|  |  | 

History Sociology

Love in Our Society

Throughout history, love has been symbolized as more of a literary longing than a recognized normality. Love is an emotion that has evolved over time, in a sense. Love hasn’t always been attributed to the same feelings and scenarios that we think of in modern day. What exactly, and why exactly, do we perceive this emotion the way we do now? It’s kind of shocking, if you think about it. How we are brought up to witness what we claim as love is far from what it’s been for most of our history.

It, at one point not too long ago, was forced. It was something literally arranged. Something that we felt in a knowing sense rather than a romantic one.

It’s madness, really. Romantic love is not an ancient relic or social construct from long ago. Most historical societies, as recognized through works of traditional recollection, didn’t experience love as modern western society experiences it today. The formation of families were never witnessed in a loving relationship turning to fruition with engagement and cohabitation. It was something based on the formality of marriage, often arranged. People were not allowed to choose who they were going to marry, with romantic adventures being nonexistent up until in the very least the early 1800s.

Love as we know it didn’t exist in the form of sexual liberation and the freedom to marry whoever we felt most “in love” with. Love was arranged at best, used for family heritage and ethical correspondence. To a working class, love was what produced economic stability and labor. To a ruling class, love was what produced alliances and treaties. It wasn’t romance, it was life.

Literature has always been a bit of a social continuation when it comes to the influence on the topic of love. Think back to the ancient Greeks, who’s model of the “perfect sense of love” was Penelope, the faithful life who waited years, turning down countless lovers and suitors while waiting for her husband to return from home. It wasn’t necessarily out of “love”, but of “loyalty” that the wife held close to her heart.

Love wasn’t like it used to be throughout our history. It wasn’t something out of sexual desire and longing, it was something that lasted for two lifetimes. Oftentimes, widows would be represented as “Mrs” even if they weren’t forced to remarry. They were still, in a social sense, obligated to be a wife amongst unmarried.

In a sense, society has loosened up to our definition of love. First came the French, then the Italians, and it continued to spread until “love” dominated the western world in a sense that it had never been able to before. With the liberation of women came the passion that we witness in our aspects of appreciating love and what a romantic endeavor ‘should be’.

With the introduction of modern American culture in the 1920s and the legislative approval to give women the right to vote came the foundations of women’s rights soon to come. Now, just shy of 100 years later, a woman has a very large chance of taking the Presidency. Thus, we realize the change in gender roles — with the feminine form history is so used to becoming more and more obsolete with each passing day.

This fact leads us to believe that in a social sense, the change in our perspective of women allowed for “love” to swap from the biblical and ancient sense that male figures “desired” and allowed to a more equal playing field of what we now view as love.

One of the greatest things to happen to our modern conception of love is the consideration towards homosexual individuals, expanding the broadening definition of what we perceive as love to those who history has not appreciated for centuries in our very own cultures.

Perhaps it will change further, within the next hundred years or so evolving to a new sense that we wouldn’t accept or believe in today. Perhaps it will revert back, if more traditionalist conservative values are placed into our society. We can surely predict the future by placing values we believe in today.

love-in-society

love-in-our-society

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I’m a writer and historian. Simple enough, right? I enjoy philosophy, sociology, social psychology, politics, basic programming, statistics, and old books. Unlike the stereotypical leftist, I do not necessarily censor myself. I apologize in advance if you find yourself offended by something I’ve said; but I do enjoy hearing criticism and having debates.

Related Articles

  • Book Review: The Elizabethan Renaissance by A. L. Rowse

    Book Review: The Elizabethan Renaissance by A. L. Rowse

    Alfred Leslie Rowse, oftentimes shortened to A. L. Rowse, is best known for his work on England under Queen Elizabeth I’s reign as monarch. He was born on December 4th, 1903, in Cornwall. Mr. Rowse is the perfect example of a man of greatness born against all odds, as both his mother and father lived

  • Women’s Roles in New England vs Women’s Roles in The South

    Women’s Roles in New England vs Women’s Roles in The South

    How could you compare and contrast women’s roles in New England with women’s roles in The South? Colonial America had a rather deep division between the north and south. As we know from generalized American history, the northern and southern traditions in America would eventually clash together to cause a great Civil War. But, as for

  • Professionalizing History 6: The Public History of Our Community

    Professionalizing History 6: The Public History of Our Community

    In the last installment of Professionalizing History, we talked about the new age question of whether or not it’s important to apologize for mistakes we’ve made in the past. I highly recommend reading this series in order by publish date in order to fully understand what it means to professionalize history. This time around, I’d like to

  • Napoleon Bonaparte, Anne Boleyn, and the Image of History

    Napoleon Bonaparte, Anne Boleyn, and the Image of History

    When it comes to history, we have to remain skeptical about traditional facts. Now, that doesn’t mean we should accept fake history. It means we shouldn’t take everything history presents to us as acceptable. Historians should go against the flow of contemporary politics, going as far to be at war with the victors in a sense.

POST YOUR COMMENTS

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Joseph Kaminski
I’m a writer and historian. Simple enough, right? I enjoy philosophy, sociology, social psychology, politics, basic programming, statistics, and old books.

Subscribe

Enter your email address to subscribe to this site and receive up-to-date notifications.

Join 348 other subscribers

AN IMPORTANT NOTICE

Dear reader,

In September 2016, my website server crashed. I've been working on fixing everything since.

This site is currently in a beta state, meaning that design changes and the addition of new features will be frequent.