Perhaps we haven’t moved as far away from 1937 as we might think. The forthcoming referendums on the constitutional articles relating to women and family have generated responses redolent of the original reaction to the wording that “the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”. The assertion that, in the words of Minister for Further and Higher Education Simon Harris, this wording is “sexist, gendered, misogynistic language” might be as offensive to as many as agree with that characterisation.
In May 1937, the publication of the draft Constitution elicited strong responses. Judge Gerard Hogan notes in his 2012 book The Origins of the Irish Constitution, that the Constitution’s treatment of women “was the single biggest policy issue which dominated much of the debate at the time both inside and outside the Dáil”.
In the Dáil, Eamon de Valera maintained “we state here that mothers in their homes give to the State a support which is essential. Is there anybody who denies it? Is it not a tribute to the work that is done by women in the homes by mothers?” There are many today who hold that view, and do not see themselves as antediluvian.
Outside the Dáil in 1937, various women’s organisations protested vigorously. Mary Hayden, professor of modern Irish history in UCD and president of the National University’s Women Graduate’s Association (NUWGA), expressed the association’s “alarm” at wording “which appear to us to menace the citizen’s right to work in whatever legitimate sphere he or she may deem suitable”. The association “welcome the proposal that mothers be not forced to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home” but objected to the idea of the State endeavouring “to ensure that mothers be not forced to engage in labour . . . we consider that the husband and wife, knowing best what is necessary for the support and happiness of the family, should decide what work is necessary to those ends”.
Some of the women opposed to the wording were wary of being seen as opposed to Catholic social teaching. Mary Macken of the NUWGA, professor of German in UCD, insisted Catholic women were in “wholehearted agreement with the principles” of papal encyclicals. One such encyclical from 1891, Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII, stated that “a woman is by nature fitted for homework, and which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty . . . and the wellbeing of the family”. In corresponding with de Valera about the Constitution, Fr John Charles McQuaid, headmaster of Blackrock College, referred him to Pope Pius XI’s statement that “mothers will above all devote their work to the home and things connected to them”.
[ The five landmines that threaten the March referendumsOpens in new window ]
Wording drenched with such influences might be deemed thoroughly objectionable in 2024, but there are other factors to consider. Louie Bennett, a leading trade unionist in 1937, objected to the wording but also believed a constitution was “hardly the place for an expression of vague and chivalrous statements. Mothers would prefer concrete statements which would release them from the pressure of economic necessity to work outside the home”. She was concerned about “the ambiguity of the clauses and the dangers of multiple interpretations”.
Alfred O’Rahilly, who had helped to draft the 1922 Constitution, though he was “cordially in agreement” with the 1937 Constitution’s references to women, believed them “unnecessary” because the issues they raised “cannot in any effective sense be guaranteed in a short clause. In any case the State is only bound to “endeavour – a phrase which is not susceptible of precise appraisement”.
These observations are not irrelevant now and may explain a certain tepidity towards the forthcoming referendum. Historian Maria Luddy makes the point that part of the mobilisation in opposition to the Constitution in 1937 was due to “the ambiguities of language”. But could a new vagueness now act as a deterrent to energetic engagement with the referendum? Is there a danger of replacing one ambiguity with another in defining family?
Oran Doyle, in his 2018 book The Constitution of Ireland: A Contextual Analysis, suggests that the “gradual bleeding out” of elements of the Constitution based on “religious” or “natural law” ideology partly explains the Constitution’s longevity. But the legislative process, rather than constitutional provisions, is more likely to engage people when it comes to the “common good”.
There are compelling reasons to remove the wording, but many might see fit to continue to ignore it, just as legislators have. Luddy points out that what was witnessed over two months in 1937 was “feminists, the press, parliamentarians, the Catholic Church and republicans all engaged in the debate about women’s position in Irish society”. But how representative were they? How many voices were missing from that debate? Might history repeat itself?