Introduction:
In this essay, I will argue that the current neo-liberal psychotherapeutic discourse on autonomy and self-fulfillment has invaded popular culture so pervasively as to become indistinguishable from daily-ethical “common sense”. In the realm of romantic relationships, this shift in focus promoting allegedly desired states of “authenticity”, “happiness” and “relationship health” have come to obscure the rather ironic and paradoxical adverse effects on well-being, stability, and health. I will outline the 3 major motivations, though not exclusive or exhaustive, that guide today’s decision-making process for getting into and remaining in a long-term relationship: I) other–self-actualization, II) relationship consumer-mindset III) and filter–fantasy mapping. These motivations have superseded past motivations for relationship commitment, namely: raising a family, increasing social and economic capital, and meeting attachment needs. To better understand gender relations, modern family structures, and subsequent outcomes on mental and physical health, these broader sociological value changes need to be more thoroughly investigated.
Introduction
The Importance of romantic relationship cannot be understated, for the structure of personal dyadic relationships has great implications for most either aspects of human life. Typically, it is the romantic partnership that serves as the central relationship throughout one’s life and there is accumulating evidence for its far-reaching effects on both mental and physical health (Robles, 2003). People who are in committed long-term relationships tend to report greater happiness and life satisfaction (Mastekaasa, 1994) and a lower risk of depression (Robins, 1991). Similarly, marital quality and relationship strain can predict health outcomes such as levels of stress and mortality from cardiovascular disease (Coyne et al., 2001; Orth-Gomer et al., 2000; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2001).
The field of “relationship science” has been dominated by from its onset psychologists, and thus often focused on dyadic dynamics manifesting in micro-level couple interactions. Comparatively, there seem to be relatively few attempts at documenting how romantic relationships and the perception of marriage have changed with time. Couple therapists will do well to remember that for every couple having marital issues and seeking counseling, there are evidently unique circumstances that have led the couple to a breaking point, yet those behaviors and hardships are always played out as part of the wider context of cultural values, norms, and expectations.
Therefore, I contend that relationship science would greatly benefit from a sociological perspective that can take account of how divorce rates continue to rise in the USA and the rest of the western world (Brown et al., 2012; Illouz, 2019) Such a widespread phenomenon cannot be explained away by only looking at isolated personal or familial pathologies, or giving only evolutionary-biological explanations (which if exclusively true, would need to be true across time and cultures). These changes are best explained as resulting from the shifts of values and cultural scripts which are explicitly and implicitly created and reproduced in books, magazines, films, reality shows, and quotidian gossip between friends and colleagues. Such changes often result from radical technological changes, which in the case of relationships, the use of messaging, and dating apps (Illouz, 2007).
In the last 100 years, the field of psychotherapy has gradually came into mainstream culture. First, as a field reserved to deal with extreme forms of psychopathologies, such as psychosis and schizophrenia, psychology began entering the workplace by creating the field of “organizational psychology” and its corresponding professional: the “organizational psychologist”. In such a position, the professional use psychological terminology and research findings to increase workers’ motivation and productivity (Illouz, 2008). Furthermore, by merging with neo-liberal forces focused on consumer needs, the psychotherapeutic field in large part was there to give birth to the self-help movement, whose books and speakers espouse a philosophy mixing between productivity and mindfulness, self-work and self-love, all the while attempting to allow oneself find his or her “authentic” self (Illouz, 2008). Popular talk shows such as The Oprah Winfrey show that extensively discuss varied psychotherapeutics topics from trauma and self-esteem issues to relationship problems, helped normalize and legitimize such therapeutic practices (Illouz, 2003).
Nowadays, it is common to see people engage in articulate forms of daily therapeutic practices and speech, and form of being termed: “homo communicans” (Illouz, 2008). When observing a conversation between friends or strangers it is not uncommon to hear advice using terms such as: “be yourself” and “that doesn’t sound like a healthy relationship”. It seems as if popular psychology has come to represent common sense wisdom in all domains pertaining to human well-being and relationships, with authenticity, happiness, and autonomy as the guiding forces for decision-making.
In the realm of relationships, these cultural forces may explain the increase in people’s tendency to exit long-term relationships, and end marriages (Illouz, 2019). Finkel et al., (2014) argue that throughout the last 100 years, cultural and economic changes have caused a shift in expectation from one’s partner. Today a relationship is seen as supposed to primarily fulfill the higher levels in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, namely: self-esteem and self-actualization, as opposed to answering the more basic physiological, safety and attachment needs. With the aptly named title of their paper: “The Suffocation of Marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without Enough Oxygon”, this paper demonstrates how this new self-actualization hope from one’s partner has put impossible expectations on relationships, giving rise to the current divorce rates. With the cultural emphasis on autonomy and freedom, narcissistic goals have come to dominate, and “the self” became the ultimate moral arbiter, constantly seeking higher and higher forms of authentic actualization. I will term this motivation in the field of romantic relationships the: “other-self-actualization” and believe it to be the first of three motivations of the new “dating self”.
The second motivational shift is a new form of relationship consumer mindset. Illouz’s (2019) analysis adds that more than merely seeking self-actualization, the constant sense of “ontological uncertainty” results from the extreme particular preferences each person has of one’s “ideal” partner. Because this ideal, being so distinct yet undefined, almost always falls short of the partner in his or her actuality. Coupled with the technological innovations of dating apps, both objectively and experienced subjectively, “out there” exists an endless abundance of possible alternatives, some of whom are better looking, smarter, funnier and match my own specific obsession with French indie films. So, staying with anyone single person – is in some sense, a necessary and perhaps temporary compromise.
This is in fact an extension of the phenomenon termed: “The paradox of choice” where having more options leads ultimately to less satisfaction with whatever option is chosen (Schwartz & Ward, 2004). So just as seeing 20 shampoos options makes us question ourselves more than if there were only 4 options, it is the same in the case of choosing men or women in the dating world. You sense there is a near-infinite number of potential suiters only one message away, so there is no way to gain the certainty and confidence to believe that any single partner is necessarily “the best option” given all possible alternatives. So, using the same consumer mindsight while purchasing goods in the market, so do we translate the same way of thinking to maximize personal “profit”, seeing other partners as commodities that can be replaced by a newer better option.
The last motivation which I term here: filter–fantasy mapping, compounds the relationship consumer-mindset by making relationship goals match that consumed in social media, where relationships are depicted almost exclusively in moments of highlights, breathtaking vistas, and huge smiles. Because a social network depicting real arguments or having serious relationship doubts has yet to be invented, the most consummation of how relationships ought to look like come in the form of distorted half-true depictions of the course of relationships. The wish to match a consumed external version of relationship satisfaction can cause relationship goals to not be focused exclusively on internal motivations, such a meeting attachment needs, gaining safety, or building a family together, but may be done in the name of reaching a fictionalized filtered archetype of “the perfect relationship” so it too can be posted and shared. Thus, the relationship is no longer a private endeavor between two individuals, it has a significant social and public function, where it needs to match up to the same levels of happiness and beauty seen in other social media accounts.
In conclusion, I believe there to be 3 modern motivations operating in the choosing and maintenance of romantic relationships: other–self-actualization, relationship consumer-mindset, and filter–fantasy mapping. Because these are not pursued primarily in order to meet attachment needs or gain familial stability, they lead to relationship dissatisfaction and divorce. This, in turn, has serious societal ramifications, as these sociological changes may adversely affect the psychological health and physical health of partners, as well as any of the children that grow up with separated parents. It may be useful to dig deeper into these 3 motivations with more qualitative and quotative research and try to add other significant motivations that contribute to divorce and marital strain.