I See Where ...

I see where Croke Park is to be opened up for the playing of non-GAA games. That’s a good thing in my opinion, and I’ll explain why. My reasons have little or nothing to do with sporting affiliations.

The debate about whether or not the home of GAA should be opened up has gone on for a long time and many views have been expressed on the matter and I don’t intend to add mine to the melting pot. Rather, I see the recent announcement as a metaphor.

I firmly believe, and this may be rooted in my work as a Trade Union activist, that no difference of opinion is beyond resolution. When two sides in a debate take inflexible positions there can be no winner, and the difference goes unresolved. Resolution is only possible by engagement.

It is of course possible that one side will not wish to engage, believing that to do so would in itself be concession. This invariably leads to entrenchment on one or both sides of the divide and the gulf widens. Both sides are then placed in the position where the issue is no longer central, but rather the object of the exercise is to be seen to be the last man standing – a Mexican stand-off, if you like. Progress is then difficult, to say the least, acrimony sets in rapidly and good does not readily prevail.

I believe that people are fundamentally good, and given a free choice, will choose to do the right thing. Human beings are sensitive and no one likes to look bad or to be seen or made to look bad. Like most of our fellow creatures in the animal kingdom we will fight when backed into a corner. Unlike our fellow creatures we have intellect and reasoning at our disposal.

I have always thought that in order to debate an issue and represent a point of view, one must first take account of the opposing point of view and respect it. I believe that if the other’s point of view is worthy of a counter argument, then by extension, it has merit and therefore it commands respect in its own right.

There is a literary device, taught to me as “the Aunt Sally”, whereby one seeks to strengthen one’s own argument merely by attempting to weaken the opposing argument. While its use is often effective it disrespects the opposing point of view and demonstrates insecurity on the part its employer and a lack of conviction held in his own view.

The real challenge arises when one seeks to persuade another to do or give something they are disinclined towards. The challenge presented is a real opportunity for both parties - an opportunity for a meeting of minds, for mutual respect and for compromise.

But why compromise at all? Why not hold firm to one’s position and doggedly defend it? Well, while conviction is admirable, and the courage to hold it more so, accommodation is more laudable than either, for if the conviction is honestly held and one truly believes in the value and merit of its object, then what is there to fear from compromise? Intransigence is a wholly unattractive character trait and has always seemed to me to be about saying no just for the sake of saying no. What does such behaviour say about the nay sayer? How can such an individual be reached out to?

Compromise by its nature means that neither party gets all of what it wants. It requires a generosity of spirit and an avoidance of triumphalist posturing. Normally, if sensitively arrived at, compromise results in a mutually beneficial accommodation where both parties enjoy freedom to express their convictions without fear or prejudice. Surely that is preferable to both sides believing themselves to be right and the other to be wrong? Right and wrong are after all, matters of purely individualistic perception, whereas interaction and compromise open one up to possibility, the opportunity for alternate experience, and growth.

To return to the opening of Croke Park as an example, the three organisations involved in this great compromise jointly announced it to the nation. While each in turn acknowledged that negotiations had at times been challenging, all three demonstrated respect for each other’s position and expressed the view that there were only winners in the outcome.

I salute the triumph of reasoned argument; the will to achieve accommodation of deeply held convictions, and the ability to embrace change.

Let each of us learn from this milestone in our nation’s sporting, social and cultural history. The cynics will theorise as to the motivation behind the resolution of this great and sometimes divisive debate, and I have little doubt that commercial reality played its part. But the fact remains that for it to happen at some level there had to be a meeting of minds and willingness to compromise.

Like I said, that’s a good thing.

Roy Thompson.

[ED: This article was originally published in the February 2006 edition of The Bridge.]