Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Sean: Before proceeding further, what do you mean by what you call ‘cob-web’-like thinking? Can
you demonstrate its particular significance to me?
Seamus: Certainly. But I should say that despite the many inferior works that claim a ‘sociological’
perspective and the like, there is no real mystery about thinking sociologically. In many ways it is
the same as thinking like a detective, rather than like a priest, a lawyer, an economist or a
psychologist. Much can be made both of the subject matter about which a sociologist thinks as well
as the manner in which he thinks about it. The real difference, if you accept the difference in how a
detective thinks from others, lies in the sociologist’s social concerns. Accordingly, being concerned
with social issues, and because he works on the notion, whether by induction or conviction, that all
such phenomena have a social cause or origin, he becomes habituated to a practice that we
identify as sociology – and that is why we call him a sociologist. Now, how he thinks thereafter is
best served by thinking like a detective and by making constant comparisons as well as historical
reviews of his material. In this sense you can see the relevance of the reference to ‘cobwebs’ and
to detectives. Moreover, whatever science one embarks upon in a systematic way, it will become
apparent – to most people at any rate – that value judgements have to rest upon something prior
to themselves, not just in time, but in scope, in depth and above all else in historical integrity. So,
whoever you are, if you want to appraise something, or, indeed, comment on it, or, indeed, open
your mouth, without a philosophic base, your underwear is bound to show. Let ten men speak for
five minutes in the Dail – thereafter they may as well sit down, for their interests – nay, their
character – is perfectly apparent. And if you got them to admit their Bank Balance, their Date of
Birth, and the number of people in their immediate family, coupled with the accent, you might come
to believe that you know everything about them. As to examples, the best think to do is to read
Weber’s work, especially The Protestant Ethic for his particular use of the Ideal Typical Construct.
You could equally read Marx’s Work or Durkheim`s work, or, indeed, have a gander at Michael
gnatieff’s treatment of John Howard in A Just Measure Of Pain. We will have recourse to Ignatieff
again ( See WebPages 14 and 15), but for another purpose. Here you will find a very skilful
analysis of Howard’s personality, the approach to which you will observe examines his times, his
psychological makeup, as well as the social environment and attachments he makes, the
significance of religious (Quaker)-cum-penal notions, and all with a critical eye to the
contemporaneity of such a confluence of values. Here you have a rather neat and compelling
nexus (‘cobweb’) of social relations examined in a sociological manner and an expert assessment
made of the man and the reformer.
Sean: But surely a Sociological Imagination means more than one thing? C. Wright Mills thought of
it as essential.
Seamus: Of course, but as conceived by Mills and other sociologists it can be conceived in several
ways. As I said it practice it means conceiving of things in cobweb-fashion. Of itself it is best
understood as an appeal to philosophy -- a philosophy that necessarily includes a view of the
philosophy of history. Why is this? All sociologists – Mills no less -- know only too well that one
cannot understand the parts unless one can configure the whole. The great contributions made to
economics and the manner in which Western democratic States are run is grounded to a great
extent on a consensus derived from a macro (or total) view of economic phenomena. In other
areas, a similar notion of the ‘whole’ makes partial policies meaningful and invariably makes it
necessary for the sociologist to trace its way back to some view of history. So, even in works like A
Description Of The Criminal Justice System, 1950-1970, a local matter seeking comprehension, or
The Last Of The Betagii, the last execution of a woman in Ireland, the phenomena attaching to
both items are, on the one hand traceable to a work-a-day totality, but their further significance
must be seen in their respective histories. This, I think, is one way in which C. Wright Mills
understood the Sociological Imagination. In this respect he makes it plain that human beings
cannot be understood apart from the social and historical structures in which they are formed and
in which they interact. This led him to great types of analyses. In The Power Elite (1957), for
example, (with some whiffs of Thorsten Veblen’s The Vested Interests and the Common Man some
forty years earlier) he talks about the levels of power in American society. Under the power elite,
two others prevail. At the bottom are the masses: these are unorganized, ill informed, and
powerless; they are controlled and manipulated by the power group. Mills depicts how the
disorganized masses (in America) are not only economically dependent and exploited but are quite
removed from the very organizations, which hold the key to power.
Sean: You have already referred (in Webpage 2 History/Anthropology) to the importance of Comte
and his concern to document the hierarchy of consciousness through the history of the sciences.
And I do not want to go back over old ground. But it is significant that it was also Comte who in this
very historical light coined the word Sociology.
Seamus: Comte wanted to discover the series through which the human race was
necessarily transformed. Now Darwin would never use that language, but he was
doing something similar in another way. Both men were concerned to understand how
civilised Europe evolved – particularly from a family of apes. Darwin’s work resulted in
the Ascent of Man and we are widely aware of his findings, which (except for Catholic Ireland and
the fearful side of America) are accepted by the scientific community one way or another. Comte’s
widespread work, on the other hand, is neither so well known nor so acceptable. Comte’s answer
came in the form of what he called The Law of Human Progress, according to which each branch
of the known sciences purportedly passes through three stages, hence The Law of Three Stages.
These stages not only parallel individual human development, but just as we are passionately
devout in childhood, critical and unaccepting in adolescence and positively philosophic in
manhood, so, too, do all our sciences pass through three definite and separate epistemological
phases. The first is the Theological or fictitious state, which gives way to the Metaphysical or
abstract way of knowing, which in turn gives way to the Scientific or positive way of knowing. Now
these conditions of consciousness or ways of knowing are cumulative in that each stage is
reached only after a period of entering, realising and destroying the stage prior to it (not unlike the
Hegelian dialectic, perhaps). In the first or theological degree, men seek and are content with
supernatural causes for phenomena that they cannot explain. First and final causes are ascribed to
all kinds of things and anyone brought up in religious belief will appreciate the firm adherence to
the supernatural cause, a cause without sensual extension, human understanding or philosophical
discourse. The supernatural belief is invariably dogmatic. Religion resists the limits as well as the
onset of further human understanding. In the second phase, the metaphysical state, abstract and
personified forces are posited as the driving and creative forces of the universe and its
phenomena. And, eventually, in the final or third phase, absolute answers are abandoned as vain
and, indeed, unnecessary, and are replaced more realistically with their laws, that is, the invariable
relations of succession and resemblance.
Sean: In some ways it is helpful to regard Comte (with Saint Simon) as a founding father – if
sociologist’s belief in such things as ‘fathers’. But to ransack a man’s imagination one must study
him in his time, in his ambitions, efforts, and successes as well as in his limitations and failures.
For this a critical faculty is required as well as a comparative facility. Otherwise we cannot know
how others like Marx, Weber and Durkheim, who had an even greater influence on the discipline,
differ from each other – which is really why I asked if you regarded the discipline as one sociology
or a collection of sociologists’ writings?
Seamus: I think sociology is better regarded as both. There is what such writers have in common
as well as how they differ from each other. Sean: What, if anything does Marx, Weber and
Durkheim have in common?
Seamus: Well, for one thing it seems to me that they all owe an extraordinary debt to Hegel.
Durkheim and Marx took from his ability to align logic with world events and, indeed, an objective
world dialectic that carried things historically and necessarily forward. Further, his treatment of
logic, for example, was brilliant and his explanation of explanation. Also extraordinary was the
manner in which former philosophers were (according to himself) encapsulated in his own
ingenious schema. Others did not overtly make such a boast, but it lies implicit in Marxism. Then
there is the theory of universals. Hegel managed to extend and re-categorise the Kantian modules
or categories through which, like rose tinted glass, Kant claimed we invariably reason. Categories
such as quantity, quality, modality, etc. Hegel, supporting a special allocation and significance to
what he calls the more ‘sensuous universals’, reads the philosophy of history as a logical process,
that is, a process of development that is historical and dialectically necessary given its ontology to
date. In some ways the logical necessity in history is a quality of all sociological writers, at least of
the grand theorists. Moreover, Weber, like Hegel, cannot be easily pigeonholed into either the
"materialist" camp of the Marxists or the "idealist" camp of the traditionalists. When you pit Weber
alongside Marx and Durkheim, it seems that Weber in some ways is not a sociologist, but rather a
social psychologist.
Sean: That analysis is rather messianic in itself. No one doubts but that the constant conversation
between what is within and what is without confirms itself anew with each generation. We might
more appropriately take up this question again when we come to talk about Sinn Fein/IRA in this
context in 13.b. Crime And Irish Politics Might I hearken back to what you said about Weber’s use
of the Ideal Typical construct? How useful do you think it is to Weberian sociology?
Seamus: The ideal typical construct is a brilliantly contrived simplicity and it represents an
intensification of logical integration at the centre of many of Weber’s demonstrative arguments. It is
the inference made syllogistic or, in other words, the logical representation taken to an approved
logical completion, from which it is easier to retreat somewhat to demonstrate the probability of
several hypotheses. But this does not mean that it is more real – on the contrary, it is meant to be
abstract and in some ways unread; for in this way it allows Weberian analysis to focus upon and
articulate a spectrum of social reality, to allocate categories to it, to formulate hypotheses about it
and generally to know it by comparison with other competing formulae. It proceeds on the lines we
have mentioned, not as to their truth but as to their plausibility. It is enlisted in aid of our
understanding of sociology and the thought- ordering process of empirical reality In some ways I
think Marx uses it to delineate the modes of production in history: only with Marx they are never
represented as ‘ideal typical’ but as time and modes-of-specific-production.
Sean: But we never know how people behave, do we? So, how can we talk about these matters?
Seamus: Because, contrary to what you say, we know precisely how people behave or ought to
behave -- people in authority and people who forever declare their intentions by way of ritual and
sacred declaration. I don’t just mean the priest who takes vows of poverty and obedience and
remains blind to the wealth of the institution he belongs, or the Judge who swears to uphold the
Constitution, but has already made his more devotional vows to Opus Dei, or the Banker who
declares for accountability and transparency but has entered a secret cabal to exploit his
customers, or the Policeman who swears to act without fear or favour and has put his name down
in the party and clerical register, looking to give favours to those who will favour him, or the teacher
who claims to be one with the sisterhood , but has run down to the Labour Court to squeeze some
advantage out of it behind all their backs. I mean taking people at their best, at their ideal typical.
And from this we know approximately what matters would bother such persons. Surely, every wife
would like to know that she is going to have children, how many she is expected to have, how they
are to be educated, fed, etc.? Of course she would, but we also know in the ideal typical type who
makes these decisions and how they can affect the typical believing Hausfru. The use of the ideal
typical concept as a sociological tool is probably best seen in Weber’s use of it in The Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In many ways it’s use presupposes a cultural and/or a
philosophical underlay. It also presupposes a critical faculty, which, with its philosophic
remigrations, is negatived because answered in religion.
Sean: Are you saying that the methodology surrounding the ideal typical concept affords one the
opportunity of either a philosophic or a religious background?
Seamus: No. You must understand that philosophy only becomes possible in a culture where
religion is no longer accepted as a holdall dogmatic answer to contemporary problems. The
‘choice’ as you call it calls to mind the chalice that one has to consume either pears or apples; but
philosophy only becomes objectively possible in that society which has reached the stage of
religious questioning, the one following the other objectively.
Sean: Could I go back to what you said about Weber being a social psychologist rather than a
sociologist? Admittedly, he is different in his approach and in his methodology to both Marx and
Durkheim --who are each different to the other also. But I still don’t see where that leads us in the
longer term or in the Irish context?
Seamus: With C Wright Mills we have the socialising of individual phenomena. According to him
most -- if not all -- of one’s personal problems are social problems. This position is so because you
are part and parcel of a particular type of society at a particular time. So the conjunction of social
and individual are devoutly to be explained in any policy-orientated explanation of social
phenomena, whether it is the divorce rate, the murder rate, or whatever. Since the need with
Durkheim and Marx is to explain the outer (social) causes of inner (personal, individual)
phenomena, there remained an ancillary need to connect society with the individual denkende man
– a lacuna that is resolved respectively through the use of the psycho-social concepts of Anomie
and Alienation. Anomie, you will recall, was advanced by Durkheim to explain the onset of
behavioural normlessness in society when it was both high in boom as well as low in gloom, both
socially determined conditions coinciding generally and effectuated by the business cycle. On the
other hand Marx uses the psychosocial concept of Alienation as something that is propelled within
the cumulatively developing division of labour within structural capitalism. Weber, by contrast, has
no recourse to any other psychosocial concept that he might enlist to brook the gap between the
social and the individual. To the contrary, Weber ab initio has no such gap apparent in his logic; for
his, as I have said before, is not a sociology, but rather a social psychology of action, engendered
by thought ordering individuals who think the empirical world through the mediation of their own
subjective values.
Sean: What about its relevance to Ireland? Is the Protestant Ethic the antithesis of the
Catholicism?
Seamus: I notice that you didn’t ask: Is the ‘Protestant Ethic’ the antitithesis of the ‘Catholic Ethic’?
Is that because you believe the Catholic Ethic – whatever it is, -- is not action or work-oriented?
One might do well to remember that the antithesis in Weber’s Protestant Ethic is not polarised
between Protestantism and Catholicism or a society so persuaded, but between Puritanism and a
traditional type of society, that is (by comparison only) a society that is guided and swayed by
customary habits of thought. Such a society – as in the Irish instance – may well become weighed
down with such customary habits of thought and suffer from it by way of a particular form of
paralysis about time and consciousness. Indeed, Joyce’s description of Dubliners is a perfect
example of such a society -- one that is almost un-rescue-able! But that does not say that a
colonial Protestant society is not also by deviation from the parent culture, given more or less to
rely upon customary habits of thought. And in this connection one might well recall the practice of
Maria Edgeworth’s father, who, as Landlord, was more apt to reward those who had ideas of
improving upon their responsibilities rather than submitting to the needs of long-rerm tenants or to
the more sentimental or traditional norms or attachments. (I have to say that notwithstanding this
ever so interesting analysis, I am still a hopeless traditional sentimentalist in all these personal
respects! And I understand the communists – at least the ones I knew in post-protestant Denmark
– to be of a similar mind. The Protestant Ethic to work or the communist influence to over
humanise the work place did not, in other words, either impress them. In defence all I can say is
that in some respects I differ with C.Wright Mills in that, as I have said before, what is personal is
not always social, and what is social is not always personal – at least as far as validation is
concerned. And even to the present day I am still drop-dead grateful to my parents never to have
contemplated sending me to a public school.) As it happened, and in fairness to Whitaker and
Lemass, there had been some prodding of that paralysis since the mid sixties (when, incidentally,
the incidence of crime takes off and Irish individualism is in the ascendant), so that the grants from
Europe made an enormous stir in Irish paralysis. As one might imagine, the initial social costs of
these injections were – and are -- violent and unprecedented. Look at the number of ‘corrupt ‘ and
‘corrupting’ institutions we have. There are far too many of them for them not to have a social
cause or a fundamental rearrangement of the values at the base of our social consciousness.
Sean: Surely sociology must have more bearing on Irish society than with respect to disciplinary
possibilities in the universities?
Seamus: Maybe. But the universities are of primary importance. What, indeed, do you think
universities are for, if it isn’t to mediate knowledge, opinion, science and understanding to an
otherwise witless people. In the case of Ireland and sociology, the reverse happens. The
universities are here to stop enlightenment being mediated. They are – and have been ab initio the
Free State -- owned and managed by the RC church and, through the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith and other similar bodies, they repress enlightenment in order to propagate
the faith, their faith. There is no Harriet Martineau in Ireland who wants to make sociology an
established academic discipline, but there are innumerable Buttiglione-types infesting the
universities with the knowledge of the gospel. Against this medieval knowledge there is nobody I
know who wants to marshal Comte’s ideas of the historical and social sciences into some order to
which the intellectual repository of Irish life can relate. From my own certain knowledge the largest
college in Dublin, DIT (The Dublin Institute of Criminology), with ambitions to become a university,
never quite rose to distinguishing the social from the natural sciences, without which guiding light
there can only be the administration of the asylum. The U.S., with an even worse grasp of history
than the Irish, has come to appreciate something of the discipline of sociology. So, the application
of this or that sociology to Irish concerns is already prefigured by the bigger concern of Ireland
concern with the discipline as a whole… Ireland’s (The RC church’s) attitude to sociology is the
same as it was to the Jews. “Don’t let it in, then you don’t have to deal with the consequences.”
Sean: Well, what about Marx? Marx and Engels had much to say about the Irish.
Seamus: Marx never had a bearing on Irish society. He was a talking shop for the Irish (and not so
Irish), who had never seriously analysed either Irish society or Irish history (See WebPages 13 and
14). Words and borrowed notions about socialism made the Catholic Irish appear to have
European and International correlates that they never really had. Marxist talk allowed us to think
that we had class-monsters to hate, whereas all we could hate were English people, the Anglo-
Irish, who were sick to death of the place (Beckett preferred to fight in France rather than vegetate
in Ireland, and Joyce couldn’t run out of it fast enough), and an aristocratic church that everyone
was—and is – afraid to think of in any light other than serene beauty. There was no way that the
Irish ‘left’ could see its navel, much less question or comprehend a Marxian revolution. (By the
way, do you know who represented Arthur Scargill in Ireland, when Margaret Thatcher sought to
seize his funds internationally? Michael McDowell!) Arthur might as well have surrendered himself
up to Opus Dei. But do you think such insights have any meaning or consequence for the Irish –
not a jot of it!
Sean: Well, surely Durkheimian sociology resonates in Ireland. Haven’t you yourself written an
exegesis on his work on crime and punishment?
Seamus: It is true that Durkheim, coupled with the American Talcot Parsons, became the most
loved by Maynooth and the Irish. Why? Because on the face of it, America rather than Europe was
chosen by the Church to learn something of the social sciences. One couldn’t surrender to the
Protestant ethic, could one? Or the brilliant Scottish social scientists? The RC church despised
Marx more than they despised Darwin and Freud. So, what were they to do? At least Durkheim
was safe and their infant Republican State would be protected from the ravishing questions of a
Marxist type of sociology. And if such an animal as an Irish-type-sociologist appeared on the scene
– and several to my personal knowledge did – they hadn’t a hope in hell of passing through the
Jesuit filters in the universities. So, they emigrated, never to return to the chim -emerald oil of
Saints and Saints. Moreover, and quite significantly, once you ignore Durkheim`s atheism, you
almost have an Aristotelian holdall for Catholicism, at least not as anyone without a keen sense of
criticism and history would notice. And who in Ireland had either! Durkheim, remember, was a Jew
--- and compare in terms of belief what the Jews borrowed from Zoroastrianism with what the
Christians borrowed from the Jews, and you will see the continuation of the Judaic-Christian way
of being in Durkheim. You might well argue that Marx was also a Jew. True, but Marx was not a
repository of Judaism as was Durkheim. On the contrary, Marx – as the Americans say – was
something else. Both Durkheim and Marx were, of course, devout atheists. But once the
Sociologists SJ debunked Durkheim`s atheism, they could and did quite easily adopt the rest of
Durkheim`s thesis, and harnessed it in toto to the Christian weal. It then became a kind of
improved version of Thomas Aquinas – a cheap if clever way of moving the RC church into modern
times, especially when the move came from America through Parsons and others! Much of
Durkheim is quasi mediaeval in outline, especially his conscience collective – and that’s why all the
Jesuits were instant Sociologists, and every Irish university is weighed down with departments of
holy roman spies. That, in effect, is what an Irish university is – they are planning on another New
Golden Age, when the Irish will yet again deliver to Europe everything that Europe has long
discarded. And these days even TCD is in on the act and operates the same as UCD, UCC and
UCG – all unfortunate replicas of Maynooth and all green in thump and craw.
Sean: Aside from these more superficial differences in respect of the application of sociology – or any
particular brand of it to Irish life – is there not a much more fundamental difference to be perceived in its
resistance in Ireland? Isn’t it more important to highlight its absence in the warp and weft of Irish life
than to try and delineate how this and that sociologist’s thought effects Irish development?
Seamus: This is true – but absences are hard to point to. It’s like trying to recall an experience that you
are not conscious of. The modern developments of the industrial revolution, which Durkheim and Marx
addressed, do not appear to be part of Irish society in such measure that any of their concepts or
analyses are directly applicable. And, while one could compare Northern and Southern Ireland for a
resonance of the Weberian Protestant Ethic, one feels any such analysis would get bogged down in tribal
antagonisms before it could be developed. This is not a simple way out of the necessity of such
comparisons, but if you remember what it was like before the Republic got its ‘tiger’ from Europe, most
mention of the Protestant Ethic was designed to make a tribal statement that rarely countenanced the
debilitating or class consequences of progressive Northern industry.
Sean: Let us try to be more specific then -- How is the Sociologist epistemologically different to that
of the other social scientists? Does the real difference between the sociologist and others rest in
the method or in the subject matter employed by the Sociologist? And is it not these differences
that highlight the influence the discipline has – or ought to have – on Irish society?
Seamus: How one thinks (as between lawyer, economist, philosopher or sociologist) is every bit as
defining as the nature of the concerns of these respective disciplines. Between the traditional
manner of thinking of the lawyer and the sociologist there is hardly a meeting point, especially if we
remain with practical matters. The sociologist doesn’t particularly want to know about this case or
that – unless, of course, it is such a one that stands so central to so many social concerns that it
cannot be denied as an object of great sociological merit from the outset.
Sean: Two things. Your concern with linear thinking is not just confined to the lawyer, or even the
psychologist or the priest, but to anyone who does not think sociologically. Secondly, for the most
part you consider history, sociology and culture in terms of an Irish historical personality, don’t you?
Seamus: Taking the second point first, when we speak of the creation of an Irish historical
personality; I feel it must be in terms of Anglo- America that we think. And when we speak of
Sociology and Irish law, they as disciplines must be in terms of that personality. In this respect,
then, our first concern should be with what C. Wright Mills has called the Sociological Imagination.
We might bear it in mind that a Sociological Imagination is not simply God’s gift to sociologists. Far
from it: philosophers, economists, psychologists, novelists and house painters may also be
blessed with it. But in general it is best understood as a discipline and distinct from those other
disciplines whose domains differ from the domain of sociology.
Sean: Maybe we’re not that great at science, but how is it possible that a theologian cannot think
sociologically. For years the Jesuits have been calling themselves sociologists. Indeed, there is –
or was – hardly a college in the country where they did not set up camp and control the social
sciences through all those Sociologists SJ.
Seamus: Precisely!
Sean: Precisely what? Are they not as qualified as anyone else to know and impart sociological
insights?
Seamus: No.
Sean: Why not? Is it because they are celibate -- because they have no experience of woman, or
the world of family life through woman? Is that the reason?
Seamus: I don’t think you should set the intimate experience of woman at nought; it is not to be
underestimated, even as an epistemological means of communication. And when compared with
celibacy, it is to be positively asserted --- for the first time, let me add, since the burning of Adam
Dubh O Tuathaill by the gangs of Holy Romans, which is a thousand years ago. Did you ever hear
anyone in Irish life actually exhort the wonders of sex? Ever? I’m over sixty and I never heard
anyone in public life actually say ‘I love sex with a woman’. It’s beyond the Catholic lexicon. So,
can I join my most pagan forebears and reiterate the glory of simple sex and the horror of celibates
and other self-castrati.
Sean: I’m sure these are important original observations you make, and that you suitably delight in
them; but could we get back to the business at hand? Why do you say Theologians are unqualified
to be Sociologists and own a private department of their own in all our would-be universities?
Seamus: No; but in itself it is a very good reason for claiming that they are inadequate and
possibly unhealthy as well. And if not unhealthy, at least they are biased – and must be so in their
judgements. Moreover, they make very bad role models for young healthy Irish men. They are
secretive, mischievous, celibate, un-forthcoming, political, manipulative, solitary and misogynist.
Imagine being celibate, as a young man in your twenties? Then celibate again as a young man
throughout your thirties. Year after year you forego the natural bent of your mind and body. It’s
absolutely vile. And then throughout every year of your forties, you remain celibate, probably
sporting a cilice or flagellating yourself and others to keep away the desire to consummate the
common clay out of which we are all made. And there you stand, defiant to the end, with your prick
in your hand, whistling at the wind and making your mind take turns it never dreamed of … And
then, more of the same throughout your fifties, your sixties and until life’s fearful fret is finished….
Don’t tell me such a man is healthy. Don’t tell me such a man is the captain of your ship, the light of
your universities, the father of your nation. Please don’t try to inspire me with the utter nonsense of
the Holy Roman Imperial project. Like Ossian, Adam Dubh O Tuathail, Joyce, Edna O’Brien,
Dermot Morgan, I cannot abide the bullshit! I am much too pagan to embroider these endless
nonsensical snares of the Mediterranean myth. It is unfortunate that they have been introduced so
universally into Irish life, such that the social sciences cannot breathe. No wonder the suicide rate
is so high among young men, if these are their role models!
Sean: Ok, Ok. I am just trying to figure out why you say that a Theologian who masquerades as a
Sociologist is a fraud –
Seamus: Not only that, but he must needs convert everything he touches into a shelter, a hiding
place for himself, wherein he can practise his mental gymnastics on an unsuspecting and uncritical
subject. However shameful it may be to exclude what I would consider as a ‘proper regard’, either
spiritually or sexually, for the other half of the human race – and claim to have universal truths – it
is not the main trust of my argument. As I have said the theologian has no questions to ask of the
world the answers to which he does not already know. He knows all about how it is made. His job
is essentially one of propaganda, that is, of spreading the truth about the Gospels and the Bible.
His greatest enemy is the philosopher (Kant, Nietzsche, Voltaire, and the Sociologists) as well as
the scientists (like Darwin and Marx). These are his enemies for the basic reason that they
question what the theologian believes he and the Bible has already answered with certainty. For
the theologian God and God alone made the world. Moreover, God is the sovereign Lord of
Heaven and Earth and of all things, including the holocaust, the Tsunami disaster, and the aids
epidemic. Moslems have a God as well, but they have the wrong God, so those who know true
truth about God, the real God, the Christian God, must penetrate East Timor and elsewhere.
Moreover, only the communities with the Christian God are allowed to have and to use weapons of
mass destruction. Their job then, even as defined by their Church, is one of propaganda, and when
– as with the Jesuits, for example – they happen to think for themselves and disagree with the
Order, then they are expelled. In this very real sense individual men who are Jesuits (Sociologists
SJ) are not free to hold this or that conviction; they are essentially members of a body which
already believes in a set store of knowledge and their receipt and agreement with such knowledge,
coupled with their oath of obedience, is a sine qua non of their membership of that Order And
when they disagree, then they have to leave. It’s as simple and as savage as that. They are,
rather, repulsed from the body of the Order, as heretics or other forms of banished rejects. These
days, due more or less to the laws provided by secular humanists, more conciliatory pursuits are
provided and ex-religious are fixed up in reasonably respectable but not too noticeably central jobs
– maybe as Teachers in colleges like DIT, UCD, UCC and even TCD. It is here that the Opus and
CORI spring into action. These days they are all over the place in Ireland, especially within the Civil
Servants, the Dail and Seanad, the Bar Library, and other places close to and oscillating under the
long shadow that is cast between the poles of power enjoyed by Pope and Prince, by Bishop and
Minister, by Episcopal and Parliamentary secretaries. Rarely do they leave to become sociologists,
simply because such prominent (and in the eyes of both the hierarchy and, ipso facto, the Minister
for Education, dangerous) pedagogic positions are reserved for the orthodox theologians, such as
the Jesuits and the like. The free confederacy of open minds is, therefore, anathema to the Irish
mind and is nowhere present in any Irish ‘university’. But if, for argument’s sake an ex-religious did
become a sociologist, a necessary adjustment in his thinking would be required. Now they would
have to accept --a bit like Galileo – that God is not the centre of the universe -- but rather that
society is. In other words, the sociologist is concerned to enquire into a domain of knowledge,
which asserts that reality is primarily sociocentric, whereas the theologian is dogmatically
concerned with spreading his received knowledge about the certainty of a Theo-centric world. The
one is quite contrary and for most upright purposes irreconcilable and mutually exclusive.
Sean: I see the distinctions you are making -- a socio-centred world is quite apposite a God-
centred world in ways that cannot be denied by mere words or descriptions. If I believe in a
supernatural force – much less a supernatural personal God – I cannot explain phenomena, social
or personal, in terms of such a supernatural force as well as in social terms, for both not only
contradict each other, but conflict with each other with respect to the manner one ought to proceed
in one’s enquires as well as the type of solution one seeks to arrive at. I know what you are saying
and I cannot fault it. I just think it needs enormous embroidery to sell to the ordinary man.
Remember the common man has had the pulpit in his ears time out of mind. He cannot hear new
things and he certainly hasn’t the time to think for himself. The most one can say about Ireland is
that because class has never been realised, the common man is equidistant from the pulpit as are
the more privileged stratified groups. And while this has a false equality about it, in that being
equidistant means simply that – it does not mean that the message is elevated to the higher order
of class-consciousness or those materialist concerns that define class-content. On the contrary, the
message is pre-capitalist and, by definition, more primitive. When class dawns and class-
consciousness follows, the equi-distances of the church gives way to further aisles and absences,
to hardening interests, secret societies gathered outside the church and removed to the sacristy
and other venues set by the Bishops, the Army and the King, if there is one. But while the
distances between the classes grows, the subject matter of their concerns becomes more
materialistic and more real, such that the equi-distance of a former religious age – as the Irish still
experience in their parishes – is seen and known and acknowledge in a body of thought and
consciousness that knows it to be more simple and primitive – a state in which they, the
unprivileged groups, see themselves as exploited, as against the privileged groups gathered
around the polarities of power who enjoy the spoils , sacred spoils, of their exploitations. Which
makes one think, sometimes, that established truth is not more than the beefed up repetition of
eternal lies by those who have the wherewithal to repeat and repeat and repeat the same old dead
Biblical arguments. By the way, what do you mean by ‘upright purposes’?
Seamus: Like any good common-law or cannon-law lawyer, one knows one can twist and turn
anything into its Protean opposite very easily, and the clergy are gifted in this cannon-law tradition
of twisting things as they please. They are so adept, indeed, that I am sure there will be a body
that will convince themselves that God and Society are -- and always have been -- one and the
same thing, and that the Bible actually confirms it. Certainly the Irish clergy can say and get away
with anything – and I think I know how and why they can do it. Some of them, despite the defectors
at Uxbridge, even claimed Marx for the Christian cause, and they have bandied Joyce about as
well. To my mind none of it is upright or authentic.
Sean: I don’t like being sidetracked but I have to hear why it is that you think you know why people
– especially the clergy – can say anything in Ireland and get away with it?
Seamus: It’s a question of time?
Sean: This should be good! What on earth has time got to do with it?
Seamus: Interesting that you should say ‘what on earth?’ The words themselves have a time
dimension to them and while the original meaning of the expression I can’t immediately fathom, I
bet it has something to do with ‘What on Earth – and not in Heaven’ or ‘What on Earth –and not in
Hell, in Space, in Other Time’ or something to that effect.
Sean: This gets better! You’re pulling my other leg now, aren’t you?
Seamus: No. Heidegger (and Wittgenstein) had this idea about the absolute origin of words and
the irreplaceable notions that then attach to them. From this we know the obvious fact that time
enters our behaviour as judgment, in that whether we are totally conscious of it or not, we know
mortality in the various degrees to which age affects us. The child doesn’t really care about his
parents. If you take a two- or a ten-year-old, give him plenty of ice cream and make their lives as
comfortable as they were, they are apt to assume you as their parents and not so gradually accept
you as such. The life force in the young is really strong and focuses forth, as if there is no death or
mortality in sight. Children in this sense also move between rooms; they never quite move between
countries. So, you see, one has to be adult, educated and refined to suffer the real sense of loss
when someone close to us dies. A child is immune from this. It is only the more humanised adults –
those who feel what has gone behind and what is in store -- who feel the full brunt of mortality. So,
too, to confront another culture can be a trial and an ordeal for cultured adults. Children just move
their toys and their dollies into the next room and are really enamoured at their new environment –
not totally or forever, but in general!
Sean: What on earth has that to do with an explanation of why people in Ireland can say the most
outlandish things with impunity?
Seamus: Because the Christian religion is the dominant mode of thought in the Republic of Ireland
(and Northern Ireland as well), there is a this-world/next-world polarity always at work. And since
the next world is valued sometimes moreso than this world, those who share the same or a similar
this-world/next-world syndrome can understand irrational things said about this world with this
polarity of worlds in mind. In this inexplicit way they understand them to be rational.
Sean: Elaborate, please. I thought there might be some truth in her statement, but it was otiose to
compare Northern Protestants with Nazis.
Seamus: Well, which is the more otiose, her comparison of Northern Protestants with the Nazis, or
her ignorance of the part played by the Catholic church in the Holocaust and after – despite the
number of Catholics who were also sacrificed, as in Dachau! She seems to be unaware of the
fascist origins in Franco’s Spain and the treacherous role of the Spanish Catholic Church in
bringing back their pit-bull general to sort out the anarchists. Trust the RC church to betray the
people! Moreover, President McAleese seems singularly unaware of the measures taken by the
RC church to repatriate the Third Reichers. Something else: it is curious that no one so far as I am
aware has mentioned anything about the Catholic church in Austria. Under some misleading sense
of sanitation, a crowd called ‘Juventum’ – or some such name – went out during the 30s and 40s
and took the children off the gypsies on ‘moral’ grounds – in very much the same way as the Nazis
– and refused into the seventies to allow the children to know or contact their parents. And if it
hadn’t been for the revelations made by Stern, who eventually took up the case of the Austrian
gypsies, we would never have known of this. I remember a full television programme about it and
the shocking similarity in Catholic attitudes at the time to those of Nazi Germany. It was only after a
great struggle with the Catholic authorities that Stern Magazine broke the obdurate back of
Catholic resistance to releasing any identifying papers for these children – then adults. What
business the Catholic Church had in treating people so callously is only part of the picture of its
imperialist and immoral mission. It’s a pity Mrs McAleese had not seen this account of the Catholic
church in Austria before she condemned our -- and her --Northern Protestant liberators!
Sean: I expect that it must have been quite painful for the Protestant Northerner, to have to hear
that from a Roman Catholic (from the North, but come South to seek her Buttiglione fortune) – the
black Protestants who opened their veins and let their blood like run like water -- to keep us
speaking Latin rather than German!
Seamus: The Holy Roman mind is something else! Personally I think she was just moved, made a
mess of what she wanted to say, and then compounded it by standing firm, then capitulating like a
deck-of-cards. But none of this was as bad as her ignorance of the role of the Christian conquest in
the Holocaust. There used to be a running argument in the New Statesman concerning the
Christian nature of the Holocaust. I don’t think anyone in the end had any doubts of it s Christian –
almost Witchcraft and heretic origins. And that’s what makes Mary McAleese’s statements so
hurtful. You see, being Irish she has no history; they did the same thing to her own race, but she
couldn’t possibly conceive of that…. Buttiglione, Buttiglione, Buttiglione… It is the Southern
Catholic that should be more offended by Mary McAleese than the Northern Protestant….
Sean: I want to go back to our argument. On the one hand you say that sociology is no more than
the work of a good detective with a historical nose and a modern sense of social morals. But you
exclude Theologians from the sociological imagination; you also dismiss lawyers, economists and
psychologists. How can you do that?
Seamus: Caution. I do not dismiss them entirely. It really depends upon how they approach their
discipline. Put simply, a group of children come into the room and each has the same toy tractor
under his armpit. You ask the first one: ‘What is it you have there?’ Child 1 replies. “ It is a
Christmas toy made of 2 part tin, three parts clay, one part copper, etc., etc.” Child 2 replied to the
same question: ‘It is a toy gift which my father purchased for money or for money’s worth, the
same he alienated to me by way of gift on the occasion of my birthday.’ Child 3 replied: ‘it is the gift
I have always wanted; because when I grow up I am going to be a farmer, like my grandfather. And
I have stopped bed-wetting since I received the tractor.’ Child 4 replied: ‘it is a toy tractor that my
parents gave me for my birthday. They gave it to me to encourage the circulation of money in our
little economy’ Child 5 replied: ‘ It is a gift from God’. Child 6 replied: ‘It is the gift that made me and
my parents so happy that now I am going to have a sister.’ Child 7 replied: ‘ It is an imaginary toy
representing a gift that is used to frame a fictional question in order to demonstrate some moral or
other for your friend, Sean.’ Now, which of these 7 children, do you think, answered the question?
Sean: Because he answers in terms of his society. Being a child, his society is predominantly
Mom, Dad, him and his new sister. But the last child, child 7 has me stumped. Who or what is he
meant to represent?
Seamus: Child 7 is unusually precocious. He gave us an answer that was not so much the truest
answer – for they all answered truthfullybut he did answer more circumspectly, more conscious of
what he was being asked as well as who and why he was being questioned. He was in a word
more philosophic because he not only thought like the others about giving an answer to the
question but, unlike the others, he was reflective of what it was he was doing when he was
answering. It wasn’t enough for him to answer the question in the ordinary way, but he was
reflective of the activity that surrounded it. Child 7 is a philosopher.
Sean: I see what you mean. At least when compared with the other answers, we can distinguish
quite clearly between them. And as, I am sure, you intended, each child answers in terms of a
scientific discipline.
Seamus: Precisely. But none of them answer for sociology, except child 6 and he did so with
reference to a child’s society, that is, his family. We could also have child 8 answering in terms of
all the foregoing answers, with one exception. Child 8 could add all the other answers together in
an all inclusive way and to some extent this is open to children 6 and 7 to do likewise, but children
6 and 7 cannot at a real level incorporate the answer of child 5. It will also be observed that Child
5, the theologian, can, of course, incorporate all the other answers, but as we demonstrate
hereafter, he cannot conceptually or really acknowledge the supremacy both of society and God at
the same time. He must chose to be either a sociologist or a theologian, but not both at the same
time – as most Irish theologians do. And they do it because the can do it. They have made sure
that there is no Pulpit, academy, school, or social space, left for anybody else to contradict them.
Two further points arise: 1. If we rank ordered these disciplines not so much in terms of their
excluding logics as their widening and more inclusive capacity of conceptualisation, we would find
that Child 5, the theologian had the widest concept -- not the most sensuous concept, as in some
Hegelian logic, but the widest or most inclusive. This is so because, if we do not organise ‘God’
into an organised religious way, we have a holdall for ‘everything-and-nothing.’ Every organisation
of this concept ‘ God’ is a lie and an appropriation, not least because we all know, do we not, that
there can be no ‘God’ separable from the concept of ‘God’? For sociology, then, there is no ‘God’,
only the concept of ‘God’. 2. Sociology is not an organisation of God, but an explanation of Him in
philosophic, historical and social terms. Finally, Sean, let me ask you a question.
Sean: Certainly.
Seamus: What should we call Child 9 who replies: ‘This tractor is a toy given to me by Santa
Claus.
Sean: You are, of course, talking for every child in Christendom. Indeed, you might be talking about
Christendom.
Sean: What?
Seamus: He is a child.
Sean: Meaning?
Seamus: He is a child. He is the receptive vessel of received wisdoms – as in education --, some
of which are simply downright lies.
Sean: Now that I know what you mean by the sociological imagination, could we get back to the
application of sociology to Irish crime. Although what you say has great reason to it, I still need to
know in what measure a lawyer or a priest or a psychologist is wrong in their habitual accounts of
crime?
Seamus: If we talk about this crime, this murder, this rape, everyone can have a justified opinion,
the lawyer as to the legalities involved and the requirements of a State prosecution, etc; the priest
as to the immorality of the act and consequences; the psychologist as to the psychic trauma and,
indeed, as to the makeup of the perpetrator as well as the effects upon the victim. We can see this
kind of rationale quite clearly. Mind you, even at this discrete level of crime, the respective foci can
be accommodated, but they still remain within their own domains. So whatever explanation of
crime is anticipated from such discrete disciplinary accounts, they still remain somewhat
impoverished. That’s why over the past thirty years there has been a cry for multiple-disciplinarity
in criminology. Put another way, none of these disciplines can individually explain this crime or that,
and if they could they certainly cannot explain an infinitely more complex phenomena dealing with
crime rates, mortality rates, marriage rates, etc. in terms of either religion, psychology, law or
economics (although economics or political economy would be closest). A rate is something quite
different from the incidents of which they are made, and if these disciplines could explain them,
then there would be no need for sociology, or an explanation in terms of all of these things
synchronised intelligently. A crime rate is not amenable to personal or an individual explanation.
And where it is, you can rest assured that you are not seriously coming to terms with the subject
matter. Moreover, where, as in Ireland, the religious influence is overwhelming, one can appreciate
the overall antagonism against any form of social science. Organised religion is a narcissistic
flower and will, ever and always, protect itself by attracting only itself or similar types to its court.
Moreover, organised religion or its allies shall never explain social phenomena – poverty, suicide,
violence, Northern Ireland, marriage, divorce, etc –in terms of social phenomena and, therefore,
are themselves more at one with the problem than with any possible solution. Why economics is
less inimical to criminology than the other social sciences is because of its dexterity in dealing
otherwise with social phenomena. Moreover, economists, unlike the general run of lawyers and
priests, are numerate and anticipate a quantitative and action-orientated reality. There is also the
fact that economics -- especially macroeconomics -- is for all intents and purposes sociological in
character. As a matter of fact, it is a poor sociologist who has not studied economics, although the
reverse is not invariably true.
Sean: Yes, I can see where we are going a little clearer now. But the differences need to be lead
out, don’t they?
Seamus: Yes, and even then they are not total or complete. It is sufficient to understand, I think,
that the psychoanalyst, is primarily concerned to restore the patient’s psyche back to health, or, in
any event, to have him liberate himself from the infantile or experiential blockages that cause the
instant pathology. He is not concerned with rates of psychological pathology – at least not
generally or professionally. And if you are a lawyer, you are equally involved with the proof of guilt
against this defendant. Of course you may have much more to say, but you will not ordinarily be
able to explain a crime rate or a suicide rate by reference to either some defendant’s guilt or some
patient’s pathology. Another dimension is required, and that all depends upon the person involved.
So with all social phenomena, as distinct from personal phenomena or personal thoughts of social
phenomena – like the suicide rate, crime rates, and the like – they can’t be explained with
reference merely to my psychological concerns. The discipline of examining social phenomena
arises, as you have said, out of the customary and habitual practices of the discipline of sociology.
Neither would it be necessary or sufficient if the theologian explained soccer mania with reference
to the Bible or to God. Such an explanation would, of course, be necessary and sufficient for him
as theologian, he being a believer.
Sean: I see where you are going. You are back again where you were: social phenomena, or
sociological phenomena, ought to be explained in terms of social phenomena?
Seamus: Yes.
Sean: And that’s why sociologists are required in the universities. It is your concern also to affirm
the poverty of Irish colleges because of the inordinate control religious groups has on curricula,
appointments, and on successive Ministers for Justice, Education, etc?
Seamus: Yes. Far too often the RC church exhibits a terrible ignorance – sometimes an
insufferable if strategic obscurantism -- in the main areas of enquiry and an unspeakable
negligence in the areas of social engineering, that is, the areas in which government ought actually
to govern. We are all too painfully aware of the Reformatory and Industrial schools, but few if any
are aware of the ordinary schools and the church’s accepted face of universal brutality. If you
forget about aids/contraceptives in Uganda, and nearer home take the general topic of ‘ crime in
Limerick’. It is as if the ‘departments of criminology/sociology’ are as utterly useless and silent here
as they were with Church and State corruption. They are so phlegmatic, so uncritical, so
uninformed, so uninvolved, so foreign, so privileged, so ‘academic’, so paralysed, and so-so
empty!
Sean: You’re saying they could surely have done something about Limerick – maybe with a pinch
of the money they spend on being nouveau riche.
Seamus: In the social sciences, money is neither a problem nor an issue – save in so far as it
determines the basic class unfairness that the Irish are inevitably, unalterably, and uncontrollably
experiencing. Class, in the climate of Anglo-America, has to realise itself in Ireland! Otherwise, we
will be talking medieval nonsense for another fifteen hundred years, while our offspring do
themselves to death. And even if it is unbearably, hideously, ugly, petty, and puisne, it is the central
theme of Irish life right now. In that sense, of course money is important. But otherwise, that is, as
we address what this petty and puisne class could be doing while they are working towards their
new middle-class status, is deflating and removing the social tensions in Limerick. And if they can
for a moment get the primitive church and its ridiculous and obscurantist views off their back, they
can come up with a million ways of relieving that tension. Then Limerick can begin on a history of
its own; there may even be Irish talk between Irish men that does not come censored the way of
the pulpit or any other Roman way, the way Biddie Early existed, the way Mackay and Ringy hurled
– directly, paganly, humanly, action-orientedly towards the society that is in pain. Limerick belongs
to someone, but apart from the priests, who now run in silence after the mess they created in
Hospitals, Schools, Parliament, etc., I don’t think anyone knows who that someone is. The young
are seizing and emptying the vacuum, and the lacuna created in 1603, since the Parish Priests
took the place of the native chieftains has come back to haunt Limerick. I cannot imagine the
middle ground the Cathedral and the hovelled streets. There are no Limerick men who act as a
role model for either the people or the county. Priests have been doing it for ages, at their own
behest, because they have driven everyone else away, and they are essentially misleading and
inauthentic. So, who else is there, who identifies with Limerick men, Limerick history, Limerick in
the raw and in the splendid, and is not at the same time a newly made up keep-a-way-from-me
millionaire lawyer or inauthentic Priest?
Seamus: What a wonderfully primitive suggestion. It should be followed by: Is there anyone Irish who
understands anything Irish? If we had authors of our own, then we wouldn’t have the obsolete church we
have. Nor would we be in the mess we are in. Nor would you be asking for someone to read. We, as ever,
are in uncharted waters, and the church-made paddles we have are as useless as the deadwood they are
made of.
Sean: Surely they are not all as barren as you make them out to be. I know that when you speak of
the sciences you really refer to science as it applies to the Catholic mind, or, more accurately, as
the Catholic mind approaches science. The Protestants have not problems here, and whether we
distinguish between the natural sciences and the social sciences, the Protestants come up trumps.
Moreover, Protestantism in general has no difficulty with philosophers either. Consequently, Irish
culture for the Protestant mind means something much richer and more malleable and alive than it
does for the Catholic. Surely the sciences have not passed Catholic Ireland by completely?
Seamus: But now you bring in a more difficult question. The Catholic mind, being a-historical and
being medieval, has enormous difficulties with any notion of history. That’s why I said
(exaggeratedly, of course) that the secret of the Irish – meaning the Irish Catholic – is that we have
no history. It is not just the notion of history that is the problem, but also the fact of history. Those
societies who experienced a Renaissance, a Reformation and an Industrial Revolution didn’t just
learn how to produce greater wealth from an augmented division of labour; they had to evolve
historically to both the appreciation of materialism as well as the division of labour that facilitated
such a development. In these processes, therefore, we have the development of new
personalities; for generations do not succeed each other as clones, or if they do, they do not leave
the world as clones. Your grandfather, whatever his and your beliefs, had a personality that is
totally different from you – and not just because of time, but because of the moving parts of society
that neither you can understand for him, nor could he envisage for you. And you understand your
father at the same distance as your son will understand you, but neither of you will understand the
social circumstances of your lives in the same way. When the Catholic mind, as a social construct,
meets the modern world, it is afraid of science. And that is partially why Opus Dei went into
operation – but Opus Dei suffers from even greater infirmities than the regular church in this
regard. That’s why they can own the colleges of technology, own the banks and infiltrate all our
institutions; but, in truth, they merely privatise our public institutions by trying to govern them with
cadres of secret-society incompetents. And this is precisely the response of the Catholic mind to
the natural and social sciences – ownership and control without accountability or creativity. Put
another way, when the Catholic mind leaves its medieval base, the most it can envisage by way of
‘freedom’ or ‘development’, is the exchange of goods and services – and even here it has to relax
so many of its rules and regulations that it can hardly digest the new circumstances. It is a lot like a
primitive communist country that never quite faces it condign dissolution: so it hangs on to power
by meshing everything in order to slow it down to the requirements of its own digestive tracts.
Unlike communism, it won’t face the music of destruction and rebirth; it prefers the denial and
barrenness of the a-historical Bible. And even when the countries or societies it dominates,
perforce of necessity, move forward on the ladder of production, the Catholic mind resists it, and its
most secular or daring parts, when given free rein, can, nevertheless, only abide by small
gradations of change in the direction of the free confederacy of services. The larger notion of
laissez faire capitalism is still too much to cope with. The Catholic mind is therefore organically
prevented from travelling too far along the line of consumer or productive freedom. The most it can
do is attract to itself nearby fellow travellers. It can only make pacts with those who are not too
forward or too backward from its contemporaneous position. It must of necessity attract people to
whom it is ethically disposed. In this sense the Catholic mind can only attract the mediocre mind
after the fashion of The Dermot MacMurrough Syndrome.
Sean: But what then about Irish people who aren’t Catholic or Protestant?
Seamus: Such persons are still going to have the institutional problems that the Christian conquest
lobbies have created in the work place, the schools, the civil service, etc. Although these
institutional things don’t go away – you may be an Irish atheist, but if you listen to RTE, you are still
going to hear the Angelus. So, whether you are free in your own mind or not, does not allow you to
escape the norms and rules and regulations set up by the dominant religious interests. The only
consolation for such people is in their own knowledge. If they have set themselves free from the
dominant norms, then they are clever enough to acknowledge it, and some, by being perfectly
silent or diplomatic, may even rise to whatever great social heights there are available in Irish
society. So far as I am aware, however, the Opus wouldn’t be long about tracing their religious
pedigree. So, their diplomacy and tact, if they are unorthodox, would want to have begun at a
rather early age – and what’s more awful, would have to be sustained as a lie throughout their
entire lives. Who would want advancement at such a price or under such conditions? On this
reasoning, then, we may be assured that those who have risen in the ranks of Irish society are not
atheists and are genuine believers and, indeed, zealous of the values cultivated and inculcated by
the established church (as).
Sean: But on another level, is there anyone we can look to relieve us of these awful contrasts?
There must be someone we can read, who can alleviate us of the worst aspects of being Irish? I’m
serious.
Seamus: If we have to go foreign, wouldn’t Freud be a start?
Notes
23 “The counties surrounding Dublin will also experience rapid increases with Kildare rising by
2.8% a year, Meath by 2.3%, and Wicklow by 2.2%. It is also anticipated that the labour force of
the Republic will grow at an annual average of 14,300. See Census of Population of Ireland,
1981” (Preliminary Report), CSO, Government Publications. See also B. M.Walsh: The Structure of
Unemployment in Ireland, 1954–72, ESRI, Oct., 1974; NESC, No. 63, July 1982; National
Economic and Social Council: Urbanization and Regional Development in Ireland, No. 45, The
Government Publications Sale Office, Dublin, p. 32 The Dublin Metropolitan area now extends
between Howth and Greystones in Wicklow with over a third of the national population. See also
Telephone Directory 24
24 Ibid. 25
25 See the author’s Emile Durkheim On Crime And Punishment: Dissertation. COM, 2002, chapter
2 et al.
26 H.S. Maine: Ancient Law (ed. F. Pollock, John Murray, 1930, p. 368). See also Engels,
Frederick: Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats (1st ed., 1884) in Karl
Marx, Friedrich Engels Werke, vol. 21, Berlin, Dietz Verlag, P; 25-173); Maine, Henry Summer:
Lectures on the Early History of Institutions, (London, John Murray) 1875; Vinogradoff, Paul:
Roman Law in Medieval Europe (London, Harper & Row), 1909; Posposil, Leopold: Anthropology
of Law, A Comparative Theory, (Harper & Row), 1975, chapter 5.
27 See Woods: District Court Guide, Vol 11, Naas, 1977; Part 11 Licensing (pp. 93–227)
28 For an update of the distinction between Indictable and Arrestable Offences, See Section 4, The
Criminal Law Act 1997. See also Walsh, Dermot: Criminal Procedure (Round Hall, Dublin, 2002);
Woods, James: District Court Practice and Procedure in Criminal Cases (James Woods, Limerick,
1994).
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 1.3
Table 1.4
Table 1.5
Table 1.6
Table 1.7
Table 1.8
REFERENCES
Law And Anthropology
Asplin, P.W.A.: Medieval Ireland, c. 1170-1495, A Bibliography of Secondary Works Dublin, RIA,
1971)
Beattie, J.: Other Cultures, Aims, Methods and Achievements in Social Anthropology, London,
Routledge, 1964
Boas, Franz: The Mind of Primitive Man, New York, Macmillan, 1938 -- Race, Language and
Culture, New York, Macmillan, 1940
Bohannan, Paul: We the Aliken: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press, 1992
Breathnach, S: Emile Durkheim On Crime And Punishment, Bertram’s, 2002: and at Http/
www.Irishcriminology.com
Binchy, D.A., -- Crith Gabhlach, ed., Medieval and Modern Irish Series, xi) (Dublin), 1941
-- Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Kingship (O’Donnell Lecture) Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1970
-- Studies in early Irish law (1936)
-- 'Sick-maintenance in Irish law' in Éiriu, xii, pp. 78-134, 1938
--'The saga of Fergus mac Léti' in Ériu, xvi, pp. 33-48, 1952
-- Secular Institutions, Early Irish Society (M. Dillon, ed.), 52-56, 1954
-- 'Some Celtic legal terms' in Celtica iii, pp. 221-31, 1956
--'Patrick and his biographers, ancient and modem', in Studia Hibernica, ii, pp. 7-173, 1962
--'The passing of the old order' in Ó Cuív (1962), pp. 119-32. 1962b
-- 'An archaic legal poem' in Celtica, ix, pp. 152-68, 1971
-- 'Distraint in Irish law' in Celtica, x, pp.22-71, 1973
Bieler, L: The Irish Penitentials, 1975
Breatnach, L Canon law and secular law in early Ireland: the significance Of Bretha Nemed,
Peritia 3, 439-59, 1984
Cambrensis, Giraldus: Topographia Hiberniae, ed. J.J. O’Meara (1949) Procs. Roy. Ir. Acad. 52
C, 113-78
-- The Linguistic and Historical Value of the Irish 3aw Tracts (Sir
-- John Rhys Memorial Lecture) British Academy, Vol. Xxix, 1943
-- Studies in Early Irish Law (ed.) Royal Irish Academy, 1936
Cohn, N.: Europe’s Inner Demons, Paladin, U.K. 1975, and pp.1 to 16
Curtis, E: A History of Mediaeval Ireland, from 1086 – 1513, 1978
-- A History of Mediaeval Ireland, from 1110 – 1513, 1923
-- Irish Historical Documents 1172 -1922 (ed by E. Curtis and R.B. McDowell, 1977)
De Paor, Liam (1976), 'The Viking towns of Ireland' in Almqvist and Greene (1976), pp. 29-37.
Dillon, M.: Early Irish Society, Mercier, 1954
Dillon, Myles (1936), The relationship of mother and son, of Father and daughter, and the law of
inheritance without Regard to women' in Binchy (1936), pp. 129-79
Dillon, Myles (ed.) (1962), Lebor na Cert, the Book of Rights (Irish Texts Society, xlvi) (Dublin).
Dumville, David N. (1984), 'Some British aspects of the earliest Irish Christianity' in Ní Chatháin
and Richter (1984), pp. 17-24.
Durkheim, E. (1965): The Division of Labour in Society, New York: The Free Press
-: Two Laws of Penal Evolution` (Ec. & Soc. August, 1973)
Evans-Pritchard, E.E., Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande, Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1937
--Social Anthropology, London, Cohen and West, 1951. Gluckman, Max: Politics, Law and
Ritual in Tribal Societies, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1965 Kelly, Fergus: A Guide To Early Irish Law,
Dublin Institute For Advanced Studies, 1988, reprint 1995)
Malinowski, B: Crime and Custom in Savage Society. London And New York, 1926
--Sex and Repression in Savage Society, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1927
--Argonauts of the Western Pacific, London, Routledge, 1922
Marx, K and Engels, (1931) The Holy Family, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House
McCone, Kim: Pagan Past And Christian Present in Early Irish Literature, Department of Old
Irish, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, 2000
Ó Corráin, Donnchadh (1984), 'Irish law and canon law' in Ní Chatháin and Richter (1984), pp.
157-66.
Ó Corráin, Donnchadh (1985a), 'Marriage in early Ireland' in Cosgrove (1985), pp. 5-24.
Otway-Ruthven, A.J. (1961),"The Medieval Irish Chancery" in Album Helen Maud Cam (Studies
presented to the International commission for the study of history of Parliamentary institutions).
Otway-Ruthven, A.J. (1965), 'The character of Norman settlement in Ireland' in McCracken
(1965), pp. 75-84.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R.: Structure and Function in Primitive Society, London, Cohen @ West,
1952 Pospisil, Leopold: Anthropology of Law (A Comparative Theory), Harper @ Row, and N.Y.,
1971 Power, Patrick C., Sex and Marriage In Ancient Ireland, Mercier Press, 1976 Roberts, S.:
Order and Dispute, (An Introduction to Legal Anthropology), Pelican, 1979 Maine, H.S: Lectures on
the Early History of Institutions, John Murray, London, 1875, and Ancient Law, (Reprint of 1861
ex.) Boston, Beacon Press, 1963 Gluckman, M.: The Judicial Process among the Barotse, 1955
Politics, Law and Ritual in Tribal Society, 1965 Lukes, S. M. (1971). "Prolegomena to the
Interpretation of Durkheim." European Journal of Sociology: 183-209. Lukes, S. M. (1975). Émile
Durkheim: His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
Maine, H.S.: Ancient Law (text files at Online Books)
Watts, John Gill and Macmillan History of Ireland (The Middle Ages) Gill and Macmillan
Children in Custody
Breathnach, Seamus: Item 14 (d) The Criminology of Children in Ireland At: http/
www.Irishcriminology.com
Cicourel. A. V. (1970): The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice, New York: Wiley.
White, R.: The Children Act in Practice, London, Butterworth’s, 1995
King, M, and Trowell, J.: Children’s Welfare and the Law: The Limits of Legal Intervention,
London, Sage Publications, 1992
Goldstein, J., Freud, A., and Solnit, A.J.: Before the Best Interests of the Child, N.Y. Free Press,
1979
Moore, C.: Betrayal Of Trust: The Father Brendan Smyth Affair And The Catholic Church, 1995
Smith, A.: Women’s Rights in Ireland.
(a. Abortion:
Campbell, D. (ed.): Abortion Law And Public Policy, 1984
Dworkin, R.: Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion And Euthanasia, 1993
Glendon, M.A.: Abortion And Divorce In Western Law, 1987
Report Of The Committee On The Working Of The Abortion Act, 1974
Reagan, L.J.: When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law In the United States,
1867-1973 (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1997) (HTML at UC Press)
Report On Injuries To Unborn Children: Advice To The Lord Chancellor Under Section 3(1)(E)
Of The L / The Law Commission, 1974
Hesketh, T.: The Second Partitioning Of Ireland The Abortion Referendum Of 1983
(c. Drugs:
Fagan, Jeffrey and Ko-lin Chin. 1990. "Violence as Regulation and Social Control in The
Distribution of Crack." Pp. 8-43 in Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates And Consequences,
edited by Mario De La Rosa, Elizabeth Y. Lambert and Bernard Gropper. Rockville, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
Goldstein, Paul J., Henry H. Brownstein, Patrick J. Ryan, and Patricia A. Bellucci.1989. "Crack
and Homicide in New York City, 1988: A Conceptually Based Event Analysis." Contemporary Drug
Problems 651-687.
Goode, E: Between Politics And Reason: The Drug Legalization Debate, 1997
Johnson, Bruce D., Terry Williams, Kojo A. Dei and Kerry D. Smith. 1990. "Drug Abuse in the
Inner City: Impact on Hard-Drug Users and the Community." Crime and Justice 13:9-67.
Miller, R.L.: Drug Warriors And Their Prey: From Police Power To Police State, 1996 Drugs And
Crime: Evaluating Public Policy Initiatives / Edited By Doris Layton Mackenzie, Craig D. Uchida.
1994 Drugs, Crime, And Social Policy Research, Issues, And Concerns / Edited By Thomas
Mieczkowski, 1992
Explanatory Report On The Convention On Laundering, Search, Seizure And Confiscation Of
The Proceeds / Council Of Europe, 1991
First Report Of The Ministerial Task Force On Measures To Reduce The Demand For Drugs
1996
Inventory Of EC (legal) Texts On Drugs / European Monitoring Centre For Drugs And Drug
Addiction, 1993
Second Report Have The Ministerial Task Force On Measures To Reduce The Demand For
Drugs.1997 Flynn, S. and Yeates, P: Smack The Criminal Drugs Racket In Ireland /1985
Cervantes, R.C.: Substance Abuse And Gang Violence / 1992
Home | Site Overview | Books for Sale | Links | Contact Us | Website Map