May 22, 2011
Weekend Reading: FitzGerald on Seeking a National Purpose
The funeral of Dr Garret Fitzgerald was held on Sunday. At the end of a week of national self-reflection an early missive of the late statesman deserves revisiting. In the Winter 1964 issue of Studies Fitzgerald addressed the question what sort of Ireland do we want to see here in ten years time? The article is entitled Seeking a National Purpose and is well worth a read. Fitzgerald opens by stating that ‘the urgent need to develop an agreed philosophy for social action is perhaps greater today in Ireland than at any earlier time’. If that was true then it is just as true now. Fitzgerald then highlights a selection of the influences on our thought – beginning, naturally, with Christianity and republicanism but also incorporating ‘the Protestant Anglo-Irish Tradition’ and ‘English liberal ideas and socialist thought’. The inclusion of these latter two elements must have been visionary (and controversial) at the time. Fitzgerald’s recognition of the importance of the Anglo-Irish tradition came almost fifty years before Fintan O’Toole proclaimed Anglophobia dead in Saturday’s Irish Times.
The article then develops a thoughtful discussion of the usefulness, but also the limits, of Irish Catholicism and the need to draw on wider influence to enrich Irish thought. So, 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; acceptance 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 accept 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.
There is much, almost too much, in this. We can pick out the cornerstones of a philosophy on personal freedom that sought to ‘minimize unnecessary restraints on human behaviour which reduce the range of personal moral action’. It is not surprising that Fitzgerald would go on to lead a ‘constitutional crusade’ that involved the first referendum on divorce in 1986 – ten years before the people proved ready for it. From socialism, Fitzgerald advocated a recognition of the ‘interdependence of human beings’, ‘a rejection of selfish individualism’ and ‘an understanding of the role of the community in modern life’. It is unsurprising that, as an intellectual, he sought to achieve ‘an internally consistent philosophy of our own’. He would graft the lesson of liberalism and socialism onto the Irish tradition to develop a philosophy that would be ‘superior to the excessive conservatism sometimes found in Catholic attitudes, as well as to the wishy-washy liberalism common in Britain, and the doctrinaire socialism of other countries’. Though still young, this was Fitzgerald as statesman already – a label which always fit him much better than ‘politician’. He proceeds to discuss the difficulties of synthesizing these different influences and traditions. And so:
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.
On the emotional background, Fitzgerald acknowledges the need to be mindful of the past because ‘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’. He then returns to the argument for fusing ideas from liberalism and socialism with Ireland’s traditions drawn from Christianity. However any synthesis must be ‘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’. These arguments continue to engage today. While the influence of the Catholic Church may be greatly diminished following two decades of scandal the continuing influence of Christianity on social values is clear. Fitzgerald’s challenge for a convincing synthesis has not been met – perhaps it cannot be met – but it continues to merit debate. The remainder of the article touches a wide range of subjects related to meeting this challenge. The critique comes to a strong climax:
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 common 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.
Some of these polemics resonate less well today. This week has seen fine displays of, and appropriate appreciation for, Irish intellectual, cultural and sporting achievements. But some of Fitzgerald’s arguments remain compelling. Can anyone disagree that ‘gross materialism’ has damaged the state immeasurably this past decade? Or, in a week when two female Heads of State gave a masterclass in diplomacy, that the ongoing male domination of our politics and public life is a scandal? If Ireland has overcome some of the obstacles that Fitzgerald identified – not least because of his own efforts – too many of the criticisms still ring true. What then was the (then) future Taoiseach’s wish for the future?
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.
As a great statesman is laid to rest we can ask again what sort of Ireland do we want to see here in ten years time? Our answer might begin where Garret Fitzgerald’s ended.
