I was going through one of my favorite Tumblr blog (which happens to be a sociology blog) when I stumbled upon the discussion of whether or not love is a social construct. I read through and I found a link that led me to another discussion, on the same issue, on a site called Quora.
The following are responses I found interesting, especially the first one which I completely agree with, and which puts a lot into perspective.
Is love a social construct?
"Yes and no. There's a triggered biological reaction we call "in love" and then there's the social construction of what love means and how it unfolds. The former is largely biological. The latter is largely social.
Be careful about the cultural portrayal of romantic love in media. There's a reason why all fairy tales end in "happily ever after" but all protagonists start the story with broken families (e.g., both parents dead, divorced, step-parents). We end up with this mythical perspective of "love" that contradicts itself even in fairy tales.
The biological reaction we call love isn't designed to last. See Dorothy Tennov's book on Limerence. The biological fire often leads to irrational, emotional, drama-filled scenarios. Great for starting a relationship. Awful for sustaining it.
The problem is that the transition from burning fire to sustained warmth is something that gets much less air time. We're simply bombarded with the same media message of "fire, fire". Robert A. Johnson said it best in his book on love. We're so intoxicated by this cultural myth of fiery love that "if a direct, uncomplicated, simple relationship offers us happiness, we won’t accept it."
Many people who have difficulty with relationships have unrealistic expectations of what love is due to these media portrayals of love--i.e., they're waiting for the "perfect" person, or they want to feel fiery love all the time."--- Nick Yee, Research Scientist: Psychology of Virtual Environments
"Love is a unequivocally a physiological response. The heart palpitations, the constant flashes of that person in your mind, the "warm fuzzies"...all that is biological. If love were a social construct, then it would not appear in all cultures. But it does. Men fall head over heals for women, and vice versa from Mississippi to Mumbai."--- Rod Graham
"Helen Fisher, Biological Anthropologist and leading expert on the biology of love and attraction, gives this answer in the new issue of United Academics Magazine "Love Hurts."
"No. Romantic love is a brain system that evolved millions of years ago to drive ancestral men and women to focus their mating energy on a specific individual to start the mating process. It has specific pathways in the brain, is associated with a specific constellation of psychological traits, and is found in every society on earth.”
---Carian Thus
"Society certainly DOES tell us how to love one another and whom we should love. Just think of all the media (movies and television in particular) that present a specific kind of romance and version of love to us. This media reinforces certain ways of dating, certain types of partners, and certain ways of experiencing love that strongly influence how we approach love and what we expect from it." ---Robert JonesThis next one!!
"Love is a force of nature, it might be THE force of nature.
It certainly is not a strictly human social construct - your dog in fact really does love you. Mommy dolphins really love their baby dolphins, just like mama bears and mama wolves and mama gorillas, and other animals that will kick your ass for getting anywhere near their children.
In the same way we build physical constructions around forces of nature, we have built social constructions around the force of love. Sure, society has harnessed this force for it's own purposes, just as we use dams to harness the power of gravity and the flow of water to generate power.
Hold your baby for the 1st time. That feeling is not you being manipulated by the media. It's just as real as gravity, and just as powerful too."---Chris Keath
Find the entire discussion here
