Silly Old Twit

  Should Cathal O’Searcaigh’s books be banned ? This is a question that has been raised since the debate began on O’Searcaigh’s activities in Nepal. But I have not heard anyone suggest that books should be in fact be banned at all , rather this is a point made by those who are intent on not facing the issue of O’Searcaigh’s books being on the national curriculum. Let’s be very clear about this , no one has advocated that books should be banned (or burned ). There is no mob howling in the street. There is no witch-hunt but there is a serious question to be asked.
     Those who say no to this have two principle arguments. The first I have already dealt with so this leaves us with what seems to be their only real point. They say , “But what about Wilde , Lorca and all the others , are we to get rid of them all “? Now let me repeat what I’ve said before. No one is advocating that O’Searcaigh’s books be ‘got rid of’. We pick and choose who we put on the curriculum , people are put on and taken off all the time. When we remove one poet to make room for another does it mean we are denying the merit of the work ? So there is nothing wrong in principle , there is no fundamental principle at stake here. But many would declare , “Hold on a minute , this mans work may be taken off because of his private life and that’s a different matter , there is most certainly a principle involved ” The answer to that is that O’Searcaigh is in trouble not for his private life but his public actions. And we censor people every day of the week for their actions and not always by taking them to court. We reserve that right and exercise it with regularity. So that’s not the real argument either , so what is ?
   It’s very simple , “we must look at the work (poems) and not the man”. The poetry stands on it own. All this is fine but we must go beyond soundbites regardless of whose they are or what purpose they serve. When we place the work of a living poet on the curriculum we honor him (the fact that it may not be our intention to do so is neither here nor there ). And we can shout all we like that it’s all to do with the work , we can declare it from the mountain tops but we cannot alter that fact. Indeed the accusation that we have at times been motivated by a desire to honor someone whose work does not in fact merit it has been made many times.  But what then about all those other poets ? What about the dead poets , does it make a difference if a poet is dead or alive ? …….I can hear the laughter , even as I write this I can almost see the smiling faces ……but let’s stop here a moment and consider the matter. Does it in fact make a difference ?
     We honor our heroes (and poets ) , the living and the dead . But the dead are distant , and we see them at a distance and with the benefit of history and hindsight. But what of the living ? Our living poets and heroes are much closer. Should O’Searcaigh be able to teach his poetry in the class room ? Would it be alright if he were a teacher ? Would a man who is involved in sex tourism be acceptable as a teacher ? Be honest , and if not why not. We demand a standard in private and public behaviour from our teachers and others who’s duty it is to educate the young , we may say that the mans private life is his own business but that’s not and never has been strictly true. Should the teacher’s work (his ability to teach) not be our only consideration when we hire him? And the politician that we elect , what about him ? Do we separate the man from his work ? The answer is a simple no. Are we then just hypocrites or is there a reason for this apparent double standard ? Not everything can be reduced to law and statute. Our post moder liberal society has passed so many laws that we must (on pain of prison) be careful what we say. History ,what did or didn’t happy in the yesterday , is something to be decided on in a criminal court…..and all of this with the best of liberal intentions.  Those who are quick to proscribe even our spoken thoughts , our words , tell us now that we must do nothing……..The work must stand on it’s own…….what’s behind all this ?…….what indeed.
     Where do these liberal idea’s come from ? The Art for Arts Sake movement has informed much of modern thinking but is little understood by many.  Art it say’s stands on it own (the thing in itself) and does not have a social function (in itself). But the fairytale , the story and the poem do have a social purpose. We may try to flatter ourselves that we , unlike the primitive artist can produce an abstract or private art , an art for it’s own sake but in aiming for self flattery we only fool ourselves. Art for Arts Sake , to be understood must be understood in the context of the philosophy and culture from which it arose and the culture it helped to shape. It was never intended as a end in itself. The Russian poet , Afanasy Fet was greatly influenced by the movement and wrote much of his poetry in the spirit of Art for Art’s Sake and those who wish to pursue the study of it might do well to study his poetry and philosophical writings.
    Our words are , more often than not , are put in our mouths. We express opinions about liberty and rights which we believe to be our own but which  in fact we learned somewhere…..just as those who say , “The work must stand on it’s own”. We may think we are expressing an original idea but that does not make it so. A vulgar concept is made no less vulgar by  the fact that we are unaware of it’s vulgarity. And what passes for liberal though in much of today’s self proclaimed liberal society is the worst possible form of vulgarity. We demand a freedom for Art to express itself that we are not prepared to extend to our fellow man. We sell off our social housing stock , our homeless litter the streets , the old and infirm perform their bowel movement in hospital corridors , we encourage mass immigration (it’s good for the country/us) with little regard for those who pay the price. And we have an answer for everything. Homophobic , racist , art for art’s sake …..(be careful what you say)….a woman’s right to choose ( but not to say what she thinks). And all , we tell ourselves for the common good. Thousands of years of philosophy reduced to soundbites. …..
   Even those who are critical of O’Searcaigh feel the need to regard him as a good man. No such urge was felt when Jackson and Glitter were being judged. We speak of his spiritual dimension …..and such things. We seem incapable of declaring him bad. And yet we judge others every day of the week and feel no need to explain ourselves. But does a good man exploit others as he has done ? If he were an ill educated brute , if he had grown up in an amoral criminal environment we would of course keep this in mind as we passed judgement. But O’Searcaigh is no brute. He’s had the benifit of a good education , he understand morals and ethics….his friends keep telling us of his fine mind. O’Searcaigh , over a period of time solicited money from fellow artists so that he might do what he was doing. This was no momentary lapse of reason…..And a man who willfully does such a wrong , who makes others uknowingly complicit in the wrong is he not a bad man? They have read Hamlet and not understood a single word. They weep at the last act …….OH HAMLET they sigh…..as some poor minion hauls yet another body off backstage. Their arrogance is boundless. They are quick to judge us while contorting themselves in an effort to avoid judging one of their own. Like rape , it’s to do with power more than sex. And they have the power. Might is right. 
            Dublin , a city once famous for it’s bookshops now has practically no bookshops left ….the more of a liberal education the general population gets the less inclined are they to read books. ….there’s a moral there for anyone who want’s to see it.

   And so , back to the question I started with. Should O’Searcaigh’s books be removed from the curriculum? What do I think ? The truth is that I’m not sure….I really don’t know. But I believe that we should talk about it in an open manner. There is no black and white answer. There is no ‘one fit’s all solution’. There is nothing so dangerous as a society (or a mind ) ruled by certainties.  But in a society where freedom of speech is being chipped away at (for all the ‘right’ reasons )  we should not be surprised that some don’t even want to have a dialogue.
    There is no such thing as a free dinner , or a free education or for that matter a free curriculum. Even the most liberal of art’s curriculum serves a purpose. We don’t learn art , philosophy or poetry we are taught it. We may think we are thinking in a free manner but this is rarely the case. We are happy with the free movement of labour and if we hear a contrary opinion we shout ‘RACISM’. Economic exploitation is justified even made into a virtue.  No deviation is permissible…. ( and all the while we grow a little richer ). All this requires an ethic and a philosophy to underpin it. And we have to believe it all , we have to believe that’s it’s we ( the reasonable man ) who is making the decisions and that those decisions are ’good’. We must convince ourselves that our values can ’stand on their own’. That way , in time we don’t even feel the need to justify them. They are after  all self evident to any ‘reasonable man’. They are true in themselves. …….and so we pass laws restricting free speech and call it liberal , anything can be justified and is. Twenty years ago I was a liberal and have not changed in one single regard but the word liberal has changed. We change language and are not even aware of it. E. P. Thompson once said that before we kill people we must kill language. Before we kill a ’man’ he must become an ‘enemy’. Words have power. And so , a liberal state passes another yet law to protect the people from themselves. And it creates an Art and Poetry (that stands on it own)  to underpin this culture. The Academy speaks , and says what it was taught to say and thinks it has said something new. ……. No , nothing is black and white. Things are rarely as simple as they seem.
    Going back to this idea that the art must stand on it’s own , it is interesting  to note that when scholars discuss this concept in it’s cultural and historical context they rarely if ever consider their OWN historical context. There is , if you like an assumption (prejudice) that they are writing the last page , making the definitive statement. We can see the fatal flaws that previous generations have made but not the ones that we are making. We are more than a little arrogant…And by a happy coincidence our philosophies , values  etc , the culture we create , just happens to work in our own interest. No one votes for high taxes “…..
     Yes , yes , yes -” but we can’t go down the road of banning…” If you were to stop any man in the street right now and say ,”Should we take O’Searcaigh’s book off the curriculum ” the reply , I guarantee you , would be , “No we mustn’t ban his books”. This need , this almost atavistic compulsion to say no to banning in-spite of the fact that banning is not the issue is in itself revealing. There’s something going on here that has nothing to do with the argument in question. Their need is no different to the need that O’Searcaigh’s supporters displayed by rushing in to defend  him with such speed.  It’s a bit too insistent , too urgent…….it’s as if they are saying , ”I don’t want to think about this”.
   As young people say today , “Let’s get real”. Merit has never , I repeat never been the only issue when it comes to who or what is on the curriculum.  From the foundation of the state people have had their work represented for almost every reason under the sun from their  percieved ‘patriotism’ right down to the ’services they have given to society.

 Just one final point. It’s strange , well it’s really not strange at all - the argument that merit alone should decide the issue forces me to point out that while O’Searcaigh’s poetry is no doubt popular I don’t think any serious critic would claim that he’s in the same league as Hartnett …this is no Melville or Joyce were talking about here. I defy anyone who’s read Hartnett’s poem , “The Retreat of Ita Cagney“ to say that O’Searcaigh has come anywhere near to Hartnett. No doubt you will say , “But those who know about poetry say he’s a fine poet”. But there is self interest at work here. Much of the rushing to defend O’Searcaigh is  a matter of closing ranks. And the idea that the man in the street might decide the relevance (or worst still the value) of O’Searcaigh’s work is something that they are not prepared to tolerate. You must have noticed that when he (the man in the street) intimates that he has something to say the spectre of ‘mob rule’ (and by intimation) brute ignorance is raised. Substitute ”Immigrant” or better still ”Black’s” for  the man in the street and we all know that they would be screaming ‘Racism’. And it is of course a form of racism. It’s quite normal for such people to make racist assumptions and voice them as long as it is directed at the ‘man in the street’. And if a working class community expresses reservations about mass immigration the entire community is damned as ’Racist’. Of course when , as happens frequently now in the UK , an immigrant community expresses concerns about this mass immigration they get very confused and don’t know what to say either way. What , what for the love of God do any of these people know about poetry or any art form ? These are the ones who condemned Kavanagh to the wilderness for decades. Who for years would literally smirk if you mentioned his name. They gave Charlie Cullen the same cold shoulder for quarter of a century….would you like me to go on ? Do I have to spell it out? These are the ones who sneered when Charles Haughey commissioned a work by Seoirse Bodley and then critised ’the work’. One of Europe’s finest composers and they snickered and sneered . No effort there to separate the artist from the patron. No ”the work must stand on it’s own “that time. These are the people who dismissed Bernadette Greevy , who didn’t know whether to praise or laugh at O’Riada (they are still not sure / the verdict isn’t in )……..
…………That such people should have a say in the first place , that they should be the ones who decide what does or does not go on the national curriculum is nothing short of a travesty. 
  ……