In her new book Love 2.0: How Our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything We Feel, Think, Do, and Become, the psychologist Barbara Fredrickson offers a radically new conception of love.
Fredrickson, a researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, presents scientific evidence to argue that love is not what we think it is. It is not a long-lasting, continually present emotion that sustains a marriage; it is not the yearning and passion that characterizes young love; and it is not the blood-tie of kinship.
So what is love? Using Fredrickson’s research, this is the question that I (try to) answer in my latest piece:
Rather, it is what she calls a “micro-moment of positivity resonance.” She means that love is a connection, characterized by a flood of positive emotions, which you share with another person—any other person—whom you happen to connect with in the course of your day. You can experience these micro-moments with your romantic partner, child, or close friend. But you can also fall in love, however momentarily, with less likely candidates, like a stranger on the street, a colleague at work, or an attendant at a grocery store. Louis Armstrong put it best in “It’s a Wonderful World” when he sang, “I see friends shaking hands, sayin ‘how do you do?’ / They’re really sayin’, ‘I love you.’”
Fredrickson uses biology and psychology to show that there is no such thing as everlasting love. Rather, mirror neurons, oxytocin, and vagal tone all work together to create these micro-moments of love.
Though the science and the studies that she writes about (and which I summarize) are fascinating, what’s even more interesting are the cultural implications. With Valentine’s Day around the corner, many Americans are facing a grim reality–they are love-starved:
Rates of loneliness are on the rise as social supports are disintegrating. In 1985, when the General Social Survey polled Americans on the number of confidants they have in their lives, the most common response was three. In 2004, when the survey was given again, the most common response was zero.
Though Fredrickson’s ideas about love are not exactly the stuff of romantic comedies, by lowering cultural expectations about love, she is making love more accessible to the average person. Our cultural expectations are so misguidedly high today that they have inflated love into something that it isn’t, and into something that no sane person could actually experience. Fredrickson tells me, “I love the idea that it lowers the bar of love. If you don’t have a Valentine, that doesn’t mean that you don’t have love. It puts love much more in our reach everyday regardless of our relationship status.”





This still seems like a reductive way to define love. I surely don’t dismiss the explanatory power of such disciplines as biology and psychology, but I’m suspicious when they’re yielded to bracket something on the magnitude and mystery of love.
If one’s looking to lower expectations of love, improperly defined as nothing more than a feeling, then, yeah, sure, “micro-moments,” as explained away as chemical blips and burps, may do the trick.
But what if love is more than that? Much more? What if love, along with all of the emotion & whatnot ushered in by the Big Bang of meeting and falling into love, was willing the good of the other as other? I think some dude named Aquinas nattered on about love along those lines. An act of the will, the intellect, of our capacity to make a choice, habituated and oriented toward the good.
I know I just rattled off a series of illusory things, according to the materialist crowd, but why has metaphysics been banished from the public square when it comes to these types of discussions?
Not sure what’s worse — having wildly unrealistic expectations about love (as nothing more than intense, evanescent emotion), or having love collapsed to merely “mirror neurons, oxytocin, and vagal tone.”
Though I normally shrink at most references to Thomism nowadays, this is spot on with the “willing of the good of the other, as other”, or as Buber might rephrase it “entering into a true dialogue with the Other, and establishing, however brief, the I/Thou relationship”. Love is an encounter with the Other, and whereas I agree with the fundamental results of this-that it is all brief moments-I think referring to it as “micro-moments of emotional flooding” is vastly reductionist & ultimate strips the word of its depth. This makes this accessibility the article advocates for rather irrelevant, no? I think the accessibility this article advocates for is wonderful & accurate, but I disagree with the language of how they are doing this-it’s fully possible to express the fullness of what love is as well as explaining is accessibility to the average person as the author wishes.
Pingback: Love and a Running Experiment Gone Awry « Acculturated
Pingback: Love and a Running Experiment Gone Awry | Acculturated