“It is the sweetest thing; it is a red, red rose; it is a battlefield;
it is a drug, a delusion, a lunacy. It is the answer, and the
question. It is a balm, and a piercing arrow. H. L. Mencken
compared it to perceptual anaesthesia; Keats wrote that it was
his religion; Shakespeare called it a familiar, a devil, an ever-fixed
mark, a smoke, a fire, a sea, a madness, a fever, a choking gall;
it is like sunshine after rain, and does not bend.”
– Sarah Vine and Tania Kindersley
The Times (London)
February 14, 2009
We live in a society consumed by love. Stories of love have served as the centerpiece to most every book, play, movie, and song for hundreds of centuries. Even Plato has something to say about love: it is a mental disease. From an early age, we are conditioned to believe that finding love is life’s true calling, and without it we are incomplete. As written in a January 2008 article titled “A four-letter word that takes time to learn” published in The Canberra Times, “The L-word is one of the most hyped-up in the English language. We are told love is all you need, love conquers all, love holds us together, love comes to those who wait. We begin to think of it as some almighty force with the power to save, or destroy a relationship in one fell swoop.” Does love serve a biological purpose, as it does not take love to reproduce? How much of our desire to fall in love is biologically based and how strong of an influence does culturally based expectations have on our yearning to find our own fairytale romance?
Antonia Senior of The Times (London) once wrote, “We have been bequeathed an idea that the ultimate goal is love; that the answer to the fundamental questions of the why and how of life are found in a ditzy, sugar-crusted fairytale. We have based an entire civilization on the idealized pursuit of a temporary hormonal imbalance in the brain.” Here, Senior takes the viewpoint that love is something that has been over emphasized to the point of becoming the main objective of human existence, when it is just a spurt of biological disparity. While the remark of love being a ‘hormonal imbalance’ may be too discrediting of such a mysterious phenomenon, cultural influence has forced society to make a terrible fuss over the need to fall in love.
French cynic La Rochefoucauld once said, “People would not fall in love if they had not heard love talked about.” And how can we not hear about love? Even at an early age, children grow up on Disney films where, the majority of the time, there is some variation of a fairytale ending. Messages of love do not ease up with age, either. Growing up in the 90’s, the most popular songs held titles like, “I Will Always Love You”, “Vision of Love”, “Only Wanna Be With You”, “You’re Still the One”, “I’ll Be”, and “Can’t Live Without Your Love and Affection”. These titles alone are enough to represent the common love theme. These themes continue to live in the first decade of 2000, with such love story centered movies such as Moulin Rouge, Slumdog Millionaire, Shrek, Finding Neverland, and Brokeback Mountain stealing box office attention. With the constant saturation of love-against-the-odds-and-at-all-costs stories in everyday culture, it is no wonder that almost everyone is racing to find love of their own.
There is nothing else in society that perpetuates us to do crazy and irrational things. As Vine and Kindersley wrote in The Times, “[Love] is what drives you to offer yourself to another human for the rest of your natural life, but only a few years later you may look back and have no memory at all of that initial ecstasy. Romantic love can be so confusing that sometimes you simply want to give up on the whole thing and concentrate on the nature of dark matter, or macroeconomics, or something else less tiring.” Personally I have more experience with macroeconomics than love, but the concept of love still fascinates me. Though there are over twenty definitions of love in the dictionary, for centuries people have struggled to actually define and explain what love truly is. Intangible and subjective, the meaning of love is endlessly varying dependent on the source.
Love is essential to an enriching life. But is romantic love meant for everyone? Perhaps cultural expectations have caused people who would have otherwise disregarded romantic love to think that is was a necessity to the human purpose. It is possible to lead a fulfilling life without a significant other, in fact people do it all the time. But these ‘love minorities’ are what the love majorities fear: a lifetime of supposed loneliness from the missing element of sharing a life with a romantic partner. Isn’t the love of family and friends enough, if one so chooses it to be? Why try to fit yourself into a love structure that you may not see yourself fit for?
I’m guilty of being in the love majority, fearing living out the rest of my life without knowing what it means to romantically love another. However, I can sympathize with those who feel that romantic love may not be suitable for them. Just as I don’t believe in soul mates, I also believe that some individuals can lead just as satisfying lives without romantic commitment as those who choose to journey through life with another. The pressure these individuals face to find love is unfair given their own personal needs. After a Thanksgiving holiday with the family constantly chirping, “So are you dating anyone?”, “When are you going to bring a boy home?”, and “Chelsea, you need a boyfriend!”, I fully understand the frustrations of dealing with the culturally, and family, based pressure to be in love.
Love, being as impossible to grasp as it is, is something I continue to think about in daily life. Its representation in society and media continues to remain a popular trend and constantly redefines what is acceptable for love. Instead of trying to fit love in a Hollywood or fairytale form, however, perhaps it is time for people to approach it in their own individual way, realizing that what is desirable for some may not be desirable for others.




























