Welcome to The Valve

Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom


Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.



About Last Night
Academic Splat
Amardeep Singh
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogging the Renaissance
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Ferule & Fescue
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Planned Obsolescence
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
Say Something Wonderful
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
What Now?
William Gibson

Monday, July 12, 2010

Romantic Love, Conversation, Biology, and Culture

Posted by Bill Benzon on 07/12/10 at 02:58 PM

Note: This post grew out of reflection on an earlier post on bundling.

Cross-posted at New Savanna.

When I was an undergraduate at Johns Hopkins I took a course in Medieval literature and was thoroughly gobsmacked when I learned that romantic love had been invented in 12th century France. Until then I’d believed it to be a human universal – one and only, forever and ever, that was just how it was, no? Well, not quite.

What arose in Medieval Europe is something called Courtly Love, a set of conventions used by high-born men in wooing their lovers. And these lovers were not their wives, nor wives to be. For aristocratic marriage had little to do with personal preference; it was politics. Powerful families would forge alliances by arranging marriages among their young.

In time, over the course of centuries, so the story went, romantic love was transformed from an aristocratic game into a set of conventions used to define the necessary, or at least the ideal, precondition for any marriage. This set of conventions was in place, at least among the middle class, by the time Jane Austen wrote her novels in the early 19th Century. Those conventions have remained more or less in place up to the present, though they’ve become a bit tattered in the last decade or three as a soaring divorce rate has made it abundantly clear that true love does not last forever. That, of course, is not exactly news – why, for example, did Flaubert write Madame Bovary? – but the myth is so attractive that it dies hard.

That was the state of things during my undergraduate years – which coincided with the emergence of feminist activism in the late 1960s. Whatever their personal experience, everyone gave lip service to one and only forever and ever and believed that it was human nature. In that context, then, the revelations of the learned scholars shook my world.


Learned scholars, however, do not constitute a single tribe. Their tribes are many, and often contentious. Even as the literati were blissfully proclaiming the recent and Western origin of romantic love, other scholars set out to prove them wrong. In 1992, for example, W. R. Jankowiak and E. F. Fischer published “A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love” (Ethnology 31: 149-155). They defined romantic love as “any intense attraction that involves the idealization of the other, within an erotic context, with the expectation of enduring for some time into the future” and they contrasted this with “the companionship phase of love . . . which is characterized by the growth of a more peaceful, comfortable, and fulfilling relationship.” They examined ethnographic data on 166 societies from around the world and discovered romantic love in 88.5 percent of them, suggesting “that romantic love constitutes a human universal, or at the least a near-universal.”

More recently Jonathan Gottschall and Marcus Nordland, published Romantic Love: A Literary Universal? (Philosophy and Literature 30: 450-470, 2006). They conducted a cross-cultural study of folktales from 79 cultures and at least one reference to romantic love in 55 of those collections and multiple references in 39 collections. They assert that their study “offers staunch support to the existing evidence that romantic love is a statistical cultural universal. It would also seem to increase the probability that romantic love may be an absolute cultural universal offers staunch support to the existing evidence that romantic love is a statistical cultural universal.” “Statistical universal” is a term of art meaning that something is in a lot of places, but not everywhere, yet. It seems clear that if Gottschall and Nordland were to place a bet, they bet that further research would find that romantic love is a true cultural universal, present in every culture for which we have reliable records.

Still more recently, just yesterday in the time-scale of academic publishing, Brian Boyd has asserted, with the calm assurance of senior scholar in command of wide learning, that “cross-cultural, neurological, and cross-species studies have demonstrated the workings of romantic love across societies and even species” (The Origin of Stories, Harvard 2009, p. 341). To this, Michael Bérubé has replied, with the calm assurance of senior scholar in command of wide learning, but learning leavened with a dash of school-boy wit:

This just won’t wash. Other species might court and mate for life, but they do not engage in romantic love in the sense that humanists employ the term, save perhaps for the cartoon skunk Pepé Le Pew. “Romantic love” does not mean “mammals doing it like mammals”; it refers to the conventions of courtly love, which were indeed invented in the European middle ages and cannot be found in ancient literatures or cultures. Those conventions are culturally and historically specific variations on our underlying (and polymorphous) biological imperatives, just as the institution of the Bridezilla and the $25,000 wedding is specific to our own addled time and place.

What’s going on here? Who’s right?

Back to the Drawing Board: There’s that pesky elephant

I don’t know. We don’t know. Not any more.

I’m inclined to invoke that hoary old story of the blind men who, upon examining a large beast, are unable to decided what beast it is, or even whether or not it is a beast at all. We, of course, know that they’re examining an elephant, but such different parts of the elephant – tusks, years, legs, tail – that they reach vastly different conclusions about the object under scrutiny.

In the case of romantic love, I believe we’re in much the same position as those blind men. But, in our case, there is no transcendent story-teller who actually knows what creature is under scrutiny. Rather, it is up to us to approximate that story-teller by making more and more sophisticated observations and examining them through richer concepts and models about human culture and behavior.

There is no point in continuing to argue using existing observations, methods, and theories. In light of the existing contretemps we would do well to consider such arguments to be ideological in nature and thus pointless, except, of course, to all-knowing ideologues. Meanwhile, let’s take a look around and see what else is there to be explained.

Companionship, Conversation, and the Novel

Let’s return to Jankowiak and Fischer, and their contrast between the romantic phase and the companionship phase of love, a distinction, I believe, that is common, and which I accept. This companionship, is it too universal?

Take those Medieval aristocrats who were playing courtship games on the side: Did they have a companionate relationship with their spouses? I’m guessing that in some cases, yes, and in other cases no. These marriages, after all, were arranged by parents for political ends. If companionship developed in the marriage, fine; if not, no big deal. For companionship was not the point, it was not part of the ideology.

And then we have my standard passage from John Milton’s Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, Preface to Book 1:

God in the first ordaining of marriage taught us to what end he did it, in words expressly implying the apt and cheerful conversation of man with woman, to comfort and refresh him against the evil of solitary life, not mentioning the purpose of generation till afterwards, as being but a secondary end in dignity, though not in necessity: yet now, if any two be but once handed in the church, and have tasted in any sort the nuptial bed, let them find themselves never so mistaken in their dispositions through any error, concealment, or misadventure, that through their different tempers, thoughts and constitutions, they can neither be to one another a remedy against loneliness nor live in any union or contentment all their days…

That strikes me as an assertion of the need for companionship between spouses – cheerful conversation – and a rather emphatic assertion at that. Would Milton have made such an assertion if it had, in fact, been the common understanding of the day? That seems unlikely to me, though I could be wrong, as I am not a scholar of 17th century English family practices.

But the late Lawrence Stone was, and in 1977 he published a ground-breaking study, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (Harper & Row) in which he argued that, over a period of three centuries, family organization underwent a transition that started with the Open Lineage Family – permeable by outside influences, with strong “loyalty to ancestors and to living kind” (p. 4). It was succeeded by the Restricted Patriarchal Nuclear Family P. 7):

which saw the decline of loyalties to lineage, kin, patron, and local community as they were increasingly replaced by more universalistic loyalties to the nation state and its head and to a particular sect or Church. As a result, ‘boundary awareness’ became more exclusively confined to the nuclear family, which consequently became more closed off from external influences, either or the kin or of the community.

Finally, during the last half of the 19th Century, the Closed Domesticated Nuclear Family emerges among “the upper bourgeoisie and squirarchy” (pp. 7-8):

This was the decisive shift, for this new type of family was the product of the rise of Affective Individualism. It was a family organized around the principle of personal autonomy, and bound together by strong affective ties. Husbands and wives personally selected each other rather than obeying parental wishes, and their prime motives were now long-term personal affection rather than economic or status advantage for the lineage as a whole … Patriarchical attitudes within the home markedly declined, and greater autonomy was granted not only to children, but also to wives.

This was a family in which companionship between husband and wife was important, for that companionship was now the foundation of family organization. And this is the family structure that is at the heart of the British novel in the late 18th century and into the 19th century. The novel and the family structure had a reciprocal relationship (dialectical?) in which the demands of this family structure created an audience for the novel and the novel, in turn articulated the inner-workings and hidden designs of the family.

Out of what biological equipment did the novel help people construct their familial relations? Let us speculate, and freely – for what else can we do? If we’re to search for evidence, we’ve got to make a guess about what we’re looking for before there’s any point to setting out. However, we do want our speculation to be biologically plausible. So, calling on chess as a metaphor, let’s select our pieces from biology while our speculation will be the game play.

Biology: Attachment and Caring

In a parenthetical remark which I elided from my quotation, Jankowiak and Fischer glossed the companionship phase as attachment, which has been a term of art since John Bowlby published a book of that title (Attachment, Basic Books 1969). Bowlby was interested in the relationship between and infant and it’s mother and used the term “attachment” to name that relationship. The mother is the center of the infant’s (psychological) world; as such, she is the infant’s primary point of attachment to the human world. Subsequent to Bowlby, other thinkers have used his idea of attachment in thinking about adult love relationships (e.g. Shaver, Hazan, and Bradshaw, 1988).

What is particularly interesting about the model developed by Shaver et al, is that it involves three independent behavioral systems, attachment, care giving, and sexuality. Attachment is the relationship the infant has to the mother. No matter how strong the attachment, however, it would not be biologically efficacious if it were not reliably answered by the mother’s care giving behavior. As for sexuality, I take it as given that it is independent of the other two. But let’s set it aside for the moment.

The assertion about attachment is that this system that originally bound the infant to its mother is now, in adolescence and adulthood, being repurposed to bind the lover to his (or her) beloved. The sense of the beloved’s supreme perfection, often in contrast with one’s own unworthiness, was a staple of courtly love and seems characteristic of romantic love. Here’s Romeo about Juliet:

O she doth teach the torches to burn bright!
It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night
As a rich jewel in an Ethiop’s ear—
Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear!
So shows a snowy dove trooping with crows
As yonder lady o’er her fellows shows.

And Cleopatra on Antony:

His legs bestrid the ocean: his rear’d arm
Crested the world: his voice was propertied
As all the tuned spheres, and that to friends;
But when he meant to quail and shake the orb,
He was as rattling thunder. For his bounty,
There was no winter in’t; an autumn ‘twas
That grew the more by reaping: his delights
Were dolphin-like; they show’d his back above
The element they lived in: in his livery
Walk’d crowns and crownets; realms and islands were
As plates dropp’d from his pocket.

That’s not the description of a man. It’s a description of a transcendent being.

But one cannot build an on-going relationship on such (abject) adoration. Indeed, such adoration doesn’t even require interaction with one’s beloved. After all, Dante only met Beatrice twice, yet he wrote a book about his lovge for her, La Vita Nuova, and had her be his guide in the Divine Comedy. No doubt it takes a peculiar, and gifted, temperament to find fulfillment in such intense love at a distance, but the mere possibility underlines the peculiar nature of adult attachment.

And so, attachment is, in fact, complemented both by care giving and sexuality. So, Shaver et al. suggest (p. 89):

Sexual attraction can increase very quickly and pull people into a relationship. Attachment and care giving, both perhaps aspects of what Sternberg calls intimacy, develop more slowly. In a secure relationship, attachment and care giving probably develop in tandem, each person providing responsive kindness and support which the other person comfortably relies upon.

But what is it that “determines” how these different behavioral systems are recruited into the ongoing relationship? It might be biology, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Rather, I suspect it is a combination of the individual preferences of those involved in the relationship and the cultural models available. Many of the models are provided in expressive works of literature and other narrative media, such as movies, opera, and so forth.

Attachment, sexuality, and care-giving, those are game pieces provided by human biology. They are universal. People in every social group in every culture experience each of these during their lives. But how they are combined into a single relationship, that is not at all dictated by biology. Cultures have great leeway in telling stories that combine these systems in various ways. Individuals within those cultures, they too have some room to move. Their biology doesn’t dictate their lives. But it places constraints on them, as does their culture.

It is not easy to live a life that differs from those laid out in the dominant narratives of one’s society. But it is possible, especially in the large and diverse societies that exist in much of the modern world. The very open-ness of biological possibility, of one’s human nature, thus provides the possibility of escaping the strictures of an oppressive social regime.


Phillip Shaver, Cindy Hazan, and Donna Bradshaw, Love as Attachment: the Integration of Three Behavioral Systems, in Robert Sternberg & Michael Barnes, eds. The Psychology of Love. Yale, 1988, pp. 68-99.


Bill, I wonder how to factor in the research of someone like Christopher Ryan, whose *Sex at Dawn* argues that humans aren’t even naturally monogamous, let alone romantically attached.  Dan Savage has talked Ryan’s book up in his sex advice column, suggesting that what we take for fetishes today—like men wanting to watch their female partners with other men—might be closer to the natural state of sexuality, with men waiting in line to share a single woman.

By on 07/12/10 at 04:01 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Though I’ve read comments by Ryan on an evpsych listserve, I’ve not read his book. Is the remark you attribute to Savage his own riff on what he’s read in Ryan, or does Ryan himself say such a thing.

Monkeys and Apes do not mate in private. Though a subordinate male will certainly be circumspect about poaching on the “territory” of the alpha male. I don’t know anything about serial copulation in primates.

At some point during our evolution we developed a sense of sexual shame. Once that happened, privacy became the norm, though what counts as privacy is going to vary as a function of material culture. And once privacy became the norm, well, fetishism probably followed along.

By Bill Benzon on 07/12/10 at 04:10 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Speaking as a cultural anthropologist, it seems obvious to me that what Jankowiak et al. prove is simply akin to proving that people in almost all societies engage in learned, structured play we might call games or sports, not that they all play a particular conventional game universally.

That is, the fact that humans are universally motivated to idealize and want to be with those they desire sexually has never been in doubt.  It seems implicit in, say, Westermarck’s History of Human Marriage (1891) and it’s quite explicit in Malinowski’s Sexual Life of Savages (1929), but the social structures and conventions governing how, indeed whether, that is achieved are another matter entirely. 

As an example, although Malinowski lays out in no uncertain terms that the Trobriand Islanders he studied do have affection for one another that Jankowiak et al. would call romantic love, it’s also the case that their affections are nourished through strongly considered and very distinctive practices of love magic they seriously believe in and that their feelings may conflict with incest taboos that make marriage within a totemic group highly unfavorable--unless you know the ‘magic of incest.’

Those aren’t “our” conventions for love, and they’re not medieval court conventions either.

By on 07/12/10 at 07:35 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Bill, here’s the Savage material I’m referring to.  It seems that Savage consulted with Ryan in his response to a woman whose husband watched her have sex with another man and then wanted to have sex in her inseminated hoohah.  She asked if her husband might be gay:

“Far from being an indication of homosexuality, your husband’s turn-on goes back to the roots of male heterosexual experience,” says Christopher Ryan, coauthor of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality.

Before Ryan walks us through what’s so straight about your husband dipping his dick in another man’s spunk, SECONDS, let me get this off my chest: Sex at Dawn is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior in the Human Male on the American public in 1948. Want to understand why men married to supermodels cheat? Why so many marriages are sexless? Why paternity tests often reveal that the “father” isn’t? Read Sex at Dawn.

Back to Ryan:

“Think about it,” says Ryan. “Why would women have evolved the capacity for slow-building multiple orgasms while males evolved the orgasmic response of minutemen accompanied by a sudden disappearance of all interest in sex?”

Because—as Ryan and his coauthor Cacilda Jethá lay out in Sex at Dawn—for countless generations, our male and female ancestors, like our closest primate relatives (fuck-mad bonobos), engaged in multipartner sex. Females mated with multiple males, while males—so easily stimulated visually to this day—watched and waited their turn.

“Almost all of us get off on watching other people having sex,” says Ryan. “Even if our minds deny it, our bodies respond in many ways, ranging from increased genital blood flow (in both sexes) to stronger male ejaculations.”

By inviting another male into your bedroom, SECONDS, your husband—consciously or subconsciously—was inducing what’s known as “sperm competition.” Watching you have sex with another male made him more excited to have sex with you, not with the other male, and treated him to a more intense orgasm in you, not in the other male.

“So your husband’s experience was very heterosexual,” says Ryan.


[capture = states69 !!!!!!!]

By on 07/13/10 at 03:30 AM | Permanent link to this comment

By coincidence, the ‘hypothesis of promiscuity’ is precisely the 19th C. theory of primitive sexuality that Westermarck’s History of Human Marriage addressed 120 years ago.  And in spite of being a hodgepodge of anecdotes and armchair ethnology, it still seems to me better argued and better informed than Ryan’s book.

I guess it’s easy to hear about Eskimo wife-swapping and annual orgies among Amazonian societies and think, hey, this shows something important about pre-modern life.  Well, what it really shows, if you bother to live with an Eskimo family for a year or interview the dude whose wife is headed for that Amazonian orgy, is how much affection for your long-term partner and how much pair-bonding and regret at your partner’s wild behavior is the norm, even in societies where anything goes.  It’s ridiculous to pick out what happens to be allowed in some cases and declare it more primal and foundational, just because it’s more like what bonobos do.

Seriously, that’s not an argument at all--it’s just a typical sociobiology fairy tale.  No one knows what the sex habits of homo erectus (etc.) were or whether it’s bonobos and chimps that have evolved as outliers rather than us.  And regardless of what earlier species did, the preponderance of the evidence we have on ourselves unambiguously points to pair-bonding (though obviously not always monogamy) as a human universal, even pre-dating the introduction of agriculture.

By on 07/13/10 at 06:58 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Luther, on the specific issue of whether or not the woman’s husband was gayish because he wanted to see her with another man, how would I know? I’m inclined to think not, but . . .

I tend to agree with both of D’s comments.

By Bill Benzon on 07/13/10 at 07:23 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Bill, I wasn’t asking for your take on the reader’s question to Dan Savage!  (I tend to think 90% of the questions asked by Savage’s readers are based on fiction.)

I was more wondering how these accounts of “natural polygamy” factor into discussions of accounts of “natural romantic love.”

Then again, I find the definition of romantic love used in the cross-cultural study rather, uh, lacking.  It seems to me that, if you look around the world, you’ll find people happy in romantic love situations and unhappy in them; people happy in arranged companionship and unhappy there; people happily monogamous and people happily polygamous and people unhappy in both; people happily asexual and people unhappily lacking in libido.  It seems to me that human sexuality has evolved to ensure that, for the most part, we will fuck under all sorts of circumstances, often whether we like it or not.

By on 07/13/10 at 08:49 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I was more wondering how these accounts of “natural polygamy” factor into discussions of accounts of “natural romantic love.”

My guess is that it’s neither here nor there. The question is whether or not there’s something in the culture that matches the definition, but that doesn’t imply that that behavior is the only thing there. And, yeah, the definition is rather weak.

By Bill Benzon on 07/13/10 at 09:13 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I think that the original medieval innovation has bee misstated. What was new wasn’t romantic love, but the ascription of high metaphysical significance to romantic love, often in a profane, extramarital context. There are infinite theories about the origins of this identification, which some claim was learned from Islam, or maybe the Albigensians, and which was either a cause or an effect of Mariolatry, and then maybe neo-Platonism....

The French 19th century was a swamp of romantic love. Transient relationships were preferred, and fortunately there were a lot of beautiful tubercular women around who made no long-term demands. La Traviata (= La Dame aux Camellias) and La Boheme Mimi) both died conveniently and pathetically in Act 5.

To me this is a case of the way that social science garbles things up when they try to make complex statements into testable hypotheses.

By on 07/16/10 at 09:32 PM | Permanent link to this comment

In Taiwan when I was there (1983) romantic love was recognized as a reality, and many of both sexes yearned for it, but there was a countervailing idea that romantic love could ruin your life. People (not old people) would tell stories of romantic love and shudder, the way people here tell stories about ecstacy or LSD.

This mood was not absent in 19th c. France. Somewhere in the Gocourts someone says “Of course they’re poor! They’re the fruit of three generations of love marriages.”

Also, the hypothesis of monogamous attachment has a very complex relationship to the hypothesis of romantic love. Monogamous attachment seems to be an attempt to weld romance onto marriage. Sometimes it works, but in France during that era it was as if there were a law forbidding husband and wife to be passionately attached.

By on 07/16/10 at 09:40 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:



Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: