“Too much of a good thing is wonderful.” Mae West
Romantic love has often been considered as a type of addiction. There is no doubt that love involves constant thinking about, and activities with, the beloved. Is such persistent preoccupation with one person always detrimental? Should it be regarded as a type of addiction or might it be beneficial to the partners' flourishing?
The dispute on romantic addictive experiences
"Love is like a drug and we don't care about the long term side effects; we just care about how high we can get." Unknown
Throughout history, love has been considered to be a kind of addiction or sickness. This identification can be found in literature, philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, and brain studies and it remains common today.
"Love addiction" and "Sex addiction" are, however, disputed terms. They are not mentioned in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association; in fact, DSM-5, published in 2013, refers to these phenomena as "hypersexuality." And in the World Health Organization's most recent version of its International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10, refers to these phenomena as "excessive sexual drive."
These disputes are not arbitrary; they express the complexity of the issue. I believe that profound romantic love is not an addiction, although some features of addiction, such as preoccupation, are indeed to be found in profound love. However, intense love (or lust) can become addictive. Moreover, not all types of preoccupations are harmful; when the preoccupation is constitutive of flourishing life, it is beneficial and cannot be regarded as addiction. This claim can be clarified by referring tothe superficial-profound and the instrumental-intrinsicdistinctions.
Profound activities and flourishing
"How deep is your love?"Bee Gees
Profound activities are essential for our development and well-being, while superficial activities have a more limited impact upon us. Intrinsic activities are performed because we value, and typically enjoy, doing them; instrumental activities are performed in order to achieve a certain external goal. We typically regard intrinsic activities as positive, while instrumental activities are usually considered an unwelcome necessity—something we do not want to do, but must do in order to achieve our goal. Intrinsic activities are of great value when they are profound, but can be destructive when they are undertaken superficially or excessively. Intrinsic profound activities are crucial for the presence of long-term profound love (Ben-Ze'ev & Goussinsky, 2008).
The notion of profound satisfaction relates to Aristotle’s notion of human flourishing (eudaimonia). Human flourishing is dynamic, and meaningful intrinsic activities are its most significant constituents (though not its only constituents). Human flourishing is not a temporary state of superficial pleasure; it refers to a longer period involving the fulfillment of our natural capacities. We may further distinguish between eudaimonic well-being, which is the realization of one's potential, and hedonic well-being, which expresses fleeting pleasure. Carol Ryff (Ryff, et. al., 2004) collated multiple studies connecting eudaimonic well-being (flourishing) with beneficial impact upon our health, including higher immunity, resistance to and recovery from disease, lower levels of stress, longer periods of REM sleep (associated with deep rest and dreams), and lower levels of biomarkers associated with Alzheimer’s disease, osteoporosis and arthritis. This indicates that profound eudaimonic activities are not only essential for human flourishing, but also for human health.
Is the wish to be with the beloved an obsession?
"You will always be my endless love."Diana Ross and Lionel Richie
An obsession, which is considered the primary symptom of any addiction, is defined as "a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling" (Merriam-Webster). The words "disturbing" and "unreasonable" are crucial here. Persistent preoccupation with an idea or a person is not harmful in itself as long as it does not harm the agent's flourishing. Since profound love involves a positive preoccupation thatenhances one's personal flourishing, it cannot be regarded as an obsession, which is by its very definition a negative experience.
To explain this, we need to discuss the notions of "repetition" and "loving too much."
Repetition is an action or event that reoccurs regularly or intermittently. In human behavior, repetition is often treated in a negative manner, especially when it appears that no added value is gained in saying or doing the same thing again and again. Indeed, repetition generates boredom and de-activates human capacity. Why should we waste mental resources on something repetitive? Accordingly, emotions are generated by the perception of a significant change in our situation, rather than repetition of the same event (Ben-Ze'ev, 2000).
Can we speak about valuable repetition, that is, repetitive activities that have an added value to the initial activity? Many human capacities, such as playing the piano, dancing, and swimming, are maintained, and even enhanced, only by repeatedly utilizing them. In these cases, the repeated activity is valuable as without it, the capacity will deteriorate or fail to develop—hence the saying “Use it or lose it.”A repeated activity can be harmful when it is used excessively or in a way that damages other major flourishing activities.
When a repeated activity does not contribute to the agent's development and flourishing, it is likely to become addictive. Two common examples are sex and watching television. Thus, unlike profound love, which develops with time and enhances the agent's flourishing, sexual relationshipsare often repetitive and almost identical at all points of time; hence, they are more likely to become addictive.
Can we love someone too much?
“I love you much too much, I've known it from the start, but yet my love is such, I can't control my heart” Dean Martin
The question of whether love is an addiction also depends on whether loving can be excessive—that is, whether we can love too much. Can loving someone too much be dangerous?
A useful distinction here is between romantic intensity, which expresses the momentary value of acute emotions, and romantic profundity, which embodies frequent acute occurrences of intense love over long periods of time, along with life experiences that promote the individual's flourishing. As profound love is an engine of eudaimonic well-being, its benefits run deep. Just as we would not fault an author for writing a book that is too profound, we cannot criticize a lover for loving too profoundly. Like other eudaimonic experiences, profound love is also valuable since it resonates with the lover's character and unique circumstances. Hence, the issue of harmful addiction does not arise at all.
The wish to be with the beloved is understandable, because in intrinsic meaningful romantic activities we enjoy the activity for its own sake and there is no reason why we should not want to be involved in it again and again. This also pertains to profound intrinsic activities such as writing or painting. There is no “appropriate” frequency for engaging in profound intrinsic activities; however, engaging in such activities should not prevent the person from engaging in other flourishing activities.
Superficial activities, such as casual sex and watching television, might be enjoyable even though they do not contribute much to our long-term flourishing. However, when they are excessive they can be harmful as people can become addicted to them while neglecting other flourishing activities. Romantic intensity, but not romantic profundity, can be excessive. Thus, the lover’s intense love might prevent her from noticing, or at least admitting, that his attitude toward her is humiliating or that their relationship has very little chance of surviving in the long term. However, since profound love is constitutive of personal flourishing, we cannot speak about an excess of flourishing. Translating one's profound love into concrete deeds can be detrimental if one does not recognize what is good for the beloved.
Concluding remarks
"I Can't Stop Loving You"Ray Charles
A clear line exists between profound romantic behavior, which is part and parcel of our flourishing, and the highly criticized phenomenon of so-called "love addiction" and "sex addiction." This line is based first and foremost on the difference between profound and superficial activities.Indeed, Peele and Brodsky, in theirclassic book Love and Addiction, argue that the distinguishing feature of the addictive attitude “is not the intensity of passion, but its shallowness.”
Being profoundly in love involves pursuing many different flourishing activities with the beloved; being a sex addict confines your world to very narrow and repetitive activities. The repetitive and superficial attitude involved in the sexual interaction of a sex addict greatly impedes personal development and flourishing. Being in love can help lovers to flourish in the long run, while sex addiction disrupts other activities and has a destructive impact in the long term. In profound love, the wish to be with the lover is quite different from the obsessive need that is the driving force in addiction.
References
Ben-Ze'ev, A. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
Ben-Ze'ev, A. & Goussinsky, R. (2008). In the name of love: Romantic Ideology and its victims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ryff, C.D., B.H. Singer and G.D. Love (2004). Positive health: Connecting wellbeing with biology, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 359, 1383–1394.