In 2002, Alberta Views was still only published six times a year but with 70 pages of content. These issues remained as diverse as years previous with spotlights on politics, culture and community. I tend to gravitate towards issues that feature healthcare, education or family dynamics and so I will not deny nature and change my ways now.

I picked up the Nov/Dec issue of 2002 partly because of its giant disclaimer on the cover (“Is This the End of Medicare?”) and partly because the word “Yoga” caught my eye. The cover hosted three different clay faces ranging from gold to green and shifting slowing through varying degrees of tarnish. It would be easy to jump straight to the apocalyptic warning about our health care system but I decided to take another route and investigate Yoga. (If you are interested in reading about current problems the magazine sees with our health system, check out the November issue on newsstands now!)

Yoga has always intrigued me yet I am rather embarrassingly ill informed about it. As a child and teenager I was classically trained in ballet and therefore really understood the art of movement but the art of stillness and breathing was new to me. I probably just proved my ignorance because as any well-versed yogi would know, Yoga is not just about posing. The Yoga based on still posing is called Hatha and may be extremely popular in western countries but there are many others as well.

What I really enjoyed about Marcia Langenberg’s article “Yoga in Alberta” was how she elaborated on the history of Yoga without letting it drown the piece. The way it was written gave subtle winks to those who knew a lot before but was not so in-depth as to patronize newcomers. So Alberta Views has done it again, but his time back in 2002! They’ve produced a well-researched, interesting article about life in Alberta. Instead of copping out with an easy “10 ways to lose weight through Yoga” like some other print magazines, Alberta Views presented an article about the growth of Yoga in Alberta and how the perception of it has changed over the years. As someone who has always thought of Yoga as accepted, this was a very interesting perspective.

Growing up, especially in high school (which about four years after this article was published), I found that there was a large contingency of girls who “did Yoga”, but because I was busy with other activities I received a very different introduction to it. My first interaction with the life style came when I was 16 and visiting my Aunt in Toronto. As far as I can remember she has always been an avid advocate of Yoga. She has tried many kinds. I don’t really remember what kind of Yoga we were doing but according to Langenberg’s descriptions I would say it was Astanga. What was so memorable about this experience was where we performed the Yoga. We were on the boardwalk, standing on a small portion of grass, looking out onto Lake Ontario. It was breathtaking. Perhaps I am nostalgic for summer time because snow now graces our roads here in Calgary, but if all Yoga experiences were like that I’m sure everyone would do it.

As Langenberg states in her article, Yoga is a type of physical exercise that promotes body/mind equilibrium. It seems that nowadays there is a massive disparity between physical health and mental health. This kind of gap can be alienating and stifling. Once in a while popular culture gets it and pops out a line such as when Elle Woods says, “Exercise gives you endorphins. Endorphins make you happy. Happy people just don’t shoot their husbands.” Perhaps if everyone took up Yoga the crime rates would go down.

I had mentioned before that I am embarrassingly ill informed about Yoga. I didn’t even know it originated in India! Neither did I know that it was seen by some as “a mind-control technique and therefore a cult.” Langenberg credits the lack of awareness to a bias against the exercise. Yoga had yet to be properly established in Alberta and people were skeptical of it. But according to Langenberg that was during the 1960s and it has since been accepted into everyday life—which also explains why I was unaware of that stigma.

As an outsider looking into the Yoga community, it strikes me that even Yoga is not impervious to the time crunch that stalks western society. The new “fad” with Yoga is “Hot Yoga”, also known as Bikram Yoga or TriBalance Yoga to a more practiced Yogi. To my understanding, these types of Yoga are performed in rooms heated to 40 degrees Celsius. To me this just seems like a more time-effective way to burn calories. Most of the people that I know that go to Hot Yoga are ecstatic that they can lose 500-1250 calories in only 90 minutes. With what I have learned from Yoga through Langenberg’s article, doesn’t this defeat the purpose of Yoga? If the yogi is too focused on calorie loss they risk being distracted from the other benefits. Once again, I feel like western society has lost sight of what is important.

Being allowed the time to revisit thoughts is probably one of the main attractions to Yoga for me. With a society that is focused on a go-go-go mentality I think it’s important to have some time to say: it’s ok to do something “unproductive”. In my opinion productivity is only good for a short time, even the most prolific writers decide to take time away to recharge. People often forget about recharging. For this reason I am happy that Yoga plays a part in so many lives. Langenberg talks about the multiple purposes of practicing Yoga, “for workouts, for general exercise, for psychotherapy, or for restorative physiotherapy.” Having to stop and listen to your own heart and be aware of your limbs can have a very healing effect, on both mind and body. I would say that is more productive than anything else people normally do. But, I don’t know much about Yoga—honest!

Sincerely,

Nicole (The Intern)

To read my previous blog posts, as well as others on the site, click here.

For  information on the Twitter Campaign and for the official rules click here.

To read the issue mentioned in this article, click here.

To read the issue featured in my next blog, click here.

Does anyone want to be unhappy? In spite of all our apparent differences, human beings are basically much the same. We all want to be happy. We have different ideas about what it takes.

Some people don’t expect to find happiness in this world—this “vale of tears”—and think they have to wait for a world to come. Others believe we can and should improve life in this world. Some want things better only for themselves, others for everyone. Some are convinced (sometimes subconsciously) that they don’t deserve to be happy. Others assume they’re entitled to it. Some people focus on changing their external circumstances; others believe an inner transformation is required.

Is happiness a secular or a spiritual issue, a material or a moral matter? Is it a purely personal concern, or is it related to social and political conditions? The US constitution guarantees its citizens the right to the pursuit of happiness—but can happiness be pursued? People strive for various goals only to discover that achieving them still doesn’t make them happy. How often does someone work hard to get something—a car, a prestigious career, even a spouse—only to be dissatisfied after they get it?

If human happiness depends on the right social conditions, what are they? People have different ideas about that, too. The Communist Chinese invaded Tibet, razing monasteries, burning precious artifacts of Buddhist culture and killing innocent monks and nuns. For them religion was “the opiate of the masses” and people were better off without it. (John Lennon believed that too.) Driven by an idea, the Chinese were aiming for a happier world. Yet every killing increased the sum total of human misery.

This is the danger of caring more about ideas than life itself.

Communists weren’t the first who couldn’t tolerate the existence of those who didn’t share their ideas. It’s not a rare occurrence in history. Even our revered institutions can foster a war-like adversarial mentality. Our democratic system is designed to contain and accommodate differences, but hostility rages between opposing parties. Parliament, the place to parler, to talk and listen, to exchange perspectives on how to increase the well-being of society, is instead a site for the humiliation of opponents. Demonizing those who disagree has led to a wasteful polarization in contemporary politics.

Surely we’d be happier and more productive if we viewed those who disagree with us not as enemies but as allies in the search for truth, giving us the opportunity to test and expand our views. Fighting what we don’t want only energizes more resistance. Better to calmly decide what we do want and give our effort to that.

Is it possible to increase the sum total of human happiness? Maybe if we had an awe and appreciation for life, treated each other with respect, did unto others as we would have them do unto us. Maybe we could grant each other freedom.

On occasion we might let go of our ideas entirely and notice the light shimmering, or the expression on a friend’s face.

If our happiness depends on what we have, we can lose it in an instant. There’s a Zen koan about a priceless rhinoceros horn fan, which was broken. Told of this, the master said, “If the fan is broken, bring me the rhinoceros.”

In the absence of things and ideas, we might go for the living reality.

In 2001 Alberta Views published six issues. The issue I chose to read was the March/April issue that focused on education. On the cover was a picture of a woman walking in front of a large yellow building. As a U of A student I know this building to be the Butterdome. With a cover line like: “Education to What End?” I think this is rather fitting. This issue was interesting to me, in part because I am a student and also because I know it to be a contentious topic in Alberta.

Therefore, I easily gravitated towards the satirical fiction piece written by Heery Lynn about university life and politics. Lynn was an associate professor of Drama at the U of C so I think he would know what he is talking about. As a not-yet graduated student, I have spent my share of time on campus and sometimes have been struck with the ridiculousness of it all. Even so, if I have interpreted the short fiction correctly, the real troubles happen not with the students but at the faculty level. There seems to be a never-ending struggle to ensure proper funding and it seems as though everyone is fighting tooth and nail for any share of it they can scrounge.

Lynn’s “Notes for a Novel on Future University Life” delves into the university culture. Even with the story’s sarcastic tone and Lynn’s biting observations, I felt like this “fantasia” wasn’t that fantastic. The struggles described in the short fiction such as rivalry between tenured professors and sessional instructors is not that far from the truth. In my second year of university I had a mightily peeved sessional instructor who had not been given any courses for the following semester because he was “just a sessional.” He spent a good portion of that day’s lecture complaining about tenured professors. To me it just sounded like a rant. As a student, I always enjoyed the lectures from the more seasoned professors rather than the brand new ones; there was more experience and insight. In my experience, they also tended to mark fairer and were less defensive about their views—after years of teaching they realized a student’s opinions weren’t a personal attack. The young professors don’t always grasp that.  However, even with the extra insight that the tenured professors have I would hardly advise cryogenic freezing.

Another thing that really struck a cord with me about Lynn’s story is his treatment of electronic libraries. In 2001 this may have seemed like a ridiculous assumption. Surely, it would never happen. Fast-forward 10 years and almost everyone has access to a computer and through it a myriad of different books and articles. Perhaps this is also a reflection of how fast technology changes. Ten years ago no on knew what a blog was. Now every person and their dog are documenting every minute of the day. (It’s not like I am any different.) Additionally, more and more people are converting to digital media such as e-readers. Since 2001 information has become so accessible that Lynn’s sarcastic comments about the dispersion of knowledge are not only eerily observant but seem almost clairvoyant. But, perhaps the current rate of knowledge transmission isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

The third point that I related to from Lynn’s short story was the subtly communicated rivalry between the Arts and the Science faculties. As an Arts student it was always very clear that the Science students somehow seemed more respected. They have the newer buildings—including heated door handles for those pesky Alberta winters. The Arts students always seem to be stuck in a corner, cloistered away. But one thing that stops me from being truly bitter is knowing that I am going to come away with a little less debt. It is one thing that is rarely considered but an Arts degree costs less than a science degree. And I think this is the way it should be.

As an Arts student, I don’t have labs that require expensive equipment or odd substances to experiment with. I need books and access to cultural knowledge (and with electronic access to libraries around the world I am set). So I shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s education. When my science student friends complain about their $7,000 tuition for one year, I can be happy that I’ll only be paying $5,000 for skills I don’t need a fancy machine to use. They can keep their heated door handles; I have more interesting things to ponder—like what does it mean to have cold hands. I feel as though Lynn’s satire missed this aspect.

But maybe Lynn didn’t address the issue of tuition because he was more concentrated on other matters. There is a large focus on bureaucracy and how the system doesn’t really serve any one. With too many people to please no one is being pleased. Lynn writes, “despite the co-operative posture the University has at all times tried to maintain, the Provincial Government nevertheless continually berates the University for its perceived inefficiency.”

Overall Lynn’s short fiction is very tongue and cheek about universities in this province. He has some interesting insights into how universities work and examines many of the stereotypes about higher education. From staff at war to blatant favoritism with faculties, this story made me wonder when and how all of these musings and jests became normal. Part of what I found amusing about “Notes for a Novel on Future University Life” was how relevant it was. I would be interested to know if he received inspiration from one institution in particular. There are so many choices in Alberta when it comes to post-secondary education that I wonder if this way meant as a “blanket” reaction or a more targeted one. Perhaps Lynn’s years at the U of C impacted his portrayal of educational institutions in his short story.

Heery Lynn is now a Senior Instructor in the Drama department at the University of Calgary. I wonder if his opinions have changed since he wrote this story. A common theme it appears in my posts is change, or lack there of. People always say that things are no different than they were 500 years ago—we just have plumbing and electricity. In some ways that’s quite disheartening. So no matter how hard we try and change things, people are fundamentally stuck in a never-ending pattern. We may progress in terms of research and technology but we don’t often change sociologically. I guess it all boils down to your perspective of humanity. If you believe people are genuinely good, you remain hopeful. If you believe people are constantly struggling to subdue their villainous nature, you are not. Based on Lynn’s short story and his portrayal of people, I would say people are incredibly corrupt, always scheming and underhanded. That is a pretty bleak outlook for Albertans. I prefer to think they mean well and mess up a lot.

Sincerely,

Nicole (The Intern)

To read my previous blog posts, as well as others on the site, click here.

For  information on the Twitter Campaign and for the official rules click here.

To read the issue mentioned in this article, click here.

To read the issue featured in my next blog, click here.

By 2000, Alberta Views had progressed to being published six times a year. From this year of AV’s past catalogue, I chose to read the November/December issue, which focuses on the “Changing Face of the Family.” In the issue’s main feature “Father No Longer Knows Best,” Graham Chandler explores a shift in the province’s family dynamics. From working moms to stay-at-home dads, Chandler writes that Alberta’s traditional family values are being turned on their head. Not to mention divorce and same-sex marriages. Fifty years ago these subjects, which we now consider commonplace, were taboo. Chandler’s article got me thinking: what makes a family typical?

In the fifties, a stay-at-home mother and a workaholic father were the stereotypical parenting team. A family would have about three kids and maybe a dog. Nothing ever seemed to faze that “golden age” family unit because it somehow always held together. Nowadays, there seems to be an ever-present divorce crisis. In Alberta, as Chandler chronicled in his article ten years ago, it seems as if families are falling apart and that the traditional family unit from the fifties is now no more than a myth. As a result of this familial disintegration, I have more friends from blended families and divorced parents than those with their parents still together.

Even so, Alberta is one of the few places where there is an entire day devoted to families. Though “Family Day” is often ridiculed for its irrelevance I always enjoyed it. I came from a family where both my parents worked full-time jobs and the only time I would see them was in the evenings and weekends. “Family Day” provided me with an opportunity to spend time with them. It helps that the holiday usually fell on the same weekend as my dad’s birthday, which almost guaranteed a short trip to Jasper. As I see it, “Family Day” is a reflection of a core Alberta value. Chandler refers to stats from a 1992 survey that reaffirms this very assumption, with 92% of Albertans saying, “A happy family life is essential to our lives”.

Another Alberta “trend” affects my family. My parents divorced when I was eleven—leaving me with two of everything, and as an 11-year-old girl I couldn’t complain about that. Chandler writes, “we love our families” and I couldn’t agree more. This leads me to believe that Albertans don’t let divorce change their perceptions of family. Personally, angsty teen years aside, I have always gotten on with my parents, even during their divorce. I suppose I would be an embodiment of the study Chandler cites from the Yeshiva University in New York: my parents divorced and I didn’t end up with any permanent damage.

However, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. I have many friends who have become alienated from their parents because of divorce. That sounds as if I think divorce is a negative thing, when in fact, in certain circumstances, I am very pro-divorce. If the pair married is better off apart because they are in a destructive relationship, get out. Spare the kids the years of therapy. For what my advice is worth: be proactive. Don’t continue walking on a broken leg you know is broken only because you are too stubborn to call it what it is. If it is tended to promptly, the leg will heal and can start to be rehabilitated. If ignored that leg will eventually become infected. Then comes the tough choice: lose the leg or die. It sounds dramatic but I would guarantee the majority of people would choose to lose the leg over their own life. So why is attitude towards divorce any different when it is the choices made by those involved before the “Big D” that can cause the most damage?

Some may blame Alberta’s rising divorce rate on the change in gender roles both in the home and at work. Chandler writes, “trying to cope with the time demands of two jobs and a family is stressful to working parents, especially women.” I only partially agree. If the duties of home-care are shared equally between the couple the workload gets halved. However, women are somehow still expected to pick up the housework on top of a full-time job. Certain arrangements that work well for one couple may not work well for the next so it all depends on expectations they have of each other and the understanding they have of their relationship. Chandler argues that “what has become clear is a need for a radical new work/home solution that would give room for both, to allow parents to strike the balance that works best for their respective careers, and at the same time avoid the stigma of a stay-at-home.”

There’s no denying the rat race is putting strain on relationships, ten years ago Chandler writes, “if it’s not poverty that’s inducing the stress, it’s the struggle to stay ahead of poverty.” The couples that I know who are celebrating impressive anniversaries are those who don’t put too much emphasis on material goods. They save when they want something and spend accordingly. They aren’t extravagant but they aren’t divorced either. Wealth in Alberta has become a third person in marriages across the province. Also, the lack of prep work going into marriages is astounding. Our society puts the emphasis on the storybook romance: the courting, the proposal and the wedding instead of the real facts on the ground. Most young people will tell you when asked, that they want to get married, not be married. Not understanding that there’s a distinction is the problem.

Even with all this talk about divorce people still get married. In 2007, according to ServiceAlberta.ca there were over 19,000 weddings, making that the ten-year high. But it wasn’t as though that number was leagues ahead of the norm. With a yearly total somewhere between 17,500 and 18,500 new marriages, the numbers from 2007 seem to hint at an upward trend, however, the numbers fell back to average the following year. So what made 2007 so special? According to many articles it was July 7, 2007 that made the difference. From bloggers to magazines like Time, everyone seemed excited about the triple-seven day. This coincidence of sevens occurs once every thousand years, and the number seven is a symbol for luck in cultures around the world. Therefore, is it really that surprising that people flocked to secure a coveted spot on the July 7 marriage weekend when Alberta’s divorce rate is what it is? I guess any extra luck is worth the scramble.

After all this research and consideration, I’m still curious: has Alberta changed since 2000? Divorce is so common there is a fear that eventually it will be seen as a quick fix for bad choices, if it hasn’t already. Are traditional family values really gone or are we just distracted by fear of fractured homes? Furthermore, is it really a bad thing to have a non-nuclear family? As Albertans we need to strive for balance, which is hard when the world climate is all about who has the better economy. We have to return to what 10 years ago defined Albertans: family—in all its shapes and sizes.

Sincerely,

Nicole (The Intern)

To read my previous blog posts, as well as others on the site, click here.

For  information on the Twitter Campaign and for the official rules click here.

To read the issue mentioned in this article, click here.

To read the issue featured in my next blog, click here.