Love is about building a 'We'

The argument

When an individual is in love, they go from looking out for their own interests to looking out for the couple's interests. They stop acting in a way that benefits the 'I' and begin acting in the interests of the 'We'. The change is not that one person sacrifices for another, since that would leave two separate sets of interests with one of them losing. It is that the boundary between the two sets stops holding. Love refers to the dissolution of distinctions between 'my' interests and 'your' interests and the formation of 'our' interests, which is a different arrangement from generosity or compromise, both of which presuppose the very separation love is said to dissolve. This doesn't have to be a black and white situation. It is possible to have some shared concerns and interests while others remain as 'my' interests and 'your' interests, and most relationships sit somewhere along that range rather than at either end. What the account supplies is a measure of depth: the deeper the love becomes, the deeper the union becomes, and the less distinction between the two remains. Love is therefore a matter of degree, and the degree is read off how much of each person's interests have become shared. That also explains why love is both a feeling and an activity. It is the desire to form a union and, at the same time, the construction of that union — the merging of two 'I's, each with their own personal interests, into one 'We' with shared interests and concerns. The desire alone would be wanting something; the construction is what makes the 'We' exist, and it is built rather than simply felt.

Context

When two people fall in love, they leave behind their former selves as an 'I' and become a 'We'.

Premises

Counter-arguments

This theory for love only holds up in a metaphorical sense. It does away with individual autonomy in couples and removes the individual from the relationship. It is possible to be in love and remain independent. Two people can have different interests, values, concerns, fears, priorities and goals and still be in love. Respecting this individual autonomy can actually bring people together and make for a healthier relationship. This view of love also fails to account for selfish agents who fall in love, who may not act in the benefit of the union but according to their personal interests and goals. Is this person not experiencing real love? Alternatively, love may be unrequited or one-sided. Therefore, the union itself is not the love. This view of love is particularly damaging for women. As women are encouraged by society to marry "up" and wed someone of a higher social standing than themselves, with a better job and a larger salary. When the 'we' is created, the dominant party will likely have a larger stake in the new identity. This often means the male in the relationship can assert dominance. If we want to establish equality in our relationships and avoid the overt oppression of women, we must abandon this union definition of love.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This is not an essential part of being in love. People can be in love and maintain their individual goals, interests and concerns.