Category Archives: What is it?

scholarly ground explanations for the concepts related to love

Proxemics and Immediacy in Interpersonal Communication

Posted on by

In this article, I define what proxemics and immediacy in interpersonal communication are. I also explain what the proxemic zones and immediacy of communication tell us about relationships. Cultural variations in the use of proxemics and immediacy still exist.

What Is Proxemic Communication?

Proxemics (distance), kinesics (body language), and haptics (touch) are important nonverbal messages that we use in our communication.

Proxemics is a form of nonverbal communication in which personal and social spaces of interaction convey specific meanings about interpersonal relationships. Such spatial signs and behavioral indicators express, tacitly or explicitly, certain cultural connotations.

Proxemic communication relies on the spatial distance that we keep with others around us during interaction, conversation, or just passing by. The space we leave between the other person and ourselves can signal many things about our relationships.

The American cultural anthropologist Edward Hall proposed the proxemic theory (Hall, 1966). He characterized proxemics as the hidden dimension that focused on how people in different cultures used physical space in their communication with others.

Edward Hall outlined spatial zones that characterize typical interpersonal distances that people in Western cultures tend to maintain in different kinds of social relations.

Proxemic Zones

Proxemics describe the relative distances between people in communication. These are the four proxemic zones of social interaction. E. Hall classified and defined them as public space, social space, personal space, and intimate space.

  • “Public distance” is the distance typical for public speeches and interactions. This distance is approximately greater than 210 cm. At this distance, there is little eye contact between the people who are talking, and their voices sound at a high volume. 
  • “Social distance” is the distance that is maintained during formal interactions. This distance is approximately 122-210 cm. At this distance, communicators use only visual and auditory messages.
  • “Personal distance” is the distance that is maintained during informal interactions with friends. This distance is about 46–122 cm. At this distance, communicators rely on visual and auditory contact. Facial expressiveness and vocalizations increase.
  • “Intimate distance” is the distance that is maintained in close relationships. This distance is approximately 0 to 46 cm. At this distance, communicators’ visual perceptions are blurred. A voice is low-pitched, soft, and quiet. Perception of temperature, olfactory, and touch senses play a greater role.

What Is Immediacy?

I call these territorial and spatial facets of communication “immediacy.” This cultural concept characterizes the preferred proximity of interpersonal relationships, psychological closeness, and behavioral closeness between people that is prevalent in a society (Karandashev, 2021).

The psychological concept of immediacy is closely associated with communicative concepts of proxemics.

Immediacy is an invisible psychological bubble we feel beyond our bodies. We can call it “personal space.” Individuals tend to prefer a certain personal space with other people depending on what kind of relationship they are in and how culturally appropriate it is.

The immediacy is evident in interpersonal interactions ranging from proximity to spatial distance.

What Does Immediacy Tell Us About Relationships?

Western scholars and laypeople often interpret physical closeness as a sign of accessibility, approach inclination, and warmth, while a physical distant space is interpreted as a sign of inaccessibility, avoidance inclination, and psychological detachment. Initiating and maintaining a certain distance in interpersonal communication can be evident in several expressions of nonverbal behavior (Andersen, 1985; Andersen & Andersen, 1984).

Psychological immediacy of interaction is characterized by close proximity in interaction, open body positions, eye contact, smiling, more vocal animation, touching, and expressiveness. When people have a relaxed or positive relationship with each other, they are more likely to reciprocate such behaviors.

Psychological distant interaction is characterized by greater distance in interaction, close body positions, a lack of eye contact, a lack of smiling, less vocal animation, a lack of touching, and less expressiveness. When people have a tense or negative relationship, they tend to reciprocate such immediate behaviors.

Cultural Variations in the Understanding of Proxemics and Immediacy

Due to cultural evolution, social ideas of territoriality and appropriate territorial space evolved. The territorial spaces that are identified as “ours” and “mine” vary across human societies and depend on several cultural factors (Hall & Hall, 1990; Karandashev, 2021).

Therefore, the Western psychological interpretation of proxemics and immediacy may be inadequate from a cross-cultural perspective. Explanations of spatial distance can vary across cultures (Karandashev, 2021).

Cultural connotations of proxemics and immediacy are closely associated with corresponding understandings of intimacy in close relationships in different cultures (see another article).

Individualism and Collectivism in Societies

Posted on by

Individualism and collectivism have been among the central concepts of cross-cultural research. The division between individualistic Western societies and collectivistic Eastern societies is probably the best-known cultural parameter distinguishing the West and East. At least, that is the most common framework that many researchers use when they study different cultures.

Let us take a closer look at what these parameters of individualism and collectivism are.

What Are Individualism and Collectivism in Societies?

Individualism and collectivism is among the earliest cultural constructs that social psychologists identified to characterize differences between Western and Eastern societies (e.g., Hofstede, 1980/1984; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Marsella et al., 1985; Triandis, 1995; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

These constructs define the relations between an individual and a group in the structure of societal relations. The societal characteristics of individualism and collectivism describe the extent to which individuals in a society are integrated into groups. If most people in a society have individualistic or collectivistic value orientations, researchers call the society “individualistic” or “collectivistic.”

On the one hand, personal freedom, personal initiative, personal autonomy, and self-reliance are the cultural values linked with individualism in a society. On the other hand, family unity, family integrity, and family loyalty are the cultural values linked to collectivism. 

Individualistic cultures have norms and values that stress how important individual goals and personal freedom are for people’s functioning.

“People are supposed to look after themselves and their immediate family only”.

The values and norms of collectivistic cultures emphasize that the importance of group goals and relations with other shall be higher than individual goals.

“People belong to in-groups or collectivities which are supposed to look after them in exchange for loyalty”

(Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p. 419).

Individual Variation of Individualism and Collectivism in Societies

It is worthwhile to note that within a society (either individualistic or collectivistic), individuals can vary in these cultural value orientations. People can also be collectivistic and individualistic to varying degrees within different areas of their relationships. They can differ in the degree of individualism (or collectivism) in their relations with their kin, family members, neighbors, co-workers, or friends.

Therefore, I would suggest that cultural researchers be careful. They should not be too straight-forward and simplistic in attributing their observations of any individual to their individualism or collectivism, especially in any area of their relationships with others.

Individualism in Western Societies

The cultural values and norms in individualistic societies elevate personal independence, actions, autonomy, the primacy of personality uniqueness, self-realization, and individual initiative. The values and norms also emphasize the individual’s rights rather than duties, the high value of one’s independence rather than interdependence, and the priority of one’s self-interest with less concern for other people’s interests.

People in individualistic societies feel quite independent and autonomous in both in-group and out-group relationships. So, their attitudes and behaviors toward people from both their in-group and out-group are quite similar. 

The personal identity of an individual is recognized through the individual’s attributes. The ties between individuals are loose. In motivation, people subordinate the goals of collectivities to their personal goals. The United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark represent the typical examples of individualistic societies. One can easily notice that these are largely Western countries (Hofstede, 1984; 2011; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Gelfand, et al., 2000; Kashima, et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

Collectivism in Eastern Societies

In collectivistic societies, cultural norms highly praise relational values that foster cooperation within an in-group and the harmony of interpersonal relationships. The norms encourage subordinating a person’s self-assertion. Cultural values and norms of collectivistic societies emphasize that people are the natural parts of strong, cohesive in-groups, such as extended families. An individual’s loyalty to a group and the need to protect the interests and well-being of others in their in-group as opposed to other groups are of high importance. So, group norms encourage people to take part in social activities that help and share with each other.

People in collectivistic societies are highly embedded in their in-group relationships. Such relations with family as unity, loyalty, and integrity are collectivistic beliefs. These are values and rules that emphasize people’s interpersonal bonds, a sense of interconnectedness, solidarity, duty to the group, obligations, in-group harmony, and awareness of the needs of others. These values and rules are called “collectivistic.”

People in collectivistic societies have different standards of behavior for the members of their in-groups and out-groups. They are collectivistic in their interactions with their in-group members (family, friends, etc.). Yet ,in their interactions with out-group members (strangers, people from other cultural groups), they are in-group biased. They strongly distinguish their attitudes and behavior towards those from their in-group versus their out-group.

A personal identity centers on one’s place and role in one’s group. Personal privacy is abridged. In motivation, people subordinate personal goals to the goals of their in-group. Collectivistic values highlight in-group beliefs rather than individual beliefs. The value of in-group views is higher than individual views. Collective responsibility to the in-group precedes individual pleasure in importance.

Independent Individualistic and Interdependent Collectivistic Cultures

Despite being a classical cultural concept distinguishing individualistic and collectivistic societies, individualism and collectivism turned out to be more complex and multifaceted than they appeared at first sight (see Karandashev, 2021).

Researchers use the concepts of interdependent and independent cultures to explain Western and Eastern social structures and relationships between people. The concepts are especially important in the contexts of the mind, emotions, and self of a person. Western societies are characterized by an independent model of culture and self. And Eastern societies are characterized by an interdependent model of culture and self (See more in another article).

Personal Identity in Independent and Interdependent Cultures

Posted on by

The concept of interdependent and independent cultures tells us something about the internal structure of society and relationships between people, as well as how they are deemed in the mind and self of a person. These are personhood conceptions and construals of the self and others and how the self and others are related. People perceive themselves and others as interdependent or independent from each other based on their cultural values, norms, and people.

An interdependent model of culture and self characterizes Eastern societies, while an independent model of culture and self characterizes Western societies.

Western Analytical and Eastern Holistic Perception

Social perceptions of people in Eastern and Western cultures are more or less dependent on a specific context of perception. Different cultural factors can affect their perceptual and communicative processes through different cognitive mechanisms.

The perceptual processes of people in Western societies are analytical and independent of the context and details in which an object is located. People tend to see an object or a person by focusing on their salient features independently of their context.

The perceptual processes of people in Asian societies are holistic. Perceptiondepends on the full context and details in which an object is located. People tend to see an object or a person in the specific context of a situation, depending on the specifics of the situation and relations.

The social Perceptions that Are either Independent or Dependent on Context

Another study was conducted in accordance with the same idea of cultural differences in perception being interdependent or interdependent on the context (Masuda, Ellsworth, Mesquita, Leu, & Veerdonk, 2008). Researchers investigated the observers’ perceptions of emotional situations when they looked at a situation depicting a person surrounded by four other people. The European-American and Japanese participants rated the emotions of the central person, who appeared either happy, sad, or angry. The other four people, who surrounded the central person, displayed various emotions.

In such experimental situations, European-American participants estimated the emotion of the central person only by his or her facial expression. They did not take into account the emotions of other people around them. Such a characteristic of their assessment of the emotional experience of the central person is in accord with their perception of the central person independently of the context of the situation. They paid attention solely to a salient object—the central person.

In contrast to this, Japanese participants assessed the emotional experience of the central person, taking into account not only his or her facial expression but also the emotions of other people portrayed in the situation. Such a quality in their evaluation of the emotional experience of a central person corresponds with their perception, which is associated not only with the central person but also dependent on the context of the situation. They paid attention to the whole situation and the context in which the central person was.

In other experimental studies, participants assessed the emotions of a person in the context of a situation while researchers recorded the location where they looked using eye tracking. The results were similar. Americans focus mostly on the central person. In contrast to this, the Japanese and Taiwanese distributed their attention, looking not only at the central person but also at the other people in the situation.

The Western perception is independent of a situational context, and the Eastern perception is interdependent on a situational context

So, several studies demonstrated that people in Western cultures, with their perception independent of a situational context, consider the emotions of a person only from their own perspective, independent of the context. They perceive emotional experiences from an individual perspective.

People in Eastern cultures, with their perception interdependent on a situational context, perceive the emotions of a person depending on the contextual perspective and all those involved in the situation. They perceive emotional experiences from a relational perspective. In their judgment of emotions, all people who are present in a situation and their relations with each other are considered, whether they belong to the same group or are related to the person. (Masuda et al., 2008; Tsang & Wu, 2005).

Self-focused Versus Other-focused Perception and Emotions

Social perception, whether independent or interdependent on relationship contexts, is directly related to self-focused and other-focused perceptions and emotional experiences.

Studies found that individuals in Western cultures (i.e., European Americans, British people, and Germans) are characterized by prevalent self-focused perception along with corresponding emotional experiences. They are more likely than people from other cultures to experience socially disengaging emotions such as superiority, pride, anger, and frustration. They generally feel such emotional experiences as being friendly, guilty, ashamed, and connected with others less frequently and less intensely than people in Eastern cultures.

On the other hand, people in Eastern cultures (e.g., Japan, China, as well as Asian Americans) are characterized by the prevalent other-focused perception and associated emotional experiences. They tend to experience and express their emotions more frequently and intensely when they think of family members and other relationships compared to situations when they think of themselves.

They more frequently and intensely experience such socially engaging emotions as being friendly and connected with others, as well as feeling guilty and ashamed. On the other hand, they less frequently and less intensely experience such socially disengaging emotions as the feelings of being proud, superior, angry, or frustrated.

For example, Japanese tend to face situations associated with feelings of shame more frequently than Americans. On the other hand, Americans tend to encounter situations linked to anger more frequently than Japanese.

(For a review of all these studies, see Karandashev, 2021).

Western versus Eastern cultures

Posted on by

The division between societies of Western and Eastern cultures is widespread in world scholarship and is most typical in cultural and cross-cultural studies. Why is it that this division, though quite simplistic, has become so popular among researchers?

The Tendency Towards Dichotomous Cognition

One reason is just a gnoseological one, and it comes from the philosophy of cognition. This is a reflection of the scholars’ tendency toward simplicity. The use of dichotomous and binary thinking is very convenient and easy to understand. A dichotomous view of the world seems natural: black and white; good and bad; right and left; pleasant and unpleasant, etc.

It is especially convenient for scholars. Such a division is often a valid assumption. The dichotomous division of the world into the West and East, into Western and Eastern cultures, is reasonable and applicable for research.

Western Cultures versus Eastern Cultures

The first questions are: (1) what is Western culture and (2) what is Eastern culture.

Over the years, Western scholars have attributed Western culture to the United States of America, Canada, and some western European countries. On the other hand, they attributed Eastern culture to China and Japan. Why so?

Modern scholarship in history has traditionally been of western origin—the place where most well-known scholars have resided. According to this scientific tradition, Western cultures have their origins in the ancient Greek and Roman cultures.

All other societies would be called “non-western cultures.” Later in history, scholars discovered China and Japan and found that their cultures were substantially different in many regards. They were located to the east of the west, where explorers lived. So, they called them the Eastern cultures. Eastern cultures presumably have their origins in the ancient Confucian and Buddhist cultures.

Such a division was simple and easy. The West is “we” and “us”—relatively understandable for us, Westerners, while the East is “they” and “them”—unknown and not well understandable for us Westerners. The dichotomy of in-group (West) versus out-group (East) worked very well for comparison.

Moreover, this comparison has been valid in many respects. Scholars, in their research, have identified many cultural differences between Western and Eastern societies.

The Differences in Philosophical Views between Western and Eastern Cultures

Epistemology (the Philosophy of Cognition)

In Western societies, linear folk epistemology is prevalent and culturally dominant. Western culture is characterized by dichotomous thinking. Logical beliefs admit the opposition of binary things, such as human emotions, being either positive or negative.

In Eastern societies, dialectical folk epistemology is prevalent and culturally dominant. Eastern cultures tend to have a holistic worldview and naturally accept changes. Dialectical beliefs admit the complementarity of opposite emotions and contradictions as they are.

Dualistic Versus Monistic Views of the World and Mental Life

Western and Eastern societies differ in their views on the relationship between mind and body as well as on the relationship between the heart (emotional part) and the mind (the rational part) of mental life. Their cultural beliefs follow either dualistic (in Western cultures) or monistic (in Eastern cultures) models of mental life. Those models reflect the human experience of emotions.

Dualistic views are characteristic of Western culture. According to this view, the mind and body are in dualistic relationships, and the mind (rational) and the heart (emotional) are in a dichotomous relationship with each other. People can rely more on their reasoning (mind) or on their emotions (heart). People guided by their hearts are those guided by their emotions rather than their reasoning.

Eastern cultures are characterized by a monistic view. According to this view, the mind and body are in monistic and wholistic relations, and the mind (rational) and heart (emotional) are not dichotomous with each other. Eastern cultural beliefs integrate the rational and emotional parts of mental life.

(See Karandashev, 2021a for a more in-depth discussion of these distinctions.)

Three Things Make Mangaian Love “Romantic”

Posted on by

How romantic is Mangaian love? Mangaians are the Polynesian people living in the Cook Islands in the South Seas. The early studies of Polynesian love misrepresented Polynesian heterosexual relationship culture as sexually energetic and sensually obsessive, along with free sexual attitudes and behaviors.

In a stereotypical western picture, observers depicted Polynesians as the most sexually motivated people in the world. They fit the old expression,

“There is no sin below the equator.”

In another article, I describe What Polynesian love is.

Early observations downplayed affection and gave the wrong impression that people in the Pacific Islands did not experience emotional and romantic feelings. Recent studies from the 20th and 21st centuries document a more accurate picture of love in Polynesia. I presented it in the article what Polynesian love in Mangaia was.

Here is the case of Mangaian romantic love. What are the three key things that made Polynesian love in Mangaia romantic?

1. Intrusive Thinking About the Partner

The first key sign of passionate and romantic love is the cognitive preoccupation and intrusive thinking about the beloved and the relationship. Harris (1995), as well as other anthropologists, showed that Mangaian men and women often indicated such a state of mind when they talked about their lovers and love relationships.

It is typical for those in the early stages. Being cognitively preoccupied with the beloved, men and women tended to think about their loved ones again and again. The intrusive thoughts about the loved one interfered with the normal course of their daily life. The same intrusive thinking occurred during a forced separation. Their longing during separation made them compelled to seek proximity. 

2. The Romantic Perception of the Beloved as a Unique Individual

Western scholarship traditionally defines that the beliefs in the uniqueness of the beloved and the perception of him or her as distinctive from others, as a special and exceptional individual, are the essential features of truly romantic love (Karandashev, 2017, 2019).

Despite misrepresented early anthropological observations of “What Polynesian love is“, Harris (1995) and others discovered indirect and direct evidence that Mangaian men and women recognize their loved ones as especially attractive individuals who are distinct from others. Strong love attraction evolves between certain men and women rather than between others. They believe that their romantic liaisons are exceptional.

Young men may seek sexual opportunities whenever possible. Nonetheless, cautious young women look for a sign of “real love” (inangaro kino, etc.). Women recognize this “real love” as a man’s willingness to forsake all other sexual liaisons. Marriage is viewed as the ultimate manifestation of such exclusivity.

3. Romantic Idealization of the Partner and Relationship

Traditionally, Western scholars present romantic idealization as another defining quality that makes love truly romantic (Karandashev, 2017, 2019). This is the tendency of a lover to focus on the good qualities of the person they love and to ignore, pay less attention to, or make excuses for the bad qualities. 

According to anthropological observations, the Mangaian culture tends to publicly segregate boys and girls. Young men usually initiate secret relations, courtships, and premarital heterosexual relationships (e.g., Harris, 1995, see for review Karandashev, 2017).

How Do Young Mangaian Men Idealize Women?

Due to the segregated nature of intergender relationships, young Mangaian men often fall in love with young women by simply seeing them and conversing with them on rare occasions.

Therefore, physical beauty is what initially attracts many men to young women. A woman’s attractive face, flowing hair, and full hips charm a man, while he usually fills in the blanks about the other woman’s qualities. They were supposed to be as enchanting as their physical appearance.

The woman, however, generally thinks that her boyfriend was attracted to her because of her good nature and character. For example, here is how Harris (1995, p. 117) illustrates such an early idealization:

“Maara came to talk to me. He had been waiting, waiting for me to return from Rarotonga. He didn’t forget the time we were in school together. He said to me, “You know what? I’ve been looking at you. I’ve seen you going around.” Then he said that he loved me. He said he had fallen in love with me. Yes, seeing me all around, day and night, waiting for me. I asked him, “Why me?” He said he had seen how I was at school; how we laughed, how I shared with people. I’m just the one he’s looking at. He said his heart was hurting for me.”

How Do Mangaian Young Women Idealize Women? 

Mangaian women tend to be less idealistic and more practical in their heterosexual relationships. In the early stages of relationships, they are less prone to such romantic idealization in their perception of men. Their attitude of idealization toward the man often develops later, after the beginning of the courtship.

They are also inclined to ignore, neglect, or diminish, in their perception, the man’s imperfections and flaws. Interviews show that women tend to think positively about their men and their courtships. They focus on their appearance, skills, talents, and personality attributes:

“He was a very good fisherman; he was the best planter; he was a fine musician; he was kinder than the other men”.

Some women acknowledged that their men had the characteristics of womanizers. Nevertheless, they suspended their mistrust and perceived him as having a good image, despite their public reputation.

There are also The three other things that made the love of the Polynesian Mangaians “romantic”

Polynesian Love in Mangaian Culture

Posted on by

Is Polynesian love the same as that in Western European and North American cultures? For a long time, love was considered an exclusively Western concept. According to Western European and North American scholars, ethnographic studies of love add little value to understanding “Western” culture and behavior in love.

However, the purpose of cultural anthropology is to challenge the conventional Western understanding of love. As anthropologists Nelson and Jankowiak noted,

“A principle objective of anthropology is to challenge cultural stereotypes and, through participant observation, bring to light the differences between what people do and what they claim to do.”

Jankowiak, W., & Nelson, A. J. (2021). The state of ethnological research on love: A critical review. In  Mayer, C. H., & Vanderheiden, E. (eds). International handbook of love: Transcultural and transdisciplinary perspectives, 23-39.

Cultural Anthropology of Love in the South Seas

Cultural anthropologists began to pay attention to Mangaia and Samoa in the South Seas in the second half of the 20th century. These two islands are in the Central Pacific in the South Seas. Mangaian culture was interesting in many regards.

Unfortunately, the population of those islands and the number of people representing those cultures have been diminishing in recent decades. Nonetheless, such a comparison with other cultures, which we regard as modernized societies, is necessary in order to better understand the cultural diversity of love. 

Let us consider the case of Mangaian love. The early studies of American cultural anthropologists Margaret Mead and Marshall Sahlins and the Swedish anthropologist Bengt Danielsson documented the cultural life of Polynesians in the South Seas.

How Anthropologists Portrayed Sexual Love in Early Polynesian Studies

Those studies sent the message that the islanders didn’t seem to have romantic ideas or emotional experiences of love. Those anthropological observations downplayed affection in Mangaian men’s and women’s relationships. They tend to minimize love emotions in accounts of Polynesian life (see for review, Karandashev, 2017).

Mangaian’s intimate relationships were reduced to sexual obsession and a series of one-night stands. Endleman (1989) summarized those findings as follows:

“Sexual activities [on Mangaia] approach being a national pleasure, in which both males and females participate enthusiastically…. There is no indication whatev­er of anything at all like romantic love involved, only sexual attraction. All the Mangaians place great value on erotic technique, none on any affection or caring between sexual partners, preceding sexual encounter.”

(p. 57).

What Was Real Love in Polynesian Mangaia?

The later studies of the 1970s through 1990s showed that love among Polynesian Mangaians was more complex and sophisticated (e.g., Gerber, 1975; Freeman, 1983; Harris, 1995; Levy, 1973). 

The authors recorded the diverse lexicon of love words that the Mangaians had:

“Maoris have heaps of words for falling in love, but the Europeans have only one”

(Harris, 1995).

As I noted in another post, the Mangaian word inangaro is interpreted broadly as “needing, liking, wanting, and loving.” Referring to a male-female relationship, the word “inangaro” expresses the feelings that inside you. It is the real love for someone from within, from your heart. These feelings make young boys and girls want to get married. A premarital period gives them an opportunity to know this.

Freedom of Sexual Intimacy in Polynesian Mangaian Love

Mangaians, in their heterosexual relationships, are free and open in their sexual expression both before and after marriage. Polynesian attitudes toward sexual freedom and the pursuit of sexual pleasure are culturally normative. For example, when girls and boys like each other, they usually sleep together. They want to enjoy themselves.

Western missionaries made vigorous and sustained efforts to indoctrinate the opposite disposition toward love. Nevertheless, indigenous people in Mangaia and other Pacific societies retained their cultural views on sexual pleasure. Religious missionaries were able to convert them to Christianity. Nevertheless, Polynesians followed their ancestors’ beliefs that sex is a natural and pleasurable aspect of life. They believed that premarital sex, if it is practiced discreetly, is an appropriate part of post-adolescent and premarital times.

The Courtship of the Young Mangaian Boys and Girls

Ethnographic observations showed that the Mangaians’ courtship was not just the practice of experimenting with physical and sexual intimacy. During that time, girls and boys were establishing close emotional relationships. The courtship process could remain chaste for weeks or months, while the development of emotional intimacy in many cases precedes sexual engagement.

It was essential that the interest, desire, emotions, and sexual intimacy be reciprocated. Mangaians believed that intimacy could be achieved only with the willingness of both a girl and a boy to consent to physical and emotional contact. In many conversations during courtship, boys and girls focus on how each person feels about their relationship. Such communication gave the lovers a chance to see how real and strong their feelings were between them (Harris, 1995).

What Is Polynesian Love?

Posted on by

Many western scholars have traditionally believed that love is a uniquely western concept. Some researchers attempted to demonstrate that love was absent or had a low value in other cultures, especially in the cultural groups in Polynesia. Later ethnographic studies, however, challenged that old western preconception of love (see for review, Karandashev, 2017). Let us summarize anthropological accounts of Polynesian love.

The Sexual Culture of Polynesian Love

Several ethnographic studies of the 20th century provided anthropological accounts of Polynesian love and sex (Danielsson, 1956/1986; Marshall, 1962, 1971; Mead, 1935/1963; Mead & Boas, 1928; Russell, 1961; Suggs, 1962; see review in Karandashev, 2017).

The most important parts of Polynesian sexual culture, according to these studies, were an active sexual life and freedom of sexual behavior. From those studies, Polynesians became known in anthropology as the most sexually motivated people in the world.

The cultural standards of beauty in Polynesia, however, were very different from western conventions of physical beauty. The flat-nosed, round beauties with fat bodies were viewed as the most beautiful ones.

Early Accounts of Sexual Love in Polynesian Culture

The anthropological accounts, which started with the early Polynesian studies of American cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead (1901–1978), characterized Polynesians as emotionally stunted yet actively sexual people.

Margaret Mead published her case studies of Polynesian societies in her books, Coming of Age in Samoa: A Study of Sex in Primitive Societies and Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. In those books, she described the males and females in those cultures who engaged in intimate relationships solely based on their sexual attraction and performance. They seemed to know little about falling in love.

The Swedish anthropologist of the 20th century, Bengt Danielsson, in his book, “Love in the South Seas,” gave another early snapshot of love, marriage, childbirth, and childrearing in Polynesian society. He was a crew member on the Kon-Tiki raft expedition to French Polynesia in 1947 and presented to the western public how people in Polynesia lived and loved in the times before the Polynesian societies began to change with globalization. 

Marshall Sahlins, an American anthropologist who lived from 1930 to 2021, also did a study of sexual behavior in the Cook Islands in the 1950s. In his report, he presented a detailed portrait of Polynesians as fundamentally sexual beings. He found that “copulation is a principal concern of the Mangaian of either sex” (1971, p. 123). The Marshall study (1971) recorded a large Mangaian sexual vocabulary as evidence of the islanders’ concern with sex. However, the author did not mention a variety of Mangaian terms for love.

Polynesian Love Transcends Sexual Love

However, the anthropological studies of Gerber (1975) and Freeman (1983) on Samoa, as well as the study of Levy (1973) on Tahiti, corrected (to a certain degree) the misrepresentation of the emotional life in Pacific cultures.

Later, H. Harris (1995) conducted a field study in Polynesia (Mangaia, Cook Islands) and argued that romantic love was absent in Mangaia. The field study indicated that Mangaians actually have a rich emotional and love lexicon.

H. Harris (1995) showed how Mangaian men and women were emotionally and physically engaged in relationships. He characterized their love as comparable to the descriptions of romantic love in Western scholarly publications. Harris’s description of Mangaian love syndrome presented it as a set of emotional features overlapping, interacting, and being integrated with each other the same way in Western depictions of love. However, H. Harris (1995) also showed how the Mangaian version of love is different from the basic pattern found by American researchers.

Lexicon of Polynesian Love: Example of Mangaia

The author recorded that Mangaians had diverse words for love. “Maoris have heaps of words for falling in love, but the Europeans have only one.” (Harris, 1995, p. 106).

For example, inangaro is a flexible word interpreted broadly as “needing, wanting, liking, or loving.” The typical way to say “I love you” in Mangaian is “Tе inangaro tikai nei au iaau”. However, if a person wants to express exactly the experience of falling or being deeply in love, he or she selects from the derivatives of love: inangaro kino, matemate te inangaro, and pau te inangaro. All of these words show that they are sure and honest about how much they love each other (p. 107).

Variations of inangaro express sexual interaction, intrusive thinking, intimacy, reciprocity, exclusivity, and reordering of priorities—all central features of love, not just sex.

The Sexual Revolution in Sexual Equality

Posted on by

The liberalization of sexual morals due to the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s was a key process that altered the idea of romantic love in the second part of the 20th century in North America and Europe (Karandashev, 2017). Increasing sexual equality between men and women was among the driving forces of the sexual revolution.

Moreover, some expressions concerning love began to refer tacitly to sexual desire and sex. For example, the expression “making love” started to mean “having sex.” And good sex was an important sign of love. For more about this, see another post titled “What is the Sexual Revolution?”).

Sexual Equality Between Men and Women

The “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and ’80s constructed sex as an autonomous domain of pleasure, for both men and women. The double sexual standards for men and women declined. Modern culture abandoned the old-fashioned hypocrisy of the past centuries, when male sexuality was viewed as carnal and female sexuality as maternal or romantic. 

It was accepted that erotic desire is natural for both male and female sexuality. In sex, women and men have equal rights to give and receive sensual pleasures. The studies of those years showed that gender differences between male and female sexual attitudes and behaviors steadily diminished (see for review, Karandashev, 2017).

Women and men had gradually become equal sexual partners in many regards.

In the 1960s and 1970s, sex became a private matter between two people. A new interest in sexuality evolved among both men and women. One of the factors that led to this was the change in women’s views on sex.

Previously, while she and her male partner may have “fun,” a woman could not achieve full sexual equality in sensual pleasure because of the fear of an unwanted pregnancy. Couples who enjoyed free premarital sex usually intended to marry. The woman’s question after sex was usually, “Will you marry me?” A woman felt more responsible because she would become the primary caregiver for a child.

The Invention of Modern Contraceptives Made the Sexual Revolution for Women Possible

The invention and growing popularity of modern contraceptives in the 1960s and 1970s caused the contraceptive revolution that, in turn, some may say, led to the so-called sexual revolution. The invention of modern, effective contraceptives substantially altered sexual attitudes and behavior.

Because women had access to effective contraception, they had better control over when they wanted to have children. The reduced risk of an unwanted pregnancy gave a woman an opportunity to separate her sexual activity from childbirth. This opportunity gave her more freedom to enjoy sex and love. Compared to former times when fear of pregnancy inhibited women’s sexual responsiveness, they had a better sense of freedom in sexual matters.

Liberal Attitudes toward Premarital Sex

The old myth that sex can only be enjoyed within marriage has been debunked. Premarital and promiscuous sex gained popularity. It was largely among lovers and good friends who were not married or who were not necessarily engaged to be married. Many premarital and extramarital partners had sex just to experience sensual pleasure. 

Women and men became more interested in sex and more equal than ever before. But good sex is not just physical sexual intercourse. It largely involves psychological intimacy and genuine interpersonal relationships. For example, sexual adequacy in a woman’s experience is greatly related to the quality of her intimate relationships.

In the 1970s and 1980s, these changes in sexual attitudes profoundly transformed people’s attitudes toward personal relationships and psychological intimacy.

The Freedom to Pursue One’s Own Heart and Sexual Equality

Men and women were able to find their own mates and marry when they were happy with the relationships. Attitudes toward premarital sex became more relaxed than before. Sex became a private subject between two people.

Compared to their predecessors, many men became more sensitive to women’s needs. They also felt less emotionally detached from women in relationships. Many women became more self-assured in their expression and less reliant on outdated cultural norms. New “revolutionary” sexual norms did not expect women to conceal their sexual pleasure anymore and did not view it as a private shame.

These new cultural norms not only permitted women to experience their sexuality but rather encouraged them to do so. For men, these changes also brought a new psychological horizon. They had the possibility of getting sex with a woman who, being equal, made her free choice to have sex with him. In their sex, they both had a free emotional exchange.

Cross-cultural Views of Sexual Equality

It should be noted that the “sexual revolution” did not “invent” sexual equality per se. It simply revolted against old-fashioned Western cultural norms.

Anthropological studies of different cultures have shown that sexual equality is an important factor that affects the cultural value of love. Researchers studied 75 social groups across many cultures around the world. They found that only in those societies that permit giving or not giving love freely and equally to both males and females and that accept premarital or extramarital sex as equally possible for both men and women, do people consider romantic love as a valuable basis for marriage (De Munck & Korotayev, 1999).

What Is the Sexual Revolution?

Posted on by

The word “sexual revolution” is commonly associated with rapid and substantial changes in cultural attitudes toward sex in the United States of America and many West- and North-European countries in the 1960s and 1970s. Later in the 1980s and 1990s, the culture of sexual freedom spread to other modernized Western countries. It was largely a youth movement for freedom of sex and love in those societies.

How has the “sexual revolution” changed the culture of eroticism?

How the Sexual Revolution Changed the Culture

The sexual revolution legitimized sex for its pleasurable and expressive qualities alone. Sex was considered more than just a sexual need of the body. Sexual intercourse for the purpose of pleasure rather than reproduction, without the commitment of a marital relationship, was acceptable. It was culturally acceptable to engage in recreational sex. Thus, sex became a sphere of sensual pleasure.

Sexual Fulfillment in Love

Men and women expected sex to be expressively and sensually pleasurable. The erotic aspect of sex increased its value for a person’s life and relationships. Sexual fulfillment became a condition of true love. The sexualization and erotization of love were the major tendencies of that cultural change. Love and sex finally joined together in the minds of men and women (after centuries of their separation in the cultural norms of old societies). Sex became a means of personal fulfillment and self-affirmation as well.

The pleasurable and expressive qualities of sex received their independent values. The division between sex and love started to grow. Sex became unbound, and romantic love and romantic intimacy turned out to be less important than sex to show love. Sexual expression no longer relied exclusively on romantic feelings. The gap between sex and love seems to be widening. 

The Sexual Revolution in Sexual Equality

The “sexual revolution” of the 1960s–1980s transformed sexual attitudes for both men and women. The double sexual standards for men and women were abandoned as a cultural hypocrisy of the past when male sexuality was viewed as carnal and female sexuality as maternal. It was accepted that female sexual longing is natural in the same way as male sexual yearning. Women received equal rights with men to give and receive sensual pleasures (see more in another post, “The sexual revolution in sexual equality”).

The studies of those years showed that differences between male and female sexual behaviors and attitudes steadily declined (see Karandashev, 2017 for a review).

Sex, Love, and Marriage

In the 1960s, marriage became widely popular in North America and Western Europe, with 95 percent of all people marrying. Men and women married younger, and divorce rates held steady at low levels.

In many modernized countries, love and sexual satisfaction became normative preconditions of marriage. Good sex demonstrated love. The pleasurable and expressive facets of sex were to show love in premarital relationships and marriages. Sexual fulfillment and companionship became the key concepts of an ideal marriage. Sexual dissatisfaction became a legitimate reason for divorce.

Cultural Acceptance of Homosexuality

Shifts in attitudes toward homosexual identity and subculture were another cultural change during the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s. Modernized Western societies decriminalized and devictimized homosexuality and other sexual varieties. Psychiatrists abandoned considering homosexuality as an abnormality and began to view it as a form of sexual diversity.

“The homosexuals” walked forward as individuals with their own distinct psychological nature. Gays and lesbians wanted social inclusion and legitimation. The LGBT movement created a subculture that gave these people positive identities and ways of living.

Modernized Western societies indicated a cultural trend towards a more sexually pluralistic society. Discrimination based on sexual identity was also on the decline in society.

Advancements of the “Sexual Revolution”

All these transformations were landmarks of cultural advancements in sexual attitudes. These were the emerging culture of eroticism, the larger acceptance of human rights for sexual pleasure, the proliferation of pornography, the acceptance of sexual equality for men and women, the greater tolerance toward premarital and nonmarital sex, the substantial increase in cohabitation and rates of divorce, public receptivity to the “playboy” lifestyle, and expanded tolerance toward homosexuality.

All of these cultural trends occurred in the United States and in many Western-European and North-European countries, even though older people didn’t like them. These changes reflected long-term trends.

The Slow Cultural Evolution of the “Sexual Revolution”

The sexual revolt in favor of sexual rights, equality, and diversity happened. Yet, many people still lacked a sense of self and the autonomy required to maintain a sexually fulfilling relationship. Therefore, many men and women were still confused about their sexual rights, sexual roles, and gender identities.

The societies were still in the transitional stage towards a culture of relationships that engaged all these new cultural norms. The “sexual revolution” was mostly a young and rebellious movement protesting against the old-fashioned and rigid sexual attitudes of the past. It was a declaration of human rights for the free expression of sex and love in modernized and individualistic Western societies.

The sexual revolt happened. Yet people of other age groups remained relatively conservative in those societies for a while. They were not easily receptive to such a drastic transformation of cultural attitudes toward sex.

The “sexual revolution” of this kind continued as “sexual evolution” in the following decades, spreading to the minds of older generations as well.

The cultural evolution of sexual attitudes was slower in more traditional countries (Karandashev, 2017).

Romantic Love Can Be Good for Relationships

Posted on by

Romantic love elevates our relationship and makes it romantically beautiful. Nevertheless, romantic love can hide some perils of disenchantment and disappointment. This is why cultural attitudes toward romantic love differ over time and across cultures (Karandashev, 2017).

What are the perils of romantic love? Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? Let us take a closer look.

Advantages and Positive Consequences of Romantic Love

The idealization of a partner and relationship in love is natural and probably inevitable, like the idolization of artistic, musical, and political idols. For optimistic people, idealization is natural. So, this might be due to their personality traits.

A moderate degree of idealization can be good for satisfaction and happiness in dating and marital relationships. Those lovers who idealize their partners while their partners idealize them are happier in their relationships (Murray et al., 1996a and 1996b).

Romantic idealization in love makes women’s and men’s relationships beautiful, charming, inspirational, and optimistic. Romantic love gives their mating, dating, and marriage meaning. It inspires a lover’s hope for his or her personal growth and encourages the possibility of their individual changes (Swidler, 2001).

Such motivation, however, may not be as common as one might expect.

Possible Benefits of Romantic Idealization, along with Caveats

“Individuals who in­tegrate a partner’s virtues and faults within compensatory “Yes, buts . . .” are actually involved in more stable relationships than individuals who compartmentalize their partners’ faults, leaving pockets of doubt.”

(Murray et al., 1996b, p.1179).

A romantic lover perceives the partner’s faults with a bright glow. Such romantic perception is conducive to the lover’s constructive motivation. The feelings of optimism and security help them overcome challenges in the relationship. Such romantic idealization can serve as an effective buffer and resource for their generosity and goodwill, preventing their complications in everyday hassles (Murray et al., 1996a).

“Relationships persisted, satisfaction increased, conflicts were averted, doubts abated, and personal insecurities diminished when individuals idealized their partners and their partners idealized them. Thus, lasting security and confidence appear to depend on intimates seeing the best in one another—overlooking each other’s faults and embellishing each other’s virtues.”

(Murray et al., 1996b, p.1178).

Is Romantic Love Blind or Prophetic?

Can sincere romantic love be motivation for personal growth? The inspiring idealization of romantic minds can provide a great opportunity for transformation for both a lover and the beloved. Surely, the perils exist that a lover is more likely to wish their beloved to change. This can work if the beloved

  • is personally aware of it,
  • wants to change himself or herself for the better,
  • wants to meet the lover’s high expectations.

It is possible that the beloved cannot or does not want to change.

This romantic attitude is just the opposite of a realistic love attitude: “Accept me as I am.” The positive romantic illusion in a relationship is optimistic and can work in a self-fulfilling way. They can be a leap of faith rather than a perceptive fault. It is likely that partners who idealize each other are prescient, rather than blind (Murray & Holmes, 1997; Murray et al., 1996b).

What If the Beloved Wants to Become a Better Person?

The lover may want to become a better person for the sake of the beloved. Romantic love inspires him or her with a motive for self-development. Instead of the humanistic attitude “accept yourself as you are” or the realistic attitude “be yourself” and “accept me as I am,” romantic love encourages a person to develop himself or herself. Romantic love provides an aspiration to grow personally. As the Russian writer Mikhail Prishvin (1873–1954) once noted,

Prishvin, M. (n.d.). Mikhail Prishvin quotes.