I remember the specific moment when I was 13 that I became aware of the 1950s hit "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" by Frankie Lymon & The Teenagers. I'm rather sure I heard it before, but it didn't penetrate my consciousness. But as we all know puberty changes things, and the idea of love becomes more comprehensible. As I've grown older I've also started to ponder the lyrics a bit more. Not out of any sense of sensitivity toward music criticism, but because of the evolutionary implications. Here are some relevant sections:
Why do fools fall in love? Why do birds sing so gay? And lovers await the break of day Why do they fall in love? ... Love is a losing game Love can a be shame I know of a fool ... And lovers await the break of day? ... Why does my heart skip a crazy beat? Before I know it will reach defeat!
A few quick points about these selections of the lyrics. They allude to the possibility of love among birds. This is appropriate because birds are notionally monogamous. Though the anthropomorphizing is probably not for the best, there is a real analogy with the pair bond; the behavior of lovers has analogs in the wider world. It's not just a human creation. Second, the reference to the skipping of one's heart beat points to the physiological reality of how love manifests itself. Love and infatuation aren't abstract concepts, they're made real by the fact that they change your own internal equilibrium. Third, love is often unrequited. The physiological responses in this case are not very appealing, and likely they put one in a vulnerable situation, increasing stress and reducing fitness. So the question then comes back to why? And this is an evolutionary question. In some domains of biology one focuses on proximate function and mechanism, but in evolutionary biology it is important to consider the contextual whole, and evaluate the trait's function and utility over time. If romantic love is so often miserable, then it must pay in some fashion, no? One possibility is that it is a necessary side effect of other important traits and functions. For example, romantic love could be modeled as a secondary derivative of the love that mammals feel toward their offspring. Or more precisely, the capacity for love that one exhibits toward the offspring one is born with becomes co-opted by other relationships. And then there is the idea of love as an invention of a particular culture. This seems ridiculous, but I have read before that romantic love was invented by the Arab or Provencal poets of the High Middle Ages! In a straightforward sense this seems false on the face of it. The tensions which arise due to romantic love seem to figure in themyths of all people. Love is primal, a genuine human universal,
and the constraint of love is a cultural invention
, not love itself. In cultures where marital bonds are controlled by the family love is bad only insofar as it conflicts and interferes with other socially valued interests. The banishment of love is a necessary evil (contrast this with homosexuality, which is labeled 'unnatural,' not just inconvenient). The evolutionary biology and neuroscience of love has been addressed in several books. Geoffrey Miller's The Mating Mind, and Helen Fisher's Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love.
My mild frustration is that more scholars haven't taken up the project of constructing a scientific study of the question of love.
Though I am generally skeptical of most strict genetically determinist "hard-wired" arguments, in the case of love I believe that this capacity is lacking only in those with pathology (I hope as whole genome sequencing to high coverage comes online we'll see that sociopathic tendencies aren't low frequency morphs, but the tail of the mutational load distribution). When reading Nature's Oracle I was struck by the author's descriptions of W. D. Hamilton's darker conclusions derived from evolutionary biology, in particular the tendency toward faction and inter-group conflict. And yet though I'm no acolyte of Rousseau there is hope, because the germ of human goodness is also in our natures. It's cliche (and correct) to say that it's not about nature vs. nurture, but nature and nature. But it's also true that nurture can cultivate aspects of our nature. With eyes wide open perhaps we can allow for the flourishing of what is right, good, and true in the world.