Brenden Nemeth-Brown Nemeth-Brown is an international economics and political science student who can be reached at bnb@ucla.edu. Click Here for more articles by Brenden Nemeth-Brown
Love is a bourgeois fallacy. I know what you’re thinking: I must be either jaded or disillusioned with life to make such a bold statement. Love, which is manifested through many forms of media and other persuasions, is a concept at the center of many of our lives. I do not contend, however, that one cannot feel empathy, compassion or desire for someone else. I am merely stating that such an absolute ideal like love is impossible in the relative world we live in.
This idea came to me after re-reading one of my favorite works, “The Stranger,” by Albert Camus. This book lays the groundwork for the existentialist argument which permeated France after World War II. Although I would not classify myself as an existentialist, there were certain points that Camus touched upon that moved me. One of these points was his theory on love. In this thinly-masked autobiographical tale, a woman falls deeply “in love” with Meursault (or for all intensive purposes, Camus). When asked if he loves her, Camus replies, “that doesn’t mean anything but I don’t think so.” When I first read this, I thought Camus must be crazy. How could he not know something as real as love? Was he only using this woman for sex? Am I supposed to applaud his decision to dodge her question?
But then a light bulb flashed in my mind and it has been on ever since. I asked myself the basic question, “What is love?” I soon realized I had no adequate answer. This was partly due to the fact that I was unsure if I had been in love, and also to the fact that I realized words were no substitute for feelings. I then realized that I had no idea how anyone manifests their feelings for another person.
Do other people concentrate more on desire than I do? More on compassion? Tranquility? Volatility? There is too much relative meaning in the word “love” to absolutely describe it.
It was soon after this I began looking at everything differently. What did every movie I see have in it? Absolute notions of love and sex. What did every magazine cover make me think about? Love and sex. What did every horribly pop-laden, syrupy-sweet Britney Spears and *NSYNC song make me think of? Love and sex.
And then it hit me; for so long, I without question received and accepted all these images of love and sex. I became saturated by it until I was consumed with a desire for a woman. I was happy with my grades, my friends, my work and I believed that the only missing piece of my life was a girlfriend!
Illustration by ERICA PINTO/Daily Bruin Everyone I’ve spoken to concerning this issue agreed that the security and warmth a significant other brings to a relationship does allow for peace in one’s life. I can only think of Tom Cruise’s quivering voice in Jerry Maguire urgently whispering, “You complete me.” That’s when I knew all my preconceived notions of love were wrong. You complete me? Does anyone believe they will come to a point where they will no longer need to improve themselves? Can an absolute state of perfection, or should I say completion, exist? The answer is no.
This is not to say one cannot feel deeply for one another. I don’t want you to think I’m some bitter recluse who got burned one too many times by girls I’ve cared too much for. I will say, however, that I am very aware of the relativity of the word “love.” I am also very afraid and cautious to use it because I am unsure of its exact meaning.
Think about this – do you think Snoop Dogg and Danielle Steel have the same notion of love? While one celebrates improbable romances with cliché-riddled dialogue, the other claims, “Bitch, you without me is like Hell Neville without the Blue Notes, you ain’t never going platinum.” Now, some might say that Snoop, while a noted great philosopher on women, may not understand what love is. Well, I would agree with you. But who is to say which version is right? Is the desire Snoop feels for a woman any less true than the melodrama Steel writes about in her novels?
It is important that we all become educated citizens of the world. It is important to be cognizant of different points of view. In America, we all live in a society dominated by Judeo-Christian beliefs that are much more conservative than ideologies in other countries. Love and sex are treated differently in America than they are anywhere else in the world. This fact alone illustrates the relativity of the meaning of “love.”
The reason why I call love a “bourgeois fallacy” is that it is perpetuated by the rich through forms of media like television, movies and music. Those who have power, money and influence are capable of warping the mind of a populace. When you look at a magazine rack filled with images of thin, big-breasted white women, you associate that with “beauty.” When you watch movies like “Titanic” and “Jerry Maguire,” you find yourself caught up in a love story about finding “true love.” But after a careful examination of your own beliefs, can you honestly say that what movies, television and music capture is love? Do the Backstreet Boys have it right when they sing, “You are/my fire/the one/desire?” Do you feel moved? Or do you feel sickened by the over-used clichés that permeate music and other forms of media?
Re-reading what I’ve written, I can tell some of you may think my argument is weak for relying on boy and girl bands to make my point. To that, I would say do not underestimate the power of media. The average American comes across the ideal of love multiple times each day, and although many dismiss its presence, you cannot fully escape its grasp.
In Nazi-Germany, 60 years ago, one could not escape the anti-Semitic propaganda that permeated media. Today, you can be thrown in prison for denying the Holocaust ever happened. Have the German people made a quantum leap in their evolutionary make-up to become more accepting? No, but Germany’s ideology has. Mass media is amazingly effective at warping an individual’s mind. Even understanding this will not free an individual’s mind.
No one is an island of intellectual thought; we are all influenced by each other. The only question that remains is how much of yourself is defined through society’s beliefs?
I do not contend that two people cannot have feelings for one another. Nor do I contend that two people cannot honestly believe that they are in love. I do, however, contend that the word meaning of “love” has become a cliché in our society and can thus be dubbed meaningless. Only you can derive meaning from that word.
The absolute notion of love exhibited throughout society is a fallacy that has duped the masses. It is the great opiate of America, because we will all fall in love one day, won’t we?