Limited Love...?

Earlier today on MindBodyGreen.com, best-selling author and relationship expert Dr.Margaret Paul uploaded an article titled "Here's What True Love Is (And What It Isn't)" ---this being an unmistakable attempt on her part to correct any media- and culture-influenced misconceptions about the ancient God-like entity. 

Paul began identifying how limited the Western concept of Love is by noting the lack of words we English-speakers have to refer to it. In comparison, she emphasized that the Ancient Persian language has 80 words for Love, and Sanskrit has 96. Modern English society has only one.

Or does it?

Contemporary Concepts of Love
The first place to look for Love remains where it has always been: within the family. The term "family," however, is no longer strictly confined to one's nuclear gene pool. 

Clinical psychologist Meg Jay, in her book The Defining Decade, describes two kinds of families that an individual may come to have: the biological family and the urban tribe. Needless to say, the biological family is the group of people that an individual shares blood-ties with. To put the situation crudely, it is the family that one does not have the luxury of choosing. In contrast, the urban tribe is a tight-knit group of friends. The bond between the individuals is so intimate that they consider each other soul siblings; and thus the potential formation of a bromance or sismance. (Please note: "Sismance" is not a word that is officially recognized by the writers of either Urbandictionary.com or the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. One day, however, it might be!)

The Millennial Generation has become rather fond of the word "bromance" over the past few years. This label, which refers primarily to a platonic love-bond shared between two men, has become attached to such celebrity pairings as Will Ferrell and John C. O'Reilly; Jimmy Fallon and Justin Timberlake; Ben Affleck and Matt Damon; as well as Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Such bond-forming is a demonstration that family, among a few other things, can be fluid. 

Of course, too, there is romantic Love ---that passionate and life-altering emotion that has been idealized and imitated in Hollywood movies over and over again.

Perhaps the focus on Love should not be how many words or references we Westerns have. Rather, it may be best to contemplate on what-in-the-name-of-all-that-is-holy we are doing with it.

Where We May Be Going Wrong
While the Urbandictionary may be expanding its section on modern Love colloquialisms, Dr. Margaret Paul may be right in saying that Western culture has an overall limited (underdeveloped; immature) concept of the actual entity.

Exhibited A: Love, of the capital "L" variety, is still overwhelming limited to the idea that such an emotion and/or ability exists simply between two individuals who are romantically involved with each other. Until recently, the accepted version of Love ---as publicized by the media ---consisted of a heterosexual couple. Due to the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges in the Supreme Court, however, the Love narrative has been altered to include both homosexual and heterosexual pairings. Such in itself is an amazing victory for Western culture.

What remains lacking from the mentioned narrative, however, is the acknowledgement and acceptance of Love existing between more than two people. The topic of polyamory, especially, has been paid a great deal of attention in recent years. As to whether it, or even polygamy, may be "legitimized" by American legislation is still a subject of controversy. 

Food for thought: Since Love is generally recognized as an infinite power, why should it be limited (romantically) to only two individuals?

Exhibit B: Lust and Love, quite frequently, are treated like interchangeable terms. What Paul points out in her article, however, is that there are numerous differences between the two emotions and/or abilities. At the foundation, one is selfish while the other is selfless. 

As a society, America tends to be rather selfish. Whether the general populace recognizes it or not, the popularized non-committal (hook-up) approach to Love falls along the line of Ayn Rand's ideology of egoism. To put it bluntly, we are feeding and encouraging a cycle of sexual usury in an attempt to feel love (the endorphine-induced version) without the hurt.

Unfortunately, the latter narrative is a rather old one. While it may never end entirely, we ---as a society and a culture ---can attempt to curtail its use and influence for future generations.

Exhibit C: Loving another individual is often hard to do when one does not Love oneself. And in the West, we can be rather self-loathing and masochistic. (Anorexia, bulimia, self-mutilation, drugs...)

While the idea of loving oneself may sound contradictory (considering the previous point that I made, about selfishness), it does not have to be. Rather, instead of relying on the age-old idea of finding completion in another person (of finding a mate), we should all invest time and energy into molding ourselves into becoming an ideal mate ---someone we would be proud to date. In fact, we should date ourselves. In Loving ourselves, we can better learn how to Love others. Hurt people hurt others; Loved people Love others.