Attraction and Love

Many of us have felt powerfully attracted to and in "love" with somebody more than once in our lives. To make sense of the raw emotion experienced during such times, we invariably turn to culturally-mediated constructs—love at first sight, true love, Christian love, etc. Sociologists in turn try to make sense of each amid love and attraction's unique features, and shed light on our underlying motives for and subjective experience of desire. Indeed, at first glance contemporary culture seems head-over-heels in love with love. And for good reason, for there are few experiences that match its intensity, that bring us more delight and despair, that confound and conflict us more.

Attraction & Love

Overview

Romantic love defies easy explanation. Very few of us, if pressed, could list the exact reasons why we have fallen in love with one person and not another. We just do. But this does not mean we are constantly searching for answers in the great works of literature by Ovid, Dante, Shakespeare, Austen, et al., as well as the pulp-fiction romances, "date" movies, and sentimental music lyrics of pop culture. Indeed, at first glance contemporary culture seems head-over-heels in love with love. And for good reason, for there are few experiences that match its intensity, that bring us more delight and despair, that confound and conflict us more.

Instinct partly accounts for this fixation. Sex ranks alongside aggression and fear as the most basic unconscious urges shaping human behavior. Love, however, is as much an idea as it is an expression of an instinctive drive and therefore a subject of great interest to sociologists as well as psychoanalysts. Each of us filters raw experience through a socially constructed lens and only then assigns it meaning via language, be it verbal, visual, or written.

This premise underlies symbolic interactionism, a body of sociology theory that examines how the sociocultural context we refer to in a given situation determines our response, not the situation per se. Quite literarily, reality is largely what other people say it is. Language by its very nature is a collective undertaking, the meaning it conveys culturally arbitrated.

And here, one of the most important cognitive representations we as individuals intuit from our milieu is a repertoire of relationship-archetypes. "Falling in love" and marriage are two such models. Extramarital affairs, one-night stands, "friends with benefits" and "living together," though perhaps not as conventional, are nonetheless equally well-defined.

Impression Management

Much like a script an actor works from in creating a character, these models cue us as to how best to win the admiration, acceptance, and love we hunger after. All of us accordingly engage in some form of impression management: i.e., project an image of ourselves we think will find the most favor with others, accentuating some traits, downplaying others. The particulars of the character we assume, what's more, change with each person with whom we associate; the powerful underlying motive for adopting these stylized personas never does change.

But what exactly are we looking for most of all in a romantic one-one or dyadic relationship that causes us to behave this way? Some researchers believe people look for qualities in a loved one they themselves lack but admire and want. Romantic love in this instance (the theory goes) disguises a more fundamental motive: the attainment of the ego-ideal by proxy. Others posit that people look for mates with needs-patterns that compliment their own. Still others have theorized that sharing similar attitudes and beliefs encourages intimacy and that the greater the intimacy the less divisive the remaining differences become.

Infatuation

In infatuation, alternatively, the normal pattern of disliking people appreciably different from ourselves is temporarily suspended in our haste to idealize the object of our desire. This form of attraction is noted for its suddenness and emotional power but also for its total lack of a concomitant intimacy. Noticeable differences in specific motives for love have also been observed. The traditionally-minded, in general, find fulfillment in the emotional investment and subsequent dependency of a romantic relationship and the flowing give-and-take of a romantic relationship for fulfillment; more contemporary-types look for intimacy and mutual respect. Women by and large have also been found to be more inclined to a relationship, voice their feelings more, and have greater respect for their partners than men.

Further Insights

The difference between "liking" and "loving" may lie in how long a couple quite literally gazes into each other's eyes. These measurements were taken to confirm the findings of an in-depth attitudinal questionnaire administered to pairs of subjects either dating or "just" friends. Surprisingly, both groups' written responses closely resembled each other; both exhibited affiliative and dependent needs, a predisposition to help, and an orientation toward exclusiveness and absorption.

Romantic & Conjugal Love

The only demonstrated difference was one of degree: dating couples' experiences of each were more intensely felt than their platonic counterparts.' Conceivably, then, an objectively valid "love" scale might be constructed. Results from the controlled experiment supported this hypothesis; as predicted, dating couples' eye-contact did indeed last longer. Romantic love, in effect, may well flow from the same emotional wellspring as conjugal love.

By the same token, though, few would dispute that the two also inspire notably dissimilar feeling-states and behavior. Many of us at one time or another have experienced the passion, physical attraction, and idealization of the object of our affections unique to romantic love. Anyone who has ever enjoyed a close friendship, meanwhile, has more than a passing familiarity with the hallmarks of conjugal love: trust, lack of criticalness, mutual appreciation, sharing, loyalty, and genuine knowledge of the other.

In either case, we search out the one person who most strongly and fully satisfies our deepest personal needs, chief among which are: sex; affectionate intimacy; the maintenance and enrichment of our sexual identity; acceptance and approval; and validation of our sense of self-worth. Such in fact is the strength of these needs that the mere expectation that someone can provide all of this is sufficient enough reason to emotionally engage with him or her. As long as we perceive the resulting relationship does this, for that matter, we continue investing in it even when, objectively speaking, it does not. And therein lies the rub of many a romantic attachment.

Self-esteem

Self-esteem may indeed make someone more or less romantically inclined, along with defensiveness. Less guarded individuals with a strong sense of self-worth arguably are the most likely candidates; naturally defensive ones with low-self esteem the least likely. The former did report greater frequency in some studies but, interestingly, the same degree of satisfaction and fulfillment than the latter. An alternate hypothesis claims that low self-esteem individuals pursue romantic love more fervently for the sense of acceptance and worthiness it bestows.

Much here, though, may depend on the innate defensiveness of the person in question. Intimacy involves self-revelation and possible rejection, a turn of events someone already suffering from low self-esteem would rather avoid. Or it may just be that people with a low opinion of themselves are simply less adept in general at forming relationships. In either case, the end result would be fewer romantic involvements, a conclusion borne out in subsequent studies. Risk has its rewards: respondents on the whole said they were emotionally "genuine," intense experiences. Defensiveness per se though, may actually be the deciding factor, for investigators also found that similarly disposed subjects endowed with high self-esteem reported fewer episodes as well.

The Archetypes of Love

Because it takes so many different forms, love is perhaps best understood in context. Ever since Max Weber, sociologists have employed ideal-types in analyzing real world phenomena, abstracting the predominant characteristics of a thing or event in order to compare and contrast them. Love is no exception. One early attempt at classifying its many varieties—J. A. Lee's six "styles" of love—remains one of the most complete and distinctive. He conceives of each such style not as a constellation of personality traits or characteristic traits but rather as an ideology, a collection of commonly-held beliefs and assumptions underlying existing social institutions. The six are:

• Eros,

• Ludus,

• Mania,

• Pragma,

• Agape, and

• Storge.

In eros, the lover runs across the flesh-and-blood personification of their "ideal" image of physical beauty. The attraction is immediate, powerful, and entirely based on the beloved's looks. Perfection here, the lover reasons, all but ordains the object of their ardor will be perfect in every other respect—intellect, temperament, considerateness, etc.—a leap of faith that rarely stands the test of time.

Such immanently practical considerations matter little, however, to someone seeking nothing less than a remedy to our existential loneliness in the physical, emotional, and spiritual union with the "other." This explains the intensity of the longing and the passion felt and why eros disappoints many and drives some to abject despair. But not only is this desired state fleeting at best and unrealistic on the whole, the quest for it also is often self-defeating. For the closer the lover comes to realizing their dream, the more anxious and more precipitous their actions may become.

Compared to eros, ludus seems an almost cynical pursuit. Its disciples see love as a game, the object of which is enjoyment for enjoyment's sake. One moreover played by a set of rules: avoid involvement and attachment; eschew jealousy expected as a manipulative ploy; always act with taste and good manners; end these casual affairs the minute they are no longer entertaining; and have many lovers. Simply put, pleasure, not fulfillment, is the ultimate prize; ludus therefore is not something people who need to "be in love" should engage in.

Not that those of us who sorely need to be in love are all that inclined to in the first place. For such people seek love in the netherworld of mania, in the all-consuming obsession somewhere between eros and ludus. Here one "who does not love too much does not love enough" (Lee, 1975, p. 516). Manic love is possessive, dependent love. Countless hours are spent dwelling on a relationship that gives little real satisfaction, punctuated by intervals of intense jealousy and acute anxiety. It can be a particularly unpleasant experience, something perhaps many of us would wish to avoid if we could. The problem, of course, is that the manic lover has no real say in the matter.

Remarkably, though, they remain level-headed and insightful enough to be highly manipulative, wheedling, cajoling, and controlling until their fantasies come true. In resorting to such ludic-like tactics the manic lover is at a disadvantage, though, for they lack the accompanying detachment to win this high-stakes game yet cannot afford to lose. What then drives them to the brink and beyond with such regularity?

Loneliness most certainly enters into it, a lack of self esteem and social status probably as well, and possibly a touch of madness we all experience at one point or another that the manic lover falls afoul of all too regularly.

In eros, ludus, and mania the needs of the self outweigh those of the beloved. Were it not for more other-directed forms of love—storge, pragma, and agape—to counterbalance them the world might be a much sorrier place indeed. Storge in classical Greek means filial affection, the love felt by parents for children, brothers for sisters, etc. A wife and husband are friends long before they are lovers, and closeness, commitment and shared values remain more important than physical intimacy.

In pragma, considerations of social status, wealth, property, and filial obligation take precedence when selecting a mate. What matters the most here is compatibility and the realization of mutual ambitions. Part storge, part ludus, love only comes after years of living together, and then much more as fondness than passion. It is love rooted in real-world practicality. Romantic love in fact is often an encumbrance, especially in cases of arranged marriages.

Agape, finally, emphasizes the needs of the other to the exclusion of oneself. We have an almost ethical duty to love even the least deserving among us. Combining elements of eros and storge, agapic love extols altruism and self-sacrifice above all else. There is an otherworldliness and moral stridency about it along with a decided prudishness about passion and sex. Both in fact are considered abhorrent to the spiritual nature of agapic love. Physical passion between spouses is considered adultery, sex a strictly procreative act, and pleasure sinful. Dour indeed if taken to extremes, agape embraces divine, not earthly love.

In reading these descriptions over you no doubt recollect having felt a version of each or some facsimile at one point or another. You may even recall simultaneously experiencing elements of each in your feelings toward a particular person. Lee considers mania, pragma, and agape some combination of eros and ludus or storge. You may for that matter be able to discern a change from one style of love to another over time in a given relationship or, perhaps, desire such a change. And, more times than we may care to admit, romantic attraction and love may seem a confusing mix of reality and fantasy, a jumble of conflicting impulses we struggle to control. Nor would Lee be in the least bit troubled by this conclusion, for his six styles are meant as points of reference, much like certain constellations in the night sky were once to seafarers. In the final analysis, there are as many unique experiences of love and therefore as many individual "styles" as there are people in search of it.

Viewpoints

We will always know when and whom we love but probably never fully why or how. And whatever explanations that ultimately emerge will no doubt seem imminently dull compared to the flesh-and-blood experience of "being in love." It is a very powerful feeling that originates deep within the psyche, an expression of our primal urge to procreate. It might just be that to promulgate the species our biochemistry hijacks our conscious selves, exiling us to a temporary state akin to madness we slowly make our way back from. The emotional hardship we endure there may indeed prove our fitness to parent offspring, as evolutionists suggest.

Many of us will, though, nod our heads upon hearing all this and then immediately turn to writers, musicians, and filmmakers for a fuller understanding of what it means to passionately long for and love another. Here we will find explanations that ennoble as much as inform, that give voice to the profound doubt, yearning, ecstasy, and pain we have known firsthand. Love in this sense is a very necessary social construct. The books, movies, and songs remind us of how innately human the experience is.

It in fact can be an unattainable ideal, a manipulative game, a punishing obsession, a marriage of convenience, a celebration of friendship and caring, and a stern religious duty. We may seek love out to bolster our self-esteem, to find our "better half," to validate our values and attitudes, to be sexually gratified, to truly know and be known by someone, to temporarily forget our fundamental existential loneliness, or to simply have someone to talk to who cares. Some will find what they are looking for, others not; their love is requited and unrequited, found and lost. And sociologists will dispassionately document and explain our collective experience of each, enlightening us all the more about the hows and the whys of love.

Terms & Concepts

Agape: A form of love that emphasizes the spiritual over the physical and the needs of others to the exclusion of one's own.

Conjugal Love: A love relationship in which friendship and sharing matter much more than passion and possessiveness.

Dyadic Relationship: Couples.

Eros: Love inspired by a preconceived ideal of physical beauty.

Ideal-Types: Alike social behaviors grouped together in broad, general categories for the purpose of comparison and contrast.

Ludus: A form of romantic love that extols game-playing in the service of self-gratification.

Mania: Obsessive romantic love characterized by possessiveness, physical longing, and emotional insecurity.

Pragma: Love based on primarily on compatibility and mutual ambition for status, wealth, and social approval where compatibility is the most aspect.

Romantic Love: A concept of love that evolved during the fourteenth century in Europe, characterized by yearning and self-sacrifice for an idealized and often unapproachable other that has since evolved to describe intense sexual and emotional desire for and mental preoccupation with another person real and imagined.

Storge: Friendship-based love.

Symbolic Interactionism: A school of sociological thought that considers meaning to be a culturally-transmitted social construct.

Bibliography

Bianchi-Demicheli, F., Grafton, S., & Ortigue, S. (2006). The power of love on the human brain. Social Neuroscience, 1 , 90–103. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete.

Centers, R. (1975). Attitude similarity-dissimilarity as a correlate of heterosexual attraction and love. Journal of Marriage & Family, 37 , 305–312. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text

Critelli, J., Myers, E., & Loos, V. (1986). The components of love: Romantic attraction and sex role orientation. Journal of Personality, 54 , 354. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text

Dion, K., & Dion, K. (1975). Self-esteem and romantic love. Journal of Personality, 43 , 39–57. Retrieved August 27, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text

Driscoll, R., Davis, K., & Lipetz, M. (1972). Parental interference and romantic love: The Romeo and Juliet effect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 24 , 1–10. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Forgas, J., & Dobosz, B. (1980). Dimensions of romantic involvement: Towards a taxonomy of heterosexual relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43 , 290–300. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Harrison, M. A., & Shortall, J. C. (2011). Women and men in love: Who really feels it and says it first?. Journal of Social Psychology, 151 , 727–736. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Klesse, C. (2011). Notions of love in polyamory—elements in a discourse on multiple loving. Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research, 3 , 4–25. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Kokab, S., & Asir Ajmal, M. M. (2012). Perception of love in young adults. Pakistan Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 10 , 44–49. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Krain, M. (1977). Effects of love and liking in premarital dyads. Sociological Focus, 10 , 249–262. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Lee, J. (1975). The romantic heresy. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 12 (4 Part 2), 514. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Marazziti, D. (2005). The neurobiology of love. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 1 , 331–335. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete.

McClanahan, K., Gold, J., Lenney, E., Ryckman, R., & Kulberg, G. (1990).

Infatuation and attraction to a dissimilar other: Why is love blind? Journal of Social Psychology, 130 , 433–445. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Socialization, identity, and interaction: Understanding socialization, identity, and interaction. (2003). In, Sociology. Oxford University Press.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 16 , 265–273. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Theories and theorizing: Academic sociology established. (2003). In, Sociology. Oxford University Press.

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). The subjective experience of partnership love: A Q Methodological study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44 , 85–107. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Winch, R. (1955). The theory of complementary needs in mate-selection: A test of one kind of complementariness. American Sociological Review, 20 , 52–56. Retrieved September 8, 2008, EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Suggested Reading

Bailey, K., & Nava, G. (1989). Psychological kinship, love, liking: Preliminary validity data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45 , 587–594. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete.

Ben-Ari, A., Lavee, Y., & Gal, Z. (2006). Midlife perspectives on falling in love: The dialectic of unique experiences. Journal of Adult Development, 13 (3/4), 118–123. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete.

Buss, D., Shackelford, T., Kirkpatrick, L., & Larsen, R. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage & Family, 63 , 491. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Duvall, E. (1964, May). Adolescent Love as a Reflection of Teen-Agers' Search for Identity. Journal of Marriage & Family, 26 , 226–229. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Hassebrauck, M., & Buhl, T. (1996). Three-dimensional love. Journal of Social Psychology, 136 , 121–122. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Heller, K. (2004). My choice of a lifetime: finding true love in a sociological imagination. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 3 (1/2), 21–31. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Jacobs, J. (1992). Facilitators of romantic attraction and their relation to lovestyle. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 20 , 227–234. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Knobloch, L., Moller, L., & Carpenter, K. (2007). Using the relational turbulence model to understand negative emotion within courtship. Personal Relationships, 14 , 91–112. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Lacey, R., Reifman, A., Scott, J., Harris, S., & Fitzpatrick, J. (2004). Sexual-moral attitudes, love styles, and mate selection. Journal of Sex Research, 41 , 121–128. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Lewandowski, G., Jr., J., & Aron, A. (2004). Distinguishing arousal from novelty and challenge in initial romantic attraction between strangers. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 32 , 361–372. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Salter, A. (2011). Virtually yours: Desire and fulfillment in virtual worlds. Journal of Popular Culture, 44 , 1120–1137. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Solomon, R. (2002). Reasons for love. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32 , 1. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.