Love and the Future of the
Family
 |
I.
What is this thing called love?
Introduction
The Myth of Romantic Love
Limerence and Love
Sternberg's Triangular Theory
Love Styles
Post a Response to Class
Summary
II. Future of
the Family - Consumers Guide to Pairing
|
Introduction
So far in this class we have been
taking a look at society from the macro-sociological
viewpoint or looking at large abstract units. For a
change of pace in this module we will look at the concept
of love (micro-sociology).
In American culture it is held that marriage should be based on
love. This is really quite remarkable when one
considers how important the institution of the family has
been for most societies.
This of course is a fairly unique
idea. If we look at families over time and across the
world we find that for most people marriage has been a
set of duties and obligations not just between two
individuals but between the families or even clans.
Marriage was thought to be far too important to leave it
up to inexperienced young people to choose mates (especially when blinded by sexual
passion).
However, we will leave the
interesting cross cultural variations of marriage for
your cultural anthropology teacher to talk about. What I
want to do here is just introduce you to some ideas that
social scientists have been kicking around lately about
the concept of love.
I will try to give you some
author's names so you can follow up these ideas if you
find them interesting.
The Myth of
Romantic Love
When two
people are under the influence of the most violent,
most insane, most delusive, and most transient of
passions, they are required to swear that they will
remain in that excited, abnormal and exhausting
condition continuously until death do them part.
George Bernard
Shaw
The view of romantic love as
portrayed in popular songs, movies, on TV, in magazines,
and in fiction goes something like this.
Love is an emotion and people fall
in love, often at first sight. Notice that the
metaphor is that we "fall" in love, not grow
into love. It is believed that one can really love only one person (my
one and only). Falling in love is portrayed as
magic, irrational, uncontrollable, that no decision is
involved, and that it is always a very highly emotionally
charged relationship.
Physical attraction is very
important (which we see over and over in advertising
where products claim to give us the necessary appearance
or smell so love can happen to us). Love is viewed as
having a very strong sexual component that is extremely
important.
There is just one perfect mate for
you, Mr. or Ms., right who will fit your idealized image.
If you really love someone everything will work out for
you (in spite of social class differences, personal
incompatibilities, family animosities, financial
hardship, etc.). Love means you will not experience
conflict with your lover, in other words you will live
happily ever after. It is extremely important to fall in
love especially for women. Love separates one from others
(you don't need other people since all one's emotional
needs become satisfied in this relationship).
And finally love can't be defined,
explained or analyzed and to try to do so is to risk
destroying it.
When people get married however,
their relationship often does not seem to match this
ideal. So they feel that maybe they weren't really in
love. For this I give you the evidence of all the love
quizzes found in women's magazines. I believe these quizzes are designed to reassure their readers that they
are in fact in love.
Now, I certainly don't want to
claim that people don't experience relationships in which
many of the factors presented above are present. What
I would like you to consider though, is whether the
characteristics of the kind of relationship listed above
would be better described as something other than love.
Limerence
Dorothy Tennov suggests we call the
"falling in love" experience limerence. She chose this word because none of other
terms like passionate love, infatuation, or romantic love
quite seemed to get it right.
Here are the characteristics of
limerence:
- You think about the limerent
object (LO for short) a
whole lot.
- There is an acute longing for
them to return your feeling
- Your mood swings high and low
based on your perception of your LO's response to
you
- May be strong shyness in LO's
presence
- Up to a point adversity makes
feelings even stronger
- A feeling of aching in the
heart region
- Buoyancy (feeling of walking
on air) when reciprocation of feeling seems
evident
- Becomes the center piece of
your life
- See only the positive
attributes of your LO
- Usually it is short term -
varies from person to person but usually it lasts
a couple of weeks to as long as a year or two
The argument is that though
limerence may lead to love it is not the same thing.
So when we experience limerence we should recognize it
for what it is and realize that we can decide to act on
it or not. But certainly it doesn't mean that we have
suddenly discovered that we really aren't in love with
our current partner and need to leave.
If love is different than limerence
what are some alternative ways to think about love?
One is
Sternberg's triangle theory of love.
The
Triangle Theory of Love
Robert Sternberg
suggests that we think about love as having three
components.
The components are Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment. Either singly or in combination this gives
us the following eight types of relationships.
In this conception of
love intimacy is defined as closeness,
sharing, communication, and support. Passion
refers mainly to physiological arousal which may be
sexual but also includes other strong romantic feelings.
This may be one reason passionate love is portrayed with
danger or hardship in the media. Commitment
is the decision to love another person.
Most of the types of relationships shown in the diagram are self explanatory.
However, fatuous love is defined as a relationship where
commitments are made quickly on the basis of passion but
where intimacy is not present. The relationship may fail
because the individuals couple really don't know each
other very well.
The inclusion of
commitment and intimacy give I think a more accurate
rendition of love than a purely passionate view of love.
Love
Styles
Finally, in the book Styles
of Loving, Marcia Lasswell and Norman Lobsenz
explore the possibility that there may be individual
variations in the way in which we experience love.
They have developed a
love style questionnaire which you may print and then
fill out..
Go
to love style questionnaire to determine your love style.
The styles they list
include:
Best Friends -
in this style of love, a friendship between the
couple grows and at some point they realize they are in
love. The relationship grows slowly over time and does
not usually have the same passionate feel to it that
romantic love does.
Unselfish
- this is a self giving love in which the good of the
lover is put ahead of one's own good. The authors find it
to be a very rare type of love but is often found in
combination with other styles.
Logical
- this is a very practical love style in which the
partner does a cost benefit analysis of the relationship
before letting him/herself fall in love. The logical
lover looks for someone who will make a good mate, either
similar to oneself or making up for one's own weaknesses.
Possessive
- needs to be close to their lover most of the time,
feels anxiety when their lover is not present, and needs
reassurance of continued love. The possessive lover Is
prone to jealousy.
Romantic
- physical attractiveness and appearance is very
important to this love style. They usually feel quick
rapport with their partner.
Game Playing -
to the game playing lover, the one should not
take love too seriously. They tend not to make deep
emotional commitments. They like to flirt but do not
necessarily take advantage of the partner, in other words
they often play fair.
It is obvious that if
there are styles of love it is important to recognize
one's own style and that of one's lover. If you and your
partner have different styles you should not expect them
to react as you do.
I think it may be that
love styles are not like personality characteristics
which are relatively permanent. Instead they may describe
different kinds of relationships that we have with
different partners or at different stages of our
development.
Discussion
Assignment Suggestion 2
This week you have read a variety in topics from reading a chapter on social
class, being introduced to symbolic interaction, and
taken a look at several ways to think about love.
Please post a response
for the class with your reactions, thoughts, or questions
to any of the topics covered this week.
Summary
of Part 1 Love
(page continues below to
Future of the Family)
We have just made a
start on the topic of love but if you are interested in
this topic you can do more reading on your own or take a
marriage and family class.
Other interesting
points of view include exchange theory
which you can read about in A New Look at Love by
Elaine Hatfield and G. William Walster
.
I also highly recommend Eric
Fromm's book
The Art of Loving. |
|
 |
 |
|
Scott Peck is also good in the
Road Less Traveled
on relationships that are
mistaken for love. |
II. The Future
of the Family
In spite of all the talk of the
break up of the family, it has had a remarkable
resilience.
If you think about the loss of
functions argument, it is amazing that the family is
still as strong as it is given the major changes that
have taken place in our society.
For example something like 90%
of the population chooses to marry. And even
after a divorce something like 80% remarry. Someone once said this
shows the triumph of hope over experience. So marriage is still is a highly valued relationship.
While some feminists have
argued that marriage is just a way to perpetuate patriarchy; other
feminists work for the legal recognition of same sex
unions.
It is also interesting to note
that everyone talks about the high rates of family
break up in our society as if it were a new
phenomenon, but it is not as new a phenomena as you
might think.
For example the in 1860
in the United States the rate of dissolution
(breakup) of marriages was 33.2 per
thousand. In 1970 it was 34.5 per thousand.
The big difference is that in 1860 the reason for the
dissolution was death and now it is divorce.
One way to think about the
future of the family is to try to think about the
choices available and then think about possibilities
within these choices. The consumers guide to pairing
may help us do this.
A
CONSUMERS GUIDE TO CONTEMPORARY PAIRING
PATTERNS INCLUDING MARRIAGE
The
following is a chart that Broderick developed in the
early 70's to try and outline the basic issues that each
couple needed to make and the possible options that
existed for each of these major issues or decisions.
Please
note that there are explanations below the chart which will clarify
some of the names of the positions which are a
bit confusing.
| Issue |
A.
|
B. |
C. |
D. |
E |
1.
Freedom from parenthood
versus
Fulfillment thru parenthood
|
Anti-natal
(Brave new world)
|
Anti-natal
(Jet set or elite) |
Time
limited parenting
|
Parenthood
as career
|
|
2.
Individual Growth versus
Mutual Aid
|
Whole
soul commitment (personal growth)
|
Mutual
enrichment
|
Strengthening
marriage
|
|
|
3.
Inclusively
versus
Exclusivity
|
Multilateral
marriage (more than one partner)
|
The
commune
|
Swingers
|
Open
marriage
(honest sex)
|
Traditional
monogamy
|
4.
Permanent Commitment
versus
Permanent Availability |
Universal
total availability
|
Tentative
commitment
(options open)
|
Time
limited commitments
|
Serial
polygamy (open ended) |
Traditional
monogamy
|
5.
Equality
versus
Complementarity
|
Radical
women's liberation
|
Cake
eaters
(women's choice) |
Complementary
|
|
|
6.
Can you think
of other issues that Broderick has left out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
From Carlfred Broderick
- Whose own views are reflected in his selection for
the best buy which are listed below.
BEST BUY:
Permanent
Monogamous
Mutual support,
Parenthood
Cake eating or complementarity.
Although some customers may
be happy to pay extra for some of the special
models, years of laboratory testing indicate that
the model with the lowest maintenance costs and
sturdiest performance is the traditional
marriage.
Table Notes
Notes: Each of the
following explanations for the terms used in the chart
above are referenced by row and column number.
1. A - Anti-natal (Brave
New World version)
In the novel "Brave
New World" all children were produced
in test tubes and then raised by the state and taken
care of by early childhood specialists to prevent
their maladjustment by the inexperienced parents.
Some children with lower IQ's were produced for the
low skill jobs so their intelligence would match the
demands of low skill jobs, so they would be happy in
these jobs. This also freed up adults from the
responsibility of caring for children and separated
sex from reproduction.
This is a societal decision not an individual
choice.
The closest actual society to approximate these
conditions in modern times were some of the early
Israeli socialist Kibbutz's. In their social
arrangements, children lived together and were cared
for communally. Children could spend time with their
parents at various times on the week end.
1. B - Anti-natal (Jet Set
or Elite Version)
This is not a societal choice
but an individual couple's choice and may be chosen
because the family does not want to be burdened by
child care responsibilities. Or may be made as a
choice to enable the couple to have a higher standard
of living or two careers.
1. C - Time limited
parenting
Couples decide to raise a
family and then once the kids leave join the Jet Set
option listed above.
2. A - Whole soul
commitment
While this sounds like the
traditional view of marriage in fact it is not.
Broderick uses this tem for people who are committed
to individual personal growth as their primary goal
in life. If the relationship is helping them achieve
this then they stay in the relationship if not it is
time to leave it.
I believe that Broderick was
living in California during the 1960's and 1970's and
personal growth may have been a cultural value which
was far more prevalent then and there than it is here
and now.
2. B - Mutual enrichment
Partners are committed to
working on their own personal development to and do
things to improve themselves and their relationship.
Couples do marriage enrichment weekends, read books
on sexual technique, how to communicate in marriage,
and conflict management skills.
3. C - Strengthening
marriage
This is this traditional
position idealized by our culture but in which both
partners are willing to sacrifice for the
good of the relationship, whereas sometimes just
women who sacrificed for the relationship. Very
nicely stated I think by Joseph Campbell as follows:
"You see, the whole thing
in marriage is the relationship and yielding -
knowing the functions, knowing that each is playing a
role in an organism. One of the things I have
realized - is that marriage is not a love
affair. A love affair has to do with
immediate personal satisfaction. But marriage
is an ordeal; it means yielding, time and
again. That's why it's a sacrament: you give up your
personal simplicity to participate in a relationship.
And when you're giving, you're not giving to the
other person: you are giving to the relationship. And
if you realize that you are in the relationship just
as another person is, then it becomes life building.
A life fostering and enriching experience, not an
impoverishment because you're giving to somebody
else. Do you know what I mean?"
From Joseph
Campbell - An Open Life
3. B - The commune
The is a slightly misleading
heading since communes (in the 1960's) in fact had
many different patterns of family life. They ranged
from celibacy at some religious based communes to the
acceptance of almost any consensual sexual
relationships in other communes.
3. C - Swingers
Swingers as it was used at this
time in history meant couples who took a recreational
view of sex. There were swingers clubs. The rules of
the swingers clubs were designed to protect the
marriages of the couples involved by trying to
prevent the establishment of psychological intimacy
while permitting sexual intimacy. As you may imagine,
in many cases the men in the couples often were more
interested in joining the swingers clubs and had to
convince their wives to join.
3. D - Open Marriage
This point of view argued that
a good marriage couldn't satisfy all the emotional
and sexual needs of the partners. It permitted the
partners of the marriage to engage in sexual and
personal relationships which were discussed openly
between the husband and wife. While this personal
choice has sometimes been practiced among people in
the art community, the feelings of jealousy and the
possibilities of exploitation in relationships has
made if difficult to sustain in our culture.
5. A., B., and C.
This issue is related to the
division of labor within the couple's relationship.
Ranging from no division of tasks based on sex alone
to the traditional role complementarity which argued
that the traditional division of labor played to the
skills and characteristics which were based on
biological differences between the sexes.
6. Can you
think of other issues that Broderick has left out?
Here are two other issues which
I include to make this chart match my
experience and the experience of friends and family
members I have observed.
The first is Socializing
as a Couple versus Socializing as Individuals.
Some couples encourage and feel very comfortable
splitting up to go to parties, for example the other
partner doesn't feel obliged go to work parties of
the partner. He has his group of friends, she has
hers. Other couples seem to feel comfortable only
operating socially as a couple.
The second the question is how
to spend discretionary income. How does the
couple spend money beyond the necessities of life? Is
it on buy modern appliances or saving for a camper?
Is it saving for a rainy day or taking a fun vacation
skiing? Or is it given to the church? I'm not sure
that we could come up with nice neat choices on this
issue but I think that it is an important issue. This is
probably a values or lifestyle issue.
What do you think? Can you
think of other important issues?
It seems to me that this table
offers a useful framework for conversation between couples
who thinking about marriage.
The reason that such a conversation is
important is that sociologists argue that one of the components of a
successful marriage is that the couple shares
expectations about the important aspects of their
relationship, regardless what those expectations are.
Summary Future of
the Family