Introduction
Many social scientists have defined love over time with different perspectives. Some social scientists have linked love to western culture as a place of origin. According to the evolution perspective, love is a composite collection of adaptations designed to solve reproduction and survival problems. Love has many definitions depending on time and context; other social scientists define love as a psychological device with a critical value in useful functions.
Discussion
Animals such as porcupines and giant pandas have shown to be less concerned about love. They are lone survivors and only come together when mating and later part ways. However, human beings are considered âsocial animalsâ because they live in groups that determine their survival (Rokach and Patel 108). The bond created in human relations is usually robust, involving material, emotions, and psychological investments. To some, the bond of love is usually very strong that one can sacrifice their life willingly for their loved ones to live (Johnston 39). The evolution of love centers on the concept of interdependence. This is the extent to which two or more organisms positively or negatively influence each other when replicating their genes. For example, genetic relatives give an obvious example of fitness interdependence. The fitness of an individual is heavily dependent on the success of the close genetic relatives.
The fitness interdependence concept also applies to the cooperation among coalition groups, dyadic friendship, and non-kin. Additionally, love relationships frequently reach the level of fitness interdependence. Various social scientists have provided insights into the evolution of love. Social scientists like Berscheid and Hatfield gave distinction between companionate and passionate love in 1978 (Buss 48). Through this distinction, they define love from two different perspectives. They define passionate love as an emotional state associated with the sexual attraction, idealization, longing, and desire that unite entirely with a person. Companionate love is defined as compassion with the same affection but less sexual attraction (Buss 48). In many people’s early stages of a relationship, passionate love is ordinarily high, which later declines over time. However, companionate love typically increases as partners spend more time together. Although companionate love pattern is not always true for some couples.
In 1986, Sternberg came up with the triangular theory of love. In this theory, love is defined through three components joined together to form a triangle, hence the name âTriangular theory of loveâ (Iorio 35). The triangle, in this case, is a metaphor rather than a geometric model to show how the three components, commitment, passion, and intimacy, are joined together. The three components have different manifestations in different forms of love, making it difficult to describe love as a single entity.
Intimacy, as a component of the triangular theory of love, is the feeling of bondedness, connectedness, and closeness in a relationship. Through the union of these feelings, they give rise to the experience of warmth in a relationship (Johnston 37). Passion is the drive that leads to sexual consumption, physical attraction, and romance in a relationship. These components of passion bring about arousal in a love relationship. Commitment is a partner’s decision to keep the relationship active (Spindler 453). However, commitment can be present in a relationship without acknowledging love to the other person. The three components of the love triangle interact with each other to bring about the definition of love. The components cannot be separated but interact as they define love and change when love changes over time.
In 1986, the Arons came up with the self-expansion model of love. In this model, two principles help define it, and the first principle is that everyone has a primary motivation for self-expansion (Rokach and Patel 120). The second principle is that self-expansion is often achieved through close relationships that allow inclusivity (Johnston 41). In this model, potential efficacy is created through the creation of a close relationship. Through the process, love is generally generated as people’s social and material resources increase.
In 2006, Berscheid analyzed love in relation to attachment and compassion. Love can be defined as an attachment that usually results from a bond (Iorio 53). For example, a bond develops typically between caregivers and infants and is not romantic love as it is more of paternal and maternal feelings. In the compassionate definition of love, concerns usually emerge for the other person, especially on well-being and suffering. Compassionate is generally in a romantic relationship as it is a selfless emotion that takes the other person’s pains, wants, and needs to the heart. It involves the valuation of the other person with openness and receptivity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, in the evolution of love, many scientists have come up with various definitions of love despite love having enormous definitions depending on the type of love being expressed. Love involves two or more people, and the influence generated from love may either be positive or negative, depending on the context of love. Social scientists like Berscheid and Hatfield focused on defining love from the context of fitness interdependence. Sternberg defines love using the triangular theory of love, which has three components: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Arons used the self-expansion model of love, and Berscheid defined love using the attachment that results from bonding.
Works Cited
Buss, David M. “The Evolution of Love in Humans”. The New Psychology of Love, 2018, p. 48. Cambridge University Press, Web.
Iorio, Gennaro. Sociology of Love. Vernon Press, 2017, pp. 33-72.
Johnston, Charles M. On The Evolution of Intimacy. ICD Press, 2019, pp. 33-48.
Rokach, Ami, and Karishma Patel. “Love and Intimacy”. Human Sexuality, 2021, pp. 107-146. Elsevier, Web.
Spindler, Fredrika. “âAll Philosophy Starts with Misosophyâ, or On Love, Trickery and Treason: Deleuze and the History of Philosophy”. Deleuze and Guattari Studies, vol 13, no. 3, 2019, pp. 435-444. Edinburgh University Press, Web.