SECTION ONE
ARTANDfHEmDINARY REFLECTDNSONART
NON-ARI/5I5 AND POLCY-N,AKING /N/RTIAND
AWEWPANTBY C/ARANBTNSON, CHAIRPERSON
A
ACE.
From the beginning ofthe ACE p.olect in 1985 it was our intention to commision pamphlets wjthin ou. arca ofintercst. $e wer€ not sumessful in this partly becaue potential authon who rc approached were too busy, and paftly beuur we vere unable to find authors for particular topics which wejudged to be ofntrlevance. We continue to believe in the ne€d lor public debate as an csntial element in ef€ctive policy-rnakiDg, eqpecially in the ans. h lhe case ofthe relatioro ofafl md community in particular, we feh tha! an argumen! had to be made which would contribute to m understanding ofth;s as vet underdeveloped tendenq in I.ish afts poli.y-making. whilsi intending to be prcvocalive, such an argument should not be seen d a challen$ to, nor 6 an alremalive to the main preoccupations oferisting policy. It is an aryrment 1br uclud;Dg this set of cultual tendencies in the overatl puniew ollrish ans policy-making. Ard since this h a young and as }{t il-defined tendeDcy in Irish cultural lile there are many ways oftrying to undenland it- What folows is one such way. It is written for policy'maken in the filst jnstance and is an attempt to explore some ofrhe ideas at work in thinking aboul issues ofart, comunity and eduotion. Nonetheless, I hope that i! may also be ofintelesi to practitioners dd othen working in relaicd
de thirks ud thinking what de says, In Philadelphia Hffi I Cnme Brien Friel faced the pmblem ofhow do convey
Srying what
the contrasts
of
what Gar thought and u hat Gar eid by using one acior frr Gar public and one for Gar pivate. This reDsion between the publjc and the pri\ate, betw€en what one says and wha! one thinks, reemtes in the workings ofmost p€ople who wrile $ ilh th€ hop€ ofinfluencing something. There is m overwh€lmjng lendency to presenl a 'finished' documen! one which has met and confrcnted the nec€ssary obslacles to being heard and undenrood by trying to dticipate them and to wite around or o!€r or thrcugh or under th€m. The result is often clear md polished, while remaining a subre uge. It rov have the initial appeal ofthe latterer or seducer, but likely as not ir will have the same conrquences also - Ibelings olhaving been used or 'had', with all lhe negative cons€quences $ hich follow froln such fe€lj'gs. ln rcflecting upon areas ofexpe.ienc€ which claim a special attention for the prc.cses by which things arc done, the better to imprcle whar is done, why not let Gar Public and Gar Private speak with one voice? Why not air in this esay some ofthe con€rns $'hich give it this shape Ether than any other? At the outrt lefs oller a contmst between what I lhink I ought be saying ar well as
what I do
say.
is this essav b€ing written? Publicll one mighl continue to aselt that there is a need for clear inlellectLral argumens which convincingly argue for changes and m-emphars in lrish cultunl policy-making, and $at $is esay Fts our such arSumentq but privately one might wonder $'hen the bes! intellectua.l arguments ever had decilive e[ec! in nalters ofeducational, so.ial or cultunl policy-making in Ireland, or anryherc els€, for that Mtrer. Raiionality is not the
First, why