This article from the Star Tribune I thought was really interesting, and just in time for Valentine’s Day: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/family/114503954.html It was interesting to me, but as a double major, caught between psychology and cultural studies, I felt torn about this article. As much as I’d like to see research about love, it’s really hard to study something that’s so culturally defined. I had issues with the research group’s data collection (they said they had “large group” of volunteers but then only tested 15 people). Deciding not to focus on stats and to take a more cultural approach, I honed in on two of the biggest problems I had with the article – the idea of love being part of an early, evolutionary part of the brain and what exactly “most romantic” means. It’s too easy to say, “Well, being in love cuts out pain because of the (insert part of brain here).” Love is culturally defined – what we think of love is not how it was thought of in the past, and in other societies and cultures – hell, other generations – it has completely different connotations. Brevity is not my strong point, so let me know if there’s anything I need to clarify or cut so I can better explain myself.
To the Editor:
I understand that your article, “Study says love doesn’t hurt” may be more directed to entertain this Valentine’s Day rather than to inform, but this focus leaves me a bit bewildered. According to the study done at Stanford and SUNY, researchers found that students felt less pain during a test while looking at a picture of their loved one. Though the claim is that this is due to a “reptilian, early evolutionary part of the brain,” I think a vital perspective on the idea of love is being left out.
Historically, our notion of love is not really that old. Only two hundred years ago, love as we know it would have been painful when arranged marriages were the norm. Also, it is stated that researchers only chose people who had been in relationships for nine months or less to get those with the “strongest romantic feelings.” That seems more of a matter of opinion, and thought with our culture and time; not a principle that can be carried across cultures. Though love today may appear to alleviate suffering, I would stress the context and culture we are in before assuming the brain has always acted this way.
Nice find. This goes to Lewontin's criticism of 'reductionism.' So what IS 'love,' anyway. Uh----just endorphins? Not so much. And it's not just 'love' that can mask pain. The old 'go deeper' critical tactic.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting and perplexing topic. Coming from a psychology stand point, I can see many issues with trying to research love in general. Love as a construct would be particularly difficult to find an appropriate operational definition for because of the cultural differences you mentioned, and any such study in my opinion would be very unreliable.
ReplyDelete