Monday, January 17, 2005
Obligatory Love
Ok, time for something a bit deeper than usual. One of the things that's always amazed me is how people can convince themselves that they feel genuine emotions. In particular, people often love their parents or children because they are supposed to, not because they genuinely appreciate them. I know this may make me sound callous, but in truth, I think it actually reveals more about the sincerity of my emotions.
There are plenty of evolutionary reasons why we are supposed to love our relatives. The main reason is that they share our DNA, and since the goal of every living thing is to propagate its DNA, we should naturally want to protect and assist those that have a similar genetic code to ourselves. So, we are supposed to love our children because they share much of our genome. Same logic applies to siblings, parents, cousins, etc. It's a mutually beneficial relationship, from a purely scientific view. And those species that don't have that quality (natural love of family) would, in theory, eventually die out, due to their lack of family bonds that provide them safety and shelter. But humans have largely made evolution irrelevant by this point. And, frankly, I don't buy into the argument that something that is "natural" (like evolution, or familial love) is necessarily "good".
Where does that leave me? Well, for whatever reason, I think I was given less of that quality that makes me "automatically" love my family members. I'm certainly grateful that my parents are so generous and supportive of me, and I acknowledge how lucky I am that my family is the way it is. I definitely don't take that for granted. At the same time, they're "supposed" to do that, so how thankful to them should I really be? But I don't want you to think I don't love them. I do love my parents and my brother (and other family members, of course, but let's just keep it close for now), but less because they fulfill their familial obligation to me, and more because of who they are. They possess many fantastic qualities about them, and THAT'S what makes me love them, much more than the fact that they're related to me. Now, you might say that I'm not being objective, and you're probably right. But I contend that just by admitting that the "obligatory love" is less strong a force than the "voluntary love", that's a bit more introspective than most people care to be.
I'm not even saying that "obligatory love" is a bad thing at all - clearly, this world doesn't have enough love in it, so ultimately, whatever causes people to care for one another is a good thing. But I think that "obligatory love" can often cause people to be a bit more blind than "voluntary love", because if we love out of obligation, it clouds our judgment. (You might claim that often love clouds judgment, and you're right. But if you're not loving people for WHO they are, but rather WHAT they are (father, sister, etc.), then you're not really exercising judgment at all - you're exercising instinct.) So if your father has some glaring faults, but you love him blindly, it might cause you to value those particularly faulty traits more than you might if you exercised a little more reason. And we see this type of behavior propagated all the time - sometimes in religious beliefs, sometimes in child-raising techniques, sometimes in simple behavioral traits or social tendencies.
We unnaturally tend to value certain qualities in our families because 1) they often intentionally try to perpetuate those qualities, and 2) we often overvalue those qualities because of our innate blindness caused by obligatory love. Of course, there are other forces - children obviously learn by observation, regardless of the nature of their relationships. Sometimes I wonder what the proper balance really is. There are example of kids who go off the rails, and could use some obligatory love and respect for the parents. But I think there are plenty of other kids who blindly emulate their parents, never once questioning if the person that raised them actually possessed qualities worthy of emulation.
I can't quite nicely tie this thought up, but sometimes it does bother me - do I love my family as much as I "should"? Isn't love given freely more valuable anyways? I think back to one of the things my dad told me that his father told him (just to complete the paradox - repeating one of his values as an example of why not to accept his values by default) - "You didn't choose to be brought into this world". I think this quote underlies a deeper truth that he's trying to get at - I didn't choose to be born, and I didn't choose my parents, so they still work to earn my love and respect. And THAT is why I love them.
There are plenty of evolutionary reasons why we are supposed to love our relatives. The main reason is that they share our DNA, and since the goal of every living thing is to propagate its DNA, we should naturally want to protect and assist those that have a similar genetic code to ourselves. So, we are supposed to love our children because they share much of our genome. Same logic applies to siblings, parents, cousins, etc. It's a mutually beneficial relationship, from a purely scientific view. And those species that don't have that quality (natural love of family) would, in theory, eventually die out, due to their lack of family bonds that provide them safety and shelter. But humans have largely made evolution irrelevant by this point. And, frankly, I don't buy into the argument that something that is "natural" (like evolution, or familial love) is necessarily "good".
Where does that leave me? Well, for whatever reason, I think I was given less of that quality that makes me "automatically" love my family members. I'm certainly grateful that my parents are so generous and supportive of me, and I acknowledge how lucky I am that my family is the way it is. I definitely don't take that for granted. At the same time, they're "supposed" to do that, so how thankful to them should I really be? But I don't want you to think I don't love them. I do love my parents and my brother (and other family members, of course, but let's just keep it close for now), but less because they fulfill their familial obligation to me, and more because of who they are. They possess many fantastic qualities about them, and THAT'S what makes me love them, much more than the fact that they're related to me. Now, you might say that I'm not being objective, and you're probably right. But I contend that just by admitting that the "obligatory love" is less strong a force than the "voluntary love", that's a bit more introspective than most people care to be.
I'm not even saying that "obligatory love" is a bad thing at all - clearly, this world doesn't have enough love in it, so ultimately, whatever causes people to care for one another is a good thing. But I think that "obligatory love" can often cause people to be a bit more blind than "voluntary love", because if we love out of obligation, it clouds our judgment. (You might claim that often love clouds judgment, and you're right. But if you're not loving people for WHO they are, but rather WHAT they are (father, sister, etc.), then you're not really exercising judgment at all - you're exercising instinct.) So if your father has some glaring faults, but you love him blindly, it might cause you to value those particularly faulty traits more than you might if you exercised a little more reason. And we see this type of behavior propagated all the time - sometimes in religious beliefs, sometimes in child-raising techniques, sometimes in simple behavioral traits or social tendencies.
We unnaturally tend to value certain qualities in our families because 1) they often intentionally try to perpetuate those qualities, and 2) we often overvalue those qualities because of our innate blindness caused by obligatory love. Of course, there are other forces - children obviously learn by observation, regardless of the nature of their relationships. Sometimes I wonder what the proper balance really is. There are example of kids who go off the rails, and could use some obligatory love and respect for the parents. But I think there are plenty of other kids who blindly emulate their parents, never once questioning if the person that raised them actually possessed qualities worthy of emulation.
I can't quite nicely tie this thought up, but sometimes it does bother me - do I love my family as much as I "should"? Isn't love given freely more valuable anyways? I think back to one of the things my dad told me that his father told him (just to complete the paradox - repeating one of his values as an example of why not to accept his values by default) - "You didn't choose to be brought into this world". I think this quote underlies a deeper truth that he's trying to get at - I didn't choose to be born, and I didn't choose my parents, so they still work to earn my love and respect. And THAT is why I love them.
Comments:
Family bonds are key because often times when other relationships fall through, our families are there to meet our needs. My parents taught me critical thinking skills which allows me to love my parents for who they are (faults and all) while striving to emulate only their better qualities. I don't like the term "obligatory" love. Love is more readily obtained within families due to the level of intimacy- sharing emotions, enduring hardships together, learning about each other's true inner qualities, accepting one another. In life mutual experiences draw people closer together. But it certainly strengthens the love when your parents are cool people. However, love is not scientific: it's better experienced than explained.
# posted by 
: January 19, 2005 at 3:09 AM
: January 19, 2005 at 3:09 AM
Hey there, anonymous commenter (Dan?). What you wrote was not only very insightful, but also very well-written. I definitely agree with what you wrote, and think that maybe therefore my post needs some clarification.
First of all, you're completely right that love doesn't just come from either reason or obligation. Shared experiences and growing together with people (like a family) clearly contribute greatly to that. Those experiences are quite valuable, and build bonds that do often defy simple explanation, but are quite clearly loving bonds.
I guess I should have been more specific, because I do think there is a particular type of "love" that can be unhealthy, but since most people's definition of love is a lot healthier, it's kind of irrelevant. I'm talking about the type of love that causes people to completely ignore, or even emulate others' faults and flaws. I agree that true, strong love involved not only overlooking others flaws to find the good in them, but to help them overcome their flaws. But I think often it happens that people define love as something that requires them to be completely blind to the other person's flaws, or even to take on those flaws and defend them staunchly. I see this a lot with parents and their children (my dad did this, so how can it be wrong?), and sometimes even with couples.
Clearly, then, it's not just a product of family bonds that cause the unhealthy type of what I called "obligatory" love, especially if couples exhibit it. Although, I would argue that sometimes, at some point in a freely-chosen relationship, love can turn from freely-given into obligatory, and the relationship can become more blind than it initially was. I'd be willing to bet that in relationships in which one or both parties felt more "obliged" to love (maybe defined as being more likely to say "I love her because she's my mother", or even "I love her because she's my mother and raised me/gave birth to me/clothed me for the first X years of my life", rather than "I love my mother because of the person she is"), you'd find more of the "blind" quality of love.
So, maybe it's not obligatory love at all that bothers me - maybe it's blind love. I feel that if you truly love someone, it's your obligation to help make them better, and cherish their good qualities, and help reform their bad ones. I think that behavior (and what you describe - teaching someone to not emulate your flaws) is characteristic of a healthier relationship. I know that people aren't checklists of qualities, either, and that sometimes the best form of love is even embracing their flaws while not necessarily emulating them.
First of all, you're completely right that love doesn't just come from either reason or obligation. Shared experiences and growing together with people (like a family) clearly contribute greatly to that. Those experiences are quite valuable, and build bonds that do often defy simple explanation, but are quite clearly loving bonds.
I guess I should have been more specific, because I do think there is a particular type of "love" that can be unhealthy, but since most people's definition of love is a lot healthier, it's kind of irrelevant. I'm talking about the type of love that causes people to completely ignore, or even emulate others' faults and flaws. I agree that true, strong love involved not only overlooking others flaws to find the good in them, but to help them overcome their flaws. But I think often it happens that people define love as something that requires them to be completely blind to the other person's flaws, or even to take on those flaws and defend them staunchly. I see this a lot with parents and their children (my dad did this, so how can it be wrong?), and sometimes even with couples.
Clearly, then, it's not just a product of family bonds that cause the unhealthy type of what I called "obligatory" love, especially if couples exhibit it. Although, I would argue that sometimes, at some point in a freely-chosen relationship, love can turn from freely-given into obligatory, and the relationship can become more blind than it initially was. I'd be willing to bet that in relationships in which one or both parties felt more "obliged" to love (maybe defined as being more likely to say "I love her because she's my mother", or even "I love her because she's my mother and raised me/gave birth to me/clothed me for the first X years of my life", rather than "I love my mother because of the person she is"), you'd find more of the "blind" quality of love.
So, maybe it's not obligatory love at all that bothers me - maybe it's blind love. I feel that if you truly love someone, it's your obligation to help make them better, and cherish their good qualities, and help reform their bad ones. I think that behavior (and what you describe - teaching someone to not emulate your flaws) is characteristic of a healthier relationship. I know that people aren't checklists of qualities, either, and that sometimes the best form of love is even embracing their flaws while not necessarily emulating them.
Thank you for your compliments. (And no, I'm not Dan, just a gal with a comment). Taking off on what you said about couples, it is interesting when you see how two people who have been together for years end up 'morphing' and adopt similar mannerisms and styles. Though people with common values and interests often attract, it's interesting to see how partners start to actually mirror one another over time.
Post a Comment
# posted by : January 20, 2005 at 8:35 PM
: January 20, 2005 at 8:35 PM
