FROM ARTIZANS TO ADAM AND PAUL: THE WORKING CLASS THROUGH THE EYES OF OFFICIAL IRELAND
Jun 4th, 2008 by Conor McCabe
the expression ‘working classes’ shall include mechanics, artizans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages, but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their own family; and persons, other than domestic servants, whose income in any case does not exceed an average of 60/- per week; and the families of any such persons who may be residing with them.” (Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act of 1908)
Definitions of the working class (or classes) are nothing new to Irish society. Indeed, all social housing built pre-1966 was done so under the provision of the various housing of the working classes acts - legal documents that contained definitions such as above.
In 1939 the Irish government commissioned an inquiry into housing schemes for the working classes. From the start it found the established definitions, well, a bit troublesome. The inquiry needed a solid definition in order to make clear exactly who was to benefit from any future social housing schemes. The solution was thus:
We have given anxious consideration to this aspect of our task, and have reached the conclusion that the purposes of our inquiry would be reasonably met by regarding the working classes as covering all classes of adult persons in receipt of an average weekly income not exceeding the highest wage rate of a skilled tradesman. We naturally exclude persons who have substantial reserves of property or capital, even if their current wage income would otherwise qualify them. We also exclude those persons obviously belonging to a higher economic category whose current earnings may be low owing to terms of apprenticeship, training, instruction, probation, or similar conditions.” (Report of Inquiry into the Housing of the Working Classes of the City of Dublin 1939/43, Dublin, 1943), p.35.
It marked one of the final definitions - indeed, possibly the final such definition - issued by any central government inquiry. It is interesting for its emphasis on wage as the definer of class, unlike the earlier acts which saw both occupation and wage as class indicators. It’s not surprising when it is considered that the focus of the inquiry was on who should benefit from government-aided housing. Clearly, income was seen as an important factor. Nonetheless, its citation of skilled tradesman wages as the top benchmark of working class earnings is one that would place the majority of present-day Irish workers within its ranks. Similarly, the earlier definition of the working classes as consisting of those working for a wage, or self-employed but not employing anyone else, would also find the majority of Irish people under its terms of reference.
So. what happened between the 1940s and today, that we went from this definition of the Irish working classes…
to this…
Does it not come across as even the slightest bit fucked-up? 21st century Ireland, and the working classes are those who do not have a job? What type of analysis is that? Why does it have such mainstream acceptance?
There are more than a few reasons for the paucity of analysis when it comes to working class life and its position in Irish society. One small but crucial element relates to mainstream cultural expressions of Irish working class life. This was brought to mind recently by two things: a recent discussion on The View which dealt with the play, ‘The Pride of Parnell Street´, and last Sunday’s showing of Crush Proof on RTE2. It’s a depressing movie, one that wears its cliches on its sleeve - skangers on horses always out to bleedin’ kill someone. What’s so surprising is the way in which such movies are praised for their authenticity - and I’m thinking of other offerings such as Adam and Paul and Prosperity - when in fact their ‘authenticity’ relies on the resonance of the images and dialogue with other, similar, works, rather than with the actual cultural expression of working class life. (A classic example of such a discussion of the ‘authenticity´of these types of works can be seen here on RTE’s archive of The View, 20 May 2008.) We can’t really say if the portrayals are true or not, as the majority of us do not live within such margins. However, they LOOK real because they have all the aesthetics of what we think to be authentic, based on news reports, Prime Time specials, and other similar movies.
There is a strong tendency to take the view that the moviemaker is tackling tough issues here, delving into the black heart where nobody else wants to go - that somehow, by mouthing hard words the flimmaker understands hard things. It’s nothing more than shooting cliches from the hip. Probably the best known recent example of such is the glue sniffing scene in Pavee Lacken - which was placed directly into this cinéma vérité by the settled film director, as part of his move to ‘authenticate’ the film, despite the voiced concerns of the young actress, Winnie Maughan.
The message is simple: never let the truth get in the way of ‘telling’ the truth.
So. What has any of this got to do with our working class definitions from 60 years ago?
Well, part of it has to do with the continuity in approach between authors of the 1943 inquiry, and our present-day filmmakers who mouth hard words to tell us they understand hard things. In both, the definitions are coming from outside of the working classes. They are being told who they are, what they do, how they speak, and what they earn, by people who clock in and clock out of working class life. It’s like a country being told what it is like by tourists.
With regard to the authors of the inquiry, the production of the report is upfront and plain to see. It has, at least, an economic and social basis for its definition.
With regard to Irish cultural production, however, we have the middle class boys mouthing those hard words, showing us they understand hard things, and yet very little is said as to the serious analytical problems with this type of exercise - this class-based aesthetic where the class input is all one-sided.
Take away the heroin and the tracksuits, the horses and the gluebags, and we’re left with a situation where everyday images of Irish working class life come across as snapshots from a different planet - one where the people who actually live there, who grew up there, are made to feel like they are the tourists, separated by a seemingly shared culture.
The experience, whoever real, just looks wrong. It needs more authenticity - something that needs to look right, to fall into the Irish working class/poverty aesthetic.
Something a bit like this?
Now. Much better. Back on the Irish working class aesthetic track.
Hard words and hard images, to show I understand hard things.
The Irish middle class aesthetic of Irish working class life.
I wouldn’t automatically assume film makers set out to capture an authentic expression of working class life in all the productions you mention. More likely they are trying to portray characters they find interesting - which are by definition those at the extremes. I imagine an authorial tendency is at play more so than a political one. The picture of the girl holding the boy captures a nice moment but would I want to watch a movie about these people based on this image? Probably not.
“It’s like a country being told what it is like by tourists. ”
I actually find tourists’ perception of our country more accurate than our own a lot of the time. Detachment can bring clarity to a subject.
Niall, I would suggest that the film-makers in question find their subjects interesting precisely because they are open to a representation that can achieve recognition as being ‘authentic’. If the film-makers perceive their subjects as ‘on the extremes’, as you say, then their own starting point must be not from the extremes, but from the ‘centre’, which is, wait for it, where the middle class thinks it is.
“the film-makers in question find their subjects interesting precisely because they are open to a representation that can achieve recognition as being ‘authentic’.”
Not necessarily authentic or representative of a wider class, just different. Adam and Paul don’t represent the Dublin working class but an extreme of society. They are extreme not just to middle class people but to working class people. To assume their portrayal casts the Dublin working class in a poor light makes an assumption of commonality and overlap most Dublin working class people probably wouldn’t make themselves.
“If the film-makers perceive their subjects as ‘on the extremes’, as you say, then their own starting point must be not from the extremes, but from the ‘centre’, which is, wait for it, where the middle class thinks it is.”
Films that involve middle class protagonists deal in extreme characters also. Its called entertainment.
The missus (for’n but not really a tourist in Dublin terms) knocked the nail on the head when after 5 mins of Adam and Paul she spotted the main inspiration appeared to be Beckett.
I might even say it’s the case for your 1st photo too (looks like another 2 auditioning for Vladimir & Estragon). If they’re of any class at all (and I don’t think class portrayal is Abrahamson’s main interest) it’d be the underclass.
However, you might like to try this version, a bit more middle class :
Adam and Paul - D4
On a by-line - looking at Abrahamson’s CV he seems to be a contemporary of Red Leather Joe on whatever floor of the Trinity Arts Block the Philosophy Dept. was on (or was perceived to be on….)
The Adam & Paul link with Godot is well known - in fact it’s played upon in some of the posters for the movie. But what I’m talking about here is representations and discussions of Irish culture where working class representations are ALWAYS from the margins - almost without exception. and in discussions - such as The View I’ve linked to above - working class is slipped into the discussion without ANY qualification.
Niall, with regard to tourists having a clearer view of the country, I’ll keep that in mind next group of Manchester hens I see crawling back to the Ardmore Hotel on the Finglas Road at 11 in the morning. Or when I’m stuck for a bit of clarity on Irish history I’ll reach for the nearest Lonely Planet guide to sort me out. And with regard to filmmakers chasing the interesting - you’ve missed what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that when they DO go for their interesting working class characters they draw off a set of aesthetics that have become the standard for such dramas - the worst example being the aforementioned “Prosperity”. The reason being is that they do not come from a working class background and have absolutely no idea what the culture is really like. Not to worry, ‘cos those reviewing it in newspapers, or on television programmes - are in the same boat. What they do have, however, is exposure to similar drama - enough to let them know what “looks” authentic, and what doesn’t. And the aesthetics are the extremes. I mean, take someone like Shane Meadows, who deals with some very dark working class characters. Take a look at the aesthetics in his movies, in A room for Romeo brass, for example. Check out the furniture, the wallpaper, the banter between families - these little details don’t show up in Irish drama ‘cos the people making them are usually too busy dealing with “issues” in an aesthetic that is just wrong. They just don’t know how to get the setting right, but they’ve watched enough movies to know who to make it look “authentic.”
Let me make it clear as well. None of this, I believe, is done completely consciously. Influences don’t always work at a conscious level. However, they can be analysed, and highlighted, and alluded to, and that’s what I’m doing here. I’m not saying that those making these types of dramas are fully aware of what they are drawing upon, but I know it ‘aint Irish working class life, ‘cos it’s the last thing these guys know anything about.
On another point, is it not interesting that when it comes to middle class dramas, we have the people involved dealing with relationship problems, but when they turn their skills towards working class based dramas, all we get are needles, doleys and drunks? Again, the precedents, the aesthetics, the cultural production itself.
I mean, as far as contemporary working class representations within Irish culture that are NOT based on the margins… where are they?
Can people point me to them please? All I can think of is Intermission.
Sean, with regard to whether working class portrayal is Abrahamson’s main concern or not. Whether it’s his main concern or not, what is certain is that he uses particular socio-economic groups in Irish society to try to tell us something about Irish society - and when he ventures into these portrayals of particular socio-economic groups in Ireland (as he does with Adam and Paul and his four-part TV series, Prosperity) he does so with a heavy reliance on cultural works of a similar nature that have gone before (both Irish and British), rather than on any particular insight into the actual cultural, economic, and social reality. Also, I’m giving a materialist analysis, which is going to place issues of class portrayal and cultural production to the fore. when Abrahamson’s work is placed within the wider context of the portrayal of particular socio-economic groups in Irish cultural production - (as opposed to the portrayal of relationships in Irish cultural production) these specific patterns emerge, patterns of aesthetics, editing, even story-telling, and it is these patterns that I want to highlight - in particular, the fact that in present-day Ireland, “middle class” practically means anybody with a job, and “working class” means the above. Again, click on “The View” link above and its discussion of “the pride of Parnell st” to watch this type of underclass as working class idea play out. and it’s only one example.
Naw Conor, I’ve got the old Gaelic blues today - you’re not going to inflict the View on me, are you ??? Especially when I should be using the feckin’ computer to look for that non-existent job..
I’d just say again, he’s a filmmaker with a philosophical background - not a maker of sociological documentaries. Natural that he should draw from other films / representations - you may have a point that in an Irish context - that resource is a wee bit on the feeble side.
The Beckett link brings in the tradition of clowning too - hence the various mishaps that happen to the small one… and again I thought it was well done by him… The A & P characters, I found, were even underplayed in comparison to what Abrahamson has based them on - the type of heads I’ve often had to put up with waiting for the bus beside the Methadone clinic - or even on the bus on their way into the clinic.
Sorry, but I tend to look at things from an aesthetic point of view. Haven’t seen ‘Prosperity’ which may be a graver offender than A & P.
But have seen his subsequent one ‘Garage’ - again a fairly modest but nonetheless enjoyable film IMO - this time based in rural Ireland - drawing from the ‘Holy Idiot’ tradition of writing/filmmaking. Have you seen that one or is it out of your remit ??
Finally, Valérie is thinking on the same lines as you - when she saw the ‘tourist’ reference - she immediately went ‘yeah, ask a f@@@ing stag night about their views on the reverberations of the Famine’ :->
She should start commenting herself :->>
PS did ye get the 250 K budget off Film Ireland or Film Base or whatever it’s called yet ???
If so, I’ll order a copy of ‘Working Class Irish Representations - The Idiots Guide’ and get yerself onto a barstool in the Oak :->
It’s true, I’m talking about the cliches of images and characters he is drawing from, plot lines and aesthetics, especially in Prosperity, but also with regard to the minor characters in Adam and Paul, and that these images/characters have a lineage. Adam and Paul and Prosperity do not exist in isolation to the other works they are drawing from, and when those works are taken together, analysed and contextualised within Irish cultural production and Irish cultural criticism, certain conclusions can be drawn. What I’m doing is taking that one step wider and placing them within an historical context of representations of working class not only within Irish culture, but also within Irish political and bureaucratic documents. And in that materialist approach I’m influenced in no small way by by Joe Cleary, whose last book I covered in a post last year. Harold Bloom it aint.
The thing about Garage is that it’s a film more reflective of the background of the film makers, especially the writer Mark O’Halloran. But I haven’t seen it yet.
Tourists aren’t all stag and hen parties, you know. I’ve met dozens of foreigners visiting here for various lenghts of time whose insights about how we behave are far more perceptive than that of most Irish people. It’s this detachment from the subject that can sometimes provide the best results for an artist.
As for Irish films that portray working class people not defined purely by social problems, the adaptations of Roddy Doyle’s comedy books spring to mind. A film like Studs, though I haven’t seen it, appears to be set among ordinary working class people, and a film like Man About Dog, no matter how execrable its execution, seems to fit the bill.
It’s no coincidence that these are all comedies, or attempts at it. We don’t have a strong tradition of comedy film making here and consequently a lot of films come across as morose and aiming for depth. Anything that isn’t tackling some important issue seems to be whimsical or trivial to the top brass at RTE and the Irish Film Board. I think this focus on seriousness is a sign of cultural insecurity, not the outlook solely of some unwitting class prejudice.
It’s an interesting point Niall, one I’ll keep in mind as I delve more into this. Cheers.
[…] month I was somewhat surprised to come across a definition of working class that was researched and produced for the Irish government. It related to social housing that was to be built under the housing of the working classes […]