LYNCEAN [NEWSLETTER COLUMN]

Behavioral Approach

It was an unusual dilemma chases me every now and then. It’s because of some reactions about my column in our first issue which confused my mind as to how will I write in a journalistic way. I knew the issue, even though they didn’t tell me directly. I’m neither numb nor deaf because I can psych and interpret some behaviors – and remember I’m enlisted in the fourth estate of society.

Few issues emerged out of nowhere; or perhaps, out of human interpretations which they perceived solely from my satirical column – to think logically. Or, I would say, there are certain complexes (Jungian Concept: a core or pattern of emotions, memories, perceptions and wishes organized around a common theme – such as power, status or more likely ‘threats’) inside their brain that triggered, preoccupied and directed their thoughts and behavior in various ways, thus it determined how ‘such’ perceive the world – my column – consciously and unconsciously.

Yes, it is very not untrue that ‘public journal is a public trust’ that our main purpose is to serve the readers. But, who are those readers? Here, in our university, the students are our market. They say that, in order to justify our being journalists, we should write for the average readers. We should level our writings to the general audience. We should rather express and not to impress. It only shows literary pretensions.

However, with regards to my column, I did not deliberately write to impress people but I intended to write in that way because of our ethical responsibilities – it’s just like a trial balloon of expression – that I was just careful when it comes to presenting my ideas. It’s a valid proposition as I deem.

I admit that the tone of the first two paragraph of my column was like an angry child scolding his playmates but the latter flowed in a logical manner.

The only reason why I’ve written in that way is because I couldn’t say it directly for I am liable to cause people in degradation and to lose my profession. I know some of the laws and ignorance will not put me at stake.

Hence, I remembered the person who told us about what we will write in our publications, particularly, The Bastion. He said that we should only write good things about our university and never degrade it. Oh, come on! Who is he to dictate us? Who is he to dismantle the conventional way of our profession? We are here to lay every side of the story for them to realize and take necessary actions and not to be like marionettes stringed in his fingertips. As said by some, we are an independent existing organization inside this institution and from that point we should not entertain things which can cause biases and one-sidedness.

After that event, someone followed like a parrot saying ‘verbs, adjectives, adverbs and nouns’ to cling to him. Just to cling? Or, it is a matter of looking good in his bulgy eyes? Think about it folks.

Yet, apparently, it’s contradicting to the concept of equilibrium among us journalists, for we should write in both sides of the issue; to inform and entertain the readers with critical mind. By then, they can have their own judgment as to which is fiction and non-fiction.

As writers and watchdogs, it is indeed a blessing that we have the ability to write. It’s not about our writings at all; it’s all about our intention to influence and wake up people in the dungeons of deafness and numbness; it’s all about realizing what we have written that can eradicate false beliefs and system; it’s all about emanating new paradigms that can emancipate the overused and wrong models; and it’s all about the appreciation of some people using their critical mind and open heart to make a move.

To my fellow writers and youths, this is our role – to be like an enzyme – the impetus to make changes for the common good.

“…at magsusulat ako kahit hindi ninyo ako maintindihan, o magsusulat ako hanggan hindi ninyo ako naiintindihan,” Virgilio S. Almarios; Panitikang Walang Lipunan (Agos).

***

Changes coincide with sacrifice. There will be no change if there is no sacrifice. There will be no sacrifice if there is none to sacrifice. There will be none to sacrifice if there is no unity. That is a sociological view of change.


We are living with our own family, our community, our society and our country. Thus, we have our own cultural traits, cultural patterns, traditions, beliefs, laws, mores and values. We are living in adherence to the changing culture and tradition. It’s a natural phenomenon for us people to adhere and compete for survival. However, if some will not, they will become the deviant of the society.

Same story with our institution, it started being arts, trades, fishery and agricultural school in 1910, and now almost a century ago and everything changed.

UP had celebrated its centennial milestone last year, according to some; they were very much prepared five years before the celebrations. And the day came for the celebrations; it’s an exhilarating and all-out event that justified their being a century old yet globally competitive institution especially when it comes to giving quality education to its clientele.

But I would like to ask, how about us? Can we feel on becoming a hundred-year-old institution? Can we feel the preparations? Or I would rather say, are we all informed that we will celebrate our centennial on February 12, 2010? I certainly doubt it; from that point can we be called a genuine university?

While some are still attached a century ago, we can now call this as deviancy; we are left behind – just like our country.