When someone has the feeling of being in love, it often manifests as a hunger, an intense desire to be with the object of his affections. However, this feeling is shallow, regardless of what outlandish actions may be taken to prove this “love” to the crush. That is not to say that such action is meaningless or without place, but taken alone this mere emotional affection is borne out of a basal desire inherent in every human being, and thus not yielded by higher thought or understanding. When one desires one’s own welfare, it is said that he is sane; when he desires his welfare at the expense of others, we say he is selfish. Without realization, without conscious recognition in fact, many are selfish in their approach to romantic relationships. This unconscious sentiment is expressed in the subtleties of desire and the conscious mental processes that are demonstrated in romantic relationships. Without realizing, an individual may think, “I want to do this with…” or, “I like to do this…” in a manner that does not concern what his partner may need or want. The end goal is his own well-being. A study from the University of Pittsburg in Pennsylvania investigated the dynamics of internet dating and concluded that those who pursued relationships in this manner primarily sought after, “companionship, comfort after a life crisis, control over presentation of themselves and their environments, freedom from commitment and stereotypic roles, adventure, and romantic fantasy” (Lawson and Leck 189).
This self-centered approach has permeated the foundations of romantic interpersonal interaction in our culture. The concept of romantic love has been distorted by both secularism and legalism, and is in need of revision in both the general society and the Christian subculture.
Intimate relationships are not built on the truth and nothing but the truth. Most individuals (92%) admit having lied to a romantic partner....or can recall an occasion where they were not completely honest...Adding insult to injury, lovers apparently reserve their most serious lies for each other (Cole).
This inadvertent preference for reception has twisted the operational definition of love in society to entail being in love means the satisfaction of one’s own needs first. This deviation of love can be termed idealistic, as the ideal that people strive towards is their own satisfaction. True romantic love, on the other hand, is not based primarily on self-satisfaction, nor on sacrificial preparedness, but upon the two in elegant harmony. A piano selection played only with one hand may have beauty alone, but when both hands play to complement one another, the result is far more pleasant. Similarly, the fullest harmony of love arises from the complementary balance of one’s own desire for companionship with self-sacrificial preparedness. This is not to say that the balance must be even; indeed, one can be dominant, in the same way that the right hand may carry a melody in the harmony of piano music. However, self-satisfaction cannot be allowed to take the melody of love’s harmony. When the desire to be satisfied with romantic companionship overtakes self-sacrificial interest, the love is immature and out of balance.
The scale of desire is fixed; the wish for another’s well-being can hold greater weight than that of self-satisfaction without net negative consequence, but the reverse is not true (Stanton). The difficulty that rests unnoticed in our culture is the false association that has been made between the two as identical. The idealistic love that only satisfies oneself has been identified with true romantic love that fills both individuals equally.
The movement toward this idea has been gradual. Earlier in history, the concept of satisfying either desire was not considered as valuable, opting instead for marriages dictated by tradition or social need. A specific year or even decade where the main change began is impossible to say, but certainly by the Victorian era, the concept of romantic love had made significant inroads in social acceptability. From there onward, the desire to satisfy one’s own needs before those of the other were nurtured by the lack of proper education in such matters and the associations drawn between satisfied characters in works both fictional and related. In the Christian subculture, this change was more gradual as sacrificial love is inherently recognized as valuable. However, while the idealistic concept of love is not embraced by the Christian faith, the Christian subculture has inadvertently enveloped this idea within other tenets of its existence, such as the emphasis on connection between oneself and others. The simple phrasing of the statement, “oneself and others” takes the emphasis off of unity, and instead on a form of centralism. The concept of self-satisfaction has leaked into romantic perceptions of love in the Christian subculture, particularly seen in the dogmatic approach which many have to sexual purity. Young women in particular are ascribed a lesser value after having engaged in premarital sexual activities. This approach is in direct contrast to the core tenets of the faith, as it denies that each person has inherent unchanging worth regardless of sinful action. This dissonance between culturally imposed definitions of romantic love and the Christian faith persists, in spite of the fundamental conflicts it presents.
One may well ask from whence this misperception of romantic love arose. As stated earlier, there is little method for determining the exact source, although some influential encouragements for the ideas can be identified. The first would be the misinterpretation of classical literature. The development of society’s acceptance of romantic love was moved forward by the appreciation of romantic themes in classical texts. Unfortunately, this has come at the expense of the deeper themes in that literature. Pride and Prejudice is often reputed as a great love story, which it is, but rarely is it described as an examination of the nature of irony and honesty in interpersonal interaction. Similarly, Romeo and Juliet addressed greater issues than what many consider the beauty of romantic love; Shakespeare endeavored to show the danger of hatred and holding a grudge, and the foolishness that young “love” can exhibit. Ironically, his interest in the latter theme has been largely absent in the general perception of his work.
The misinterpretation of these major pieces has led to the creation of other works that carry a distorted concept of love. This has inevitably perpetuated a faulty paradigm through the exposition of these new texts in society. Perhaps even more influential is the impact of electronic media. Television has been criticized for its sappy portrayal of romantic relationships, though the fact that it still has extensive viewership shows that it still has significant impact. In an article entitled “Television and the American Imagination: Notions of Romance,” Stephen J. Toner states,
Television does more than provide us with a steady stream of information and entertainment; it takes an active role in shaping our daily schedules, influencing our decisions, and shaping our imagination...The viewer actually allows himself to become an active participant in the shows action (Toner 10).
The internet relations craze has also been indicative of this misperception of love. In the Pittsburg study mentioned above, respondents indicated their disgust with internet chat rooms. Lisa, age forty-one, stated,
I don’t use chat rooms much anymore. They are filled with a vast bastion of people looking for absolutely nothing. They are “players.” They are talking to you while having cybersex with someone else and talking with a third person in another room at the same time. If you get serious, they don’t like it. They use romance and dating rooms, sex cams, interest and game rooms, and they chat on the side at the same time (Lawson and Leck 202).
These hedonistic interests help to illustrate the motivations behind many romantic action in the twenty-first century. While these flagrant statements and actions online may never be visible in the physical world, they are manifested unconsciously through the decisions such individuals make. These electronically mediated ideas had encouraged and supported the misperception of romantic love as a love that is ultimately for the personal benefit of the self.
Of course, one could reasonably argue that this author is expressing the idea that the desire for self-satisfaction in romantic relationships is inherently wrong, both morally and socially. However, it is the estimation of this author and others that each man has inherent human needs, and that these needs are not merely physical, but emotional as well. In the same way that a man needs material substance for his physical health, so does he need human connection in order to retain his sanity and emotional health. Further, the need to be loved and nurtured does not preclude the dismissal of concern for another above oneself. The two can coexist in balance, again, albeit a balance weighted in favor of sacrificial interest. Conversely, the concern for another does not preclude the dismissal of one’s own need to be nurtured and loved. While one may have more weight in order for emotional health to exist, there must exist a balance wherein the need for love is satisfied as well. The only conflict arises when that need is held in greater value than the other (Stanton).
The perception that society, and by consequence the Christian subculture, has of romantic love is unhealthy, promoting emotional shallowness and the flagrant abuse of others as objects of satisfaction. It has inflated the desire to be loved and nurtured beyond its proper place, and thus should be reformed. C.S. Lewis explained the nature of excessive desire in the context of sexual interest:
One man may eat enough for two, but he does not eat enough for ten. The appetite goes a little beyond its biological purpose, but not enormously. But if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily populate a small village. This appetite is in ludicrous and preposterous excess of its function (Lewis).
The distinct nature of love’s aspects, e.g. the need for connection and the desire for the well-being of another, must be re-emphasized. A sacrificial interest in the life of others must be cultured into a genuine concern, and the excessive desire for satisfaction diminished. The Christian community in particular must pay careful attention to this issue, as it directly affects their witness to unreached people and their approach to sin. The incipient danger that the secular perception of love holds for the Christian faith must be recognized, and the subculture must respond in kind.
Love is beautiful. All know this to be true. However, the reason it is beautiful is not merely because it satisfies an intrinsic human need for connection, but also the symmetry that it holds in the desire to satisfy others. Love is patient, love is kind. Love does not desire for itself. It is selfless and upstanding, endeavoring ever to bring about the best for another, even at the expense of the self.
Works Cited:
Cole, Tim. "Lying to the One you Love: The Use of
Deception in Romantic Relationships." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
18.1 (2001): 107-129. Print.
Lawson, Helene M. and Kira Leck. "Dynamics of
Internet Dating." Social Science Computer Review 24.2 (2006):
189-208. Print.
Lewis, Clive Staples. "Sexual Morality." Mere
Christianity. Geoffrey Bles, 1952. Print.
Stanton, Elizabeth. Romantic Love: Motivations and
Dynamics Kyle Neuenschwander. Santee, 29 April 2014. Personal Interview.
Toner, Stephen J. "Television and the American
Imagination: Notions of Romance." Journal of Popular Culture 22.3
(1988): 1-13. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment