«For lack of accounting»: a choreography of silence around Ireland’s Magdalen Laundries

Comments by Ileana Steccolini

Relevance of the paper

• The paper explores the harmful effects of the (wilful) absence of accounting and accountability and economic considerations from key relationships in and around Ireland’s Magdalen Laundries

• ‘The most successful ideological effects are the ones that have no need of words, but only of laissez-faire and complicitous silence.’ (Bourdieu 1990b)

Very important topic, both for the accounting and

accountability literature and the Public

Administration one

Bourdieu’s concepts

• Field, capital, doxa, habitus, logic of the price• According to the author: the paper aims at using these

concepts in a «holistic way»

There may be a need to clarify what is meant by «holistic» and how this is

attained in the paper (if this is considered an original contribution of the paper, I

would also discuss this in the introduction and conclusion)

Sources

• Archival material, parliament records, media accounts, a series of government reports, eye-witness reports, submissions compiled by advocate groups to various human rights bodies and their responses, and the testimonies of the women themselves

Are there alternative views on the phenomenon (Church’s and

Magdalens’ views)?How do these sources ensure a balanced and unbiased view?

Magdalen Laundries:the context of the study

• Magdalen Laundries were opened in the UK and Ireland since the Eighteenth Century as refuges for ‘fallen women’, • catering for unmarried women who were pregnant or mothers of no

more than one child• with the aim to transform their lives increasing their social, economic,

cultural and symbolic capital: ‘Here, instead of loathsome disease these reclaimed individuals will enjoy

the blessings of health. They will exchange gross ignorance for useful knowledge, the pangs of guilt for peace of mind, the base drudgery of prostitution for profitable employment in innocent recreations …. Instead of being the detested pests of society, they will be useful and well-regarded members of it’

Anon (1767)Clarify the different

meanings of capital in this specific context

Magdalen Laundries: the context of the study (CONT’D)

• Focus of the paper: • looking at the involvement of the Irish State in the operation of the Magdalen

laundries• since 1922 to 1996 (when the last laundry closed its doors)

• During that time: fewer women entered voluntarily, they were detained for longer periods; the women came from a wider variety of backgrounds and were less likely to be

single parents or prostitutes. the institutions also became far more secretive

Some authors suggest that the purpose of the institutions changed with the founding of the Irish state from one of rehabilitation to one of containment, functioning as part of a wider network of industrial schools, mother and baby homes, and borstals.

Is this «simply» a paper on Magdalen laundries or on the role of the modern

state, and the relationship between private and public initiative, nonprofit and public realms, the Church and the

State, the State and its individual citizens?

• The 1931 Carrigan report produced a unsettling picture of the state of child abuse, incest, single parenthood and infanticide in Ireland, recommending greater accountability, the criminalisation of a wider range of offences against women and girls, and the establishment of a formal borstal system for girls aged between 16 and 21 years.

• The report was ignored, and instead of a system of female borstals, women were passed to the Magdalen Laundries by the state either directly from reform schools or through the criminal justice system; others were committed by family members or priests or from county homes.

• All Magdalen women experienced stigma and shame from their involvement; their status as Magdalens superseded their previous lives outside of the laundries, and they shared a common sense of institutionalised identity. Magdalen Laundries: the

context of the study (CONT’D)

Accounting and accountability issues

• The paper identifies 4 main critical issues: the blurring of accountability between the Magdalen

Laundries and the state; the irregularity of the financial relationships between state,

institutions and the women; the way in which the women were accounted for within the

closed systems of the laundries; the way in which these factors combined to rewrite social

records and to create a new habitus for the state.

Blurring of accountability between the Magdalen Laundries and the state

• Lack of clarity on the financial flows between govt and laundries:• Ad hoc and ex gratia nature of payments by governments• Payments for specific cases when laundries took in women who

would otherwise have been in the case of the health service• Magdalen Laundries were granted the charitable status (ie, tax

exemption) • Magdalen women were not beneficiaries of social insurance, in

spite of the activities performed in the Laundries

Lack of clarity due to lack of proper accounting and

control systems, or for willingness to hide a

specific situation? How can the latter be proved?

What is the main message of this section? And the related implications?

Irregularity of the financial relationships between state, institutions and the women

• «The laundries filled a gap in state services», thus relieving the state from spending on social/health services

• The women worked in the laundries, which, in turn, were an important source of income to the convents (until the advent of cheap washing machines)

• However the refusal of a «logic of the price» was implicit in that: • Subventions from the state to laundries were sporadic and ad hoc• Women were only recognized some «pocket money» and they were not seen as

workers, but as beneficiaries of charity • Thus, the state could thus disclaim its responsibilities to them as citizens

I find it difficult to distinguish this section from the previous one. I would probably focus

(even in the title) on the absence of a logic of the price and build the discussion around this and

reflect on the distinction between section 5.1. and 5.2

How women were accounted for

within the closed systems of the laundries – financial relationships

• The entry to the laundries implied a change in identity, name, and virtually no access to former lives and relationships. “A new symbolic capital dominated this strange new field, and the

immediate imposition of its doxa disoriented and effectively imprisoned thousands of women whose habitus left them completely unprepared to challenge a power that seemed self-evident.”

More description and discussion on

symbolic capital, doxa and habitus?

A new habitus for the state

• In spite of the relationships between the state and the Laundries, the former made significant efforts to distance itself from the operations of the laundries and to locate culpability for their failures in the localised hands of the religious orders

• ‘These alleged events happened in most cases a considerable time ago in privately-run institutions and therefore the information available to us all is limited. However as far as we can establish on the facts available, the vast majority of women who went to these institutions went there voluntarily, or if they were minors, with the consent of their parents or guardians. ’ Secretary General of the Irish Department of Justice

Political scientists would probably talk about «blame

avoidance» strategies. Again, this is interesting, but needs more

support. Moreover, what is the link between this subsection and

the previous ones? Is this a consequence? How can they be

linked?

Final remarks

• The description of the 4 problems in section 5 can probably be enriched, and the links between the sub-sections clarified

• Probably representing the various aspects in a comprehensive model (what are the relationships between the 4 mentioned aspects?)

• Enriching section 5 and probably shortening section 4?• More generally:

• Is this (only) a story of accounting and accountability?• Or is it a story about the role of the state and other institutions (nonprofit institutions/the

Church) in delivering public services?• It appears to be of great interest today, when public service delivery is becoming increasingly

fragmented and governments rely on a number of providers, including other public entities, firms, PPPs, nonprofits, etc.

• What are the implications of this for today’s public services (and accountability therein)?