Comparative Differences Between Love and Empathy - Essay Example

Theories on the Origins of Love Summary of the Article The article written by Robin Allott en d “EvolutionaryAspects of Love and Empathy” that was published in the Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems in 1992 proffered issues pertinent to the evolutionary process perceived to have undergone by love. The author initially presented a brief abstract that highlighted relevant portions discussed through the discourse. An introductory portion revealed a general overview of comparative differences between love and empathy. Subsequently, more detailed explanations on the following topics in the following order were presented: empathy, love, evolution of love, questions, and other views on love and sexuality and mother/infant relation were delved into prior to the concluding portion. An appendix of famous quotations on the subject preceded the references used to support and validate the author’s contentions. The need to differentiate empathy from love stemmed from that author’s previous essay entitled "Objective Morality" (1991) which recognized empathy as broader term where Allott clearly enumerated other forms of behavior deemed parallel in manifestations such as: “sympathy, liking, imitation, reflection, assimilation, identification, love” (Allott: Empathy, par. 2). Prior to presenting a discussion on the evolution of love, a general overview of love was presented in terms of citing what other authors have written on this topic. The main focus was primarily discussed through providing a clear explanation of the term ‘love’ which used Oxford English Dictionary’s definition. From his succeeding arguments, Allott reached that conclusion that “human love evolved on the basis of the mother/infant relation, dependent on empathy as a mode of perception of the infants state and needs, with the primitive attachment manifested in many species of animals deepening into interpersonal love as, with the growth of self-awareness dependent in its turn on language, perception extended more and more profoundly into the self of the other” (Allott: Evolution par. 9). Relevant questions such as: (1) is love a momentary or enduring state? (2) Is love unitary or multiple? (3) Can there be degrees of love? (4) Can love be mistaken in its object? And (5) what does love actually do? among eight others were responded to. Finally, other views on love and sexuality and the mother/infant relation were further discussed by acknowledging and citing relevant researches conducted by authoritative experts on the subject. In conclusion, the author disclosed that “love resulted from a combination based on what the Greeks called STORGÊ - love between parents and children extended to apply to all forms of other-regarding love; it depended on the growth, through language, of the sense of ones own self and the self of others; empathy made possible the visible, or visual, conversation between two persons, mirroring each other, most obviously demonstrated in the smile reflected, back and forth, by which the essence of love, the change in the neural representation of oneself to incorporate a model of the other takes place” (Allott: Conclusion par. 1). Critique of the Article The article actually presented a broad description of the evolution of love but focused more in the evolutionary theory where the origin of love was pinpointed to emerge from the mother-infant relation, more than anything else. While the theory was consistent with Knox and Schacht’s (2009) chapter on Love in Relationships, Allot merely focused on one of the theories as a starting point. Allott subsequently averred that human love was actually more of a brain relation, where “the development of language played an essential role in allowing the development of human consciousness, of the self, of the person, and that this development of the self through language was an essential preliminary to, or concomitant with, interacting with, the development of human love as the experienced relation between ones self and the self of another human” (Allott: Evolution par. 8). Upon closer evaluation of Allott’s contention, one could be swayed to agree with his arguments due to the author’s ability to clearly establish the link that contributes to the development of a stronger affection from one person to the other. The crucial element of language as a means to express one’s feeling was valid and credible. Further, although not explicitly termed according to the theories of the origins of love, as presented by Knox and Schacht (2009), Allott actually touched on areas such as the sociological theory (where Allott emphasized that “love then would become essential not only in increasing the fitness of the mother and of the child but also in increasing the fitness of the group as a whole, insofar as the success of the group, and thus of its individual members, depended on effective coherence of the group and on the pattern of its rituals, traditions, behaviors, skills, beliefs, and moralities” (Allott: Evolution par. 10); and the psychosexual theory. The contrasting argument presented by Allott was stemmed from a different perspective under psychosexual theory proposed by Knox and Schacht (2009) that is defined as “love results from blocked biological sexual desires… (where) love was viewed as a function of the sexual desire a person was not allowed to express because of social restraints” (p. 58). Allott (1992), on the other hand, believed that “sexual behavior in humans and in many animals is self-regarding (for the individual), competitive, aggressive, possibly violent, random in the male, and divisive rather than co-operative” (Allott: Evolution par. 10). However, regardless of the contrasting beliefs, the fact that sexual desires influence attraction towards another individual, one strongly interprets the findings as still consistent with Knox and Schacht’s (2009) love theories. Further, without mentioning that love evolved through the desire for attachment, which is again consistent with Knox and Schacht’s (2009) views, Allot’s theory is deemed lacking and insufficient. One’s personal contention is that the desire for an individual to establish a strong commitment and attachment to another (outside of the maternal-infant relationship) forms the stong basis for love. Since the focal point for the article was the evolutionary theory of love, the emphasis placed on mother-infant relationship was given priority over other theories that subsequently emerged. Knox and Schacht’s (2009) evolutionary theory actually stressed the need for parents, in general, of children in the rearing and developmental process.The primary criticism to this theory in contemporary times is it actually recognized that men’s absence in the rearing process have increasingly been acknowledged as possible and viable in societies today. This fact thereby validates Allott’s (1992) contention that the crucial element is a mother’s unconditional love for her siblings making all other things possible. Overall, the article written by Allott was based on valid research as it was supported by a total of 27 different references from mostly books on the subjects of love, sexuality, empathy and even marriage, among others. The only other drawback of the article is the relevance of information given that it was published in 1992 which is almost 20 years ago. To be able to cite this source as a credible and valid source, current researchers on the subject should update the crucial information that one wants to cite to incorporate more current data on the subject. The contents were actually factual and not biased, very informative but contain very little parallel consistencies with the information discussed by Knox and Schacht (2009). Works Cited Allot, R. "EVOLUTIONARY ASPECTS OF LOVE AND EMPATHY ." Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems (1992): Volume 15, Number 4, 353-370.Web. 28 September 2011. http://www.percepp.com/lovempat.htm Knox, D. and Schacht, C. Choices in Relationship: An Introduction. Tenth edition. California: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning Inc. 2009. Read More