Alley 1

Joshua Alley

Professor Lauren Holt

English 1102

5 November 2012

Love and courtship are phenomena that have been prevalent in society for almost

as long as society itself. Although courtship rituals evolve and change throughout

societies, the concept of courtship remains an essential part of human civilization. While

the development of a romantic relationship involves two individuals developing amorous

feelings for each other, engaging in events that test the extent of their suitability, the

individuals have a lesser degree of freedom than what appears. For centuries, societal

conventions dictate nearly every behavioral aspect of its residents. We view any

relationships that do not fit our preconceived notions –shaped by society –as oddities that

surprise us or leave us contemplating its existence. And why do we do it? It does not

match what society deems as normal. It piques our curiosity. Thus, this project will focus

on love primarily from a sociological aspect; it will attempt to unveil the extent to which

society is a determining factor on the development of a romantic relationship and

courtship rituals, analyzing general courtship in western societies from the 18th century to

the 21st century. More explicitly, this project will discover how we love.

The concept of love itself is specific to the society in which it is defined. Further,

how we view romantic relationships depends on how and the degree of importance a

society places in them. In ancient Greece, the idea of true love was a bond shared only

between two men. A close emotional bond with his spouse was deemed undesirable and

avoided. Love did not exist for courting and thus courtship rituals in the modern sense of

Alley 2

the word did not exist. Yet, even current societies challenge the modern sense of the

word. In a study done by Levine, participants from ten countries were asked whether they

would agree to marry someone if they matched the traits which they desired, but whom

they did not love. Fewer than five percent of those from the United States affirmed while

over 50 and 35 percent said yes in India and Japan, respectively. In societies that place

familial obligations and pride above love, courting, dating, and love in a relationship are

second-tier. Pride and Prejudice received such a large reception was its stark deviating

from societal norms. Austen satirizes the Bennett’s marriage and belittles Charlotte

Lucas’s marriage for “comfort.” She focuses on love as not the primary, but rather the

only reason for marriage. In Evelina, the protagonist learns to conform to society,

obedient and proper, letting her future spouse propose to her –taking no control in the

events. 18th-century women were expected to be subservient in whatever courting that

took place –if there were to be one.

Love itself is controlled by the society; thus, the development of relationships and

how we love depends on the extent to which society gives individual agency. In many

societies throughout the centuries, and even currently, the social factors in the

development of love prevail. Whether dictated by religious institution such as Sharia

Law or the outdated caste system, or dictated by socio-economic stratifications such as

race and affluence, the individuals do not have the agency to choose their spouse without

the repression of society and family. Even in the liberal views of the current western

world, parental encouragement to “choose the right one” shadows the individual’s

thoughts and engenders his or her decision. Inherent societal factors exist regardless of

how liberal a society appears. In the western world, people are expected to form peer

Alley 3

groups. As exposure to these groups increase, so does exposure to a potential paramour.

Eventually, social, and even familial expectations embolden the couple to marry.

Analyzing the different points of view on love and courtship between generations,

we see that courtship rituals are as ephemeral as the social conventions that surround it.

That differing generations have conflicting goals and rituals indicates that societal factors

play a large role in the forming of a romantic relationship. What parents of the younger

generation see as taboo, the children see as socially acceptable and even desirous. With

increasing industrialization, advancement in technology, and the inevitable integration of

differing cultures into an aggregate society comes a change in a wide range of views –

courting included. Post-Industrial Revolution elucidates this point more clearly.

Preceding the event, the consensus regarding courtship was relatively solid and

rudimentary –intra-class marriage was expected. This meant two things: one, marriage

was a naturally occurring event that almost all parties partook, regardless of whether they

had the financial security to support a family, the other was that marriage out of socio-

economic class was highly improbable and discouraged by both parties. The lower class

could never fit into the society; the expectations were unrealistic for someone of that

caliber. Likewise, marrying below one’s class would bring great shame upon his or her

family.

The concept of how society determines love varies between centuries. In many

cases, the development of a romantic relationship did not mean love or vice versa.

Women in 19th-century Europe did not view marriage or relationships with love in mind.

Rather, relationships were a societal expectation. By twenty-one, women were expected

to be married and live a domestic lifestyle. The culture surrounding 19th-century Europe

Alley 4

did not include the development of love between two individuals. Instead, it focused on

upholding principles of propriety, social acceptability, and female subservience. Those

that did not marry were regarded as social failures and were thus treated with contempt.

Even in literature surrounding the time, this concept is clearly demonstrated. In Pride

and Prejudice, Charlotte Lucas, best friend of the protagonist, Elizabeth Bennet, gives

her reasons for agreeing to Mr. Collins’s proposal. Of those, she implicitly states that

she, at the age of 28, is expected to be married by that time, citing that she has become a

burden on her family.

In order to develop a romantic relationship, society must have a tacit and

delineative set of guidelines that convey the process. In other words, unless society has

already defined what it means to be in a romantic relationship or the definitive steps that

approach a romantic relationship, the very idea cannot be generalized for a group. This

does not mean that it does not exist; however, it leads to the conclusion that society

determines when a certain point has been met as opposed to the individuals partaking in

the ritual having that authority. An abstract example would be the general trends in

dating in 21st-century United States. It should be noted that these steps are not meant to

be specific to a relationship, but are generalizations drawn from recent and recurring

trends among all relationships in the United States. The first step involves

communication after an interest of either party has occurred. Development of a romantic

relationship in the United States face very little hindrances in terms of communication

and flirting with the other individual in the party. The next step is the actual dating

process. The duration of this process has two factors: social acceptability and personal

conviction. Psychologically speaking, the process takes no longer than a few weeks

Alley 5

before the brain considers the person with which the individual is romantically involved a

suitable mate. After, societal norms take over. While some relationships take a several

months, the general waiting time before marriage is around one to two years. In this

case, the implicit rules and guidelines set by society take over. While the two people

involved in the endeavor created the relationship, the further stages of development were

almost entirely based on society. In other societies, the two individuals do not even have

the choice of choosing their partners. For example, arranged marriage is still a

widespread practice in countries within the Indian sub-continent. In cases such as this,

the development of the romantic relationship is decided immediately. Courtship lacks in

its entirety until after the relationship reaches marriage. It is easy to see the profound

impact marriage has in this instance. Although cultures that surround the United States

and India are so vastly different, they still share the fact that they are controlled by

society to a certain extent. Further, the concept of love and romance are virtually non-

existent in cultures that practice arranged marriages until after the fact. This very idea

challenges the basis of love from an American viewpoint. Americans view love in that

one cannot be coerced into loving another person, yet in India such is expected.

The culture projected by a society determines the extent to which society has an

influence in the development of a romantic relationship. Bringing back the United States

versus India example, anthropological expectations play a great role in the development

of love as well. To disambiguate, the existence of a society necessitates the existence of

a culture. Thus, there can exist more than one culture within a society. Although society

can provide a basic guideline, the culture within it further influences the development of

a romantic relationship. 18th-Century British society suffices as the paradigm for this

Alley 6

example. Within this society exist several different cultures. Each social class has a

different expectation of almost every aspect of daily life. In a society that requires strict

adherence to convention, each expectation in within each class is upheld with high

regard, integrated within a society. Naturally, one of those cultural expectations ties into

the development of a romantic relationship. Starting from the lower class, marriage was

seen to be a necessity and partners were given the liberty to choose whomever they

would like to marry as long as they were in the same class (otherwise it would not be

socially acceptable). This culture is relatively simple to understand as it most accurately

matches that of the modern western world. Next is the lower and upper middle class.

Marriage for love was seen as an oddity. Instead, people were expected to be in love

with whomever they marry, regardless of whom that person is. Further, a marriage for

convenience was the ultimate goal. Next is marriage and trends in the upper class. In

this case, marriage was viewed more as an advantageous bond than an event to further the

happiness of either party. Whether the bond was to secure the fortune within families or

extend on that fortune, there was very little presence of love in the endeavor. Throughout

all of these cultures, the same societal expectations overarch the actions within them.

Society demands propriety and adherence to one’s class by birth and to remain obedient

to the demands expected of them.

Taking a different approach, without the individual’s desire or action, the societal

expectations themselves cease to exist. From an existential point of view, without the

people within the society employing their individual agency, the very idea that there are

societal expectations at all –or a society for that matter –even exist. In each society, the

individual’s initial step plays a large role in the determination of the coming events. The

Alley 7

development of a romantic relationship must include an action on both parties’ part to

take place. Furthermore, because the extent to which a society demands adherence

determines the extent to which it influences a relationship (or the development of one),

the more indicative it is that the individual or even people within society determine their

own development of their specific relationship. In the modern western world, there are a

great many types of relationships –each with a different story involving how the

individuals meet, how they interact, and most importantly, how their relationships

developed. It is basic human nature to develop romantic feelings for another individual.

When society is liberal in such a way that the individual has the freedom to engage in a

relationship whomever he or she pleases, the more variation occurs; therefore, it would

appear correct to state society can engender and inhibit the development of a romantic

relationship. When viewed more analytically, however, we can note that because society

itself ephemerally adapts to the individuals who inhabit it. This finding means that the

society itself adapts to the individuals and their changing points of view. Instead of

reviewing the notion that society has an influence on the actions of the people who live in

it, the fact of the matter may actually be that society is based on the general mindset of

the individuals who live in it, shaping its structures and implementing the tacit rules

along with it.

In conclusion, it is evident that societal influences engender many of our actions.

From how we look to how we communicate, our society shapes who we are. Although

love and relationships are natural psychological phenomena, how we display them and

the extent to which we develop and convey them are highly dependent on the society in

which we live. In the scenarios and examples discussed above, we can see that many of

Alley 8

the relationships that people partake in fit a certain mold that pertains to specific society.

Although there is some intra-society variation, the general idea of developing a romantic

relationship is roughly the same. 18th-Century Britain and its marriage of expectation and

convenience, 19th-Century for marriage of fulfillment and social acceptance, and even in

modern-day United States, developing a relationship because of exposure to peer groups

or parental encouragement. There are possible counters to this notion, however. In the

most basic sense, society is an aggregate of shared ideas, beliefs, and cultures, of a set of

individuals. It is more or less a representation of what the individuals in the society

believe and how they desire to live. By that logic, society cannot hinder or form a certain

mindset in the development of love. It is the general belief of the people that the way

they develop a romantic relationship should be done as such. The way we define the

individual is greatly important. Not all individuals played a part in creating or adhering

to the society; as time goes on, those who emerge into the already existing society are

indoctrinated by the beliefs of the people preceding them. Thus, those who live in the

society are forced to implement these beliefs or face social execution. In essence, the

development of love necessitates societal guidelines. These rules will always exist to

provide basic structure in the way we understand and act on developing relationships.

Without societal indoctrination, we are left with the question: what is love?

Alley 9

Bibliography

Blumstein, Philip, and Peter Kollok. "Personal Relationships." Annual Review of

Sociology14 (1988): 467-90. JSTOR. Annual Reviews. Web. 28 Sept. 2012.

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083328>.

Dobošiová, Michaela. "Marriage and Human Relationships in the Eighteenth-century

Britain." Diss. Masaryk University in Brno, 2006. Informační Systém

Masarykovy Univerzity: Veřejné Služby Informačního Systému. Web. 30 Sept.

2012. <http://is.muni.cz/th/125216/ff_b/Masaryk_University_in_Brno.pdf>.

Fisher, Anita. "Women in the Middle Class in the 19th Century." Lecture. History

253 Class Lecture. Clark College. Web. 29 Sept. 2012. <

http://web.clark.edu/afisher/HIST253/lecture_text/WomenMiddleClass_19

c_Europe .pdf >.

Goode, William J. "The Theoretical Importance of Love." American Sociological

Review 24.1 (1959): 38-47. JSTOR. Web. 30 Sept. 2012. <

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2089581>

Goodfriend, Wind, PhD. "A Cold Embrace: "Twilight" and

Relationship Violence."ScienceofRelationships.com. Science of Relationships,

10 Nov. 2011. Web. 01 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2011/11/10/a-cold-

embrace-twilight-and-relationship-violence.html>.

Alley 10

Huston, Ted L. "The Social Ecology of Marriage and Other Intimate Unions." Journal

of Marriage and Family 62.2 (2000): 298-320. JSTOR. National Council of

Family Relations. Web. 30 Sept. 2012.

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566741>.

Owens, Erica. "26. The Sociology of Love, Courtship, and Dating." 21st Century

Sociology: A Reference Handbook. Ed. Clifton D. Bryant and Dennis L. Peck.

Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2007. 266-71. Print.

Sorrell, Emily. "Romantic Love and Marriage: An Analysis of the Concept and

Functionality of Romantic Love as a Marital Stabilizing Agent." Thesis.

University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 2005. Department of Anthropology (n.d.):

16-25. DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Web. 28 Sept.

2012.

Sternberg, Robert J., and Michael L. Barnes, eds. The Psychology of Love. New Haven:

Yale UP, 1988. Print.

Swords, Barbara. "“Woman’s Place” in Jane Austen’s England." Jane Austen Society of

North America (1988): 76-82. Web. 27 Sept. 2012.

<http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number10/swords.htm>.

Alley 11

Summary of Eric’s Comments:

Eric stated the ideas in my first argument were clear and illustrated my topic well.

The argument regarding cognitive patterns does not seem like a sub-focus and is only

briefly mentioned. Because he finds it an interesting part of my paper, he feels I should

expand on it a little more. The flow of the paper was relatively good except for one

paragraph that should be placed elsewhere. He said I did not push the topic of love

enough throughout the paper, dissolve some paragraphs into two, introduce more sources,

and to summarize less in my conclusion.

Revision Plan:

I must first reword several parts of my essay to make the flow of ideas better.

This will allow readers to understand what I am trying to convey more easily. Next, I

will revise how I will structure my reasons. Some reasons are good segues into others, so

my paper will change to exemplify that. I lacked the inclusion of some of my sources,

although they provided extremely useful insight, so I will include more sources in my

essay –strengthening my argument. Lastly, I will rework my conclusion entirely to be

less descriptive and more focused toward justifying my claims and to conclude my

findings.