13 July 1998, 1851 words
The answer to the query posed in the above headline might seem obvious: "Hell no!" We tend to think that the strength of romantic love is directly proportional to how irrational it is. Indeed, most people would probably argue that a romantic relationship based on reason couldn't be true love at all.
But what exactly do we mean when we describe love as irrational? There are three basic definitions, all related. First, we mean that the person is not in control of their feelings but is controlled by them. Yet this is not an adequate explanation, for we all are controlled by our feelings. However, love is one of three emotions we generally consider 'uncontrollable', along with rage and hate. But when it comes to romance, letting yourself be controlled by your feelings is a very rational act, as I shall show.
Secondly, we mean that a person not acting in their own best interests. Such acts may range from romantic gestures such as buying red roses to neurotic acts like committing suicide if the relationship ends. In either case, the person expends emotional and/or material resources on someone else instead of himself. But, as we shall see, those resources are actually investments for which the persons involved expect to earn a greater reward for themselves.
Finally, love is considered irrational when a person falls for someone clearly unsuitable for them or someone who just treats them badly. Again, we define this as irrational behaviour because the person concerned is not seeking their best interests. And again, we shall see that there is a logic behind even such pointless or self-destructive behaviour.
Love, you see, is only apparently irrational. Viewed from the biological, sociological, and even political perspective, romantic love is actually based on a clear and even pragmatic logic. It is only in the emotional arena that the strong passions we call love seem to be irrational yet, paradoxical as it may seem, this very irrationality is part of a wider rationale.
Let's start with the most fundamental perspective: biology. Like all other organisms, human beings are made up of genes. Genes have a single, simple purpose: to reproduce themselves. A complex organism like homo sapien sapiens can choose not to do what our genes want. But celibate people who are so by choice are among the smallest minorities on the planet. (Indeed, if we are to judge from recent reports about the Catholic Church, even celibates often aren't celibate.) But even when non-celibate people have sex and use condoms or birth control pills, they are still following their genes' directive to reproduce: it is just that they have made a higher-level choice to prevent the intended consequences of that directive. But sex is still a pleasure. Indeed, it is one of the greatest pleasures known to man (and, lately, women have been discovering this too.) Giving the organism orgasms is just one method our genes use to increase their chances of reproduction, and it is a very effective one. But orgasm isn't enough: if it were, people would be content to masturbate for, as Woody Allen put it, "Masturbation is sex with someone you love."
However, our genes have other tricks up their cellular sleeves. The biological process outlined above might not seem very romantic, because it isn't. Yet romantic love is always sexual. You will hear religious people argue that a man and a woman can have a romantic relationship which is purely spiritual. But this is a meaningless assertion. Does a spiritual relationship mean that the man and woman in question have sexual feelings for each other, but suppress any expression of same? If so, in what way does this make the relationship romantic? Surely, the romance lies in the sexuality, expressed or otherwise. Without that, the relationship is no different from a close friendship.
When one examines what attracts men and women to one another, the biological component is inescapable. Generally, men like women who have the attributes which reflect health and fertility, while women like men who have attributes which reflect health and status. Interestingly, though, the qualities that both men rate first are apparently non-biological. In a study of over10,000 people across 37 cultures, the psychologist David Buss found that both men and woman rate intelligence and kindness as the foremost qualities they look for in a mate. But even this makes genetic sense: kindness and intelligence indicate the psychological and social qualities which are essential for human beings to successfully rear their offspring.
It is here that the most irrational aspect of love comes in: where our feelings take total control of us. The rationale behind this has to do with a concept ominously called "The Doomsday Machine." The logic of the concept is this: that if you have a weapon which will automatically destroy your enemy if he attacks you, your safety is naturally guaranteed. Emotions work in exactly the same fashion: they are a guarantee of sincerity, for good or ill, since once you are in their grip you will carry through regardless of logic or reason. What better way to persuade a potential mate of your dependability, then, than to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have power over you? Reasoned argument cannot accomplish this, unless you're a Vulcan (and even Mr. Spock had his 'amok time'.) But a display of strong feelings is incontrovertible proof of sincerity. Of course, the feelings must be uncalculated, for humans are great lie detectors. And the other person must also be attracted to you in the first place, or else the strongest passions will arouse no response save repulsion.
With this biological basis, it is not surprising to discover that, contrary to what many sociologists still argue, romantic love is not just an invention of French poets in the Middle Ages. On the contrary, romantic love exists in all cultures ever studied. Even in those societies where arranged marriages are the norm, the marriages usually take place with the consent of the young people concerned. Where it does not, it is often because the marriage has political and/or economic purposes, such as an alliance between two powerful families. Romantic love is especially despised in authoritarian or caste-conscious societies, for love is democratic and thus interferes with power plays. Women want husbands and lovers rather than soldiers or workaholics. This is very inconvenient to the rulers and explains why religions have always tried to assert authority over sex and marriage.
The biological picture is not all rosy, of course. The same imperatives which make romantic love so powerful also ensure that romantic love cools rapidly once its purposes have been achieved. As Mark Twain succinctly put it, "Familiarity breeds contempt - and children." In all societies where divorce is legal, the modal time when divorce occurs is the same: about four years. It is not coincidental that this is the age when human infants no longer need as much care and attention from two parents. Indeed, so finely tuned is this evolutionary adaptation that even the chemistry of sexual attraction changes in about four years: the hormones like phenythelamine which initially give us that ecstatic feeling change to a more comfortable contentment of endorphins. Those who do not adapt to this change, who are in effect 'hooked' on the thrill of infatuation, either leave their partners or become habitually unfaithful in order to recapture the excitement of first romance. What keeps marriage satisfying after that initial period is not romantic love, but the other factors which go into a relationship: companionship, security, affection, caring, habit, shared interests and so on. Initially, romantic passion leads to the development of these secondary traits. After the passion cools, it is these traits which keep the romance alive (for, remember, we are not slaves to our biology).
But since emotions are part of our biology, it is obvious that they too must fall within the biological rationale. This might not seem to be the case when we consider how foolishly love has made every one of us act at some point. But if love was truly irrational, then the old saying that opposites attract would be true. Of course, it is not. Opposites hardly ever attract. Even when they appear to do so, a close examination of the persons involved will discover deeper similarities which outweigh the apparent differences. Indeed, this is one significant advantage which Trinidadian lovers have over persons from less heterogeneous societies: once we do not shut ourselves off from the wider culture, we naturally learn that the important qualities of a human being lie beyond race, religion, ethnicity and class. Even so, most people do choose mates from their own social class, own ethnic group, own religion, similar educational level, and even similar level of attractiveness. Of course, in this last area, the biological imperative once again comes into play: when you see a beautiful woman with an unprepossessing man, he would almost always have status, usually in the form of money. It is a trade off: her fertility for his resources. You must bear in mind that men and women are forced by biology to maximize their genetic chances of reproduction in different ways: a man has a better chance of preserving his genes by impregnating as many women as he can; a woman has a better chance of preserving her genes by having children for a man who is able to take care of her children. Hence, also, the reason men are more likely to be unfaithful than women.
Since, therefore, biology is so pragmatic, why does romance have such a grip on our minds, hearts and culture? Well, it is precisely because biology is so pragmatic. Human beings are biological creatures first, emotional creatures second, and mental creatures third. But, because we are so complex, the three are all tied together. By creating the romantic illusion, our biology makes us want to reproduce and to take care of our mates and offspring. Of course, understanding this is no help in dealing with tabanca, although it might give us a more philosophical view of heartbreak. Our biology has no concern for our higher-level desires, like affection or fidelity or emotional comfort. At the same time, we also control our biological imperatives: we can choose not to reproduce without giving up any of our higher-level needs.
It is here that we discover the irony of the romantic illusion: because we are just as much mental creatures as we are biological, the illusion becomes real. How could it not? What our mind believes to be real is real within our minds. Romance, in its essence, has no concrete reality . But it is a concept which is universal because it has biological uses. To be sure, this makes a lifelong relationship "unnatural", in the biological sense. Yet there are many couples who have been together for decades and who, even after the first flame of romance has died, still keep a warm fire going. In so doing, they have made themselves better and happier people - and what could be more rational than that?
Copyright ©1998, Kevin Baldeosingh