Is romantic love "invented" by society or not?

Post Reply New Topic

There is a philosophical theory which says that emotions are social roles. We are meant to feel guilty when we do something wrong to dissuade us, and feel happy when we do something good to reward us - they are there to keep us abiding by society's values and expectations. Evidence for this exists in societies where they have emotions which are unheard of in other societies, for example the Japanese have the emotion amae, which is a feeling of dependency upon another’s love. This is similar to the feeling that children have towards their mothers, but it is experienced by adults, and the people of Ifaluk, a small island in the Pacific, have an emotion that they refer to as fago, which is “compassion/love/sadness” and is unlike any western emotion. Source link.

Given this, I believe that romantic love is also the same. It's a part of society, there to enforce the idea of family.

What are your thoughts on this?

Last edited by Asp-Z on 03 Jun 2010, 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

The emotions were there before society. 'Society' did not create emotions, though 'it' can and does utilise them to have a guiding effect upon us.

A lone creature feels emotions that guide it, that's what emotions are for; to guide the creature away from behaviours that may impact negatively upon the viability of the creature, and towards behaviour that increases viability. I suppose that 'society' is a creature in this way, because it seeks to sustain itself.

There are mythological and created ideas around romantic love, but it has roots in feelings that arise naturally within us. I feel sweetly towards the one I love, and it's not because I've listened to too many love songs, or because some film told me that I should.



That's a tall claim to make. Is there any evidence further in the article to support her claim? I don't feel like wading through all that today. I feel various mixtures of those emotions quite often. Whether I'm capable or not of feeling exact nuances of emotion that another can is impossible for me to determine.

i think it was, in some ways. it might have an evolutionary function in terms of reproduction, but for the most part---it doesn't seem to work well. arranged marriages often work as well (or as poorly) as chosen ones. it's more akin to temporary insanity than it is to anything with a efficient function in the world.

I believe the rushes of neurochemicals occur independently of society. They are strongest at adolescence. In societies where marriage is done in an arranged, practical manner, these emotions occur but people know that little will come of it, and in most cases the person will have to marry a person that their family approves of.

That's the best description of it I've ever read or heard.

The emotional insanity is important because it creates an incredible bond between the subjects of love, therefore making for a couple who stick together, which provides a better platform for viable offspring.

It's very hard to disentangle oneself from another whom you've shared that insanity with.

I think you need to distinguish between the role of emotions in evolution and in distinct cultures.

Even the article you cited maintains that flatly saying that emotions are societal constructs does not represent their standpoint: "Virtually everyone who defends this position acknowledges that emotions are to some degree, natural phenomena." I'd say it's a load of rubbish, as well. Emotions are manifestations of natural phenomena, regardless of what the best perspective is to look at them.

One might, after observing particular differences in behaviour of people in different cultures, possibly gain information from comparing the circumstances in which these people live. Thus the "cultural perspective" may be helpful under those conditions. However, that people largely like to pair up and have strong affection for their sexual partners appears to be a universal thing, though some of the details of typical romantic fantasies may differ across cultures.

In Germany, for example, it used to be okay for a lady to wee in the shoes of a gentleman she wanted to bag. Or so I read.

"Romantic love" is a secular religion.

hmmm, i think i'm starting to see a trend here.

i find it funny that "society" seems to be often spoken of here as if it were some evil corporation or something

society didn't invent love. That's like saying you can invent anger. you don't invent it, it just happens .

piss in their shoe ?

I wish I invented anger.
Sadly I don't have the apparently god-like power you seem to think society has.

The emotion is biological in origin. The vocabulary and conventions surrounding it were invented by society.

I looked at your link and somewhat disagree with the author. The emotion "fago", which is "compassion/love/sadness" is not unlike "any Western emotion". There is no such thing as "a Western emotion". There are human emotions felt by people all over the world. What differs is the vocabulary. Emotions which have cultural significance to a particular culture are given names. Those that are not, are not given names. Just because one does not have a name for an emotion does not mean that emotion is not felt. It merely means that emotion doesn't have enough importance to that particular culture to be given a name.

I disagree with that theory.

I agree. Romance is very commerialised, now. You can have romance without love and love without romance. But, they can coexist.