City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2018 The Syndrome of Romantic Love Arina Pismenny The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2827 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] THE SYNDROME OF ROMANTIC LOVE by ARINA PISMENNY A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2018 © 2018 ARINA PISMENNY All Rights Reserved ii The Syndrome of Romantic Love by Arina Pismenny This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _______________________ _________________________________ Date Noël Carroll Chair of the Examining Committee ________________________ __________________________________ Date Nickolas Pappas Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Jesse Prinz John Greenwood Noël Carroll Berit Brogaard THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT THE SYNDROME OF ROMANTIC LOVE by Arina Pismenny Advisor: Jesse Prinz The aim of this dissertation is to locate romantic love in the space of mental phenomena. Although romantic love is characterized as an emotion by a number of philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists, I show that it is not an emotion. Instead I argue that it is best categorized as a syndrome – a set of dispositions – affective, cognitive, conative, and bahavioral. The syndrome category allows to successfully capture the diversity and plurality of the symptoms or manifestations of romantic love. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the study of romantic love in the disciplines of philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. The majority of the philosophical accounts are criticized for their neglect of empirical data provided by other disciplines, and for constructing ideals of love rather than attempting to describe the kind of phenomenon it is. My goal is to rectify these shortcomings. The concept of limerence proposed by the psychologist, Dorothy Tennov, is taken to be the best characterization of romantic love as an obsessive passionate state. In chapter 2 I explore an analogy between romantic love and emotions. Despite the fact that both share a number of core features, the examination of dominant theories of emotions shows that none of these theories can adequately categorize romantic love. That suggests that romantic love is not an emotion. Chapter 3 takes on the categories of basic and nonbasic emotions used in psychology. My main argument against categorizing romantic love as a basic emotion is that it is not an affect iv program. To show this, I attack the dominant evolutionary story of romantic love’s function as a link between lust and attachment as part of human reproductive and child rearing mechanism. This story mistakenly takes for granted the model of the nuclear family, ignoring the communal child rearing practices that have been dominant in most parts of the world throughout human history. I also show that romantic love is not a nonbasic emotion because it can maintain its integrity without the emotions and beliefs thought to compose it. I discuss and critique the tradition of social constructionism and their attack on the categories of basic and nonbasic emotions, notably addressing James Averill’s social construction view of romantic love. I show that emotions and romantic love are shaped by cultural scripts, but are not solely determined by such scripts. The critical analysis of basic and nonbasic emotions, as well as social construction of emotions lends further support to the claim that romantic love is not an emotion. Chapter 4 takes on the rational norms applicable to emotions. After differentiating between them, I show that the main rationality norm of emotions – aptness – does not apply to romantic love. Unlike emotions, romantic love has no formal object. Instead, lovability should be thought of as a projected property. One is lovable because one is loved. The chapter concludes with a survey of the causes and eliciting conditions of romantic love. The arbitrariness of these conditions, as catalogued by some researchers, further supports the projection hypothesis of romantic love, demonstrating yet another crucial difference between it and emotions. Chapter 5 provides a positive view of romantic love as a syndrome. It is first demonstrated that the category of sentiments sometimes used by scholars to describe romantic love comes close to an adequate characterization of romantic love. However, the main reason why romantic love is not a sentiment is that sentiments, like emotions, have formal objects and aptness conditions, whereas romantic love does not. Sentiments also have an internal rational v structure such that there are some emotions that cannot be their manifestations. Romantic love, on the other hand, can be manifested through virtually any emotion. I conclude that romantic love is a syndrome because it is an arational, projected attitude with a plethora of symptoms that vary across cultures and individuals. Some core symptoms have been identified by Tennov’s concept of limerence, including obsessive thinking and idealization. One important implication of my view is that the ideology we attribute to romantic love with norms like sexual and emotional exclusivity are extrinsic rather than intrinsic to it. It is often thought that ‘true love’ requires adhering to these and other norms. However, I show that all norms applicable to romantic love are extrinsic rather than intrinsic to it because romantic love is arational. For this reason, it is up to the lovers to accept, reject, and modify the norms that govern their loves. vi Acknowledgments This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Olga Pismenny, and to the memory of my father, Larry Pismenny. I am deeply grateful to them both for their profound love and wisdom. This dissertation would not have been possible without their continuous encouragement and support. I am extremely grateful to my dissertation adviser, Jesse Prinz, for his positivity and inspiration, insightful feedback, creativity, and the numerous pots of tea we shared. He has been a superb guide, interlocutor, and critic throughout this journey. I am also deeply thankful to John Greenwood, who has spent many hours discussing the ideas that resulted in this dissertation project. His comments, criticism, advice, and encouragement to ‘keep on keepin’ on’ have been invaluable. I am greatly indebted to Brit Brogaard for her prompt responses and thorough critical analyses of my chapters that have greatly helped improve my work, and to Noël Carroll whose recommendations and tips on teaching an undergraduate philosophy course on love and sex laid a foundation for this work. I also thank Professor Carroll for lending a unique perspective on the topic of love, and for stimulating my thinking about it through his comments and questions. Special thanks to Douglas Lackey, who first encouraged me to pursue the topic of romantic love as an undergraduate, and to David Pereplyotchik for his optimism and help throughout the process of applying to graduate school. Huge thanks to Christopher Grau, Aaron Smuts, Hichem Naar, and Ben Abelson for reading and commenting on parts of this work. Thanks to the Philosophical Society of Sex and Love, the International Summer School in Affective Sciences at the University of Geneva, and the International Society for Research on vii Emotion for opportunities to present, receive feedback, and polish the ideas that went into this work. I am also deeply grateful to Ardit Xholi, who has been there for me through thick and thin, and to my best friends, Konstantinos Fotiou and Deepak Raj Devjani, who provided emotional support, and have been and continue to be the guardians of my sanity. A very special thanks to New York City polyamory community that has been a source of inspiration, positivity, insight, and love. Mostly importantly, my deepest gratitude is to the love of my life, H.B.K.W. Thank you for everything. viii Table of Contents Copyright……………………………………………………………………………………...ii Signature page..........................................................................................................................iii Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….iv Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………..vii CHAPTER 1 ROMANTIC LOVE: FIRST DEFINITIONS .............................................. 1 Part I. Romantic love and philosophy ................................................................................... 2 I.1. Romantic love and philosophy: A historical perspective ............................................ 2 I.2. Romantic love and philosophy: Contemporary debates .............................................. 7 I.2.1. Love as robust concern ......................................................................................... 8 I.2.2. Union theories..................................................................................................... 11 I.2.3. Romantic love as valuing ................................................................................... 13 I.2.3.1. Romantic love as appraisal .........................................................................