Semantics of sex could be an eye-catching way to start this study, but it would be misleading in as much as we are primarily concerned with the connotations of the word love – and the resultant effects on our lives. The “language of love” is too general and has been used too often elsewhere with varied connotations. So we shall use “Grammar of Love”, often shortened to “the Grammar”, or just “Grammar”. The Western grammar of love, based as it is on the ethics propagated by a patriarchal Middle-Eastern society {A} and the manners then current, has been successively romanticised (with very few exceptions) – probably first about the year 20 BC by Ovid {O01}, then by the concept of chivalry {C}, then by romantic novels {D} well beyond the middle of the twentieth century.
While the basic structure of society remained intrinsically constant the myths and paradoxes were not immediately apparent; indeed in the UK they were probably encouraged (especially in the Victorian era) to preserve the concept of male-dominated monogamous marriages. Naturally there were double (if not triple) standards but these did not seriously disturb the position of the stated Christian view as the ideal.
Comparisons of degree within the relationships were not made. At least not in public (so far as I can tell from the literature) eg loving and liking, self-respect and mutual respect, self-fulfillment and happiness, contentment and endurance. In any case I suggest that this Grammar was yet another convenient way for the Victorians to sweep sex under the carpet.
It may be noted moreover, that even the bawdiest of Restoration comedies still assumed that the Grammar was true. To say that art in general and literature in particular was dominated by love and sex would not be an over-statement.
The progressive emancipation of women has successively highlighted the falsity of the "grammar", even though this effect has not been generally realised. Here, I am using emancipation in the generally accepted sense, namely overt status, power, and responsibility. In fact I consider that the net effect has been to diminish the actual power of women {{and this theme will be returned to later on}}. Essentially, I now think it is the difference between needing to get what you want and needing to get public recognition that you got what you wanted.
Significant milestones are probably the first recorded divorce action brought by a woman {5, TBA}, universal suffrage, Margaret Meade, Amy Johnson, Dr Marie Stopes, the Second World War, the Kinsey Report, the Pill, Ms Germaine Greer, Women's Lib, and consideration of the problems of Lesbian "parents" {{exact Sequence TBA}}.
For over fifty years (at least two generations) there have been concerted attacks on the "traditional order" The major targets seem to have been both woman's unique (albeit traditional) rôle as mother and wife (and any satisfaction found they found therein) plus seizing every opportunity to belittle the male of the species, rather than to suggest viable alternatives and encourage positive attitudes. As one of Lessing’s characters said {49} "They were self-consciously and loudly critical of male authority, male organization, as if they had set themselves a duty always to be there commenting on everything the men did. They were a chorus of condemnation."
Later, the voice was sometimes less strident, seemingly more compassionate "The old rules our grandmothers followed to get a man don’t work today (and, in fact, they never did). They were part of the same package that kept women from voicing their opinions, having careers, and earning equal wages." (de Angelis {}), however the message still seems to be “throw every ‘rule’ out if it's ‘old’, good replacements will come even if we have not got any at the moment”.
This is as good as admitted by the same author (de Angelis {}) "The old ways of living and loving don’t work anymore, and we still haven’t figured out the new ways. In the meantime, we’re still trying to have relationships, and we’re experiencing a lot of disappointment and confusion in the process."
Through all this, what I can only describe as surprised emotional discontent now seems to reign over the women of the UK, and I will hold much of the blame for this to lie with this "Grammar" that we have all been taught to accept. Those readers unduly sensitised by anti-sexist propaganda and/or beliefs, may object to the occasions that I say "he" rather than "she", or "his” rather than “hers”. My philosophy in this respect is “Vive le difference!" as it would be idle to pretend that there are no differences, or that there are no differences in the pressures brought to bear on each sex by 'Society' - eg so far as I am aware there are no romantic novels or weekly magazines with romantic stories specifically aimed at heterosexual man. One explanation for that could be if the primary (not the only) responsibility for keeping the romance in a relationship alive was the woman; another explanation could be that “women … are more ‘left-brain,’ or verbally oriented." (de Angelis {}) and so are more influenced by reading than men are.
Women, I suggest, were also mainly responsible for treating ‘boys as boys and girls as girls’ this being the best judgment of the women concerned in their upbringing of their children. Yet one author (de Angelis {TBA}) says "These days many new parents attempt to avoid stereotyping their children based on gender. But most of the adult men you and I are having relationships with are victims of this early childhood conditioning." This, in my opinion, is very dangerous territory, it might even be that the unwelcome increase in teenage pregnancies has some of its roots in suppressed maternal urges due to discouragement from playing with dolls. Those who try to tamper with human nature do so at the peril of us all.
Although it is in another context "The temptation was always to tamper, to fiddle with the settings that regulated everything, as though by such meddling one proved how carefully painstaking and watchful one was being ..." (Banks {})
As already stated, it must be emphasised that I am not implying that the quotes in any way represent the personal opinions of the Author; nearly always they are from the mouth or mind of one of his characters.
The formative influence of fiction is not to be underestimated, as it provides the reader with a pattern of how people have behaved in those circumstances. Alas that it is not so easy to quote from films, TV, and videos whose influence is probably even more germane. The magic of the printed word remains with us though, partly a legacy from school textbooks, partly a feeling that if somebody has bothered to print it then it must be right.
A curious parallel might be drawn between romantic fiction and sex manuals: both emphasise the importance of becoming/foreplay, only the latter deals with afterplay, neither have too much to say about “the bit in the middle”! Probably because “everybody knows”. Sadly, they don’t, evidenced by the spiralling divorce rate, and since traditional rôle models (parents, grandparents, siblings, friends, and neighbours) have been derided and have all but disappeared all that is left are the so-called experts (many of whom are likely to be working from a theoretical “model” rather than practical experience).
It is my thesis that the language of love, both its "grammar" and its "semantics", is misleading to the point of deception. A direct result is that each succeeding generation perpetuates earlier misconceptions and so continues to have false expectations followed by inevitable disappointments. A simple solution is to recognize the "selfish" nature of love and the need to love, epitomised in the archetypal phrase "I love you". Initially, the basic fallacies will be identified, then we will attempt to trace (mainly through literature) how these fallacies have arisen, finally to try and suggest a new way of thinking and acting towards each other - perhaps by means of a new use of language.
This will of necessity be an empirical study, as there is little if any that can be proved or disproved to any degree of statistical significance. Ironically, the only thing that can be "proved", at least to the satisfaction of the Courts, is the "irretrievable breakdown" [sic] of a marriage [relationship].
Evidence will be presented in this and the following chapters, but most of it will be hearsay; many quotes will be made (which pedants may claim are out of context) and an underlying theory will be put forward.
As far as practical application of this theory, a parallel to playing a hand of Bridge may prove useful. There, in most cases you do not know where the cards lie, but you should play as if you did. In other words, you ask yourself the question how should the cards lie for me to win the number of tricks [positive responses] that I need, then how should I play my cards if they lay that way? As play progresses, you will soon find out if you have made a wrong guess and have to repeat the process. As further play [time] progresses the probability of correctly reading the remaining cards [personality traits] increases. The analogy should not be pressed too far, but post-mortems on the lines of "Why when it's over do you want to know Why?" (Law {6}) should in general be avoided.
The above is an example of using a model or map in situations where we do not have complete information on which to make our decisions. Deeper understanding of such modelling forms part of NLP (Neuro-Lingusitic Programming) but does carry the health-warning “The map is not the territory” (Seymour {J}) – in other words remember that your assumptions are just that, assumptions (see also my later chapter "The Minefield of Expectation").
This study then should be regarded as a sort of Train-Spotters' Guide to pitfalls and reactions, and you as reader should compare these with your own experiences and test whether or not you reach the same conclusions.
To this extent my conclusions are offered as a form of DDIY (Don't Do It Yourself). They are not claimed to be exhaustive; you may know of pitfalls which I have not yet enumerated . If so, please let me know of these so that in due course we can warn others.
It seems inevitable, alas, that more space will be taken enumerating negative rather than positive attitudes, qualities, and situations. I suggest this is because although the expectation is positive, in general the amount and quality of expectation is too high (see the later chapter "The Minefield of Expectation") and so negative outcomes tend to occur.
• Paradoxes •
Defined by the dictionary as “seemingly … contradictory statements” do exist in relationships as elsewhere; both partners in a relationship must learn to live with them. Where relevant, paradoxes will be quoted just before the end of each chapter.
• You are still an individual, you may still be alone. ”Often the beloved is only a stimulus for all the stored-up love which has lain quiet within the lover for a long time hitherto. And somehow every lover knows this. He feels in his soul that his love is a solitary thing.” McCullers {TBA}
• There will be times when both you and your partner need to find that “point of stillness at the eye of the vortex ...” (Donaldson {TBA})
• The War of the Sexes is eternal, despite constant fraternization: Thurber {I}, my favourite war correspondent, once said "It's better to have loved and lost than never to have lost at all".
"It is a weird thought that anyone is permitted to love anyone and in any way he pleases. Nothing in nature forbids it. A cat may look at a king, the worthless can love the good, the good the worthless, the worthless the worthless, and the good the good. Hey presto: and the great light flashes on revealing perhaps reality or perhaps illusion. … Love knows no conventions. Anything can happen, so that in a way, there are no impossibilities." . (Murdoch {TBA}
Anything may happen in a relationship, but this can be refined to probabilities and likely misconceptions. In the next chapter we will investigate if there could be any possible misinterpretations of the standard declaration – “I love you”.
|
Contributor's Note
This is an extract from a sort of pocket dictionary of relationships – a phrasebook of the grammar of love. © 2010, Roy Law, all rights reserved.
|
