Special Interdisciplinary Number || Town and Country in Irish Ideology

Canadian Journal of Irish StudiesCanadian Association of Irish Studies

Town and Country in Irish IdeologyAuthor(s): Liam O'DowdSource: The Canadian Journal of Irish Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, Special InterdisciplinaryNumber (Dec., 1987), pp. 43-53Published by: Canadian Journal of Irish StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25512708 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 21:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Canadian Journal of Irish Studies and Canadian Association of Irish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Canadian Journal of Irish Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 21:17:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25512708?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


43

Town and Country in Irish Ideology*

by Liam O'Dowd

Rural-urban imagery has infused two major Irish ideologies in the twentieth century: the Catholic

rural ideal propagated between the 1920s and the 1960s, and the modernising nationalism which

replaced it after 1960. Each ideology uses the rural-urban distinction, albeit in different ways, to

define a communal ideal. This article probes some of the reasons for the resilience of images of

rural and urban community and concludes that these images obscure the social forces which are

currently transforming both town and country in contemporary Ireland.

Les images agrestes et urbaines au XIX siecle ont ete penetrees par deux principales ideologies

irlandaises: l'ideal catholique et rural s'est propage des annees vingt jusqua'aux annees sioxante, et

apres mille neiif cent soixante, le nationalisme modernisant. Chaque ideologic emploie cette distinction

entre Fagreste et l'urbain, certes par des moyens differents, pour formuler un ideal commun. Cet

essai examine les raisons pour lesquelles ces images de communaute rurale et urbaine persistent dans la culture irlandaise et concluera que ces images obscurent les forces sociales qui transforment

actuellement la campagne et la ville dans Tirlande contemporaine.

(1) There was this Irishwoman who worked in a branch of a U. S. owned

pharmaceutical corporation based in a small west of Ireland town.

After a tiring day preparing products to be exported to Germany and

Saudi Arabia, she drove the twenty miles home in her small Japanese

car. Her recently acquired husband, a farmer, was already in the

house, watching the evening news on their Swedish made TV set.

He had spent a fairly leisurely day helping a neighbour with a plumb

ing problem, mending some Spanish manufactured farm machinery and looking after cattle shortly to be sold into the EEC 'beef moun

tain'. The woman began to prepare a meal consisting of Irish lamb,

English canned vegetables, Cyprus potatoes, and cheap Italian wine.

Later both husband and wife watched two TV programmes. They felt

a warm glow of sympathy as a RTE documentary explored communal

life on a small island off the western coast and later felt a twinge of

patriotic fervour as an Irish runner won a gold medal at an international

athletics championship. This little story is an adaptation of a paragraph on Londoners in Towards the

Year 2000 by Raymond Williams (177). Each of the elements of my story has a

basis in fact even if perhaps the combination is fictitious. Clearly, at first glance,

*This is a revised version of a paper presented to the annual conference of the British Association

of Irish Studies, Oxford, April 1987.



44 Canadian Journal of Irish Studies

living in the west of Ireland is rather different from living in London. Yet, both

Williams' Londoners and rural dwellers in Ireland belong to the common network

of economic and cultural relationships which comprises the international capitalist order.

This commonality has been often obscured by the widespread emphasis in

social science on the differences between the rural and urban experiences. Much

of the social and political ideology of twentieth-century Ireland has emphasized the contrast between rural and urban life. This article briefly examines the use

of the rural versus urban imagery in two leading ideologies: the catholic rural

ideal propagated between the 1920s and the 1960s, and the modernizing nationalist

ideology which sought to replace it after 1960. Both of these ideologies saw the

twenty-six county Irish state as their central frame of reference.

In the first, the rural, and especially the rural West, is associated with what

is most distinctive about Irish life and identity - its sense of place, community,

kinship and mutual aid. The community orientated anti-materialism, allegedly found in this type of setting, is typically contrasted with the urban, materialistic

individualism found in Dublin, Britain and North America.

From the outset this ideology had its critics, notably Irish writers: O'Faolain,

O'Donnell, Flann O'Brien, O'Flaherty and others.1 For them, the noble peasant

myth was the invention of the new urban peasants. These were the narrow-minded,

puritanical, adolescent middle classes, to use O'Faolain's phrase, who came to

power after Partition and who produced the clergy, politicians, professionals, small shopkeepers and publicans, who linked Dublin, the country towns and

open countryside. "Tariff patriots," gombeen men, and crawthumping bigots, on

this telling, were prone to disguise their lust for power and material gain by

appeals to romantic myths about the spirituality of the rural and Gaelic order.

Modernizing nationalists and intellectuals built on this literacy critique, if not on its class dimension. They saw the economic and demographic crisis of the 1950s as proof that the Catholic and traditional nationalist programme had failed.

They espoused a strategy of modernization, which included a more positive role for the state in integrating the Republic into the international capitalist order.

Whereas, prior to the 1950s, urbanization was perceived as a threat to the Catholic social programme, it was now seen as a means to national recovery. Catholic

social ideology and the ideology of modernization shared a rural versus urban

imagery, even if they used it differently One reason for the durability of rural-urban imagery is that it is reconcilable

with the dominant characteristic of Irish social ideology - its concern with 'com

munity,' or in other words its communalism. In particular, communalism in

Ireland has appealed to religion, nationality and locality. In so doing it has sought to identify with many of the sociological aspects of 'community': small size,

kinship, neighbouring, locality associations, solidarity, and the folk memory of common experience.



Town and Country in Irish Ideology 45

In Ireland, ideologies which explictly challenge communalism in the name of

class, sectional, or individual interests tend to be marginalized if they can be

portrayed as undermining community interests or identity. Conversely, class and sectional interests can be advanced if they can claim to be in the communal or

national interest. The precise type of communalism advanced depends on the

power, class, sex, and institutional affiliations of its promulgators. Much of its

appeal resides in its capacity to link imagined pasts to desired futures. The struggle to represent class or sectional interest as the communal or national

interest is not of course unique to Ireland. What distinguishes Ireland is the

strength of communalism. This derives, I suggest, from two sets of circumstances. The first has to do with the extent and nature of Ireland's economic and cultural

integration into the international capitalist system. It has remained a peripheral arena characterized by a remarkable mobility of capital, people and ideas across its borders. Communalism offers both a constructive and a defensive strategy.

On the one hand, it seeks to build on the patchy material manifestations of

capitalist development internally, and on the other, it seeks protection against the depredations of a system geared to profit rather than to human needs.

The second reason for the strength of communalism is related to the first. The

political boundaries of 'nation' and 'state' have been continually contested in Ireland

- they are not 'above politics' as they are in other western European

countries, rather they are the very stuff of party politics. Communalism is a

strategy, therefore, for dealing with the great uncertainty about the economic,

political and cultural parameters of modern Ireland - whether, for example, these

parameters should be the 26-county state, Northern Ireland, the whole of Ireland, the British Isles, Anglo-America or the EEC.

What has all this to do with country and city in Ireland? Rural-urban imagery has been pressed into the service of communalist ideology along with a whole series of other dichotomies or antitheses which continue to structure Irish ideolog ical discourse (see Peillon). William Irwin Thompson refers to the period 1880 1920, a period crucial to the formation of modern Irish ideologies, as characterized

by an attempt to exchange gesellschaft or 'society,' for gemeinschaft, community.

According to Thompson, dichotomies expressed as antitheses were at the core of the ideology formulated by the writers and journalists: '"past versus present', agricultural community versus industrial collectivity, small nation versus decadent

empire, intuition versus reason, Gaelic versus English" (58-59). One could add other oppositions of a similar order: colonized versus colonizer,

Catholic versus Protestant, nationalist versus unionist, the Gaeltacht versus the rest of Ireland, the rest of Ireland versus Dublin, tradition versus modernity. Of course, to describe ideology in these terms is only to indicate a common vocabul ary which many, often conflicting, interests used. Sinn Fein, the Gaelic League, the Catholic Church, Ulster Unionism, the Cooperative Movement, and the

Anglo-Irish literary movement all used these oppositions in highly specific ways. Some ofthe more influential sought to combine the oppositions. Thus, Sinn Fein




propagated a dream of a Gaelic Manchester, Ulster Unionists saw the puritanism of their small community as reconcilable with 'decadent' Empire and with indus

trialism. Neither the Catholic Church nor the Cooperative movement saw Gaelic as a necessary part of their respective projects for reconstructing Irish society.

The particular potency of the rural-urban dichotomy was that it could be

substituted for, or stretched to include, one or all of the oppositions mentioned.

Rural and urban were not seen therefore as merely descriptive terms referring to

physical settlement types, rather they carried a heavy volume ofassociations:

moral, cultural and political.

Irish rural-urban imagery has echoed some key themes in wider European and American culture. Here too a whole range of associations and connotations have

gathered at each pole of rural-urban dichotomy: urban civilization, culture and

progress have been contrasted with rural backwardness and barbarism. On the other hand urban vice, corruption and cruelty have been contrasted with rural innocence and purity (see Boulding 13; Williams, 1973:1). The strength of anti-ur

banism as a response to the new industrial order has been amply demonstrated in both Britain and the U.S. (White and White; Hadden and Barton; Glass).

Perhaps even more fundamental has been the historic distinction between rural,

natural, God-made order and the city as man-made. The moral ambivalence to

the city in the Bible, and in the wider Greek and Judaic traditions has been

convincingly demonstrated by Ellul and by Sylvia Thrupp respectively. The nationalist projection of Ireland as a largely rural, agricultural society,

mobilizing to establish an independent, alternative order, had a powerful appeal to non-Irish critics or urban industrialism. On the other hand, there were many,

including Irish unionists, who saw the nationalist programme as a rejection of

progress, an escape into the past. In this, they had the support and sympathy of those who equated progress and civilization with urbanism, industrialism and

British imperialism. Rural-urban imagery was not to be found merely in explicit statements of

intellectuals or political activists, it found some confirmation also in popular experience and consciousness. The development of agrarian and industrial

capitalism within the British Isles and North America generated an extraordinary geographical mobility among the Irish population. This largely took the form of rural to urban migration even if most of the urbanization was extra-territorial.

Even if Ireland could be imagined as a rural country, the people it produced were

highly urbanized. The popular consciousness of this experience was fixed in

language, ballads, letters, folklore, even in the physical landscape. This formed a reservoir of images and associations for the intellectual and the political move

ments.

(2) In an important sense, Partition seemed to enhance the rurality of Ireland. Its

most urbanized part remained within the UK, while the independent 26 county state was overwhelmingly rural. In 1926, two thirds of its population lived in




settlements of fewer than 1,500 people and only 13% of its workforce was in

manufacturing employment. Despite the creation of a substantial class of peasant

proprietors, a large majority of the rural adult population, including females,

agricultural labourers and 'relatives assisting,' owned no property (Kennedy). After 1900, Irish urban population began to grow slowly and by the 1930s

Dublin's population accounted for one fifth of the total. Outside Dublin, urban

structure was weak and towns were mainly channels of commodities, services,

capital and people between the rural hinterland and the international economic

system. For over a hundred years, famine, eviction and massive emigration had

helped remove the propertyless from the Irish countryside. The emigrants were

disproportionately young, single and female and they left behind a peculiar rural

social structure which was heavily patriarchal and characterized by high rates of

celibacy, late marrying husbands, high marital fertility, and the so-called stem

family system. Those with no property and few prospects flooded to the large urban centres of North America and of Great Britain (after 1930)

The most powerful and cohesive institution produced by this type of society was the Catholic church - not the 26-county state. At the outset, the latter was

short on legitimacy and weak economically. It was the church rather than the

state which was best placed to articulate a communalist ideology in the thirty years after Partition.

Nevertheless, the church had felt under threat from the social and political

upheavals of the period after 1910, the prolonged labour unrest, lawlessness and

political violence ofthe anti-British struggle. Its initial response was to redefine

these issues as moral problems associated with the penetration of immoral, non-Catholic and non-Irish influences from abroad. It was against this background

that the ideal of a rural based Catholic social order was promulgated. Its appeal was twofold. On the one hand, it held out a high moral ideal of an alternative

order, which, if realized, would justify the setting up of the new state. On the other hand, it seemed to call for no sacrifice of the material class interests which continued to link the Free State to Britain.

The Church sought to protect and legitimize private property and the existing class system, counselling class harmony rather than the abolition of classes.

Virulently anti-statist, it advocated a corporatist system based on the principle of subsidiarity, i.e., the principle that the state should only intervene in matters

beyond the competency of lesser groups like the family, the parish, and industry

(Fogarty 89). Above all, it espoused the moral superiority of a social order which maximized the numbers of families on the land and distributed private property as widely as possible.

The Catholic social ideal was neither indigenous nor original. It directly im

ported its model of a rural based social order from the papal encyclicals, the Catholic social action movement on the continent, and English distributism. In

Ireland, Catholic social ideals were propagated principally by a clergy whose social origins were in the strong farmer and commercial classes. Maintaining




intimate contact with rural Ireland via the parish system, the clergy also controlled

the education system and much of the elementary welfare system. Church funding owed little to the State, British or Irish, and its substantial resources made it

well equipped to launch an ideological crusade through a range of voluntary

organizations, journals, newspapers, and study groups (see Whyte). The Irish version of the Catholic social movement was preoccupied with

reconstructing a viable rural community. Its proponents did recognize that existing rural society diverged substantially from the ideal. Nevertheless, by extolling the moral and cultural superiority of rural society, it linked nationalist nostalgia

with Catholic social principles. The less than ideal present might be overcome

by remembering the idyllic past and striving for a future approximating the

Catholic moral Utopia. An examination of the ideology of the movement between the 1920s and the

1960s reveals an unrelieved anti-urbanism, i.e. the belief that urban life sym bolized all that was essentially non-Irish and threatening to the ideal Catholic

social order. Calling for the 'converse of British urban society,' the clergy iden tified a whole range of moral, political and social evils with the city. Urban

immorality was continually associated with cinemas, dance halls, immodesty in female dress, the cult of sex and pleasure, the evil of the small family, 'race

suicide,' contraceptives, and with the threat to religious practice. The political condemnation of urbanism was just as comprehensive; it was identified with all the ideologies opposed to Catholic vocationalism and corporatism. These made an

impressive list: capitalism, communism, fascism, proletarianism, materialism,

welfare statism, and even Protestantism (see, for example, Cahill; Lucey; McKevitt; Moran). A range of 'social evils' was also thrown in for good measure,

including class segregation, popular culture and Anglo-Americanism, housing

shortages, and pyscho-neurotic disorders (one of the more comprehensive lists

may be found in De Cleir). The propagation of this rural versus urban imagery reached a crescendo in the

early 1950s in the midst of the largest emigrant exodus from rural Ireland in the twentieth century. By the mid 1950s, however, the degree to which Irish reality

diverged from the rural ideal seemed to make unsustainable the continued advo

cacy of the Catholic Utopia. It was dropped with alacrity.

(3) Despite the prevalence of ruralist ideology, state policy had been both bureauc

ratic and centralizing since 1920. A Dublin centred civil service, and an electoral

system which was clientelist even at national level, had left few powers to local authorities and had resisted the corporatist demands of clerical intellectuals. By 1955, the Commission on Emigration and Other Population Problems had en

dorsed urbanization as a means to stemming emigration even if Bishop Lucey submitted a spirited minority report warning of the threat of urbanism to population increase and the family.




A small group of civil servants in the Department of Finance, and a number of economists and statisticians in state bodies and universities now advanced an

alternative communalist ideology. It was to be informed by a modernizing nationalism which would at last deliver on the promise of the national movement to bring about economic development and stem emigration. Besides its much

more positive view of urbanization, the new ideology differed from the old in

several ways. It was rooted in the state, rather than the church, especially in

those government departments which managed Ireland's economic relationship with Britain. It stressed the independent influence of economic as opposed to socio-cultural and narrowly political factors (see Cullen; Lynch; Lynch and

Vaizey). The priority was now to be the saving of the 'nation,' henceforth identified with the Southern state. This was to be done by riding the tiger of advanced capitalism, i.e., inviting in multi-national investment, adopting free trade and joining the EEC.

One 1960s debate illustrates the way in which the old communalist rhetoric of rural versus urban confronted the new rhetoric of modernization/economic

growth. The subject of the debate was growth centre planning, i.e., how the Irish settlement structure should be modified to encourage economic development.

An initial exchange between two of the main disputants, Jeremiah Newman of

Maynooth College (now Bishop of Limerick) and Garrett Fitzgerald (later to be Irish Prime Minister) set the terms of the debate. Newman advocated a strategy or rural centrality urging dispersed industrialization built around a network of

strong country towns. These towns would be at the centre of constellations of

satellite villages. Fitzgerald argued that national development could only be maximized by concentrating industry in two or three major centres outside Dublin.

Newman rested his case on an amalgam of rather heterogeneous sources: the

old principles of Catholic social movement about the moral superiority of rural

life, anti-urbanism in Anglo-American as well as European social philosophy, sociological evidence on the social problems associated with cities and the phys ical determinism of the British garden city tradition. His case for dispersed industrialization recalled nationalist plans of the 1930s for a factory at every crossroads. In the introduction to his book New Dimensions in Regional Planning he asserted that without the determined contribution of the men of the Munster small towns, villages and countryside, there would be no national government in Dublin. Newman accused Fitzgerald of resignation to continued rural de-popu lation and of favouring a continuation of the urban bias in government policy.

Fitzgerald insisted that Ireland had to be considered as a developing unit within the broader international economy. Selective national planning was necessary to

minimize emigration and maximize the attraction of mobile investment. He decried the influence of churchmen and politicians who argued that Irish people were

'instinctively rural dwellers' or that rural life was specially virtuous.

This planning debate continued throughout the 1960s and early 1970s as a number of imported British planners drew up a succession of physical strategies




based on urban growth centres. Critics associated with the Catholic journals, the

Catholic rural action association, Muintir naTire, and the Save the West campaign

consistently attacked the economistic and urban bias of the planning proposals. Some of the sharpest attacks were launched at economists (Newman 112).

McDyer, the clerical founder of Save the West Campaign, in a letter to Lemass

(then Prime Minister) in 1963, attacked 'the climate of opinion fostered by a

group of economists who now openly declare further dispersal of small com

munities of the West to be, not only in the nature of things, inan expanding

economy, but a condition for economic expansion' (cited in Houston and Chad

wick 11). According to McDyer it was the individuality of these communities

which justified Ireland's claim to independence (cited in Poole 313). Class and institutional interests may be discerned beneath these rural-urban

debates. McDyer and Newman are defending classes threatened by the new

economic order and its physical, cultural and political forms. Newman, in particu lar, sees the interests of the Church as closely tied to the fortunes of country towns and villages. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, speaks for a rising group of

secular professionals and managers who stood to benefit from the new forms of

capitalism and the state's role in managing it.

Importantly, however, each side of the debate put its case in communalist terms. McDyer sought to identify the threatened farmers of the western seaboard

with traditional nationalism and Catholicism. Newman did the same for the rather

larger farmers and country town businessmen of Munster. Fitzgerald, on the

other hand, saw the expanding and largely Dublin based professional elite as

key carriers of modernizing nationalism. In hindsight, it is now clear that Fitzgerald was wrong to claim that incoming

investment automatically required large urban centres. In Ireland, as in Britain,

new multi-national enterprises favoured small towns. Even the rural west of

Ireland benefitted to a much greater extent than it did under DeValera style nationalism which sought to encourage indigenous manufacturing by economic

protectionism. In fact, the post 1950s multinational industries found it to their

advantage to be the major employer and corporate citizen in small towns and to utilize a labour force with little experience of factory work orunionization. The

way in which local community councils could quell fears of environmental

pollution, and moderate wage demands in the interests of maintaining the 'local'

factory, also proved helpful.

Ironically, between 1960 and 1980, the modernization strategy not only stimu lated urbanization but brought about a dramatic reversal of rural decline also.

Urbanization grew in the 1970s with a 20% growth in Dublin and the large towns. Newman's favoured country towns (between 5-20,000) grew by a massive

60%, towns and villages under 1,500 by 25% and even open country population by 5%. Over 80% of all rural districts showed increases (Commins). Significantly, in 1981, 44% of the total population still lived in settlements of 1,500 or less.

Young people, particularly young women, re-established a presence in several




areas with the arrival of new job opportunities in industry, tourism and services.

Many small farmers managed to survive with access to off-farm income. The

demographic anomalies of celibacy and postponed marriages appeared to have

been rectified.

Yet the result was far removed from the rural ideal of the Catholic social

movement. Under EEC farm policies and the development of a more thoroughly

capitalist argriculture, the farming population has halved since 1960. Income

differentials have widened between large and marginal farmers. In some areas, a new working class has emerged, with a new class consciousness (Eipper; Jess;

Harriss). Farming cooperatives have become big corporations. The clergy still

play a mediating role in many rural areas but have lost their previous prominence. The ideal of a non-materialistic, self-contained rural based culture based on

small property seems more remote than ever.

(4) Neither side of the debate reckoned on the volatility of the new economic

regime of the period 1960-80. Advocates of change who have identified urbani

zation and industrialization with modernity and progress are now on the defensive

themselves. With factory closures, rising unemployment, over production in

agriculture and the return of mass emigration, the state no longer finds it easy to promulgate an ideology of national interest based on growth. It is no longer easy to define the crisis of the 1980s in terms of technical adaptation to the

international economy. Harsh and obviously class-based dilemmas have been

exposed over issues such as public expenditure cuts, welfare transfers, capital and property taxation and a massive burden of foreign debt.

In these circumstances, the choice between a rural or an urban based society as posed in the past has lost much of its force. Nevertheless, the rural versus

urban imagery is resilient and continues to be linked to issues such as centralization versus decentralization, farmers versus workers, rural conservatism versus urban

secularism.

Although competing class interests are more visible, it is unlikely that explicitly class-based ideologies will replace communalist approaches. Itis interesting that the latest OECD report on the Irish economy has stressed a sense of community as one of Ireland's main resources (Irish Times 3 April 1986). A new set of

organizations and new vocabulary of 'community' have emerged -

inthe areas

of community enterprise, community care, community action, community de

velopment, community councils etc. These span urban and rural areas. For exam

ple, the decline of inner city communities is frequently described interms similar to the decline of rural communities in the past.

It would be misleading, however, to see the prevalence of communal ideology in the same terms as the communal ideologies discussed in this paper. New

community organization is often based on single issues or localities and it func tions within a vastly altered social structure. The framework provided by the




international economy, the church and the state has altered significantly. New

communal movements display no less than the old the imperatives of a class

system. They are capable of furthering capitalist interests or of providing a

defence against them. But they are unlikely to solve problems of state legitimacy or the crisis of national identity now being discussed ad nauseam by Irish intel

lectuals. If anything, they add to the multitude of parameters within which Irish

social structure must be considered. Consider the following: the impact of Gulf

Oil on the small town of Bantry in West Cork, of the Asahi Corporation of Toyko on Killala in Co. Mayo, of international finance companies on Dublin's inner

city, of EEC regulations on fishing and farming areas, of the thousands of new

Irish emigrants in the cities of the U.S., Britain and continental western Europe. Such links explode received understandings of community, of national units, and

of the rural and urban areas which they used to encompass.

Rural urban differences seem to persist in some respects as demonstrated

recently by the more conservative rural voting patterns in the national referenda

on abortion and divorce. Yet these differences are not the result of living in a

particular type of settlement. Rather they point to divergences in occupational and class structure and the role of the clergy. To the extent that the old forms of

rural-urban imagery persist they continue to obscure the social forces which are

now radically altering both town and country in the Ireland of the 1980s.

NOTE

'For an account of the attitudes of several leading Irish literary figures (from

Northern Ireland and the Republic) to the city, see Harmon.

WORKS CITED

Boulding, K. "The Death of the City: A Frightened Look at Post-Civilization."

The Historian and the City. Eds. O. Handling and J. Burchard. Boston: MIT

and Harvard Press, 1963.

Cahill, E. "The Social Question in Ireland: A Study in Social Sciences." Irish

Ecclesiastical Record 34 (1929). Commins, P. "Rural Social Change." Ireland: A Sociological Profile. Eds. P.

Clancy, S. Drudy, K. Lynch and L. O'Dowd. Dublin: Institute of Public

Administration, 1986.

Cullen, L.M. The Formation of the Irish Economy. Cork: Mercier Press, 1968.

De Cleir, S. "Marriage and the Family in Irish Life." Christus Rex 5 (1952).

Eipper, C. The Ruling Trinity: A Community Study of Church, State and Business in Ireland. Aldershot, England: Gower, 1986.

Ellul, J. The Meaning of the City. Trans. D. Pardee. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1970.




Fogarty M.P. Christian Democracy. Notre Dame: University Press, 1957.

Glass, T. "Urban Sociology in Great Britain: ATrend Report." Current Sociology 4 (1955).

Hadden, J.K. and T.G. Barton. "An Image That Will Not Die: Thoughts on the

History of Anti-Urban Ideology." The Urbanization ofthe Suburbs. Eds. L.

Masotti and J. Hadden. London: Sage, 1973.

Harmon, M. The Irish Writer and the City. Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes and

Noble, 1984.

Harris, L. "Class, Community and Sexual Divisions." Culture and Ideology in

Ireland. Eds. C. Curtin, M. Kelly and L. O'Dowd. Gal way: University Press, 1984.

Houston J.B. and J.W Chadwick. "How the West Can Be Won." Irish Times 11

Oct. 1968.

Jess, P. "Local Change in the West of Ireland." Open University Course D205, Unit 17. Milton Keynes, England: Open University, 1985.

Kennedy, R.E. The Irish: Emigration, Marriage and Fertility. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1973.

Lucey, C. "On a Recent Study in Social Science." Irish Ecclesiastical Record

41 (1933).

Lynch, P. "The Economics of Independence: Some Unsettled Questions of Irish

Economics." Administration 1 (1959).

Lynch P. and J.E. Vaizey. Guinness' Brewery in the Irish Economy 1759-1876.

Cambridge: University Press, 1960.

McKevitt, P. "The Beveridge Plan." Irish Ecclesiastical Record 61 (1943). Moran, P. "Rural Values." Christus Rex 6 (1952).

Newman, J. New Dimensions in Regional Planning: A Case Study of Ireland. Dublin: An Foras Forbartha, 1967.

Peillon, M. "The Structure of Irish Ideology Revisited." Culture and Ideology in Ireland. Ed. Curtin et al. Galway: University Press, 1984.

Poole, M.A. "Decision-Making and the Formulation of Regional Development Objectives: The Case of Rural Ireland." Irish Geographical Studies. Eds. N.

Stephens and R.E. Glasscock. Belfast: Queen's University, 1970.

Thompson, W.I. The Imagination of an Insurrection: Dublin, Easter 1916. New

York: OUP, 1967.

Thrupp, S.L. "The City as the Idea of Social Order." The Historian and the City. Eds. Handlin and Burchard. Boston: MIT and Harvard Press, 1963.

White M. and L. White. The Intellectual Versus the City: From Thomas Jefferson to Frank Lloyd Wright. New York: Mentor, 1962.

Whyte, J.H. Church and State in Modern Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1971.

Williams, R. The Country and the City. New York: OUP, 1973. -. Towards the Year 2000. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983.



Documents

Special Interdisciplinary Number || Town and Country in Irish Ideology