The time of the year has come again…we love it or we love to hate it! Valentine's Day has become so commercialised and so "in your face" for those who are not in a loving relationship.
What is love?
My emphasis today is not on an "ooey, gooey, what we see on TV" kind of love. It is a search for that elusive love from the standpoint of "I've been hurt so much", how will I even recognise love when it comes along?"
Albert Einstein asked, "How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?"
Why are we drawn to certain people and not others? What makes us fall in love and stay in love? Poets delve into the mystery of love with beautiful sonnets, musicians seek to capture its subtle essence in song and many others feel that their love is divinely inspired.
But at ground level here are some psychological facts to begin our research:
Men in love are extremely visual beasts.
The brains of men in love show greater activity in the visual cortex than women’s brains. Add this to the fact that men seem to be more visually stimulated than women in general.
Women in love remember the details.
The brains of women in love show greater activity in the hippocampus—a brain region associated with memory—than do men’s brains. Women remember everything.
(David DiSalvo)
How is that helpful in identifying love?
My hero in this field is Robert Sternberg.
Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love (2004) notes that the 3 components of love are Intimacy, Passion and Commitment. The relative emphasis of each component on love changes over time as an adult romantic relationship develops.
Intimacy – The friendship or specialness of the relationship. The feelings of closeness, bondedness, connectedness, trust and friendship in the relationship.
Passion – The excitement or energy of the relationship. The feelings of physical attraction, romance, and arousal (particularly sexual arousal) in the relationship.
Commitment – The “business aspect” of the relationship. This includes all the shared investments or the “history,” of the relationship, such as decisions, experiences and adjustments.
From these 3 components we can pinpoint a combination of 8 types of love.
1. “Liking" ~ Intimacy Only (No Passion or Commitment) – Can be summed up as having intimacy with one another, feeling close & trusting one another.
2. “Infatuated love" ~ Passion Only (No Intimacy or Commitment) – This tends to be a superficial relationship that is one-sided, where the couple are temporarily ga-ga over one another. In Hollywood, this is known as a “whirlwind romance.”
3. “Empty Love” ~ Commitment Only (No Passion or Intimacy) – This is most often an older relationship where the passion and intimacy have died…like “falling out of love.”
4. “Romantic Love” ~ Intimacy & Passion (No Commitment) – This can be a blossoming relationship where the couple feel like best friends (“friends with benefits”). As experiences grow with one another, this type of love may develop Commitment.
5. “Companionate Love” ~ Intimacy & Commitment (No Passion) – Again, this usually occurs in older relationships where the couple remain best friends, but no longer feel passion for one another. This type of love can still be very satisfying and long-lasting.
6. “Fatuous Love” ~ Passion & Commitment (No Intimacy) – This is a feeling of love because the couple wants to be in love…but they really have little in common.
7. “Non-Love” ~ All Sides Absent (No Passion, Intimacy or Commitment) – Basically, this type of relationship is of just an acquaintance.
8. “Complete or Consummate Love” ~ (All Sides Present) – The best of all types, the “ideal relationship,” that all couples would like to achieve.
(Dr David S Kantra)
Don't you just love this theory, it gives us space to work out just what we have in a love relationship and identify what we don't want!
Let's go out seeking love with our minds as well as our hearts so that we can make an exciting as well as a "forever" choice.
Resource:
Sternberg, R. J. (1986) A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.
No comments:
Post a Comment