Evolution of Love in The Second Sex and Other Works

Introduction

Men expected women to give themselves in love in ways which they themselves would never do. Love, consequently, was dangerous for a woman in ways that it could never be for a man. De Beauvoir does not lay the blame for this exclusively on men in her book 'The Second Sex'. Women, by participating in such a kind of non-reciprocal love, perpetuated its oppressive structures. ‘In accepting herself as the inessential and as total dependence, the woman creates a hell for herself; all women in love see themselves in Andersen's The Little Mermaid, who, having exchanged her fish tail for a woman’s legs out love, walked on needles and burning coal.’ 

However, according to de Beauvoir, it was hard not to do so as the entire world was built in a way that beckoned them to consent to their own oppression. Unlike men, who are made to do strenuous tasks and are always pushed to do more and be better, women are encouraged to take the easy way out, to give into the life of subjugation and are promised that giving in is what will help her ‘reach enchanted paradises.’ ‘Authentic love must be founded on reciprocal recognition of two freedoms; each lover would then experience himself as himself and the other; neither would abdicate his transcendence, they would not mutilate themselves; together they would both reveal values and ends in the world. For each of them, love would be the revelation of self through the gift of self and the enrichment of the universe.’ 

De Beauvoir' 'The Second Sex': Love and Authenticity

De Beauvoir stressed the importance of reciprocation in a relationship. For her, authenticity in love can only be brought about when both the parties involved recognised their lover as free and appreciated them as their own person, as a subject of their own accord. To love another person, one mustn’t have to give up their autonomy, their own essence. They mustn’t have to lose their intrinsic value. When two people appreciate themselves separate from their lover and agree about what it means to love one another, they love truly, they love authentically.

‘The day when it will be possible for the woman to love in her strength and not in her weakness, not to escape from herself but to find herself, not out of resignation but to affirm herself, love will become for her as for man the source of life and not a mortal danger.’ 

De Beauvoir closes this chapter by saying that until such a time comes, until women continue to be encouraged to be devoted to their lover at the expense of their own personhood, love would continue to perpetuate injustice. Salvation is promised by love, de Beauvoir said, but all too often what women got in the name of love was a living hell. One that she isn’t even aware that she is in. ‘Love, for the woman, is a supreme attempt to overcome the dependence to which she is condemned by assuming it; but even consented to, dependence can only be lived in fear and servility.’ 

Jean-Paul Sartre: Love and Existentialism

Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre was not only a French philosopher but also a playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer and literary critic. He was one of the key characters in the philosophy of existentialism and phenomenology and also one of the leading characters of the 20th century. For Jean-Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher and the long-time lover of Simone de Beauvoir, opportunity was everything. He also laid emphasis on freedom. According to him, the truth of sentimental love or romantic love isn't a joyful shared regard or a converging of opportunities. On the contrary, love is a struggle. Genuine opportunity implies the scope to alter your perspective, a possibility to drop out of affection. For Sartre, at that point, love is hazardous.

He argued that each of us is accountable for our own life choices. A free man or woman shouldn’t lock him- or herself down in a relationship that may additionally develop to be an uncomfortable cage. Throw away the key, and you throw away your freedom. To be free is to have the opportunity to trade course, redefine yourself, and overturn others’ images of what you must be. As per Sartre, love exists just in its activities. So if purchasing a metal lock and leaving it, alongside a large number of others, to weigh down a monument for you is a special, beautiful, and meaningful act of love, Sartre most likely wouldn't have stopped you.

Be that as it may, he would have been questionable about the credibility of such a motion. The image of a lock may appear to be totally antagonistic to an existential perspective on love. When the key has been discarded, there is no exit. However Sartre utilized a similar allegory in an unexpected way, recommending that lovers could act not as a lock yet as a vital aspect for opening your inward being. Without somebody examining, connecting with, and valuing or appreciating you, there might be parts of yourself that will remain everlastingly imperceptible. A lover's closeness or intimacy can uncover those wants or desires and frames of mind.

For Sartre, the delight and joy of love and affection is the point at which we have a sense of safety in our ownership of each other and find the importance of our lives in and through the other individual. The issue is that this is only a fantasy. There is nothing at all secured about romantic love. Since people in love are allowed to choose to be in a relationship, are additionally allowed to leave, and this makes love perpetually vulnerable. As indicated by Sartre, this drives people in love into horrendous circles of sadomasochistic power games. They attempt to control one another and request the kind of ownership that the lock suggests. The result is that lovers wind up endeavoring to ransack each other of their opportunity without ever completely accomplishing the ownership they pine for, which is the reason Sartre infers that love is conflict.

There is nothing wrong with trusting that affection and love will last. In fact, the expectation that it will suffer, separates love from desire. For Sartre, lovers characterize themselves by cherishing each other both now and later on. However that is the paradox of love: we can’t know what we will be like in the future, and as much as we can freely choose to commit to it, to tie down a future self is its own denial of freedom. Possessiveness is so major to the experience of love; Sartre figured out, that to defeat the desires, lovers will have to conquer love itself. But then from numerous points of view, he pushed less for the latch and more for the key: Love is like hurling yourself off the bridge into the Seine. It requires courage to jump into a relationship, and you do not know where and when you will settle, if at all. Sartre did it anyway—and would have recommended that we do too.

Bell Hooks: Love and Cultural Reconstruction

Bell Hooks states that, 'Love is a verb rather than a noun, it's more of an interactive process. It is not about what we feel, but more about what we do.” She is a well-known feminist author who has written more than thirty books and in her life’s work she’s raised awareness about the system of oppression and domination. Hooks has focused on the intersectionality of race, capitalism and gender and what she describes as their ability to produce and sustain systems of oppression and class domination. She has not only published books but she also has numerous scholarly articles, which have appeared in documentary films. She also participated in public lectures.

In the early 2000s, hooks published a series of books about human love and relationships — ‘All About Love: New Visions’, ‘Communion: The Female Search for Love’ , ‘The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love’ and ‘Salvation: Black People and Love’. These books explore the very concept of love, plus the ideas of masculinity and femininity. Nearly 20 years after her first book on love was released, the series remains popular and relevant, serving as a vital source for several topics ranging from coming to terms with a breakup to simply sorting out what it means to care for another person.

In her book ‘All About Love: New Visions’, published in 2000, hooks merges her personal life experiences with philosophical and psychological ideas to summarise her ideas and discuss her main concepts. She criticizes the way in which 'love' is used at present; for instance , we use the word without really meaning it, like when referring to something we are fond of or something we enjoy, such as our favorite ice cream, color, game etc.

She is very disturbed by the fact that our culture has lost the true essence of love, and says that it is so due to a lack of a shared definition. Hence, the first chapter of her book is primarily focused on what she thinks about the definition of love, which according to her includes elements such as care, affection, trust, respect, honesty, communication, and commitment. She proposes that if we would all come to the agreement that ‘love’ is a verb rather than a noun, we would be happier. hooks believes that love is more of an interactive, communicative process. It is not just about what we feel, but more about what we do. She says that, ‘So many people think that it's enough to say what they feel, even if their actions do not correspond to what they are feeling.’ (bell hooks, EDT. CNN news) bell hooks strongly elucidates why society needs to adopt a universal definition of love.

Hooks begins her book with a series of spiritual messages, including Bible verses, to support her definition of love. She claims that a standard definition of love must include spiritual growth for one's self and others. Although she writes about biblical messages and does not promote any particular religion, she encourages spiritual thinking. hooks blames flaws in today's relationships on their loose understanding of love. She shares her personal experiences about fearing rejection and emotional pain. As a result, she confesses her lack of full commitment and expressing vulnerability because of her fear of the same. hooks states it is important to practice the art of self-love and self-care to sustain a healthy relationship with a genuine understanding of love.

This book highlights what hooks perceives as the modern day neglect of real love and what it means for people in today’s age to be in love or to experience love. One particular argument she proposes is that ‘Love cannot exist in the middle of a power struggle.’ (Nonfiction Book Review). hooks goes further to present a number of problems she finds with our modern ideals of love and gives us possible solutions. She proposes the theory of full reconstruction and transformation of modern-day love based on ‘affection, respect, recognition, commitment, trust and care.’ (All About Love: New Visions 14) hooks also points out what she sees to be the roots of the problems regarding modern day love; gender stereotypes, domination, control, ego, and aggression.

Another main argument that she presents is that it is almost impossible for women to find true and long-term happiness in a culture which hooks sees to be unfair and ruthless. In such a society, men are taught to worry more about sexual satisfaction and performance than actually understanding and loving the person that is their partner. Paired with the fact that women so strongly wish to obtain a partner, eventually leads to most relationships being completely one-sided: the men are emotionally satisfied while the women are left without any true happiness. hooks emphasises that despite these evident problems in modern-day love culture, love can be revived, and this is what she brings up in her book.

The Definition of Love by Bell Hooks

Hooks wrote this book to enlighten the world on how our thought process about love, our culture, and one another can change. She teaches us ways to love in the face of a planet of love-lessness. Her book lays emphasis on the fact that all versions of love are important whether it is romantic love, friendship, our love of strangers or community. ‘Using the working definition of love that tells us it is the action we take on behalf of our own or another's spiritual growth provides us with a beginning blueprint for working on self love. When we see love as a combination of trust, commitment, care, respect, knowledge and responsibility, we can work on developing these qualities, or if they are already a part of who we are, we can learn to extend them to ourselves.’ (All About Love 54)

Bell Hooks says that ‘We do not have to love. We choose to love.’ (All About Love: New Visions). She says that love and abuse cannot coexist. Love becomes an important tool that helps us to support the spiritual growth of our own and the person we love. Thus, if we are hurtful and abusive, we cannot declare our love for the other person or for our self. She believes in self love and that the foundation of self love can only be built when we accept ourselves and see ourselves the way we truly are. She tells us to give ourselves the love that we are dreaming of rather than waiting for others to give it to us. Hence, she believes that you cannot love anyone if you do not love yourself.

She says that human beings are so hopeful about love that although we are bombarded with its failure, we never fail to look for it. We continue to hope that one day love will be found by us or that love still continues to prevail and we still believe in love’s promises. When asked by Abigail Bereola, a book editor at 'The Rumpus' and a freelance journalist, in an interview for ‘Shondoland’, if she thought it was possible to achieve a loving society in this era, bell hooks replied by saying that societies are made up of families, whether biological or chosen. She is often surprised when she sees people coming from a loving family because according to her their outlook towards the world is different. She says that we should admit that the world is different when the people are loving and that it is an ‘amazing world’ and ‘world of peace’. She says that people who come from a loving family have the equal amount of pain but the only difference is that they know how to fight the pain in a less self-negating manner. Thus, she thinks that if we change the patriarchy within the family systems, there is hope for love.

In the same interview, when she was asked how much time she thinks it takes to cultivate love she claimed that it is not time that is the main factor, but how much work and care one is willing to put into that relationship. She says that people are so busy and have so much to do that they do not put the effort to try to know the person they like.

In a similar interview for ‘Ascent Magazine’, when asked her definition of love by the journalist, Juniper Glass, she replied by saying that love for her is made up of six ingredients: Care, commitment, responsibility, knowledge, respect and trust. She says that it is important to know that love is a combination of all these six ingredients, because most of us have one of these ingredients in our life.

In her book, ‘Salvation: Black People and Love’, bell hooks says that ‘the transformative power of love is the foundation of all meaningful social change’ (Salvation: Black People and Love). In this book, bell hooks decided to focus on love ethics, which she feels has the potential to undo the long-term and negative effects of neglect, poverty and despair. Hooks says that the black community haven’t attempted to normalize their lives, because they have been beaten down by the white people and thus only try to find love within their own community. This she supports by citing documentation of familial love and strong community ties. She says that the people of the ‘hip-hop generation’ usually mistrust love because of the sense of loss and abandonment arising from increasingly fractured black- families. She writes about self love and the natural tendency of black women to cultivate love in their community.

Conclusion

Through this research paper we spoke about the concept of love what it was back then and how it has undergone through small yet important changes, how it was mainly about procreation back then and now that we see that self love and acceptance play a role as well also we took up the theory of different philosophers about the same. We mainly took up four philosophers in a chronological order we start with 4th century Plato, next we take up Simone de Beauvoir & Jean-Paul Sartre from 20th and last but not the least bell hooks from 21 century. Each philosopher had something unique to say about what love meant to them. According to Plato, love was one of the greatest blessings. It was the joy of good and the wonder of the wise. According to Simone de Beauvoir, love promised salvation, but all too often, because of the authenticity of such a love, what women got in the name of love was a living hell. According to Jean-Paul Sartre, each of us are responsible for the choices we make in life. For him love only exists in actions. For example when we talk about lovelocks, Sartre’s point of view was that rather than being the lock, the lovers should be the key to unlock their inner being. bell hooks' view on love is more about self love and how we should accept ourselves just the way we are. Another point that she makes is that we don’t have to love, rather, we choose to love. She also says that love becomes an important tool that nurtures the spiritual growth of ourselves and the lover as well.

To find out what today’s youth considers love to be we also conducted a survey with a sample size of 80 young adults per philosopher, whose age group ranged from 18 to 26 years. We found that 89.7% of them agree with the works and theories of bell hooks, 74.6% agree with Sartre, 74.4% agree with Plato, and 63.5% agree with Simone De Beauvoir. Since, majority of the youth have the same opinion as presented in the works and theories of bell hooks, we can conclude that self love and acceptance of oneself is believed to play a crucial role in the lives of present day young adults. At the same time, these adults also agree that the amount of effort put into the relationship is more important than the amount of time.