alley final project draft
DESCRIPTION
Draft of final projectTRANSCRIPT
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.