Love is difficult to define as a concept; it carries philosophical, social, cultural, political, biological and even spiritual meanings to many people for many different reasons. However, despite the differences in culture and attitude, love is an enduring concept that is found in most, if not all, modern cultures. As people, we are bound to others in a need for connection and bonding, but what fuels that connection? Is the thing that powers our need to love the same as mental illness? Is it a biological imperative or a social one, and is it healthy either way? It is my belief that love is a combination of the two – a biological imperative that is shaped and molded by our cultural and social influences. Three issues arise within this definition: the biological, sexual need to procreate; the difficulties of marriage and lifelong bonding, and the choice to absolve oneself of love and marriage.
First, within this definition of love, there is the acknowledgement that this is a biological need. As living creatures, we feel the need to pass on our DNA, and so there is substantial evidence to support the fact that we have an imperative to procreate. Love, then, is the byproduct, the impetus for us to procreate – for non-sentient mammals, it is most likely caused by innate sexual pleasure alone, but there is also a psychological component for sentient beings that involves love and attachment. Fisher notes that there are many biological components to this psychological need as well; among these are timing, proximity and mystery. With timing, one finds the person one loves by pure chance; the circumstances around your meeting have everything to do with how you feel about that person. Fisher relates this to elevated levels of dopamine, with certain circumstances and states of mind being more conducive to falling in love than others (Fisher, 2004). Timing is a huge component of determining this biological prompting to couple: “We grow up in a sea of moments that slowly sculpt our romantic choices. Your mother’s wit and way with words; your sister’s interest in training dogs; how people in your household use silence, express intimacy and anger; how those around you handle money” (Fisher 389). These are psychological and biological markers that create the perfect situation for us to fall in love.
With all of these biological and psychological components, where does the issue of choice come in? As self-aware creatures, we have the ability to act on our impulses if we like. What then, drives us to make the choice to love, other than that it feels good? In addition to our biological impulses, we also get messages from society and culture to procreate and couple – one of these is the societal institution of marriage. While partner groups are also found in nature, in human society it is extremely regimented and ingrained in our psyche; quite a few people find marriage to be a fundamental life goal. However, marriage itself is not easy, and our self-aware natures make us selfish, thus making the act of love much more difficult to reconcile with our own humanity. As humans, aware of our mortality, we become more and more concerned with making the right choice and self-examining; as a result, marriage can seem somewhat difficult. "Getting married is a little like sticking your feet in cement: it feels sublimely gooey and sensual now, but you know that it's going to feel constricting in time - stabilizing, yes, but dangerouslywellpermanent” (Fremont 157). According to Fremont, the institution of marriage as a human societal construct can also frame love as making a choice to avoid difficulty: “our marriage is based on a fundamental, irrefutable fact: neither of us can bear the trauma of dating We are bound to each other because neither of us has the courage to start over again” (Fremont 156). With that in mind, love is not just a biological measure, but a societal one; society encourages us to form lifelong pairs even though it is occasionally inconvenient, because the stress of dating and the fear of being alone outweigh these occasional difficulties.
The third issue, then, is this: with the biological need for love, and the societal need to commit, what is changing lately to make humans so commitment-phobic? According to Watters, it is because modern society is changing to the point where our lifestyles don’t require us to simply jump into commitment to make sure we do not feel alone. Much of this has to do with the expectation built up in society of the fairytale love life, scaring young people into having overly high standards: “I wasn't just looking for an appropriate spouse. To use the language of the Rutgers researchers, I was 'soul-mate searching'” (Watters, 2001). Another component could be the changing of societal norms to delay marriage in favor of socially-acceptable bachelor life, as well as the forming of loose social friend groups to fulfill those needs to belong and feel loved: “One day I discovered that the transition period I thought I was living wasn't a transition period at all. Something real and important had grown there. I belonged to an urban tribe” (Watters, 2001). In essence, human society has changed to the point where romantic love that is lifelong is equal parts too idealized to find easily and too quickly replaced by tightly-knit platonic tribes.
In conclusion, there are three components to the already-complex definition of love: the biological, the social, and the tribal. Love, at its most basic level, is a series of biological and psychological responses that trigger us to procreate in order to advance our genes to the next generation. However, due to our status as sentient, self-aware beings, we frame this need in societal constructs like love, lust and marriage; our desire to fulfill these needs overrides any momentary comforts we tend to experience along the way. However, modern societal norms are changing to the point where people are starting to delay that search in favor of staying committed to a loose group of friends. This tribe tends to fulfill the emotional needs of belonging and affection for today’s city-dwelling, fast-paced lives, while marriage is delayed for a more convenient time (presumably one with fewer conflicts and a more idealized image of who to love). Given these changes in the nature of love, it is not hard to see just how complex and difficult it can be to find and keep in one’s life, especially as societal expectations and outcomes make it less necessary or important for human beings.
Fisher, Helen. “That First Fine Careless Rapture” Who We Choose.” Why We Love: The Nature
and Chemistry of Romantic Love.
Fremont, Helen. First Person Plural.
Watters, Ethan. “The Way We Live Now: In My Tribe.” New York Times. Oct 14., 2001.