SOC 101: INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY LECTURE #23: COURTSHIP AND LOVE Today, we will be speaking about the possibly ultimate creation of culture: love. Lets hear some musical versions of what love may be. First, love, romance or courtship are not necessarily congruent with sex. We might find that other critical factors distinguish this type of relationship from even the most intimate of friendships. We may also find that the same type of behavior occurs in other relationships. For example, courtship rituals may be the same in attempting to establish a friendship as in a romantic relationship. Also, we will be talking about "romantic love"-- this is not to imply that love can only exist under such settings-- The identification of sex (the verb) with romantic love, for example, is relatively recent. In some cultures and in some moments of history, sex, romance, friendship, love, and marriage have been considered almost mutually exclusive. So, for example, friendship (defined by comradeship and trust) with someone in the same gender was the most valued, followed by romantic love (with either sex) which almost be definition had to remain unconsummated, followed by sex which was considered a purely hedonistic or functional activity with someone not treasured, and last, marriage which was a political or economic arrangement. we retain some of this: for example, consider how much the impossibility of attainment figures into our notion of romantic love-- how loss, betrayal, non-consummation, or rejection play a role in our definition of love. Country music may have the best example of it. Lyle Lovitt: "I married her just because she looked like you". This, of course, brings up the issue: does "romance" or love naturally only occur between sexes? Homosexuality has existed in the majority of cultures throughout history. In some societies it has been tolerated. In fact, in many it was considered a much purer form of romantic love ---my reading seems to indicate that even here there was an element of male domination since it was male homosexuality that was elevated-- not involving the "lower" sexual orders. In societies such as Native Americans in the West, Polynesian cultures, and some African groups, "cross-gender" behavior and homosexuality are totally accepted. In other societies it has been condemned. But less so than you might think. For example, the supposed biblical condemnation of homosexuality may be more a creation of mistranslating than anything else. why homophobia? Some of it may be some "functional" considerations-- in societies concerned with population growth, "powers that be" may wish to promote sexual behavior directly resulting in reproduction. Much more likely: it is probably explained by the fact that in most societies, homosexual behavior is only seen in a minority. (not to say that "homosexuals" are a minority-- Interesting issue here is why female homosexuality seems to be less violently opposed or repressed. This might indicate that homophobia is also partly explained by attempt to ensure compliance with non-sexual gender roles and expectations. This is supported by the findings that in those societies where "cross-gender" behavior is accepted, the person is expected to make a choice and a public declaration of his/her orientation. No mixing allowed. Thus, in these societies, "homosexuals" are expected to follow behavior patterns of the "other" gender. A sexual (verb) gender division is maintained even if the sex (noun) is the same. We could spend an entire semester discussing the possible causes of the different sexual attractions. Main point here is not assume a heterosexual definition of love And to understand that tolerance of different loves is very culturally and historically specific. ROMANTIC LOVE OK, so this is sex, but what about love? It has been described as the ultimate emotional experience. It is a time or moment when, in the words of Robert Louis Stevenson: "arrests the petrifying influence of years, disproves cold- blooded and cynical conclusions and awakens dormant sensibilities. Hitherto the man (sic) had found it good policy to disbelieve the existence of enjoyment which was out of his reach... and accustomed himself to look exclusively at what was common and dull... and now, all of a sudden, he is unhorsed like St. Paul...It seems as if he never had heard or felt or seen until that moment. He is practically incommoded by the generosity of his feelings, smiles much when he is alone, and develops a habit of looking rather blankly upon the moon and the stars...the lover begins to regard his happiness as beneficial for the rest of the world and highly meritorious to himself. The presence of two lovers is so enchanting to each other that it seems as if it must be the best possible thing for everybody else." In short, love is wonderful to experience and can be to witness (it can also be sickening because people behave so strangely and illogically) it is inherently irrational and generally incomprehensible to those witnessing it. OK, but still, what is it? It seems that while people have different definitions, the majority knows what they consider to be love. Surveys among college students, for example, indicate that 85-90% knew what love was. As we understand romantic love, the concept is fairly new. Can be traced to 13th Century troubadours and their songs. Very different notion in Greek tragedy or in non-Western Cultures. This is not to say hat the notion did not exist: . But as a sociological phenomenon affecting the majority of people, the institution of romantic love is fairly new. Certainly new is the elevation of love to the highest emotional feeling. other societies have prized, for example, honor or duty much higher than love. You still see this in accounts or attitudes that tend to castigate someone for abandoning friends and family for the sake of love. In a sense, the traditional link between the family and production and inheritance had to be broken, before you could have the "irresponsibility" of romantic love as an accepted social institution. Moreover, this dissolution of the traditional family may not just allow romantic love, but encourage it as it serves to dull the sense of loneliness and atomization which individuality (a relatively recent social phenomenon) can bring. Where previously a happy couple meant the absence of conflict, now it involves some sense of mutual positive sentiments. What are these? Some characteristics associated with our contemporary notion of love include: sexuality pride security and even economic motivation. In American folklore, romantic love is expressed in the idea of a soulmate: that unique, very special person--- and it happens without thought-- you just "fall in love some enchanted evening". A proprietary aspect: note how the terms of endearment often include a possessive noun. The exclusive nature of love (in both directions) seems to be fairly common across cultures. This might serve as the ultimate exclusionary group, might also accentuate ego-- serve to define and support our notions of self and self-worth. One of the negative sides of this is jealousy-- appears in other relationships (including friendship), but it is most intense in love. Think about the effect of a single instance of erotic relationship outside of the couple: why is this significant- - as a percentage of live it is minimal and certainly does not effect the emotional access of one person to the other. Yet few humans can accept such "sharing" of their unique "partner". Love also involves a great deal of ritual-- it serves as an ordering of life and in some ways it is most comforting because of it. Love involves the creation of a ritualistic community of two. Like any other ritual, love includes the creation of symbolic actions and objects. Again, according to Collins, it is this process of ritual and negotiation which is what we find most attractive of "romantic love"-- it is simply an intense emotional experience because it involves uncertainty, danger and potential reward. The uncertainty helps us live in the "present"-- to remove considerations of past and future leading to a much more intense experience of what exactly goes on around us in a particular moment. One indication of the importance of uncertainty is all evidence regarding changes in romance after an initial period of infatuation. I believe that my colleague Charlie Westoff refers to this as the "saddest curve" in all empirical sociology: sexual activity declines with time and drops dramatically after marriage or moving in together. Love might also include the "idealization" of the other and this in turn might be a way of teaching us how to love ourselves. We create in the loved one a perfect image of what we may want to be. Because of this, love may actually be a dysfunctional way of arranging permanent relationships-- the reality principle will rear its ugly head. Again, this is not to deny the "friendship" or sharing side of love Rather, it serves to help define the special role of "romance" in our notion of love. Love might be socially functional, however, in that it allows and encourages the ultimate in non-self-centered behavior. (Although two ways of looking at this). According to Greenfield love makes us do something which may be "irrational"-- assume responsibilities and limit freedom of action. But still others suggest that love is rational in that it also allows for personal growth. With this in mind, we can define "romantic love" as follows (and this is purposefully dry): sexual attraction within a ritualistic relationship involving the creation of a special emotional bond which includes trust and the dissolution of ego identity, fraught with uncertainty and "newness". Romantic love includes the three critical characteristics of intimacy, passion, and commitment. It is different from "liking" or friendship both in terms of degree and the nature of the bond. (This bond has been studied by social psych but still not very clear what it is-- dissolution of the ego?) how do we choose mates? How do we choose those to whom we attracted romantically? One thing is particularly important is physical attraction. Is this also socially created? What is the basis for our definitions of beauty? Obviously, this is an individual or "subjective" judgment, but there are some social patterns. What general characteristics? Some would say that we prize what is rare or exotic. Others say we prize a "golden mean" where no extremes are visible. Usually the standard of beauty has a lot to do with what the person or group making the rules looks like. Attempts to come up with a universal notion of beauty have generally failed. But, some patterns of facial balance and some characteristics seem to be universal (see reading). Societies differ as to what is the most important characteristic of physical beauty and then differ as to what is the ideal of this characteristic.-- For example, Even more extreme versions of across cultures: foot binding in China or ritual scarring in Africa. Less extreme: some societies prefer fatter, others thinner. In Western Culture, there has been a movement from prizing plumpness to thinness ("Rubenesque"). Tanning vs. pale skin. Changes with time are especially obvious if we compare movie stars. In our society, the media plays a critical role in defining our concept of beauty (but how much is it just reflecting basic preferences?) The standard seems much more oppressive for women. While men can get away with looking "rugged", women have perfection as the standard. This maybe changing. Not that women have less imposed on them, but that men have it as well because of new appearance of male bodies in the media. One interesting finding is that men and women do agree about what is attractive in each other. we also share concerns about our own appearance. I would venture that most of you are not thrilled with the way you look. (If you think about it this maybe one of the most dysfunctional human emotions given the possibility of changing it). Especially problematic since studies have found that we tend to look to others the way we look at ourselves-- that is we are considered as attractive as we think we are. Assertiveness and confidence (within limits) are rewarded. (But cannot have too much of a gap or we are punished). Looks clearly affect the way we treat people and their personalities-- can act both as an opening or a closure. "Beautiful" people may be attractive, but other may also see them as shallow or stupid. One stereotype that is true with regards to beauty is that men seem to consider looks more important. So where do all these lead? How do we act around each other when we are romantically or sexually interested? Courtship rituals are very culturally specific. That is every culture has its rituals which serve to organize such encounters. Why do we need these? Partly because they may be a big part of the fun-- following the proscribed orders may be one of the most powerful forces of attraction to romantic love. Also these give us security. Not only do we need a guide as to what to do, but we want to be reassured as to what signals mean. The first part of courtship is attraction. A key cultural stereotype is that men are the active partners in establishing the beginnings of a relationship. Not true. Studies seem to show that initiation is with both genders-- its just that woman tend to be subtler about it. Studies have been done of the type of non-verbal communications which seem to attract possible mates. For women, for example, one study showed that the following elicited approaches by males: "coy" glances-- a combination of half-smile and indirect eye gaze "room sweeping glance" primping-- including patting of hair head tossing lip licking short darting glances "dancing" in chairs. Note that one problem is that this behavior is in the eyes of the beholder and is often misinterpreted or used as an excuse for anger or violence. Also note how culturally specific and socially created these may be. Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate similar studies for males. The two patterns which seem to be discussed in the literature are sensitive male approach macho strutting. Flirting also involves both genders. Flirting involves reciprocal signals-- as set of yeses. Flirting allows for contact to be initiated with some chance of dignity. The flirting ritual includes a progression of touches. For example: first touches tend to be apparently accidental collisions. When hands are involved, it is palms rather than fingertips. Note that it is crucial to maintain the fiction of casualness and non-communication. For example, one female signaling device led an observer to note that men's jackets seem to collect a lot of lint in bars. It is during these stages that uncertainty plays a critical role. Next stage is to initiate communication regarding mutual interest. Traditional role of male as person who asks out is still predominant as studies in the 1980s found out. dating appears to be a particular American custom. In other societies, courtship essentially consists of negotiations and rituals in which families watch each other perform some predetermined acts. Not new to 20th century. Appears even in 18th century New England-- "bundling"-- honor system worked sometimes (In Groton between 1761-1766, 66 out of 200 couples married admitted to an "indiscretion" In the 1920s and 30s you get the development of dating or courtship which is not explicitly oriented towards marriage-- "casual" dating often in mixed groups-- line between friendship and romance not clear. This pattern seems to predominate in Europe where few dates between couples until relatively late in relationship. In US, we have combined the "couple" idea from traditional courtship, with younger age (at least psychological) and then added freedom and economic power: the car, the movie, the parking. Possible consequences for relationships between genders? Degrees of ritualization depend on class, region, and political attitudes. These rituals may be seen as contributing not towards the development of romantic love, but towards the potentially equally important functions of status seeking and affirmation and socialization. Much of it may simply be about sex. What about effect of sexual revolution on romantic love? some consider it a threat since distance is no longer there and we lose sense of non-approach. Others says that elimination of sex as a goal makes the notion of romantic love much richer because it contributes to longer lasting bonds closer to friendship certainly for women, the breaking of the link between sex and marriage and between marriage and economic dependency has fostered much greater freedom. What to make of all this? Note the limitations in trying to explain all that mystery we heard about in the songs. Again, the point is to sensitize you to the ways in which you are participants in a culturalized ritual That even those most important emotions and parts of your life may be reflections of social rules. That even, in the most intimate moments, you are social creatures As such, you can be the subject of study and even prediction But, and most importantly, that you can change even those most fundamental aspects of your life if you are willing to challenge the rules-- no need to accept anything as natural or inevitable and to that we will turn in the last lecture.