Skip to main content
Select Source:



Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,—and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1–2, Gideon Bible).

This widely quoted statement from the Christian Bible is not unique. More ink has been spilled about love than any other topic, except perhaps God. Speculation about the nature of love is very ancient; however, the scientific study of love only began in the twentieth century. Human love has been the primary focus, although love is not restricted to humans, as every pet owner knows. Harry Harlow (1974) demonstrated that mother love and nurturance is required for infant monkeys to develop normally. Infants deprived of mother contact became disturbed, unhappy adults, unfit for monkey society.

There are many kinds of love. The encompassing love of our parents begins our own life's journey of love, a journey that wends its way through love of parents, siblings, grandparents, friends, romantic partners, and eventually full circle to the encompassing love of our own children—and grandchildren. St. Paul was right—without love we are nothing!

The primary focus of this entry is romantic love. As Beverley Fehr (1995) noted, the emotions and feelings that underlie companionate love may be the foundation for all types of love. For example, parent-child and friendship love match this general concept of companionable love. Romantic, erotic love is a specialized love that may evolve out of a broader companionable love. But passionate, romantic love is very important to people, thus leading to strong interest by social scientists.

Passionate and Companionate Love

Ellen Berscheid and Elaine Walster (1969, 1978) proposed the distinction between love as passion and love as friendly companionship. These authors construed passionate love as a state of total absorption between two lovers, including mood swings, intense emotions (pleasurable and aversive), and obsessive thinking. Companionate love was construed as the affection two people feel for each other when their lives are deeply intertwined. According to Elaine and G. William Walster (1978), most passionate love affairs end in breakups. But if a couple is lucky, passion can change into the mild glow of companionate love. In essence, passion becomes friendship.

This early scientific theory of romantic love tended toward an either/or view, either passion or companionship, but not both at once. This view may well have had cultural validity during much of the twentieth century. However, Elaine Hatfield (formerly Elaine Walster) noted that people are capable of both types of love and may experience them intermittently during their lives (Hatfield 1988).

People appear to want both types of romantic love. Passion is pleasurable, but its associated strong emotion creates the potential for relationship instability. Lovers want stability and often desire friendship. Several recent studies show that romance and friendship are often combined in today's Western cultural milieu. Susan and Clyde Hendrick (1993) collected written accounts of love, and found that friendship with the lover was the most frequently desired characteristic. Susan Sprecher and Pamela Regan (1998) also found that both passion and companionship were related to relationship satisfaction and commitment. Pat Noller (1996) concluded that a mix of passionate and companionate love best supports the continuity of marriage and family. But passion is important; erotic love is one important predictor of relationship satisfaction, regardless of length of the relationship (Hendrick and Hendrick 2000). Passion alone may not be enough, however; perhaps we must be friends with the one we love in order for love to last. The recent research and theorizing on passionate and friendship love is consistent with the prototype theory of love developed by Fehr.

Prototypes of Love

People think in terms of concepts. For example, love, sex, and intimacy are concepts. But what is a concept and how is it defined? Recent theorizing in cognitive science treats a concept as either a best example, or as a best set of features. These best sets may be viewed as an abstract average of the characteristics that compose the concept. This abstract average is called a prototype.

In numerous studies, Fehr (1988; Fehr and Broughton 2001) has explored a prototype conception of love. For example, she (1988) had people list the features of love that they considered important. A list of sixty-eight features emerged, including both passionate and companionate features. The most frequent features that emerged were trust, caring, honesty, friendship, and respect (Fehr 1993).

So where was passion in this feature list? It was there, but low in importance. Other studies asked people to rate the importance of twenty different kinds of love.

Mother love, parental love, and friendship were the three most important types of love, and romantic love ranked fifth. However, passionate love and sexual love ranked low on the list.

The prototype approach indicates that people clearly distinguish between passionate and companionate love. Companionate love appears to be the foundational type of love. It is general in that it applies to many types of love relationships (e.g., parent, child, friend). Passionate love is more specialized, and its links to sexuality lead to societal restrictions on the people for whom this type of love is appropriate (e.g., lover, spouse).

Fehr's research was concerned with love in general. Another approach could focus only on romantic love and ask people to list its features. Pamela C. Regan, Elizabeth R. Kocan, and Teresa Whitlock (1998) did such a prototype analysis of romantic love. In this case, results showed that sexual attraction and passion were among the central features of romantic love. However, sexual attraction and passion ranked well below trust, honesty, and happiness in importance. When given a large list of features, people appear unwilling to rate passion and sexual feelings as important defining features of love—even when the focus is on passionate love!

What is going on in these studies? One answer was provided by Arthur Aron and Lori Westbay (1996) in a complex statistical reduction (factor analysis) of the sixty-eight features to the smallest possible number of independent factors. Three factors emerged that were identified as passion, intimacy, and commitment. Features on the intimacy factor were rated as more important to the meaning of love than the features of passion or commitment.

So love includes intimacy, commitment, and passion, but the greatest of these is intimacy—at least according to this theoretical tradition. These three prototypes of love form the basic concepts of another theory of love proposed by Robert Sternberg (1986).

Triangular Theory of Love

For Sternberg, the three components of love—intimacy, passion, and commitment—can be viewed as three points on a triangle and occur in people in different proportions (present or absent) to create eight different types of love. These eight

table 1
Triangular theory of love
 three components of love(present or absent)
type of loveintimacypassioncommitment
source:based on sternberg. (1986). "a triangular theory of love." psychology review 93: 119-135.
1. consummatepresentpresentpresent
2. companionatepresentabsentpresent
3. romanticpresentpresentabsent
4. fatuousabsentpresentpresent
5. infatuatedabsentpresentabsent
6. emptyabsentabsentpresent
7. likingpresentabsentabsent
8. nonloveabsentabsentabsent

types may be most easily visualized in table form (see Table 1).

This theory is elegant in its simplicity, yet consistent with everyday notions of love. Moreover, the theory is relevant to the development of relationships over time. For example, before meeting another person the three components of love would be absent (nonlove). After meeting, liking may develop (intimacy). Perhaps some degree of commitment develops also, suggesting companionate love. If passion develops as well, then full consummate love has flowered. Other developmental trajectories are possible. A sudden burst of passion and commitment may develop from an initial meeting. Fatuous love seems an appropriate name for such instant, committed attraction. Perhaps a full consummate relationship loses its passion and intimacy, but retains strong commitment. The concept of empty love captures this situation well.

More recently, Sternberg (1998) shifted his theorizing to focus on the narrative, developmental aspects of love. In fact, the progression of a love relationship is a kind of story, one commonly celebrated in novels and films. In Love Is a Story, Sternberg (1998) explicitly recognized the story-like nature of love, and described twenty-five love stories, each representing one kind of theme or metaphor of love. If people can understand their own love stories, perhaps they will be able to manage future outcomes of those stories more successfully.

The ubiquity of romantic love in human life may suggest that it is part of our genetic heritage for mating, a possibility noted by several theorists.

Attachment Theory and the Evolution of Love

Evolutionary psychology is a broad group of theories that include sex and mating practices as part of their domain (e.g., Buss and Kenrick 1998). Most mammals engage in a mix of emotional expressions and attachment behaviors that, in human terms, appear to be love. In fact, John Bowlby (1969) developed an elaborate evolutionary theory of human infant attachment as the precursor of and foundation for human love. Cindy Hazan and Phillip P. Shaver (1987) elaborated Bowlby's infant attachment theory into an adult model of romantic love. Sydney L. W. Mellen (1981) wrote an entire book on the evolution of love. Mellen speculated that species survival depended on primitive emotional bonding between breeding pairs of proto-humans. Such bonding enhanced survival rates, and in a few hundred generations passionate love emerged as a defining human attribute. Thus attachment processes and love may be closely linked.

The attachment behavior first identified by Bowlby was further explored by Mary D. S. Ainsworth and her colleagues (1978), whose research with infants and their mothers resulted in the articulation of three basic attachment styles. These include secure attachment (warmth and trust in relationships), anxious/ambivalent attachment (nervous dissatisfaction with either closeness or separateness in relationships), and avoidant attachment (discomfort with closeness in relationship).

Hazan and Shaver (1987) adapted the three infant attachment styles to adult romantic relationships, and Kim Bartholomew (1990) broadened the styles from three to four, essentially differentiating avoidance based on dismissal from avoidance based on fearfulness. Much research effort has gone into conceptualizing and measuring attachment over the last decade, and there is some consensus that there are indeed four rather than three styles. It is also possible to view attachment as dimensions rather than styles, meaning that instead of fitting into only one of four attachment boxes, everyone has aspects of all four attachment styles (Feeney, Noller, and Roberts 2000).

Attachment processes are clearly relevant for human socialization. Further, attachment does appear similar to various types of love, including some aspects of romantic love. As an area of scientific theory and research, however, attachment has become very complex. It is not known if there are different types of attachment, or if attachment varies in small steps on one or more dimensions. The stability of attachment processes over the life span is another area of controversy. Perhaps these and other issues will be sorted out as this research tradition matures.

The theories discussed so far capture a broad range of the human experience of love. But they do not capture all of it. To broaden the conception still further, this entry considers a sociological theory developed by John Alan Lee (1973), described in his book The Colors of Love, and commonly referred to as a theory of love styles.

The Love Styles

Although no one theory of love can capture all of love's characteristics in all of love's domains (e.g., parent-child love, love of friends), Lee's (1973) love styles approach proposes six major orientations to romantic, partnered love. These love styles include Eros (passionate love), Ludus (game-playing love), Storge (love based on friendship), Pragma (practical love), Mania (dependent, possessive love), and Agape (altruistic love). The Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) was originally developed with seven items to measure each of the six love styles (forty-two items total) (Hendrick and Hendrick 1986) and is now available in a short form of twenty-four items (Hendrick, Hendrick, and Dicke 1998). The LAS has been used to explore a number of questions about love.

For example, do women and men differ in their love styles? Men typically describe themselves as more game-playing, and women describe themselves as more friendship-oriented, practical, and dependent. Recent research also indicates that men endorse altruistic love more than women do, so sex differences may vary depending on such factors as the version of the LAS that is being used or the age and culture of the sample. In any case, because gender differences are typically small, sex similarities are probably more important. For example, men and women are similar on passionate love, and for both sexes, passionate love (as well as other qualities) predicts relationship satisfaction, across both ages and cultures (Contreras, Hendrick, and Hendrick 1996).

Are romantic partners similar in their love styles? Gregory D. Morrow, Eddie M. Clark, and Karla F. Brock (1995) found partner similarity on love styles (consistent with previous research) and also found that people's love styles (and their partners' love styles) were related to a number of positive relationship qualities (e.g., commitment, investment). Is companionate or passionate love more important to a romantic relationship? Both companionate and passionate love appear to be related to satisfaction with one's relationship, and it is concluded "that passion and friendship/companionship are not consecutive in a romantic relationship but rather are concurrent. Both play a part in relationship initiation and development as well as in relationship maintenance" (Hendrick and Hendrick 1993, p. 465).

The LAS has been translated into many languages, probably because many cultures and countries are interested in romantic love, and also because different love styles may be congruent with different cultures.

Love Across Cultures

Although love needs to be framed within a cultural context, many scholars believe that romantic love is transcultural. Elaine Hatfield and Richard L. Rapson (1996) viewed passionate love as common to virtually all cultures, and indeed, romantic love has been found in most countries of the world, as described in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample ( Jankowiak and Fischer 1992). Love also appears to have been part of people's conscious experience for many centuries. Wenchun Cho and Susan E. Cross (1995) examined Chinese literature dating from 500 to 3,000 years ago and found themes that seemed to represent passionate love, casual love, devoted love, obsessive love, and free choice of a mate, all themes that are present in contemporary love theories. These authors then used the LAS to see whether these themes were found in current attitudes of Taiwanese students living in the United States. These students did indeed express six different love styles, but not exactly the six contained in the LAS. For example, passionate and altruistic love seemed to be combined in a "Romantic and Considerate love," and practical and altruistic love seemed to be combined in "Obligatory love."

Robin Goodwin and Charlotte Findlay (1997) compared Chinese, Hong Kong, and British respondents on the love styles and the Chinese concept of yuan (fated and predestined love). Although the Chinese participants were more endorsing of yuan as well as practical and altruistic love styles, British respondents also agreed strongly with several of the yuan items. Robert L. Moore (1998) used written narratives and interviews to document the importance of love to both Chinese and U.S. cultures but also emphasized that love in Chinese society is tempered by additional characteristics such as the need for parental approval and the importance of appropriate behavior.

In other research, Pacific Islanders, Japanese Americans, and European Americans (all Hawaii residents) were compared on various aspects of love and relationships (Doherty et al. 1994). Attachment was related to love similarly for all the groups, and the groups did not differ in either companionate or passionate love. Sprecher and her colleagues (1994) also found similarities across cultures. They compared Russians, Japanese, and Americans on love and relationships, and found that although some cultural differences were present—Russians less likely to require love as a basis for marriage, Japanese agreeing less with certain romantic beliefs, Americans more endorsing of secure attachment—"the young adults from the three countries were similar in many love attitudes and experiences" (p. 363).

Cross-cultural similarity in love attitudes was documented by Raquel Contreras and her colleagues (1996), who studied Mexican-American and Anglo-American couples in the United States. The Mexican-American couples were divided into bi-cultural (equally oriented to Hispanic and Anglo cultures) and Hispanic-oriented groups, because acculturation to a majority culture in a particular country may alter the relationship behavior that someone brings with them from a country of origin. In fact, there were only modest love attitude differences among the groups. The Anglo-American, bicultural, and Hispanic-oriented couples did not differ in passionate, altruistic, or friendship-based love, and they were also similar in relationship satisfaction. Modest cultural differences were shown by Bernard I. Murstein, Joseph R. Merighi, and Stuart A. Vyse (1991), who found in comparing French and American students on the LAS that the French students were more agapic, and American students were more manic and oriented to friendship love.

In considering what we know about love across cultures, it is likely that the propensity for romantic love is cross-cultural and may well be part of our genetic heritage. But love is also construed and constructed within contexts of culture and country. As William R. Jankowiak (1995) observed, "Romantic passion is a complex, multifaceted emotional phenomenon that is a byproduct of an interplay between biology, self, and society" (p. 4).

Love Across the Life Span

Love, in its romantic expression, is often thought to belong to the "young," just as sexuality is thought to belong to the young (and often the beautiful). Yet love spans all of human life. Nancy K. Grote and Irene Hanson Frieze (1994) have given particular attention to love and other relationship characteristics in middle-aged married couples. They found that game-playing love was a negative predictor of marital satisfaction, whereas friendshipbased and passionate love were positive predictors of satisfaction. These findings were similar to those for younger couples. In another study with largely the same married sample, Grote and Frieze (1998) asked people to recall their love for their partner when the relationship was beginning, as well as assess their current love for their partner. Passionate love, though perceived as somewhat lower than it had been many years before, was still "moderately strong" (p. 104). Love based on friendship was perceived to be about the same as it had been when the relationship began. Interestingly, husbands perceived that their altruistic love for their wives had grown over the years.

Love across the life span was also explored by Marilyn J. Montgomery and Gwen T. Sorell (1997), who studied relationship characteristics and love styles in four different groups: (1) college-age adults who had never been married; (2) married adults under age 30 without children; (3) married adults (ages 24–50) with children in the home; and (4) married adults (ages 50–70) with no children in the home. The greatest differences between the groups were not based on age, but rather the presence or absence of the marital bond. The young, unmarried people reported less altruistic love and greater game-playing and manic love than the other three groups. Neither passionate love (often thought to be the property of the young) or friendship-oriented love (often thought to be the hallmark of older couples) differed across the groups. The authors noted that "individuals throughout the life-stages of marriage consistently endorse the love attitudes involving passion, romance, friendship, and self-giving love" (p. 61).


Love is fundamentally important to our humanity. Various expressions of love are important, including romantic, partnered love. No one theory captures all the nuances of love, but virtually all of the love theories help us to understand love better. Love may manifest somewhat differently across both cultures and ages, but overall, people are more similar than different.

See also:Affection; Attachment:Couple Relationships; Attraction; Dating; Friendship; Honeymoon; Intimacy; Marital Quality; Marital Sex; Marriage, Definition of; Mate Selection; Sexuality; Trust


ainsworth, m. d. s.; blehar, m. s.; waters, e.; and wall, s. (1978). patterns of attachment: a psychological study of the strange situation. hillsdale, nj: erlbaum.

aron, a., and westbay, l. (1996). "dimensions of the prototype of love." journal of personality and social psychology 70:535–551.

bartholomew, k. (1990). "avoidance of intimacy: an attachment perspective." journal of social and personal relationships 7:147–178.

berscheid, e., and walster, e. (1969). interpersonal attraction. reading, ma: addison-wesley.

berscheid, e., and walster, e. (1978). interpersonal attraction, 2nd edition. reading, ma: addison-wesley.

bowlby, j. (1969). attachment and loss: vol. 1. attachment. new york: basic books.

buss, d. m., and kenrick, d. t. (1998). "evolutionary social psychology." in the handbook of social psychology: vol. 2, 4th edition, ed. d. t. gilbert, s. t. fiske, and g. lindzey. boston, ma: mcgraw-hill.

cho, w., and cross, s. e. (1995). "taiwanese love styles and their association with self-esteem and relationship quality." genetic, social, and general psychology monographs 121:283–309.

contreras, r.; hendrick, s. s.; and hendrick, c. (1996). "perspectives on marital love and satisfaction in mexican american and anglo couples." journal of counseling and development 74:408–415.

doherty, r. w.; hatfield, e.; thompson, k.; and choo, p. (1994). "cultural and ethnic influences on love and attachment." personal relationships 1:391–398.

feeney, j. a.; noller, p.; and roberts, n. (2000). "attachment and close relationships." in close relationships: a sourcebook, ed. c. hendrick and s. s. hendrick. thousand oaks, ca: sage.

fehr, b. (1988). "prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment." journal of personality and social psychology 55:557–579.

fehr, b. (1993). "how do i love thee? let me consult my prototype." in individuals in relationships, vol. 1, ed. s. duck. newbury park, ca: sage.

fehr, b. (1995). "love." in encyclopedia of marriage and the family, ed. d. levinson. new york: macmillan.

fehr, b., and broughton, r. (2001). "gender and personality differences in conceptions of love: an interpersonal theory analysis." personal relationships 8: 115–136.

goodwin, r., and findlay, c. (1997). "'we were just fated together' . . . chinese love and the concept of yuan in england and hong kong." personal relationships 4:85–92.

grote, n. k., and frieze, i. h. (1994). "the measurement of friendship-based love in intimate relationships." personal relationships 1:275–300.

grote, n. k.; and frieze, i. h. (1998). "'remembrance of things past': perceptions of marital love from its beginnings to the present." journal of social and personal relationships 15:91–109.

harlow, h. f. (1974). learning in love. new york: jason aronson.

hatfield, e. (1988). "passionate and companionate love." in the psychology of love, ed. r. j. sternberg and m. l. barnes. new haven, ct: yale university press.

hatfield, e., and rapson, r. l. (1996). love and sex: cross-cultural perspectives. boston: allyn and bacon.

hazan, c., and shaver, p. (1987). "romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process." journal of personality and social psychology 52:511–523.

hendrick, c., and hendrick, s. s. (1986). "a theory and method of love." journal of personality and social psychology 50:392–402.

hendrick, c.; hendrick, s. s.; and dicke, a. (1988). "the love attitudes scale: short form." journal of social and personal relationships 15:147–159.

hendrick, s. s., and hendrick, c. (1993). "lovers as friends." journal of social and personal relationships 10:459–466.

hendrick, s. s., and hendrick, c., eds. (2000). close relationships: a sourcebook. thousands oaks, ca: sage.

jankowiak, w. r., ed. (1995). romantic passion: a universal experience. new york: columbia university press.

jankowiak, w. r., and fischer, e. f. (1992). "a cross-cultural perspective on romantic love." enthnology 31:149–155.

lee, j. a. (1973). the colors of love. don mills, ontario: new press.

mellen, s. l. w. (1981). the evolution of love. san francisco: w. h. freeman.

montgomery, m. j., and sorell, g. t. (1997). "differences in love attitudes across family life states." family relationships 46:55–61.

moore, r. l. (1998). "love and limerence with chinese characteristics: student romance in the prc." in romantic love and sexual behavior: perspectives from the social sciences, ed. v. c. demunck. westport, ct: praeger.

morrow, g. d.; clark, e. m.; and brock, k. f. (1995). "individual and partner love styles: implications for the quality of romantic involvements." journal of social and personal relationships 12:363–387.

murstein, b. i.; merighi, j. r.; and vyse, s. a. (1991). "love styles in the united states and france: a cross-cultural comparison." journal of social and clinical psychology 10:37–46.

noller, p. (1996). "what is this thing called love? defining the love that supports marriage and family." personal relationships 3:97–115.

regan, p. c.; kocan, e. r.; and whitlock, t. (1998). "ain't love grand! a prototype analysis of the concept of romantic love." journal of social and personal relationships 15:411–420.

sprecher, s., and regan, p. c. (1998). "passionate and companionate love in courting and young married couples." sociological inquiry 68:163–185.

sprecher, s.; aron, a.; hatfield, e.; cortese, a.; potapova, e.; and levitskaya, a. (1994). "love: american style, russian style, and japanese style." personal relationships 1:349–369.

sternberg, r. j. (1986). "a triangular theory of love." psychological review 93:119–135.

sternberg, r. j. (1998). love is a story. new york: oxford university press.

walster, e., and walster, g. (1978). a new look at love. reading, ma: addison-wesley.



Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Love." International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"Love." International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family. . (December 17, 2017).

"Love." International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from



Parents' attachment to and affection for their children are perhaps the most profound emotional experiences of human existence. Infancy and childhood require an extraordinary level of parental involvement and typically call for the parent or caretaker to sacrifice resources, comfort, and even safety in the interests of the child. Contemporary evolutionary theory views affection for children and parental attachment as biologically motivated behavior, fundamental to the survival of the species. Some psychological theories also place the experience of parental love and attachment at the center of emotional development. As children develop, other important emotional relationships grow out of the experiences of affection and attachment that they had as children.

The Ancient and Medieval World

Culture has inevitably grown up around attachment behavior, investing it with meanings and also shaping the behavior to conform to other human needs. Although examples abound in the Bible and in Greek literature of the love of parents for children, these do not necessarily resemble contemporary standards for love. For instance, in 2 Samuel, King David mourns for his dead, rebellious son, Absalom. But his general, Joab, rebukes David for his sadness, reminding David of the danger his men had incurred to defeat Absalom.

Evidence from Rome depicts an upper class that poured out affection for dead infants and children. Yet the experience of childhood may have been filled with relatively few moments of abiding tenderness. Roman fathers could reject children at birth, allowing them to be exposed and die. Roman medical literature has little to say about childhood illness, and children in Roman letters and memorials were often praised for adult characteristics. This does not indicate a Roman ignorance of stages of child development children played freely in their early years and received many toys from fond relatives. But upper-class Romans may have cared more for the adult to be than for the child. Roman children began life and continued through childhood within a dense network of relationships in which the biological parents often were not the primary caregivers and may not have been the primary givers of love and affection. As they grew, boys had to learn the Roman values of citizenship and generally received a relatively extensive education under harsh masters. Even so, there is evidence that by the first century. b.c.e. parental affection for young children had wider acceptance and that during the early imperial period some Romans came to see the family as their principal source of identity.

Historians in the two decades following Philippe AriÈs's groundbreaking 1960 work generally applied Ariès's insights to the affectional bonds of medieval and early modern households. According to Ariès parents loved their children, but not so much for themselves as for the contribution these children could bring to the household. High infant and childhood mortality meant that families feared to invest much time, affection, and attention in small children who might not survive. Even names were reused, either family names or the names of dead siblings. Wet-nursing meant mothers had little opportunity to become attached to their infants, and swaddling and inattention meant that the very young received little opportunity to bond with mothers. Similarly the lack of privacy foreclosed opportunities for purely family activities. Between ages seven and fourteen both boys and girls could expect to be apprenticed to another family, thus ending family closeness altogether. Childhood ended quickly, and youths became miniature adults, with versions of adult roles and responsibilities. Thus, the household economy completely absorbed the bonds of affection.

More recent historians have stressed continuity rather than a sharp change in child rearing from medieval to early modern times. Evidence exists back to antiquity of the recognition that childhood was a distinctive phase in human development and worthy of special attention. Children's toys, evidence of grief for dead infants, and new insights into practices such as wet-nursing all point to a more affectionate family environment. One study of rural France found mothers fussing over young children and grieving at the loss of children through death or separation. Important changes in child raising accompanied economic and intellectual trends from the late Middle Ages. These included extended schooling, the renewed importance of classical models for education, and a newly vital embrace of marriage and family life. These trends tended to reinforce the importance of warmth and affection in the home.

Early Modern and Modern Times

By the eighteenth century the general features of the modern affectionate or sentimental family had become widely disseminated in child-rearing literature and the values of close family ties and affection began to be taken for granted among middle-and upper-class families in western Europe and the British North American colonies. John Locke's 1693 Some Thoughts Concerning Education became a fundamental text of the new family ideal. Locke believed that children were distinct from adults in having few if any concepts, and that the education of children should be central to family life. He urged parents (he wrote to fathers) to use physical punishment as little as possible, but rather to shape behavior through esteem and disgrace. Locke's work became an important point of departure for Enlightenment writers who encouraged sentimental relationships within the family.

By the early nineteenth century, the affectionate family, with recognizably contemporary attitudes toward parental love, had taken firm root among the middle classes in western Europe and the northern United States. The economic functions of the family had largely withered away and in their place powerful affectionate bonds had grown up. Even with continuing high infant mortality, parents recognized each new child as an individual and as worthy of a unique relationship. Children received new and distinctive names. Mothers nursed their own children and both parents attempted to spend time playing with children and nourishing the bonds of affection. Boys and girls would still have gender-neutral clothing until age seven, but the ages of childhood were valued as intrinsically important. Extended schooling limited, sometimes even replaced, apprentice-ships for boys, and girls generally remained in the home. Within the larger middle-class homes, private parlors allowed the family to spend time together away from outsiders. The love of family members for one another, and particularly of parents for their children, became the central concern of the family.

Gender, Class, Ethnicity, and Region

The workings of the affectionate family varied by gender, social class, ethnicity, and region. Among the important economic and social changes in the United States and western Europe was the separation of work from the home. Middle-class fathers, as breadwinners, were absent from the home for most of the day, six days a week. This reduced or eliminated many of the relations that fathers would have with their children within a household-based economy such as a farm or artisan's workshop. Fathers still strived to serve the family and still enjoyed their children and gave them warm regard, but their time for this was limited.

The role of the middle-class mother became far more important. During the nineteenth century, motherhood assumed a vitally important role, becoming the epitome of all love and the highest example of devotion. Mothers, especially as they gained assistance from maids and other servants, could devote ever larger periods of time to raising children, a calling that became central to the self-identity of middle-class mothers. Literature was filled with examples of maternal sacrifice and love. Evidence from letters in the nineteenth century, and from surveys in the early twentieth century, show that both male and female children had fonder memories of mothers than of fathers. But boys had eventually to separate from mothers to pursue independent lives. Girls, on the other hand, could grow to womanhood within a realm of motherly affection that was extended through relations to other female relatives, friends of the mother's, and age-contemporary friends who were part of the extended female network.

In the preCivil War American South, the sentimental family bound by affection and centered on the rearing of children appeared in a modified form among upper-class white families. Here the fathers may well have taken more of a role in the life of the children, and these families may have given greater scope to affection. But southern parents also demanded that children acquire a sense of family pride and honor, and take on roles that were often more prescriptive than those found in the North. Consequently, these families have been described as warm and affectionate but with careful control of emotional displays.

African-American families in the South prior to the Civil War maintained affectionate ties in spite of the hardships of slavery. Frederick Douglass recalled his mother's visits to him, even though she had to travel many miles at night, after her work. The vulnerability of the slave family to being broken by the sale of its members, and the harsh conditions of slavery, meant that many children developed kinship ties to aunts, uncles, grandparents, and fictive kin within the slave community. These ties spread the child-rearing tasks and also the bonds of affection throughout the community. Even so, after the war one of the most common reasons for the almost universal movement of freed men and women was the desire to find spouses and children and reunite families.

Working-class white families in the nineteenth century had little in common with middle-class families. Children in industrializing America had to work and contribute to the family economy from an early age. Affectionate ties within the family always competed with the material needs of the family. Fathers may have been even more distant than in middle-class families. A primary source of tension within working-class families was the demand for children's wages. In immigrant families, especially those from southern and eastern Europe, traditions of patriarchy meant that fathers preferred sons and the family focus was not on raising and adoring children but on serving fathers and catering to male children. Combined with the pressing demands for the entire family to work, this limited affectionate play and the warmth of family life.

The Twentieth and Early Twenty-First Century

The twentieth century brought a range of changes to the affectionate family. With the growing prosperity of the middle class, fathers could budget more time for activities with children. This still left the bulk of child rearing and family chores with mothers, but fathers at least had more opportunities for affectionate play with children. Growing prosperity also meant that successful working-class families began to resemble middle-class families, with their affectionate ties. Mandatory school laws and the limited success of child labor laws meant that more working-class children were experiencing extended childhoods similar to those of children of the middle class.

A peer culture also developed among adolescent youth in the twentieth century. With extended schooling, and with the popularity of summer camps, many more children found themselves with age peers for much more time. Some conflicts grew out of this development, with adolescent children convinced that parents had little understanding of and affection for them. Mothers found it more difficult to continue the long tradition of female bonds among girls and young women.

Motherhood and mother love also came in for criticism. By the 1920s, social scientists and journalists began to attack mother love as a dangerous, even suffocating, emotional attachment. While maternal affection continued to characterize home life, at least middle-class mothers often found themselves fearing that their desire to coddle or praise or worry over children might have long-term harmful effects. After World War II this trend was partially reversed, with the renewed cultural emphasis upon the affectionate family, but suspicion of mother love continued as a motif in American culture throughout the twentieth century.

As indicated by biological and psychological theories that place parental affection for children at the center of human evolutionary survival and emotional development, love of children has become transcendent in contemporary America. Child-centeredness is taken for granted, with the only debate being around the proper means of aiding children in their development. At the same time, late-twentieth-and early-twenty-first-century Americans recognize the possibilities for abuse disguised as love for children. Revelations of the sexual exploitation of children in child-care facilities and religious institutions, and the recognition of dysfunctional family life as an important social issue, have made the proper form of love, care, and affection for children a pressing issue. Because of its importance in contemporary culture, love for children will continue at the center of vital debates on social and moral issues.

Love by Children

The history of children's love is obviously more obscure than that of parental love. As sentimental love became more highly emphasized, it was usually assumed that children would respond in kind. But not all children proved as loving as their parents hoped. One feature of adolescence often involved a period in which active affection was less forthcoming, which could be confusing to child and parent alike. Sociologists have speculated that a longer-term result of the growing emphasis on love for children involved a need for children (perhaps particularly girls) to fall in love in order ultimately to separate themselves from their parents (particularly their mothers). The ramifications of the history of love and childhood deserve further attention.

See also: Emotional Life; Fathering and Fatherhood; Mothering and Motherhood.


Ariès, Philippe. 1962. Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. Trans. Robert Baldick. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Buss, David M. 1988. "Love Acts: The Evolutionary Biology of Love." In The Psychology of Love, ed. Robert J. Sternberg and Michael L. Barnes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Clement, Priscilla Ferguson. 1997. Growing Pains: Children in the Industrial Age, 18501890. New York: Twayne.

Dixon, Suzanne. 1992. The Roman Family. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Greven, Philip. 1977. The Protestant Temperament: Patterns of Child-Rearing, Religious Experience, and the Self in Early America. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Griswold, Robert L. 1993. Fatherhood in America: A History. New York: Basic Books.

Hawes, Joseph M. 1997. Children between the Wars: American Childhood, 19201940. New York: Twayne.

Herlihy, David. 1985. Medieval Households. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ladurie, Emmanuel Le Roy. 1988. Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error. Trans. Barbara Bray. New York: Vintage.

Macleod, David I. 1998. The Age of the Child: Children in America, 18901920. New York: Twayne.

Ozment, Steven. 2001. Ancestors: The Loving Family in Old Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rawson, Beryl. 1991. "Adult Child Relationships in Roman Society." In Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. Beryl Rawson. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Reinier, Jacqueline. 1996. From Virtue to Character: American Childhood, 17751850. New York: Twayne.

Shaver, Philip, Cindy Hazan, and Donna Bradshaw. 1988. "Love As Attachment." In The Psychology of Love, ed. Robert J. Sternberg and Michael L. Barnes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

John C. Spurlock

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Love." Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"Love." Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society. . (December 17, 2017).

"Love." Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from



Rock group

Loves Labored Triumph

Paradise Lost and Regained

Problems Ran Deep

Selected discography


In 1966, Love was the toast of the Los Angeles, California, rock community. After playing a series of clubs on the prestigious Sunset Strip, an energetic live show won them a contract with Elektra Records, and their self-titled LP garnered favorable reviews. Love were a legendthe quintessence of Hollywood, Steve Burgess wrote in the Marshall Cavendish History of Popular Music, simultaneously seedy and transcendental, pure but scandalous. Critics quickly stamped genius on eccentric frontman Arthur Lee and noted Loves significance as one of the first interracial rock bands. In 1967 Love completed their masterwork, Forever Changes, an album that synthesized folk rock, a touch of baroque, and a large dose of the psychedelic.

By 1968, however, the group was seemingly in the grips of drug addiction. Love secluded themselves in Bela Lugosis mansion overlooking Los Angeles, and rumors of the groups bizarre lifestyle and steady intake of drugs ran rampant. The move from acid to heroin probably gave Love an additional slackboost, noted Mickey Stephens of Pop Matters online. By 1967, they had the money to support big, soul-sucking habits, and they sure used it. The band also gained a reputation as standoffish and unfriendly, the antitheses of the feeling the groups name implied, leading some to refer to them as Hate. Lees tightfisted control of the band and disintegrating mental state led to friction within the band, and by 1968, Love began to implode. In 1969 Lee re-formed the group but without the same cohesion.

Lee, whose given name is Arthur Potter Taylor, was born in Memphis, Tennessee. At age five, he moved to California, and when his mother remarried, Lee adopted his stepfathers last name. A lonely child, he found solace in music, enjoying the popular crooners of the day like Nat King Cole. He also developed something of a reputation in his neighborhood as a tough guy. His street-smart childhood experiences contrasted sharply to Bryan MacLeans privileged childhood in Hollywood. MacLeans first crush was Liza Minnelli, and he was well versed in both show tunes and classical music. When the two men met at Ben Franks coffeeshop on the Sunset Strip, Lee invited MacLean to hear his band, the Grass Roots, at the Brave New World.

In addition to Lee, the Grass Roots was formed by members of two other groups, American Four and the LAGs. A friend of Lees, Johnny Echols, once a neighbor of saxophonist Ornette Coleman, played in both bands. They played R&B, but their musical taste would take a sharp turn after seeing the Byrds perform in Los Angeles in 1965. Formed with these new sounds in mind, the Grass Roots concocted their own style of folk rock mixed with a heavy dose of hard rock and blues. After seeing the band perform, MacLean joined Echols and Lee. In late 1965, the group changed its name to Love, a name that apparently no one liked, to avoid confusion with a commercially successful band also named the Grass Roots.

Loves Labored Triumph

Love carved out a reputation on the rough and tumble Los Angeles club circuit in 1965 and 1966. They played Ciros on the Sunset Strip, Bido Litos in Hollywood, and finally the infamous Whiskey A Go-Go. Their combination of garage rock, folk rock, and the psychedelic gave them a unique edge, separating them from the plethora of other Los Angeles bands. Lee mesmerized audiences. He donned fringed jackets, small sunglasses, Edwardian shirts, and army boots, helping to set the soon-to-be-trendy Los Angeles look. The band transformed Bacharach/Davids My Little Red Book into an angry rock assault, while MacLeans punk rendition of Hey Joe proved a highlight of early shows. The band also expressed a softer side on songs like You Ill Be Following, which leaned closer to the sound of the Byrds. From the start, wrote David Sokol of MusicHound Folk, Love fashioned itself as a dynamic, hard-edged band with a soft touch. These live shows attracted Jac Holzman, who was looking to expand Elektra Records to the West Coast. He signed Love in late 1965.

By January of 1966, the band had added bassist Ken Forssi and drummer Alban Snoopy Pfisterer to fill out what would become Loves classic lineup. The band entered Sound Set Recorders studio to record their

For the Record

Members include Sherwood Akuna (joined group, 1974), bass; Joe Blocker (joined group, 1974), drums; John Donnellan (joined group, 1968), guitar; John Echols (left group, 1968), guitar; Frank Fayad (joined group, 1968), bass; Ken Forssi (left group, 1968), bass; Arthur Lee, guitar, vocals; Bryan MacLean (left group, 1968), guitar, vocals; Alban Pfisterer (left group, 1967), drums; Jay Sterling (joined group, 1974), guitar; Michael Stuart (left group, 1968), saxophone; George Suranovitch (joined group, 1968), drums; Drachen Theaker (joined group, 1969), drums; Melvan Whittington (joined group, 1974), guitar.

Formed group in Los Angeles, CA, 1965; played shows on the Los Angeles club circuit; signed to Elektra Records, 1965; recorded self-titled debut, 1966; expanded to a seven-piece unit for sophomore effort, Da Capo, recorded Forever Changes, 1967; original lineup disbanded, 1968; band re-formed, under Arthur Lees leadership, released Four Sail and Out There, 1969; toured Europe, released False Start, 1970; group disbanded, 1974.

Addresses: Record company Rhino Records, 10635 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90025, (310) 474-4778, website:

eclectic debut, drawing on many of the songs they had been playing in live shows. The album cover, a photograph taken on the grounds of their old estate in Laurel Canyon, featured a surly and street-smart band. Hey Joe reached number 52 on the American charts, and by the time the groups self-titled album was released in May of 1966, Love was the hottest band on the Los Angeles underground circuit. Love also had attitude to spare, which proved off-putting to some, but the band didnt really care. If their behavior occasionally got out of control, as with an ugly incident involving mistreating a member of the press, the band believed their deeds to be innocent enough at the time. Although Love sold 150,000 copies, Lee was unhappy with Pfisterers drumming. He hired a new drummer, Michael Stuart, and moved Pfisterer to the harpsichord.

Although some people Loves attitude as prematurely arrogant, the recording of 7 and 7 Is proved the band wasnt a one-hit wonder. This single stood out as one of the premier psychedelic songs of the era, and the warped lyrics gave notice that the band had begun to experiment with drugs. The record rose to number 33 on the American charts, Loves only top 50 hit, and was called one of the greatest rock singles of the 1960s by Mojo magazine. 7 and 7 Is also laid the groundwork for Loves second album, Da Capo, recorded in September and October of 1966. Under producer Paul Rothchild, the band softened its harder edge and moved toward a psychedelic baroque sound. Critics point to songs like Stephen Knows Who and Orange Skies when noting that the first side of Da Capo ranks with the best music the band ever made. The albums quality suffered, however, with the inclusion of a rambling jam called Revelation. Side two consisted of one continuous opus, wrote Burgess, an adventurous, if unsuccessful, experiment that made side two as self-indulgent as side one was concise.

Paradise Lost and Regained

Love was poised for even greater success following their sophomore triumph in the studio, but Lees aloofness and the bands drug use began to create complications. Lee would later accuse Elektra of spending more time promoting their labelmates, the Doors, than Love, but many outsiders perceived the band as unambitious and unwilling to pay the dues required to achieve fame. Lee seldom went out of his way to work with people who could help his career, and he often refused to leave his hotel when playing out of town. Lee eventually refused to travel more than a few miles to a gig, Burgess noted. Some speculated that the bands lack of ambition came from their plunge into heroin use following the recording of Da Capo. Love further sabotaged their career in the summer of 1967 by turning down a chance to play the Monterey Pop Festival.

The same summer, six months after recording Da Capo, the band entered the studio again to record Forever Changes. In retrospect, it seems a small miracle that the album was made at all. The band was too disorganized to record. Lees drug use was out of control, and MacLean did not show up for practices. Neil Young, signed as co-producer, only managed to arrange one song, The Daily Planet. Engineer/producer Bruce Botnick proceeded to book session musicians for studio recording. The group was in such sad shape, apparently, wrote Richie Unterberger in All Music Guide, that Elektra planned to record their third album with session men backing Lee (on his compositions) or MacLean (on his compositions). As Love sat in the studio and watched other musicians play Andmoreagain and The Daily Planet, some members were so upset that they reportedly began to cry. The shock woke the band up. They pulled themselves together and finished the album.

Forever Changes became Loves masterwork. It wasnt a hit, wrote Unterberger, but Forever Changes continues to regularly appear on critics lists of the top ten rock albums of all time, and it had an enormously far-reaching influence that went way beyond chart listings. The arrangements began with acoustic guitar and added a wash of strings and horns. The poetic lyrics explored paranoia and violence, themes seemingly at odds with the happy mood of the mid 1960s. MacLean penned two songs, the opening track, Alone Again Or, and The Red Telephone. Forever Changes atmospheric combination of folk rock and psychedelia has been described as both beautiful and gentle. Commercially, however, the album did poorly in the United States, topping out at number 152 on the album charts. It fared better in Britain, though, reaching number 24.

Love did not seem bothered by the lack of public response. Critics loved the album and that was good enough. But all was not well within the group. Things appeared to be getting out of hand at the communal chateau, wrote Burgess, and gossip about groupies, drugs and gay liaisons between members of the band were rife. When the band entered the studio again, they seemed to have lost all sense of direction, running up a large bill and recording little of quality. Only Laughing Stock and Your Mind and We Belong Together, released in 1968, were culled from the sessions. Echols heroin habit had become so advanced that he sometimes showed up without his guitar. MacLean, frightened by these developments, felt that it was time to get out. Echols, Forssi, and Stuart soon followed, leaving Lees band in shambles. In the summer of 1968, a demoralized Lee overdosed on heroin and almost died.

Problems Ran Deep

When Lee got back on his feet, he quickly put together a second version of Love with drummer George Sura-novich, bassist Frank Fayad, and guitarist Jay Donnel-lan. They recorded 30 tracks that would eventually be issued on two albums, ten on Four Sail in 1969, and the remainder on the double-album Out There in 1969. The music leaned toward heavy rock, and many critics found the albums disappointing. Lee recorded with his friend Jimi Hendrix in 1970, but only one track, The Everlasting First, was issued on the album False Start. The bands lineup continued to change, and two more albums were recorded between 1972 and 1974 before Love disbanded (Black Beauty went unreleased). The problems ran deeper, wrote Unterberger, than unsympathetic accompaniment: Lees songwriting muse had largely deserted him as well, and nothing on the post-Forever Changes albums competes with the early Elektra records. An attempt at a reunion in 1978 that included Lee and MacLean quickly fell apart.

Though several members joined and recorded with other bands, these explorations failed to recreate the success of their work with Love. Time also proved unkind to several members. On January 5, 1998, bassist Forssi died from brain cancer, while MacLean died on December 25, 1998 of a heart attack. Lee toured with Baby Lemonade in 1996 but a subsequent arrest on a firearms charge landed the singer in jail with a 12-year sentence.

Despite these misfortunes, the music that Love made over 30 years ago continues to influence the current music scene. [I]n later years, wrote Jam! online, the groupand particularly frontman Arthur Leehas become a frequently mentioned influence on the current generation of rockers. Rick Gregory of Audities online noted, To this day, Forever Changes sounds as if not a speck of dust has touched it. The psychedelic music of Love influenced the Paisley Underground movement in the 1980s and has reverberated in English bands like Swervedriver and Jasmine Minks. The deluxe reissue of Forever Changes by Rhino in 2001, complete with bonus tracks, assures that a new generation will be introduced to the lush pop/rock of Love.

Selected discography

Love, Elektra, 1966.

Da Capo, Elektra, 1967.

Forever Changes, Elektra, 1967; reissued, Rhino, 2001.

Four Sail, Elektra, 1969.

Out Here, Blue Thumb, 1969.

False Start, Blue Thumb, 1970.

Reel To Real, RSO, 1974.

Love Live, Rhino, 1982.

The Best of Love: Golden Archive Series, Rhino, 1986.

Out There, Big Beat, 1994.

Love Story 19661972, Rhino/Elektra, 1995.

Once More Again, Distortions, 1996.



Brown, Ashley, editor, Marshall Cavendish History of Popular Music, Marshall Cavendish, 1990.

Santelli, Robert, Sixties Rock: A Listeners Guide, Contemporary Books, 1985.

Walters, Neal, and Brian Mansfield, editors, MusicHound Folk: The Essential Album Guide, Visible Ink Press, 1998.


Love, All Music Guide, (June 6, 2001).

Love: Forever Changes, Audities, (June 11, 2001).

Love: Forever Changes, Pop Matters, (June 11, 2001).

1960s Band Love Getting Reissued, Jam! (June 11, 2001).

Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Love." Contemporary Musicians. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"Love." Contemporary Musicians. . (December 17, 2017).

"Love." Contemporary Musicians. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from



From a psychoanalytic point of view, love is the investment in, and ability to be loved by, another without experiencing this love as a subjective threat, such as that represented by the Thing (das Ding ) which Freud described in the Project of 1895. For psychoanalysis the genesis of the love investment must be taken into consideration and the very different modalities through which it manifests itself must be identified.

It is important to differentiate love from infatuation or being in love (Verliebtheit ), which is associated with a pathological feeling (Leidenschaft ): "That the state of being in love (Verliebtheit) manifests itself abnormally can be explained by the fact that other amorous states outside the analytic cure resemble abnormal rather than normal psychic phenomena" (1915a). Being in love is essentially marked by an overestimation of the love object and a devaluation of the self that resembles the condition of melancholia (1921c).

The genesis of love begins with the oral relation of the infant's mouth and the mother's breast: "The picture of the child at the mother's breast has become the model of all sexual relations" (1905d). Also, in choosing an object later in life, the child will attempt "to reestablish this lost happiness" (1905d). But this happiness, even if it is marked by this choice of a primary infantile object, must later reunite and conjoin two libidinal currents, the tender current arising from infantile cathexis and the sensual current that appears during puberty, "The man will leave his mother and fatheras the Bible indicatesand will follow his wifetenderness and sensuality are therefore reunited" (1912d). This can only occur through the loss of the infantile object choice: "The individual human must devote himself to the difficult task of separating from his parents," as Freud indicated in the twenty-first of the Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1916-1917a [1915-16]). Yet, in "On the Universal Tendency to Debasement in the Sphere of Love" (1912d), Freud recalls the difficulty of loving and the numerous splits that remain: "When they love, they do not desire, and when they desire, they cannot love."

In "Instincts and their Vicissitudes" (1915c), he examines the different splits and oppositions in which love plays a role; these are: loving/hating, loving/being loved, and loving and hating together in opposition to the state of indifference. The pair loving/hating is related to the pleasure/unpleasure polarity; the ego interjects pleasure and expels unpleasure, which is transformed into the opposition ego-pleasure/exterior world-unpleasure. Thus, hatred and the rejection of the exterior world emanate from the narcissistic ego. The pair loving/being loved originates in the reversal of an impulse into its opposite, of activity into passivity, and corresponds to the narcissism of self-love. The pair love/indifference is associated with the polarity ego/exterior world. We love the "object that dispenses pleasure" and we repeat "the original flight before the exterior world" (1926d) in the face of an object that does not dispense pleasure. In this way the intellectual economy of love is profoundly affected by these different forms of ambivalence.

Jacques SÉdat

See also: Ambivalence; Conflict; Counter-transference; Demand; Direct analysis; Ego-libido/object-libido; Eros; Erotomania; Friendship; Genital love; Gift; Hatred; Homosexuality; Jalousie amoureuse, La ; Love-Hate-Knowledge (L/H/K bonds); Maternal; Narcissism; Object; Object, change of/choice of; Oedipus complex; Passion; Primary love; Rivalry; Sexuality; Tenderness; Therapeutic alliance; Transferencelove; Turning around.


Freud, Sigmund. (1905d). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. SE, 7: 123-243.

. (1912d). On the universal tendency to debasement in the sphere of love. SE, 11: 177-190.

. (1915a). Observations on transference-love: technique of psycho-analysis. SE, 12: 157-171.

. (1921c). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. SE, 18: 65-143.

. (1926d). Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety. SE, 20: 75-172.

Further Reading

Gabbard, Glen. (1996). Love and hate in the analytic setting. Northvale, NJ: Aronson, Inc.

Kernberg, Otto. (1995). Love relations. Normality and pathology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lear, Jonathan. (1990). Love and its place in nature: A philosophical interpretation of freudian psychoanalysis. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Love." International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"Love." International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. . (December 17, 2017).

"Love." International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from


love / ləv/ • n. 1. an intense feeling of deep affection: babies fill parents with intense feelings of love their love for their country. ∎  a deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone: it was love at first sight they were both in love with her we were slowly falling in love. ∎  (Love) a personified figure of love, often represented as Cupid. ∎  a great interest and pleasure in something: his love for football we share a love of music. ∎  affectionate greetings conveyed to someone on one's behalf. ∎  a formula for ending an affectionate letter: take care, lots of love, Judy. 2. a person or thing that one loves: she was the love of his life their two great loves are tobacco and whiskey. ∎ Brit., inf. a friendly form of address: it's all right, love. ∎  (a love) Brit., inf. used to express affectionate approval for someone: don't fret, there's a love. 3. (in tennis, squash, and some other sports) a score of zero; nil: love fifteen he was down two sets to love. • v. [tr.] feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone): do you love me? ∎  like very much; find pleasure in: I'd love a cup of tea, thanks I just love dancing | [as adj. , in comb.] (-loving) a fun-loving girl. PHRASES: for love for pleasure not profit: he played for the love of the game. for the love of God used to express annoyance, surprise, or urgent pleading: for the love of God, get me out of here!for the love of Mike inf. used to accompany an exasperated request or to express dismay. make love 1. have sexual intercourse. 2. (make love to) dated pay amorous attention to (someone). not for love or money inf. not for any inducement or in any circumstances: they'll not return for love or money. there's no (or little or not much) love lost between there is mutual dislike between (two or more people mentioned).DERIVATIVES: love·less adj. love·less·ly adv. love·less·ness n. love·wor·thy / -ˌwər[voicedth]ē/ adj.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"love." The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"love." The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. . (December 17, 2017).

"love." The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from


414. Love

  1. Aengus one of the Tuatha de Danaan; god of love. [Celtic Myth.: Jobes, 40]
  2. Amor another name for Cupid. [Rom. Myth.: Kravitz, 19]
  3. Anacreon (563478 B.C.) Greek lyric poet who idealized the pleasures of love. [Gk. Lit.: Brewer Dictionary, 31]
  4. Aphrodite goddess of love and beauty. [Gk. Myth.: Zimmerman, 2526]
  5. Bast cat-headed goddess of love and fashion. [Egyptian Myth.: Espy, 20]
  6. Biducht goddess of love. [Persian Myth.: Jobes, 210]
  7. Cupid (Gk. Eros ) god of love. [Rom. Myth.: Kravitz, 70]
  8. diamond token of affection, e.g., for engagement. [Gem Symbolism: Jobes, 440441]
  9. Frigg Scandinavian goddess of love and fertility. [Norse Myth.: Parrinder, 101]
  10. Garden of Love, The Rubens painting of ladies and gallants in an amorous mood. [Flem. Art: EB (1963), III, 190]
  11. honeysuckle symbol of affection. [Flower Symbolism: Flora Symbolica, 174; Kunz, 328]
  12. Kama god of love; Hindu equivalent of Eros. [Hindu Myth.: Brewer Dictionary, 661]
  13. Krishna god who plays flute to enamored milkmaids. [Hindu Myth.: Binder, 23]
  14. myrtle to Renaissance, its perpetual greenness symbolized everlasting love. [Art: Hall, 219]
  15. pear symbol of love and tenderness. [Flower Symbolism: Flora Symbolica, 176]
  16. red chrysanthemum symbol of love. [Flower Symbolism: Jobes, 333]
  17. ring worn on fourth finger, left hand, symbolizes love. [Western Folklore: Brewer Dictionary, 919]
  18. rose traditional symbol of love. [Flower Symbolism: Flora Symbolica, 177]
  19. Rules of Courtly Love, The dos and donts manual for medieval lovers. [Eur. Hist.: Bishop, 301]
  20. St. Valentines Day (February 14) day of celebration of love. [Western Folklore: Leach, 1153]
  21. Sonnets from the Portuguese Elizabeth Brownings famous poems celebrating love for her husband (1850). [Br. Lit.: Magill III, 10071009]
  22. sorrel indicates love and tenderness. [Flower Symbolism: Flora Symbolica, 177]
  23. three circles symbol indicates affection. [Western Folklore: Jobes, 343]
  24. Venus goddess of love and beauty. [Rom. Myth.: Aeneid ]
  25. white lilacs indicates initial feelings of love. [Flower Symbolism: Flora Symbolica, 175]

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Love." Allusions--Cultural, Literary, Biblical, and Historical: A Thematic Dictionary. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"Love." Allusions--Cultural, Literary, Biblical, and Historical: A Thematic Dictionary. . (December 17, 2017).

"Love." Allusions--Cultural, Literary, Biblical, and Historical: A Thematic Dictionary. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from


love1 love and a cough cannot be hid proverbial saying, early 14th century.
love begets love proverbial saying, early 16th century; the same idea is found in the Latin tag amor gignit amorem [love produces love].
love in a cottage a marriage made for love without sufficient means to sustain a household. The expression is recorded from the early 19th century, and probably derives from The Clandestine Marriage (1766) by George Colman the Elder (1732–94) and David Garrick (1717–79).
love is blind proverbial saying, late 14th century, earlier in Greek, as in the writings of the Greek poet Theocritus (c.310–c.250 bc). Cupid, the god of love, was traditionally portrayed as blind, shooting his arrows at random, but the saying is generally used to mean that a person is often unable to see faults in the one they love.
love laughs at locksmiths love is too strong a force to be denied by ordinary barriers; proverbial saying, early 19th century. Shakespeare in Venus and Adonis (1593) has, ‘Were beauty under twenty locks kept fast, Yet love breaks through and picks them all at last.’ (Compare love will find a way.)
love makes the world go round proverbial saying, mid 19th century, from a traditional French song, c'est l'amour, l'amour, l'amour, Qui fait le monde A la ronde.
love will find a way love is a force which cannot be stemmed or denied (compare love laughs at locksmiths). The saying is recorded from the early 17th century.

See also love2.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"love." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"love." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. . (December 17, 2017).

"love." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from


love sb. OE. lufu = OHG. luba (cf. Goth. brōþp rulubō brotherly love), f. wk. grade of WGmc. *leuƀ- *lauƀ- *luƀ-, repr. also by OS. lubig loving, OHG. gilob precious, and OE., OS., ON. lof, OHG. lob praise; cf. LIEF, LEAVE1, BELIEVE. Outside Gmc. the base appears in L. lubet it is pleasing, lubīdō (see LIBIDINOUS), OSl. ljubŭ dear, ljubiti love, Skr. lúbhyati desires.
So love vb. OE. lufian. The sense of ‘no score’ in games (XVIII) derives from the phr. for love without stakes, for nothing (XVII). comps.: lovelock XVI. lovely †loving, amorous; †lovable OE.; attractive on account of beauty XIII. OE. lufliċ. lovesome (arch.) lovable, lovely. OE. lufsum.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"love." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"love." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. . (December 17, 2017).

"love." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from


love2 love me little, love me long love of great intensity is unlikely to last; proverbial saying, early 16th century.
love me, love my dog proverbial saying, early 16th century; St Bernard in a sermon says ‘qui me amat, amat et canem meum [who loves me, also loves my dog].’
one cannot love and be wise proverbial saying, early 16th century; the statement ‘to love and be wise is scarcely allowed to God’ is found in Latin in the writings of the 1st-century Roman writer Publilius Syrus.

See also love1.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"love." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"love." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. . (December 17, 2017).

"love." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from


251. Love

the doctrine or practice of having sexual relations without marriage or any other commitment to an obligation.
a female lover or a woman who is loved.
a male lover or a man who is loved.
Obsolete, self love; an excessive regard for oneself.
Obsolete, natural love or affection.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Love." -Ologies and -Isms. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"Love." -Ologies and -Isms. . (December 17, 2017).

"Love." -Ologies and -Isms. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from


love3 (in tennis, squash, and some other sports) a score of zero; nil. This usage apparently comes from the phrase play for love (i.e. the love of the game, not for money); folk etymology has connected the word with French l'oeuf ‘egg’, from the resemblance in shape between an egg and a zero.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"love." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"love." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. . (December 17, 2017).

"love." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from


Love. The many facets of love have been given expression in religions in ways so diverse that they characterize priorities and attitudes. For examples of these characterizations, see AGAPE; BHAKTI; KĀMA; KARUṆĀ; MO TZU; PREMA; RAḤMĀNĪYA.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Love." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"Love." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. . (December 17, 2017).

"Love." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from


loveabove, dove, glove, guv, love, shove, tug-of-love •ringdove • turtle dove • foxglove

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"love." Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. . 17 Dec. 2017 <>.

"love." Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. . (December 17, 2017).

"love." Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. . Retrieved December 17, 2017 from