The Lambda Fifth Columns: Part 3 (of 4), Fall 1972
This is the third 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 11#02 1972-09-19)
By Richard W, Woodley (with love) For Nancy
Perhaps the most important aspect of an individual’s life is that person’s relationships with other people. In our present society this is also probably the most difficult aspect of an individual’s life,
In our increasingly depersonalized society people are afraid to feel and afraid to trust. The goal in personal development is the development of control, The individual must not lose control over his or her emotions or life. What this tends to mean, however, is that instead of giving in to one’s own feelings and needs one rather has control and responds in the manner one is socially conditioned to. The individual is conditioned to “protect” oneself at the expense of the development of his or her full human potential in relationships with other people.
Indeed, keeping oneself to oneself is the basic protection mechanism emphasized. To let another close to you, or know you as a real person, is seen as threatening,
The basic means society uses to prevent the development of full human relationships is the promotion of superficial relationships.
One of the ways of doing this is through the sexual double standard. Females are brought up with the cult of virginity and being a “good girl” while males are brought up with cult of “scoring’’ and making it, Obviously there is a conflict here.
Life becomes a sexual game, For the males sex becomes the object of relationships rather than part of relationships; while for the females the object is to avoid sex regardless of the circumstances of the relationships. At the same time males are taught that there are two types of girls - those you have sex with and those you respect and attempt to cultivate full relationships with. The females, on the other hand, are taught that all that males are interested in is their body, and that they should protect it at all costs.
Personal relationships under these circumstances tend to be superficial with the individuals involved too concerned about being “good”, or making it, or whether she is a “nice girl”, to be able to develop any sort of real personal relationships,
When the “rules” are broken the situation all to often ends up in frustration or guilt.
For people to develop fully as people requires the ability to develop their interpersonal relationships to the fullest and most rewarding extent, The form these relationships take should not be set for them by society’s rules or norms. This is particularly true of the critical sexual component of these relationships.
People should not be encouraged to build relationships for sex, nor should sex be discouraged from a relationship if it has potential for making that relationship fuller and more rewarding.
The effect of present socialization processes does nothing to encourage or enhance the individual’s personal relationships or personal self-development.
What it does, however, is guard against the danger to the present “mega-political” society that would be present if people started to come together as humans. The whole consumption-growth ethic would be threatened if cooperation replaced competition as the basis for social relations. I people could develop as full humans, with full human relationships with each other, the result would inevitably be cooperation with each other rather than competition with each other.
But, what is the answer. Education is usually too late, Despite how rationally people may understand the difference between what is right for them and society’s imposed ‘‘moral’’ norms, they find it very difficult to overcome ingrained socialization. Regardless of the publicity given the “new morality’’ and changing sexual attitudes, the majority of people are still brought up with the traditional “moral’’ norms ingrained in them, Despite their ability to reject these norms intellectually they remain ingrained within them., The result is only doubt or guilt.
All too often this means the prevention of the fulfillment of true human relationships (or worse the termination of such relationships) because of guilt that the individual knows is not justified but feels anyway,
What is the answer?
The Fifth Column (VOL 11#03 1972-09-26)
By Richard W. Woodley (with love)
“Sex for the sake of sex’’. This is getting down to the nitty gritty - and there is no logical or rational refutation to advocating such a position.
“Morality’’, so called, has never actually been moral, but has always served society - and the needs of society have not always coincided with the needs of people.
The necessity for some form of social control over sexual behaviour came with the linkage of sex with conception and birth; and society’s necessity, or desire, to control population. The most successful way of controlling human behaviour has never been legal, but rather religious or moral controls. The intricate moral network of church, state, education and family has been much more effective than any forms of legal control. Thus ‘‘moral codes’’ were established to control sexual behaviour.
Despite the decreasing role of the state in personal morality, and the decreasing influence of the church, ‘‘morality’’ is still defined by society in much the same way as it was in the past.
‘‘Morality’”, in fact, serves nothing. It has not adapted to meet the needs of society and the state has abdicated any responsibility for it. It stands alone, based on tradition and has not adapted to the changing needs of people. Indeed the latest Vatican edict justified itself by referring to the necessity of respecting ‘‘venerable tradition’’.
But there can be no justification for‘ society’s interference in sexual behaviour. With present means of contraception and abortion an individual’s personal sexual behaviour need have no effect on society.
The moral decay arguments are senseless, in that they are circular. All they mean is that if a large number of people disregard present sexual norms the whole “moral’’ system will break down. But since the system serves no needs, personal or social, its breakdown is meaningless. Indeed its breakdown will simply result in a greater degree of personal freedom. In a situation where sexual behaviour will affect only those concerned there is no need for society to have any place in controlling it. Any decisions regarding the individual’s sexual behaviour must be personal ones.
There should be no condition for sexual activity other than mutual desire and consent. This should, of course, exclude any form of social seduction or any social pressures either way. The individuals should, of course, understand what they are doing and understand the reasons for it. Perhaps then people will not pretend that their relationships are other than what they are simply for the sake of “moral” justification. Then the relationships will have a better chance to develop freely into closer and deeper ones.
There are, of course, broader social implications. Tied in with present sexual norms is a complex social and family system. For one, sexual freedom will end the necessity, and often the tragedy, of marriage for sex, As well it will open the way for a whole new series of life styles and living arrangements other than the traditional family (a key part in the present socialization process) with potential for a society where people can live together in a truly human fashion,
Sexual freedom may even provide an alternative to the massive and highly exploitative capitalist ‘‘pleasure industry’’ for the human body, being the marvellous creation that it is, is completely capable of providing people with their own pleasure and what is wrong with people giving pleasure, or indeed affection, to each other.
We all recognize that sex is better with someone you love. So is walking down the street; but we walk with our friends, and even with strangers, and it doesn’t hurt anyone,
The Fifth Column (VOL 11#04 1972-10-03)
By Richard W. Woodley (with love)
Any critical analysis of society must examine the institution of the family. The nuclear family is a key in the socialization process and a cornerstone of the present order of society.
The institution of the nuclear family is perpetuated by means of a complex array of social norms and taboos. A legalistic system of sexual relations serves to ensure the perpetuation of this system (and perhaps for this reason alone such a system of sexual relations should be abolished).
The nuclear family concept is a smothering one. It brings up children with a limited contact with their own peer group, as well as with an even more limited contact with adults.
The children are brought up highly dependent on two people. This hinders their development in terms of their ability to develop relationships with adults other than their parents, as well as with their peers, As well it develops within them a limited dependency on their parents, which will be replaced later by another limited dependency on their marriage partners.
The children in such a family are dependant solely on their parents for security. If for any reason their parent’s relationship is threatened, their whole sense of security is threatened.
This itself is complicated by the security orientation of society itself, whereby security has replaced freedom as a basic personal value.
Indeed, such marriage relationships do not aid in a child’s development but are usually continued in an effort to preserve the family (“for the sake of the children’’) due to the presence of children. Such children are not aided by developing in such, often hostile, environments.
It would seem much more logical for children to be brought up in a freer environment that has potential for a greater variety of relationships (with their own peer group as well as adults).
This of course, requires a much freer system of interpersonal relationships in society so that relationships can develop in whatever ways are fulfilling for the individuals concerned. This requires the complete abolition of any legalistic system of morality, The key in developing relationships must be simply a striving for as much fulfillment as possible for those involved, including children.
There must be the abolition of all restrictions on interpersonal relationships, including sexual relationships, as well as the elimination of any concept of legitimacy. All children are legitimate!
Such a society must bear a social (i.e. joint) responsibility for its fellow people, especially children, Children need not be dependant on any two parents; in fact it would be preferable if they did not know or identify with their natural parents as such. Rather they should relate to all of their fellow people as humans,
That this is possible is demonstrated by the fact that extended kinship families of similar. nature existed in the past and avoided many of the problems of alienation and insecurity that our. present society possesses. Such a system, though not based on kinship, could clearly solve many of our present social problems.
That this will be called “sinful’’, ‘‘anarchistic’’, ‘‘unworkable’’ and ‘‘revolutionary’’ is obvious. Revolutionary it will be - but revolutionary social change is “he only way to counteract a socialization process that perpetuates an inhuman society, with the critical problems of alienation and lack of personal fulfillment that is inherent in such a society.
The Fifth Column (VOL 11#05 1972-10-10)
By Richard W. Woodley (with love)
Dedication; *‘A lifeless rock can lead to the fulfillment of a beautiful dream.”
There appeared in the last issue of Lambda (Vol., 11, No. 4) a letter which I feel that I must reply to.
I sympathize with the author, whom I will assume is a woman. If that was how she experienced her first sexual experience, then perhaps it is understandable that she feel the way she does.
However, that does not excuse her generalizing her experience to all womankind.
In doing this she contradicts herself. After stating: ‘‘the world just forgot to tell her that she needs the perfect counterpart and a willingness to please that is so intense that it can lead to the beauty and joy she was looking for’’, she concludes that “sex is always a bitter disappointment to a female the first time’’. She implies that all males are, as her first partner was, preoccupied with themselves, and a loving caring lover - “the perfect counterpart” - is not to be found among the male portion of the species.
As much as I vehemently attack the role that males are socialized into - the aggressive self-centred role - I know that the socialization process can break down, either generally or for a specific relationship, and that it is possible for a man to have the feelings about a woman that she describes as befitting the “perfect counter-part”.
Yes it is a dream, but the answer does not lie in extending the dream indefinitely towards its destruction or destroying it prematurely - the answer lies in fulfilling the dream,
Problem number one is that sex is something that men do to women and something that good girls avoid, until, of course, they, marry and then it is something that they passively submit to as their “duty’’ as wives.
Problem number two is rules. Rules that have no rational basis can easily be dismissed, and then what is there to take their place, to base judgments on.
With these problems in mind I will attempt to look a little closer at the example given,
First of all “Ron” is somebody special - everybody is somebody special.
“Jane” is placed in a situation that she is obviously not prepared for. She is confronted with unknown emotions, feelings, and desires. To say that ‘‘she decides HE is worth it” implies that she is allowing him to have sex with her (sex is something a man does to a woman) and exhibits an obvious social bias, She wants to please him, perhaps out of fear of losing him. She is indeed confused - she may then realize that the rules make no sense - so what does she do, she submits.
What does he do - he acts his role. He attempts to seduce her (it is worth social points) and, successful, he realizes sex in an aggressive self-satisfying manner that is the male role, Since the rules do not apply to him (the double standard) he does not even have to reject them, He need not even feel guilty, for he may feel that “Jane” truly cares for him and is simply fulfilling her female role of passively pleasing him,
The answer to this dilemma is what I am trying to put forward. Rather than ignore it, as the author of the letter would like to do, I am putting forward an alternative.
If “Ron” had not been socialized in the predominant male role, or had cared enough about ‘‘Jane” to ignore his socialized role, he would have been more concerned with ‘‘Jane’’ as a person and with her needs.
If “Jane” had not been so concerned about rules she could have been more concerned about “Ron’’ and what his true feelings towards her were. When a girl is taught that something is wrong and then realizes that the basis for believing it to be wrong has no validity - it may then appear to be right, Of course that does not follow logically. If she had another criteria for judging whether sex would be right or wrong (or more properly fulfilling or disappointing) she would have something to base her decision on.
In the example given, the result being negative, there was one vital clue that should have alerted “Jane” to the fact that “Ron” may no have been the ‘‘perfect counterpart“. A lot of urging does not seem to be the action of someone concerned about the delicate emotions of a virgin (please excuse the stereotyping). In fact the opposite stance would have been more appropriate. If a man cares about a woman he is careful not to lead (or follow) her into any action that could possibly hurt her. Though he may want both of them to experience fulfillment, he would do his best to ensure that it would strengthen their relationship, not harm it. They would discuss it - philosophically, and in terms of themselves (if people cannot talk about sex they have no business engaging in it!),
Providing they both care about each other, and are sure of their actions, they have a good chance of finding fulfillment. However, given present socialization, sexual fulfillment for a female is not automatic - with the double standard, the male has a better chance since it is natural (socially natural) for a woman to want to please him. But he should seek to please her also, and she should help him please her (she should tell him what makes her feel good). Then true mutual fulfillment follows naturally.
Sexual expression is a most human expression. I can conceive of no better way of communicating caring, kindness, tenderness, gentleness - love. Perhaps this is not as it always is - but it is as it can be!
The Fifth Column (VOL 11#06 1972-10-17)
By Richard W. Woodley (with love)
Caring is perhaps the hardest, or the easiest thing to do in the world.
We all have a tendency to put down those we disagree with. If the difference is one of politics we call them fascists or communists. If the difference is one of lifestyles we call them ‘‘old fashioned” or immoral. We may make a joke of them behind their backs - even to the point of cruelty. It’s inhuman,
They are people and have as much worth as people as ourselves. Their views and opinions are shaped by their environment and socialization process as were ours.
Why do we put them down when we could understand their reasons, and get to know them as people, with just a little effort.
People are so much more than their outer shells - their intellectual output. There is an inner self, a humanity, that transcends all outer facades. If only we can reach this. If only all of us could know each other as we really are. Perhaps then there would not be the seemingly inevitable conflict present in the world. It only takes a little effort.
We should stop arguing and start talking and listening. Instead of concentrating on forming counter arguments in reply to others, perhaps we should concentrate on listening to what they are saying and why they are saying it. Perhaps instead of trying to win debating points we should think about what others’ arguments mean to them and what they say about the person using them. Perhaps we should ask why others feel the way they do and why they say the things they say.
Rather than trying to prove our superiority perhaps we ought to try to see beyond the outer facades of others. We should try to reach them as people and let them know us as people.
Of course this means letting down our defences and our outer shells, our masks, our self-worshipped images of ourselves.
It means listening not only to the intellectual output, but to the emotional overtones and the real meanings. It means reaching for the spirit - feeling - caring.
We are all human and our artificial outer differences need not stop us from loving each other.
The Fifth Column (VOL 11#07 1972-10-24)
By Richard W. Woodley (with love)
Social change is what this column is talking about. Social change is necessary if people are to live as humans, in what is now in many respects an inhuman world,
But how do we achieve social change. Doctrinaire Marxists would point to the necessity for a violent international workers revolution. But despite the possible theoretical validity of such a strategy, it is presently not a viable strategy for Canada.
Socialists in Canada have seen the need to work within the electoral framework and within a reform minded workers party.
The NDP is the workers’ party, the peoples’ party in Canada and represents the interests of the common man, rather than the interests of the corporations and capitalistic development as do the Liberals and Conservatives.
The NDP is the only party that sees political conflict in terms of class struggle. The NDP recognizes that there are vested interests in this country that have control of its social and economic system - vested interests that perpetuate themselves and their wealth by exploiting the labour and resources of the Canadian people - vested interests that are for the most part foreign, and that are ‘‘buying” us with our own money - vested interests that have reason to support both the Liberal and Conservative parties.
The NDP is the only party that realistically sees that Canada’s independence is threatened from the outside. The NDP is the only party that has a realistic policy to retain and regain Canadian independence. It is within the NDP that the Canadian independence movement exists.
It is the NDP that is proposing the elimination of government gifts and tax concessions to the massive and wealthy foreign capitalist conglomerates that control this country, It is the NDP that is taking the first small steps (and people within the NDP that want to take more effective steps) towards a realistic redistribution of wealth in this country.
It is the NDP that is proposing a tax system that doesn’t take from the middle class to give to the corporations, while throwing a few. crumbs to the poor, It is the NDP that proposes that the wealthy corporations pay their share, so that the burden may be taken off the middle class and so that the poor may share in the wealth of their country.
It is the NDP that believes education should be a right rather than a privilege. It is the NDP that believes students should be given free tuition along with living allowances. It is the NDP that proposes massive federal aid to education, and aid directly to students, to ensure equality and accessibility to education for everyone in this country.
Sure, the NDP is a reformist party. Stephen Lewis called it “the only free enterprise party in this country’’ in explaining its policy of withdrawing grants from wealthy foreign corporations and offering them to small independent Canadian businesses.
But still, it is in the NDP where the possibility of building a party dedicated to fundamental social change exists. It is within the NDP that there exists an organized presence for building a socialist party in Canada. It is within the NDP that the future of this country lies,
When you vote on October 30, you have your future and your country’s future in your hands.
The Fifth Column (VOL 11#08 1972-10-31)
By Richard W, Woodley (with love)
Laurentian University’s residence system offers a diversity of repression.
You have your choice among a number of alternatives, from University of Sudbury, where you will be held by the hand and treated like a child; to the more “liberal” University College, where you will be given the kind of guidance any teenager needs.
The residences at Laurentian do a very good job of protecting the morality of their “children’’.
Thorneloe College, being an all male residence, in the true spirit of the double standard, does not regulate morality to the same extent as the others. It has no rules regarding the opposite sex, though visitors, as in all residences, must have an escort to be allowed the use of residence facilities.
University of Sudbury, on the other hand, is sexually segregated and mixing of the sexes is prohibited except on the ground floor up till midnight on weekdays and 1:30 AM. on Fridays and Saturdays. To ensure strict control over its “children” the residence regulations are in the form of a contract which excludes the Landlord and Tenant Act from applying to the residence.
In Huntington College the sexes are also segregated and escorts are required for males visiting the female section and for females visiting the male section. Visiting hours are from noon to midnight, except for Fridays and Saturdays, when they are extended to 3:00 AM.
University College is also sexually segregated, by floor, but allows freedom of movement within the residence. However, visitors must be signed in, with visiting hours extending till 3:00 AM. University College has a strange rule stating that visitors may not be signed in after midnight; so that if you arrive at 11:59 you may stay till 3:00 AM. but yet at 12:01 you are not allowed in.
The common theme of all the residences appears to be the. taking on of a responsibility for the residents’ welfare and more specifically, the residents’ morality, This is a concept known as ‘‘in-loco-parentis”, meaning that the residence administration acts in the place of the residents’ parents, This is, indeed, a strange concept to apply to adults (dare I use the term) who, if they were not attending university, would be out working and living on their own.
Is this to say that university students cannot take care of themselves or make decisions concerning their own lives, that other people their age, who are working, are capable of ? Or, is there some special danger within the university community, that does not exist in the work world, that students must be protected from ? Is it an attempt to protect the virginity of the first year girls from the vociferous sexual appetites of the senior males ?
Perhaps it is time that somebody recognized that university should be a place where people develop their minds and their personalities - where people learn to live together and interact with others - where people learn to make decisions concerning themselves and their lives.
Morality is a personal matter and, unfortunately, it is likely moulded before a student enters university.
At this point, the student has either accepted the moral code of his or her environment or rebelled against it. In the first case they are unenforceable, at least as far as regulating the students’ moral conduct is concerned.
It is indeed unfortunate that the university is used as a further means of moral indoctrination, By its nature, as a community of adults, with many different views, it is the ideal place for the development (not indoctrination) of a personal philosophy and “morality”. It is a place where adults can come together and discuss problems, and consider alternative lifestyles and values, and judge for themselves, rationally and spiritually, what is most fulfilling for them.
This of course assumes that we are adults and assumes that we should be allowed to take responsibility for our own lives.
The Fifth Column (VOL 11#09 1972-11-07)
By Richard W. Woodley (with love)
Society has deemed it necessary to structure the interpersonal relationships of individuals. Specific types of relationships must fall within specific role patterns. According to society’s norms, intimate relationships must be of a permanent nature.
Marriage is the institution that society provides for intimate relationships, and marriage is permanent. If a marriage doesn’t last “forever” it is said to have failed. This is regardless of how fulfilling the relationship may have been during its existence. However, if a marriage lasts “forever’’, regardless of the quality of the relationship, it is said to be successful.
There is no rational explanation or justification for this structuring of relationships. Indeed, in many cases this can be a hindrance to the development of full relationships.
The type of relationship we are talking about is one where two people can relate to each other as human beings with no outside restrictions on the form the relationship takes. This requires that no limitation be put on the intimacy of such relationships.
A full human relationship requires closeness. It requires that people be free to be honest with each other and vulnerable to each other. A full human relationship is a relationship of the emotional, the spiritual and the physical.
Why must these relationships be permanent. In many cases one is not prepared for a permanent relationship. Should that preclude one from developing a full human relationship on a temporary basis.
Further to that, should any relationship be considered permanent. No relationship can be completely permanent. Relationships are always developing and changing. Some may last ‘‘forever”, and indeed improve with time, yet are these not continuous rather than permanent. Others may reach a point where they are no longer fulfilling; should they be considered a failure despite the fact that they were fulfilling human relationships while they lasted. Should they not be terminated at this point to allow the individuals to live the rest of their lives,
We are living in a university community where many are unsure of their future plans. A community in which many of us spend six months of the year, and the other six months elsewhere. Our ideas and philosophies are developing. Interpersonal relationships should be the most important part of our lives. Yet society restricts these relationships.
Getting to know people is important. Communication is important. Communication involves the expression of ideas, emotions, feelings and, at the highest level, the communication of one’s spiritual self to another. Communication must not be restricted. Physical contact is one very important means of communication,
However society’s ‘‘moral’’ norms re- quire that physical (sexual) communication be reserved for permanent relationships.
Firstly, if such permanent relationships were considered desirable, should one not know the other as completely as possible before entering into such a relationship,
Secondly, such relationships are not desirable as they commit people “forever” to a relationship that may not continue to be fulfilling for either of them.
It seems much more logical to encourage people to develop relationships, that are as fulfilling to the people involved as possible that provide the greatest exchange of human communication and human understanding as possible. These relationships should not be permanent - they may be temporary or they may be continuous.
There is nothing wrong with an ideal of two people living together in a full relationship “forever”, However one should recognize that such a dream can fail, and then comes the time for the termination of such a relationship.
There is also nothing wrong with two people living together in a full relationship for a temporary period of time. Such a relationship may be continuous or it may be terminated by circumstances, but it remains a fulfilling and worthwhile relationship regardless of its length,
If two people can relate to each other, exchanging understanding, concern, and love k for even a second, then something very wonderful has happened.
The Fifth Column (VOL 11#10 1972-11-14)
By Richard W. Woodley (with love)
This column has appeared to be mainly concerned with interpersonal relationships of a male-female orientation. However, it is not meant to be interpreted in that exclusive a manner.
It is the opinion of this column that all human relationships are worthwhile and that love is possible between any two humans. This column has stated that the full expression of love requires the physical (sexual) expression of love. This column must, then, accept the naturalness of sexual relations between persons of the same sex. We cannot reject this unless we are willing to reject love between persons of the same sex; and we are not willing to do that.
In considering the heterosexual - homosexual question we must deal with a number of contradictions which we may not be able to resolve.
The first being the fact that, in considering the homosexual person, our whole theory of socialization is questioned, as the homosexual person does not fit into the prevalent socialized role pattern.
We must, then, put more emphasis on the physical aspect. If we accept the fact that some people tend to be sexually oriented towards the same sex, while others tend to be sexually oriented towards the other sex; we must accept a physical basis for this orientation. (We reject a social basis because, due to the strong emphasis towards heterosexuality dominant in our socialization process, the homosexual person cannot be readily explained in terms of socialization.)
Does this mean that all people are prevented from completely loving individuals of one of the sexes due to a basic sexual orientation or is this just a dominant factor in each of us that may break down.
The world would likely be a better place if we were all bisexual, and could all love each other completely. Perhaps we are.
Perhaps this is where the socialization process comes into effect. Perhaps people who are basically heterosexual are so socialized that they cannot conceive of their potential for completely loving a person of their own sex. And perhaps people who are basically homosexual, and realize their ability to completely love persons of their own sex, are prevented by the socialization process, through alienation or rejection, from perceiving their ability to completely love persons of the other sex.
It is clear that any tendencies towards feelings of a homosexual nature are seen by the dominant heterosexual society as “immoral” and that there is indeed great social pressure to suppress, reject, or rationalize these feelings away. If we accept the natural ability of all of us to completely love all of our fellow humans, regardless of sex, then we must realize that somewhere along the line this natural ability has been suppressed by the socialization process.
The individual who has not suppressed or rejected these natural feelings (towards persons of the same sex) is rejected by the dominant heterosexual society. Perhaps at this point a reverse-socialization process, manifested in a rejection of the dominant society and the dominant sexual orientation, suppresses that individual’s natural ability to completely love persons of the other sex.
The answers are not clear and will not be until we recognize and accept the naturalness of all human relationships, regardless of whether they are between persons of the same sex or persons of the other sex.
The Fifth Column (VOL 11#11 1972-11-21)
By Richard W. Woodley (with love)
What is love.
Last year, this column attempted to answer this question. It did so in a rather romantic and subjective manner.
It will attempt to do so again, also in a subjective manner, as there is no objective way of analyzing the concept of love. It will, however, be based on an additional year’s experiences, learning, thinking, and reflecting (and one very special factor).
The idea of falling in love has been rejected by those who prefer to refer to love as a decision and a commitment.
Of course, one has to decide to love, but there must be a basis for love. Though theoretically we should all be able to love anyone, our society has managed to see to it that this is not possible, so that, in reality, one is only able to love certain individuals.
Falling in love is when you find an individual whom you know that you can love, Then you must decide to love.
The decision to love involves a number of things. First, a realization of a wonderful feeling and a mutual need that cannot be explained. This may be reinforced by physical attraction and compatibility of philosophy, interests, politics, and general outlook on life.
With this comes the question of commitment. Love does not require a commitment, though the characteristics of commitment are usually a part of love. If one feels the need to make a commitment then one is not sure of one’s love.
What happens after one decides to love. With love comes intimacy (or perhaps rather with intimacy comes love) and, as Dr. Eric Berne points out, ‘‘Real intimacy takes place between real people, and usually progresses more or less quickly to sex.”
It is natural and healthy to express one’s feelings for another in a sexual manner. Two people that love each other should express their love to the fullest extent possible.
Society will often attempt to prevent this if it does not occur within a certain framework, as this column has repeatedly pointed out. This is one reason why I am so bitter towards society - while encouraging exploitative sex it discourages fulfilling sex.
We wish, however, to take this one step further and state that one may have full and deep feelings towards more than one person. There is no reason for the sexual expression of love, or caring, to be limited to one person.
Even if two people have decided that their love for each other is such that they wish to live together, this should not prevent either of them having sexual relations with others if the circumstances warrant it.
What this column is calling for, is for people to look at morality for what it really is (or perhaps should be). Morality is a concept that implies a means of living together in the most fulfilling way and in a way that. avoids hurting people.
‘This column may be taking some rather revolutionary positions (perhaps not), but seen in this context I believe it to be living up to its principles.
Of course, what this column proposes is based on an acceptance of this view of morality. Consideration must be given to the fact that people are presently socialized according to the present society’s “moral” norms, and this concept of morality, as any concept of morality, must be applied with the utmost regard for individuals and circumstances.
However, it is hoped that the day will come when morality will be the quest for human fulfillment, freedom, and peace.
The Fifth Column (VOL 11#12 1972-11-28)
by Richard W. Woodley (with love)
When we speak of a morality based on personal fulfillment, freedom, and peace, we imply that these things are lacking in our present society, and indeed they are.
One of the major reasons for the lack of human fulfillment in our society is the alienation of the individual from his or her daily existence,
Karl Marx documented this alienation as it referred to human work. With the development of capitalism, along with the demise of the handicraft system, the individual’s work was no longer a part of the individual - it was no longer his or her own creation but that of the capitalist. The human labourer became only a cog in the capitalist’s machine.
In modern day capitalism this is even more developed as work has become merely a means to an end, One works to live (provide a means of subsistence) and to provide a means (financial) of buying entertainment (pleasure?) when one is not working, The worker does not receive fulfillment from his or her work.
But alienation has gone further in our society, with attempts to structure all time and all activities for the individual, Leisure is indeed becoming increasingly alienated and often focused on the worship of artificial culture via the mass media.
Education itself is also alienated from the student (or perhaps consumer) as it is no longer a personal process of self- fulfillment and development but rather a process of training for an alienating job in society.
The alienation of our society is seen in the legislation of our lives - our work is structured for us by the capitalist - our leisure is structured for us by the capitalist pleasure industry - our culture is structured for us by the capitalist mass media and our interpersonal relations are structured for us by moral norms aimed at protecting and perpetuating the capitalist status quo.
Breaking away from such a system is extremely difficult. Our concepts of happiness and ‘‘good’’ have been developed (via socialization) to fit into the system. But happiness that is based on something outside the individual is not the same as personal fulfillment based on what is inside the individual.
For more from Lambda see Laurentian University student newspaper Lambda - Internet Archive
