Love or some forms of love can be seen as a type of
addiction. It is suggested by Brian Earp, Olga Wudarczyk, Bennett Foddy and
Julian Savulescu that if love is a form of addiction then in some cases in
might be right to treat love, in these limited cases, in the same way we treat
an addiction, see Addicted
to love . Perhaps the authors’ suggestion should be accepted for
some cases. However in this posting I will argue what might seem to be addicted
love, harmful love, is an incomplete form of love and will argue the issues
surrounding incomplete love should sometimes be dealt with by helping lovers
better understand the nature of love rather than by using treatments similar to
those used to treat addicts.
Before making my argument I must first make clear what is
meant by addiction and love. Earp, Wudarczyk, Foddy and Savulescu use substance
addiction to offer two definitions of addiction. Firstly some things are
addictive because they gradually elicit abnormal, unnatural patterns of function
in the human brain which the addict continues to pursue even when the pursuit
harms him. Secondly the addict pursues things which provide an abnormal and chronic
reward, even though this reward might be a natural one when experienced to a
lesser degree, and the pursuit harms him. Love is both common and natural for
most people so it unlikely to produce unnatural patterns of function in the
human brain. It might of course produce some excessive functioning. For this
reason I will adopt the second definition of addiction. We can love a person, a
place or a cause in what follows the domain of love will be restricted to
persons. In line with my previous postings I will follow Frankfurt by defining
basic love as ‘caring about’. Someone who cares about something invests in and identifies himself with what he cares
about by making himself vulnerable to losses and susceptible to benefits
depending upon whether what he cares about is harmed or benefited (1). However
when considering love in relation to addiction we are concerned with romantic
love. Earp,
Wudarczyk,nFoddy and Savulescu define romantic love as an “overwhelmingly
strong attraction to another person—one that is persistent, urgent, and hard to
ignore.” I will now to consider the relationship between romantic love and addiction.
According to Earp, Wudarczyk, Foddy and Savulescu romantic
love “is intimately tied to characteristic biochemical reactions occurring within
the brain. These reactions involve such compounds as dopamine, oxytocin, vasopressin,
and serotonin and recruit brain regions known to play a role in the development
of trust, the creation of feelings of pleasure, and the signalling of reward.”
These same reactions take place in the brain when someone addicted to drugs
takes drugs. The same reactions can also take place when someone binges on
food. It would appear that there is a clear connection between being addicted
to drugs or food and being in love. How are these things connected? Firstly
someone craves these biochemical reactions in the brain, the abnormal or
chronic reward, and uses food or love in an instrumental way to obtain them,
this usage harms him. If this is so it seems sensible to class some extreme
forms of love as an addiction. Intuitively it makes sense only to class extreme
forms of love as addiction because enjoying alcohol sensibly, appreciating good
food are not forms addiction and it follows most love should be regarded in the
same way. Secondly someone might crave love and use drugs or food to obtain some of the
benefits of love. In such a case it would not be sensible to class love
as an addiction. In what follows I want to consider the implications of this
second possibility.
Prior to this consideration I want to briefly consider Bruce Alexander’s
rat park, see Bruce
Alexander's rat park experiments . Early studies had shown rats kept in deprived
conditions in cages when offered drugs quickly became addicted to them. From
these studies it was concluded if someone tried drugs he would also become quickly
addicted to them. Alexander and his colleagues including Robert Coambs,
Patricia Hadaway and Barry Beyersteingues offered drugs to rats of both sexes
housed in rat park which offered the rats all the things they want. These rats
did not become addicted. Alexander’s experiments have relevance to concerns
about drug addiction and obesity. Perhaps the best way to deal with these
concerns might be to deal with the conditions in society which cause these
concerns arise rather than directly target drug addiction or foster shame the
obese, see two types
of shame . Unfortunately for society it appears to both easier, even if less
effective, and cheaper to directly target drug addiction and obesity. However
even if Alexander’s experiments are relevant to concerns about addiction they
appear to be unconnected to love. I will now suggest that these experiments are
relevant to love. In this posting I am concerned with romantic love but perhaps
underlying all forms of love is a basic form of love based on ‘caring about’,
see the
structure of-love and anti-love drugs . Rats kept solely in cages had nothing to ‘care
about’ nothing to love in its basic form and perhaps suffered from the rat
equivalent of the unbearable lightness of simply being, simply existing. Rats
kept in the rat park had something to ‘care about’, something to love in its
basic form. Accepting the above means it is plausible to conclude that people
lacking in basic love might use drugs or food to obtain a few of the benefits
of love and that love itself is not something which people become addicted to.
Unfortunately if we consider romantic love then extreme love and
addiction appear to be very similar making the above conclusion somewhat implausible.
In spite of this appearance I will now defend the above conclusion. I will do
so by arguing that extreme romantic love which resembles addiction is in fact a
deviant form of love. What do I mean by a deviant form of love? I might be
thought I am referring to forms of love such as paedophilia. Such a thought
would be mistaken. When I refer to deviant love I am referring to incomplete
love rather than love that is wrong. What is an incomplete form of love in a
romantic framework? I have argued in the structure of love, see above, that underlying
all forms of love is basic love based on ‘caring about’. According to
Frankfurt ‘caring about’ or loving something means,
“It is in the nature of a lover’s concern that he is invested in his
beloved. That is, he is benefited when his beloved flourishes; and he suffers
when it is harmed. Another way of putting it is that the lover identifies
himself with what he loves. This consists of accepting the interests of his
beloved as his own.” (2)
I will define incomplete love as love in which the lover fails to fully
identify with the interests of the beloved.
Let us now consider how the way someone loves in a romantic way might be
classed as incomplete. Let us also accept that romantic love is built on the
foundations of basic love outlined above. Such a lover might place his
beloved’s interests before his own. It would appear he is harmed when his
beloved is harmed and benefited when she flourishes. It might be concluded from
the above that such love could be said to include the basic format of love. I
now want to argue that such a conclusion would be unsound in some cases. Let us
consider two lovers who love in an extreme way. Both put their beloved’s
interests first and appear to completely subordinate their own interests to
that of their beloveds. Let us first consider Adam whose motive in loving is
that he identifies himself with his beloved. Adam might be besotted with his
beloved, his love might be excessive and unwise but it remains love. Let us now
consider Brenda whose motive is to obtain the goods love offers. Brenda is
attempting to use love in an instrumental manner. Prime among these goods might
be a sense of meaning but these goods would also include companionship, mutual
support and a sense of being needed. Brenda does not truly identify with her
beloved and as a result the basic form of love underlying her love might be
classed as deficient or incomplete. Unfortunately because Brenda’s love is
focussed on her own needs she is unlikely to the goods she desires.
I now want to consider the practical implications of the above. First I
want to consider extreme love, such as that of Adam, which is complete love but
may nonetheless harm the lover. Should we treat such love as suggested by Earp,
Wudarczyk, Foddy and Savulescu. I would be reluctant to do so because love
imparts meaning to someone’s life. Perhaps we might suggest to such a person
that he broadens the things he ‘cares about’. At this point I am perfectly
willing to accept that my reluctance might need further support. Next let us
now consider deficient or incomplete love as defined above. I have argued above
that such love might not be an addiction, but the fact remains such love might
be harmful. Should we be prepared to treat such love? I am inclined to agree
with the above authors that we should. Earp wonders whether in some
circumstances it would be appropriate for someone to take anti
love drugs provided these drugs are considered to be safe. For instance a spouse
who is besotted with a partner who harms her might consider taking such drugs.
Perhaps in extreme cases the taking of such drugs might be acceptable. However it
appears to me that treatment for most of these cases should be of the talking
kind such as CBT focussing on the deficient form of love in question.
1. Harry
Frankfurt, 1988. The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge
University Press page 83.
2. Harry Frankfurt,
2006, Taking Ourselves Seriously, Stanford University Press, page
41.
