boils down to never wanting to piss-off the neighbours.
That makes for a peaceful society, but it also promotes groupthink. It's not a particularly constructive outlook.

Manach

As a Conservative and knowing history, it goes beyond saying there has been significant change in Irish society that is ni'gh unprecedented in the annals of the nation. However, for Ireland to remain a national polity there has to be some form of unity and iso n one sense solidarity is a plus. However, for the progressives are now putting their faith instead of religion into the secular doctrine of the day while traditionalists (for want of a better word) care not a whit for the newly minted shiboleths is being undermined. The ancient Greeks has a word, statis, meaning that when the bonds that tie a community are loosened then civic solidarity breaks into camps with the fracturing of that polity. Now that the government has seen how easily it can revoke fundamental rights, without hardly a murmur of protest from societal partners, then it will be interesting to see if the counter-reaction when it comes rocks or sinks the boat.

[Deleted User]

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Sometimes we are a country of unimaginative, unintelligent centrists. Too afraid to rock the boat.

It's a Catch-22: stability or susceptibility to populism.

Populism per se is not a bad thing, even though it has (in my view) attracted an undeserved negative connotation. It depends what you mean by populism and the nature of the policy being advanced. Dismissing a policy on the basis of it being by definition "populist" is nothing more than lazy thinking. For instance, those who opted to Brexit in the UK were clearly following what would be called a populist path, but that doesn't invalidate or undermine their decision. In fact, many would argue, post facto, that it was a decision taken ahead of its time (depending on your political persuasion, of course).

Brexit could never happen in Ireland, for the reasons you have outlined. We are a tamed, pacified nation. If the EU were a classroom, Ireland would be the prefect - always nodding our heads, "doing the right thing" (which is code for following other people's orders), and generally following rather than leading. The same is true of the COVID-19 response. There is such an outlandish fear among the unimaginative, terrified bureaucracy in government, that any idea of rocking the boat, or "doing a Sweden", would be unimaginable.

Things were far more creative and imaginative from the early 1960s onward. Indeed, those days were far more challenging than any challenge we face today. Of course, the vocabulary has changed too. What would have been a mere "challenge" in the 1960s is known as a "crisis" today. But at least many of the leaders then were not as supine as the ones that gather in government buildings today.

What changed?

I'm not sure. Perhaps the trauma of The Troubles had something to do with it. Perhaps the parochial nature of our society, held together by the jaws of the Catholic Church. They had the power, we simply followed suit - again, tamed by authority.

Things do appear to be un-weaving at the seams, though. Whether that turns out to be a good thing is an altogether different question. As I alluded to earlier, populism per se is not a bad thing.

Brussels Sprout

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I was listening to David Quinn, of all people, on a podcast where he was harking on about Irish groupthink; saying it's been the same old story from the Catholic era to the so-called "woke" generation. Now, I dislike that man too, but he has a point.

Our society is so cohesive, that any disruptive ideas are immediately rubbished, or repudiated. There is a certain unwillingness to engage in debate about fundamental change, which is why we have neither socialists nor libertarians.

Sometimes we are a country of unimaginative, unintelligent centrists. Too afraid to rock the boat.

This all seems backwards to me. The likes of David Quinn, or anyone else who uses the terms "woke" or "groupthink", are almost always former centrists themselves, who have not moved with the times and are feeling discombobulated.

They aren't disruptive. They're the opposite. They're the ones who opposed the disruptive forces and are now relics as the Overton Window has shifted leaving them outside and wondering "What happened to society?", "Why can't I get away with saying this anymore?", "Why am I no longer shown respect for doing X when I was before?"

It's practically why it's always conservatives who use those terms. They knew the world as being one way but now it's another. They're confused, angry and scared and they're blaming the rest of society for making everything worse, as they see it. They resisted those changes but they lost the battle. Rather then examine why it is that things changed they prefer to instead lash out, presumably because it is easier to do that than to engage in some self-reflection. There's an entire media universe that will help them fan those flames too and keep them from asking why things have changed.

David Quinn is on the outside looking in now and he hates it. It's easy for him to castigate those inside than it is for him to ask how he ended up outside.

If we go back 40 years in Ireland homosexual acts were illegal, divorce was illegal, abortion was illegal, marital rape was seen as an oxymoron and the Catholic Church ruled the roost. Changes to any of the above would have been seen as disruptive ideas and yet one by one they fell. Through our liberal use of referenda it's actually easier to enact change here than in a lot of western countries.

Wanderer78

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

"Ingrained" would be a better word than cohesive, probably. People are so absorbed in the status-quo that they will never challenge it.

Oh I strongly disagree, there's astonishing anger over housing, what's currently proposed won't work, so by the time the ge comes around......

We re now in a situation that many parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts realise their nearest and dearest are in serious trouble regarding this, ffg are in serious trouble. it ll be a sf lead government, and it ll be a strong win to, ffg are defaulting to what they know best, a fire sector lead approach, and it won't work, it ll just make the situation far worse, resulting in their falling, you can see it a mile off, and disturbingly, they can't.

[Deleted User]

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Splitting is beginning to occur, I think this will be shown even more so during the next ge, we have followed the group down the wrong road, resulting in the same divisons as other countries, the next ge will be a blood bath

I hear this a lot, and I wish I could share those people's optimism.

This country had a housing crisis in the 1960's, which was even more devastating than anything we witness today. Nothing came of it, because nobody could generate a protest.

The people are just so ingrained in their communities that they cannot, or will not, protest against their neighbour.

"Ingrained" would be a better word than cohesive, probably. People are so absorbed in the status-quo that they will never challenge it.

Wanderer78

Splitting is beginning to occur, I think this will be shown even more so during the next ge, we have followed the group down the wrong road, resulting in the same divisons as other countries, the next ge will be a blood bath