It is not out of pure chance that Gabriel Garcia Marquez chose to entitle a book Of Love & Other Demons. Equipped with such a vestigial reminder of how we explained strange phenomena – demons, witches, ghosts – it is no wonder that such mystery continues to enshroud this notion of love. Put simply, one of the most bizarre things we as humans do is fall in love. I find it petty, pointless and ultimately sanctimonious, lacking the depth, beauty and fulfilment that underpin none-romantic relationships.
Many are the forms of “love”, all petals from the same poison plant. We must choose our poison and not dim our sights when disappointment looms. Signing up for life, says AC Grayling, is signing up for disappointment. Things, people and activities will wither and die; transformation will grab hold of our reality and shake it till everything in our tiny box of “truth” is upset, dishevelled and chaotic; and yet we must grab onto something. Love, or eros, is said by Freudians to be part of the driving force for all activities. In a sense this is true, but still the classification of love is important.
At the highest is what we maintain with life-long companions, who change and grow with us like a tree’s refection in a pond. At its lowest and most parochial is the romantic love. It is no secret that Greeks viewed love with women as lower to that of loving a pretty, young boy: who you schooled, taught and so on, to be a good citizen. The rational is what mattered to them and the constant flow of ideas in the agora (the market place of ideas and discussions) laid open the path to a better life (of course it is now irrational to think of the “better” sex as unequal to men). It was not the purely quivering emotional repository of barbarism – latent, it is true, within all of us – mixing with the poison of emotional love, which opened up doorways of reason. It was logic, rationality and knowledge. True – this is not a time we wish for, not an Atlantis of good thought, but certainly one we openly learn from. And what we learnt – but somehow forgot – is that romantic love is not necessarily “good” love.
I have the weight of literature, art and music standing before me. But truly I see no reason why romantic love is upheld or seen as “good”. It baffles us social scientists how love continues. In biological terms, it makes sense: We have short lives, raising a child is difficult. If two people try the best they can, with each other, investing time and money, a good healthy child can be produced. Both parties invest and because of this people like Robert Frank have looked at love in economic terms.
Consider: if you settle for the best you can get, (rationally) you should leave your partner as soon as Mr or Mrs Right is spotted. He or she should not expect to be permanent in your life, unless he or she is – in your eyes – 10 out of 10. However, since we are fallible, this is not possible. So, according to Frank, this paradoxically means we should never allow ourselves to think we are going to remain with anyone. The statistics show that you are almost guaranteed to meet someone who is “better” looking, better catered to your personality, and so on, whilst you are involved in a relationship.
People like Helen Fisher and others have also tried to understand love. Steven Pinker provides the answer: “Don’t accept a partner who wanted you for rational reasons to begin with: look for a partner who is willing to stay with you because you are you.” He goes on to quote Douglas Yates, who no doubt is voicing most readers opinions about me: “People who are sensible about love are incapable of it.”
But that’s just romantic love! And that’s my problem. I do not see why we need romantic love because I think we still need to defend our own existence. If the answer to being romantic and so on is that we must procreate – a crass and unhelpful answer – we must answer what gives us the right to breed? What gives us the arrogant notion that we should foster offspring on to an already tired world? If, however, the answer is that it leads to a fulfilled life, I would tentatively agree. However, my problem is not with romantic love as a whole but the continual search, media-hype and glamorising of love; the horrible genre of “romance” in film and books (I refuse to call it literature); the investment and intense emotions felt by friends and others who give themselves wholly to the search or capture of The One.
Truly, experiencing romantic love one, twice or thrice is important. But why continue? Why should we foster the notion that romantic love is somehow a good thing? In what sense is it more fulfilling than other important endeavours? I will not accept that romantic love is emotional and therefore defeats my rationalist approach – that’s a defeatist and avoidant response. And I also respect the private actions of sensible human beings: I do not plan on stopping people holding hands, kissing and so on (as much as it personally disgusts me). That is not my point. I am merely attempting to understand why romantic love has gone under the radar, has become accepted as somehow “good”, and beyond the rationalist approach.
I am not speaking, of course, of the love for friends, family and perhaps ideas and opinions. It is only the people I would die for, of course. I would die for them because of my “love” for them. But that is the “good” love, which is the love we should be celebrating. The romantic love is frail, pathetic and rather mundane compared to the beauty and fulfilment derived from life-long companions and family. I think the corollary is true: Those who love purely because of emotions must be avoided. We can usually say exactly why we love someone and for that reason it is better. But for ideals or ideas or nations or religions: Dying for them, or justifying them emotionally, is pure idiocy. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - “sweet and fitting it is to die for one’s country” – wrote Horace. I do not think so. My love for my country does not extend to my life, or encompass that short, frail thing in a grip of power.
I am not denying my own emotions: Indeed, I know about love and have fallen in love numerous times. Yet, the reciprocity is the key and is hardly ever turned to open the door of companionship. So, I fight off the emotions because the puerile, pestilential notion of romantic love is an insult to human sensibilities. The genre of romance is quite weak, using only two or three or four people’s smitten emotions with each other to drive the story. I am not a fan of movies but I have noticed the same trend with romance movies. Why is romance a good thing? What on earth is convincing people of this awful “fact” when in truth, love is so much more grand than the insult called “romance”.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Tauriq Moosa
- Within Liberty
- Our Generation Must Make Greater Strides
- What I Believe for the 21st Century – Tauriq Moosa
- Who Cares About the Stripper? – In honour of America’s 4th of July
- The Incoherent Spheres, or the Need to Be Understood
- Rise, Reason, Rise
- In Defence of Johann Hari
- No More Labels
- Anti-theist at a Christian Wedding
- What Are You Willing to Die For?
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
Wonderful post, Tauriq. Ironically, I found it poetic.
Romance is a curious thing. Falling in love is definitely human and we are the only species that puts so much emphasis on it. You made me think about monogamy because it seems like it’s also a uniquely human characteristic. We certainly don’t place the same exclusivity on other loving relationships (friendship, family, etc.) as we do on romantic ones.
So looking forward to your next post.
Thanks! Similarly to the religious notion of beauty, it need not involve romance to be poetic. It is truly a bizarrely human trait. And considering I wrote this at 4 AM, i think i should invest in sleep and judge then…
Prior to the last hundred years or so, ‘romantic love’ was considered a vice, in the ‘courtly love’ tradition, and all the way back to the greeks, it was viewed as an affliction, or an imbalance of the humors. Romantic love rarely lasts and therefore can be disruptive to family and by extension society so it was considered inferior. And this was in a time when family was still the center of most people’s worlds, and people didn’t travel much.
Recently though, with the alienation of the family, due to the industrial revolution; the ‘live for today’, individualist ethic; and the relative ease of meeting new people provided by mass societies and global travel, short term personal satisfaction now wins out against long term ‘family values’.
One can survive without the support of one’s family, one can meet different ‘possibly better’ people every single day. This means we can indeed focus on finding the perfect person, the person who will give us never ending happiness. Romantic love can be the most intense and pleasurable thing that an ‘individual’ can experience, apart from drugs and such.
Unfortunately history, and biology shows us that this feeling generally doesn’t last. The effect of drugs and alcohol don’t last either, but ….
But we still crave it, and this is reinforced by advertisers who want to sell us their products. So they sell the myth that romantic love CAN last forever, and then by linking this to their products, they get us to buy what they are selling.
[...] Tariq Moosa of The Edger considers the value of romance from a rational standpoint. I have some questions on this, and will get back to the topic soon. [...]
Absolutely – You have taken my thoughts further. Though I think you’re pretty much saying the same thing I did.
On the other hand, I still take romantic love, when its offered… just like beer.
Haha – nice. I’d buy you a beer simply for your honesty.
Monogamy is definitely not uniquely human. Gibbons, siamangs (lesser apes) and certain species of birds are far better at monogamy than humans, who for most our our pre-history and ancient history, were not monogamous.
Tauriq- this was very well written and well thought-out, but I disagree with you on several key points. Some of us science-types have this tendency to believe in some “rational” ideal that any good neurologist would immediately laugh at. Our learning process is tied to emotion. Without emotion, none of us would have any reason for getting up in the morning. I don’t think romantic love should be confusing to social scientists or even natural scientists, and I don’t think it always will be. The point I am trying to make is that yes, being rational is a good thing, but not the exclusion of being human. These emotions that you say disturb you are disturbing, but sometimes human beings have to be disturbed. Sometimes human beings have to be confused, because there’s no rational way of dealing with a particular stimulus.
It seems irrational to deny that instinct plays a major role in human social interaction- we’re never perfectly reasonable in all our interactions with others. There are many times when we should guard against our more primitive instincts. I don’t think romantic love is a good example of something to guard against. First, I think it doesn’t have to be 100% functional in order for a scientific explanation to apply. I think there is a neurological basis to romantic love. Yes, I hate those trashy novels and like you, cannot call the genre “literature,” but you are confusing bad writing with legitimate feelings. These feelings happen because our brains let it happen. There’s no evolutionary safeguard against falling in love. I don’t see how it’s possible to compare romantic love to patriotic commitment or religious zealotry. Romantic love has surely been responsible for far less death, enslavement, and torture than God or State. Furthermore, you say that in romantic love, the door for companionship (I assume you mean life-long) isn’t opened enough. You say reciprocity is the key. So we have this search going on for companionship, I agree to that. Most of us want it, some don’t. Reciprocity is rare. But why should that stop us from looking for it?
I like excitement. I like changes. So in some sense, I like when the boundaries of my rationalism are challenged and I am forced to adapt. I think where we disagree most is on your contention that romantic love has slipped “under the radar”:
You say “And I also respect the private actions of sensible human beings: I do not plan on stopping people holding hands, kissing and so on (as much as it personally disgusts me). That is not my point. I am merely attempting to understand why romantic love has gone under the radar, has become accepted as somehow “good”, and beyond the rationalist approach.”
First, I’m glad you respect the private actions of sensible human beings. We should all try to do that until those actions directly conflict with our own freedoms, at which point they are no longer “private.” I think the notion that romantic love is somehow anti-rationalistic is a holdover from otherwise discredited classical philosophy- the kind of philosophy that knew next to nothing about the human brain short of poetics and rhetoric. I would like to think that in the modern age, romantic love is no more alien to the sciences than groupthink, the prisoner’s dilemma, or child-rearing practices. However, even if romantic love does prove alien to scientific methods of attaining truth, I think it is irrational to ignore that it exists, that it is a thing as “real” as any of our other, perhaps more readily understandable emotions.
Nice post tauriq, very well written as usual.
Just to point something out, a technicality perhaps, I don’t think love is an emotion, but rather a mixture of emotions. Maybe that can explain why it has slipped “under the radar”. Love is not uniquely a human quality I think. If we agree that it is a neurological expression, then we can call those life-long bonds, and fights to the death in Albatrosses and Elephant seals also love. Several Bower birds present their lover with flowers and berries, just like we do too. The only difference between us and them, is that we have eminent people like Marquez writing about it. I can’t wait to hear the thoughts of the Bower bird equivalent of Marquez .
For some reason, your post reminded of that poem by Kunitz – ‘Touch me’.
“what makes the engine go?
desire, desire, desire.”
I agree in many ways.
Have you read “Against Love” by Laura Kipnis? A fantastic book.
What is missing from this analysis is that we seem to be hard-wired for romance. Take any hard-headed rationalist and provide him/her with an idealized companion to fall in love with, and the allure will break them down, as sure as a tsunami lays waste to a coastal town. Fight it all you want–the longer it’s been since you’ve experienced real love, the more total and hopeless the surrender will be.
Is it a good thing? Are the sun, the wind, and the rain a good thing? Depends on where you are, how you’re dressed and what you’re trying to accomplish.
Love does not ask permission of reason. It is a force of nature. It can be avoided with constant vigilance and great effort, but not controlled once felt.
Thank you for the comment. I agree that we are “hardwired”, indeed I was thinking of writing a follow up to this article considering the responses all about it. But more importantly, being hard-wired doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t make it good. It simply means it was useful to make the vessells for the genes alive, well and able to survive. It brought about more offspring, etc. That doesn’t make it good – which is essentially my point.
And I also agree that we are slaves to it. Many is the time where the emotional connection will strike like a mallet against hot iron; bending my “iron heart” to its will. Nevertheless, it still does not make it a good thing. That is essentially my point. Thank you so much for the book recommendation. I will definitely investigate.
See, that’s my point, too. Do we call the actions and behaviour of a mother-whale to a baby-whale love? Do we call the donations of gifts to Bower birds affection, romance, etc.? Perhaps – but we can say safely what it is for, why it is happening: For breeding and copulation. This obviously is the fertile ground from where romance bears fruit. But biology does not necessitate ethical or moral outlooks or actions.
Indeed, to paraphrase Paine, not thinking a thing wrong ends up making it appear right. And when it is criticised one is often lauded with a defence to custom. And this appears to be the case. I do not dismiss love on the companionship level and what have you, my only gripe is with romance, specifically in the media, fiction and the mundane effect exacted in everyday life.
And also, I do not know exactly what love is but I do think the fluctuation of emotions, rather than a just a “mix”, is what describes it.
Thank you for your kind comment and compliment! Always greatly appreciated.
Okay. I think I see your point now more clearly. No, biology does not necessitate morals or ethics. You are correct. But neither does God (obviously, you agree). I would say these things are human-generated. They come about through a complex social process, and that social process (enculturation, or transculturation in the globalized era) is, I would argue, a natural process for human beings. Natural doesn’t necessarily mean “shared by all species.” Furthermore, I would argue that
I totally understand what you meant by your post now: TV, movies and books warp our ideas, creating preconceptions prone to being smashed. It’s similar to the original countercultural critique of the nuclear family as an ideal of domestic bliss that in reality, no one lived up too. As such, it was a kind of sublimation, a new religion, an ideal to be worshipped and emulated, only the emulation could never be perfected. Ironically, divorce rates in the United States really haven’t changed much since the fifties and sixties: but media attention to divorce has, creating the perception of divorce as a late 20th century (80’s, 90’s) social issue.
I got it now. My personal answer: F*** emulation and live (sorry for the censorship, trying to be a good boy, here) without media guides. I see now that you’re not suggesting romance in itself is a bad thing, but yeah, trying to live up to Lifetime Movie standards=designated failure. I’m down with that.
Tauriq,
You might enjoy a post I did a couple years ago for Valentine’s Day.
“Love is not Enough”
http://www.blacksunjournal.com/psychology/326_love-is-not-enough_2007.html