Lessons in love: Countering student belief in romantic love myths

Abstract

The Department for Education recently administered new Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) guidance, one of the aims of which is to foster students’ ability to develop and maintain healthy romantic relationships in adulthood. However, while an education aimed at developing this capacity in young people is welcomed, the RSE guidance does not directly address conceptions of romantic love that shape how we actually conduct our love lives. Romantic love myths are a fundamental part of cultures across the world and greatly influence our behaviour and decision-making in romantic relationships. Belief in these myths is associated with negative relationship outcomes. Therefore, if we wish to improve students’ capacity to effectively negotiate future relationships, RSE must directly address conceptions of romantic love and its associated myths. This paper proposes five criteria against which to assess student beliefs to determine appropriate educational responses to them. Given love's complex nature, and the manner in which related beliefs are held, it is argued that addressing this topic through open philosophical exploration would be a prudent educational approach to adopt within the classroom. This may temper some of the potential harms of love myths while respecting the right of students to freely hold and pursue their own conceptions of love.

INTRODUCTION

The Department for Education (DfE) recently administered new Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) guidance, which came into force in England in September 2020. A key aim of this was to foster children's ability to develop and maintain healthy romantic relationships in adulthood (DfE, 2019). However, while an education aimed at developing this capacity in young people is welcomed, the RSE guidance does not directly address conceptions of romantic love that shape how people actually conduct their love lives.

Romantic love myths are a fundamental part of cultures across the world and influence our behaviour and decision-making in romantic relationships. These myths are the set of socially shared beliefs about the supposed true nature of love that tend to become uncritically embedded in our minds at a young age and are often associated with negative relationship outcomes in adulthood (Guerra-Marmolejo et al., 2021). Therefore, if we wish to improve students’ capacity to effectively negotiate future relationships, RSE must directly address conceptions of romantic love and its associated myths. Given love's complex nature, and the manner in which associated beliefs are held, I contend that philosophical exploration of this topic would be a suitable approach to adopt within the classroom.

I shall begin by briefly outlining the key myths of romantic love commonly held by young people and the lacuna within the RSE guidance regarding this topic. I then propose a set of criteria for assessing different student beliefs to determine if, when and how educators should intervene to influence or challenge these in some way. This is then applied to love myth beliefs to evaluate the appropriateness of educators’ possible responses to them. Based on this evaluation, I argue for the topic of romantic love to be explored through philosophical study in the classroom. Finally, I briefly outline some alternative philosophical conceptions of romantic love that may be of educational value in problematising and enriching students’ current beliefs about love to protect them from some of the potential harms of love myths while respecting their right to freely hold and pursue their own conceptions of love.

ROMANTIC LOVE MYTHS

Nussbaum (1988) contends that our conceptions of love are not taught in the classroom but are learned through our complex interactions with society. She explains that one of a child's most potent and persuasive means of learning about society's values and structures is through the stories it encounters. The beliefs children come to hold about love, and the emotional experiences that these beliefs give rise to, will be shaped by stories in some form or other. In contemporary Western cultures, these stories are perhaps most persuasively told through the dominant range of media, such as film, literature, music and social media, which consistently promote a particular set of myths about romantic love (Simpson et al., 2018).

As Roland Barthes (1973) has noted, myth is created through the appropriation and repurposing of popular culture, through which dominant ideologies come to be seen as merely the natural order of things. Media representations of romantic love carry certain connotations about what love is and what constitutes ‘real love’ within a romantic relationship. For example, from Romeo's first view of Juliet in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet (1595) to Jack's first glimpse of Rose in Titanic (1997), popular media is replete with instances of love at first sight, which has subsequently become embedded as an ideal in our notions of love. Through such a process, myth ‘abolishes the complexity of human acts, it gives them the simplicity of essences …’ (Barthes, 1973, p. 156). As a result, the often messy and complicated reality of love is reduced to a simple set of, arguably unrealistic, propositions and ideals.

Romantic love myths may vary across cultures, but, according to Swidler (2001), commonly consist of the following four core tenets: (1) love is a clear, sudden and definitive feeling (exemplified in the notion of ‘love at first sight’); (2) love is exclusive and unique (there is ‘the one’ for us out there somewhere); (3) love can overcome any barrier (‘love conquers all’); and (4) love endures for life (reflected in the marriage vow, ‘till death us do part’). In addition to recognising these, Yela (2003) notes the following additional myths: jealously is an indicator of true love, the passionate love experienced early in a relationship should be maintained indefinitely, and monogamous love is the only natural and proper form of relationship. Despite the radical shift in the relationship landscape over the past century, as gender roles have changed and a range of non-traditional forms of romantic relationship have received greater acceptance, belief in longstanding myths of romantic love has remained high amongst young people, regardless of their gender or sexuality (Meier et al., 2009).

Within romantic relationships, ‘the myths of romantic love play a fundamental role, as they are the main guides of the appropriate ways of feeling, thinking and behaving’ (Cubells-Serra et al., 2021, p. 2). As Lamy (2016) puts it, these myths provide the script that shapes how our love lives play out. For instance, if we think a romantic interest is ‘the one’, irreplaceable by anyone else, then that belief may strongly influence whether and for how long we choose to remain in that relationship. Given the power of belief in these myths, Weissbourd et al. (2013/14) argue that we cannot leave the education of young people regarding romantic love to popular culture—to do so would be an ‘epic abdication of responsibility’ (p. 55). Instead, we must seek to take educative action to counter this influence.

The recently published RSE statutory guidance for England (DfE, 2019) aims to teach what constitutes a healthy romantic relationship, stating that students should know the following:

how to recognise the characteristics and positive aspects of healthy one-to-one intimate relationships, which include mutual respect, consent, loyalty, trust, shared interests and outlook, sex and friendship. (DfE, 2019, p. 29)

This intention is admirable, but despite stressing the need to ‘teach what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in relationships’ (DfE, 2019, p. 25), the guidance is uninterested in the notion of romantic love itself. It mentions the word ‘love’ just twice, and only in a general sense unrelated to romantic affairs, ignoring a key motivating factor in such relationships. For instance, even though a healthy relationship ideally should involve mutual respect and loyalty, as the RSE guidance notes, if an individual believes their partner is ‘the one’ and that ‘real love’ should last forever, they may feel they should stand by their beloved no matter what, even in the face of disrespect and disloyalty. The empirical research on the topic (which, although it primarily comes from the United States and Spain, is thought to be typical of the Western mindset in general) confirms the negative outcomes associated with young people's belief in common romantic love myths (these shall be explored more in the following section, but are highlighted briefly here). These include unrealistic relationship expectations, relationship dissatisfaction and controlling and abusive behaviour towards romantic partners (see, amongst others, Guerra-Marmolejo et al., 2021; Marcos et al., 2020; Sánchez-Hernández et al., 2020; Simpson et al., 2018).

Simpson et al. (2018) contend that effective relationship education may lead to a reduction in immature and simplistic beliefs about love and relationships. Weissbourd and Givens Rolland (2013) agree that ‘[d]one well, relationship courses can help wipe away the myths about love’ (p. 9). So, given their association with negative relationship outcomes, it seems a logical move to develop educational programmes that set about reducing, or even eliminating entirely, student beliefs in romantic love myths. However, this raises an interesting philosophical question: How do we determine when we should attempt to influence students’ beliefs in some way? Furthermore, if some intervention is deemed appropriate, how do we determine what form this should take? In the next section, I shall explore responses to these questions.

DETERMINING EDUCATIONAL RESPONSES TO STUDENT BELIEFS

Expanding on the work of Michael Hand and John Tillson (whose ideas I have adapted for criteria 1–3), I propose a set of five criteria to help assess different types of student beliefs to determine when and how, if at all, we should attempt to influence them: (1) Veracity, (2) Momentousness, (3) Student Cognitive Attitude, (4) Sacredness and (5) Likelihood of Independent Belief-Rejection. I shall now explain each criterion in turn, outline its relevance and consider how student belief in romantic love myths stack up against these. Through this process, we can also begin to make greater sense of the nature of these beliefs and the role they play in our lives. This in turn will inform our responses to them.

Veracity

When considering educational responses to specific beliefs, Tillson (2019) suggests we should ask whether the truth of the matter concerned is certain, merely plausible, or outright false or unfounded. Generally, educators aim to guide students away from falsity and towards truth, or at least from groundless beliefs to well-founded ones. We obviously possess a clearer justification for challenging beliefs when they are patently false. For example, if a student was to express the belief that 2 + 2 = 5 or that Paris was the capital of Spain, we would have little problem in either directly correcting them or indirectly steering them towards identifying the truth of the matter themselves.

Clearly, beliefs about romantic love are not simple errors like these, but are they false? To answer that question, we must identify what exactly belief in these myths amounts to. Conceptually speaking, such beliefs are obviously false in the sense that many apparently legitimate and rewarding romantic relationships do not conform to the core love myths. We can easily point to examples of strong relationships where love did not strike suddenly and powerfully but grew gradually over time, as with many successful arranged marriages. There are also many instances of people having multiple satisfying romantic relationships throughout their lives, challenging the notion of ‘the one’. The same evidence would suggest that a relationship could be positive on the whole yet not endure forever, without it invalidating the entire romance. And there are certainly instances of loving relationships not being able to overcome certain barriers encountered, such as the obstacle of long-distance physical separation.

So, the core tenets are apparently not necessary conditions of romantic love in the conceptual sense, but, for some, the counterexamples detailed may simply be dismissed as not being instances of ‘true love’. Such people may hold the literal belief that one special person exists for them, who in some sense is their ‘other half’ and soulmate, who they would form an unconquerable and enduring love with should they encounter them. This notion is reminiscent of Aristophanes’ myth in Plato's Symposium of bisected humans yearning for their physical counterpart from whom the gods have separated them. The attitudes of literal believers are reflected in everyday conversations where an individual may comment on their current partner being ‘the one’, or retrospectively judge that in fact they were not ‘the one’ once a relationship ended, given it did not endure for life as the myth demands. So, although romantic relationships need not conform to love myths, to be considered a case of ‘true love’, some may insist they must.

Given these myths are possibly unverifiable, it is hard to completely disprove them, however, neither are they verifiably true. As a result, it is improbable that all believers in romantic love myths believe in them as a marker of true love in the literal sense. But, if so, in what other sense may people believe in them? Rather than holding a literal belief in love myths, some may believe in these as merely representations of ideals of love. They may desire an exclusive, powerful and enduring relationship that begins with a love at first sight experience, but not literally believe in the notion of a single soulmate existing for them in some kind of mystical sense. If we conceive of belief in love myths like this, then they are not empirical claims that we can simply rule to be true or false, but merely normative propositions against which one may evaluate the merits of a relationship.

It could also be the case that a single individual may believe in some myths in the normative sense and others in the literal. For example, they may hold the desire for an exclusive relationship as an ideal, while also holding that they could realise this with multiple possible loves (disbelieving in the myth of ‘the one’). But, concurrently, they may believe that whoever they partner with should remain with them for life if the love is ‘real’ (believing in the myth of an enduring love). Furthermore, Swidler (2001) notes that many people actually vacillate between contradictory visions of love—back and forth from more pragmatic views to more idealistic, though rarely escaping the influence of love myths entirely. In any case, when referring to believers in love myths, I have in mind all of these types of belief manifestations. This is because, regardless of how the beliefs are held, they will inevitably influence people's relationship behaviour and decision-making to a considerable extent.

Where does this assessment of the veracity of love myths leave us? Hand (2008) advocates an elegant solution for determining when educators may be obliged to encourage or discourage belief in some matter, or to maintain a more neutral stance. The epistemic criterion posits that when an issue is epistemically settled, even if disagreement may still persist between people, then we should guide our students towards the truth of the matter, as supported by the available arguments and evidence. But romantic love myths cannot be decisively settled epistemically. Literal beliefs in the myths may not be demonstrably false but are arguably sufficiently unfounded and overly reductive enough of love's complexity for us to approach with scepticism in the classroom. However, where the beliefs are held as ideals in the normative sense, their veracity is far more controversial. The ideal of an exclusive, enduring love that strikes one powerfully and suddenly is arguably a valid one to hold. When addressing a controversial matter of this type, the epistemic criterion guides educators towards facilitating a more neutral exploration of the topic in the classroom—an approach I endorse.

Momentousness

Momentousness in this context pertains to the degree of impact certain beliefs are likely to have on how one conducts one's life and what difference it would make if one's beliefs were right or wrong (Hand, 2004; Tillson, 2019). Love is a matter of central importance in most people's lives, and, as already noted, our beliefs about love inevitably influence our attitudes and behaviour towards our romantic relationships, whether or not we are conscious of this. Given the extent to which children's beliefs about love will likely shape key decisions taken in their adult lives, they are clearly a matter of educational worth, assuming education is concerned with preparing children for how to live well in adulthood. Though these beliefs are obviously momentous in nature, it is worth taking some time to consider how they may specifically shape one's relationships.

The empirical literature on the topic suggests that belief in love myths is common in young people and often has a negative impact on relationships. Evidence suggests they set unrealistic expectations, which increases the likelihood of disappointment, disillusionment and relationship breakdown (Simpson et al., 2018). This is understandable considering the sheer weight of arguably impossible expectations placed on an individual to be the perfect soulmate whose love will never waver. Indeed, as Franiuk et al. (2012) have shown, individuals who are strong or ‘pure soulmate theorists’ (who subscribe fully to certain core love myths) are more likely to experience relationship dissatisfaction when they do not feel their partner fit is ideal, which is a problem if the ‘ideal’ partner does not actually exist. But the negative impact of being unable to fulfil relationship expectations is far from the only problem stemming from romantic love myths—they can also shape the interpersonal dynamics of relationships in potentially unhealthy ways.

When we form a relationship, a sort of tacit contractual agreement occurs between each party that shapes their shared understanding of the parameters of the relationship and what they consent to by choosing to be a part of it. But when one or both of the parties concerned subscribes to romantic love myths, this contract must be punctuated by a series of clauses that place potentially harmful constraints on their relationship. Someone being ‘the one’ (exclusivity clause) means they are inextricably tied to us, and not just for a time, but for life (enduring clause), with nothing being permitted to break that tie (unconquerable clause).

These clauses posit the beloved as somehow belonging to their partner, without the option to stay or leave, or to choose another (after all, there can only be one ‘one’). This increases the likelihood of a relationship marked by possessiveness and control, which often takes the form of male over female possession in opposite-sex relationships. This is because societal expectations have traditionally afforded men more independence in relationships, while women have been expected to give up their autonomy (Beauvoir, 1972; Soble, 1997). This holds to a greater or lesser extent depending on whether one subscribes to love myths as literal truths or merely normative ideals. The former will contend that this is how a romantic relationship must be, and the latter how it should be. In each case, it seems the outcome may be broadly similar.

The empirical research confirms that romantic love myths are used to justify men's controlling behaviour of women and women's commitment to abusive relationships (Sánchez-Hernández et al., 2020). The literature also reveals a strong relationship between belief in romantic love myths and the holding of sexist attitudes and double standards; taken together, these three factors are also strong indicators of gender-based violence, particularly against women (Guerra-Marmolejo et al., 2021; Marcos et al., 2020). Ronald de Sousa (2015) refers to an extreme example of this phenomenon amongst women in a Scottish prison, who held the shared belief that ‘a man only loves you if he beats you …’—failure to do so … showed that he didn't care’ (p. 14). That love equates to a form of possession of the other and necessarily involves suffering are further examples of love myths, inextricably tied to the core myths outlined earlier, which help to sustain unhealthy relationships.

Though the empirical evidence does indeed suggest love myths often lead to negative outcomes for individuals and relationships, we must avoid overlooking their potentially positive influences. In order to have the most profound experiences of awe, wonder and ecstasy within romantic relationships, it seems reasonable to assume we must enter them believing in love's capacity to produce such outcomes. If true love is not confined to ‘the one’, is not enduring and does not strike us like the proverbial lightning bolt, it may seem less special. Similar to a placebo effect, where one feels an improvement in one's health because one has the false belief that some faux medical intervention will induce this, powerful experiences of love seem to carry an almost mystical character that may be most reliably produced through holding questionable beliefs about love's supposed mystical nature.

Indeed, there is empirical evidence to support the claim that unwarranted positive beliefs about relationships can have a positive self-fulfilling effect (Murray et al., 1996). It makes sense that if someone believed their partner was ‘the one’ and that love could overcome any hurdle, they may be more likely to persist through difficult times to develop a deeper and more fulfilling relationship, thus seemingly proving the myths true (though conversely, one may be willing to remain in a harmful relationship for longer too).

Do we have the right to limit people's potential for such profound experiences of love, even if they likely result in disappointment, pain and poorer outcomes in the long term? We are arguably going beyond our educational remit if we completely remove this option by simply seeking to rid our students of belief in all love myths. But we must at least provide alternative conceptions of love for their consideration, which may provide a measure of balance to student ideas about love and limit some of their worst excesses, including the tendency of love myths to oversimplify the complex nature of romantic relationships.

Cognitive attitude

In cases where a belief could not be clearly determined to be true or false, and where no specific cognitive attitude was warranted towards a proposition, as with belief in romantic love myths, Tillson (2019) argues that we should ask whether the matter of concern ‘might well not be understood and rationally evaluated without intervention’ (p. 94). I think little argument is required to support the claim that love is an aspect of many people's lives where rationality often falls by the wayside.

When in love, we often lack a clear understanding of many of our feelings, thoughts and behaviours, or those of our beloved. We may also not be fully cognisant of our own beliefs about love and how these were formed, given the way they are unconsciously absorbed from a wide variety of influences throughout childhood. Consequently, our focus within any intervention should be to support students towards a better understanding of notions of romantic love and an enhanced capacity for rationally reflecting upon their own action-guiding beliefs concerning this. This is not to say that it is always wise to over-rationalise love—indeed, it seems that doing so may prove a hindrance to its flourishing in some cases—but we at least want to lessen the negative influence that certain unchecked beliefs may have on relationships.

Sacredness

Another reason, apart from their epistemically settled status, as to why correcting beliefs from the ‘simple error’ category would not be considered controversial, is that they are in no way sacred or fundamental to an individual's worldview. Learning that Madrid rather than Paris was the capital of Spain is unlikely to cause anyone distress or cast doubt on the entire framework of beliefs that guide their life choices. However, when confronted with certain religious or philosophical convictions, even though they may lack epistemic warrant, it would generally be considered controversial to directly challenge or try to ‘correct’ them. It seems we could not do so without causing potential psychological distress and offence. Given the internal conflict this may trigger, such attempts may induce psychological reactance. This occurs when someone feels that some aspect of their freedom (their religious freedom, for instance) is threatened, which may result in greater attachment to their original convictions and anger towards the source of the threat (such as a direct challenge to their beliefs) (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2020). So, challenging such beliefs, whether this involved telling children that true love or even God did not really exist, may prove counterproductive.

Further to these practical barriers to belief-change, we must also be aware of possible legal barriers. Fundamental beliefs that shape life choices are afforded protection under rights legislation. Article 14 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states: ‘State Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’. Freedom of conscience is taken to refer to any kind of ethical or philosophical belief that significantly impacts one's way of living, regardless of whether it is theistic or non-theistic in nature, or whether it is objectively true (de Jong, 2000). Our beliefs about love and relationships seem to have the potential to greatly shape our way of life, more so than the vast majority of other beliefs we hold, so would fit this criterion. But what does it mean for state parties to ‘respect’ these? Respect in this sense may be considered to involve some degree of protection of a belief (Vandenhole et al., 2019). Any attempt to directly change a protected belief could certainly be construed as not adhering to this principle.

According to the UN charter, limitations placed on beliefs in rights legislation are only concerned with their manifestations, not their content. This may explain the singular focus on the practical aspect of relationships in the RSE guidance and the absence of interest in addressing conceptions of love directly. Indeed, the DfE (2019) makes it clear that RSE ‘must be taught sensitively … with respect to the backgrounds and beliefs of pupils’ (p. 4). But given the evidence that associates belief in romantic love myths with poor outcomes, even though we may want to respect these beliefs, we must act out of concern for their possible consequences. Though the action taken may not involve directly attempting to somehow eradicate these beliefs, it must seek to alleviate the most egregious aspects of their manifestation.

Likelihood of independent belief-rejection

One way educators may relieve themselves of any responsibility for countering student beliefs about love is if these were likely to come to be rejected independently, based on young people's assessment of the evidence acquired through their personal experiences. As I have previously argued in relation to belief in the Santa Claus myth, educators can justify not intervening to correct this false belief on the grounds that children will inevitably soon revise this independently anyway, and will garner developmental benefits through the cognitive achievement of doing so (Standley, 2020). Some may view belief in romantic love myths as similar to belief in Santa, as something idealised and immature that experience and maturity will rectify. Through early experiences of ‘puppy love’, young people may realise that love was not quite what was sold to them in popular culture and revise their beliefs accordingly.

The strategy of leaving young people to make mistakes in their early romantic forays and to independently learn from these offers various benefits. Learning through one's own cognitive agency may be considered preferable to learning through testimony (Pritchard, 2013), given it involves an individual generating their own empirical evidence to support their newfound beliefs. Additionally, the likelihood of psychological reactance occurring is reduced, as the source of belief conflict is generated internally rather than via an external threat. However, the cost of leaving these beliefs to be self-rectified is too high.

Though rates of belief may dip over time, it is clear that many do hold onto belief in romantic love myths into older age. It is certainly not unusual to encounter people in middle age still hoping to find ‘the one’. These beliefs do not carry an inbuilt expiry date, unlike belief in Santa Claus, so we cannot be sure they will be outgrown. Also, some people may make life-altering decisions about matters like marriage and children under the influence of these beliefs before they may come to revise them. So, even when belief-revision does occur, it may be too late to prevent negative consequences, some of which could be significant in nature—too significant to ignore.

LOVE AND PHILOSOPHY IN THE CLASSROOM

In summary, belief in romantic love myths significantly shapes our behaviour and decision-making in romantic relationships, sometimes with negative outcomes. Given these beliefs will not necessarily be outgrown as young people mature, or at least not until harm has been incurred, educators should attempt to address such beliefs in the classroom. However, any educative action should not simply seek to directly change these beliefs, given they may make possible some profoundly positive experiences that some may not wish to give up, are epistemically controversial and may be considered convictions of such central importance in one's life that they must be treated with respect. While adhering to these constraints, I shall now attempt to briefly detail a classroom strategy for studying the topic of romantic love and assessing the competing beliefs and claims about its nature.

But how do we go about evaluating conceptualisations of love and their associated myths? As de Sousa (2015) notes, we cannot reach a consensus regarding the truth of love as we would in fields like science and mathematics:

When assessing a mathematical proof, all those deemed competent enough to understand it are expected to agree. In all but the most arcane branches of mathematics, there is no room for saying: ‘I understand what you're saying, but I disagree.’ In the case of physical phenomena and their explanation, disagreement and debate are normal; but we expect a scientific consensus to emerge. When such disputes are settled, that confirms our conviction that they refer to objective facts… But that does not seem to be true of love. (pp. 6–7)

As many love beliefs refer to ideals about how to live one's life, and in the case of literal belief in love myths may be beyond empirical testing, a discussion of their merits fits firmly within the realm of philosophy. Lipman et al. (1980) explain that philosophy is a discipline that seeks to introduce some criteria of excellence into our thinking processes that can benefit children as thinkers. The authors note that it also helps children to think well about questions of central importance to their lives, where easy answers do not present themselves. Returning to the views of Hand (2018), he argues that the best justification for philosophical study within the school classroom is philosophy's special ability to tackle such prominent problems relevant to children's worlds.

Gatley (2021) builds on Hand's view, noting that the central educational value of philosophy is its capacity to analyse and clarify ordinary concepts, which in turn help us to pose meaningful questions pertinent to our everyday lives, such as ‘what is love?’ (p. 67). Such questions are not niche philosophical matters of value only to serious philosophers—the kinds of questions Hand (2018) acknowledges we may be justified in sidestepping in the classroom—children's personal answers to these queries will go some way to shaping their romantic relationships in their adult lives. It is therefore worth dedicating some serious thought to the kind of answers, in the form of their personal philosophies of love, young people carry forth beyond the school gates into adulthood.

A good place to start any education about romantic love would be to prompt students to reflect on and identify their own beliefs about it. They can then start separating the likely truths from the probable myths, and the positive values from the negative. In order to decipher myths and how they shape our beliefs, Barthes (1973) explains that we must examine them in the context in which they were originally generated and communicated. By examining expressions of romantic love in film, literature, music and other forms of media, we can identify which myths are conveyed. We can then make sense of the process of naturalisation where they came to be accepted as true rather than being politically, socially and historically determined. Work can then begin on comparing the identified love myths with alternative philosophical accounts, to help aid interrogation of their meaning and value.

Proposing a single preferable alternative philosophy of love for students to ponder would not facilitate a sufficient exploration of love's intricate complexities or any unravelling of its apparent contradictions. As de Sousa (2015) points out, ‘Given the puzzles and paradoxes that lurk about the concept of love, no single approach will suffice to make sense of it’ (p. 16). Similarly, Singer (2011) recognises that the complex and debatable nature of the phenomena means ‘one should not look for a unitary solution to the nature of love’ (p. 17). Instead, by exposing students to a variety of contrasting conceptions of love, we may broaden their horizons and problematise their belief in romantic love myths by prompting deeper reflection on these convictions. Our aim in studying this matter is not to profess what we consider the truth of love to be (or not to be), but to provide students with the tools to determine and more meaningfully substantiate their own views. Exposure to some alternative conceptualisations of love's nature, some examples of which I shall share in the next section of the paper, may lead students to internalise these alongside or in place of existing ones. This may help to mitigate the worst excesses of romantic love myth belief without directly attempting to eliminate the beliefs themselves.

Once a range of competing conceptions about love and the related sets of beliefs that stem from these have been identified and explored, students can work on extrapolating the likely outcomes of these, should they be carried into relationships. A useful exercise may be to try to connect different theories of love and beliefs about its nature back to the healthy prescription for romantic relationships outlined in the RSE guidance. This may help to determine which set of beliefs are most likely to bring about such a relationship and which will most likely hinder this. This offers a way of integrating the philosophical approach to learning about love with existing policy on relationship education while also filling the gap that currently exists within this.

ALTERNATIVE PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTIONS OF ROMANTIC LOVE

I shall close this paper with a necessarily brief sketch of some alternative conceptions of love from the philosophical literature that may counteract some of the main problems posed by belief in romantic love myths, three of which I shall consider here: (1) They tend to lead to controlling and possessive behaviour (especially men over women); (2) They tend to lead to unhealthy relationship dynamics, such as dependency; (3) Their focus largely rests on the object of love, not on the actual act of loving, creating unrealistic expectations of the beloved and resulting in an abdication of the responsibility to love well. In response to these issues (just a small sample of those posed by romantic love myths), I shall now outline three different philosophical conceptions of love. In doing so, I shall consider how each of these conceptions facilitates classroom discussion that offers a counterpoint to the identified relationship problems and to the core love myths themselves. These should not be taken to be the only philosophical perspectives of worth—indeed, I welcome more academic work that evaluates which philosophical views may be of most value for classroom study.

Love is a ‘robust concern’ for the beloved

This view places our caring for our partner's welfare and happiness for their own sake as paramount to what it means to love them (Helm, 2021). It is less about my feelings or individual view regarding the person and more about a stable motivational drive that shapes my behaviour towards them. My concern for my beloved's welfare and happiness reshapes my identity in such a way that I become vulnerable to what happens to them (White, 2001). Consequently, as Fromm (1956) remarks, ‘When that concern is lacking, there is no love’ (p. 25). If I merely admire their beauty, enjoy being near them or derive only sexual pleasure from them (not that love should not also involve such things), my love, if we could even refer to it as such, would be deficient.

De Sousa (2015) explains that this model of love is often tainted by the monogamist ideology that underpins common romantic love myths, which adds the condition that ‘I want your happiness but only if I cause it’ (p. 101). This skewed perspective results in our own ego taking precedence over the welfare of our beloved and possessiveness undermining the beneficence of our love. This prompts an interesting question worthy of class discussion: When does caring become controlling? If I decide a certain action is in my beloved's best interests, should I take it even if she does not approve? If her welfare is my prime concern, it seems that I must. Singer (2011) contends that this view misunderstands notions of care and concern. To truly care for my beloved, it is necessary that I respect her autonomy, without which she cannot flourish. And, as de Sousa (2015) adds, if ‘love is the joy of contemplating the beloved's autonomy’ (p. 101), it should not be on the condition that they make ‘appropriate’ use of this. For him, care requires the relinquishing of control, not the assertion of this.

This view pushes back somewhat against the sense of ownership of the other that can be associated with the notion that they are ‘the one’ for us, and so in some sense ‘ours’. The patriarchal structure of society typically reinforces such attitudes, generally placing the woman (in opposite-sex relationships) as the object to be possessed whose autonomy must be restricted (Soble, 1997). As Beauvoir (1972) recognised in The Second Sex, whereas love forms just a part of a man's life, a woman traditionally must give up herself entirely to love, without reservation, thus sacrificing her independence. Women historically have not entered into love from the same position as men, resulting in an imbalance in romantic relationships, with men retaining a greater degree of autonomy. Beauvoir explains that this state of affairs is sustained by further myths of romantic love, which posits that ‘loving is a woman's central vocation …’ and that ‘… loving is what confirms a woman in her womanliness’ (Morgan, 1991, p. 396). It is hoped that this social inequity is beginning to be rectified, but sensitive classroom discussion of these gender-based issues may help to accelerate this process.

To allow our beloved the autonomy they require to flourish, there are various things we must seek to do. For Fromm (1956), we must aim to overcome our own narcissistic tendencies to be able to respect our lover for who they are and to allow them the space to be autonomous. For Lehrer (1997), we must learn to trust our beloved and the preferences they hold that shape the autonomous choices they make. Without that trust, fear may lead to attempts to restrict their independence. The importance of mutual respect and trust takes us back to the prescription of a healthy relationship outlined in the RSE guidance, which will be a helpful link for students to make.

Love is a union

Several philosophers define love as a union between people, creating either a partial or total fusion of our cares and concerns, rather than as an attitude held towards another. Nozick (1991) posits that love is constituted by our reciprocated desire to form a ‘we’ with our beloved. This ‘we’ is a new entity in the world formed by a fresh set of interconnected relations between lovers that extinguishes their separateness. Erich Fromm's (1956) classic treatise The Art of Loving (all references to Fromm refer to this source) champions love's power to break through the barriers that separate humans to overcome our isolation through union with others. But he warns that a mature love must still permit us to retain our integrity, be ourselves and avoid dependency. When we pool our concerns as a couple, do I actually give up my own concerns and sense of integrity? If not, are you forced to give up yours? And, as Soble (1997) points out as a source of tension between the robust concern and union models of love, if your concerns become mine through union, am I acting purely in self-interest in caring about them? These are all interesting and pertinent questions for class discussion.

Fromm warns us of the dangers of attempting to fuse completely with our beloved, which carries the risk of ‘symbiotic attachment’ and dependency. This is often expressed in the form of one partner becoming passive and the other dominating, or ‘enlarged egotism’, where we subsume the identity of the other completely into our own (Fromm, 1956, p. 38). If we become totally wrapped up in one person and love only them, it encourages an indifference to others, reducing our actual love for the world more broadly. To counter such dangers, Singer (2011) advocates the federation model of union. He promotes love as each individual maintaining their own personal identity and interests, alongside a third shared identity in which some of their interests and concerns are pooled, similar to how American states retain a degree of independence whilst also forming a larger shared identity as the United States.

Vernon (2013) explains that this triangular form of love makes space in a relationship beyond the claustrophobic confines of the couple, where they can be more sensitive to the world beyond themselves and increase their self-awareness. Fromm feels this stance is necessary because love is not primarily an attitude towards a specific person, but an orientation of character towards all, whether expressed in brotherly, motherly, erotic or self-love. Considering love in this broader sense, reflective of Ancient Greek views, may make for a useful classroom exercise. Ultimately, it seems desirable to cultivate loving attitudes in this more expansive sense, rather than the desire to hoard all of one's love within a single all-consuming relationship.

Love is an activity

For Fromm, the dominant ideology of love, which underpins common myths, leads most people to believe that it is constituted by the love object rather than by our faculty for love. He contends that love is not about just finding the right person; it is, rather, an activity. It is something we do. Just as the painter must learn the art of painting well, rather than simply finding the right object to paint, we must seek to develop our capacity to love well. Fromm acknowledges that this view of love goes against the dominant Western cultural ideology, where love must strike spontaneously and powerfully. This puts the emphasis fully on the peculiarities of the individuals involved, which ignores the fact that we are all largely the same, and could potentially love many others.

De Sousa (2015) also notes that our love for any particular individual is contingent. For example, say I love Tia, but all of the qualities I adore in her are also possessed to an even greater degree by Priya, who I do not meet until I am already in love with Tia. Therefore, on meeting Priya, I find I have no romantic interest in her. On the contrary, if I had met Priya first, I could well have fallen in love with her and been romantically indifferent to Tia on meeting her later. If the object of love is contingent in this way, it seems to strike a blow against mythical notions of ‘the one’, helping us to focus more on the activity of love. This shifts the focus away from placing unrealistic expectations on our beloved and puts it back on ourselves and our own behaviour within the relationship.

Fromm thinks we must aim to see our beloved more objectively as they really are, as an individual who embodies a particular set of human qualities and frailties, rather than as a mythical soulmate figure. In particular, Fromm thinks we should focus more on the active application of will, rather than considering ourselves passive recipients of love's lightning bolt. A simple feeling alone will not sustain a long-term relationship—feelings will wax and wane—our judgements, decisions, commitment and acts of will are what make a sustained and deep love possible (assuming such a love is our goal). To achieve this, just as the painter works on his art, we must work on ourselves and our capacity to love, which is a constant and ongoing challenge. Thinking about love in this manner may help students to re-evaluate any possible obsessive and illusionary interest they may come to hold in potential love objects and instead move their focus back to themselves, and what they must do to be ready to love and to love well. Indeed, maybe a central aim of RSE should be to support students in their preparations towards this outcome.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

There is little that we consider more valuable in our lives than romantic love. But despite its central importance, we devote little time to educating young people about it and helping them to make sense of their conceptions and beliefs about love that will shape their future romantic relationships. Though the DfE's attempt to promote awareness of the characteristics of a healthy loving relationship through relationships and sex education is positive, I have argued that it does not go far enough. To help young people develop the capacity to make such relationships a reality, we must first help them to learn about love's nature and how their own beliefs about this, especially those pertaining to romantic love myths, influence their behaviour in relationships.

More academic work aimed at considering how to best address this vital topic in the classroom, and at evaluating the range of philosophies of love that may be of educational value, would be warmly welcomed. Identifying the most effective approaches and lesson content for prompting young people to reflect on and evaluate the ideals and beliefs they hold about love seems an appropriate means of empowering them to reduce some of the pernicious influences of romantic love myths within their future relationships. Finally, I think that further attempts at applying the criteria presented in this paper for evaluating educational responses to student beliefs to other pertinent topics, or at further developing and refining these criteria, would be of considerable academic value in the philosophy of education field.

REFERENCES