"I have a total irreverence for anything connected with society except that which makes the roads safer, the beer stronger, the food cheaper and the old men and old women warmer in the winter and happier in the summer"

Brendan Behan’s words express a profound skepticism toward societal conventions, institutions, and norms that aren’t directly concerned with the tangible well-being of ordinary people. He disclaims reverence for tradition, authority, or the abstract pillars upholding “society” unless those structures serve essential, material purposes. The examples he chooses, roads, beer, food, and comfort for the elderly, are pointedly practical and rooted in everyday human experience. For Behan, the measure of society’s worth lies not in its rituals, hierarchies, or displays of respectability, but in its ability to improve daily life.

The reference to safer roads suggests care for physical safety and public infrastructure, a foundation for mobility and community. Stronger beer alludes to enjoyment, pleasure, perhaps even a spirited defiance; it’s about small freedoms and the quality of leisure, not just survival. Cheaper food cuts to the core of economic justice: he values systems that diminish poverty and hunger, that make living more affordable for all. The mention of warmth and happiness for the elderly brings a note of compassion and responsibility. Behan situates societal value in its treatment of those most vulnerable and honors basic dignity over grand abstract aims.

Underneath his playful irreverence, Behan advances a moral position: the true test of society is not its laws, ceremonies, or reputations, but how it shields, nourishes, and dignifies both the ordinary and the marginalized. Anything beyond these goals, status symbols, empty traditions, or power structures existing for their own sake, he dismisses. His priorities expose a hard-nosed humanism: a society must prove its merit in palpable, accessible improvements to everyday experience, not in hollow declarations of civility or progress. Behan’s perspective is radical in its simplicity and insistence that, unless social institutions are fostering tangible good, they do not deserve our deference.