On the other hand

Relationshipsandlove.com
Cups of soup for the Heart

The Good Stuff: And How it Differs from Purely Romantic love.

Romantic love is not the only way to love a mate. Nor is it the only way to be loved. There is another way for mates to bond. . . called companionate love.

Companionate love was first discovered over 30 years ago. And the researchers didn't quite know what make of it. Today we know: If you have companionate love, you find it virtually impossible to speak of your mate without smiling.

Until it's discovery, the study of marriage was often viewed as "the dismal science." What the early researchers found was simply this: The average level of marital satisfaction declines every year - for at least 20 years. In short, most couples become less and less happy with their marriages over time.

But the dismal science suddenly got a lift. With the discovery of companionate love.

Not all couples are average. There are exceptions. Some couples maintain very high marital satisfaction from the beginning. And year after year!

And they stay each other's favorite person, and favorite topic of conversation - until their very deaths!

How can this be? (That's what family researchers wanted to know. And they found out!) The research on these couples shows that they do things quite differently than most couples.

Do they know the secret to keeping romance alive? (For decades women's magazines have pummeled their readers with supposed tips to "keeping the romance alive." Meanwhile, serious researchers like William Masters and Virginia Johnson were finding that couples' problems - including sexual response failure - had nothing to do with the lack of romance.)

No, the couples who love till death don't do it by keeping the romance alive. They may (or may not) mix in some romance at times. But their abiding devotion is not romantic love. It's companionate love.

So what is companionate love? And how does it differ from purely romantic love?

First, as I noted above, your companionate lover finds it virtually impossible to speak of you without smiling. (If you're in the mental health field, and want to know a quick diagnostic tool: this is it!)

(You may be thinking: Isn't that also true of romantic love? Not!! When a person is in romantic love, the one they love is their most frequent topic of conversation. But their topic by no means makes them smile on a consistent basis. More often, they are frustrated, worried, angry or otherwise in pain! (Sadly, romantic love actually thrives on pain. See What Is this thing called love - What the research says. )

Second, companionate love is a far more relaxed way of loving. It is calm - and calming. It does not worry and preoccupy the person to the point where they can hardly think about anything else. (I teach classes on this topic, and students often say "Gee, that doesn't sound as intense as romantic love." And their disappointment is apparent. This traces to a bias in Western culture. We look at quantity over quality. More is better, we think. (Just this year, when Ford Motor Company came out with a gargantuan SUV that is even larger than the mammoth Chevy Suburban, their sales went off the charts.)

But let me ask you this: Would you rather have someone who loves you a lot, even if it is more than anyone has ever loved anyone before. Or someone who loves you well?

I have asked this question hundreds of times in classes and other group settings. And the consensus is always heavily in favor of wanting someone who loves them well.

Many can tell stories about lovers who loved them a lot. And smothered them. Wouldn't let them have a life. Ran off all of their friends. (And perhaps even stalked them.)

Maybe you're still convinced that the all-consuming stuff, being so pre-occupied that you can't concentrate on anything else, surely must be the good stuff. Well, I can hardly blame you. Western (European and American) culture programs us with that notion - from before the day we take our first step! (See What is this thing called love? What the research says.) But I'm reminded of a story related to this preoccupation. A famous romantic love researcher, Dr. Elaine Walster, was once asked, "I see your point doctor. And your findings speak for themselves. But what, then, is the difference between romantic love and sheer infatuation?" The good Doctor's answer: "I'm sorry. But there is no difference."

On the other hand, there are big differences between romantic love and companionate love.

Another one is: Companionate love is a completely pleasant way of loving. (It does not involve romantic love's painful longing, nor the anxious, sometimes desperate urgency to attain or retain the other's affection, attention or devotion.) (As we have noted in other cups, romantic love is the most frequent thing that drives people to desperate actions - from abuse, to murder, to suicide.)

Add to that: companionate love is based on a favorable overall evaluation of the person who is loved. You really believe they are a good person. And thus that person is trusted. Whereas romantic love needn't involve any trust, and is often heightened by distrust.

Because companionate love always includes trust, it's far more stable than romantic love, and much more likely to endure.

Why should romantic love be heightened by distrust? Because distrust increases physiological arousal! In fact, any threat to the relationship tends to increase arousal - and hence romantic love. (Romantic love thrives on anything that keeps us in the throes of distress, alarm, anxiety, anger - anything that involves physiological arousal. See What is this thing called love: What the research says.)

One study divided dating couples into two groups. Couples were put in the first group if their parents were supportive of - or least not opposed to their relationship. Couples were placed in the second group only if their parents were opposed to their relationship. In which group do you think the romantic love scores were higher? You guessed it. In the group where the parents were opposed! The researchers called this finding "The Romeo and Juliet Effect." (After the famous story in which two lovers were from families that hated on another.) Doesn't "The Romeo and Juliet Effect" sound sweet? Well, maybe not quite so sweet when you remember how Romeo and Juliet turned out! They came to early and tragic deaths - at their own hands. Rash. But romantic love is rash. (That was Shakespeare's point.)

The same researchers decided to check back with their couples one year later. What did they find? The couples whose parents were supportive of the relationship were usually still together. Those with parents opposed? Most of them were history.

Lesson #1: Much of what makes romantic love flicker is the opposite of what makes things last. Romantic love thrives on barriers and impossible situations. Relationships do not.

Another difference: Companionate love is about loving well. Because you really believe they are a good person, you believe they deserve to be treated well. (Whereas you may see the one you love romantically as a jerk - and treat them accordingly at times. Especially when you break up. )

Finally: A lover who loves you only romantically idealizes the way you were when they fell in love with you, and resents any change from that - in your appearance, behavior or way of thinking. Whereas your companionate lover will not resent you for changing, not so long as you are comfortable with those changes. (For the most part, your companionate lover is okay with whatever seems to be good for you. They do not love you in a selfish way. In fact, companionate love is very much like the love of a good parent for child. (I used to say simply "the love of a parent for a child" but given our knowledge of widespread child abuse and neglect, I now specify that I'm referring to the love of a good parent.)

This cup has run somewhat over. The bottom line is this: For all the reasons noted above, companionate love is the good stuff. It is good for you, the lover. And for the one you love.

But I've been pointing that out to people for a long time. And by now I've learned what I'm up against. The problem is this: I've had your attention for just a few minutes. Whereas your culture has programmed you for a lifetime to prefer the romantic way of loving. Further, it's still programming you. And will continue to - starting, in all likelihood, with the very next song you listen to on your car stereo or your home sound system!

So if you are still determined to chase after the romantic stuff, here is my practical suggestion. If you had to choose between the two, it would only be rational to choose companionate love instead of romantic. But there is a third possibility. Namely, you can set out to have both - companionate and romantic love - in the same relationship. It is unusual to achieve that combination. It is against the odds. But it is possible. If you want to successfully buck these odds, you must do some things that most couples don't. And you must avoid things that most couples do. See Companionate And Romantic Love : Going for Both!

Return to Home Page