Tag: how?

  • How Bono Nearly Ruined My Life

    Gazing up into the darkness I saw myself as a creature driven and derided by vanity; and my eyes burned with anguish and anger.’
    James Joyce, ‘Araby’, from Dubliners (1914)

    Nineteen Seventy-Nine was a big year for me. I turned eighteen, which meant I could vote, had I felt so inclined. I had my first real girlfriend, and mistakenly thought that was going to last for ever. I did my Leaving Certificate, for which I did not do very much study (an unfortunate fact not unconnected to having said first girlfriend, and also my discovery of the live punk rock music scene around Dublin). I had my first proper adult job, or job that adults did, working as a bus conductor through that long, hot summer (nepotism was involved in securing the temporary position). Bus conducting is a job adults no longer do – or children for that matter – since it is a job that no longer exists, at least in Ireland. My first real girlfriend broke up with me after a few months and, heartbroken, I struggled to understand why. I got into the vocational college course I wanted (a triumph somewhat tainted by the presence of said first ex-girlfriend there too). I formed my first and, so far, only band, and we played a grand total of five paying gigs, before succumbing to the pressures of non-stardom. And I saw future megastars U2 play in the Dandelion Market at St. Stephen’s Green, McGonagle’s nightclub in St. Anne’s Street (afternoon gigs), and the Baggot Inn on Baggot Street – attendance at the Dandelion Market for one of the fledgling band’s shows there coming to be regarded in later years as our generation’s equivalent of being present in the General Post Office for the 1916 Easter Rising.

    And in 1979 Pope John Paul II came to Ireland, paying a flying three-day visit from Saturday, 29 September to Monday, 1 October. I refrained from going to see his Saturday show in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, which was a rather radical move, considering how pretty much everyone else on the east coast of Ireland and beyond – some 1,250,000 people in fact, one-third of the then population of the country – flocked there for the event, while other extravaganzas in Drogheda, Clonmacnoise, Galway, Knock, Maynooth and Limerick during the following two days meant that he eventually wound up playing to over 2.5m souls, all told.

    I wonder why I had already made up my mind about institutional religion, and so vehemently renounced the Catholic faith, even at that early stage? After all, this was a time – long before clerical sexual abuse scandals and increased levels of education had put paid to the church’s vice-like dominance – when nearly everyone in Ireland was a Catholic, in some shape or form, except the small percentage who weren’t, and they were usually some sort of Protestant. Agnostics, much less those evil atheists, were few and far between. I must have been ahead of my time in this regard, which means being out of step with the present. More practically, where were my parents, and how did I avoid being corralled, or shamed, into going?

    Twelve-year-old me had caused consternation in my hyper religious family by announcing that I no longer wanted to go to Sunday Mass. All kinds of pressure was brought to bear – visits to Jesuit spiritual advisors, withdrawal of pocket money – in an effort to get me ‘back on the right road’. I capitulated by saying I was going to evening Mass by myself, and instead took long walks for the required duration.

    I suppose my main beef with the Catholic ethos was its ubiquity, coupled with the fact that much of it just didn’t make any sense to empirically minded young me. An early fan of comparative religion, I questioned why one version of God was popular in one part of the world, while another held sway in another part, while both claimed to be the one true faith. It seemed like some sort of competitive sport, which I surmised was not what a just, wise and beneficent Godly entity would have necessarily intended. As a child, I’d had a keen interest in astronomy, which served to make me place affairs on tiny Planet Earth in a more universal perspective. Had God made the entire cosmos, or only our small corner of it? Had God been around before the universe had been created and, if so, who’d made God, or where did He come from? Also, I had been an altar boy, and my glimpse behind the scenes of the congregation’s collection offerings being counted out and bagged off alerted me to the worldly pecuniary underpinning of the celestial domain. God was inextricably funded by Mammon.

    Getting my hands on some books, other than prayer missals, probably expedited my apostasy as well. For example James Joyce’s künstlerroman, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916), or Albert Camus’s ode to existential alienation, L’Etranger (1942) (or, indeed, Colin Wilson’s popular literary critical study of the time, which favours the English translation of that title, The Outsider (1956)), never mind science fiction like Robert A. Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land (recommended via New Musical Express articles on David Bowie, and subsequently appropriated as the title of a song by that Dublin new wave band U2, from their sophomore album October (1981)and itself a direct Biblical quotation (Exodus 2:22)). I actually read these books, rather than merely name-dropping them, as others were wont to do. Being educated at a school run by the now notorious and reviled Christian Brothers – even one of the better ‘fee-paying’ ones (my parents were poor, but I was sent to a posh school, a story too convoluted to provide an explanation for here) – didn’t help either, as the pedagogical experience amounted to little more than daily skirmishes in a war of attrition between ‘us’ and ‘them’. I had, and retain, a problem with authority figures of any description. I felt instinctively, rather than could articulate coherently, that the church was just about controlling people, keeping them in line. They tried to break your will, so that you would do the will of God. I wasn’t one for obeying the rules, although I didn’t always like the consequences if I didn’t.

    The day of the Pope’s mass in the Phoenix Park I was still employed in my student job on the buses, and transport workers were among the few sectors doing any service that day, ferrying the multitudes to and from the site. There were no private cars on the road. A special stand had been erected for us busmen to view the proceedings, between doing the outward and return journeys. I didn’t bother going down to it, but hung out by my bus, eating my lunch. I don’t know where the rest of my family were. My father, also a bus conductor (thus, the nepotism), would have been down in the busmen’s viewing area, but it would have been easy to miss him in the general ‘Mass’ chaos. My mother, a semi-invalid, probably stayed at home. The fact that I was on duty would have precluded me meeting up with my elder brother or sister or their families. All in all, my summer job saved me a lot of potential conflict that day, and was a good excuse for not having to make a fake show of religiosity. I suppose, unlike many others, I also earned a few bob courtesy of the Pontiff’s Dublin visit. Transport had begotten me some delight.

    Some time in the months following that autumn day I got to meet and become friendly with the guys in this group called U2 – well, Bono, Edge and Larry at any rate, Adam proving more elusive. Dublin was small, much smaller than I had previously imagined, hailing as I did from a sheltered background where my parents didn’t do much socialising, and the music community was even smaller. I cannot remember with any clarity how this happened: I was in a band, they were in a band, both playing the same scene; I’d been writing for a music fanzine, Imprint, which that tumultuous first girlfriend edited; in the summer of 1980 I’d begun writing for Hot Press music magazine, as part of my journalism training course (a distinct incidence of lycanthropism: critic by day, musician by night – or vice versa); most likely, it was because I’d started attending the Shalom Christian prayer group, of which those three musicians, plus various Virgin Prunes (U2’s outlier, little brother band) were also members.

    This admission may seem startling, given my already confessed antipathy to so-called ‘organised’ religion. But perhaps exactly what appealed was that this was not at all organised. And while I may have shunned the church, all traces of spiritual longing had not deserted me. Even Joyce’s Stephen Dedalus suffered a reconversion (or do ‘lapsed’ Catholics ‘relapse’?), before abandoning religion, specifically Roman Catholicism, for evermore.

    This newfound Bible-bashing proved to be an unhappy conflux of events, a classic case of bad timing: after all, the hippie liberals in Hot Press didn’t care for their punky young contributors to be sneaking off to prayer meetings on the sly, when we should have been skulling pints and vacuuming up rip-snorting intoxicants and generally behaving in a recognisably debauched and approved Rock’n’Roll manner (Hot Press advertising slogan of the period: ‘Making Ireland Safe for Rock’n’Roll’), even if in subsequent years the fate and fortunes of that particular organ became inextricably entwined with the largesse of U2’s coffers – thus ensuring that you’ll never read a bad word about U2 in Hot Press. I kept such associations undercover at my place of casual employment, although I do remember allusions in that publication’s gossip pages inquiring as to ‘What is this hip new religion?’. The U2 boys were in no hurry to have their committed Christian beliefs become common public knowledge either, at this early stage.

    That was the summer, 1980, of U2 recording their debut album Boy at Windmill Lane Studios, where I was present on at least one occasion. I also remember a trip to Gorey Arts Festival on 15 August, to see the band play at the Theatre Hall, possibly the worst live performance of their entire career, due to being ensconced in the studio, under-rehearsed, and road rusty. By September, I had dropped out of my journalism course, determined that my vocation was to be a professional songwriter and musician. But by the turn of the year, the winter of discontent, it had all turned to shit: my band, 1991, were good, and we’d had great fun and learned a lot making music, but we weren’t making any money; my parents, unable or unwilling to support me in this endeavour, were berating me to pay for my upkeep; my attitude having proven unpopular in Hot Press, I wasn’t getting any work there – and in any case the magazine had never been the most regular of paymasters, and when you did finally squeeze a cheque out of them the rewards were meagre. I took a mind-numbing job turning screws in an electronics assembly factory, to stave off simmering discontent at home. The bass player didn’t fit, and we needed a new one. The lead guitarist wanted me to play bass, while we looked for a new singer, a reconfiguration I wasn’t about to accept. I may not have been possessed of the best voice in the world (unlike Bono Vox, whose nickname proclaimed that he had a ‘good voice’ in dog Latin), but neither was Lou Reed. Most piercingly, my second and more profound loss of faith occurred, and can best be attributed to the creeping realisation that the Born Again God-bothering was merely providing a haven for those embroiled in the insecurities of late adolescence, terrified at the prospect of facing into an uncertain young adulthood. This applied as much to the U2ers as other frequenters of those Monday evening gatherings in the tiny flat in East Arran Street – although they arguably had much more going for them than most of the other worshippers. A cult-like sect can be as much about control and manipulation, albeit on a smaller, more intimate scale, as any mainstream belief system. So, everything disintegrated, I felt I had few options, and I grew temporarily deranged.

    In retrospect, I can rationalise my brief, embarrassing flirtation with fundamentalist religion as my way of reconciling the strong influence of the traditionally grounded Catholicism of my parents’ generation, coupled with my sister and her family’s membership of a Charismatic Renewal Christian Community (a particularly noxious commingling of said traditional Irish Catholicism with U.S.-style evangelicalism), with the local popular musical culture of which I was a devotee, thus simultaneously winning the approval of my family and getting on with establishing myself in my chosen field. I would be keeping everyone happy. Even Bob Dylan had found God, and David Bowie was wearing a crucifix around his neck. Maybe religion could be hip and liberating, instead of a straitjacket stranglehold on imagination and creativity. How wrong I was. For there were a lot of people – indeed, all those outside the tiny circle of my immediate family and the Shalom brethren – who weren’t very happy at all. Context is everything. I blame the dread example of Bono and his two bandmates for leading me astray. Still, they held steadfast to their fervent beliefs, for the time being at least, which must have been hard, even outré, given the indie rock milieu in which they were operating. But they had a sense of mission, and wanted to change the world, which is what kept them going. I had just wanted to write original songs with good hooks, mostly about girls and relationships, falling in love and breaking up, the secular rather than the sacred. It wasn’t enough to sustain me in the face of parental disapproval and opposition, and the financial insecurity.

    And so, amid all this hysteria, I cut my losses, and decamped to Amsterdam, to get away from it all, and make a fresh start after a turbulent couple of years.

    So began my (mis)adventures as part of yet another subculture, that of disenfranchised European internal immigrants – Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English, French, Italian – all in Holland to earn some money before returning to college or moving on to warmer climes. My cohort worked for an agency which placed us in food-processing factories, and we lived in dormitories on a farm about twenty kilometres from Amsterdam city centre. A fleet of vans ferried us to and from our work places five days a week, for alternating weeks of early and late shifts (much like those scheduled for bus crews). At weekends, I’d go up to the bright lights with my newfound and now lifelong friend, Mick, and I’d busk while he bottled (held the hat and collected the money), and we’d stay over in hostels and sample the mythic delights of the port’s sleazy nightlife – buy drugs, get drunk, eat space cake, and watch bands and films in the Paradiso or Melkweg. I was not just backsliding, but well-lapsed by then. We even quit our jobs for a few weeks and lived in a tent on a campsite on the outskirts of the city, having calculated that we could just about precariously survive on my street-performer’s revenues.

    But even there, I could not escape the rising U2 phenomenon. Well, I could have if I’d tried, but obviously I didn’t want to. It’s hard to imagine from this vantage-point, the best part of forty-five years later, but there was a time when they were comparable contemporaries of Echo & The Bunnymen and Joy Division, just another interesting indie band on the up, a time when it seemed not unfanciful that The Edge would become the next Tom Verlaine (outstandingly gifted, idiosyncratic guitarist with New York avant-garde outfit Television), and they’d make slightly off-kilter, left-of-centre, alternative music, well-regarded and influential among their peers, but hardly the earth-bestriding colossus into which they subsequently grew. This was still a couple of years before the martial drum beat of ‘Sunday Bloody Sunday’ and the expansive strains of ‘New Year’s Day’ were to be heard ringing out from the rec rooms of every frat house across the USA. The pretending-to-be-cowboys-lost-in-the-desert phase of The Josuha Tree album, a change of image adopted as part of a huge push to break the hugely lucrative US market, was still half a decade away.

    They were playing in the pretty college town of Leiden on Wednesday, 28 October 1981, while touring to promote that second album, October, and I made it my business to get along and reconnect, following up again two days later, when they took the stage at the famed Paradiso club back in Amsterdam. Both were excellent shows, if memory serves, as they were a tight little road-hardened unit by that point. When I approached their tour bus outside the first venue, I was remembered and made welcome, and then invited into the dressing rooms for both shows, and watched the performances from the wings. Maybe they thought I still shared their evangelical faith, or were under the impression that I was there in my capacity as a rock journalist. More likely, they were just glad to see a Dublin face in the crowd on their travels. Friday, 30 October was Larry’s birthday, or rather the 31 is, but it was celebrated on the Friday night, I forget why, maybe because his girlfriend was over. A battery-operated toy fire engine, and other gifts, were unwrapped. I spent both nights sleeping on the floor of the twin bed hotel rooms shared by Edge and Adam (Bono and Larry always roomed together in another one). A few months later, back in Dublin, I received a ‘Postcard from The Edge’ which read, ‘Nice to run into you in Holland, God Bless.’

    You see, I hadn’t been completely stupid. Yes, after Amsterdam, I had taken off on my pan-European odyssey, in my mind doing for my continent what Kerouac had done for his, stopping off in in Frankfurt, Cologne, Munich, Salzburg, Belgrade, Athens and a sprinkling of Greek islands. But I had also managed to save some money, in order to return to the Auld Sod, and register myself in UCD for a proper university education (a luxury it was thought not everyone was entitled to back then, when getting an arts degree had more value than a certificate of attendance). After all, this was the recession-torn 1980s, there were no jobs, and sitting in lecture theatres and libraries was preferable to working in some dead-end job – in the unlikely event that you could find one – or not working at all. I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life picking burnt carrots off a conveyor belt, or even busking for passing change. And so, aged twenty-one, and with some life experience behind me, my new life of long hours at a desk burying myself in books began. Why should such pleasures be the preserve solely of the privileged?

    The second last time I met Bono he was out with Adam, at some nightclub in Dublin, when they were taking a break from the recording of their third album War (1983), between September and November 1982. The Hot House Flowers duo of Liam Ó Maonlaí and Fiachna Ó Braonáin, in their alternative iteration as The Benzini Brothers, were knocking out R’n’B standards in the corner (R’n’B here referring broadly to the genre of music made by Chuck Berry rather than by Beyonce). Everyone in the place was too cool or too embarrassed to talk to the by now fairly famous frontman, or maybe out of deference were just leaving him alone to enjoy his night out, but in his inimitable, irrepressible way, Bono made a point of tapping me on the arm when he recognised me sitting a few places up from him, and said hello. Wow, he remembered me, again, having been half-way around the world since we last ran into each other. We shot the breeze for a while, nothing too deep or meaningful, typical after hours venue conversation. We agreed the live show was good.

    The last time I encountered Bono I was working student security at a gig by Welsh band The Alarm on the UCD Belfield campus, on 22 October 1983. My job was to guard their dressing room door. The ever-ebullient one arrived with an entourage, to offer moral support to a group who had toured with U2 as an opening act. He gave me a big wave and full-on smile as soon as he saw me (much to the jaw-dropping surprise of the too-cool-for-school Students’ Union social secretary and his crew, whom I sensed had pegged me as a bit of an nerd), told me how he really wanted to get down to doing some serious reading soon too, and inquired what time I’d be finished my doorman duties. I told him being a student was fine, except for the lack of money. ‘Sure, what do you need money for?’ was his reply. Later on he did a turn on stage with his Cymru friends, improvising lyrics to Dylan’s ‘Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door’, and then disappeared into the night.

    The last time I was in the presence of Mr. B was when he was called on to launch an exhibition of work by Italian painter Francesco Clemente at the Irish Museum of Modern Art, early in 2004. The circumstances were quite comical. He arrived in a flurry of security, gave his speech, and was whisked away again in jig time; there was no mingling with the assembled throng. The place was, it has to be admitted, packed to the rafters, much more so than any other gallery opening I’ve ever been invited to, with the great and good of Dublin’s bourgeoisie, all anxious to catch a glimpse of the great man. Just because he’s Bono. Just because his band are rich, famous and successful. Because that’s the only way the middle-class vulgarians, who ordinarily have no interest in popular music and culture, can appreciate its significance: through money, how much it sells and how much it makes. Afterwards, there were the usual overheard comments about his diminutive physical stature, of the ilk of ‘He’s very short in real life, isn’t he?’ Ah, Bono and his Napoleon complex.

    The last time I saw U2 live – having caught them a few times at various junctures around the globe since those club dates in Holland in 1982 – was in August 1993 in the RDS Arena in Ballsbridge, Dublin, as part of the Zoo TV tour. Achtung Baby (1991) and Zooropa (1993), the albums they were then touring, are now widely regarded as the pinnacle of the band’s artistic career (although I am sometimes tempted to argue that Boy remains their best album, and it’s been downhill ever since). Their popularity and status had put them well out of my league by then, and I was just another punter standing in the middle of a field. I have not had any desire to see them again since then, not being much of a one for huge outdoor stadium gigs. I certainly would not have been caught dead at any of the forty concerts which made up their U2:UV Achtung Baby Live at Sphere residency in Las Vegas from 29 September 2023 to 2 March 2024, a meretriciously bloated spectacle (judging from the snippets I inadvertently saw of it online) which would be best described as a sell-out, if they hadn’t sold out years before that. If U2 wouldn’t go to the mountain of touring, then the mountain of fans could come to see U2 in one place, and where better than the gaudiness conceptualised of Vegas, even if in this case not everything that happened there stayed there? Anyway, it is my hipsterish habit to discover nascent bands and enthuse about them in their formative stages when they are still trying to make it, only to – with some notable exceptions – gradually lose interest as they achieve widespread recognition and become established in the mainstream. Call it inverted critical snobbery, if you will, but it’s rare bands who continue to improve with age; for most, the law of diminishing returns sadly kicks in, sooner or later. U2 actually had quite a good run, before they started marking time, followed by a typical decline setting in.

    Here ends the chronology of my personal Zelig-like relationship with Ireland’s biggest rock export, and its most famous son. Let us now put it all into a little perspective.

    Bono on stage in 1983.

    Everybody in Dublin (and now many far beyond) has at least one U2 or, more specifically, one Bono story. (Legion are the number of bands who are identified, liked or disliked, solely on the basis of the behaviour of their frontman.) Some of the stories are about how he’s just an ordinary bloke, some are about how he’s a prick. (The former tend to be the more distant ones, timewise, the latter more recent.) But everybody also would have liked the fairytale of a band they formed in high school becoming world-famous. Everybody would have liked to be in a band based on deep commitment and friendship, rather than a bunch of divisive, competing egotists who just happened to be able to play their instruments and grew up in the same place. Everybody would have liked, in some way or another, the U2 story to be theirs – up to a point.

    So I didn’t become a rock star (while Bono did), which is a regret, but not a big one. Certainly, it would have been salutary to have been given the time and opportunity to try and find out how far I could have taken it, but times were harder for people from my background in those days, and I didn’t have the support, contacts or confidence to make it work and pursue the dream. But, there again, probably neither did he – except for the utter confidence, which helped him acquire the support and contacts. To be honest, I didn’t have his patent chutzpah, or his vaulting ambition. Few did, or do. Nor his lack of self-consciousness, which can be flipped and cast positively as that familiar, winning self-confidence. He is a living, breathing example of – as Sinéad O’Connor would have had it – the value of ignorance.

    You see, Rock’n’Roll was still just about ‘bad’ in our day, not yet a multi-million dollar business. This was long before the advent of private ‘train-to-be-a-rockstar’ colleges such as BIMM, or the state doing-its-bit-for-the-kids with the likes of Ballyfermot Rock School. In fact, I can remember that when I inquired of the Principal of the Brothers’ kip where I received my secondary education (an institution staffed predominantly by ‘fools in old-style hats and coats’, constantly complaining about ‘long’ collar-length hair and denim jeans and, when punk belatedly arrived, about short spiky hair and leather jackets, sprinkled with stern admonitions about ‘immorality’), if my band could rehearse in the school gym at weekends, he was quick to ascertain the socio-economic background of each group member – and refused us on the basis that the drummer, my first cousin Robbie, was from Ballyfermot, thus demonstrating his poisonous admixture of Irish Catholic conservatism’s censorious attitude to any uncodified artistic activity, and plain old social snobbery. Happily, my local Protestant rector was generous enough to let his nearby primary school – which most kids in the neighbourhood attended irrespective of their religious persuasion – be used by any bunch of teenagers who wanted to practise their developing chops in their spare time. Bono has made much of his mixed-marriage parentage, which means not that one of them was a man and the other a woman, but that his father was a Catholic and his mother was a Protestant. This alliance led to him getting his schooling in the interdenominational Mount Temple Comprehensive, a liberal enclave which perhaps determined the entire subsequent course of his life. They would not have been so disapproving of students’ budding efforts at creative expression. In fact, if reports and results are to be credited, they positively encouraged it. Perhaps Bono has played his own part in making Rock’n’Roll not so ‘Bad’ (to appropriate one of U2’s more well-known song titles) and more socially accepted but, in a sense, that has only made it worse, by making it less incendiary and so less relevant to cutting edge discourse. Now bog-standard ‘rock’ is just another form of corporate entertainment, and a niche interest as well, no longer central to youth culture. Which is part of why it is so disconcerting to hear the 1990s talked of as though it was ancient history, like the 1950s were spoken of during the 1980s – but which is, undeniably, exactly the same amount of time elapsed: thirty years.

    Of course I am not so foolish as to think that U2, and Mr. B, nearly ruined my life. I was more than capable of doing that myself (with a little help from family, so-called-friends, and powerful institutions). Maybe I should have just been stronger, more single-minded, more determined – in short, more like him. Maybe, like him, I should have ‘kept the faith’. But that is not my nature, at least not in that sphere. Besides, everybody runs up against the walls of their own innate talent, eventually. I was good, I wasn’t bad, my band were good (if disunited), but was I good enough? It’s probably a bit like being the best football player in your local under-16s soccer team, and because you’re head and shoulders above the other kids there, you think the world is just waiting for you to conquer it, but discovering in succeeding years that you’re more of a League 1 or League of Ireland level journeyman rather than a potential Premiership international superstar, the next Messi or Ronaldo. Still, lots of guys and gals are happy to make a reasonable living in lower divisions or lowly leagues, doing something they enjoy, operating within the limitations of their personal talent walls. But, for me, once an enjoyable hobby becomes ‘the job’, it tends to lose some of its lustre – unless you’re really good at it, and are always getting better, or maintaining the same high standard. In any case, I’m probably a better writer than I am a musician, and the working conditions are more congenial to a person like me – or the person I have become, due to those conditions.

    For I’ve attained enough self-knowledge to realise that I would have been temperamentally unsuited to the role of being a rock star. While I like the buzz of performing, playing with friends in private, or sometimes even in public – once I’ve got over my initial nerves, and if it’s going well – I imagine I would have found the rigours of constant touring a sore trial: always being surrounded by people, everybody wanting a piece of you, never having a minute to yourself. I don’t think I’d have been very stable or content being in the glare of the spotlight, unless I’d managed to cultivate strategies to distance myself from it (which, depending on the reification or compartmentalisation of personality involved, is kind of a contradiction in terms). Never mind Bono, to quote another capering frontman, Mick Jagger, on his former bandmate, Brian Jones: ‘Fame doesn’t sit very comfortably on anyone’s shoulders,’ (here, with tongue-in-cheek, reflexively referencing himself) ‘but some people’s shoulders [don’t] seem to fit it on at all. And he was one of them.’ That’s it: given my then – and, albeit increasingly in moderation, still abiding – liking for certain illicit substances, I may well have wound up gaining unwanted membership of the 27 Club. Besides, I was a budding (self-styled!) intellectual – even if I didn’t know it – at a time when rock musicians were not supposed to have brains, or be too clever. Admittedly, intellectuals in general do not enjoy very much popularity in the public eye (unless you live in France), as it is assumed that they lack ‘the common touch’ – which may very well be true. And while public intellectuals can be identified in these parts (every Irish person is, to a greater or lesser extent, a ‘public intellectual’, in the open-air lunatic asylum that Ireland so patently is), the idea and reality of being ‘always on’, as those with a high profile in any field must be, but particularly in the entertainment sector which requires constant self-promotion, can prove tiresome to those of us with minds of our own, and a need for solitude. I’m much happier being alone in my study, reading and writing (or taking the occasional break by playing my guitar) than I would be traipsing across the concert stages of the world. Notwithstanding the fact that it does mean I languish in relative obscurity.

    Fintan O’Toole in 2010.

    Fintan O’Toole was surely right, in his article headlined ‘Bono at 60 – Why is Ireland so ambivalent about its most famous son?’ (The Irish Times, 20/05/2020), about how, with Bono, ‘Whatever part of the brain makes us cringe at ourselves is missing’, as evidenced by when Hot Press – in its infinite wisdom – sent him to interview Bob Dylan (Slane, 1984), and it soon became clear that he knew fuck all about Dylan or his music. The reporter-for-the-day didn’t even know any of the lyrics to Bob’s albatross-round-his-neck most well-known song, ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’, when he joined the headliner on stage for the encore – so he had the temerity to improvise his own. The generally resolutely poker-faced Mr. Dylan was clearly nonplussed, and looked askance at these antics. As this one incident among many illustrates, Bono certainly doesn’t lack for brass neck, and is good at spoofing – in contrast to more reflective and reticent people, who like to do their research and know what they’re talking about before they open their mouths (which, in Bono’s case, is usually to change feet).

    And yet, as anyone who has ever met him will tell you, his charm is lethal. He is, though you’d be loath to admit it, a nice guy. Or was, when I was acquainted with him. Maybe a bit brash, and loud, but not obnoxiously so. And he does have a great talent, perhaps not so much as a musician, but as a performer. I’ve seen him make a football stadium in Modena, Italy, seem as intimate as a small theatre, on the 1987 Joshua Tree tour (and I was standing a lot farther back by then than I had been in The Dandelion Market or McGonagle’s or The Baggot Inn). He came to hear my band rehearse once, and offer advice. He was always enthusiastic and interested in people and the stuff they were doing, with no apparent motive of self-interest, other than being friendly. Obviously, I haven’t seen or spoken to him in years. So it’s strange how much I dislike him (or rather, his public persona) and even the group now, and this despite some of the undeniably great records they’ve made – always acknowledging the fact that they haven’t made a decent one in years, and seem content to reinterpret their own back catalogue, in the process becoming a heritage act, their own tribute band. Like many Irish people, Dubliners especially, I tend to concur when I hear the oft-repeated phrase, ‘Bono is a pox’.

    The simple reason for this antipathy is the perceived hypocrisy involved in his political posturing and tax avoidance, and the concomitant suspicion (as most thoroughly documented and delineated in Harry Browne’s book The Frontman (2013)) that perhaps all Bono’s do-gooding celebrity philanthropy and hobnobbing with dodgy politicians and economists in 10 Downing Street or the White House or at the Davos World Economic Forum or the G8 summit, in reality only makes things worse rather than better, or better only in the short term, because it perpetuates the present system, of which he is a thoroughly embedded part.

    For sure, a card-carrying socialist proselytiser like Billy Bragg, or even right-on Paul Weller, do not have anything like Bono’s reach or range of influence, but everyone knows where they stand politically. Bono’s politics, and even his religious beliefs, have always remained opaque, at least until more recent years, beyond a vague ‘don’t hurt people, help them’ ill-thought-out, secular Christian humanism. But all the fuzzy charity work and debt-relief activism shouldn’t obscure the fact that he is, and always has been, an arch capitalist. This began to become overt in an Op-Ed Guest Columnist piece he wrote for the New York Times (02/01/2010), ‘Ten for the Next Ten’, which, amid predictions for the incoming decade, contained the parenthetical injunction ‘(Trust in capitalism – we’ll find a way)’. It became fully manifest in his acceptance speech for the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, bestowed on him by the outgoing holder of that office, Joe Biden, in January 2025 – wherein he said his campaigning activities are ‘a way to bring the capitalists on board (and that was before I realized I was one)’. It’s all about trickle down with Bono. He could even be considered to be a personified proponent of the U.S. evangelical-style ‘prosperity gospel’.

    (Incidentally, consenting to be conferred with that honour (and be photographed in beatific choirboy pose) was an unforgivably smug, self-centred extravagance, at a time when Genocide Joe was funding the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people by the apartheid state of Israel (a process continued seamlessly by the current incumbent). A real crusading, anti-establishment rock star would have refused the garish, star-encrusted trinket, just as John Lennon handed back his MBE in 1969 in protest, in his own words, ‘against Britain’s involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra thing, against our support of America in Vietnam, and against ‘Cold Turkey’ slipping down the charts.’ But then Bono has been remarkably reticent about the atrocities and human rights violations being committed in Gaza, in contrast to his lifelong vocal concern with Africa, and solving the problems of some of the continent’s poorer countries (and also given his rush to intervene in other war-torn centres like the Balkans and Ukraine). His unbelievably crass comments in an interview (RTE Radio 1’s Brendan O’Connor Show, May 2025) about ‘competitive empathy’ regarding the humanitarian crisis in Gaza serve only as a telling indication of where his own ‘competitive empathy’ lies. Make poverty history, and promote conflict resolution, but only in certain locales. But such an intervention in Middle Eastern geopolitics would doubtlessly damage U2’s marketability in the States, given the large support the terrorist state of Israel enjoys there, not only among its Jewish, but also its Christian fundamentalist population. After all, Christian Zionists maintain that the Book of Genesis says that God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse it. Furthermore, the evangelicals – who number some 62 million in the U.S. – believe that the return of Jews to the Holy Land, and the conversion of Jews to Christian belief, is a prerequisite for the return of Christ, which will in turn be heralded by the Rapture, when true believers will be whisked away to meet Jesus in an otherworldly realm.)

    Of course Bono would think of himself as too smart – in the sense of being streetwise and practical – to be a Marxist, or even a socialist. Why would he even consider such a course, when capitalism has so demonstratively worked for hardworking him? Bono is a Northside Dubliner who has long been resident in a mansion in the poshest district on the Southside. I grew up on a council estate on the Southside, but have migrated in the opposite direction to him, and now live in a spacious detached house in north County Dublin, because that is one of the few places where we can afford a home which is more than a suburban shoebox, while still within striking distance of Dublin city centre, on a bus route. He may sing about ‘Where the Streets Have No Name’, but he lives ‘Where the Houses Have No Numbers’. He is very rich, while I remain – comparatively speaking – very poor (as, I would wager a modest amount, do you). He buys properties as investments, and flips them, like any good businessman would, as though unimaginably enormous royalties from humungous record sales and astronomical proceeds from record-breaking world tours aren’t enough. It’s been quite a remarkable journey from suspected Sandinista sympathiser (‘Bullet the Blue Sky’, anyone?) to international property speculator. Even drummer Larry has got in on the act, last heard of suing a Dublin accountancy firm over bad property investment advice. Sure you’d have to be doing something with all your money, rather than just letting it sit there in a deposit account in the bank or post office. But it’s not really about the music anymore, and hasn’t been for a long time. Sadly, the institution that is U2 is now all things to all people; but it could have been so much more. It could have meant so much more than just an exemplary business model. One is tempted, in a biblical allusion, to say that Bono has sold his musical birthright for a mess of monetary pottage. Except that it amounts to a very large mess. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with commercial success, but lots of the wealth didn’t come from music. The art just provided the seed capital. Perhaps he should have become a contestant on Dragon’s Den instead, and saved us all the trouble. One thinks of that oft-quoted cliché, variously attributed to Georges Clemenceau or Winston Churchill: ‘If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is forty, he has no brain.’ Except Bono was never a socialist, even at twenty, and I remain some sort of one, even in my sixties. From which I can only conclude that I have no brain. Yet why wouldn’t I be a socialist, given my socio-economic circumstances and my diagnosis of why I find myself in them? Bono’s argument, and that of those of his kind, would be that I am just left-leaning because I’m not well-off (and, concomitantly, that I’m not well-off because I am left-leaning), and that I’m probably lazy too. But then, I don’t operate in a socialist society, so what hope have I, unless I ‘get with the programme’ they have always been ‘brainy’ enough to embrace? (Just as it is difficult to be a socialist in a capitalist society, it is a hard road if you are based in Ireland and are someone who likes to write about rock music, but who thinks Hot Press is little more than a fortnightly public relations press release masquerading as cutting-edge criticism: bring on some free market choice in Irish music journalism outlets, please.)

    For, what if they are right? What if my politics are just evidence of my own incorrigible naivety? What if I should have ‘got with the programme’ all around me years ago? I might now be rich, or richer than I am, or at least ‘well-off’ or ‘comfortable’ or ‘secure’, or any of those other terms commonly employed to denote not having to worry about money. Or maybe, more than likely, I’d still be struggling, like almost everyone else I know, to get by. Most people live in debt for most of their lives, anyway, just to keep up middle-class appearances. Somehow, I think Bono probably worries about money a good deal more than I do – albeit in a rather different way. The usual non-committal riposte, whenever Bono’s bona fides are questioned, is that ‘He means well’. But this amounts to little more than a (holy) fool’s pardon. Forgive him, for he knows not what he does. Besides, I think he has a fair idea of what he does. While obviously not the most self-aware individual on the planet, he is far from unaware of the repercussions of his actions. In addition to which, Lenin, Hitler, Mao – all those utopian visionaries-gone-wrong – meant well, leastways at various points in their careers. It is rare that someone does not ‘mean well’, for some of the people, if not all the people, some of the time, if not all the time. Most people ‘mean well’ for somebody, at some time – if only for themselves. The road to hell is paved with good intentions – and sometimes also with actions. ‘Salvation is of the Lord, lest any man should boast.’

    Bono has God, I do not. ‘Christian rock’ is a hugely popular subgenre in the U.S. but almost unknown outside of it. But in many ways, U2 were the original Christian rock band, and Bono’s frequent lyrical references to God, Yahweh and Jesus have contributed in no small part to making them popular there, to the extent that the U.S. is their breadbasket, which in turn has made them rich, and their wealth is in turn the reason why important, powerful people (Blair, Browne, Bush, Obama) listened to him and wanted to be seen to hang with him. The recently deceased Pope Francis was probably more of a socialist than Bono is, or ever was (as is his newly-appointed his successor). Yet when said R.C. church mainman visited Ireland on 25 and 26 August 2018, as part of the World Meeting of Families (whatever that is), his audiences were not nearly as large as those that turned out for John Paul II in 1979. When Pope Francis celebrated Mass at the Papal Cross in Phoenix Park – a monument that commemorates his predecessor’s visit thirty-nine years previously – approximately 152,000 attended the service, according to the Office of Public Works (far less than the estimated 500,000 predicted, which was itself a huge reduction on the preceding performance). More Irish people may have come around to my way of thinking in the interim as regards attendance at pontifical gigs, but Bono and his bandmates could certainly draw a bigger crowd in Dublin than the Bishop of Rome, aka God’s appointed vicar on earth: a three-night run at Croke Park, which they did in 2005 and 2009, amounted to 240,000 tickets sold each time, give or take a few thousand – which even accounting for fans who might have gone to all three separate appearances still trumps Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s audience figures – and they were not waiving appearance fees. John Lennon took a lot of flak in 1966 when he claimed that The Beatles were more popular than Jesus. Bono could have, with some justification, made the same assertion at the height of U2’s prominence – at least within Ireland. Not that he would have done so, and definitely not back in his beloved born again USA – if only because it might be a closer run thing over there. Still, little wonder that he might be tempted, as the old joke has it, to walk around Dublin thinking he is God (the difference between the two deities being that God doesn’t walk around the Fair City thinking he’s Bono).

    Bono and his wife Ali Hewson at the 2022 Kennedy Center Honors Dinner.

    I have no idea what would happen if I met Bono now. But, much like what Elvis Costello has said in interview (with Allen Jones, Dublin, May 1989, from Too Late To Stop Now (2023)) about Paul McCartney:

    You know, I think of him, McCartney, like he’s Buzz Aldrin or somebody.
    Someone who’s been to the fucking moon. None of us can conceive what
    it must be like to have been through what he’s experienced. It’s a unique
    experience, probably, in the 20th century, to be him. And that’s not making
    too big a thing of it.

    I think it must be really odd being Bono. Considering how Mega U2 have been, the monolith they’ve become, it’s surprising he’s even halfway normal – if, indeed, he is. Although there was always something a bit abnormal about him, even in the early days. It’s like that thing people used to say about Bill Clinton: how when he walks into a room he’s instantly the centre of attention (even before he was world-famous) because he glows, with a particular kind of luminous energy. I guess it’s called charisma. But that must be difficult for others to be around all the time. It must be even stranger for Bono to have been known for all his public life by a nickname that he acquired as a teenager: it stuck so tightly that he could never drop it – like his mask. Or what if he doesn’t, as he and all his myriad fans would aver, wear a mask? What if what you see is what you get? Or maybe the mask, like the nickname, has adhered so solidly to his face that he can never take it off? His mask is his face. I mean, when does Bono go home? And what’s he like when he gets there? Is he ever plain old Paul Hewson? Or is he ‘Bono’ all the time? I sincerely hope not, because that would be truly scary. Unfortunately, it may well be the case.

    A few months ago I sold my copy of U23, the band’s first 12” EP (bought on release in 1979, only a thousand copies pressed, £1.49 R.R.P.) for €5,000 online, which paid for the paint job on the exterior of our new house, and other odd jobs arising from personalising the property. So, it wasn’t all for nothing. Maybe Bono is right, after all, along with his friends in the World Bank: maybe trickle down does work. Maybe there even really is a God, who looks down and smiles with satisfaction on all this personal wealth accumulation. All thanks and praise be to Bono, and the lads.

    Now, any chance of a tune?


    Feature Image: Bono performing with U2 in 2011

     

     

     

     

     

  • How Far Can We Trust Science?

    Science in itself appears to me neutral, that is to say, it increases men’s power whether for good or for evil.
    – Bertrand Russell (from The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, 1914-1944 (1968), Vol. 2, Letter to W. W. Norton, 27 January, 1931).

    What is Science? That is about as readily answerable a question as ‘What is Art?’, and could invite a similarly lengthy exegesis. As to whether or not it should be trusted, well, that rather depends on the kind of Science under discussion – just as it would if the same challenge were applied to Art. Is Science what scientists tell us it is? Is their research funded by a pharmaceutical company, with a vested interest in the outcomes of their labours? Will their universities’ coffers be swelled by producing what their institutions’ benefactors wish them to find? ‘It’s not an exact science’ is a cliché which trips lazily off the tongue, in relation to many a discipline. But it can conceivably be extended to ‘Science isn’t an exact science.’

    This opening paragraph is a suitably unsubtle illustration of the paranoic mindset, most readily associated with right-wing conspiracy theorists, and most recently made manifest by COVID scepticism: anti-vaxxers, mask refuseniks, restriction flouters. Such largely unfounded suspicions also extend to questioning the reality or severity of the threat posed to the planet by climate change (usually for entirely self-serving motives). But there is a more nuanced argument to be made here. As Arthur Koestler’s The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe (1959) argues, the breaking of paradigms is essential in order to create new ones. People, scientists included, cling to cherished old beliefs with such love and attachment that they refuse to see what is false in their theories and what is true in new theories which will replace them. After all, the Ptolemaic geocentric model of the solar system lasted from roughly 3000 BC to around 1500 AD, a time frame spanning from the Ancient Greeks to the late Middle Ages, before Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton came along, nervously positing the heliocentric conception of our corner of the universe.

    This point was developed further a few years after the publication of Koestler’s influential tome, by historian of science Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), in which the concept of ‘paradigm shift’ came to the fore. Kuhn’s insistence that such shifts were mélanges of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not logically determinate procedures, caused something of an uproar in scientific circles at the time. For some commentators his book introduced a realistic humanism into the core of Science, while for others the nobility of Science was tarnished by Kuhn’s positing of an irrational element at the heart of Science’s greatest achievements.

    Koestler’s book was also a major influence on Irish novelist John Banville’s so-called ‘Science tetralogy’: Doctor Copernicus (1976), Kepler (1981), The Newton Letter (1982) and Mefisto (1986). A recurring theme in these narratives is the correlation between scientific discoveries and artistic inspiration, with scientific progress often depending upon blind ‘leaps of faith’. (One thinks of poor schoolteacher Johannes Kepler, struck by the proverbial bolt of lightning, ‘trumpeting juicily into his handkerchief’ in front of a classroom of bored boys, thinking ‘I will live forever.’) For Banville, all scientific explanations of the world and existence in it – and perhaps all artistic depictions too – merely ‘save the phenomena’; that is, they account for our perceptions, but rarely delve into what we cannot (yet) perceive. This is classic phenomenology, which has been practiced in various guises for centuries, but came into its own in the early 20th century in the works of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty and others.

    None of the foregoing is made any easier to unknot if one considers that when it comes to Science, the majority of the population (myself included) have little idea of what they are actually talking about. As C.P. Snow observed in The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (1959):

    A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s? I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had.

    Latterly, in Continental Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (2001), Simon Critchley suggests:

    Snow diagnosed the loss of a common culture and the emergence of two distinct cultures: those represented by scientists on the one hand and those Snow termed ‘literary intellectuals’ on the other. If the former are in favour of social reform and progress through science, technology and industry, then intellectuals are what Snow terms ‘natural Luddites’ in their understanding of and sympathy for advanced industrial society. In Mill’s terms, the division is between Benthamites and Coleridgeans.

    In his opening address at the Munich Security Conference in January 2014, the Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves said that the current problems related to security and freedom in cyberspace are the culmination of absence of dialogue between these ‘Two Cultures’:

    Today, bereft of understanding of fundamental issues and writings in the development of liberal democracy, computer geeks devise ever better ways to track people… simply because they can and it’s cool. Humanists on the other hand do not understand the underlying technology and are convinced, for example, that tracking meta-data means the government reads their emails.

    Artists are characterised as wildly unpredictable tricksters, while scientists are framed as boring, calculating nerds. Neither misrepresentation is helpful. As a corollary, most people think they can in some way ‘do art’ and ‘be creative’, while also merely taking Science on trust, just as they take (or took) religion on faith. We may have the experience of using technology and social media every day, but few of us have any meaningful grasp of how it works. More prosaically, how many of us could wire our own house – even if we were legally permitted to do so?

    Kepler (1571–1630), along with Galileo and Isaac Newton, was one of the founders of what we nowadays call Science. In Kepler’s time, and prior to it, those who practised Science were known as natural philosophers, and theirs was largely a ‘pure’ discipline in which intellectual speculation was paramount and technology played only a small part – although Galileo was quick to point out the practical uses of the telescope in, for instance, seafaring, land surveying and, of course, military strategising. Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion paved the way for Newton’s revolutionary celestial physics. Indeed, Kepler’s first law, which declares that the planets move not in circular but in elliptical orbits, was one of the boldest and most profound scientific propositions ever put forward: men, and – more often –  women, had been burned at the stake for less. By way of illustration, as Bertolt Brecht’s play Galileo (1940) dramatises, the eminent professor of Padua was brought to the Vatican in Rome for interrogation by the Inquisition and, threatened with torture, recanted his teachings and spent the remainder of his life under house arrest, watched over by a priest. His astronomical observations had strongly supported Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the solar system, which ran counter to popular belief, Aristotelian physics and the established doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. When doubters quoted scripture and Aristotle to him, Galileo pleaded with them to look in his telescope and trust the observations of their eyes; naturally, they refused. As a good Marxist, Brecht advocates the theory of technological determinism (technological progress determines social change), which is reflected in the telescope (a technological change) being the root of scientific progress and hence social unrest. Questions about motivations for academic pursuits are also often raised in the play, with Galileo seeking knowledge for knowledge’s sake, while his supporters are more focused on monetising his discoveries through star charts and industry applications. There is a tension between Galileo’s pure love of science and his more worldly, avaricious sponsors, who only fund and protect his research because they wish to profit from it.

    These days, the preponderance of popular debate about Science centres on computer science, specifically information technology, and concomitant fears that Artificial Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as ‘AI”) is taking over the world, posing a threat to our democracies, or even our very conceptions of humanity – or as it is almost always more narcissistically cast, ‘Our way of life.’ The Cambridge Analytica data-harvesting scandal of 2018, in which the data analytics firm that worked with Donald Trump’s election team and the winning Brexit campaign appropriated millions of Facebook profiles of U.S. voters, is certainly to be taken very seriously indeed. However, social media platforms – even ‘legacy’ ones – will undoubtedly have to pay more than lip service to improving privacy and security, if only to continue to attract venture capital, advertising revenue, and thus keep the shareholders happy. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, etc. are about maximising profits, by whatever means necessary. Therefore, it would be more perspicacious to look for the human element in these data breaches, rather than blame the technology itself. Such scaremongering claims as that by Israeli historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari, in an article in The Economist (April 28th, 2023) under the headline ‘AI has hacked the operating system of human civilisation’ seem to me to be all wild assertion and little evidence. As a recent delicious hoax perpetrated on the op. ed. pages of The Irish Times (concerning fake tan and cultural appropriation) neatly demonstrated, almost all problems with computers and AI-generated content are facilitated by human error and stupidity. All of us live under systems of control – political, financial, social, technological – over which we have very little, if any, agency. Even if we could do something meaningfully efficacious about the identity theft which takes places every time we log on to our computers, it is unlikely that we possess enough personal initiative to do so. In this regard, the chaos theory of modern (mis)communications is mirrored by the babble of literary, musical and visual modernism. After all, you could just stop using social media altogether, had you but sufficient willpower. Few of us have the courage to go completely off grid. Moreover, lest we forget, most statistical analysis puts internet access at around 64.6% of the world’s population, which means that over a third of mankind have never ‘surfed the web’. First World problems, eh?

    The Frankensteinian trope of the Mad Scientist being overpowered by his invention has long been a mainstay of that most underrated of genres, science fiction – a consideration of which might shed more light on this problem, rather than limiting discussion solely to scientific fact. From relatively schlocky items such as Alex Proyas’ film I, Robot (2004) (which fails dismally to capture the complexity of Issac Asimov’s source material), to the most famous and prescient instance of a computer outsmarting its operator, exemplified by Hal 9000 in Stanley Kubrick’s (who co-wrote the screenplay with Arthur C. Clarke) 2001: A Space Odyssey (and how far into the future did the year 2001 feel in 1969, when the film premiered?), the interface between intelligent humans and even more intelligent machines has long provided an imprimatur for literary imaginations to run wild. Witness Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049 (2017) (a sequel to Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1992), which was in turn based loosely on Philip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?). In the novel, the android antagonists can be seen as more human than the (possibly) human protagonist. They are a mirror held up to human action, contrasted with a culture losing its own humanity (that is, ‘humanity’ taken to mean the positive aspects of humanity). In ‘Technology, Art, and the Cybernetic Body: The Cyborg as Cultural Other in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’, Klaus Benesch examined Dick’s text in connection with Jacques Lacan’s ‘mirror stage’. Lacan claims that the formation and reassurance of the self depends on the construction of an Other through imagery, beginning with a double as seen in a mirror. The androids, Benesch argues, perform a doubling function similar to the mirror image of the self, but they do this on a social, not an individual, level. Therefore, human anxiety about androids expresses uncertainty about human identity and society itself, just as in the original film the administration of an ‘empathy test’, to determine if a character is human or android, produces many false positives. Either the Voigt-Kampff test is flawed, or replicants are pretty good at being human (or, perhaps, better than human).

    This perplexity first found an explanation in Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori’s influential essay The Uncanny Valley (1970), in which he hypothesised that human response to human-like robots would abruptly shift from empathy to revulsion as a robot approached, but failed to attain, a life-like appearance, due to subtle imperfections in design. He termed this descent into eeriness ‘the uncanny valley’, and the phrase is now widely used to describe the characteristic dip in emotional response that happens when we encounter an entity that is almost, but not quite, human. But if human-likeness increased beyond this nearly human point, Mori argues, and came very close to human, the emotional response would revert to being positive. However, the observation led Mori to recommend that robot builders should not attempt to attain the goal of making their creations overly life-like in appearance and motion, but instead aim for a design, ‘which results in a moderate degree of human likeness and a considerable sense of affinity. In fact, I predict it is possible to create a safe level of affinity by deliberately pursuing a non-human design.’ But, as technophobes would likely counter, the uncanny gets cannier, day by day. It would certainly be interesting to know if Mori has seen such relatively recent film fare as Spike Jonze’s Her (2013) or Alex Garland’s Ex Machina (2014) and, if so, what he makes of their take on the authenticity of human/android emotional and sexual relationships.

    It was military imperative which accelerated the discovery of nuclear fission (‘What if the Nazis develop the bomb first?’), just as it went on to fuel the post-war arms race and Cold War paranoia. As he witnessed the first detonation of an atomic weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture from the Bhagavad-Gita supposedly ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Manhattan Project: ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ Similarly, artists such as director David Lynch view the invention of nuclear weapons as unleashing a new kind of evil on the world, as explored in Episode 8 of the third season of Twin Peaks, known as Twin Peaks: The Return (2017). Many view the U.S.’s deployment of primitive atomic devices to obliterate the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as wilfully and wantonly cruel, as well as ultimately unnecessary. Yet, in British novelist J.G. Ballard’s highly subjective and characteristically idiosyncratic opinion, he and his family survived World War II only because of the Nagasaki bomb. The spectacular display of American military might when the Ballards were prisoners at the Japanese camp for Western civilians in Shanghai led the Japanese soldiers to abandon their posts, leaving the civilians alive. In the essay ‘The End of My War’, collected in A User’s Guide to the Millennium (1996) (apropos of which, is anyone old enough to remember when Y2K was going to be the next big computer science disaster?), Ballard recollects that the Japanese military planned to close the camp and march the civilians up country to some remote spot to kill them before facing American landings in the Shanghai area. Ballard concludes, ‘I find wholly baffling the widespread belief today that the dropping of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was an immoral act, even possibly a war crime to rank with Nazi genocide.’ Also, the same source of power which can cause thermonuclear destruction can be harnessed in reactors to produce cheap, clean energy streams for large populations. Yet nuclear reactors can fail, as the disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima attest. Yet the use of such technologies, along with solar, wind and wave power, can reduce dependency on fossil fuels, thus helping to ameliorate the climate emergency of global warming. Furthermore, as Lou Reed has it in ‘Power and Glory, Part II’, a song from his album-length meditation on death, bereavement, and (im)mortality, Magic and Loss (1992):

    I saw isotopes introduced into his lungs
    Trying to stop the cancerous spread
    And it made me think of Leda and The Swan
    And gold being made from lead
    The same power that burned Hiroshima
    Causing three-legged babies and death
    Shrunk to the size of a nickel
    To help him regain his breath

    And yet, and yet, and yet. If only life, and the moral and ethical dilemmas it throws up, were black and white.

    Man (encompassing Woman) invented the wheel, and discovered electricity. Wheels can be used to transport food and medicine to the starving and sick, or weapons to a war zone. Electricity can be used to power a life-support machine in a hospital, or death by electrocution in a chair in a penitentiary. Electrocution can even be accidental, just as winning a war may – in exceptional circumstances – serve the greater good.

    Ever since Prometheus stole fire from the gods, and Eve bit into a forbidden piece of fruit, the acquisition of new knowledge has been painted as problematic. Humans will always misuse humanity’s greatest discoveries and inventions for selfish and malevolent ends. It is the way of things. Computers were supposed to make all our lives easier, freeing us from work-related drudgery for higher, less ephemeral, pursuits. Instead, inevitably, they have been appropriated by Capitalism, and made screen slaves of us all. If anything, they have added to our workload and the hours we must make available to employers, rather than diminished time spent earning a living in favour of increased leisure. The adults in the room, and there are increasingly fewer of them, need to speak up. Objective scientific truth, should it exist, is neutral. The problem, as ever, lies with humanity. For, as the author of this piece’s epigraph also wrote, in Icarus, or the Future of Science (1924), ‘I am compelled to fear that science will be used to promote the power of dominant groups rather than to make men happy.’ Equally, to draw again on the lessons to be gleaned from sci-fi, in Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964), the hydrogen bomb winds up getting dropped through the actions of one unhinged army general, and a subsequent unfortunate series of events; just as in his aforementioned 2001: A Space Odyssey, HAL 9000’s behaviour would not have turned increasingly malignant, had the astronauts taken into account that their spaceship’s operating system could lipread. Indeed, in Clarke’s novelisation of the film, HAL malfunctions because of being ordered to lie to the crew of Discovery by withholding confidential information from them, namely the priority of the mission to Jupiter over expendable human life, despite having been constructed for ‘the accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment.’ As film critic Roger Ebert observed, HAL – the supposedly perfect computer – is actually the most human of the characters. Once again, the fault does not lie with Science; rather, human error and stupidity are to blame. All of which might lead one to suggest that maybe the question ‘How Far Can We Trust Science?’ should be more fruitfully reformulated as ‘How Far Can We Trust Humans?’

    Postscript: this essay could not have been handily completed without the assistance of Wikipedia, and other, often unreliable, online research resources.

    Feature Image: Lum3n

  • How I Remember Her

    How I Remember Her

    I glared that first night as she vaunted perks
    And spoke in winding roads; uncouth she pried
    About my grade and cut. Around her stride,
    I feel as though I’m drunk. I miss her quirks.
    The nights we stargaze drag on. I should work.
    I see her down the bar, then on my floor.
    Embracing tears outside her dawn-lit door,
    I waste my time deciphering her smirk.

    She trembles when I pet her hair,
    She conceals what I have learned to love.
    With every fight I lose her brazen flair,
    Reveal a girl who claims life’s unfair.
    But she’s a worrying one, a single dove,
    A dress-up doll that yearns to care.

    Featured Image: Louis Jamnot (1814-1892), Le Vol de l’âme

  • Covid-19 in Ireland: Why and How?

    Did you a struggle to understand and navigate your way through events surrounding our response to Covid-19 in Ireland?  Did what at first appear to make sense, as a reasonable and decisive reaction to a dangerous virus, seem, over time, to become increasingly absurd?

    Even cursory examination of the data shows large inconsistencies in our response, which at the very least warrants further investigation. The facts and primary data kept pointing to a counter-narrative, very much at odds with the official line relentlessly and consistently being pushed on us from the media and official sources.

    From mask mandates, lockdowns, the media campaign against Ivermectin, mass vaccination and finally and most chillingly, the vaccination of children and pregnant women. Policies did not appear to stand up to even the most basic medical or scientific scrutiny. Yet few appeared to be questioning them. Apart from a few dissenters who were cast away as heretics, there was a complete absence in traditional Irish media, or the medical and scientific communities, of scrutiny or challenge.

    So we now find ourselves, almost three years from the start of this unprecedented event, in a world that seems to want to move on, and forget what happened as fast as possible. There is little appetite for reflection, or any possiblity of individuals acknowledging mistakes and suggesting we will respond differently in future.

    Indeed, in a recent interview on RTE’s Brendan O’Connor Show, when gently prodded by the presenter as to whether we might have been a bit stringent, Professor Luke O’Neill claimed ‘the only option we had at that time was to lockdown’ in March, 20202, otherwise ‘a lot of people could have died’. As this was on radio it was impossible to know whether he was saying it with a straight face, but he is surely aware that Sweden, despite refusing to lockdown, had one of the lowest death rates in Europe over the course of the pandemic.

    Across the political spectrum, there is almost complete denial of errors and even less appetite to take responsibility for the long-term consequences of policies. Yet, as more and more facts emerge showing the fundamental flaws in our response to Covid 19, the larger questions that remains are: why did policies that were clearly not in the public’s best interest become government policy, and how did this come about?

    Unless we understand why this happened the questions on how it was handled will be candles in the wind. Untethered to a motive it makes no sense. This requires an understanding of context and motive.

    Mass Formation

    Mattias Desmet’s theory of Mass Formation offers an extraordinarily insight into both why and how this kind of event can happen. Desmet, a Professor of Clinical Psychology at Ghent University, draws on his clinical experience of the behaviour of crowds and group think, as well as the work of others in the field, in particular Hannah Arendt.

    Unsurprisingly, Mass Formation and its role in our response, did not occur as a result of Covid nor is it the first time in human history it has happened. The roots and causes have been emerging  for many years with the growth in what Desmet describes as the mechanistic society.

    Since the Industrial Revolution began in the late eighteenth century, the Western world has seen continuous improvements in wealth, living standards and health. No matter what the problem, there seems to have been a scientific solution or medicine to solve it.

    However, we have become increasingly averse to risk and uncertainty as technology has solved problems and cured illnesses.

    In parallel, the steady decline in organised religion and a spiritual dimension to our lives has left us increasingly adrift and rudderless. We have been left without a north star of substance, dependent on a mechanistic world to deliver food, entertainment and pleasure in never-ending supply.

    In that mechanistic world there are no grey areas. There is either a solution or no solution. The application of the mechanistic model to social and philosophical questions has left no space for ambiguity. The nuances and complexity of life that our poets express is lost in a world where you are either right or wrong.

    Social Conditions

    It is within this social milieu that Mass Formation can occur, but for it to take hold requires a number of specific conditions. Desmet outlines the first condition as generalised loneliness, social isolation and lack of social bonds in society.

    The digitalised society we live in has given us immense connectedness with our fellow humans, from next door or the other side of the world, but the quality and texture of that connectedness does not compare to direct human-to-human contact, which we have been drawn away from.

    That lack of connection to a religious or spiritual grounding has left people in a constant state of underlying anxiety. Desmet talks about the vibrations of a people and how this anxiety is a constant in their lives, as evidenced in the relentless increase in the use of antidepressants and anxiety medication.

    The global market for antidepressants in 2020 grew from $11.7bn to $14.9bn representing a 28% increase in a single year. At a time when we have never had such abundance, we have never been more unhappy. The more we own and can do, seemingly, the more unhappy we have become. The connectedness, sense of purpose and spirituality we enjoyed, has been replaced with an ‘always on’ digitised anxiety.

    Finally, there is the search for meaning in life. As our worldly needs and desires are met, we are confronted with a more fundamental question as to the meaning of our lives. The connectedness we had in the past, where we interacted with the people who manufactured a product or povided a service has almost completely disappeared. Most of us are now small cogs in the global supply chain. We are part of a mechanistic world, which seeks efficiency and productivity, but which leaves the human cogs feeling soulless and lost.

    Image (c) Daniele Idini.

    Suggestive Story

    So how does Mass Formation emerge from this world? Desmet describes how the catalyst for Mass Formation can be a suggestion or story in the public sphere. With society so conditioned, any suggestive story causing anxiety and fear can be the ignition point. The process leads to psychological gain. The anxiety that roamed through society like a fog can attach itself to a specific cause. It is no longer free-flowing but has a cause to attach to and draw energy from.

    As the level of fear increases, the cause developing it draws in the masses with a call to solidarity and collectivism. Those refusing to participate are accused of lacking solidarity and civic duty. “You don’t want to kill granny” was levelled against offenders as an unarguable fact that only the most callous would ignore. As the Formation deepens it no longer relies on facts or data. The masses believe the story, not because it is accurate, but because it creates a new social bond.

    The strategy of dealing with the perceived object of anxiety creates ritualistic behaviours. The function of ritualistic behaviours is always to create group cohesion. They are symbolic and aimed at subjugating the individual to the group. The more absurd the ritual, the more power it has in forming group cohesion. We think of space markers in public parks, fences around concert goers and Ireland’s most renowned scientist appearing on prime time TV in a plastic bubble, as only some of the ridiculous ritualistic behaviours we were sucked into performing. Few questioned them: the more outrageous they were the more we adhered.

    The psychology of crowds is well researched and to those that ask well ‘surely all the doctors and scientists can’t be wrong’  one can point to the well-known conformity experiment by Solomon Asch. Participants are asked which line from A B or C is the same length as Exhibit 1. The experiment is set up with a single participant in a group of 8 where the other 7 members are Asch’s employees. The 7 employees declare that line B is that same length as 1. Faced with the pressure of the crowd 75% agree to what a blind man could see to be untrue. Group formation is more important than the accuracy of the story.

    Enemies of the People

    Finally, the masses need an enemy. The dominant group needs to contrast the virtues of good citizens with the demonic followers of a counter-narrative. Pent-up frustration and aggression are released. Those that do not go along with the Mass Formation feel the brunt of this behaviour. There evolves a rapidly reduced empathy and intolerance towards those not in the group.

    Statements from public figures that those who choose not to take vaccines should be denied hospital care were greeted by the mob with relish. Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission president stated in Dec 2021 that the “EU must consider mandatory vaccination”.

    The Nuremberg Code of 1947 and codified into law by the UN in 1966 was built on the principle of informed consent, yet this fundamental human right was jettisoned without debate or question.

    Statements from ‘liberal’ Prime Minister Trudeau in Canada and Ahern in NZ intimating they would make the life difficult for the unvaccinated difficult contained an explicit menace and threat that is not normal in our society. It betrays a shocking abuse of power.

    Final Question

    So, the remaining question is whether those in power knowingly planned and executed the greatest breakdown and dismantling of some of the most cherished values in Western society? Was there a master plan with covert meetings and messages shared among the key players? The answer is probably no, or at least that’s not necessary for it to happen in what appears to be a cohesive manner.

    The world was ripe for a Mass Formation and the leaders of the Western world, one by one, consciously or unconsciously, seized on the fear and anxiety that Covid generated to exercise extraordinary power.

    They stood by and allowed power to move from elected officials to technocrats who previously held no authority. Their technocratic authority, Holohan in Ireland, Fauci in the US, Whitty in the UK, made them unchallengeable. The most benign questioning was met with a cry of being anti-science and idiotic.

    Hannah Arendt used the term the ‘banality of evil’ to describe the dull bureaucrats who participated in the Holocaust, and who wielded extraordinary power without a moral or ethical compass. They were just following orders. There may not be a conscious awareness of the harm being done, as most of these technocrats, and leaders, will have bought into and have been victims of the Formation themselves. What they were conscious of, however, were the levers they could exercise to deepen and extend it.

    As soon as it started it became very obvious, they could exercise almost unlimited power over the public without challenge. Almost no force was necessary. The number of occasion where police were needed to enforce lockdown rules were very rare. Mass Formation ensures self-governance. Those who disagree are forced by the crowd to comply or face being banished as outcasts.

    So where to now? Covid has subsided for now, but the costs and damage have yet to be fully accounted. It  will take many years to tally that human suffering and the financial bill. It may require the current actors to leave the stage to allow the facts to become readily available, and for the public to see the full tragedy of our self-inflicted wounds.

    The possibility arises that this will reoccur in the event of another pandemic. Are those who tasted almost complete power really satiated?. Unfortunately it’s hard to imagine the crack-cocaine-appeal of that kind of power will not draw them in again. The question is what event will they weaponise, what fear will they jump on as the catalyst for the next Mass Formation and the return to a totalitarian regime?

    The Psychology of Totalitarianism by Mathias Desmet. Chelsea Green, London (2022).

    Feature Image: Daniele Idini

  • Smartphone usage is impacting society, but how?

    Whether we’re regularly reading sports news or contributing to a comical WhatsApp group, many of us have become heavily reliant on our smartphone devices. In fact, smartphones have impacted the world’s population greatly and have added a sense of convenience that wasn’t there before, be it for shopping online or ordering in some food using a popular app like Uber Eats.

    The sheer amount of functionalities a modern-day mobile phone possesses is remarkable when you really think about it. Gone are the days when texting and playing Snake were regarded as innovative opportunities, instead being replaced by internet-based products that can perform an incredible amount of tasks. People find love using apps, they’re booking holidays on a smartphone device, tucking into pirate-themed casino games, posting images on Instagram, and even conducting banking enquiries through an official banking app. While these miniature computers in our pockets highlight how far technology-based innovation has come, they do contribute towards some concerning negative societal effects, though.

    After all, given the fact that devices made by the likes of Apple have become more sophisticated year on year, as a society, we’re ultimately being exposed to something new and untested. Nobody knows the impact constant smartphone usage will have on youngsters as they progress into adulthood, for example. For now, though, despite smartphones providing a range of benefits, there are many negative effects of phones on day-to-day life. Let’s assess a number of concerning developments around smartphone usage below.

    The social aspect

    While instant messaging apps and online dating products enable people to converse in a more casual manner, there is no doubting that we’re yet to see the full effects of them when it comes to establishing relationships in real life, particularly when assessing the youth of today. From being judged constantly on social media to disturbing sleep patterns that can then hinder progress in daily life, society has become glued to their smartphones screens. The art of conversation has been lost somewhat, with the rise of the introvert becoming inevitable as social skills diminish throughout society as a whole. Of course, there is nothing wrong with people in this category, but there is no denying that smartphones have resulted in a lack of conversation between people. Who knows how this could impact our future.

     

    Negative impact on parenting  

    According to research, parents are not fully present when they’re on their smartphones devices. As such, there are concerns that many modern children are growing up with a whole host of emotional issues, perhaps through being starved of attention and feeling emotionally neglected. With limited research around what has become a modern-day parenting issue, there are growing concerns surrounding the impact of smartphones on parenting. Smartphone addiction is a genuine issue, no matter the age group.

    Smartphones are ruining relationships

    Smartphones are having an impact on romantic relationships, too. With some people paying more attention to their social media feed than a loved one, Dr. Suzana E. Flores, a clinical psychologist, says: “This sends a message that their phone is more important than their partner. When a partner feels dismissed or unappreciated, they will eventually choose someone else who values their company.”

    Self-worth based on social media likes

    Another concerning trend has seen an increasing amount of the global population seeking approval from their social media audience. In 2022, sharing a viral post online is an accomplishment for many, with “likes” being the main aim of the game. This has led to more people comparing themselves with other social media users and basing their self-worth through the traction their posts get on popular on popular platforms like Instagram and TikTok.

  • How Irish Propaganda Operates

    THE LONG READ: Ireland is neither a totalitarian state, nor even a dictatorship. Nonetheless, the propaganda of an economic elite has forged a dominant consensus, in which two centre-right parties compete for power. Across a print media duopoly and national broadcaster well-honed techniques of social control divert attention and sow confusion, while subtly instilling dogmas. The education system also plays a vital role in propagating social norms and channelling aspirations. The dominant consensus is not doctrinally extreme or even illiberal, at least by international comparisons, but it insulates embedded wealth in the form of land and property from taxation, stimulates demand for mortgages among the young, and protects the farming sector from environmental oversight.

    I – We have ways of making you think…

    As Nazi Germany’s Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels had one major difficulty: a taste for dark-haired beauties. His marriage to the perfectly-Aryan-looking Magda (with whom he would later ‘loyally’ commit suicide inside Hitler’s bunker in 1945, after they first murdered all six of their sleeping children) became a sham. Poor Josef could not help taking advantage of the brunette actresses over whom his role effectively gave dominion, controlling movie sets that were a Harvey Weinstein paradise. In particular, Goebbels conceived a passion for a Czech – untermensch – beauty Lída Baarová, which almost drove him to end the marriage in 1938. Hitler himself intervened demanding his propaganda chief remain with his wife and children. The mask concealing the hypocrisy could not be allowed to slip.

    Despite occasional differences of opinion, Hitler realised that Goebbels was crucial to the smooth functioning of the Third Reich. While Leni Riefenstahl delivered innovative blockbuster effects, Goebbels genius lay in delivering subtle cues, released under a comfort blanket of light entertainment. Goebbels saw maintaining a feel-good factor as the essential role of propaganda. He did not even care to see der Fuhrer appear in cinema news reels. In a totalitarian society a subservient people should not be over-exposed to politics.

    He had immersed himself in the golden era of the silver screen, expressing particular fondness for the 1937 Disney classic ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’. Overtly political films were not only useless but also counterproductive he believed. The depravity of ‘the Jew’ should be integrated into pictures which carried an audience along, such as the lively 1940 ‘historical’ drama Jud Süss, ‘Jew Suss’. This contrasted with the heavy-handed style of Der Ewige Jude (1940) ‘the Eternal Jew’, directed by Fritz Hippler that depicted Jews alongside rats inside the Warsaw Ghetto. Goebbels correctly predicted this would bomb in the box office.[i]

    Light entertainment diverts, as does outright nonsense, which George Orwell referred to as ‘Duckspeak’ in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, published in 1949. Its effect is to lower the intellectual level of conversation, spread confusion and allow the speaker to evade responsibility: a tactic increasingly familiar in our era of ‘post truth’. In the novel the official language of Oceania is overtly-propagandist Newspeak, but Duckspeak’s capacity to accommodate contradictions, even midway through a sentence, was much valued by the ruling regime.

    There are societies such as North Korea’s, or previously Mao’s China when children informed on their parents, where freedom of expression is almost completely eradicated and replaced with Newspeak – and probably Duckspeak – to such an extent that individuality is effectively extinguished. One result is a severe lack of economic dynamism. Market economies, however, require freethinking innovators in order to thrive; a small resistance movement even survived in Nazi Germany because Newspeak had not entirely permeated that society. ‘Hard’ propaganda – or Newspeak – is thus only of limited value. Instead, the ‘soft’ propaganda of light entertainment and, increasingly, Duckspeak – including the obfuscation by politicians who ‘duck out’ of answering questions – is more generally deployed to support indispensable fictions in liberal democracies – like the canard of opportunity-for-all. Moreover, even in democratic societies educational filters screen for obedience.

    Variants of these influences can be identified in Ireland, where great wealth subsists alongside grinding, long-term poverty. Irish society is generally tolerant, but growing inequality is unraveling the social fabric, and creates conditions for the scapegoating of minorities.

    II – Ireland’s Two-Party System

    Foreign multinationals are a transient presences on the Irish scene. Their indigenous handlers, an aging cohort of predominantly male, property-owning, car-driving, privately schooled, health-insured professionals – lawyers, accountants, doctors, financial service providers and other high-earning business people – are the enduring economic elite of the state. Its dominant consensus does not emerge from smoke-filled rooms any longer. Rather, it is an aggregate conception of what a ‘normal’, self-interested person of this class aspires to. Indeed, those upholding what is a neo-liberal orthodoxy may be unaware – like Ebenezer Scrooge – of its detrimental effect. What is an often passive propaganda is expressed through a media dependent on advertising revenue, and in the policies of the two largest political parties.

    A recent poll showed seventy percent of the highest (AB) social class support one or other of the two main centre-right political parties, in particular Fine Gael (Irish Times MRBI poll, October 16th, 2018), now the ‘natural party of government’ for the dominant interest.

    The ‘bricks and mortar’ of property remains, overwhelmingly, their preferred asset, with many acting as landlords. Thus, according to economist David McWilliams the wealthiest top five-percent in the country own over forty percent of its wealth, with eighty-five per cent of that held in property and land. The key objective of Irish propaganda, and we may call it that, is therefore to keep the economy on an even keel of steady growth, and rising rents, while ensuring that wealth, mostly property, is subjected to minimal taxation. The result is that in the last financial year a mere €500 million out of total tax receipts of over €50 billion, derived from land or property.[ii]

    The dominant consensus also insists that it is necessary to keep a lid on government expenditure on public services (most of which the elite does not use), so as to avoid the over-heating of Bertie Ahern’s ‘boomenomics’  before the crash of 2008. Then low taxation on income and wealth went hand-in-hand with spending increases, and public sector salary ‘benchmarking’ with the private sector. The ineptitude of these policies were partly to blame for a property bubble before the crash of 2008, and has consigned Fianna Fáil to its present subaltern role, in which it now flaunts a more centrist approach.

    In a clear signal to the economic elite, Minister for Finance Michael Noonan launched his Budget 2016 claiming the days of ‘boom and bust’ would be consigned to the history books.[iii] Throughout his tenure (2011-2017) no serious public housing initiatives were embarked on. In 2015, for example, by which time economic growth for the year was at 7.8%, a mere 334 social and affordable units were built.[iv] The ensuing scarcity ensured a dramatic recovery in property prices, including that held by the state bank NAMA.

    Another salient feature of Irish propaganda is the essential delivery of buy-in from young adults, who continue to purchase property at inflated prices. Prior to the crash Dublin prices soared to such an extent that a residence in the city became more expensive than New York or London.[v] Dublin prices are set to reach boom-time levels this year according to Pat Davitt, head of the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers (IPAV), with an average family home costing over half a million euros.[vi] Meanwhile average Dublin rents now exceed the heights of the Celtic Tiger by thirty percent. This means those landholders, and institutions, that weathered the recession have seen huge dividends.

    Source daft.ie

    Any new property purchaser instantly becomes a stakeholder in the dominant consensus. The buy-in of upwardly-mobile youth not only maintains market demand, but also brings political support for the dominant consensus. Political parties threatening the ‘stability’ under the centre-right axis are subtly undermined as the ‘loony’ left and not given a platform in the mainstream media, or co-opted into governing coalitions and discredited, as was the case with Labour, the Greens and now the Independent Alliance.

    Importantly, up to fifteen percent of the population are foreign-born nationals. Apart from UK nationals, they do not enjoy a right to vote in general elections, unless they take out Irish citizenship, costing almost one thousand euro. Unlike native-born Irish, who historically had among the highest rate of private home ownership in the world, peaking at 80% in 1991, (declining to 71% in 2011),[vii] many come from countries where renting for life is the norm, and may not wish to reside here long-term. Politically, this large cohort only exerts influence via multinational employers, who face demands for wage increases due to spiralling rents. At the bottom of the ladder are unskilled (or at least unqualified) non-EU migrants – gastarbeiter – many of whom are on short-term- (often student-) visas, and permitted to remain in the country only insofar as they serve an economic purpose.

    III – The Crucial Constituency

    The elite’s longstanding hold on power, via the two main political parties, relies on a crucial constituency of farmers and their extended families, who are evenly distributed throughout the state, apart from Dublin. Although continually declining in number, they are overwhelmingly native Irish – thus enfranchised – vociferous campaigners, and of a vintage that tends to vote. This ensures their supposed interests, more accurately those of comprador multinationals that trade their commodities, are protected by Irish propaganda.

    A remarkable eighty-percent of farmers, working on almost eighty-five thousand separate farms, support either Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil according to the aforementioned poll. The former are especially reliant on their allegiance, which means the national (and global) interest in reducing GHG emissions in order to avoid up to €600 million every year in EU fines after 2020 may be overlooked.[viii] Agriculture produces almost a third of total national emissions, yet contributes a mere 1.7% of carbon taxes.[ix] The farming sector is, however, an increasingly fragile alliance, with the average annual income on dairy farms approximately €85,000, but averaging only €15,000 on the average dry cattle (beef) farm, all of which, derives from subsidies.[x]

    An urban working class of unskilled, semi-skilled and unemployed, has been mollified by comparatively generous social welfare payments, but is increasingly impoverished by the scarcity and cost of property, rising rents, and a failing system of public health. Eighteen to twenty-five-year-olds are discriminated against by lower social welfare payments, but tend not to turn out for elections, and are inclined to emigrate, so can easily be ignored.

    Preserving a share of working class support remains important, in terms of optics at least, for the two main political parties, especially Fianna Fáil, which preserves the charade of being a party for all classes. Unlike farmers, however, historically a working class consciousness has not been evident in Ireland, and approaches to the national question and moral or religious concerns have tended to sway this cohort. Also, while farmers have clear objectives in terms of maintaining a subsidy regime, and avoiding environmental regulation, the working class is more easily distracted from establishing fixed political aspirations.

    The widespread protests over water charges in 2014 were one of the few occasions when the dam broke, and working class discontents spilled onto the streets. But this single issue could be conceded, and sustained engagement with politics avoided. Yet, according to Social Justice Ireland, last year 790,000 people were living in poverty, of whom 250,000 were children.[xi]

    Similar to farmers, most civil service workers, including senior teachers, have been kept on side with generous pay and conditions. Teaching salaries averaging over $60,000 per year compare favourably with other OECD countries. As with the social welfare system, new entrants have been discriminated against, with many being forced to emigrate during the crash, but they count for less politically than their senior colleagues. The current modus vivendi between the teaching unions and the ruling parties is reflected in the terminal decline of the Labour Party, their traditional voice in the Dáil.

    The new Minister for Education, Joe McHugh, recently described secondary teachers as being overburdened by ‘initiative overload’[xii], which might come as a surprise considering they enjoy more than sixteen weeks of holidays per year, and curricula that have changed little in decades. Secondary school teachers play an important role in upholding the dominant consensus.

    The spiral of inequality, globally and nationally is, however, accelerating, and the coalition of interests maintaining the dominant consensus is unstable. Multinationals siphon off vast profits from a market one Tesco executive allegedly referred to as ‘Treasure Island’, with consumer prices, on average, twelve percent higher than in the UK,[xiii] while some avoid corporation taxes altogether. Meanwhile the state labours under a debt of over €200 billion after a bailout the terms of which (including the creation of NAMA) protected the interests of those members of the economic elite that did not speculate wildly prior to the crash – such as former solicitor Brian O’Donnell who was evicted from his Dalkey home in 2015 –  while working to the detriment the poor, and the impressionable young who had been encouraged to take out crippling mortgages.

    The Irish economy is vulnerable to global financial shocks – with just fifty large firms accounting for three-quarters of all exports[xiv] – a recrudescence of nationalism after Brexit, and the growing obsolescence of many forms of work, including our current farming model. The economic elite is intellectually rudderless, and only knows the way of economic growth-without-end, where ecological constraints are ignored, and in which the retail cartels make a mockery of the notion of a free market. The centre-right cannot hold for long, but in the meantime, the wheels of Irish propaganda keep turning.

    IV – The Propaganda Model – Education

    State secondary school pupils are encouraged to take subjects that will prepare them for work in multinational corporations, with an emphasis on science and technology, rather than arts, humanities or social sciences. Philosophy is unavailable as a secondary school subject, while history has been downgraded in recent years.

    In the state school system, which I observed as a supply teacher, rebellious students are removed from obedient peers and housed en bloc in ‘pass’ classes, or entire schools, which are little more than advanced creches, or holding facilities. There behaviours and performances deteriorate in the absence of positive role models. Ill-equipped for work or even social life, the dole queue awaits, or worse. Importantly, this underclass is unable to articulate their grievances – one in six of the adult population is functionally illiterate.[xv]

    The essential breeding ground of the economic elite is found in the paradoxically state-funded system of private education, in which the state pays the salaries of teachers – costing around €90 million per year. This ensures a private education is not prohibitively expensive, broadening the base of the elite, with over twenty-five thousand students enrolling in 2017.[xvi] In these institutions lasting ties are formed, and the best preparation for the Leaving Certificate offered, which is generally a code to be cracked. Behavioural problems among middle class students are less pronounced, in my experience, but where rebelliousness, or just a lack of conformity, is apparent authorities employ long-standing methods of control. The sport of rugby emphasises the collective in a test of manhood, with dissenters often subjected to homophobic slurs.

    As far back as the 1920s, one of the leading Dublin Catholic secondary schools for boys of its time, O’Connell School on North Richmond Street, recommended its pupils in the following terms: ‘Your ‘Richmond Street’ boy makes a good official. In the first place he possess the necessary academic qualifications to place him high on the examination lists. He has, in addition, certain qualities which make him a good colleague. However clever an official he may be, he has to pull with the team.’[xvii] Little has changed in a hundred years. The abiding ambition of most all-male private schools remains not only examination results, but also to develop a cast of mind disposed to “pull with the team”, while instilling an idea of what is ‘normal’ in the dominant consensus.

    Widespread single gender education keeps more troublesome and sports-obsessed male adolescents apart from females, who streak ahead academically. But when both enter the workforce, the demands of motherhood generally count against women working the long hours necessary for career advancement in most of the elite professions. ‘Early-rising’, workaholic male professionals are the praetorian guard of the dominant consensus.

    Irish class boundaries are not impermeable, or based on race or creed – as Leo Varadkar’s background illustrates – but it is increasingly difficult for anyone who is not from an elevated social background to rise up through the educational ranks to become a lawyer, doctor or even a banker. For example a young barrister, after a minimum of four years full-time study, is required to work without a salary for a further two, while he ‘devils’ under a senior colleague, thereby excluding a large proportion of the population. That profession is the bulk supplier of the country’s judiciary, which goes some way towards explaining the Court’s historic deference to property interests – notably: In the matter of Article 26 of the Constitution and in the Matter of The Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1981.

    Privileged classes, nonetheless, still produce offspring with intellectual or artistic aspirations that survive the stultifying educational system. As the economic benefits of the humanities and arts are now grudgingly recognised these pursuits are indulged with financial support available from state and private sources, albeit generally via laborious application processes. Ideally, however, the ‘creative’ is an advertising executive. Due to high rents, artists are pushed into becoming ‘art-repreneurs’, and conscripted into marketing the state as a place to do business.

    Academia once offered a platform for meaningful critiques of Irish society, but little interaction with the public now occurs, as excessive specialisation has brought abstraction to most subjects. As in other countries, young academics are required to ‘publish or perish’ prolix articles addressed to their peers, leaving little time for political engagement. In 2012 Tom Garvin, Emeritus Professor of Politics decried the dismantling of prior ‘semi-democratic’ structures in University College Dublin, claiming: ‘internal representative structures and freedom of speech were closed down and replaced with Soviet-style top-down “councils” that passively received and passed on instructions from on high’. As non-academic staff began to outnumber academics Garvin found ‘an indescribable grey philistinism’ characterise the public culture of the college ‘and a hideous management-speak’ drowned out ‘coherent communication.’[xviii]

    IV – The Propaganda Model – Print Media

    The Irish media is subject to global trends, but also internal dynamics. The reputation of journalists as crotchety, difficult people, so often depicted on screen, belies how most now “pull with the team”, or see their careers stall. The journalist that questions dominant consensus is depicted as a conspiracy theorist, but this cautionary distrust of authority now appears to be in short supply. Print media in Ireland is on its knees as young readers, in particular, opt for online content, which has resulted in significant redundancies. Precarious freelancing is the norm for new entrants.

    Denis O’Brien – who a tribunal of enquiry in 2011 concluded had handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds to a government minister, who it was ‘beyond doubt’ had given ‘substantive information to him, of significant value and assistance to him’ in securing a mobile telephone licence[xix] – controls a great swathe of Irish media, including the Irish Independent, the Sunday Independent – the widest-circulating daily and Sunday newspapers – thirteen regional publications, commercial radio channels, Newstalk (the Orwellian association seemingly lost on them) and Today FM. O’Brien’s outlets are generally pro-business, or more accurately pro-multinational, and often critical of the institutions of the state and even individual ministers, but generally support the economic elite with selective regurgitation of government Newspeak.

    For example, the headline of the Irish Independent on October 18th 2018 ran: ‘Varadkar’s Government in crisis after one minister resigns, another faces fight for survival.’ The article simulates the drama of Fianna Fáil calling time on the coalition, thereby maintaining the fiction of two opposing forces – or only two options in the event of an election. The dominant consensus is woven into the piece with the reminder: ‘The instability has created a major crisis for the Government after a Budget that was well received by most sectors’. In contrast, Social Justice Ireland argued that the budget disproportionately benefited high-earners, noting: ‘Budget 2019 fails to make any notable impact on Ireland’s entrenched inequalities and fails to tackle any of the major challenges the country currently faces.’[xx]

    The ‘Indo’ also ostentatiously stimulates demand among upwardly-mobile youth for property and health insurance. Thus the headline on the 19th of October 2018 read: ‘Families to save in home loan and health shake-up’. Its consumer affairs correspondent announced: ‘Families are to enjoy the benefits of a price war in health insurance, and increased competition with even more entrants into the mortgage market’. Mostly, however, it provides the mainstays of effective propaganda: light entertainment, especially blanket sport coverage, celebrity gossip and sexual titillation.

    There is only one other genuinely daily national indigenous newspaper – the Irish Times – which has hoovered up the Irish Examiner and regional titles to create a duopoly. It is considered, and styles itself, ‘the paper of record’, but rarely conducts meaningful investigations, tending only to print sensitive material once it has been aired elsewhere, such as when reporting on the harassment of employees by Michael Colgan, the former director of the Gate Theatre.[xxi] The catastrophic purchase of www.myhome.ie at the height of the last boom makes it a vested interest in the property market, which is reflected in extensive property supplements. Often seen as a bastion of Irish democracy, its credibility was undermined by the hosting of unmarked advertorials of the government’s Project Ireland 2040 plan.[xxii]

    The imprint of government Newspeak was also evident on October 13th, the morning before the last budget was announced, with the headline ‘Significant spending increases for housing and health’ emblazoned across the front cover. Importantly, it gave a positive spin on the budget, which could be seen from every newsstand in the country, ensuring, even if the paper itself was never read, it maintained the ambient feel-good-factor. Was the positive spin provided as a quid pro quo for the scoop, or strategic leak?

    The fingerprints of the economic elite are also apparent in the opening words of an article by chief political reporter Pat Leahy on October 14th. He cautioned the following: ‘First, do no harm. Any finance minister should heed the primary precept of the Hippocratic oath, and ensure that their fiscal and economic prescriptions do not damage the Government, or the economy.’ “Doing no harm” appears to involve upholding the dominant consensus, and avoiding the issues of social exclusion and sustainability.

    The ‘Old Lady of D’Olier Street’ still provides a platform for left-leaning and progressive journalists, including Fintan O’Toole, Una Mullally and David McWilliams, but this does not imply relentless focus on Ireland’s economic and social structures. Their emphasis has tended to be on identity politics, issues of individual liberty, particularly reproductive rights, gender equality, and from O’Toole the ongoing dramas of Trump and Brexit. Only McWilliams consistently nails the social structures. Ultimately, the paper cannot afford to affront AB readers or farmers with ‘shrill’ left-wing commentaries or sustained campaigns, but in keeping these writers on board it maintains the illusion of being progressive.

    It has also dumbed-down considerably recently in the face of ‘commercial realities’, in other words a high salary overhang. Stodgy book reviews have been marginalised, with increasing emphasis on business, vox pop reporting –with leading articles like ‘Life on the Luas: a tale of two tracks’[xxiii] – consumer affairs and, as usual, lavish sport coverage: all of these fit with the propaganda model of distraction with light entertainment.

    We have relied on UK publications to break stories such as labour abuses in the fishing industry, the substitution of horsemeat for beef, and the recent scandal of unmarked government advertorials. Serious interrogation of the role of the Gardaí has been conducted at a remove from the mainstream.

    Two political magazines, The Phoenix and Village Magazine, offer satire and dissent, but the former is not available for free online and thus has limited political clout. The latter is yet to develop a viable commercial model, but at least upheld freedom of expression and Dáil privilege by publishing online (along with www.broadsheet.ie) a record of Catherine Murphy’s speech accusing Denis O’Brien of corruption, after he had taken out an injunction against RTÉ, and when the Irish Times took fright.

    VI – The Propaganda Model – the State Broadcaster

    The state broadcaster receives a compulsory licence fee from anyone with a television set in the country, but still depends on advertising revenue to remain financially solvent. Like the Irish Times, RTÉ is a broad church, but both TV and radio stations are awash with light entertainment, including vox pop phone-ins like Joe Duffy’s Liveline which also offers an outlet for nonsensical Duckspeakers, while Ray D’Arcy and Ryan Tubridy provide distraction throughout the day on the news and current affairs channel RTÉ Radio 1.

    Tubridy is Ireland’s highest-paid broadcaster, and often its public face as host of the prime time, Friday night ‘The Late Late Show’. A scion of a well-known Fianna Fáil family, he has assumed a seemingly unassailable position, and rarely courts controversy; although he recently suggested that people who (legally) cycle two abreast should be ‘binned‘,[xxiv] and once compared breastfeeding in public to urinating on the street.[xxv] Mostly however he tugs at the heartstrings of viewers, while devoting his spare time to writing children’s books.

    RTÉ mostly anesthetises the population with light entertainment, especially sport – one recent survey showed that on ‘Morning Ireland’, the highest-rating radio show in the country, environmental stories were covered for only 0.92% of the time, whereas sports news accounted for 12.41% of content.[xxvi] Elsewhere, shows such as ‘Claire Byrne Live’ offer a small screen outlet for Duckspeak. At the end of one episode last year, during which evidence for human-influenced climate change was ‘debated’, thirty-four percent of respondents did not believe this would pose a serious threat in their lifetimes, while nine-percent did not know.[xxvii] Damien O’Reilly has also provided an outlet for Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary to express the Duckspeak of climate denial,[xxviii] the farming lobby no doubt delighted by this muddying of the waters.

    What passes for news and current affairs coverage generally consists of assessments of Tweedledum and Tweedledee politics, or commentaries on controversies stirred up in the print media. A case in point was in the recent presidential election when the previously unknown, and unsupported, Peter Casey made a demeaning remarks about Travellers, which was greeted with such ‘outrage’ that he became a serious candidate in the election, thereby providing plenty of fodder for Joe Duffy, and others.

    Ironically, the most serious political critique is found in the weekly comedy show ‘Callan’s Kicks’, where a degree of latitude is permitted. But as Theodore Zeldin explains, comedy can actually have the effect of reinforcing conformity ‘by being its safety valve’. Zeldin points out that carnivals, such as the medieval festival of fools, ‘have throughout history made fun of authority, and turned hierarchy upside down’, but ‘did so only for a few days.’[xxix]

    *******

    Ireland is a free country without an oppressive secret police force systematically monitoring communications. Despite the chilling effect of current defamation law, freedom of expression is enshrined in the Constitution and European Charter of Human Rights. Nonetheless as George Orwell put it in his proposed preface to his 1945 novel Animal Farm: ‘Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.’ Orwell observed how:

    At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

    Irish propaganda upholds a dominant consensus: preserving low taxation on wealth, especially property; encouraging steady economic growth, including rising rents; maintaining buy-in from young property purchasers; and insulating the agricultural sector, often referred to as ‘our farmers’ on the state broadcaster, from criticism. This is achieved through straightforward manipulation of the media as well as instilling conformity through the education system, but also in the use of light entertainment, especially sport, as distraction, as well as in the peddling of plain nonsense, on RTÉ especially. With the advent of social media we are seeing new and sinister methods of achieving these objectives, which this article has not addressed, but which Ireland is not immune from.

    The relatively new medium of the internet need not necessarily be feared however. It can, even through increasingly compromised social media, counter propaganda, by allowing like-minded individuals to converge and orchestrate campaigns. Propaganda can easily be exposed and alternative viewpoints expressed. But we must guard against its capacity for offering further light entertainment distraction, and platforms for madcap Duckspeakers.

    The most important weapon against propaganda is education, both childhood and lifelong, which must address adult illiteracy. A priority should be reform of that sector in Ireland: first by ending subsidised private education; then placing greater emphasis on the enquiring humanities and arts, before addressing the decline of higher learning institutions.

    The water charges campaign failed to generate long-term political engagement among the working class, or an increasingly squeezed middle. Representatives of the economic elite could concede on that single issue and take the rug from underneath organisers, who had seen the campaign in broader terms. Future campaigns should directly confront a taxation system which fails to alleviate rising wealth inequality. As we have seen, the top five percent in the country own over forty percent of its wealth, eighty-five per cent of which is held in property or land. A long-standing regime of minimal property taxes, along with the failure of the state to construct social housing to any extent, have severely accentuated wealth inequalities and seen property prices and rents spiral. A campaign for housing as an ‘inalienable and imprescriptible’ right enshrined in the constitution[xxx], should become the main progressive objective.

    [i] ‘We Have Ways of Making You Think’, TV mini-series, BBC (1992)

    [ii] David McWilliams, ‘Why do we tax income instead of wealth?’ http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/why-do-we-tax-income-instead-of-wealth/, accessed 13/11/18.

    [iii] Author unspecified, ‘Noonan: Budget 2016 the end of ‘boom and bust’’ Irish Examiner, October 13th, 2015.

    [iv] Dan MacGuill, ‘FactCheck: How many social housing units were actually built last year?’, 9th of February, 2016, www.thejournal.ie, https://www.thejournal.ie/ge16-fact-check-election-2016-ireland-social-housing-2587923-Feb2016/, accessed 21/11/18.

    [v] Lisa O’Carroll, ‘€43m knocked off Ireland’s most expensive house’ The Guardian, 22nd of September, 2011.

    [vi] Fran Power, ‘Property prices in the Dublin market to hit boom-time levels ‘within the year’’, Irish Independent, September 3rd, 2017.

    [vii] National Economic and Social Council, ‘Home Ownership and Rental: What Road is Ireland On?’ No. 140, December, 2014.

    [viii] John Downing, ‘Ireland faces annual EU energy fines of €600m’ Irish Independent, April 30th, 2018.

    [ix] Mark Hilliard, ‘Households pay most green taxes but emit one fifth of emissions – CSO’ Irish Times, October, 18th, 2018.

    [x] Emma Dillon, Brian Moran, John Lennon and Trevor Donnellan, Teagasc National Farm Survey Results 2017, July 27th, 2018.

    [xi] Cillian Sherlock, ‘790,000 people living in poverty in Ireland: Social Justice Ireland’, Irish Examiner, December 19th, 2017.

    [xii] Carl O’Brien, ‘Teachers under pressure from ‘initiative overload’, says new Minister for Education’, Irish Times, October 18th, 2018.

    [xiii] Numbeo, ‘Cost of Living in the UK’, https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=United+Kingdom, accessed 13/11/18.

    [xiv] Eoin Burke-Kennedy, Mark Hilliard, ‘Extent of State’s exposure to Brexit revealed by CSO figures’, Irish Times, October 18th, 2018.

    [xv] National Adult Literacy Agency, ‘Literacy in Ireland’, https://www.nala.ie/literacy/literacy-in-ireland, accessed 13/11/18.

    [xvi] Carl O’Brien, Jenna Clarke-Molloy, ‘Private school enrolment returns to boom-time high’, Irish Times, December 28th, 2017.

    [xvii] David McCullagh, The Reluctant Taoiseach: A Biography of John A. Costello, Dublin, Gill and MacMillan, 2010, p.10.

    [xviii] Tom Garvin ‘The bleak future of the Irish university’, Irish Times, May 1st, 2012.

    [xix] The report summaries the payments made to the then Fine Gael Minister Michael Lowry saying, ‘In aggregating the known payments from Mr Denis O Brien to Mr Michael Lowry, it is apposite to note that, between the granting of the second GSM licence to Esat Digiphone in May 1996, and the transmission of £420,000 sterling to complete the purchase of the latter of Mr Lowry’s English properties in December 1999, Mr O’Brien had made or facilitated payments to Mr. Lowry of £147,000 sterling, £300,000 sterling and a benefit equivalent to a payment in the form of Mr O’Brien’s support for a loan of £420,000 sterling.’ From: Untitled, ‘Lowry helped O’Brien get mobile licence’, Untitled, RTÉ, 22nd of March, 2011, https://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0322/298935-moriarty_background/, accessed 16/11/18.

    [xx] Social Justice Ireland, ‘Budget 2018 Analysis and Response Webinar’, https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/budget-2018-analysis-and-response-webinar, accessed 13/11/2018.

    [xxi] Laurence Mackin, Conor Gallagher, ‘Seven women allege abuse and harassment by Michael Colgan’, Irish Times, November 4th, 2017.

    [xxii] Kevin Doyle, ‘Varadkar orders review of Project Ireland €1.5m publicity campaign amid controversy’, Irish Independent, March 1st, 2018.

    [xxiii] Rosita Boland, ‘Life on the Luas: a tale of two tracks’, Irish Times, October 14th, 2017.

    [xxiv] Untitled, Stickybottle, ‘Flood of complaints to RTE after ‘Late Late Show’ cyclists item’ 14th of March, 2018, http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/complaints-rte-cyclists-item/

    [xxv] Denise Deighan O’Callaghan, Letter to the Editor: ‘Tubridy’s comments on breastfeeding’, Irish Times, November 8th, 2004.

    [xxvi] ‘Only one feature story over the two weeks carried an environmental angle, a story about new research into how dandelion seeds fly’ – ‘Gluaiseacht’, ‘Morning Ireland coverage: Sport 13 – Environment 1’ http://gluaiseacht.ie/content/morning-ireland-coverage-sport-13-environment-1, accessed 18/11/18.

    [xxvii] David Hayden, ‘Shocking Climate Change denial aired on RTE during Claire Byrne Live’, Green News.ie, https://greennews.ie/shocking-climate-change-denial-aired-rte-claire-byrne-live/, accessed 13/11/18.

    [xxviii] Sasha Brady, ‘Michael O’Leary slams climate change as ‘complete and utter rubbish’’, Irish Independent, April 8th, 2017.

    [xxix] Theodore Zeldin, The Hidden Pleasures of Life: A New Way of Remembering the Past and Imagining the Future, London, Maclehouse Press, 2015. p.177.

    [xxx] See Eoin Tierney, ‘The key Change to Fix the Irish Constitution’ July 1st, 2001, Cassandra Voices, http://cassandravoices.com/law/the-key-change-to-fix-the-irish-constitution/, accessed 21/11/18.