This is the second part of a new series of Fifth Columns featuring my
columns from 1971 to 1973 in the Laurentian University student
newspaper Lambda, that inspired me to write the Fifth Column many
years later. They will be presented here in four parts.

The original print copies have been run through an Optical Character
Reader to present them in full text (rather than images) here.

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 10#15 1972-01-04)

By Richard W. Woodley

Where do we go from here?

Do we all say ‘I love you” and solve all the world’s problems.
Or do we say that this is romantic nonsense and let us get back to
politics where the real answers are – back to the revolution.

Or do we realize that love is the answer. The answer does not lie in
simple goal oriented political acts to achieve short term ends. The
problem is that we live in a society geared to make love difficult,
if not impossible. The answer is in realizing this and directing
social action towards the creation of a society where love is
possible, encouraged, and practised.

We live within the capitalistic form of advanced industrial society
where society’s norms are production and expansion. Personal goals
are consumption, competition and profit.

The goals of society have become detached from any human element they
may have once had. Presumably, in the beginning society (the
political, economic and social system) was designed to provide
services to people. However, now the goal of society has become one
of simply supporting, reinforcing and expanding the “system” or
machine,

This has led to overproduction with its subsequent social costs (one
of them being the whole pollution and ecological crisis). As well we
have the desire to produce more and more, even. if it requires
fighting a war so that we have a need for this production. Tied in
with this is the necessity to produce unneeded goods (for which a
subsequent “need” is produced by the advertising industry) from
scarce resources, while causing social problems (pollution and other
problems caused by industrial and city living) simply to provide jobs
(unneeded jobs) in a work oriented society.

The expansionist ethic simply means that in the guise of ‘‘saving
the economy’’ these problems simply continue to multiply. The
problem is simply the result of an artificial social system called
capitalism being used for the artificial goal of advancing industrial
society, Nobody knows where people fit into this context – except of
course as producers and consumers but not as people.

The consumption ethic has led to the modern expression “things are
to be loved and people are to be used”, This is seen by the worship
of things (encouraged by the advertising industry) which leads people
to use other people, to enable them to acquire more things. Things
are a measure of success and happiness. As in the economy (where
expansion is king) quantity rules. As one commercial puts it “big
is beautiful”.

Together with this is the competition ethic. Society worships this.
Of course capitalism is based on competition though in modern society
it is practically non-existent as far as big business is concerned.

However, it is still the basis for almost all personal and social
life. A prime example of the prevalence of this, and the conditioning
for it, is our educational system. It leads us to see our social
lives in terms of competition with other people. It teaches us to use
other people in the competition for things. Even families are seen as
competing within themselves (wife vs. husband, children vs. parents),

Competition of course is defended — on two bases. It is said to
create efficiency making possible greater production of things. This
is highly questionable when one considers the waste competition
creates and the efficiency co-operation could provide. As well it is
said to “build character”, What this really means is that it
prepares people to live in and accept a society based on competition
and things.

Competition has played its part in society. For one it has been the
basis for most wars. As well it justifies the use of people for
personal gain (i.e. things) by explaining that everyone has the
opportunity to compete.

What this all results in is a materialistic society with people being
put in competition with each other for the ‘‘things that mean
happiness”. This of course is artificial, but it does enable and
indeed encourage the system to perpetuate itself.

The key to true humanity is to realize that people are important, not
things. That by co-operating rather than competing with other people,
all, not just a few, can benefit from the material things of life
(which are a part, but a small part of life).

People will then realize that happiness comes from people not from
things and people will learn to love each other for themselves and
not for what they can give each other.

Can we achieve this society. This will require a social revolution —
a mass social revolution. How do the masses realize that they must
participate in such a revolution. Where do we start.

Perhaps it is best to try and start in the middle. To practice love
regardless of society’s attempts to prevent it. To refuse to play
society’s rules and roles. To love each other. This is in effect
the revolution,

Saying ‘“I love you’’ may not solve all the world’s
problems but it may solve some of our own personal problems,

And that is a beginning!

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 10#16 1972-01-11)

By Richard W, Woodley

“I love you”.

By saying this you have decided not to let society prevent you from
loving. But saying “I love you” is not enough, you have to be
able to love. To love someone that person must be your equal. You may
have been able to see through the artificiality of the socialization
process and social norms that prevented you from loving before; but
seeing through the social norms of socially defined sexual roles may
be more difficult, (Though here we will be dealing with love between
men and women we do not dismiss other forms of love as any less real
or any less valuable.)

For love to be true and full both partners must see each other as
equals, Equality does not necessarily mean being the same. But it
does require that you reject artificial differences that imply
inequality.

Sexually defined roles make love difficult for one can only love
someone for themselves and sexually defined roles make the true
expression of oneself more difficult.

One cannot be oneself if one is continually concerned with playing
ones proper role – which is what worrying about masculinity or
femininity amounts to. People worry about their masculinity or
femininity because they have been socialized into believing that
males and females have their own specific roles to play, They may not
feel comfortable playing the role assigned to them, yet they feel
they must be masculine or feminine (as defined by society). This
creates artificial problems as their ability or inability to play
their socially defined sexual roles has nothing to do with their
masculinity or femininity.

We all recognize that there are certain physical differences and
specific physical sexual roles such as those pertaining to conception
and childbirth, These roles are real.

However the socially defined sexual roles are not real. They may have
performed a function at one time, as certain religious and moral
edicts once did in the ordering of society. But like these edicts
they have continued past their usefulness.

One thing the roles do reflect is the society in which they exist. A
male dominated society does not simply have different male and female
roles – it has unequal male and female roles.

The doctrine of ‘‘different but equal’’, when applied to
socially defined sexual roles, is as artificial as the doctrine of
““separate but equal’’ when applied to racially segregated
schools, The male dominated society defines the female role as
inferior to the male role, The female is given a gentle, passive,
non-aggressive role, which by definition was inferior. The female
role is defined as dependant on the male role – as a servant to the
male role (“behind every successful man there is a woman” – but
she had better stay behind him), The female is not to have a life of
her own but is to live for ‘‘her man”.

The male, on the other hand, is defined as strong, aggressive,
independent, and self-centred. He is the one that is to make it in
society. His life is fulfilled by a female (his life exists without
her but is fulfilled by her; while the female’s life is for the
male, dependant on the male).

From this, of course, comes all the social inequalities of the sexes.
Men get the better jobs because they are the basis of society – women
are supposed to marry and be dependant. Preference must go to the
male because he has a family to support. One could go on forever, but
these social inequalities, as important as they are, may not be as
important as the problem of inequality in interpersonal
relationships.

For people to live in a relationship of love they must be dependant
(equally) on each other and must be able to express themselves to
each other as they really are. Men must not be afraid of being gentle
and women must not be afraid of being aggressive (etc.). One is
indeed inclined that both (along with many other feelings) exist in
both men and women and depending on one’s feelings, at any one
time, one will feel gentle or aggressive (etc.). These are feelings
that come from within, not roles that should be defined by society.
One must be able to see through the artificiality of such roles and
be able to disregard them if one wishes to really love.

Again, I do not go into the broader social questions, but if we can
learn to accept ourselves and those we love as people, not as
socially defined role players, we will then be able to accept all
people that we know and associate with as equals, not as role
players, but as people with feelings and personalities of their own
(not defined by society).

If we are to love each other as people, we must see each other as
people, not as males or females; and see each other as expressions of
human feelings, not social roles. 

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 10#17 1972-01-20)

By Richard W. Woodley

As we take our analysis of love and society a step further we see
that society does not stop at making love difficult, but also
attempts, quite successfully, to dictate completely the form that
love shall take. This, in itself, is another factor making love
difficult,

Marriage is the place for love and sex. Marriage, though, in
actuality has little to do with love. As conservative a magazine as
Chatelaine has pointed out that marriage is in fact a legal contract
where the wife agrees to provide sexual services in exchange for the
husband’s provision of security. It is interesting to note that the
husband is considered responsible for the wife’s security even if
the marriage breaks down. However if the wife refuses to provide
sexual services the husband is released from his responsibility for
her security. This is one of the main factors in society that has led
to the confusion between love and sex.

Marriage, in fact, is not designed for a relationship of love,
Marriage is simply a financial agreement to protect the financial
interests of the partners (in actuality mainly those of the wife) in
case the marriage breaks down. Marriage is in fact designed mainly
with the function of breaking down.

Marriage and the nuclear family are the basis of our society and play
an important part in the perpetuation of the competition ethic.

The concept of marriage and the nuclear family is based on (and the
basis of) the one man-woman forever theory of love. This is, for the
most part, socialized into people. Though there are cases where it
may be the appropriate, and sometimes only, way for those that feel
deeply that it is what they must have to make their lives livable and
worthwhile. However, in all too many cases, the decisions regarding
the manifestation of the love an individual feels are made by society
and not the individual. How a person wants to manifest their love
should be decided by the individual, not by their social role or
their society but, by what they feel. If they feel that they love one
person and will love only that one person forever – that may be
wonderful for them.

However most people do not make the choice; they do not even see the
alternatives.

The alternatives are
one man-one woman, in a formal marriage and various informal
relationships of an infinite variety (man-woman; man-man;
woman-woman; man-woman-man; woman-man-woman; man-woman-man-woman; ad
infinitum).

However all of these
alternatives are labelled as “living in sin”. Which is true, if
you define sin as that which is not consistent with society’s
norms. However, if you use the more intuitive definition of sin, how
can any arrangement whereby people love each other be considered
sinful.

Here I must
emphasize that I am talking of love and not sex (Which is another
complicated matter ‘ altogether, though one which is subject to the
same type of social conditioning that love is). These relationships I
refer to are not purely sexual relationships. They are relationships
whereby the same spiritual, emotional, and personal relationships of
love exist among the partners concerned (among all of them for all of
them) as exist between a man and a woman in the more traditional
concept of love.

As different as
these forms of love are from the socialized norms of society, they
must not be discounted as immoral or impossible. Indeed a strong
argument could be built to suggest that these are more meaningful and
better ways of loving, as who can argue against the statement “the
more love the better’’.

But no one can say
that any form of love is better than another. Love is an inner and
personal experience and its manifestation depends on the individual.
The important thing is that we all learn to accept people’s love as
a good thing regardless of how it is manifested.

Those of us who
believe in the one man-one woman forever concept of love must first
of all search our souls to be sure that it is what we feel and not
what we have been socialized into believing. As well we must not
condemn those who express their love in a different manner than us;
but we should, in fact, help them and encourage them to love each
other in a society which is doing all it can to prevent them from
loving.

We must not let
society tell us how to love, for if we do it may prevent us from
loving altogether.

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 10#18 1972-01-25)

By Richard W. Woodley

Talking about love in today’s society automatically brings people’s
minds to the subject of sex. (For our present purposes ‘‘sex’’
shall mean physical sexual relations.) The two have become confused
(not inter-related which they are; but confused – note that the
meaning of the phrase ‘‘make love’’ is purely sexual and does
not necessarily concern love at all.)

We will attempt to discuss and perhaps understand some of the
questions surrounding the relationship between love and sex. At this
point it may be helpful to point out my own personal perspective of a
twenty-one year old virgin with a traditional upbringing, who has
nonetheless developed a rather open mind on the subject (at least
theoretically).

What we hope to discuss is the role of sex in life and love in terms
of “morality’’ and personal fulfillment. How one sees this role
depends on how one conceives of sex. I see basically two conceptions
today, which are somewhat contradictory.

One is the concept that sex is simply one of many physical needs and
one which provides pleasure. It is simply a human function like
drinking, eating, and sleeping. It is seen as a need which requires
satisfaction for a full life. Under this concept people have sex when
they want to provide pleasure and satisfaction to themselves and
others. There is no great moral decision involved. Having sexual
relations is like going out for dinner. This follows logically from
the belief that sex is purely a physical need requiring satisfaction.

The other view is that sex is the greatest of the physical needs and
provides the greatest human satisfaction possible. This view tends to
exaggerate the importance of sex in life. It leads to the belief that
sex requires marriage (love) with the concurrent misunderstanding
that marriage is FOR sex. While admitting that sex is a requirement
for complete human satisfaction it restricts the satisfaction of this
need to special relationships (sometimes love, sometimes marriage).
One of the bad results of this view is the occurrence of marriages
for sex.

We have to realize that both of these views are rather superficial.

Of the first, I would have to agree completely that sex is not a
moral issue in itself. Morality must come into the question of course
as it does in any decision to do anything. One must ask the question
“Is anyone going to be hurt by this action (the participants or any
third party)?”

Of the second, I would have to agree (purely based on theory) that
sex is the greatest of the human PHYSICAL satisfactions and that it
has the potential of being (as an expression of love) part of the
greatest of human satisfactions.

Sex belongs within love – not because of any moral dictum, but
because of its great potential for providing (within love) the
greatest human satisfaction possible; that is the greatest intimacy
or closeness between two people possible, It cannot live up to its
full potential except within a complete love relationship.

A true relationship of love is one where the lovers become one person
(one flesh-one soul). They become one in spirit and body. The closest
one can get to physical oneness is through the sex act. Together with
a spiritual oneness (indeed it can help in the feeling of this
spiritual oneness) is where it belongs; is where it can be completely
fulfilled.

Love is basically a feeling of spiritual oneness. It can, of course,
be enhanced by the sexual expression of it and can be expressed and
felt very intimately by means of its sexual expression. But basically
it is a spiritual oneness – sex adds to it by providing the closest
thing possible to a physical oneness.

Realistically, however, morality must be considered in talking about
sex. Though sex may not be a moral matter, many have been socialized
into believing that it is. For them it may be in reality a moral
matter – for sex, in their case, may cause them harm, through guilt
or remorse, and thus become a moral question.

Can people love or express love without sex. YES. I must assert this
as love is basically a spiritual feeling – perhaps expressed and
enhanced by its sexual expression.

However Virginia Johnson states that sex and love will frequently
enhance and motivate one another. As well it has been pointed out
that often a relationship of love may reach such intensity that its
sexual expression becomes almost impossible to prevent, thereby
providing a dilemma for those for whom it is immoral. In these cases
it can lead to the sexual expression of love – which may produce
feelings of guilt or remorse over one’s feeling of immorality,
which may lead to the destruction of the relationship. Or the
relationship may be terminated to prevent this.

Again we have an example of how society (social norms of morality)
attempts to prevent people from loving – indeed even by attempting to
destroy love that exists.

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 10#19 1972-02-01)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

What is this all about?

Perhaps it is time to come back to our original question. Time to
reassess and reassert what love is.

Love is not a lot of things that people may say it is. Love is not
chemistry. Love is not compatibility. There are no prerequisites for
love. Love is not common interests, common philosophies, common aims,
common ideas, common likes, common dislikes, common cultures, common
desires, common wants, common needs. These may or may not exist in a
love relationship, but these are not what the relationship is about.

Love is not sameness. Love is oneness – unity. Love is a feeling, a
happening, a knowing that love is. Love is destiny.

Love is good times

Love is bad times

Love is laughing, smiling, crying

Love is the little things

Love is holding hands

Love is not having to say you’re sorry

Love is saying you’re sorry

Love is feeling

Love is understanding

Love is CARING

Love is knowing

Love is being

Love is walking in the snow

Love is sitting by a waterfall

Love is talking about the future

Love is never giving up hope

Love is unconditional

Love is asking

Love is giving

Love is waiting

Love is forever

Love is waiting forever

Love is poetry

Love is music

Love is always

Love is people

Love is together

Love is people together

Love is people together always

Love is you

Love is me

Love is us

Love is us always

Love is us together

Love is us together always

Love is love

Love is!

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 10#20 1972-02-08)

At Laurentian University there exists an anomaly known as the college
system. This system is used in many large institutions to provide a
small unit of identification for students who cannot identify with
the factory type atmosphere of a large institution.

At Laurentian this is not the case. Our colleges, rather, provide a
divisive factor on campus.

The colleges at Laurentian are based on religious differences with
the University of Sudbury being Roman Catholic; Huntington, United;
Thorneloe, Anglican; and University College, non-denominational. As
well the colleges include arts and science students but exclude
professional school students.

The colleges provide a social function for their members for the
payment of a compulsory $10 fee. Every student must belong to a
college or professional school student council. The professional
school student councils provide both social and political functions
for their members. The departmental associations for arts and science
students do not receive any compulsory fees for the provision of
political functions.

Thus we have students divided along school or religious lines for
social activities.

What this does is limit the interaction which this system is supposed
to provide. Also lacking is financial support for departmental
political associations for arts and science students. Perhaps the two
functions should be separated with political organization provided by
departmental and school associations.

But what of the college student councils? They admittedly serve
mainly residence students, who have their own residence councils, but
are subsidized by non-residence students. As well their religious
basis, and the religious separation it provides, make them, if not
racist organizations, certainly undesirable organizations.

Is Laurentian really that big that we have to give up trying to
create a Laurentian University community spirit and replace it with a
College spirit, I doubt that.

I believe that Laurentian is still a manageable size and that social
activities should be aimed at all students and aimed at bringing them
together.

Oddly enough College councils profess to believe in this same
principle, of bringing all Laurentian students together, and claim to
stress college cooperation. The best way for colleges to cooperate is
to eliminate the different colleges. But they say that this would
destroy the spirit of college competition. And so let it be. If we
are striving for cooperation then competition is a contradiction to
this. For those who still want competition, such as in sports, it can
be provided by other means. But one should remember that it is
supposedly ‘playing the game’’ for its enjoyment that is
important – not whether UC can murder the Thorneloe Nads.

With this, the present College (and Professional School) fees could
be eliminated. A new fee, probably half the present fee would be
provided for academic political unions within the departments and
schools.

This leaves us with the problem of the residences. They have enough
of their own problems. One way of solving both their problems and
bringing town and residence students together would be for Laurentian
University to take over all the residences. We would then be all
Laurentian students, all SGA members.

It would then be much easier for all, Laurentian students to identify
with the residences, and much easier to have the residences and their
facilities opened up to all Laurentian students. The major benefit
would be the unity of all residence students (along with all
Laurentian students) in fighting for the change or abolition of
residence regulations, and in unity there is strength,

The student body is now divided. The residence administrators are
benefiting. The students, both residence and town are suffering. The
elimination. of the college system could provide the impetus
necessary to create a real Laurentian University community awareness.

We have left our discussion of love, not because we feel that we have
solved all its problems for it will always entail problems, nor
because it is not important enough to continue to discuss. Indeed –
it is important enough to devote one’s whole life to. However it is
time to turn this column to other things Hopefully our readers will
continue to consider the questions raised. And hopefully they will
seek and accept love,

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 10#21 1972-02-22)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

There has appeared on this campus a group which seems to want to
split this university into French and English camps. For political
reasons this group wants to prevent the adoption of the proposed new
constitution.

The proposed constitution will bring the SGA back to the students.
The improvements provided in it have been talked about and planned
for many years. It is now almost reality. All it requires is a
two-thirds vote of fifty per cent of the student body to come into
effect. This is critical for the best turn out ever for an SGA vote
was forty per cent. Fifty per cent of the students must vote to
ratify this constitution.

Among its changes is the provision for Council representation along
academic division lines. The SGA’s most important function in the
future will be in the academic field – pressure for improved academic
regulations, student representation on academic decision making
bodies, and organization of academic departmental associations. As
well students know best the capabilities and views of those they take
courses with and are better able to assess the merits of candidates
within their own academic discipline.

Probably the most important change is the provision for standing
committees of council. These committees will decentralize power
within the SGA. Presently Council tends to act on the recommendations
of the executive. With the new system committees in the various areas
(academic affairs, student services, educational resources, social
and cultural affairs, information and finance) will recommend policy
decisions. With this system the recommendations to Council will come
from Council committees rather than the executive, which will also
allow for more detailed consideration of policy areas, before policy
is drawn up. As well it will provide for better representation as
Council members will be required to sit on at least one standing
committee. In this way people will not seek positions unless they are
willing to do some work. As well, by sitting on committees, Council
members will be more aware of what is going on in the SGA and better
able to serve the students.

Other provisions within the proposed constitution provide for the
elimination of language representation, as well as provisions for the
recall of the executive, committee coordinators, and council
representatives.

The group that wishes to split this campus has jumped on a clause
that requires the vice-president to be bilingual. It should be
pointed out that language representation (a safeguard for French
language representation) has been eliminated. With this move we may
have expected some disagreement from the French minority, who would
have a legitimate right to feel threatened. But no! The English
majority feels that it is threatened by a simple clause, based on
function not language.

The vice-president’s function is that of being chairman of council
and responsible for council documents. Since we are a bilingual SGA,
and since the student body, this year, voted 78% in favour of
remaining a bilingual SGA, Council must be bilingual. This does not
mean that all Council members must be bilingual but that
representatives must be able to address the Council in both English
and French and that Council documents must be available in both
English and French. For this reason, due to the vice-president’s
function, he must be bilingual.

This is not language representation, he need not be French, and he is
elected by the entire student body (not just French speaking students
– as the present French vice-president is).

Granting that this may provide a slight discriminatory factor against
unilingual English (or French) speaking students; if we wish to have
a bilingual SGA (and we do by 78%) in a situation where one group is
in a minority position, the majority may be required to make certain
concessions to protect the rights of the minority.

Demcracy not only implies majority rule but also MINORITY RIGHTS.

What should be borne in mind is that the proposed constitution is a
great advance over our present constitution. It provides for a
decentralization of power and control, which is especially vital now
that the SGA is embarking on business enterprises which will soon be
in the millions of dollars.

The constitution is in itself a philosophy, and as such it should be
accepted as a cohesive whole. Amendment is provided for, but changes
should not be made without careful study as to their effects on the
whole philosophy of the constitution. The committee which drew up the
proposed constitution studied all its aspects carefully. Changes
should not be made on the whims of individuals who have not
considered the constitution as a whole.

It is imperative, that if the students want the SGA to be their
organization (under their control), that all students make the
greatest effort to cast their votes in the affirmative on February 28
and 29!

And love still, very much, Is!

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 10#24 1972-03 14)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

It has been said that ““life is a blind date’’ (Skawski:1972)
meaning that we have no choice in being born, or in the environment
into which we are born. (Of course the anti-abortionists argue that
if we had the choice we would all opt to be here – that remains to be
seen – but that is a different question.)

However, ‘‘blind date’’ or not, we still have the choice of
what we do on that date, that is, how we live our lives. We can be
moderates or we can be extremists (radicals). I opt for extremism.

A person can chose to live a life of moderation. A safe life. A
relatively happy life. A life where one avoids being hurt. A life
where you trust no one completely and few people at all. You
certainly don’t love anyone. And above all, a life where you make
no commitments. A life where your own happiness is your main concern
and preventing yourself from being hurt of prime importance.

This is what society’s ethic of moderation means, though we may not
realize it. For moderation is the guardian of the status quo. And the
status quo, right now, is a materialistic, selfish outlook where
one’s own ‘‘happiness’’ is most important.

Yet one’s own well being (happiness) is not best served by this
outlook. Few people today are truly contented. Those that are have
rejected this ethic.

The alternative is freedom. For you can never be free unless you are
able to take that one big step and give up your freedom. I am talking
of commitment. Commitment to people provides the fullest life
possible. Some try to replace it with commitment to causes or
crusades. This may be because that is safer. Causes are not human
(people) with all the complexities involved. And besides if one is
‘‘committed enough’’ he can shape the cause to what he wants.
(Commitment to people may require him to adapt.) But that is not what
commitment is about. Commitment is to people.

Commitment, of course, can be painful. In fact it cannot help but be
so. Commitment necessarily entails pain, for it requires closeness
and intimacy. And people are human and fragile and delicate and
sensitive. If any two people are truly close and committed they will
hurt each other, For they will let their whole selves be known to
each other, and not just their safe public selves. And then the type
of inner frustration one often feels within oneself will be felt
amongst them. But this is not a case of them hurting each other
(though it may appear to manifest itself that way) but rather a case
of them sharing each others’ pain,

However, the closeness that commitment brings can be the most
wonderful of feelings. It is what true love is, Commitment to another
is striving for ‘‘oneness’’ with that person. It cannot be
described – it can only be felt. And it is felt by very few in
today’s society.

This is extremism. It is extreme, literally, for it is a life of
extremes – extreme joy, pleasure, contentment along with pain. An
alternative to a life of moderation and moderate ‘‘happiness’’.

The option is yours, but remember: Love is radical. Radicalism is
wrong. Love is wrong. So says society.

Perhaps society is wrong!

A loved one’s smile can make you happv!

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 10#25 1972-03-21)

By Richard W,
Woodley (with love) ;

Where have we come
from and where are we going? Here we are at the end of the year, or
rather in the middle of our lives.

This, I suppose,
will be a personal assessment, It may mean little to those who don’t
know me, It should mean a lot to those who do and to those I care
about. It should mean a little to all who have shared my thoughts and
ideas throughout the year, And it should mean something to all of us,
for we all share the feelings of being human.

This year has been,
I suppose, in many ways a rewarding yet frustrating year. It has been
most of the time an empty one, for me personally, yet maybe it
shouldn’t have been, Politically it has been an active one, for
politics, being my second love, has filled a void in my life.
Academically it has been successful, I suppose, yet I wonder if it is
worth the effort to complete successfully. After three years of
academic work you begin to wonder if you are really achieving
anything. You also resent it for getting in the way of more important
things – more important learning experiences – such as working with
and relating to your fellow students and human beings,

You don’t want to
leave because you don’t want to go out into that world, that
society that you despise. When you see the inhumanity within this
supposedly “‘free’’ environment you wonder if you could stand
it outside. When you see the problems trying to make changes in this
supposedly ‘‘enlightened’’ environment you wonder if there is
any hope for society outside.

And when you work to
change that society outside and then see that the system’ is so
powerful that it can mould the minds of people so that the people
throw away their opportunity for change, you begin to lose hope.

When you see within
your own supposedly unstructured environment ridicule made of
change and ‘‘democracy’’ – people talking of
legalities and refusing to share responsibility you begin to
lose hope.

But we are back to
the same question. It’s alright to talk but few will commit
themselves, They may commit themselves to ideas but not to
action.

But what we need is
more than that, We need a commitment to principles, but also to
people. And a commitment to that one special person is not
enough. We have to all commit ourselves to everyone else, and
perhaps this is the hardest of all. We have to all love each
other.

You begin to realize
that we have all been socialized, That our little “free”
university world is only an extension of the evil world
outside. That we are all part of the system.

The only way that we
can change it is by seeing the humanness in each of us and
relating to that and seeking to bring that out in each other
and reinforce it, Yet how do we do that. On the basis that
society has defined it – on a one to one basis. Love is for two
people. Not for everyone together, Perhaps that is where we have
to start. But there must be a way for us, all of us, to actually
love each other, all of us,

We do not know the
answer. Most of the time we do not look for it. We just go on playing
our roles and spouting the rhetoric of change – and sometimes
we even tinker with the system – but the system remains.

In love, I remain,
as the world goes on. 

 

For more from Lambda see Laurentian
University student newspaper Lambda – Internet Archive