David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Are Lovers Two Faces of the Same Coin?
By Aaron Ben-Ze?v, Ph.D.
January 02, 2009
The desire to be with the beloved, so typical of love, often becomes a desire to fuse with the beloved and in a sense to lose one's identity. Such a union is often understood to involve a joint identity. Already Plato claimed that love is essentially the process of seeking our missing half. In the same vein, the psychoanalyst Eric Fromm argued that erotic love "is the craving for complete fusion, for union with one other person. It is by its very nature exclusive and not universal." Likewise, the philosopher Robert Nozick said that in romantic love, "it feels to the two people that they have united to form and constitute a new entity in the world, what might be called a we."
The notion of unity may be associated with the fact that in sexual intercourse, corporal penetration literally fuses the two bodies. The wish to fuse with the beloved and to form a single unit is understandable in light of the greatest fear of lovers: separation. The solution for preventing the separation from the beloved is that of making the beloved an inseparable part of the lover. As Zygmunt Bauman nicely puts it, "Wherever I go, you go; whatever I do, you do... If you are not and cannot be my Siamese twin, by my clone!"
Love revolves around including each other in each other's self and even body. This is expressed in the Biblical story of the creation of the first woman. God created a woman out of the man's rib, and therefore "shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Lovers begin to develop similar preferences, for example, to enjoy music to which they were previously indifferent, or even to wear similar clothes. Such lovers often testify that they frequently have similar thoughts or that they understand each other even before words are spoken.
The Siamese model is indeed common among lovers. Consider, for example, the following typical statements of lovers: "we think alike, dream alike, wish alike, and love alike," "I can't be a second without him," and "I never want to be separated from him ever again, I want him to be deep inside me for the rest of my life." "While I am myself I am also him. I feel one with him in every cell of my longing heart and body, every minute of my life." Lisa, a married woman in her late fifties, describes her feeling toward her married lover in this way: "I so want him to feel and know every single one of my thoughts and dreams; I never want to hide anything from him, I so want him to be one with me, as he is part of myself."
In accordance with the wish for unity, lovers are often described themselves as "soul-mates," "meant for each other." It is no accident that the two lovers are together: "we didn't make it by chance, and there is someone belonging to someone." This type of predetermined connection makes the romantic relationship very unique and strong. Lovers often feel that meeting their beloved is the end of an epic quest. They can finally end the exhausting wandering and come home to someone they belong to.
It is evident that total unity is impossible in light of the physical separateness of the two lovers. However, even mental unity is hard to imagine, and the nature of the psychological process underlying the creation of the assumed perfect unity is unclear. It is not obvious whether the idealized unity involves the loss of the unique identity of each lover or rather it involves finding the one and only person who is completely compatible with us. Both options are problematic, as one cannot completely lose one's identity, and likewise, there is no perfect compatibility. It is probably the case that people adjust to each other in a loving relationship, but such adjustment is always partial and leaves room for various incompatibilities, which prevent the perfect unity and gives rise to the possible temporary nature of the relationship. Although closeness is indeed essential for love, perfect unity is impossible. Lovers may give up a lot for their beloved, but they cannot completely disappear from view in the attempt to retain a loving relationship.
For many people, the constant search for the perfect union or the belief in the existence of such a union is a major obstacle to a loving relationship. It is unfeasible to find a perfect union; rather, it is possible to achieve a good-enough compatibility within your loving relationship. Since life is dynamic, and people regularly change their attitudes and wishes, achieving such compatibility is not a one time accomplishment but rather an ongoing process, whose success requires loving attitudes. Perfect compatibility then is not a precondition for love; love may assist in increasing the compatibility.
The notion of unity may be dangerous to a loving relation, as every small movement of one of the lovers may have an exaggerated impact upon the other, and hence upon the relation itself. When some distance between two lovers exists, it can absorb certain shocks. The distance has a somewhat similar function to the cartilage in our bones: it protects the bones from rubbing against each other too much.
I suggest that we consider the loving bond as one in which the two lovers enjoy functional harmony. Functional harmony exists when the functions of the two lovers are in harmony. Such harmony does not involve melting the lovers into a unified whole; rather, it suggests a mutual development of the lovers' capacities. Unlike the situation in fusion, where once the mix occurs, we can no longer distinguish the constituent parts from one another, romantic love should not aspire to a loss of identity, but rather to partnership between autonomous, equal agents. The two lovers are different and will remain so; however, their intrinsically valuable activities are not incompatible.
The two lovers should neither be diminished by nor merge into the other's ocean of needs; they should let each other flourish independently as well. Such flourishing requires a lot of coordinated individual work, which involves accommodating and taking account of the partner's needs and attitudes. It requires being sensitive to the partner, but at the same time respecting the partner's and one's own autonomy.
The two lovers are very important to each other, but they should not make one another their entire world or reason for existing.
Adapted from In the Name of Love.
By Aaron Ben-Ze?v, Ph.D.
January 02, 2009
I am Heathcliff - he's always, always in my mind - not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself - but as my own being. ~ Catherine, in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights
i carry your heart with me (i carry it in
my heart) i am never without it (anywhere
i go you go, my dear; and whatever is done
by only me is your doing, my darling). ~ e.e. cummings
The uniqueness of love, as postulated by Romantic Ideology, manifests itself in various ways; one of these is to depict the two lovers as a unique, single entity. The two lovers are considered to form a profound union, as if they were two faces of the same coin. It is questionable whether this is a realistic description of genuine love and if it is even an ideal for which we should strive.i carry your heart with me (i carry it in
my heart) i am never without it (anywhere
i go you go, my dear; and whatever is done
by only me is your doing, my darling). ~ e.e. cummings
The desire to be with the beloved, so typical of love, often becomes a desire to fuse with the beloved and in a sense to lose one's identity. Such a union is often understood to involve a joint identity. Already Plato claimed that love is essentially the process of seeking our missing half. In the same vein, the psychoanalyst Eric Fromm argued that erotic love "is the craving for complete fusion, for union with one other person. It is by its very nature exclusive and not universal." Likewise, the philosopher Robert Nozick said that in romantic love, "it feels to the two people that they have united to form and constitute a new entity in the world, what might be called a we."
The notion of unity may be associated with the fact that in sexual intercourse, corporal penetration literally fuses the two bodies. The wish to fuse with the beloved and to form a single unit is understandable in light of the greatest fear of lovers: separation. The solution for preventing the separation from the beloved is that of making the beloved an inseparable part of the lover. As Zygmunt Bauman nicely puts it, "Wherever I go, you go; whatever I do, you do... If you are not and cannot be my Siamese twin, by my clone!"
Love revolves around including each other in each other's self and even body. This is expressed in the Biblical story of the creation of the first woman. God created a woman out of the man's rib, and therefore "shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Lovers begin to develop similar preferences, for example, to enjoy music to which they were previously indifferent, or even to wear similar clothes. Such lovers often testify that they frequently have similar thoughts or that they understand each other even before words are spoken.
The Siamese model is indeed common among lovers. Consider, for example, the following typical statements of lovers: "we think alike, dream alike, wish alike, and love alike," "I can't be a second without him," and "I never want to be separated from him ever again, I want him to be deep inside me for the rest of my life." "While I am myself I am also him. I feel one with him in every cell of my longing heart and body, every minute of my life." Lisa, a married woman in her late fifties, describes her feeling toward her married lover in this way: "I so want him to feel and know every single one of my thoughts and dreams; I never want to hide anything from him, I so want him to be one with me, as he is part of myself."
In accordance with the wish for unity, lovers are often described themselves as "soul-mates," "meant for each other." It is no accident that the two lovers are together: "we didn't make it by chance, and there is someone belonging to someone." This type of predetermined connection makes the romantic relationship very unique and strong. Lovers often feel that meeting their beloved is the end of an epic quest. They can finally end the exhausting wandering and come home to someone they belong to.
It is evident that total unity is impossible in light of the physical separateness of the two lovers. However, even mental unity is hard to imagine, and the nature of the psychological process underlying the creation of the assumed perfect unity is unclear. It is not obvious whether the idealized unity involves the loss of the unique identity of each lover or rather it involves finding the one and only person who is completely compatible with us. Both options are problematic, as one cannot completely lose one's identity, and likewise, there is no perfect compatibility. It is probably the case that people adjust to each other in a loving relationship, but such adjustment is always partial and leaves room for various incompatibilities, which prevent the perfect unity and gives rise to the possible temporary nature of the relationship. Although closeness is indeed essential for love, perfect unity is impossible. Lovers may give up a lot for their beloved, but they cannot completely disappear from view in the attempt to retain a loving relationship.
For many people, the constant search for the perfect union or the belief in the existence of such a union is a major obstacle to a loving relationship. It is unfeasible to find a perfect union; rather, it is possible to achieve a good-enough compatibility within your loving relationship. Since life is dynamic, and people regularly change their attitudes and wishes, achieving such compatibility is not a one time accomplishment but rather an ongoing process, whose success requires loving attitudes. Perfect compatibility then is not a precondition for love; love may assist in increasing the compatibility.
The notion of unity may be dangerous to a loving relation, as every small movement of one of the lovers may have an exaggerated impact upon the other, and hence upon the relation itself. When some distance between two lovers exists, it can absorb certain shocks. The distance has a somewhat similar function to the cartilage in our bones: it protects the bones from rubbing against each other too much.
I suggest that we consider the loving bond as one in which the two lovers enjoy functional harmony. Functional harmony exists when the functions of the two lovers are in harmony. Such harmony does not involve melting the lovers into a unified whole; rather, it suggests a mutual development of the lovers' capacities. Unlike the situation in fusion, where once the mix occurs, we can no longer distinguish the constituent parts from one another, romantic love should not aspire to a loss of identity, but rather to partnership between autonomous, equal agents. The two lovers are different and will remain so; however, their intrinsically valuable activities are not incompatible.
The two lovers should neither be diminished by nor merge into the other's ocean of needs; they should let each other flourish independently as well. Such flourishing requires a lot of coordinated individual work, which involves accommodating and taking account of the partner's needs and attitudes. It requires being sensitive to the partner, but at the same time respecting the partner's and one's own autonomy.
The two lovers are very important to each other, but they should not make one another their entire world or reason for existing.
Adapted from In the Name of Love.
