After attending the Love discussion, I think I can officially say that I want to be in love but I will not, might possibly, maybe, most definitely do anything necessary to acquire it.

This past summer, I intensely studied love and relationships. I came in to my freshman year of school expecting to meet my future husband walking across the Arts Quad. I was surprised to learn that the closest I would get would be a “causal hook-up.” For me that meant I would be in a relationship void of commitment, effort and appreciation. I left my freshman year confused about my expectations of romantic relationship on this campus. And I didn’t want to return my sophomore without understanding this dilemma.

As someone who turns to black women for answers, I began to look into the works of literary genius, Maya Angelou and the like. All of the extraordinary women I read about recognize the beauty and sanctity of love. It was interesting to see her quote on love come up in the discussion. It read, “Love is that condition in the human spirit so profound that it empowers us to develop courage; to trust that courage and build bridges with it; to trust those bridges and cross over them so we can attempt to reach each other.” Additionally, bell hooks adds, “When we are loving we openly and honestly express care, affection, responsibility, respect, commitment and trust.” Both these women can attest to the fact that love is work.

This discussion experience was made special because I was partnered up with a girl who was in a long distance romantic relationship. She shared with me how loving her boyfriend was serious work, similar to what bell hooks and Maya Angelou describe. It wasn’t easy for her. It was intentional and required attention and care to ensure that it was successful. Like the discussion packet stated, love is purposeful and mutual. This had that. She reinforced my belief that love, perfect love, is achievable. But not on this campus…

Through my summer of research, I came to the conclusion that love can’t be found; it needs to be cultivated. The environments on campus where men and women interact don’t create a space for us to foster relationships. In fact, it encourages the opposite. It induces snap judgments and discrimination. When I began associating with the black community on Cornell’s campus, I assumed finding a boy would easier. I was under the assumption that black men would be more inclined to see me as attractive, while white guys may not see my black features as attractive as my white female counterparts. But, I once again I was surprised to learn that even the black men at Cornell weren’t looking to find a real relationship.

At this point, a girl can do one of two things: (1) participate in hook-up culture or (2) be alone. I’ve decided to be alone. And it doesn’t feel good. As of right now, I’ve come to the conclusion that love isn’t valued. To be frank, it isn’t even considered. I used to be mad that this campus did very little to teach about love and relationships. Now, I’m indifferent and I’m led to  pursue love in all the wrong ways. I want to be in love and loved so much that I am willing to redefine love and intimacy in order to find it on this campus.

“How do we Love” was an interesting discussion that brought up more questions than answers. Asides from looking at different kinds of love, I was perplexed by the idea of whether we choose to fall in love and take action, or if love is a feeling that we cannot control. Concepts like love and family are hard to define, and become more confusing the more I try to give them finite meanings.

While I don’t think I gained a deeper understanding of how I love, I think what was more beneficial was the format of the discussion. The two-hour duration may have been too much for a regular basis, but I hope this kind of intimate conversation can occur more often. We set up an agreement of trust, and were free to say what was on our minds. This Rose Scholars event was the one where I most felt that I was bonding with other people in the program. The best moments were when we stopped looking at our discussion leader, and looked at each other and kept the conversation rolling.

The conundrum when it comes to love is that we all have different definitions for the word. Some use the term loosely, some use the term exclusively, but we all know what it is. Or at least, we all know how it feels. Prolific scholar bell hooks, who chooses to spell her name uncapitalized in order to draw more focus to her message, challenges us to not treat love as a feeling, but as an action. She argues that because we treat love as instinctual, the inducer of our actions, we allow ourselves to believe we simply “fall” in love, and we cannot control it when we do. This belief, that we lack control, makes excuses for “crimes of passion” such as abuse. She states, “We cannot claim to love if we are hurtful and abusive,” and to use love as an excuse for hurting someone is to devalue and degrade its meaning.Perhaps we are afraid to choose love as an action, as a choice. Perhaps our belief that certain loves are innate has made us passive.

Last Saturday I had the pleasure of attending a talk about love. It was extremely different than I expected. I was expecting us to hear a talk about different ways we love, how we love and what it means to love.

Ehat actually occurred was a very open discussion in small groups. I got to meet with many other members of the rose community, which was very neat. Although it was only a two hour discussion, I feel I got to know them very well because of the level of intimacy in the topic. We answered questions honestly and openingly, which made it very easy to get to know people. Although this event was very different from the typical event, I thought I was very valuable. I really got to know people in rose house. I would recommend this event to others in the community as it was a great way to get to know others. My question is for other people who attended this event – did you feel a deeper connection with others after attending this event?

The biggest takeaway from the “How Do We Love” session was that even though we all came from different backgrounds and situations, we all generally agreed about the ideas of love.  I’ve always felt that the definition of love was something that can’t be defined or set by certain parameters. There’s no age limit, or limits to race or gender.  Love is something for everyone and everything and there’s no way to define who it doesn’t belong to because it belongs to everyone.  There are so many forms of love like the relationship between a mother and her child, or two people romantically involved, or even two best friends.

The definition in our session I most agreed with was the idea that love is not just a feeling but also an action.  When we think about love as an action, and not just a simple feeling, we can now gain control over love.  Some people can justify a bad relationship by just saying “Oh I can’t do anything about the way I feel”, but if you believe love is also an action you can choose to take control.  Some people may disagree, but I’ve always believed that there is some action to love.  I’m not denying that emotions and feelings are a part of it; I’m just saying that people can be held accountable for love through their actions.  The best metaphor I can imagine is that love is like a flower.  It can sprout through a connection or feeling, but it grows by watering and nurturing it.  In the same way, the flower will die if it not given the nutrients it needs.  You can say you love someone all you want, but unless your actions prove it, the flower will wilt and die.

What I learned through this process was that I’ve been neglecting some of the relationships in my life, particularly the relationships with my parents, grandparents and my siblings.  I spend a lot of time on my relationship with boyfriend that sometimes I forget about my family.  I just have to remember to water all the flowers in my life and not put one above the others.

We started our discussion by examining images that expressed those different types of love. I was surprised that the image of romantic love was ignored while most people were moved by the images that conveyed familial love, love of worship or love of humanity. When we think of love, we usually think of romantic love yet this seemed to be the least meaningful type of love for the people in our group.

We read an excerpt from All About Love: New Visions by bell hooks, which defined love as “the will to nurture our own and another’s spiritual growth”. She rejects the notion that love is simply a feeling and that love requires action. I agree with this idea because I think that we use the word love a lot and for it to truly express something, it needs to be accompanied by action. We also see romantic love as something we have no control over but I think we actively choose to fall in love. But, we fall back on the excuse of having no control over our emotions to compensate for failings within relationships. We also discussed whether hooks was right in saying that willingness to nurture and foster growth was required for a loving relationship. Can two people who are damaging to one another still love each other? I think that if a relationship is abusive then it cannot be called love and it may be obsession or infatuation. While the two people may feel as if they are in love, they are choosing to express love in a way that hinders their partner.

I think people have trouble accepting that their partner hinders them more than they nurture them. We make too many exceptions in the name of love and don’t take responsibility for our own well-being. More people would get out of unhealthy relationships if we measured love through actions rather than words.

At this past week’s “How Do We Love?” seminar, I got to discuss with my fellow Rose Scholars our personal definitions of three little words with a BIG social and emotional impact.

“I love you.”

At the center of the issue is the fact that “love”, although one of the most commonly used words, is one of the most infrequently recognized. How many times do we say, “I’d love to” or “I love…[random object or activity]”? The answer is….a lot. And yet there is an implicit difference in meaning depending upon what we are referring to. Romantic love, for example, feels and looks very different from how we may feel about, say,  pizza, despite our identical word choice in describing each. With such a discrepancy of meanings, we have no choice but to fall back on a very watered-down definition of the word, amounting to something along the lines of “to have a very strong preference for something”. In my personal opinion, I find this definition to be very shallow and it fails to capture what some people may call the “magic of falling in love”. Quite frankly, I’d be insulted if that’s all my significant other meant when he told me he loved me. I mean…wow, thanks. I prefer you too.

I know we’re never going to eradicate this loose definition from our vocabularies, but at the same time I think we need to clarify the dictionary meaning such that the emotion behind a heart-felt “I love you” can be maintained. My personal favorite definition right now is that to love is to will the good of another. I’ve been spoon-fed that definition all my life, and for good reason. I think it’s more than sufficient to describe our human relationships. When we love love someone (i.e. romantic love), we care about them, and if we care about them, we want what’s best for them. The reverse is true as well. If we want what’s best for someone, we care about them, and, therefore, it’s not a huge jump to say we love them. Under this definition we can accurately describe how we feel, not only about our significant others, but also about our friends and family. There are no romantic undertones in this definition, and yet it still does a much better job capturing the emotions felt in such a relationship than the weak definition we have now.

Lmk whatcha think!

A flower grows from beneath a blanket
Of fine and purest white
It reaches toward the sun for warmth,
For heat and for the light

My love for you grows stronger still,
Despite the surrounding cold
My heart is yours, bartered gone
For yours has it been sold

Its petals shine from morning dew
Its stem grows stiff and strong
It stands strong through the freezing cold
It stands the winter long

I long for you, for your soft touch
I miss the way you smile
The longer that we stay apart
The longer every mile[…]

when i read this poem i think about my mother. i miss my mother, and it is safe to say, i do, in fact, love my mother. it’s been quite some time since ive been home, and my mom has been the warm sun above my flower-blanket for some time.

but why do i love my mother?

she raised me, she taught me that the only bounds that i couldnt touch were the ones i thought i couldnt reach– she lead me to follow my dreams and to try things wholeheartedly, with headstrong gumption and passion. this is what im missing in my life now, here, alone. my mom is wind beneath my wings; the push to my pull. she taught me more than to be a decent human being, but also one with a passion to try new things and help those in need. and maybe, just maybe these are the reasons i love my mother. maybe it’s because she wanted me to grow, she wanted me to be all that i could, and knew; in her heart, that i could.

What is love and how do we love? These were the questions that a few Rose scholars got together last Saturday to discuss. At first, these questions seem so big that you have no idea where even to start, but Antonio, our discussion leader, kept asking us questions that led us in the right direction and that made us think. He presented to us an account of love that originally was taken from M. Scott Peck’s The Road Less Traveled, and it reads: “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.” I personally really like the idea of love being an extension of one’s own self to another person, but I think there might be some issues with this quote anyway.

First of all, I think the word purpose implies full-knowledge of what will indeed make another person grow, and I think that the word intent might be better suited as that does not imply that you have to fully understand the needs of another person in order to love them (because how do you fully understand the needs of another?). Secondly, I think the word spiritual is unnecessary as it only implies a kind of relationship with God that quite frankly I do not see as important for this discussion about love. Lastly, and most importantly, I do not really agree with the general idea that you have to make another person grow in order to be able to love them. I think all loving relationships have ups and downs, and I do not think that you necessarily stop loving someone when you are at a low point, even if it leads you to say something you later regret to that person. I do not think it is even humanly possible to ALWAYS make someone grow, and therefore this quote seems to suggest to me that the love comes and goes and that it is not a constant thing. And while I do not think that love is static, I also do not personally like to think of it as that fleeting. To me, love always seemed like the greater force behind a relationship that generally leads it on the right track, rather than a switch that is either on or off in a relationship.

This of course leads us to the question of where the limit for natural conflict in a relationship leads up to abuse of another person. We discussed this last Saturday as well and people seemed to have very differing views on the matter. I do not think there is an easy answer to this question, but I do think it is very important. I also got the feeling that the definitions of love that we looked at tried very clearly to make a boundary between abuse and love, saying that it is either or, but as my argument above suggests, I do not think it is that clear cut. Naturally, there is some limit because we can all agree on situations that are not lovable and simply abusive, but just because we cannot define that limit I do not think it is called for to mold the definition of love into one that is honestly quite hard to follow if you are human and therefore prone to ups and downs in relationships.

Last week, I was intrigued by the seminar called “How do we love?” It was definitely an interesting topic to discuss, especially for strangers to do so, since most of us didn’t know one another or were paired up with someone we didn’t know.

For me personally, I’m never one to talk about my feelings, but this seminar was all about love. It was very difficult for me to start off and express my own views, so I stuck with very generic answers to the questions, drawing from the information in the packet already. However, I was finally able to get comfortable enough to share my actual ideas and thought about love.

My ideas of love somewhat differ from most of my peers. In fact, I felt very jaded at first and doubted myself and my views. My partner was extremely nice and understanding and allowed me time to clarify and get my thoughts together so that I could articulate what I meant and sound less like a cold-hearted person.

We both came to the conclusion that “love” means so many different things; it encompasses different things or people based on each individual. Just because one defines love one way, doesn’t mean that it is wrong simply because it doesn’t align with the majority’s thoughts; it doesn’t make you jaded. In fact, we also discussed that “love” was a commonly used word, even when it other words best fit the scenario. With the common misuse/overuse of the word, I think this seminar helped to create something thought behind the word’s usage. It definitely was a good PSA and it definitely made me re-evaluate my definition of the world love and the nouns I’d use it for.

To this day, I do not have a clear definition of love.  To attribute the same meaning and value of the “love” I have for my family to the “love” I have for pizza simply does not make sense.  The different levels and complexities of love are oftentimes unclear, difficult to articulate and misinterpreted.  This past week’s event on how we love opened up a discussion on various perspectives of unconditional and conditional love; what assumptions we hold about the actions of giving and accepting love; and how these assumptions affect our daily interactions.  Through our discussion, I realized the extremely contradictory nature of love.  Firstly, it is both deeply intimate, reaching the most personal and vulnerable sides of people, and widely public.  Secondly, it captures feelings of warmth and comfort, yet it also creates fear and requires courage.  Thirdly, love has the ability to unify strangers and sustain bonds, while unrequited love is capable of tearing relationships apart.  The list could go on; however, despite all of its contradictions, love is ultimately one of the greatest intangibles.  It is a transformative experience, a personal journey, and an invaluable sacrifice to share and honor to receive.  

Last Saturday, we had a discussion on the definition of love. It started out with analyzing and commenting on pictures that showed many different types of love: familial, platonic, religious, romantic, and compassionate. We then started formulating ideas for why these things are classified under the umbrella term of love. All of them brought happiness for an extended period of time if that love was classified as conditional. However, familial love, we all agreed tended to be more unconditional; people are more forgiving of familial ties because we do not choose our family.

The more abstract part of the debate was how each of us defined love. We all agreed that love is more so an action than just a state of mind. However, after hearing everyone’s opinions on love and things concerning love, I stopped assuming everyone had the same opinions as me on what exactly love is. For example, we discussed domestic violence and crimes of passion that have been justified in the name of love. In my opinion, I did not classify these types of behavior as love because I do not believe love is selfish and controlling. But someone brought up a great point that we may not, physically abuse the people we love, but we sometimes get in fights with our loved ones and say things we do not mean. Yet these instances, a fight between a mother and daughter, “do not” change our perception of love and the nature of the relationship. We have normalized these instances because they do not involve physical harm, yet the behavior still would not be classified as “love”.

I feel we are in a constant struggle to show and receive love. And at times it can be hard to define, depending on the person and the particular relationship.

On Saturday, I attended the How Do We Love event. Led by GRF David, the event was very insightful. In particular, I liked the event because it was highly interactive and made me realize that love is a prevailing topic for everyone.

The discussion began with the group divided into pairs, and each pair completed a conversation guide. Then, we answered interpretative questions and shared our experiences as a group. One common theme that pervaded the discussion was that everyone craves love. As we looked at pictures that depicted different types of love – from familial, romantic, to spiritual, I recognized that love transcends boundaries and that despite who we are, we all want close relationships.

We all discussed the difficulty of defining ‘love.’ Echoing the work of Erich Fromm, an African-American feminist scholar bell hooks defines love as ‘the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.’ He further explains that ‘love is an act of will – namely both an intention an action.’ This statement highlighted the notion that we may not be able to control whom we love, but we can control how we act on our feelings. It deeply resonated with me because it highlighted the notion that action speaks louder than words. I looked at my own relationships and realized that there were times when I did not act on my feelings as much as I should have. Amidst prelims and other activities, I felt like I did not have a lot of free time to make plans with all of my friends.

Another topic that my group and I discussed was the difficulty that many Cornell students face in forming and maintaining close relationships. Because Cornell has competitive programs, students place high emphasis on classes, extracurricular activities, part-time jobs, etc. The student body always feels crunched for time, making it difficult for many people to establish loving relationships. The hookup culture also prevents students from finding romantic partners.

Overall, I’ve gained many insights from the conversation. It made me realize how much I truly value my relationships, and how everyone should prioritize love.

For this Saturday, I went to the How Do We Love event where we discussed just that: love. We started by reading the handout in pairs and discussing the question between ourselves, before moving to a group discussion.

I found that in the group discussion, it took a while for people to open up and be comfortable sharing. Because of this, I think it would have been more effective to spend shorter time on the individual discussion and more time on group discussion so we are able to feel more comfortable sharing in a large group setting. Because of time, it seemed as though that just when when the topic shifted to one people had something to say about, we were almost out of time.

The part of the conversation that struck out most to me then was the end of the discussion. At the end, we had to relate what we discussed to ourselves. At this point, the conversation shifted to love in the Cornell community. Many of us agreed that the atmosphere at Cornell was not a love-heavy environment for multiple reasons. First, was he focus on academics and extra-curricular activities seemed to take precedence or Cornell students (may not be the case of individual students, but for students as a whole). Thus, because relationships (platonic or romantic) obviously take time and effort, there is not any sort of focus on relationships. The second reason for the lack of love on campus is because of the hook-up culture in college. Because of the hook-up culture, while there are students who are trying to find a stable relationship, it is difficult to tell apart who wants a serious relationship versus those who do not.

This conversation definitely had me thinking about my own relations with my friend on campus and my family and whether I put in enough effort to show them I care. I am glad I went to the discussion because it was a very reflective session.

i liked this event a lot–probably more than most of the other ones i’ve been to thus far (which, to be fair, doesn’t mean a whole heck of a lot since i’ve 10/10’d every event i’ve gone to). don’t get me wrong, i think that guest speakers and trips to interesting places at cornell are really rewarding and i’m happy to have done them–i hope to do more–but i’m a big fan of the group discussions. i love that people can come together, respectfully and comfortably, and share their varying insights into something that we all experience in a unique way. i tend to learn more from doing than from listening or reading, so it’s much easier for me to engage with the topic when i’m actually encouraged to engage with the topic.

my group discussed many different types of love, such as familial, romantic, platonic, humanistic (agape) love, and spiritual. we talked about how the nebulous and far-reaching nature of the word can be a detriment to understanding, sharing, and nurturing it. we didn’t spend very long any one of them though, as the discussion progressed naturally and openly. one thing that i thought we could have spent more time on was non-heteronormative love. we didn’t spend very much time at all on the the lgbtq community or how their experiences can be compared and contrasted to those of heterosexuals. additionally, i don’t think we spent enough time addressing what expectations we have for how a person is “supposed” to love. (a man is “supposed” to be strong and independent, etc.) i understand that we had a limited time frame to work within though so i can’t really fault the event very much for these shortcomings. i think the fact i’ve focused on finding criticism of this event shows how much i enjoyed it, though. i was truly impressed with how forthcoming and friendly my fellow scholars were throughout.

i’m giving this event  10 <3s out of 10.

I’ve always felt that trying to understand love and its many mysteries is a complete waste of time because it defies reason. Now, after a great event yesterday and hearing all the interesting thoughts of my fellow scholars I learned two major things.

1. Two of the main keys to love are action and responsibility, plus an added dose of accountability for flavor.

2. Love, in all its many forms, is a double-edged sword due to the fact that one must let down all their safeguards (e.g. emotional, physical, spiritual) in order to truly love someone.

My favorite parts of the event were the excerpts from All About Love: New Visions by bell hooks and hearing my fellow scholars thoughts on love. I found that many of the people in my group had very astute observations on love, heck some of them even seemed to know enough to be experts. In the end, love is not as complicated as I thought and it seems that all of us are trying it our own way to navigate its waters.