WHEN we say we are moving into a new Ireland, do we realise this will probably mean that the institutions of the old Ireland are no longer relevant?
The strange thing is that we still tend to regard the Late Late as belonging to the new rather than the old. The latest fuss about the show has provided an interesting insight into the folly of this belief.
My initial response to reports that the political parties had declined an invitation to appear in a state of the nation debate on last Friday's show was outrage at the lack of accountability and transparency inherent in this. How dare our elected public representatives refuse to engage with the public in debate on such important issues as crime, unemployment and taxation.
This appeared to be the general public reaction as well. My own outrage changed to amusement on reading that the parties were hiding behind the Dail Committee on Procedure and Privileges (CPP), which had deemed the idea of deputies participating in the proposed TV debate wholly inappropriate and out of keeping with the constitution, status and dignity of parliament". That was a good one, I thought to myself. At first glance I found myself in agreement with Gay Byrne's assessment that the parties were using the CPP as an excuse. But then I got to asking myself what I really thought about all this. And it occurred to me that, whatever their motivations or excuses, the political parties were probably right to refuse to participate in this debate.
In the first place, we do not elect people to appear on television; we elect them, in general, to represent us in parliament. If they have anything to say about crime, unemployment, taxation and the general state of the nation, then Dail Eireann is the appropriate place. If the Dail is inadequate to the public need, that is another question. The answer is not to be found in moving Dail Eireann to Montrose. But the main reason why such a debate is inappropriate has nothing to do with that, still less with either the constitution or dignity of parliament. It has to do in a fundamental way with the nature of television, and in particular of the Late Late Show.
There may have been a naive time way back in the infancy of television when we seriously imagined that what happened on the Late Late was genuine, constructive and healthy debate about the nature of Irish society and where it was going. For a time, we may even have been right in this belief, when the stark conflict which the Late Late excelled in had a purifying effect in clearing the accumulated stagnation of generations of secrecy and shame. That time has passed. It is surely clear to us now that the purpose of the Late Late Show, is to deliver audiences by providing entertainment. Whatever the issues of crime, unemployment and taxation may be, they most certainly are not entertaining. That is not to say that I believe the Late Late Show should confine itself to song and dance. But I do believe that, in the way it tends to deal with issues like crime, unemployment and taxation, the Late Late's instinct has always been to try to turn them into song and dance.
AGAIN, there may have been a moment when this approach was at least useful in creating debate. But that time has passed also. Nowadays, I believe the nature or character of debates which happen in the Late Late makes them inimical to true understanding of today's complex society.
For the past 30 odd years, the Late Late Show has thrived on simplicities, polarisations, black and whiteness. It is incapable of dealing with complexities, subtleties or synthesis. In the Late Late world, there are only two kinds of people, thought or belief: there is "old" and there is "new". When you sit in that chair, you must agree to reveal yourself as one or the other. If you do, then you will be a success. You may win or you may lose the argument, but you will have passed the audition. If you are of the "old", then you will be recognisable as conservative, old fashioned, sentimental, and perhaps ever so slightly irrational. If you are of the "new", you will be instantly recognisable as "liberal", "modern" and "progressive" - and, above all, will be passionately opposed to the "old". When confronted with something or someone answering to neither of these calls, the Late Late Show does not know what to do with itself. It requires you to declare what you are against, and this should preferably be something or someone the audience will instantly recognise.
If you are a foaming student radical attacking the bishops, Gay Byrne will say that, although he does not agree with your opinions, he admires your idealism or your outspokenness. If you want to hang people, he will sum up by saying that, "a lotta people are thinking like that". It really doesn't matter which you are, so long as you contribute to the cabaret which acts out the prejudices of the nation. It is vital not to say anything which requires more than 30 seconds thinking, which does not fit into the existing categories of public thought, or which, heaven forbid, has not been said before. You are better off shouting such notions from the nearest street corner.
YOU will have between five and 10 minutes to show your colours, and if, after that time they begin to reveal themselves either black nor white, you had better fasten your seat belt. The first thing that will happen is that the presenter's eyes will start to glaze. Then he will get up out of his chair and go to the audience. When he stands there with his back to you, pointing in your direction over his left shoulder, you know that you are dead in the water. The audience, as though responding to some secret code, will begin to urinate in your direction. They will say that you take yourself too seriously, and invite you to "lighten up". This is because they are responding to the cardinal rule of the Late Late Show: cabaret at all costs. If you do not create the cabaret off your own bat, you will become Uncle Gaybo's Aunt Sally.
For 30 odd years, it might be argued, this crude form of conflict was inevitable in a society coming to terms with itself. But we have now passed the point where it is of any use. The possibility arises, in fact, that it is close to the root of the problem, for is it not demonstrably true that the polarised character of this form of debate has been replicated in the divided structure of our society?
In the absence of the clear division which the presence of politicians would have provided, last Friday's show was a damp squib. Without an Aunt Sally, it did not make for "good television". A few sensible things got said, but the success of the Late Late has never been to do with saying sensible things.
It is precisely because the Late Late Show has been such a critical element in the "modernisation" of Irish society that we now need to know its limits if we wish to move on. If a problem is so complex that it appears insoluble by the light of present logic, doesn't it make sense to avoid the places where that light is at its most intense?