Bryant-45099 Part VII.qxd 10/18/2006 7:22 PM Page 266 26 THE SOCIOLOGY OF LOVE, COURTSHIP, AND DATING ERICA OWENS West Virginia University he question of “What is love?” has piqued curiosity as featured in novels and film began in the twelfth century. and engendered frustration for much of history. The At this time, love came to be understood as an intense and Texasperated answer that you “just know” when you passionate relationship that made the lover somehow a are in love is reflected in the body of sociological literature better person and was thus a worthy pursuit, albeit one on the phenomenon. Sociologists do not seem to agree on with elaborate rules and rituals that required time and a uniform definition, although there are several competing resources (Singer 1984). The ability to participate was but complementary typologies that attempt to pin down associated with aristocrats or members of the “court,” and those emotional and behavioral states that add up to it is this circumstance that gives us the term courtship. romantic “love.” Still, the expectation that one would love one’s spouse Love scholarship can be roughly divided into two philo- was many years in coming. According to Stone (1980), sophical camps: (1) that which argues love must have changes in economic production and labor markets, certain components to be genuine, for instance, to differen- together with public health measures, helped to encourage tiate it from mere liking or lust, and (2) that which suggests young persons to marry for love. Families had less sway that love is a publicly informed but privately experienced over the choices of young people as production moved state that is whatever the person “in love” believes it to be. away from the family and into the factory, and as life Research on romantic love attachments often addresses the expectancy increased, so did the emotional investment a behaviors used in dating or, more infrequently, courtship; spouse was willing to make in his or her partner. In some however, not all research on dating and courtship specifi- cultures where partners are still chosen by a young cally addresses love. In this chapter, I will treat the three person’s family, love is still not seen as a requisite for mar- topics as separate. This is a conceit; clarity may be riage. In this view, romantic love is a poor basis for form- improved by separating the threads of romantic entangle- ing a lasting union—and this normative stance is evident in ment, but in research, as in life, the division is nowhere research on spousal choice and sentiment. In one study near as neatly accomplished. (Levine et al. 1995), researchers asked participants in 10 It should also be mentioned here that the experience of countries whether they would marry a person who had the love as understood in modern Western society has not been traits that they hoped for in a spouse, but whom they did shared by all cultures in all times. In ancient Greece, true not love. In the United States, fewer than 5 percent of love between equals was seen as possible only between people said that they would make such a match, while in two men; although men married for purposes of procre- nations such as Pakistan and Japan, young people were ation, a close emotional bond with a woman was seen as much more likely to consider such a union (50.4 and 35.7 undesirable (Hendrick and Hendrick 1992). Romantic love percent, respectively). In nations where familism takes 266 Bryant-45099 Part VII.qxd 10/18/2006 7:22 PM Page 267 The Sociology of Love, Courtship, and Dating–•–267 precedence over individual goals and desires, love and resembles ideals of romantic love is termed eros. Lovers marriage are not always experienced together. Should love who have the eros style tend to value sexual and sensual develop between the two, so much the better—but if not, contact with the beloved, to have a well-formed image of the marriage is based on a solidly practical foundation the beloved or a “type” that they tend to be drawn to, to designed to maintain familial and community stability. become sexual fairly quickly in a relationship, to define the experience as “love” quite quickly, and to feel that the experience of the relationship is of great importance and WHAT IS AND IS (PERHAPS) NOT LOVE scope. By contrast, lovers with styles of ludus, storge, mania, pragma, and agape do not fit the stereotypical With such an elusive topic, it is perhaps not surprising that mold of romantic love presented in novels and film, many scholars who study love resort to metaphors to try to although manic lovers fit negative stereotypes of obsessed explain what love is. The rich and varied collection of love. Ludus-style lovers are most interested in the conquest metaphors include love as a “story” that we tell ourselves possible when chasing a potential partner. Love, to the and one another (Sternberg 1998), expressions of love as ludus lover, is a game of strategy. These lovers are more policy statements that set forth the terms and expectations likely to be pursuing multiple partners and to attempt to of the relationship (Van de Vate 1981), love as intensely limit emotional displays with a partner or potential partner focused and sustained attention in another person (see in an effort to maintain an advantage in the dyad. Sexual Brown 1987; Rowntree 1989), and love as emotion via contact may be more likely to have an aspect of accom- decision (Hatfield and Rapson 1987). plishment and play in these pairings. Storge-style lovers, Many scholars differentiate between the “falling in by contrast, focus on comfort and emotional closeness in a love” state of early romantic attachment and the more relationship. A relationship between partners with storge companionate state of being in a love relationship after the style of loving is generally not very physical and passion is original flush has worn off (see Hendrick and Hendrick not of paramount importance. To outsiders who equate the 1992). The intensity of early love is impossible for most intense and exquisite experience of limerence as love, couples to maintain. As the relationship progresses, part- storge lovers can seem more like close friends. This is not ners come to have a warmer and closer feeling of intimacy, altogether incorrect, as deep friendship is the basis of this termed companionate love, rather than the all-encompass- form of love. Lovers who tend toward the pragma style are ing passion experienced when the relationship was new practical and stress what the potential partner brings to the (Berscheid and Walster 1978). bargaining table. These lovers are seeking to make the best Dorothy Tennov’s (1979) work on “limerence” is per- deal for future life circumstances as possible. Manic love, haps the most systematic exploration of the difference on the other hand, is not reasoned. This form of love is love between falling in love and being in a committed love rela- for love’s sake; manic lovers value love to the point of tionship. According to Tennov, limerence is a transient obsession and experience an emotional roller coaster of state that involves preoccupation with the “limerent jealousy, insecurity, and elation. The manic lover does not object” (i.e., the person one is falling for) together with allow the relationship to develop over time but instead idealization, mood swings, and physiological arousal. attempts to force the partner to make a declaration of love Limerence may be positive, that is, mutual, or negative/ and intention. If ludic lovers enjoy the experience and have unrequited. Much of limerence occurs in the mind of the fun with love, manic lovers, for all that they yearn for love, one experiencing the emotion. Most people will become generally feel miserable while in a relationship. The final limerent at some point in their lives. The experience is gen- style in Lee’s typology, agape, is very rare in romantic erally not permanent—a limerent state lasts an average of love. This form of love is selfless and based on an almost around two years—but may occur more than once in a life- spiritual desire for the other’s good. Generally, this type of time. What some people experience as a loss of passion, to love is considered an ideal. Tennov, is the waning of the limerent state. Sternberg (1998) also suggests an individual and sub- jective approach to the experience of love. Sternberg’s work shows how lovers story their experiences; the result- LOVE TYPOLOGIES AND THEORIES ing catalogue of love “stories” shows how individuals draw on shared understandings of what love is to fashion Other research suggests that love is what the lover defines coherent and yet individual accounts of the love experi- it to be. Lee’s (1973) famous typology of “love styles” ence. Some love stories identified by Sternberg include identifies six basic types of love experience; not all of the love as science, love as journey, love as art, and love styles of love fit widespread cultural definitions of how as war. romantic love develops and progresses. The primary styles Most couples who profess a permanent bond (whether in of eros, ludus, and storge and the secondary styles of a marriage or other commitment ceremony) describe their mania, pragma, and agape reflect different beliefs regard- partnership as strong and explain that they have great love ing love and loving behavior as well as personal prefer- for their partner. But, over time, evaluations shift. Some ences and comfort levels.