When this point has been raised in our class some meetings back (with an emphasis on the idea that it is just there because the capitalists think it’s good for their stakes), I have to admit that I was about to accept it readily. At face value, it is undeniably a strong point, especially when you come to consider the role of media in this.
An informal content analysis of the songs being played over the airwaves would probably reveal that some 80-90% is about love in different stages, be it rock, alternative, novelty, or mellow genre. Open your television and it’s very likely that the novels or teleseryes you’ll find are love stories claimed to have different twists or approaches. Even the ads are no different. Notice that as Valentine’s Day nears, we would be bombarded with commercials, promotions, and print and radio ads that aim at reminding everyone of the lover’s feast to come and to be celebrated.
As a student of communication, I am well aware of the two indispensable facts about media: (1) that it is a powerful propagator (as supported by the famous Agenda Setting Theory) and (2) that media institutions are often part of a conglomerate. Given these facts and how media behaves, who could blame those who come to think of love only as a tool by the capitalists/ruling class to encourage purchasing power? And if so, does it mean that that’s all there is to love — a tool and nothing more?
A glance at the history of Love: An evolution of conception
During the Greek period, romantic love was believed to be really lust. According to an online source I have read from www.pobronson.com, “love to the Greeks come after marriage, not before it; it is not the spark thrown off by the contact or nearness of two bodies, but the fruit of long association in the cares and industries of the home”. By the 5th century Greece, romantic love only leads to affairs, and a Greek man marries not for love but for his dowry, and children to ward off evil.
The concept of love during the Roman period was no different either. Evaluating it in terms of our present ideals of love, I can say that it has even worsened. Marriage to them was just a stepping stone in politics and wealth, so some didn’t even grow to love each other in marriage.
In the 12th Century, troubadours began to sing/write poems/etc spread an idea of love between two people. This is considered to be the first in the West to think of love as that sort of personal relationship between individuals. In other words, it’s the troubadours who first come up with the idea that a “true marriage is the marriage that springs from the recognition of identity of the other, and the physical union is simply the sacrament in which that is confirmed.”
In the Renaissance et al 1300-1500s, marriage was for getting property and “love” was for getting some. Poetry and love letters and mushy stuff abound — but it was for seduction, not marriage. In essence, love from the Greeks and Middle Ages right up thru the Renaissance is often thought of as a bad thing; love may be a wonderful idea/feeling, but it usually brings with it pain, suffering and/or death.
From 1740 to 1865 (as seen increasingly in popular media over time), there developed a new construction of love, a “romantic love ideal” which included a belief in:
(1) love at first sight, (2) there is one true love, (3) love conquers all, (4) the beloved is near perfection, and (5) one should marry for love. For me, this is the period that has greatest influence on our present concept of romantic love, as these are the popular concepts of love we know to date.
In the 1800s, sexuality, love, and marriage were seen as distinct and separable experiences; however, gradually, sexuality/eroticism became a goal of romantic relationships.
By 1880 and 1940, love, sex, and marriage came to be defined as integrated, with the emphasis on marriage. That meant new demands on marriage, such as falling out of love or not being sexually fulfilled. It is also during this period wherein only romantic love was a valid reason to marry.
Love, indeed, is a social construct. But…
As with other concepts or ideals we know such as marriage, family, and morality, how we come to know love and, in turn, define it is a result of the interplay of various factors in our society.
According to Pete Stemp, a Western sociology professor, "the construction of romantic love is unique to our culture and that we learn these ideals from family, friends, school, religion, music, as well as the media." While it is true that the concept of romantic love before is not as handsome as we know it today, I don’t think that it would necessarily mean that love was not present back then. Remember, whose perspective was used in recounting the love’s history anyway?
The glance at the history of love has enabled me to see it as something that could be sensibly explained using a Symbolic Interactionist perspective. As what have been showed, the concept has differed from one period to the next. In relation, no one living in our present times has the right or in the position to declare that our concept is what’s correct for the simple reason that culture and norms inevitably evolve. For all we know, love as we conceptualize it today may not be valid as well as analogous to how our future grandchildren would!
Also, to say that it is not a feeling innate to humans, that it was JUST purely created by the society would be an overstatement and unfair as well. Though some may argue that there are both clear and concealed evidences that goes to prove how love is just created and promoted by the ruling class to be used for capitalistic purposes (as in the case of Valentine’s Day, where flower and restaurant business, as well as the sales of chocolates and balloons and everything nice and sweet is in full-bloom), I still believe that its existence is not artificial. Still according to Stemp, "The romantic love ideal was borrowed by advertisers, not created by them. They just used something that was already there… media (only) tend to idealize things.” Using a chicken and egg analogy, it is love which came first before the idea built by the capitalists, not the other way around.
Therefore, the thesis of love as a social construct is not just for the “bitters” so to speak. For me, it simply is a way of saying that, yeah, conceptualizations and operationalizations of things can vary. Nevertheless, it’s there.
So if you ask me if there’s anything “natural” about “falling in love,” I’d still say that that yes, there is. For one, I refuse to accept that love is not the reason why my parents had me. And besides, I don’t think that the feeling which springs from somewhere inside us once in a while (from the heart or brain, whichever it is…) is unreal.
