I was piqued the other day when we had the lecture in social psychology about interpersonal attraction. Our lecturer went through different theories of love. She basically skimmed through it though. Not satisfied with such cursory discussions, I looked up some of the theories mentioned in lecture. One book was particularly relevant, it was a compilation of essays by important social psychologists about love. “The Psychology of Love” is edited by Sternberg and some other guy. But reading John Alan Lee’s “Love Styles” intrigued me most because I thought that he explains and expounds on how we love in a way that makes much sense to me. (Not to mention his writing was quite accessible…)
Lee argues that we all learn certain ‘love ideology’ which he calls ‘love styles’. He likens these styles to colors because, besides the 3 primary styles he identifies, there are also mixtures of them and, like color, these styles are not the end-all of the styles of love.
Although you might not think that the study is much more than a little parlor game, I think an important point he makes about love in this essay is that love is varied and it is wrong to talk about some kind of ‘true love’. He tries not to value one kind of love style over the other and assures us that each love style has its merits. In short, he doesn’t try to moralize love by stating which kind is better than the other.
I think it is difficult for me to understand or not to devalue certain love styles because I also have my ideas about love — ‘love ideology’. I find that I am more sympathetic towards a storgic and ludus kind of love. A storgic love is one that arises from association, like a ‘friend-turned-lovers’ kind of love. It is ‘friendly love’ and these lovers are brought together through mutual interests and enjoyable activities. Ludus, on the other hand, is a love style where love is a game and ludus lovers are looking out for love experiences. It is playful and noncommittal.
Although I am most sympathetic to these two love styles, I think I know how it is with an eros kind of love. Eros is basically love based on physical attraction. Eros lovers have a clear idea of what they want in an ideal partner (of course the ideal is a physical/aesthetic ideal). I think my eros love style is reflected in the way I often admire eye-candy. It’s not my preferred love style but I daresay I understand that feeling. More importantly, I had not thought to classify it as a kind of love. It was when I read the passage on eros that I thought, I should be more open-minded about what can consist of love.
Mania is a kind of love I want to avoid. But I can’t help but think I’m all too capable of such love. I can feel it when I consider my RO. But because I idealize storgic and ludus styles, it keeps me from doing stupid things than if I was fully involved with mania. At least that’s what I’d like to think. I would want to love others in a friendly, relaxed and free kind of way but I think I can also be intense, obsessive and jealous.
[I wrote the above last night before falling asleep. To continue...]
Anyway, I had fun reading the book yesterday. I also had a lot of fun re-reading my argument rulebook (the one my philosophy module gave us). It’s a pretty good refresher.
I was also reading “A History of God” by Karen Armstrong again, particularly the part about Islam. I really want to write about an Middle Eastern thinker for my social thought and theory class as my term paper but most of them have proved elusive or hard to get sources. (I want to do something about the Middle East because this is one area I am interested in. Combining it with a term paper would kill 2 birds…) It’s partly because the notable Islamic thinkers were all pre-1750s and most of them in the 19th and 20th century were concerned about colonialism. Not that colonialism isn’t an interesting topic to me but I want to find someone with a nice body of work and have it available in the library or online. There was one Indian (no, not Middle Eastern) social reformist I was interested in for a bit but something about the Marxist overtones just doesn’t make him so unique after all. Oh well… Or maybe I should try reading his stuff again. Sigh.
Love Styles, John Lee
I was piqued the other day when we had the lecture in social psychology about interpersonal attraction. Our lecturer went through different theories of love. She basically skimmed through it though. Not satisfied with such cursory discussions, I looked up some of the theories mentioned in lecture. One book was particularly relevant, it was a compilation of essays by important social psychologists about love. “The Psychology of Love” is edited by Sternberg and some other guy. But reading John Alan Lee’s “Love Styles” intrigued me most because I thought that he explains and expounds on how we love in a way that makes much sense to me. (Not to mention his writing was quite accessible…)
Lee argues that we all learn certain ‘love ideology’ which he calls ‘love styles’. He likens these styles to colors because, besides the 3 primary styles he identifies, there are also mixtures of them and, like color, these styles are not the end-all of the styles of love.
Although you might not think that the study is much more than a little parlor game, I think an important point he makes about love in this essay is that love is varied and it is wrong to talk about some kind of ‘true love’. He tries not to value one kind of love style over the other and assures us that each love style has its merits. In short, he doesn’t try to moralize love by stating which kind is better than the other.
I think it is difficult for me to understand or not to devalue certain love styles because I also have my ideas about love — ‘love ideology’. I find that I am more sympathetic towards a storgic and ludus kind of love. A storgic love is one that arises from association, like a ‘friend-turned-lovers’ kind of love. It is ‘friendly love’ and these lovers are brought together through mutual interests and enjoyable activities. Ludus, on the other hand, is a love style where love is a game and ludus lovers are looking out for love experiences. It is playful and noncommittal.
Although I am most sympathetic to these two love styles, I think I know how it is with an eros kind of love. Eros is basically love based on physical attraction. Eros lovers have a clear idea of what they want in an ideal partner (of course the ideal is a physical/aesthetic ideal). I think my eros love style is reflected in the way I often admire eye-candy. It’s not my preferred love style but I daresay I understand that feeling. More importantly, I had not thought to classify it as a kind of love. It was when I read the passage on eros that I thought, I should be more open-minded about what can consist of love.
Mania is a kind of love I want to avoid. But I can’t help but think I’m all too capable of such love. I can feel it when I consider my RO. But because I idealize storgic and ludus styles, it keeps me from doing stupid things than if I was fully involved with mania. At least that’s what I’d like to think. I would want to love others in a friendly, relaxed and free kind of way but I think I can also be intense, obsessive and jealous.
[I wrote the above last night before falling asleep. To continue...]
Anyway, I had fun reading the book yesterday. I also had a lot of fun re-reading my argument rulebook (the one my philosophy module gave us). It’s a pretty good refresher.
I was also reading “A History of God” by Karen Armstrong again, particularly the part about Islam. I really want to write about an Middle Eastern thinker for my social thought and theory class as my term paper but most of them have proved elusive or hard to get sources. (I want to do something about the Middle East because this is one area I am interested in. Combining it with a term paper would kill 2 birds…) It’s partly because the notable Islamic thinkers were all pre-1750s and most of them in the 19th and 20th century were concerned about colonialism. Not that colonialism isn’t an interesting topic to me but I want to find someone with a nice body of work and have it available in the library or online. There was one Indian (no, not Middle Eastern) social reformist I was interested in for a bit but something about the Marxist overtones just doesn’t make him so unique after all. Oh well… Or maybe I should try reading his stuff again. Sigh.
That’s all for now.
Related posts: