We have seen that while extreme romantic intensity often hinders the development of romantic profundity, there is hardly ever too much romantic profundity. However, since romantic profundity is a matter of degrees, and a high degree is hard to achieve, the lover’s attitude can be moderate in the sense of considering the beloved to be (at least) a good-enough partner.
The advantages of long-term profound love are clear in terms of our romantic and personal flourishing. Aristotle’s notion of eudaimonia is relevant here. He takes profound intrinsic activities to be the most important factor in human flourishing (eudaimonia), though he also acknowledges the importance of instrumental activities in such flourishing. Human flourishing is not a temporary state of superficial pleasure. Rather, it refers to a longer period involving the fulfillment of natural human capacities.
Can we then say, then, that in the long term, moderate romantic love is better for us than intense romantic love? I believe that although the occasional experience of wild, intense, romantic love is desirable and stimulating, this is not what enables romantic love to endure over time. The moderate type of romantic love, in which profundity, intrinsicality, and growth are combined, is what sustains long-term flourishing love. Profound love has many advantages, and we should try not to relinquish our search for such love. However, profound love does not mean giving up romantic intensity; on the contrary, such love maintains its intensity at a moderate level, which is higher than usual. Profound love limits extreme desire to occasional circumstances, but it does not eliminate such desire.
Moderate negative and positive emotions are essential for our well-being and for enduring love. There is nothing wrong with wishing to have wild, rather than mild, sexual activities. The problem with excessive intensity is that it goes haywire when it overshadows the romantic relationship as a whole.
Prudent Indifference Is the New Romantic Sensitivity
We also often add to our pain and suffering by being overly sensitive, over-reacting to minor things, and sometimes taking things too personally.
TENZIN GYATSO, the 14th Dalai Lama
Do not give in too much to feelings. An overly sensitive heart is an unhappy possession on this shaky earth.
JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE
Sensitivity has a good reputation in the romantic arena: it is often considered one of the most important pillars of a good romantic relationship. While this is certainly true, too much romantic sensitivity can overburden a relationship. A degree of indifference, which is valuable in any kind of relationship, is particularly valuable when coping with an abundance of enticing romantic options.
Elaine Aron discusses highly sensitive people, who constitute about 20 percent of the overall population. She characterizes these people as those who “pick up on subtleties, reflect deeply, and therefore are easily overwhelmed.” So, when highly sensitive people are in love, “they will tend to demand more depth in their relationships in order to be satisfied; see more threatening consequences in their partners’ flaws or behaviors; reflect more and, if the signs indicate it, worry about how things are going.” Highly sensitive people are more sensitive than others to both positive and negative environmental influences; thus, they are more prone to stress, as well as to empathy.2
Romantic sensitivity can be expressed toward one’s partner but also toward other possible romantic partners. Such sensitivity can lead the lover into a constant search for a better romantic option. As discussed above, this search, which is often futile, makes you dissatisfied with your own romantic lot and accordingly impedes the development of long-term robust love. Human curiosity makes us sensitive to every open romantic door, tempting us to enter, so as not to miss any option. Trying to enjoy all options runs the risk of losing the relationship you are presently in. Closing some open doors, which requires some kind of indifference toward these tempting doors, is difficult but necessary in a world of limited resources and conflicting values. Love requires great investment; being sensitive to all romantic options can spread the required investment too thin.
Dan Ariely argues that people have an irrational tendency to keep their options open for too long and hence wind up chasing down impractical roads. Given the greater freedom in modern society, people “are beset not by a lack of opportunity, but by a dizzying abundance of it.” We want to taste and experience every aspect of life regardless of its price. In this sense, Ariely claims, we are spreading ourselves too thin. He notes that another risk in such behavior is that some options disappear if we do not invest enough resources to keep them alive. Their disappearance may occur too slowly for us to see them vanishing. He argues that we need to close some of our options; otherwise, the better options may not survive. There is a price for keeping so many options open, and sometimes this price is higher than any gain we could derive from doing so.3
From a simplistic point of view, cognitive sensitivity implies that the more sensitive you are, the more relevant information you will discover, and the better your romantic relationship will be. One difficulty with this view is that greater knowledge does not always increase the quality of a relationship. Sometime, romantic ignorance can be quite useful. Thus, La Rochefoucauld argues that “in friendships as well as love, ignorance very often contributes more to our happiness than knowledge.” Romantic relationships require some balance of positive illusions, on the one hand, and accurate knowledge, on the other. However, romantic ignorance is valuable only in limited circumstances and only for some people. In general, profound love feeds on the idea that “to know you is to love you.” This is because knowledge enables greater understanding and therefore deeper sensitivity toward the other. There are, however, personal and contextual variations in this regard. The value of greater knowledge does not imply the value of dwelling upon the unpleasant flaws of the beloved. Rumination on matters we cannot change does nothing but increase pain.
Romantic sensitivity works best within limits. Just as I cannot love everyone, I cannot be sensitive in the same degree and manner to all my beloved’s characteristics and behaviors. Romantic sensitivity should focus on the most meaningful and relevant aspects involved in romantic thriving. Without such focus and prioritization, sensitivity can become toxic. If we deal with a penny as we would a million dollars, sensitivity overloads us with irrelevant and even destructive noise.
Why should you develop limited indifference to your partner’s behavior? It’s all about trust. If you trust your beloved, you will be less likely to worry endlessly about insignificant flaws or inappropriate deeds. Trust requires a degree of indifference—being certain that the other acts out of love and good intentions. Certainly, trust has to be gained. However, it ought not to be constantly inspected. We should not be blind, or at least not completely blind, to some of our partner’s flaws, but we should also be less sensitive to them by according them minor weight. We cannot conduct our lives properly if we treat everything as equally important; we must have some order of priority. We must learn to be insensitive to some issues and more sensitive to others; otherwise, our mental system will become overwhelmed. Love involves being sensitive to the beloved. Too much sensitivity, however, can ruin love; indiscriminate sensitivity, like indiscriminate freedom, disrupts our order of priorities.
Research suggests that profound lovers do develop such prudent indifference. Garth Fletcher and colleagues argue that people in highly committed relationships tend to perceive attractive individuals as less appealing than those who are not committed or are single. To defuse the threat of a romantic alternative, individuals in more committed relationships downplay the attractiveness of other potential partners. The authors conclude that certain cognitive biases operate as effective strategies that suppress mate-search processes and strengthen established relationship bonds.4
A wonderful love song from the 1930s runs: “Millions of people go by, but they all disappear from view—because I only have eyes for you.” These lyrics, written by Al Dubin, represent a great romantic ideal. Of course, committed
lovers do not have a cognitive deficiency (lovers are not blind to other romantic options), but they do have an evaluative change of focus (lovers are less attracted to such options). Profound romantic love suppresses the search for mates but does not wholly eliminate the desire for other romantic options.
To sum up, sensitivity is indeed the hallmark of emotions, and its role in love is significant. Love involves being sensitive to the beloved. However, too much sensitivity, or indiscriminate sensitivity, can destroy love, as it disrupts our normative order of priorities. Adhering to that order requires not merely sensitivity, but also selective indifference. Notably, I am not suggesting apathy, which is lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern, and hence not being willing to make any effort to change things. Prudent indifference is still sensitivity—but one that is shaped by our more profound value. Today, we are flooded with intense exciting options, making the maintenance of long-term relations difficult. A reasonable degree of indifference toward alluring options, as well as toward one’s partner’s flaws and mistakes, can go a long way toward the sustaining of these relations.
Restricted Distance Is the New Romantic Closeness
And stand together yet not too near together: For the pillars of the temple stand apart, And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.
KAHLIL GIBRAN
In true love the smallest distance is too great, and the greatest distance can be bridged.
HANS NOUWENS
Being temporally and geographically close to your partner is central to romantic love. This centrality is often associated with the idea that the two lovers, as soulmates, merge into one entity. However, we have seen that this false notion of fusion conflicts with the reality that each lover must enjoy a degree of autonomy. Thus, there must be some geographical and temporal distance in profound love. What is the nature of such distance, and is it truly intolerable?
Distance/closeness can be spoken of in a few different ways: temporal, geographical, and psychological. The relation between these types is complex. My main concern here is with the impact of the temporal and geographical distances on romantic closeness (which is one type of psychological closeness).
Temporal Distance: Do You Always Wish to Be with the One You Love?
Only miss the sun when it starts to snow; only know you love her when you let her go.
PASSENGER
Can partners cope with temporal distance—that is, can they tolerate waiting? Patience involves being able to endure waiting, without becoming annoyed or upset, especially when encountering difficulties or frustration. Passion involves being excited or agitated, and the inclination to feel emotions intensely. Profound lovers are both patient and impatient, as profound love involves both the excitement of sexual desire and the calmness of profound love.
Love songs sing of the lover’s wish to be with the beloved “always” and “all the time.” This wish can express two different desires: (1) wanting to be with the beloved for the rest of one’s life or (2) wanting to be with the beloved every day as much as possible. These two wishes are not identical: someone might wish to be with her partner for the rest of her life but prefer doing so only on weekends. What are the requirements underlying the two kinds of wishes?
The wish to be with another person for the rest of one’s life does not necessarily express a profound love; it could merely imply a desire to share a comfortable life with a person who is a good father, a reasonable provider, or a great sexual partner. However, wishing to be with someone every day and as much as possible does denote a kind of profound love, in which the togetherness itself has an intrinsic value in being fulfilling and enjoyable. Couples in love can enjoy seeing a movie together regardless of its quality (unless they really hate that movie!). The wish to be together persists although the lovers are enjoying activities with other people. One type of activity does not get in the way of others, as our lives are full of intrinsic enjoyable activities, and it is unreasonable to expect that one person can fulfill all of our needs.
Although profound love involves the wish to be with each other as much as possible every day, it also requires a kind of limited distance that creates personal space, enabling a lasting togetherness.
Geographical Closeness
Relationship at a distance can do things for the heart that a closer, day-to-day companionship cannot.
THOMAS MOORE
Distance doesn’t separate people . . . Silence does.
JEFF HOOD
We have seen that lovers can tolerate temporal distance, but can they tolerate geographical distance? Being physically close has been considered essential to romantic love, in part so partners can engage in sexual interaction. Moreover, in the past, the “one and only” was likely to be found not far from where potential partners lived, as this required fewer resources and less effort than long-distance relationships.
Increasing numbers of romantic couples today live at a geographical distance from each other. Take commuter marriage, for example. A commuter marriage is a relationship between people who are married and intend to remain so, but live apart, usually because of the locations of their jobs, educational demands, or dual-career pursuits. Technologies such as phone calls, videos, instant messaging, texting, Skype, and emails enable direct and immediate communication that can sustain a continuous, meaningful romantic relationship, despite the geographical distance.
A growing body of research indicates that long-distance relationships often have equal or greater value than close-proximity relationships in promoting and maintaining romantic connections. The couples in these relationships enjoy greater personal space, which enhances their personal flourishing, as well as the flourishing of their togetherness. Several studies have shown that communication in long-distance dating is more intimate, more positive, and less argumentative than in geographically close dating. Openness and positivity—two strategies that involve intimate self-disclosure—are frequently observed in the communication of couples in long-distance relationships, and these add to relationship stability and satisfaction. Commitment and trust are important in all romantic relationships, but in long-distance relationships, they have greater significance, as there are more opportunities for things to happen that will threaten the commitment. Indeed, the percentage of extramarital affairs in these relationships is similar, or even lower, than that in standard marriages. Divorce rates also appear to be similar. Whereas in geographically close relationships, coresidence might be considered key to the romantic relationship, in commuter marriage, commitment outweighs coresidence in importance.5
In our cyber society, geographical distance has lost some of its negative aspects. Sometimes, living apart is more conducive to profound long-term love than living under the same roof; for a growing number of couples, geographical distance promotes emotional closeness. Can we say then that (geographical) distance is the new (romantic) closeness?
Long-distance relationships can suffer from a limited amount of interaction between the partners and from clashing schedules that often express conflicting needs as well. When this happens, people in such relationships sometimes feel distress, leading them to view the relationship as less than fully satisfactory. Of particular significance is that such couples miss out on daily interactions over trivial matters. Frequent telephone conversations or online communications are valuable, but not sufficient to make the marital relationship fully satisfactory or fulfilling.6 Karla Mason Bergen argues that many wives in commuter marriages describe their marriage as “the best of all worlds”; others describe it as “torn between two worlds.” It is the best of all worlds because the wives are both independent and interdependent; they take advantage of opportunities for personal fulfillment, while still keeping their marriages intact. They feel torn between two worlds, because their life unfolds in two different environments.7
As distance facilitates idealization, people in long-distance relationships tend toward higher levels of optimism and greater idealization of their partn
er. This could cause them to assess their relationship inaccurately. Thus, couples in commuter marriages consider the likelihood of breaking up within the next year lower than do individuals in close-proximity relationships. However, breakup rates turned out to be similar in the two groups. Idealization is often self-fulfilling, and this plays a positive role in enhancing marital quality, which might partly explain the higher marital quality in long-distance relationships. Indeed, some people who have maintained a long-distance relationship and then began to live geographically closer report that they now miss the feeling of missing each other (“I miss missing him,” as one woman said) and the anticipation of seeing each other.8
Since more and more contemporary couples are entering commuting relationships because of work, the time apart might save as many marriages as it destroys. Finding the right physical and emotional distance for the partners is crucial for a satisfactory romantic relationship. Distance has its costs, but a mutually desired distance can minimize the impact of other costs. While many married couples are busy thinking about how to reduce distance, others would like to enlarge it in order to provide more personal space for activities of personal fulfillment. Determining appropriate distance is not easy, but doing so eases the enormous burden put on lovers in intimate relationships. Alas, there is no formula for love.
When circumstances impose such distance, it often turns out to have real benefits. It is usually counterproductive, however, to decide in advance to be further from your partner for the sake of the relationship. However, all relationships benefit when each partner has some type of personal space.
Long-distance relationships involving profound love are a growing phenomenon from which more and more people are benefiting. It seems then that (geographical) distance might, indeed, be the new (romantic) closeness, though this does not eliminate the value of other types of romantic closeness.
The Arc of Love Page 31