Acting in synchrony with others can foster cooperation and cohesion within groups by generating complementary activities at the appropriate time. This is one reason why religions incorporate synchronous singing and chanting into their rituals. These synchronized joint activities help maintain traditional values and connections, including ongoing romantic bonds. Synchrony is also a partial solution to the free-rider problem, that is, the tendency of some individuals to shoulder less than their fair share in the relation. Piercarlo Valdesolo and colleagues argue that synchrony might not just bring people together, but bring them together to practice the very skills essential for the success of their joint activities. This is also true of romantic relations.18
Positive responsiveness is a vital aspect of the romantic connection. If we again reach for our dictionaries, we find that a responsive person reacts quickly and positively. These two elements of a temporal, built-in, quick response, positive in tone, are indeed central in romantic love. Such responsiveness shows that positivity is a crucial part of the lover’s attitude and not a mere add-on. One can have a general positive responsiveness toward people; in romantic love, such responsiveness should also have a unique aspect concerning the beloved.
Harry Reis and Margaret Clark argue that perceived partner responsiveness is fundamental to intimacy. It supports and strengthens both the relationship and its members. For Reis and Clark, responsiveness is the classic example of an interpersonal process that unfolds over time and in which both partners’ behavior matters. In this sense, responsiveness is an umbrella construct—a broad principle under which different interactive processes can be organized. They claim that “for both giver and recipient, responsiveness contributes to attraction and liking, trust and commitment, and personal growth. It fosters a sense of security, allowing partners to use their relationships as safe havens in distressing circumstances and as secure bases for exploration.”19
Birnbaum and colleagues have shown the importance of responsiveness in increasing sexual desire (more strongly so in women); perceived partner responsiveness is intrinsic to the development of intimacy in sexual contexts. They argue that people who perceive their partners as responsive, in the sense that they understand and appreciate their needs, can view sexual interactions as a way to enhance intimate experiences. Accordingly, they might experience greater desire for sexual interaction with them. In contrast, people who perceive their partners as unresponsive might avoid sexual activity with them. Indeed, passion is fueled by cues of rising intimacy.20
Furthermore, Birnbaum and colleagues point to the importance of time in the development of romantic responsiveness. In initial encounters, when partners do not know each other well, responsiveness can be interpreted as superficial and negative, a play for quick and more enthusiastic sex. As relationships develop, however, the very same responsiveness may be perceived as profound and genuine. In these circumstances, the individual does not merely express the general positive responsiveness that one usually directs toward all people, but goes beyond such responsiveness, directing it at the partner’s particular needs. The partner’s recognition of this specific awareness in the individual makes the relationship feel unique. This, in turn, fosters trust and commitment.21
Going even further, Birnbaum and colleagues propose a causal connection between partner responsiveness and sexual desire in the long term, too. In particular, partners’ expressions of responsiveness outside the bedroom might increase the desire for sex, thereby further promoting the relationship. In contrast, partners’ lack of responsiveness could cause a negativity that inhibits sexual desire for both. Though responsiveness is related to intimacy, each can have independent impacts. Hence, couple interactions require responsiveness plus intimacy. When partners perceive the other as responsive, they are more likely to experience their relationship as unique and valuable, which in turn can spur desire in a long-term relationship.22
The crucial role of responsiveness (as well as synchrony and resonance) in romantic relationships fits quite well with and serves to support the dialogue model. However, as Reis and Clark indicate, caring is also essential in romantic relationships, and responsiveness has a pivotal role in creating and enhancing caring.23
Romantic Resonance
You don’t love someone for their looks, or their clothes, or for their fancy car, but because they sing a song only you can hear.
OSCAR WILDE
The notion of “resonance” can be traced to antiquity. The term has mystical overtones, as well as elements that artists have sought to evoke in art and architecture. Recently, the word “resonance” has taken on even greater . . . resonance, if you will. Nowadays, we find it everywhere: in physics, music, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and aesthetics.24
Resonance refers to the tendency of a system to oscillate with another system at a similar frequency. In physics, it is defined as the “reinforcement or prolongation of sound by reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighboring object.”25
I suggest considering romantic resonance as involving a high-level responsiveness consisting of an ongoing, synchronous dynamic reciprocity. Most other types of romantic responsiveness are instantaneous, static, and not necessarily reciprocal. Romantic resonance involves reinforcing or prolonging a romantic reciprocity on the causality level. Romantic responsivity may also involve reciprocity, but it is not always present. We can speak about one-directional romantic responsivity, that is, responsivity existing in only one partner. However, one cannot speak about one-directional romantic resonance, as resonance has to do with the connection between two people. If romantic responsivity is to develop into romantic resonance, a dynamic reciprocity on the causal level must be added. Such reciprocity need not be symmetrical at the level of the resulting behavior; it can be, for instance, complementary.26
Music may help us here. Scruton compares the aesthetic response to dancing to music, arguing that “dancing is the social activity which stands nearest to the aesthetic response—a way of ‘being together’”; the response of the listener to music is “a kind of latent dancing—a sublimated desire to ‘move with’ the music.” He claims that the great triumphs of music “involve this synthesis whereby a musical structure, moving according to its own logic, compels our feelings to move along with it.”27 In this sense, we can say that romantic resonance is a kind of dancing together, a way of “being together”—a sublimated desire to “move with” the partner. During this special dance move, partners will also experience understanding, empathy, sympathy, and sharing.28
Thus, romantic resonance is marked by an ongoing, dynamic reciprocity. Additionally, I suggest, it has the following characteristics: (a) shared emotional experiences and joint activities; (b) constitutive similarity; (c) amplification, complementing, damping, and balance; (d) spontaneous response; and (e) autonomous status.
Shared emotional experiences and joint activities. Shared emotional (and other affective) experiences and activities are pivotal to romantic amplification. Aristotle stresses the importance of joint interactions in love, noting that lengthy separation can destroy love.29 Romantic resonance, involving a suitable coupling, lays the ground for such experiences and activities; it involves movements in which each lover resonates with the other. Romantic resonance is a kind of co-engagement, established by shared experiences and joint activities. In this co-engagement, separate individuals no longer need to bridge any sort of gap between them: the lovers share a romantic space whose foundation is romantic resonance.
Constitutive similarity. Do birds of a feather really flock together? Alternatively, do opposites really attract? In the case of long-lasting profound love, we know the answer: similarity rules the day. Indeed, philosophers from Empedocles, Aristotle, and Cicero to Montaigne and Nietzsche all agree that similarity is the basis of love. We, too, have seen evidence for the significance of similarity. Only in short-term relationships, where commitment is low, do people prefer dissimilar partners. When a lover acts
in accordance with “constitutive similarity,” she acts in an authentic manner that actualizes her own nature. As some Romantics suggest, “The loved one is merely an emotional echo chamber, in which the lover gets to hear his own authentic voice.”30
Amplification, complementing, damping, and balance. Like other types of resonance, romantic resonance is associated with a kind of interaction that can prolong and amplify the romantic experience. The contagious nature of emotions can also amplify romantic resonance. When our loved ones are sad, we are saddened too. And so, too, in the sexual realm: it is easier to achieve orgasm when people know that their partner is enjoying the sexual interaction.
Complementing is a major process associated with romantic resonance. Like resonance, romantic complementing amplifies the value of the connection in forming a whole of a greater value. When complementing goes well, a combination of the two is greater than the sum of their parts. Thus, we say, “A fine wine is a perfect complement to dinner” or “The music complements her voice perfectly.” In compromising, we accept something negative and stop pursuing something positive to prevent a greater possible harmful impact on the present situation. Complementing, by contrast, amplifies the positive while bringing out the best in each partner.
Damping refers to losses over time. When damping is small, the resonant frequency is approximately equal to the natural frequency of the system. Resonance can also collapse the system as result of overamplification of its natural frequency. Romantic resonance can be maintained by increasing the intrinsic value of the connection and reducing the negative burden of external circumstances.
Maintaining a balance between the various features underlying romantic resonance is an achievement that can preserve a thriving relationship and prevent an overload collapse. Profound love might not always persist in the long term, since significant changes in one partner or in external circumstances can damage love. However, as we are dealing here with constitutive similarity, such similarity is less likely to change; hence, it may help in coping with the negative circumstances. Accordingly, some people say that they never stopped loving their beloved, even when things were going badly. Profound love might end because of external factors, but its long-term survival does not depend only on preventing negative external factors; such survival requires further promoting positive intrinsic factors.
Spontaneous response. Following Spinoza’s lead, we can discuss three major cognitive systems: emotional intuition, deliberative thinking, and intuitive reasoning. Although deliberative thinking generally has more cognitive value than emotional intuition, there is yet another intuitive system, which can be termed “intuitive reasoning,” the value of which is generally higher than that of the deliberative system. Expert decision-making leverages such intuitive reasoning.31 Romantic resonance involves valuable, spontaneous intuition. Indeed, spouses’ automatic attitudes, not their conscious ones, predict changes in their marital satisfaction, such that, over time, spouses with more positive automatic attitudes were less likely to experience marital dissatisfaction. Implicit spontaneous romantic resonance can bypass self-presentational biases and turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy in partner interactions.32
Autonomous status. The autonomous nature of romantic resonance is expressed in the presence of personal degrees of freedom, through which we cultivate or eliminate a given resonate response. Hartmut Rosa argues that since acceleration is a major problem of modern society, stuffed as it is with so many options, resonance, which limits our freedom, can be a major solution.33 Resonance revises the prevailing notion of autonomy: it places some limitations on lovers’ behavior, since they seek to resonate (but not to fuse) with each other. However, the problem nowadays is mainly not how to find love, but how to keep love once we have found it. Accordingly, the issue of uniqueness is basic to long-term love; resonance, which expresses a unique connection between two individuals, is crucial here. Developing profound love often cultivates romantic resonance; hence, romantic resonance is both an aspect and an achievement of love.
Romantic resonance involves a kind of meaningful responsiveness. Some level of resonance is evident, for example, in flirting, where each partner’s emotions are stirred, thereby enabling the two partners to resonate with each other. Resonance is even more obvious in profound love, when the two lovers are in a dynamic, harmonious relationship. The importance of reciprocity and caring in romantic love makes romantic resonance an advantage in such relationships. It can be expressed in the coming together of basic values, including moral, political, and aesthetic ideals. Thus, lovers develop similar preferences—for example, enjoying music to which they were previously indifferent, or even wearing similar colors or clothes. These lovers might say that they know what the other will say before he or she even speaks.
We usually see romantic resonance and other types of positive responsivity in long-term profound love. However, it is possible for profound love to lack resonance—although it is highly unlikely that such love would lack any other type of positive responsivity. Romantic resonance is an achievement that not all profound lovers manage to attain. The caring aspect of romantic love would survive this absence intact, although the dialogical aspect might be impaired.
Romantic Consistency
Dogs love their friends and bite their enemies, quite unlike people, who are incapable of pure love and always have to mix love and hate.
SIGMUND FREUD
Synchrony, responsiveness, and resonance are temporal phenomena that undergird long-term romantic relationships. Yet there is a fourth phenomenon: consistent behavior. As the term indicates, this involves acting in a similar way, over time. However, while it is clear that synchrony, responsiveness, and resonance are essential to long-term romantic relationships, the value of consistency in the romantic realm is rather murkier.
There is a basic survival value to consistent behavior—without it, we could not understand and engage in our environment. In personal relationships, consistency helps us to anticipate, and hence to manage, the other’s behavior. Consistency is an intellectual demand that has a questionable connection with emotional attitudes. In emotional attitudes, which are generated by change and are context-sensitive, consistency is not at the top of the totem pole of importance. Extreme people, who have a limited awareness of reality, tend to be rigid and consistent, but those who consider the changes around them must be more flexible and, accordingly, seem less consistent.
Moreover, as we have said, our ability to hold multiple opinions can create emotional ambivalence when we perceive both positive and negative values in the same object. Such ambivalence is problematic for the intellectual system, but not for the emotional system. Unlike intellectual deliberations, which seek full understanding, emotional attitudes are partial and hence can deal with different and sometimes even opposing aspects.
Do you ever feel as though you both love and hate someone? If so, you are in awfully good company. But loving and hating the same person at the same time is contradictory. Or is it?
Love and hate: polar opposites. At least, that’s how these emotions are normally understood. But let’s consider two points. First, love is broader in scope than hate—it takes into account more of what it loves. When we hate someone, we see that person as bad—bad to the bone. In romantic love, though, the lover is viewed in a more “textured” way—as both good and attractive. Second, there are many varieties of emotions (and there are more kinds of love than hate), and each of them cannot be the exact opposite of their counterparts in the other emotion. So, rather than as opposites, love and hate are better described as distinct experiences: similar in some ways and different in others.
When people say that they are in a love-hate relationship, they may be referring to different aspects of their attitudes toward the beloved. There are parts of the beloved that the lover admires, and parts that the lover disapproves of and sometimes even hates. Such mixed emotions make sense in a complex love relationship. Yet it is hard when we feel emotions
that are both profound and all-encompassing, such as love and hate, toward the same person.
In a love-hate relationships, people change their focus of attention under different conditions; hence, the change in the emotional attitudes. When lovers focus their attention on, say, their partner’s sense of humor, they love them dearly. When they think about the humiliation the partner causes them, they hate his or her guts. Thus, people can say: “I hate you, Then I love you . . . Then I hate you, Then I love you more” (Celine Dion); “Sometimes I love you, sometimes I hate you. But when I hate you, it’s because I love you” (Nat King Cole). As the songwriters know well, emotional experiences are nothing if not dynamic, and different circumstances can change our emotional attitude toward the same person. This aspect is also nicely illustrated in Charley Pride’s song “You’re So Good When You’re Bad.” The protagonist describes his woman as both an angel and a devil, bringing sunshine to his life, but when she reaches out and dims the lights, “I say mmm mmm you’re so good when you’re bad.”
When love turns sour, hate is not far behind. Consider the following testimony of a man convicted of killing his wife: “You don’t always kill a woman or feel jealousy about a woman or shout at a woman because you hate her. No. Because you love her, that’s love.” No doubt, love can be extremely dangerous, and people have committed the most horrific crimes in the name of love.34
Alright, you might be saying to yourself. So I can feel love and hate toward the same person. But toward the same person at the same time? Well, we might say that we dearly love someone in general but hate his dishonesty. Accordingly, when people say, “I love and hate you at the same time!” they mean that their profound positive and negative evaluations are directed at different aspects of the person. In a similar vein, unmarried lovers in an extramarital relationship might love their married partner deeply, while also hating them for preferring to maintain the bond with their spouse. Likewise, we might hate someone because we love them and are unable to free ourselves of our love for them, or because this love is not reciprocated.
The Arc of Love Page 9