Running head: LOVE 1
Love
[Student’s Name]
[Institutional Affiliation]
LOVE 2
Love
Love refers to an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment to an object or
humans. It can also be a virtue representing human kindness, compassion, and affection that is;
the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another (McLellan, 2011).
Diversity in Love
In conceptualizing love, a lot of factors such as religion, race, family, and cultural
differences are involved thereby making the uniform definition of love to be difficult. Although
the nature or essence of love is a subject of frequent debate, different aspects of the word can be
clarified by determining what it is not (Brogaard, 2015). Love as a general expression of positive
sentiment is commonly contrasted with hate; as a less sexual and more emotionally intimate form
of romantic attachment, love is commonly contrasted with lust; and as an interpersonal
relationship with romantic overtones, love is sometimes contrasted with friendship, although the
word love is often applied to close friendships. These further pose ambiguities it comes to the
usage of a lover (McLellan, 2011).
In addition to cross-cultural differences in understanding love, ideas about love have also
changed greatly over time. Some historians date modern conceptions of romantic love to courtly
Europe during or after Middle Ages, although the prior existence of romantic attachments is
attested by ancient love poetry. Love can be categorized into two main categories; Interpersonal
love, which refers to love between human beings. It can exist between family members, friends
and couples. It is mostly associated with interpersonal relationships. The second form of love is
the Impersonal love. This form of love is attached to love of an object, principle, or a goal to
which one is deeply committed to and greatly value. The Biological models of love tend to see it
LOVE 3
as a mammalian drive, similar to hunger and thirst. Psychology sees love as more of a social and
cultural phenomenon (McLellan, 2011).
Comparison and contraction of individualistic and collective cultures in terms of expectations,
satisfaction, marital discord, in duration surrounding love and romantic relationships
Religion, race, social status, and culture have long been the mutually reinforcing concept
of choosing a romantic partner. Other cultures strictly require that one gets a partner from the
same community or religion. At times, love has outgrown these concepts and individuals find
themselves at loggerheads with the community (Brogaard, 2015). Individuals who find
themselves in such situations are forced to make hard choices between preserving their culture
and love. Many a time parents and community at large have always disowned their children for
having fallen in love with a partner who is not welcome in the family either because of culture or
status quo. At time a relationship that brings satisfaction to an individual is totally unwanted by
the culture (McLellan, 2011).
Both the communities and individuals have their expectations of the kind of person they
would want to fall in love with. Individuals have at times gone beyond these borders in searching
for love. Culture and religion plays a major role in defining romantic relationships. They define
how the lovers should behave and how they should relate to one another once they are in love.
Muslim culture and religion for example makes it difficult for the non Muslims to fall in
romantic relationships; even though some have tried to go beyond the boundary of culture (Cole
& Thomas, 2009).
LOVE 4
It is, therefore, very unlikely for a romantic relationship to satisfy both the individualistic
and collective cultures in terms of expectations, satisfaction, marital discord, in duration
surrounding love (Cole & Thomas, 2009).
LOVE 5
References
Brogaard, B. (2015). On romantic love: Simple truths about a complex emotion. New York :
Oxford University Press.
Cole, J., & Thomas, L. M. (2009). Love in Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McLellan, J. (2011). Love in the time of communism: Intimacy and sexuality in the GDR.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
