SEEKING A NATIONAL

PURPOSE

GARRET FITZGERALD

'WHATsort of Ireland do we want to see here in ten

years' time?' asked the Editor of Studies in the Summer
1963 issue.' To this question he sought an answer from
his readers, or at any rate contributions towards an
answer. None has yet appeared, and it would be a
pity if a promising discussion on a topic of fundamental
concern to all our people failed to get off the ground.
In the hope of provoking further discussion this con
tribution is offered: it is not so much an attempt at
a direct answer to the Editor's question, as an effort
to examine some of the ideas and ideals that might
usefully be borne in mind in seeking to blueprint the
future of our society.
That agreement on the future shape of our society
presupposes a measure of prior agreement on principles
is self-evident; the Editor in his own preliminary con
tribution sketched some of the areas in which such
agreement might be sought. The urgent need to develop
an agreed philosophy for social action is perhaps greater
in Ireland today than at any earlier time. Irish people
today are not the inheritors of a single, clear-cut
traditional national philosophy that could serve as a
touchstone by which to judge proposals affecting the
future of our society.
The most profound influence on our thoughts and
lives is the Christian tradition which has been such a
central feature of Irish culture for fifteen centuries.
Besides this major influence on our lives we have
also inherited a number of other streams of thought,
all of which have some place in our minds but have
not been sorted out nor fused into a coherent and
internally consistent philosophy. The more important
Winter 1964 337
1
of these influences are the rural peasant tradition, the republican
political tradition, the Irish language movement, the Protestant Anglo
Irish tradition, English liberal ideas and socialist thought. There are
other influences such as the Ulster Scots Presbyterian tradition which
has pre-eminent importance in one corner of Ireland, but they have
not contributed as notably to the main stream of ideas.

Influences on Our Thought

What is meant here by such phrases as 'streams of thought' or
'traditions' These phrases refer to influences on our thinking which
in some measure determine our reactions to events or situations. Let
me give some examples. Faced with a choice between giving priority
to agriculture or industry in some practical respect, many Irish people
with no direct interest in the land will instinctively select agriculture
as the more important or more worthwhile. In doing so they show the
strength of the rural peasant tradition which in this and other ways
(e.g. the predominantly male-orientated character of our society re
mains a potent force even in Irish urban life. Again, most people
have a sentimental regard for the Irish language-a regard which,
up to now at any rate, has survived all the incidental irritations of the
revival movement. Similarly the republican tradition is still a strong
enough force to ensure that many people would be somewhat reluctant
to inform the police about I.R.A. activities that came to their notice
-although, viewed objectively, such activities involving the raising
of private armies are treasonable. At another level the general ac
300tance in Ireland of the rightness of redistributive measures by
governments and of the desirability of social security measures clearly
owes much to the influence of liberal and socialist thinking which,
in a modified form, now commands a wide measure of general support
in Ireland.
It is perhaps unnecessary to illustrate the influence of the Christian
tradition on our lives. The sharing of a com600 code of values by
the whole community-Catholic and Protestant alike-adds a dimen
sion to Irish life which is not to be found in more mixed societies.
Our personal behaviour, whether or not it is better than in other
countries, is distinguished by the almost universal ac300tance of
standards of behaviour: the clear recognition of departures from these
standards marks us out from other societies which have moved further
away from their Christian traditions.
Belief in an after-life has a profound affect on our attitude to life
and death. Perhaps our less than passionate concern for social reform
owes something to a confused feeling that evils in this life will be
338 STUDIES
 evened up in the next; more positively it produces also a more bal
anced and mature attitude to personal tribulations and saves us from
the sense of emptiness and purposelessness of other more materialistic
societies.
From the Christian tradition we must continue to draw not only
a sense of purpose but also a firm hold on the principles of faith and
morals which are not to be minimized or played down in any mis
guided effort to reach a spurious accommodation with agnostic thought;
the rejection of indifferentism, as distinct from toleration; the re
jection of atheist and agnostic views while ac300ting the right of
individual agnostics and atheists to an equal place in a society that
must be designed to accommodate all men of good will; emphasis on
the role of the family in society-and not mere lip-service to it, as is
too often the case for example in educational matters; and ac300tance
of the need to protect the young against exploitation by pornography.
The particular form of expression of these basic principles in a
particular country at a particular time may sometimes cloud and
confuse the Christian witness. And just as modern ecumenism has
shown how aspects of Protestant theology can help Catholics to secure
a clearer insight into the spiritual truths of Christianity, so also in
the sphere of social thought, liberal and socialist ideas can help us
to an insight into the social philosophy of Christianity. The analogy
is a fair one, for just as Protestantism drew its main inspiration from
the early Church, so also liberal and socialist ideas owe a very large
part of their inspiration to the mainstream of the Christian tradition.
Thus from liberalism we can draw an emphasis on the positive
rather than the negative elements in society: a desire to minimize
unnecessary restraints on human behaviour which reduce the range
of personal moral action; a sense of tolerance which owes much to
Christian charity; the democratic ideal, finding its expression in these
islands in parliamentary democracy; a burning desire to reform evils
in society; the 'divine dissatisfaction' with things as they are that
makes society a healthier place; an inclination, as President Kennedy
suggested, to ask 'why not' rather than 'why'?; an urge to publicize
evils requiring attention rather than to hush them up; ac300tance of
change and a determination to make the best of it; encouragement
to people, and above all to young people, to think for themselves
rather than to ac300t what is handed to them; and the maintenance
of the principle of separation of Church and State which in recent
decades has come to be recognized within the Catholic Church as
redounding to the benefit of the Church as a whole.
From the socialist tradition we can acquire a sense of the inter
Winter 1964 339
dependence of human beings, which is in har600y with the con300t
of the mystical body of Christ; a rejection of selfish individualism;
a true discernment for the corrupting power of riches; an understanding
of the role of the community in modern life, and of the increased
'socialization' of society to which Pope John drew attention; and a
high regard for distributive justice.
If we can successfully graft itheseliberal and socialist ideas, themselves
largely Christian in their origin and inspiration, on to the particular
form in which the Christian tradition displays itself in our country
in this generation, we may succeed in developing an internally con
sistent philosophy of our own, appropriate to the needs of ithe times
in which we live, and clearly superior to the excessive conservatism
sometimes found in Catholic attitudes, as well as to the wishy-washy
liberalism com600 in Britain, and the doctrinaire socialism of other
countries. In that event instead of the inferiority complex and defensive
attitude which are all too com600 a600gst us as things stand at
present, we could become self-confident and missionary in our spirit,
convinced of the rightness of our fusion of these different sets of ideas,
and inspired to spread this synthesis abroad.

Diversity of Intellectual Inheritance

The contrast between the actuality of our present intellectual and
philosophical position and its potential is dramatic. At the present
time the richness of our inheritance is little more than a source of
confusion to us. Different people in whom different traditions pre
dominate find themselves unable to come to terms with each other,
because they start from totally divergent premises-and things are
made worse by the fact that each tends to arrogate to his particular
tradition the epithet 'Irish'-thus creating a confusing conflict of
exclusivities.
Moreover even within the same individual, the conflict of traditions
is operating all the time, to his own personal confusion-and that
of any people he may meet from outside Ireland. An 'average' Irishman
who believes in parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech, and
tolerance (a' l'Anglaise will com600ly also believe in the desirability
of a measure of authoritarianism in religion, censorship of books and
films, and the religious schools system. To the English observer, lacking
any knowledge of the Catholic tradition, this appears as a particularly
nefarious form of double-think, and he suspects the honesty and in
tegrity of the Irishman who adopts attitudes that appear to him to be
mutually exclusive on these issues.
But it is not the confusion or even contempt of the outside observer
340 STUDIES
that is the real disadvantage of this situation, but the sense of mental
uncertainty which the holder of such an unintegrated philosophy may
feel himself, especially when challenged on the philosophic basis for
his attitudes. Thus whereas the richness of our traditions provides us
with a unique wealth of ideas and ideals on which 1tobuild our own
way of thought, in practice, as we have made no effort to construct
such an integrated philosophy, we simply confuse ourselves and every
one else with our apparently irrational reactions to different stimuli.
Yet the combination of our reactions to these different types of
situations or different social and moral issues represents the specifically
Irish philosophy of life. No other people shares quite the same back
ground as ours-indeed the complexity of our traditions is itself very
unusual and gives our society a peculiar quality of its own. This is
particularly evident to English people visiting Ireland whose under
standable ignorance of the complexity of our background makes the
variety of our reactions to different stimuli appear quaint and un
predictable; in some matters we react as an ordinary Englishman
would, in many others our reactions are wildly divergent from his.
Now this richness of tradition is one of our greatest national
resources. We have inherited so much that is worthwhile from so
many different sources (as well as much that is second-rate that we
have a unique opportunity to select from this vast experience the
makings of a philosophy that could not alone provide us with a
satisfying way of life but could also enable us to make a worthwhile
contribution to the rest of the world.
How could we set about the task of constructing such an integrated
Irish philosophy of life Which of the many bricks available would
we select for the foundations of such a philosophy
If we are to answer this question fruitfully we must distinguish
between the intellectual content of a philosophy of life and its
emotional background. So far as the latter is concerned, part of the
inspiration for our system of ideas must come from those traditions
which are native and unique to Ireland. From the rural peasant
tradition we must continue to draw that sense of the importance of
the individual which-as the Editor pointed out in his article eighteen
600ths ago-is first a600g the human qualities of our people. From
the Gaelic cultural tradition we must draw an understanding of the
past of our people, which without the Irish language would become
a closed book to most of us. From the republican tradition we must
draw, a600g other things, that sense of self-reliance that first gave
significance to 'Sinn Fein' before these words became debased into
a badge of isolationism.
Winter 1964 341
 These native traditions have a vitally important emotional role to
play in our future development, for it is on sources like these that
we must draw for much of the inspiration to thought and action in
the years ahead. Unless our society is proud of its origins, and feels
closely linked with its past, it might develop a rootlessness which could
be inimical to the establishment of any stable society. Already there
are signs of weakness here, for the narrowness of the 'national ideals'
handed down from these traditions in their latter-day manifestations
has provoked a negative reaction on the part of many people-clearly
visible in the hostility provoked, for example, by the advocates of
'essential Irish'. However liberal and genuine may be the motivation
of many of those who thus reject the intolerance and totalitarian
attitudes that is found a600g the language revivalists and in the
republican movement, it is unhealthy that nationalist attitudes which
at least have roots in a form of patriotism should provoke such a
negative reaction, and one cannot be happy about the association of
such negative attitudes in some people with an unthinking
'modernism' that rejects everything Irish as provincial and backward.
One would hope that as the stupidities which give rise to these
negative reactions gradually die away, a healthier and more positive
relationship between Irish people and their history will develop
that will recreate the links with the past that have been weakened
by the events of the past forty-odd years. But whether or not we
succeed in developing such a relationship and in deriving a more
positive inspiration from our past than is com600ly the case today,
the fact will remain that for principles of action we must look to more
universal philosophies and wider traditions-first of all to the Christian
tradition from which we derive the basic structure of our thought,
and then to such traditions as those of British liberalism, whose
emphasis on tolerance provides a new insight into the meaning of
Christian charity, and to the socialist tradition which has helped to
develop the sense of social consciousness inherent in Christian thought
but which has been overlaid at some periods by over-emphasis on the
individual and the family at the expense of society.
How best to combine our basic Christian philosophy of life with
the socialist and liberal traditions is the challenge now facing us.
This is a challenge which because of our history is posed to us in a
unique way, and to which we have an opportunity of finding an answer
that will not come so easily to other peoples a600g most of whom
one or other of these three elements is either absent, or at any rate
much less active. In a sense it does not matter greatly how precisely
we fuse these traditions together, so long as we remain faithful to
342 STUDIES
and succeed in reconciling the main features of these different
traditions. But it is important that we should achieve some synthesis
that is internally consistent and valid, both for our own peace of mind
and for necessary growth in our own self-confidence, and also for the
benefit of those outside Ireland to whom our synthesis might have
some abiding value. It is deplorable that many Irish people, faced
with a challenge to their system of belief from people brought up in
a dominant liberal tradition, should feel unsure of themselves and
unable to defend convincingly a basically Christian philosophy with
a particular combination of liberal and socialist ideas which has
come to gain a loose but unintegrated ac300tance a600g many of our
people.

Inadequacies of Catholic Social Teaching in Ireland

What we are concerned with here is the place of man in society.
The Christian tradition has emphasized the importance of the human
personality and of the family in society, and has tended to be some
what suspicious of the State, partly for philosophical reasons, but
partly also for institutional reasons, seeing the State as a rival claimant
on man's allegiance. This Christian tradition has been deeply informed
by the con300t of the natural law which has often been misunderstood.
The con300t of the natural law is one that is becoming increasingly
rich in meaning as sociological studies reveal to us the nature of
society and man's relationship with his fellow-man in society. To give
but one example, the growing understanding of the extent to which
parental inadequacies-and above all broken homes-contribute not
just to juvenile delinquency but to unhappiness and instability a600g
young people-is providing a striking vindication of the insight of
traditional Christian teaching in regard to the natural law in so far
as it concerns 600ogamy and relations between the sexes.
It is in this area that the liberal tradition is seen at its weakest and
most anarchic, and the fact that so many sociologists are steeped
in this tradition is one of the principal weaknesses of sociological
studies today. Faced with a conflict between his liberal precon300tions
and the evidence of man's nature revealed by his studies, the modern
agnostic sociologist is disorientated and often fails to come properly
to grips with his subject. At the same time the over-theoretical approach
of many clerical sociologists has diverted their attention from studying
actual social situations in the light of the unique insight into man's
role in society which they have available to. them through the
traditional Christian teaching in regard to the natural law. In a
number of respects this teaching may be said to have anticipated
modern sociology by many centuries. Here is a field in which we in
Winter 1964 343
 Ireland are uniquely well-placed to make a contribution, by fusing
these two traditions which are so much present in our lives, living
as we do in a Christian and predominantly Roman Catholic country
within the sphere of influence of English liberal thought. It is open
to us, more than to most peoples, to gain a new insight into the
con300t of the natural law by participating in the empirical studies
into man's relationship with society which have been fostered within
the English liberal tradition, while at the same time contributing to
these studies something of the understanding of human nature which
we have gained from the Christian tradition and its inherently wise
and balanced view of human nature.
A fostering of sociological studies may at first sight appear an odd
approach to the problem of creating a valid and specifically Irish
philosophy of life, but the fact is that it is in this area that we are at
present most inadequate, while at the same time having the greatest
potentialities. If we fail through studies of this kind, a600g others,
to synthesize the Christian, liberal and socialist traditions into a system
of thought that is internally consistent and suited to the needs of our
society, this society may flounder under the pressure of the contradic
tions within itself flowing from the pressure of these different ideas.
If, for example, the liberal Irish Catholic were to find that his in
stinctive ac300tance of the rightness of much of liberal and socialist
thought was in conflict with a prevailing version of the teaching of
the Catholic Church in Ireland and its particular interpretation of
some of the doctrines of Christianity, he might eventually lose faith
in himself as well, perhaps, as in Christianity.
In criticizing aspects of Catholic social teaching in Ireland it is
only fair to observe that in many respects the Catholic Church in
Ireland has been socially advanced. It has tended to sympathize more
with the workers than with the employers, and in the countryside
has actively, and at times aggressively, championed the rights of the
small farmer. Unlike some other countries, Ireland has not suffered
from an identification of the Church with the property-owning classes
-a fate from which it was luckily saved by the Protestant Ascendancy
in the days of the penal laws.
It must also be said that in certain respects the political thinking
of the Church in Ireland has been ahead of that of other countries
as is evidenced by our Constitution which represented a break-through
from the traditional Catholic con300t of a very close Church-State
relationship. The separation of Church and State that was formally
enunciated in the 17 Constitution has been a headline for the Church
in other countries.
344 STUDIES
 Nevertheless in some respects the thinking of the Catholic Church
in Ireland has lagged far behind Catholic thought elswhere. This
has been particularly notable in relation to such matters as social
welfare. One cannot resist the conclusion that in the 1930's and 1940'S
the Irish Church took a wrong turning in its thinking on these matters.
Why this should have happened can only be a subject of speculation.
Perhaps it derived from an over-ready association of socialist ideas
with Communism, perhaps from the fact that the world had been
confronted with a totalitarian menace that had distorted many people's
view of the State, perhaps from an institutional slowness on the part
of the Irish Church to come to grips with modern society.
It says much for the great strength of Irish Catholicism-despite
all the valid criticisms that have been levelled against some of its aspects
-that the Irish Catholic laity met and overcame the difficulties thus
created for them without wavering for a moment in their devotion
to the fundamental teachings of their religion or their loyalty to the
Church, and indeed to its pastors, even where these latter may in
some respects have failed to serve them adequately. The accommoda
tion which many of the Catholic laity have reached between the
traditional anti-socialist views of many of their clergy and what they
have instinctively felt to be valid aspects of modern liberalism and
socialism is, to be sure, highly empirical and often less than self
confident. It needs-as it is the purpose of this article to insist-a
theoretical framework to support its empirical conclusions. But the
manner in which the good points of modern liberal and socialist
thought have been instinctively fitted into the basic framework of
Christian thought in Ireland by people concerned only to find em
pirical solutions to specific problems has been so remarkable that one
is tempted to suggest that a good start has already been made, inad
vertently and unconsciously, on the road to the evolution of an Irish
synthesis of these streams of thought.

Emerging Social Philosophy

What are the characteristics of the solution towards which the
inspired pragmatism of our people-politicians, administrators and
men of affairs-is at present pointing
First of all, there is a firm grasp of the fact that society must evolve
to meet the needs of its members. This has led to the development of
a system of social security which despite many glaring deficiencies re
presents a genuine attempt to fulfil some of the more basic needs and
obligations of a modern society. Again, despite excessive fears concern
ing the extension of State activity, there has developed in Ireland a
Winter 1964 345
network of State enterprises and activities appropriate to the require
ments of a modern developing economy. No serious gaps now remain
to be filled by the State, although its activities still require to be
intensified and rendered more effective in many respects.
Secondly, although Irish Churchmen have not always recognized the
actual application in practice of the principles of subsidiarity in social
affairs, there has in fact grown up in Ireland in recent years a system
of consultation and decision-making which, while far from ideal in
some respects, nevertheless is making an important contribution to the
creation of an internally balanced society. Not alone has the State kept
pace with the development of subsidiary institutions, but it has in large
measure fostered their emergence and has started consulting them in
many instances before these bodies have had much to contribute-thus
speeding up their development. Commissions of Enquiry-a traditional
method of decentralizing decision-making and ensuring that executive
and legislative decisions are in accord with the general trend of public
opinion-have been supplemented by a wide range of consultative
bodies, many of them, like the Committee on Industrial Organization,
the Irish National Productivity Committee and the National Industrial
Economical Council, comprising representatives of unions, employers
and civil servants.
To the extent that this proliferation of consultations has strengthened
the power of the civil service, and weakened the authority of parlia
ment, it may be deplored. But the consultations themselves are a good
development, and any weakness in the new system-which in its
present form represents almost a vocational-bureaucratic system of
government-should be remedied by strengthening and improving
parliament and its operation, rather than by weakening this new de
velopment which is fundamentally healthy and democratic, and has
grown up as a pragmatic response to the needs of government in
modern society.
The further development of our society along these lines of govern
ment by consultation and consent is faced with one important obstacle.
This new type of democratic society can work effectively only if all
concerned are persuaded that society is being organized in the interests
of all, and not for the benefit of a minority. It is far from clear that
this conviction yet exists a600g the mass of our people, despite the
evident goodwill and good intentions of so many of those involved in
our public affairs and in this process of decentralized decision-making.
Here the great obstacle is the wage-relationship and the traditional
antipathy of interests between the employer and worker, and perhaps
even more important between the propertied man and the man de
346 STUDIES
pendent on his earned income. In Ireland this antipathy is not, perhaps,
as strong as elsewhere. We are spared the class bitterness which is a
feature, for example, of British society. But if class bitterness is largely
absent, confidence between the classes is not present. Very many
working-people still view the rest of the community as 'Them', lumping
together the Government, the civil service and the propertied classes
as a loose conspiracy against their interests. Even more marked is the
petty-bourgeois bitterness against the workers-which finds all too
frequent expression in criticism of the unions and of the indiscipline
of workers. If there is any bitterness in the Irish class conflict, it is 'to
be found a600g this group rather than on the other side of the class
barrier.
Despite its traditional sympathy with the underdog-the small
farmer or the exploited worker-the contribution of the Irish Church
to the debate on property has not always been a happy one. The em
phasis placed on the rights of private property and the all-too-frequent
and often irrelevant denunciations of Communism, socialism and any
other '-isms' that might threaten rights of property has tended to
strengthen the 'gombeen mentality' of some of the bourgeoisie, invest
ing it at times with a spurious religious significance. At the same time
the efforts of the workers to improve their lot, while viewed with
sympathy by many of the clergy, have at times been unfairly branded
as socialist or worse.
This is another area in which our social philosophy has much to
learn from non-Catholic sources. It is all very well to insist upon the
right to own private property-which no one in this all-too-bourgeois
island challenges-but it would be even more appropriate to emphasize
the corrupting power of property whose effects are at time glaringly
evident a600g our farming community and a600g the middle classes.
The land-hunger of the Irish countryside, which still breaks out from
time to time in local 'land wars', and which often divides members of
the same family against each other, has its explanation, but not its
justification, in the history of the nineteenth century. The same cannot
be said for the devotion of the merchant families of many Irish towns
to the accumulation of wealth, or to the growing preoccupation of
people in many walks of life with the ups and downs of the stock
market. Beside these materialistic preoccupations even the bitterest
members of the working-classes-and surprisingly few are bitter
appear in a favourable light, while the anxiety of many people with
limited means to 'keep up with the Joneses' seems pathetic rather than
blameworthy when contrasted with the grosser materialism of some
of their better-off brethren.
Winter 1964 347
 The right to ownership of some private property is unchallengeable
indeed even in Communist societies it is conceded in practice. It is
pointless to waste time asserting this right, when all the abuses of
property-ownership remain to be challenged and fought. It would be
more in accord with the basic tenets of Christianity, and well in accord
with socialist thought, that we should instead think in terms of the
duties of property-ownership, and its responsibilities. For example, we
might usefully pay more attention to such moral questions as the nature
of ownership of shares in a modern business enterprise which so often
carries with it no responsibility whatever for the management of the
business or the conditions of employment of the workers, but which
entitles their owner to a share in the profits. Is the shareholder in any
proper sense an 'owner' of such a business, or is he merely a lender of
600ey to it on preferential terms And if so, is it in the public interest
that he should be entitled to an unrestricted return on his loan Is it
possible that the medieval Church, puzzled as it was about the problem
of usury in a period when economic knowledge was extremely limited,
nevertheless had an insight into the question of interest payments that
our more sophisticated society has yet to achieve Again, how desirable
is it that children should inherit large fortunes from their parents-as
distinct from modest competences Is it good for society, or for the
children
These are the kinds of problems that we could usefully study, seek
ing to evolve a social philosophy that would be true to Christian
principles and would at the same time seek to extract all that is good
from the insights of socialist thought. When separated from the
materialistic view of life that mars them, these true insights often
serve as a corrective to certain emphases that have been over-stressed
in the development of Christian teaching.
These issues have been deliberately posed in theoretical terms. One
could list almost endlessly the social reforms that need to be tackled,
the practical problems that have to be solved. But we are too empirical
in our approach to problems, fearful, perhaps, of involvement in ideo
logical controversy such as that which divided the country over the
Mother and Child scheme in 1951 We cannot without serious cost
continue indefinitely to avoid these issues, working from problem to
problem, without ever deciding what guiding principles we are trying
to follow. A people needs not only to act rightly, but also to know how
it is right to act.
In attempting to formulate a workable Irish social philosophy we
must, however, face up to and take full account of the weaknesses and
strengths of our society as it has evolved up to the present time. Thus
348 STUDIES
we must be conscious of the fact that the pressures against any form of
cultural formation in Ireland are powerful. The strong anti-cultural
bias of a large part of the community which finds its reflection even
a600g some members of the teaching profession; the cramming and
examination system; the pervasive emphasis on sport-for which the
clergy through their influence in the secondary schools and in organiza
tions like the G.A.A. bear some responsibility-all of these are formid
able obstacles to overcome. How can we pretend to equal, much less
to lead other countries if we cannot eradicate the anti-intellectual, anti
cultural attitude of mind that is so com600 in our country This
attitude finds expression in the flagrant pressure towards conformism
in the schools, the discouragement of original thought or effort, the
cult of the second-rate, the recurrent disregard for and instinct to
destroy things of beauty. There is indeed much here to be deplored
and to be eliminated: the gross materialism of part of the property
owning bourgeoisie; the elevation of sport and drink to leading roles
in society; the weakness of some aspects of family life in what is still a
male-dominated society; the lack of any adequate appreciation of the
public as against the private or national interest.
There is also another side to our way of life: the sense of the
importance of the individual as a person and the strong sense of com
munity; the deeply-held religious and moral attitudes that provide such
a firm basis for society; the richness and diversity of our inheritance;
the growing social conscience of professional people and of the new
management class which might ultimately spread to the property
owning bourgeoisie. On these positive features of our society we can
build, confident that these are fundamental, whereas most of the
unpleasant features are accidental and capable of being remedied.
Irish Society of the Future
What kind of a society might one hope to see emerging if these
positive features could be developed and the undesirable aspects of
Irish life could be lessened considerably Though one personal answer
to this question may have no particular validity, it may help to focus
attention on the problems involved in bringing such a society into
being.
First of all, this society would be firmly and unequivocally Christian
in its inspiration. The experiences of other countries are sufficient
warning as to the ill-effects of banishing religion into the churches.
But this Christian society would have firm roots in the different Chris
tian churches, above all in Catholicism as the religion of the majority
which has played a unique part in forming the Irish character. A
Winter 1964 349
 wishy-washy undenominationalism, such as prevails in the British
educational system, is a hopeless basis for society.
This society would be specifically Irish in its inspiration, proud of its
origins and determined that the culture and way of life in Ireland
should have a high reputation in the world. This Irish culture would
draw on the mixed origins of our society, Gaelic, Anglo-Irish, Ulster
Scots and English, and would be neither exclusive nor sectional. It
would glory in our mixed inheritance, despising none of it and elevat
ing no part to a position of pre-eminence over the rest.
In such a society narrowness and intolerance would be regarded as
vices meriting social disapproval. Bigotry in any form would not be
tolerated; sectarian organizations dedicated to promoting the personal
temporal interests of members of particular religions would be uni
versally frowned upon.
Relations between North and South would be based on wholehearted
ac300tance of the principle that political unity must be preceded by a
unity of hearts; the Government of Northern Ireland as a provincial
administration of the United Kingdom would meanwhile receive the
unequivocal recognition that is its due.
In the social sphere the obligations of man to his fellow-man would
be recognized as a fundamental fact of social life: provision for social
welfare as the first duty of a community to its citizens. Property would
be a trust to be guarded and justified: the accumulation and handing
on of great wealth would be seen as a social evil tending to corrupt
alike those who accumulate and those who inherit. The role of the
profit motive would be recognized; the market economy would be pre
served by the stringent intervention of the public authorities against
600opolies and cartels. The State would itself be active in social and
economic life but operating in a diffused way through subordinate
organizations by means of consultation and agreement between the
interests concerned. Society would be consumer-orientated, but not
dominated by consumer advertising which would be restrained in the
interest of public morality, good taste, and economic sanity.
The pre-eminent role of politics and of parliament would be restored
by political reforms and, as a result, a healthier political atmosphere
created. The pressure of local interests on national politics would be
diminished by a growing sense of the primacy of the national interest
over the interests of individual localities within the State; the pre
occupation of politicians with the grievances of their constituents
would be minimized by the provision of more professional and more
effective channels for such complaints.
Art and culture would command public esteem; and the preserva
350 STUDIES
tion of open spaces and of historic features in our towns and countryside
would be given a high priority. Votes would be sought and found by
striving to preserve rather than to destroy.
Such a society would be open-not free from all considerations of
social distinction, for this is impracticable in human affairs, but without
barriers. Educational opportunity would be a primary feature; and
while 600ey might help to buy an education, absence of it would not
prevent people of brains from fulfilling their promise and making their
full contribution to society.
The mingling of those holding different religious views would be
encouraged, subject to the need to preserve a religious formation of
youth; and at least in the later stages of university education Irish
youths of different religious backgrounds would have an opportunity
to meet and to learn about each others' ideas.
Censorship would be strictly confined to the protection of the young
from commercial exploitation. And youth would be encouraged to face
the modern world rather than be completely sheltered from its mani
festations until the moment of being thrown into its maelstrom.
The sense of nationality enjoyed by Irish people in such a society
would be simply pride in their country and their roots in it, and in
the society of which they form a part. It would be neither narrow nor
exclusive, containing no hatred of any other country, nor passion for
revenge or self-assertion. This local loyalty would be accompanied by
a sense of belonging to Europe, and by a sense of inter-dependence
with the rest of the world.
There are no doubt some who might feel little sympathy with the
idea of a Christian society, and might feel more drawn to the material
istic world of Britain or elsewhere. Others would prefer a narrow
Gaelic, Republican, and sectarian community. Others again might
regard any such attempt to visualize the future and to seek to give it
shape as visionary and utopian, the work of dreamers and fools. But
recent years have shown that especially a600g young people in Ireland
there exists a solid body of thought that rejects all these attitudes, and
that is profoundly Christian, idealistic, liberal, proudly Irish but anti
pathetical to traditional nationalism, outward-looking and reconciled
to the better manifestations of the modern world. This body of opinion
is seeking a coherent philosophy, which it has yet to evolve. This article
represents a groping in that direction. If others follow this up with
their own contribution to this discussion, seeking to make explicit their
ideals and ambitions for their country, these gropings may in time take
shape in a modern Christian society.
RolandBurkeSavage,S.J., Studies,Summer1963,pp.
1cf. 'Ireland:1963-1973'.
115-24(Vol.LII, No. 206).
Winter 1964 351