2007-12-24 10:24:07 · 12 answers · asked by Clarsair 2 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
Love itself is biological, but how we act, who we fall in love with, how we court, what our expectations are, those are all at least partially social constructs. There are bodily changes that take place when you fall in love and when you're around someone that you love. Touching and looking into one another's eyes release chemicals that strengthen the bond.
But not every society expects couples who are in love to behave the same way. Heck, not every society even cares about love. Our own didn't until relatively late, particularly for the upper classes. Some cultures expect you to have one love, forever (sound familiar?), while others are far more accepting of multiple partners over a lifetime.
2007-12-25 02:26:42 · answer #1 · answered by random6x7 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Supposedly romance and it's trappings didn't get started until the Middle Ages. There was a shift from heroic male tales to songs/poems about love between a lady and her knight. Likely the troubadour that catered to this new form of entertainment got a lot of attention from the ladies.
The bonding of male and female appears to be survival related. As gestation is 9 months and it's years before a child is self-sufficient, having a male around helps. That women are sexually receptive year round rather then just periodically also tended to keep males near.
Certainly much of the culture (ex "A diamond is forever") is contrived. However, a good act alway sells so acceding to the cultural mores does have it's rewards.
2007-12-24 19:01:51 · answer #2 · answered by icabod 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Romance and courtship behaviors are social constructs. The first year of love is primarily a measureable biological chemical storm. Sustained love is neither a social construct nor a biological process but rather a philosophical / spiritual construct between individuals, a covenant, a nation of two.
2007-12-24 18:49:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Our male ancestors took everything by force, including women. So love was not of value then. But as populations increased and laws were put in place and groups got together to defend themselves, women started having more say in who they had kids with and thats when love came into being. So, yes, love is a social construct.
2007-12-25 18:30:35 · answer #4 · answered by Jelise 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes and no. no, because love exists as a part of a psychological abstract of a human being, and yes, because the definition and practice of what is love varies on the culture involved. every culture possess its own system within a social construction, redefining love thorugh different factors: hate, discipline, passion, affection, protection, and possesiveness.
2007-12-26 20:09:33 · answer #5 · answered by ocean deep 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on how you define "love". It is if it includes constructions like "blood is thicker than water", that people care about each other becuase they are blood kin. On the other hand, romantic attraction obviously has a very strong biological element.
2007-12-24 19:33:58 · answer #6 · answered by Maverick 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes.
2007-12-24 21:16:32 · answer #7 · answered by noodles 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. It is a genetic construction.
Read Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene"
2007-12-24 19:03:42 · answer #8 · answered by timthinks 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
yes and a misrebal lie
2007-12-25 05:45:50 · answer #9 · answered by madderstill 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No otherwise you wouldn't give a monkeys about your mum and I expect you do.
2007-12-24 18:39:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋