Love in Psychological Theories Essay

Introduction

One is crazy when in love is a conceptual statement that has been propagated and advanced by developing theories. There have been attempts by scientists to prove the ‘chemistry’ that is often termed to be associated with one falling in love. What usually happens is so mysterious that someone could suddenly fall in love so helplessly with someone random and materialize into one living happily together, but sometimes love does not last long. There has been several attempts to distinguish what is commonly referred to as love from lust and some other feelings that could be mistakenly be taken to be love (Freud, 2007).

There is a lot of evidence form biology, psychology, and experimental psychology with fanciful speculations of how love is conceptualized. Thoughtful theories by philosophers have, however, advanced the compelling evidence on the speculations of how one is crazy when in love.

Theories

Freud and Jung

Freud founded a unitary principle that he believed determined the entire course of human nature and development, which was also to a large extent facilitated further by Jung. He believed that the instinctive development of love was based on four different ways; as a fusion of sexuality and affection, as an inhibitor of libidinal energy, as life’s basic instinct of all humanity, and as the total life force that progresses life to death. Freud suggests that love begins to show since the stages of infanthood as the newborn bonds with the mother during breastfeeding. At this stage, as Freud posits, the child attains a confluence that can only be satisfied in that situation (Fraley & Shaver, 2000).

At this stage, the baby’s instincts of love are ignited towards the mother, who is the first object of love the child ever knows. This child, therefore, experiences the first sexual sensation that tunes the bodily functions required for self-preservation.

According to Freud, the onset of child development is the beginning of sexual syntheses. The child starts showing the relationship between sensuality and affectionate feelings during infant years. For instance, the child may cry for the mother’s breasts, or the child may show excitement when the child is having time with other family members other than the mother (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2003). With time, the sexual impulse starts shifting from the self-attraction to being attracted to other objects. This causes the ego to be in conflict with sexual impulses.

Jung

Jung disagrees with the scientific evidence showing that intimacy is scientific programming. He does not categorize his preposition on the basis that man is scientifically programmed and, therefore, anything coming from man must have an element of science. Freud propagated the unique characteristic of humans, partly acknowledging the unique genetic composition of man. Freud’s concept of love is, therefore, founded on certain pragmatic philosophical foundations that one must understand to understand Freud (Leary & Hoyle, 2009).

Jung presupposes that the ultimate development is extended beyond family, to friendships, and to bonding successfully with larger groups and objects. At the same time, sexual energy develops towards a given individual or a given object. The society is made up of sexual impulses drawn towards objects and other persons (Banai, Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2005).

Heinz

Heinz Kohut developed another theory of self-psychology conceptualized as a mental system that organizes the subjective human mind into developmental needs that are necessary to sustain and satisfy oneself. Within self-psychology, Kohut regards libidinal concept in a different way, although widely borrowed from Freud. Kohut is of the idea that development progresses towards self-structure and eventual gives an individual their identity, thereby helping the individual realize their potential (Banai, Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2005). The development begins when life begins and helps and individual to survive through childhood to adulthood. It also makes the individual grow inside and have the ability to meet life needs.

Cattell

Cattel posits that a cohesive being is realized through three stages of “grandiosity, idealization, and ego”. Grandiosity is also known as the potential that one possesses to keep positive self-esteem. It also refers to having ambitions and taking time to engage in meaningful tasks in life. Idealization involves developing the mind of a person such that the person is able to have stable thoughts and eventually realize various goals in life (Mikulincer, 2003). This is where conceptualization of love develops. The ego describes one’s potential to become a member of a group or communicate love and connect with others in an intimate way.

Carl Rogers

Carl Rogers has also been interested in approving human condition and can, as well, be said to have formulated a theory of understanding human nature or character when in love. Rogers tries to base this situation to the inevitable human choice or the limited choice of doing what, as a human being, one is bound to do. This includes falling in love. Rogers says that human beings are capable of making constructive choices and are capable of living in those choices, which are inwardly facilitated by the mere fact that one is a human being (Florsheim, 2003). This illustrates a belief in agency that all human beings possess, which makes them compatible and explains why when two are in love, it is their own personal choice conceptualized by the ideology of humanity through which they generate a mutual relationship that is sustainable by a mysterious feeling of love.

Rogers’ view of the self is vague because it does not touch on the philosophical attributes of love. He explains human personality as a background for other consequential factors or effects that in this instance could be love. Rogers presupposes that personality of self is the beginning of behavioral conduct and explains the reason why there is a progressive growth and realization of certain characters in humans, which are sometimes identical and sometimes different. The recognition of these characters is what he refers to as the beginning of self-understanding that eventually leads to the choice of making an identity with someone else or objects that one has affection for. A man in this case will, therefore, grow as a man realizing the basic character of man and eventually realize his interest or feelings for an opposite sex, which is gradually developed by nature from the simple capacity of being a man. The opposite sex also goes through the same situation (Rhodewalt, 2010).

Errikson

Errikson explains that some of the effects of human nature are shaped by the significant people around a person, usually parents. The person intro-jects the desired values and the self-concept become entrenched to these values, which determine the ‘organismic valuing process’ that Errikson says is a fluid ongoing process that one does not choose ‘when’ or ‘who’ such tendencies may be developed towards. Human beings must learn from being aware of something and then they lose control over the same characteristic that is passed on to them through knowledge or surrounding

Skinner

Skinner is one of the philosophers who attempt to define human nature through an understanding of the operational behaviors of human nature. He puts forward a theory of ‘operant conditioning’, which he says is a process that modifies behavior through the use of positive and negative reinforcement. Through this process, an individual makes an association between particular behavior and consequence.

Skinner contends that humans would behave generally as any other man if they are left to grow alone and not taught, even by association, any character of human nature. He says that even the basic circumstances of a parent buying a child a candy as a reward becomes the beginning of understanding that there is a correspondence of everything in life that is generally conceptualized in the character that is passed on and on (Mikulincer, 2001).

Although Skinner’s concept does not necessarily marry the conditioning to falling in love, he bases all the eventualities of humanity on the preconditions of life. In other words, if a child is loved, then he will also love because he did not choose who loved him, thus he may not choose who to love. That explains the ‘falling’ in love scenario and, consequently, being crazy in love. He also gives the flipside of this reinforcement of human nature that eventually impacts negatively on character; for instance, the kind of love a child grows up knowing is the kind of love that he passes on and in this instance, it may be a negative one.

Allport

Allport, another theorist, attempts to progress the developments of understanding human nature in terms of character and existence. Allport assumes that humanity is unified in character and values from a psychological perspective. This is what people used to call a soul before the existence of science. Allport recognizes that there have been numerous attempts to define this situation, thus there are so many ambiguities and connotations. This is how the terminology proprium was coined. This is the concept that he uses to categorize humans into a particular character that explains the ulterior characters, including falling in love and the general traits of man that affect his association and surrounding (Carducci, 2009).

Eysenck

Eysenck bases his theory a lot more on personality and the character of man. In his very little concept of love, he seems to contend that one does not ‘falls in love’, but actually loves in free will. Ideally, one would not be castigated by anyone for not loving someone; thus, Eysenck suggests that someone chooses to love individually. In loving, just like in doing something else, one may lose control. This in a way explains why one can be crazy in love.

Karen Horney

Lastly, one of other relevant theories is the psychoanalytic social theory by Karen Horney. This theory is built on an assumption that social conditions and culture are responsible for the development of character. This has, of course been, illustrated by other theories. According to Horney, a deficiency in fulfilling the need for love at in childhood makes one become hostile towards others, in addition to suffering from anxiety disorders. Horney theorized that generally, people are defined by three situations in life; moving toward people, moving against people, and moving away from people (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002).

Horney identifies four different ways of conceptualizing love. The onset of not being alone here is the beginning of love. But, by not being alone, the following situations arise: Affection, submissiveness, power, and withdrawal. Power here is an essential element as a mechanism of defense against the real or imagined hostility by other human beings. Therefore, love is preconditioned by the behavior and surroundings that one grows up in.

Conclusion

All these theories have an attempt to explain the existence of love. However, as many as they are, the mystery of love in itself remains unresolved. It is difficult to explain or to proof love, and more so being crazy in love. That is why all these concepts differ, at the same time acknowledging similar circumstances. It is, therefore, hard to arrive at a specific conclusion on these theories. Love essentially has a chronological sequence of development. Some draw love from religion, others from science, and others from the theories highlighted above. Conclusively, love could be said to be different, depending on what someone believes love to be.

References

Banai, E., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). “Selfobject” needs in Kohut’s self psychology: Links with attachment, self cohesion, affect regulation, and adjustment. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22(2), 224-260. Web.

Carducci, B. J. (2009). The psychology of personality: Viewpoints, research, and applications (2nd edn.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Web.

Florsheim, P. (2003). Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Web.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 132-154. Web.

Freud, S. (2007). The psychology of love. New York, NY: Penguin Group. Web.

Leary, M. R., & Hoyle, R. H. (2009). Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Web.

Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2001). Attachment style and affect regulation: Implications for coping with stress and mental health. Blackwell handbook of social psychology. Web.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. Advances in experimental social psychology. Web.

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic Self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177-196. Web.

Rhodewalt, F. (2010). Personality and social behavior. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Web.

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human Development, 4(2), 133-1361. Web.