The feelings which enter into love may become linked to any stimulus itself not linked to defensive behavior or unpleasant emotions, which, as we have seen, always hold right of way over appetitive behavior and pleasant emotion. One can fondle a well-worn smoking jacket with a feeling of tenderness; one can arouse feelings through mere friction; and one can feel rapturous joy on hearing a symphony. Indeed, a child may cry out with delight when his favorite dish appears, "I love ice cream!" Yet for our purposes here, let us reserve the word "love" for cases where a person (other than self), either directly or through some symbol, is the object of the feeling.
When we say that love has an object, we are thereby implying that love is learned and not inborn. The capacity to have the feelings of love is of course inborn. Also, the linkage of these feelings to certain simple stimuli is inborn. A stimulus is any condition which produces a sensation; it may be merely noise or light or warmth. But an object is something which has some external unity, which the subject must learn to perceive and recognize even though it sends forth different combinations of stimuli at different times. The object must be sensed in several different settings, and its recognition thus requires learning or conditioning. The infant is born with a tendency to enjoy milk and warmth, but there is nothing in him at birth which predisposes him to love his mother rather than the nursing bottle or the bathtub. But that part of his environment which is his mother has characteristics which will almost inevitably cause her to become a perceived object and a loved object. So, also, there is no "instinct" to love the opposite sex as such (unless, perhaps, in some animals smell furnishes a clue to its identity). Young human beings have their impulses guided toward the opposite sex by teachings of their elders. They have to learn to identify the opposite sex -- and this requires learning many visual details which vary with costume. Most people do finally achieve heterosexual love. Even if this outcome were absolutely universal, however, as it decidedly is not, such heterosexuality would not be proved inborn or instinctive. Certain linkages are universally learned.
A love-object may be a specific person, or any person of a given class. In many persons there is a tendency to feel some tenderness toward almost any child who might fit into a broad description.
To say that a given person is the love-object and to state which of the feelings are involved, and how much of each, does not tell the whole story. The object always is perceived in some setting, and often through some indirect medium. Tenderness may be aroused by the picture of one's absent parent or spouse. Love feeling may sometimes require actual touch; at other times the mere sight of the exciting person is sufficient; sometimes a mental image briefly dwelt upon serves to arouse the feeling. The joy element may be aroused to a high degree by a telegram coming from one's beloved announcing his or her forthcoming arrival at the station.
A given object may be linked to only one of the types of love feeling, or to two, or to all. After a person has experienced total love, the feelings themselves tend to become interlinked through the object as a "bridge," so that in the future there may be an increased tendency for any object of partial love to become an object of total love. This is the natural course of development, but it may be blocked by personal or cultural inhibitions. Our traditional Euro-American culture has tended to prevent the natural integration of love feelings in the male. It has been subtly but effectively suggested to him that he would not feel tenderness toward the prostitute or other woman who aroused extreme feeling, and that toward his wife he should feel great tenderness. Yet when a man is emancipated from this tradition he finds it very easy and natural to love the same woman with extreme tenderness, and finds that each feeling reinforces the other. A pair of unmarried lovers caress each other with the intention of indulging only their tender feelings, when suddenly they find themselves consumed with desire. A married couple at the height of sexual excitement find themselves suddenly overwhelmed by a feeling of tenderness.
In general, people finally marry partners who in most respects resemble themselves more than does a person selected at random. In some traits there is a mere random degree of resemblance. In no traits has it been found that people tend to marry their opposites, despite popular myths to that effect, except that they usually marry the opposite sex.
Much ink has been used in writing books about how man's love differs from woman's love. There do appear to be certain inborn sex differences in the rhythm of sexual desire, in the ease of its stimulation, and in various glandular and emotional factors. But these factors have about as much bearing upon total love life as the particular wood out of which a piano is built has to do with the tune which is being played upon it. Most of the folklore and literature about sex differences in love is a commentary upon some particular culture with its differential education of the sexes, and not as it purports to be a description of biological differences. Men and women are innately capable of the same feelings and the same object-attachments.
When we say that love has an object, we are thereby implying that love is learned and not inborn. The capacity to have the feelings of love is of course inborn. Also, the linkage of these feelings to certain simple stimuli is inborn. A stimulus is any condition which produces a sensation; it may be merely noise or light or warmth. But an object is something which has some external unity, which the subject must learn to perceive and recognize even though it sends forth different combinations of stimuli at different times. The object must be sensed in several different settings, and its recognition thus requires learning or conditioning. The infant is born with a tendency to enjoy milk and warmth, but there is nothing in him at birth which predisposes him to love his mother rather than the nursing bottle or the bathtub. But that part of his environment which is his mother has characteristics which will almost inevitably cause her to become a perceived object and a loved object. So, also, there is no "instinct" to love the opposite sex as such (unless, perhaps, in some animals smell furnishes a clue to its identity). Young human beings have their impulses guided toward the opposite sex by teachings of their elders. They have to learn to identify the opposite sex -- and this requires learning many visual details which vary with costume. Most people do finally achieve heterosexual love. Even if this outcome were absolutely universal, however, as it decidedly is not, such heterosexuality would not be proved inborn or instinctive. Certain linkages are universally learned.
A love-object may be a specific person, or any person of a given class. In many persons there is a tendency to feel some tenderness toward almost any child who might fit into a broad description.
To say that a given person is the love-object and to state which of the feelings are involved, and how much of each, does not tell the whole story. The object always is perceived in some setting, and often through some indirect medium. Tenderness may be aroused by the picture of one's absent parent or spouse. Love feeling may sometimes require actual touch; at other times the mere sight of the exciting person is sufficient; sometimes a mental image briefly dwelt upon serves to arouse the feeling. The joy element may be aroused to a high degree by a telegram coming from one's beloved announcing his or her forthcoming arrival at the station.
A given object may be linked to only one of the types of love feeling, or to two, or to all. After a person has experienced total love, the feelings themselves tend to become interlinked through the object as a "bridge," so that in the future there may be an increased tendency for any object of partial love to become an object of total love. This is the natural course of development, but it may be blocked by personal or cultural inhibitions. Our traditional Euro-American culture has tended to prevent the natural integration of love feelings in the male. It has been subtly but effectively suggested to him that he would not feel tenderness toward the prostitute or other woman who aroused extreme feeling, and that toward his wife he should feel great tenderness. Yet when a man is emancipated from this tradition he finds it very easy and natural to love the same woman with extreme tenderness, and finds that each feeling reinforces the other. A pair of unmarried lovers caress each other with the intention of indulging only their tender feelings, when suddenly they find themselves consumed with desire. A married couple at the height of sexual excitement find themselves suddenly overwhelmed by a feeling of tenderness.
In general, people finally marry partners who in most respects resemble themselves more than does a person selected at random. In some traits there is a mere random degree of resemblance. In no traits has it been found that people tend to marry their opposites, despite popular myths to that effect, except that they usually marry the opposite sex.
Much ink has been used in writing books about how man's love differs from woman's love. There do appear to be certain inborn sex differences in the rhythm of sexual desire, in the ease of its stimulation, and in various glandular and emotional factors. But these factors have about as much bearing upon total love life as the particular wood out of which a piano is built has to do with the tune which is being played upon it. Most of the folklore and literature about sex differences in love is a commentary upon some particular culture with its differential education of the sexes, and not as it purports to be a description of biological differences. Men and women are innately capable of the same feelings and the same object-attachments.
No comments:
Post a Comment