Rebutal of "Against Love"

Laura Kipnis is the author of the piece "Against Love." In this piece she questions whether love really is as good as society says it is. She states facts and reasons to support her thesis that love is too highly looked upon in society.

Laura Kipnis claims that love especially in the historical times, for example 17th and 18th century, had no role in the union of a couple when two families chose their child’s spouse. Economic and politics played more of a role than love did. And though this is partially true that people of historical times were often forced into marriage not out of love but for money and power, love sometimes grew from these arranged marriages. We see that many of the people married through arranged marriages often grew a connection with their spouse after a while and this connection was love. This love was a spiritual and physical bond between both people that they mutually shared, which is what people of in today society believe love to be. So in fact people though technically not bound by love at first did find love in their unions later on.

Laura Kipnis also goes on to state facts that support her claims that love is not what it is said to be. For example she states the fact fifty percent of all people that marry will divorce. And she connects this rate of divorce to the rise of love as the emotional center of expression. She says that the due to society love is seen as “a state of couple permanence… uncoupling is experienced as crisis or inadequacy.” But if this image of love is a permanent coupling of two people then if those who divorce or have affairs with other people, are they really experiencing love? Love is a permanent coupling of two people, yet they do not feel this coupling or connection with their spouse. Obviously they are not in love.

She then lists reason why love is nearly unachievable. She talks about how mutuality plays a large role in love. She says that in order for couple to live with each other and to function as a couple they must “be willing to jettison whatever aspects of individuality might prove irritating while being simultaneously allowed to retain enough individuality to feel their autonomy is not being sacrificed.” But people must do this all the time for people like friends and family. Everyone has personal quarks that maybe irritating to others. And these quarks if they are irritating may be bad habits that ought to be lost. Why would you want to keep bad habbits? They should be replaced with a better and healthier habbits. She also goes on to add that love is hard to achieve because there is a long list of rules that consist of a dreaded word known as “can’t.” She lists many rules that she had obtained from interviews she had conducted. But in all reality many rules for society are often rules that are written as negatives. For example the commandments: thou shall “not” kill, thou shall “not” covet thighs neighbors’ wife, thou shall not take God’s name in vein, etc. Rules are made in the negative to show what should not be done so that you and others can live happily. Though love may have many rules containing the word “can’t” it is to help attain the happiness of both spouses.

Laura Kipnis questioning of whether love is really equal to the standards society has placed upon it is quite solid. She makes great points about how people of historical times married for money and power, many people claiming to be in love often divorce, and love consist of many negative rules. But she neglects other points like people in marriages in 1700s often found love in their arranged marriages in their later years. Or how these divorced couples may have not actually experienced love. Or love, consisting of negative rules, is to benefit both spouses for a happier and healthier relationship.