Is Love Really Dead in the Digital Age?
Poul Poder
for #vii. lovesick
spring 25
Despite global divorce rates hovering around 40 percent and countless headlines declaring the death of romance, love isn’t going anywhere – it’s just evolving. From swipes on dating apps to the rise of single living, the landscape of modern relationships looks dramatically different from just a generation ago. Today’s love stories are being shaped by a perfect storm of factors: sky-high romantic expectations, the dominance of digital dating, emerging relationship models, and a growing acceptance of single life. Yet beneath all these changes, people continue to seek what they’ve always wanted: genuine connections where they feel truly seen and understood.
The rules of romance have fundamentally shifted. Gone are the days when practical concerns like family expectations or economic necessity drove people together. Modern couples come together – and separate – primarily based on their feelings. Love has become our secular religion, the ultimate reason to either walk down the aisle or walk away from a marriage. But this freedom comes with its own challenges. When love is the only thing holding relationships together, the pressure for emotional authenticity and deep connection intensifies. Every relationship must now justify itself through the strength of its emotional bonds alone.
Some experts paint a grim picture, arguing that modern love is terminally ill. However, recent research tells a more nuanced story. While online dating fatigue is real and casual relationships are on the rise, digital matchmaking has also led to lasting commitments – in the United States, half of all new marriages now start with an online connection. Contemporary sociologists of love agree that romantic love historically increased personal freedom, since it meant a move away from defining couple hood based on pragmatic economic criteria to defining it based on the feelings of the individuals in love (Giddens, 2013; Alberoni, 1996; Illouz, 2019).
Moreover, they agree that the challenges of modern love life are related to the emancipation of sexuality and love which is no longer essentially motivated by external, practical factors such as family, class, and religious structures (Bauman 2003; Giddens 1994; Illouz 2012). The raison d’être of a love relationship is now centered on the couple’s warm and authentic feelings for each other. This creates a greater focus on strong emotional bonds between love partners and spouses (Giddens 1994; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 1995; Lindholm 1995:243). Love is the ultimate value – the secular religion of persons in late-modern society (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 1995). Sociologists have observed that marriage as an institution has also become enslaved by the ideal of love, as people today find the ideal of “love” to be a perfectly appropriate reason either to enter or to leave a marriage (Evans, 2003). In other words, today love is possible as substantially individualized love, lived within the framework of an “infinitely enhanceable individuality” (Simmel 1921: 141) as it is left to itself: “to the absolute self-determination of its choices, with unpredictability and instability of choice” (Condorelli 2024:34). While we can identify consensus within contemporary sociology of love concerning the overall mentioned points above, there are different readings of the consequences of love’s emancipation.
Love as dissolution
A recurring theme in sociology and journalism suggests that emancipation subsumes love under consumerist values (Fromm, 1976; Bauman, 1993; 2003; Illouz, 2007; 2019). Emancipation as dissolution reflects how consumer society’s fluidity undermines the stability of romantic relationships, emphasizing novelty and self-centeredness (Bauman, 2003; Illouz, 2019; Jepsen, 2018, Hochschild 2003, Engdahl 2018). Fundamental doubts about the permanence of deep relationships lead individuals to invest minimally, making disengagement easier (Bauman, 2003). Eva Illouz contributes significantly to this narrative, highlighting how modern love is defined by self-centeredness and insecurity. Her book The End of Love portrays romantic relationships as frequently abandoned before they can fully develop (Illouz, 2019). Eva Illouz analyzes how capitalism instrumentalizes intimate relationships and in The End of Love, she argues that personal and sexual freedom, coupled with growing uncertainties, leads to fragile romantic engagements.
Illouz’s analysis distinguishes between sexuality and love which is defined as a ”fusional emotion” that embodies a deep sense of belonging and connection (Illouz, 2019: 7). This definition resonates with traditional notions of romantic love. She argues that scopic capitalism and the transformation of personal freedom into hedonistic sexual freedom have turned romantic love into a fragile construct. The once productive relationship between love and freedom has become destructive, fostering insecurity, and discouraging commitment. While often intertwined, contemporary culture allows sexuality to exist independently of romantic relationships. She explores concepts such as “negative sociality” and “scopic capitalism” to explain how fleeting, non-binding interactions and visual aesthetics erode love. Online dating exemplifies this dynamic, fostering competition and perpetual scrutiny of visual attractiveness (Illouz, 2019).
Illouz’s examination of sexual freedom raises two key questions: Does sexualization imply complete instrumentality of erotic interaction? Does it perpetuate gender inequality? Her affirmative answers suggest that the commodification of sexuality accentuates insecurity and objectification. Casual sex practices and online dating highlight these inequalities, where men often exert unacknowledged power, and women face intensified scrutiny (Illouz, 2019).
Illouz introduces “negative bonds”—relationships characterized by minimal self-involvement and a focus on personal pleasure. Examples include casual encounters and cybersex. Such dynamics reshape social interactions, emphasizing fleeting engagements over lasting connections. This notion reflects a broader cultural shift where individuals struggle with uncertainty and lack of structure in relationships, leading to cycles of unloving (Illouz, 2019). The concept of ”negative bonds” Illouz defines in two ways: (a) they involve an absent object or indeterminate situation, and (b) they reflect dissatisfaction with relational experiences (Illouz, 2019: 92).
She also uses terms like ”unloving” to describe the active disengagement from bonds, emphasizing the absence of structure, rules, and future orientation that previously characterized relationships. Illouz’s concept of “unloving” describes the contemporary disintegration of romantic love. The fusion of personal freedom with scopic capitalism creates an environment where individuals prioritize self-gratification over commitment. She argues that romantic love is becoming overshadowed by hedonic engagement, reducing relationships to transient encounters.
Transient relationships and insecurity come to rule because of contemporary people seeking self-worth through the four precarious arenas: 1) Sexualization – Visual attractiveness as an economic and symbolic value on market of fierce competition in which especially women in Illouz’ view quickly loses their market value, 2) Consumption – Fashioning oneself as attractive through consumer items which is also a competitive game, 3) Autonomy understood as independence and not interdependence which leads people to exit relationships to affirm their independence, and 4) Emotional Ontologies which implies pursuing emotional self-improvement as a continuous and never-ending goal (Illouz, 2019). While these pursuits can affirm self-worth, they often generate insecurity as consumption-based self-worth fluctuates with market dynamics, and autonomy-based validation may lead to self-doubt if a relationship ends unfavorably.
Love as chaos
The Normal Chaos of Love: Modern Relationships in an Individualized Society (1995) is the title of a book by Ulrich Beck and his wife Beck-Gernsheim, a very influential book which argues that emancipation leads to a normal chaos of love. This is because love in highly individualized societies is based on people’s feelings for each other, which often change rapidly and significantly. In this light, love has become an empty concept that needs to be filled up or defined on the basis of people’s individual life histories and emotional lives. This creates new opportunities, but also a fundamentally chaotic love life (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 1995).
The authors present a comprehensive analysis of how modernization has fundamentally transformed intimate relationships, making them simultaneously more essential yet increasingly precarious. That love is experienced as chaotic is not a random effect but one produced by contemporary social conditions. At the heart of their analysis lies the process of individualization, which has radically altered the nature of intimate relationships. As Beck and Beck-Gernsheim argue, love in highly individualized societies has become an ”empty concept” that must be filled based on people’s individual life histories and emotional lives.
Traditional social structures that once provided clear relationship scripts – such as class, religion, and extended family – have lost their grip, forcing individuals to become the architects of their own biographical narratives, including their love lives. The authors talk about ”radical self-government” (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 1995:194), as couples must negotiate and establish their own relationship rules: ”Love is a blank for which the lovers have to fill in: how they actually organize their love-lives and what love means are decisions they must agree on, and these can vary to include different taboos, expectations and infidelities, all left to their own choice” (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 1995:192). This negotiability introduces fundamental uncertainty into relationships, as no predetermined paths exist.
A central paradox emerges from this situation: people desperately seek stable relationships precisely because everything else has become unstable, yet the very conditions of modern life make maintaining these relationships increasingly difficult. The authors demonstrate how love becomes ”weighed down by expectations and frustrations,” simultaneously promising and conflicting. In everyday life, love can manifest as ”pleasure, trust, affection, and equally their opposites – boredom, anger, habit, treason, loneliness, intimidation, despair” (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 1995:12).
Institutional contradictions in late modern society amplify the chaos of love further. The market economy demands mobility and flexibility, which directly conflicts with maintaining stable relationships. This tension becomes particularly acute with the gender revolution. As women enter education and the workforce, relationship dynamics fundamentally shift from economic necessity to emotional choice. Traditional gender roles that once provided clear relationship scripts dissolve, requiring constant negotiation of everything from household chores to career priorities.
This creates what the authors describe as a conflict between the marriage market and the labor market. Both partners now pursue careers and face competing demands for geographical mobility and time commitment. The outcome of these negotiations is ”neither predetermined nor predeterminable,” leading to what the authors characterize as the ”battleground for recrimination and attempts to escape” (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 1995:2). In response to these uncertainties, modern society has elevated love to an almost religious status. As traditional religious and social meanings decline, people invest love relationships with theological significance. Love becomes the primary source of meaning, identity, and transcendence in a secular age. However, this creates impossible expectations for relationships to provide complete emotional fulfillment, stable identity in an unstable world, and transcendent meaning in a disenchanted society.
Beck and Beck-Gernsheim’s crucial insight is that this chaos is not a temporary disruption but the new normal state of intimate relationships in modern society. The chaos is systematically produced by the conditions of modern life, creating a situation where relationships require constant work and negotiation, no stable models exist for how relationships should function, and the possibility of failure is built into the structure of modern relationships. This analysis helps explain why relationships have become simultaneously more important and more difficult to maintain in contemporary society. Understanding these structural tensions is crucial for both individuals navigating relationships and policymakers attempting to support modern families. The ”normal chaos of love” thus represents not a breakdown of social order but rather the emergence of a new form of social organization, one characterized by constant negotiation, uncertainty, and the endless search for emotional fulfillment in an individualized world.
Love as democratization
In The Transformation of Intimacy (2013), Anthony Giddens presents a sophisticated analysis of how love and intimate relationships have evolved in late modern society. Giddens traces a fundamental shift from romantic love, which historically implied women’s subjugation, to confluent love characterized by emotional and sexual equality. This transformation reflects broader societal shifts toward individualization and cultural pluralism. Significantly, men historically positioned themselves as ”specialists in love” only in terms of seduction and conquest, excluding themselves from the domain of intimacy. The new model of confluent love requires both partners to develop emotional and communicative competencies previously associated primarily with women’s roles.
Unlike theorists who emphasize chaos or dissolution, Giddens argues that confluent love implies a more egalitarian form of relationship, which is challenging but operates within a distinct ethical framework which represents a democratization of personal life. At the heart of Giddens’ analysis is the concept of the ”pure relationship,” which he defines as a social relation ”entered into for its own sake, for what can be derived by each person from a sustained association with another; and which is continued only in so far as it is thought by both parties to deliver enough satisfactions for each individual to stay within it” (p. 58). Unlike traditional relationships anchored in external social structures or practical considerations, pure relationships derive their legitimacy solely from their internal value to participants. This makes them both more fragile and potentially more rewarding, as they must constantly justify their existence through the satisfaction they provide to both partners.
This development that Giddens captures also explains why we see the phenomenon of the All-or-nothing marriage which the American sociologist Eli Finkel describes in his book The All-or-nothing Marriage – How the Best Marriages Work (2017). Finkel’s basic argument is that people have exceedingly high hopes for marriages and realize these to a high extent through dedicated efforts. Not everyone, of course, has a fulfilling relationship which is also a socially stratified good, as most goods in contemporary societies are.
Contemporary relationships, according to Giddens, are structured around mutual trust, open communication, and reciprocal self-disclosure. Partners must be able to express their needs and boundaries clearly, making communication an essential component for developing deeper understanding and trust. This creates what Giddens calls a ”democratic” form of intimacy, where relationships are negotiated between equals rather than prescribed by traditional roles. A crucial aspect of Giddens’ theory, often overlooked by critics, is his understanding of intimacy as a relational accomplishment rather than something given or merely being about individuals’ narcistic pre-occupation with their self-development (Bauman 1993 b, Hansen 2024). It is a relational accomplishment as the person’s self-disclosure is an instrumental part of building mutual trust.
Moreover, it is through the persons’ ability to express needs and boundaries clearly that both parties can come to know each other and learn to respect their differences. Giddens emphasizes that modern relationships require a ”meta” level of engagement – the ability to reflect on and discuss the relationship itself. Since relationships are no longer guided by fixed external scripts, and since partners’ needs and desires evolve over time, mutual satisfaction and meaningfulness must be actively maintained through communication. If late modern people do not manage to do the meta-work, there is no – internally defined love based – reasons for them to stay in the relationship.
Critics often focus on Giddens’ ”until further notice” characterization of pure relationships, seeing it as evidence of an increasing instability of relationships (Jamieson 1999, Bauman 1993a, 1993b). This is right in one way as the confluent love relationship does not have to continue if one of the parties no longer feel that the relationship is worthwhile. This statement refers to how we think about love in normative and principled ways. However, this does not suggest that contemporary confluent love relationships must be unstable which is an empirical question and depends on how the broader social life conditions make it possible for people to develop and maintain relationships that keeps providing mutual meaning and satisfaction.
Consequently, the contingent nature of modern relationships reflects not weakness, but a new ethical framework based on mutual satisfaction and authentic choice. The stability of relationships depends not on external normative constraints that surrounded so-called love relationships in the pre-emancipatory society. But on their continued ability to provide meaning and satisfaction to both partners which for example involves negotiation of whether sexual exclusiveness has a role in the confluent relationship (Giddens 2013:63).
Rather than seeing modern love as purely chaotic or anomic, Giddens identifies an emergent ethical framework centered on: Mutual respect for personal differences, recognition of the other as truly other (not projective identification) and negotiation of sexual and emotional needs. Instead, he suggests that contemporary love is guided by new ethical principles centered on mutual satisfaction, respect for personal differences, and ongoing negotiation. While pure relationships are more demanding than traditional ones, requiring elaborate communicative skills and ongoing negotiation, they offer unique opportunities for self-realization and mutual growth. The relationship’s success depends on both partners’ ability to: communicate their needs and boundaries effectively, maintain mutual trust through ongoing dialogue and navigate changing desires and expectations over time. These competencies must be learned, and this circumstance is part of the explanation for why people break up relationships when they fail in engendering satisfactory relationships.
Giddens’ analysis offers a more optimistic view of contemporary intimate life than theories emphasizing chaos or dissolution. While modern relationships may be more complex and demanding than traditional ones, they also offer unprecedented opportunities for genuine equality and mutual growth – a truer love compared to previous inegalitarian forms of love relationships, one could say. The challenge lies not in the absence of normative framework but in developing the skills and understanding necessary to navigate this new terrain of intimate democracy. Giddens’ perspective suggests that the apparent ”chaos” of modern love life might better be understood as a period of social evolution, where new forms of intimate relationship are emerging that better align with contemporary values of equality, personal autonomy, and mutual growth. While these relationships may be more challenging to maintain, they offer the potential for deeper satisfaction and more authentic connection than their traditional counterparts.
Which diagnosis is the most relevant one?
The presented zeitdiagnoses all analyze important developments on an abstract level. Modernity theories of emancipation and individualization abstract people out of their material embeddedness in relation to friends, family, fantasy or culturally mediated imaginaries and memories (Smart 2007). Concerning the issues of love and commitment, Bauman, Illouz, Beck and Beck-Gernsheim and Giddens diagnostics capture certain developmental features but do not appreciate sufficiently the emotional complexity involved. This becomes clear when assessing them in terms of recent empirical studies and makes it possible to discuss which narratives can account for the complexities involved when understanding love as embodiment of behavior, actions, beliefs, and attitudes and not merely a fusional emotion. Diagnoses of dissolution and chaos can account for distinct undermining features of contemporary love life. However, I will nevertheless argue that the democratic narrative seems able to account for more features. Significantly, it can better make sense of the overall pattern in contemporary love life which is not dissolution or chaos but the fact that people persistently seek to establish and maintain love relationships.
Over the last three decades divorce rates in European countries peaked during the late 20th century (1970s–1990s) but have since stabilized or slightly declined. Moreover, remarriage is common among divorced individuals, reflecting resilience in seeking long-term companionship. For instance, in Western countries, about 50% of divorced people eventually remarry. Furthermore, around 10–15% of couples reconcile after separation, with approximately 6% remarrying the same partner. However, divorced individuals seek new relationships quickly. About 65% of divorced people begin dating within the first year of separation. In sum, the orientation towards forming loving relationships is persistent and taking more into account recent empirical research on love relationships it does not make sense to argue that contemporary love in an over-all sense is in a state of exceeding chaos or dissolution.
The following summary of findings within the sociology of love confirm how people assume the ethical framework Giddens describes and seek to establish trust and commitment while also respecting and giving space for each partner’s autonomy and self-realization pursuits. If love is about a complex emotionality, beliefs, and practices then it is important to underline how Illouz analysis is seriously flawed by assuming love as a quintessential ‘fusional emotion’ (Illouz, 2019:7). While this unusual term resonates with common-sense ideas about romantic love as a feeling of belonging together. But understanding love as quintessentially based on a fusional emotion a priori posits love as inherently unstable, given that emotions are often understood as fleeting and episodic phenomena (Scheff, 2006; 2015; Frijda, 2007).
Illouz’ definition of love equalizes enthusiastic falling in love, and consequently it is no wonder that love is dissolving when no normative frameworks force people to stay together under emancipated life conditions. Understanding tendencies characterizing contemporary intimate romantic relationships is an unsettled issue for several reasons. One of them is that it is left unclear or at least underdefined what is meant by “love.” However, if love is also defined by commitment and dedication of emancipated persons, as empirical studies suggest, then the plight of contemporary love might not be as sinister as Illouz’ dark picture.
Recent in-depth explorations of empirical materials add more flesh and nuance to our understanding of how modern individuals understand and practice love. A main finding is that contemporary individuals practice commitment in numerous ways. For example, people today still hold on to commitment as a strong ideal (Fisher, 2016; Hatfield et al, 2020). Consequently, when they choose commitment to a partner (for example, marriage), this choice affirms their sense of self-worth, as they are acting according to their moral beliefs. Under the conditions of emancipated love, the ongoing resolve to maintain one’s relationship also affirms one’s autonomy, since the parties are not bound to stay together for pragmatic reasons. These ways of affirming self-worth contrast with the shallower and more insecure ones discussed in previous sections.
In her empirical study of middle-class couples in Norway, sociologist Tove Thagaard found that a considerable number of both men and women in her interview sample were actively committed and none of them took their relationship for granted. Rather, they assumed responsibility for cultivating it by talking about emotional issues that pertained to it. They invested themselves in the relationship as something to be taken care of by talking about their feelings and thoughts. Both the men and the women described their conversations as characterized by an openness concerning personal issues or themes. In addition, they assumed the responsibility for the development of their relationship as a common one (Thagaard, 2005: 187). The fact that both parties can raise issues significant to the development of the relationship indicates a reflexive form of relationship as conceptualized in Giddens’ theory, wherein he emphasizes how both parties consider the relationship in terms of its functionality and ability to satisfy both partners (Thagaard, 2005: 187–8).
Thagaard also found that the couples were attentive to the diverse needs each partner might have, including the need for time alone. Moreover, they supported each other in their individual processes of self-realization. Thagaard thus underlines that choosing a life partner involves more than the question of whom we want to be with; it extends to who we are and who we wish to become (Thagaard, 2005: 27–8). Recent empirical research supports this view of consolidating egalitarian love (Gross and Simmons, 2002; Fisher, 2016; Fink and Gabb, 2018; Hooff 2013; Belleau, Piazzesi & Seery 2020, Brownlie 2014, Fisher & Garcia 2018). Young people particularly demonstrate dedication to working on their relationships, making space for partners’ desires, and maintaining individual freedom within connected relationships (Thomsen & Poder 2022).
Modern people stabilize their love relationships by forming we-narratives and distinct kinds of rituals through which the partners confirm their union (Seebach, 2017). Indeed, love establishes itself through lively rituals rather than hovering in the air as romantic pop tunes suggest (Scheff, 2015). It is not merely an immediate feeling, but an emotion that entices the lovers to feel committed to the ‘we’ created through their love stories and rituals. The actual mix and intensity of such stories and rituals determines the quality and durability of the love relationship. But not only narratives and rituals stabilize contemporary love relationships; equally, so does the working of what sociologist Julie Brownlie call ordinary relationships. She thoroughly analyses contemporary ordinary relationships, which are about being present, listening, silent and private. Ordinary relationships have therefore not caught sociological research attention. Rather, research has focused on mutuality and the significance of disclosure. However, it is important to recognize how close relationships are also about discretion and about giving space and silently ‘being there’. Intimacy as disclosure through talk is often associated with dramatic feelings of fear, love, jealousy, and hate. Nevertheless, ordinary relations that matter may well be more about doing the emotionally mundane practices of being there, rather than about dramatic moments of crisis communication between individuals.
Brownlie extends her analysis of ‘not talking’ further by exploring how people use privacy boundaries and practices of ‘holding back’, which are an essential aspect of ordinary relationships. Neither love nor money alone makes the world go round – privacy does, too: communication is not the quintessential element when it comes to understanding supportive relationships. Silence and privacy are also part of ordinary relationships, which help people to get through challenging moments and times. Consequently, Brownlie relativizes the value of influential sociological narratives that suggest that ordinary love relationships erode, because modern people rely increasingly on therapeutic expertise and professional assistance (Hochschild, 2003; 2012; Illouz, 2007; 2008).
Commitment and friendship are viable notions that also define contemporary love relationships (van Hoof, 2013; Fink and Gabb, 2017). Love becomes endurable and enduring through relationship work involving gifts and thoughtful gestures, attention to household chores and childcare, cooking, couple time and the securing of home comforts. Love-engaged modern individuals also engage in “relationship work” such as daily debriefing as a form of communication. Relationship work can be challenging since a love relationship is not a bed of roses. However, this does not detract from enduring love, as a key finding points to a significant positive correlation between stressful events experienced and relationship satisfaction (Fink and Gabb, 2017).
The famous anthropologist Helen Fisher foresees the growing emergence of ‘slow love’. This notion implies that people still believe in the ideal of a serious romantic commitment. However, they want to do things right and therefore really take time to consider various aspects of their relationship with a potential partner before committing more seriously (Fisher and Garcia, 2018: 208). According to Fisher, today’s courtship trajectory – slow love – consists of components such as being just friends, friends with benefits, codified ‘official’ first dates, casual sex, living together before marriage, and prenuptial agreements (Fisher, 2016). Present-day singles take their time in finding a highly emotionally and physically compatible partner. Fisher sees these free, casual sexual activities in a completely different light from Illouz, with her account of unloving and negative relations. In this way, slow love can be seen as mature and thoroughly engaging in seriously committed love relationships.
Fisher argues in her article Slow love: how casual sex may be improving marriage (2015) that people can get to know about each other during casual sex and that one-night stands are part of a pre-commitment phase before people commit to each other fully and more seriously. Twenty-seven per cent of singles (respondents) in the 2014 study called ‘Singles in America’ reported having had a one-night stand that turned into a long-term, committed partnership (Fisher, 2015). Consequently, casual sex is not necessarily episodic and inconsequential as Illouz insists in her narrative of dissolution. Novel research has also shown that starting out as friends rather than as dating strangers is a prevalent and preferred method of initiating a romantic relationship (Stinson et al, 2021). This finding supports the notion of slow love as an emerging pattern, since intimate relationships often start out from a more knowledge-grounded position compared with a situation where two strangers start a romance. Modern emancipation gradually leads to an equal situation between women and men, where women can follow their natural inclination for sexual engagements if they feel like it.
As a chief scientific adviser to Math.com, Fisher has had access to immense amounts of survey data on how modern people think and act in their intimate lives. This statistical data shows that contemporary North American men are as strongly committed as women to the romantic ideal or have a deep commitment to monogamous relationships (Fisher, 2016: 313). Consequently, the notion that men eagerly hunt for non-committal casual sex amounts to a commonly accepted stereotype rather than an empirically substantiated theory. Equally so with Illouz’s assertion that contemporary women cannot engage in casual sex with the same enjoyment as men. Because women’s sex drive disposition system is not less than men’s, the observed gender differences in sexual activity must therefore be explainable in terms of cultural double standards rather than differences in natural dispositions (Fisher, 2016).
Conclusion: commitment and democratization
According to the bleakest narratives on the market – Illouz’ narrative – there is no compatibility between the demands made on people by visual capitalist society and their psychic make-up. Contemporary society does not equip individuals with the tools to take their place as competent members (Illouz, 2019: 228) (For critical reviews of Illouz End of love book see Dong, 2023, Lipset 2020, Poder 2019). However, we do not have to accept this dark story of love’s sickness since recent research findings concerning commitment reveal that love is not merely a question of ‘fusional emotion’ but rather involves behavior, action, beliefs, attitudes, and meanings. As shown above most people in contemporary society commit to love as a common project in which both partners invest themselves, as well as in how partners engage in, we-rituals and narratives.
References:
Alberoni, F. (1996) I Love You: A Theory of Love, Milano: Garzanti.
Bauman, Z. (1993a) Postmodern Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell.
Bauman, Z. (1993b) (review) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies, The Sociological Review, 41(2), 363-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1993.tb00070.x
Bauman, Z. (1998) Work, Consumerism and the New Poor, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bauman, Z. (2003) Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds, Cambridge: Polity.
Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love, Cambridge: Polity.
Belleau, H., Piazzesi, C. and Seery, A. (2020) Conjugal love from a sociological perspective: theorizing from observed practices, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 45(1): 23–46. doi: 10.29173/cjs29434
Brownlie, J. (2014) Ordinary Relationships: A Sociological Study of Emotions, Reflexivity and Culture, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Condorelli, R. (2024). Systemic Thinking and Intimacy Sociology. Sociology Mind, 14, 33-53. https://doi.org/10.4236/sm.2024.141003
DJIKIC, M. and OATLEY, K. (2004), Love and Personal Relationships: Navigating on the Border Between the Ideal and the Real. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34: 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8308.2004.00243.x
Dong, Jessie (2023) Review Essay: Reading Eva Illouz – Modern Love and its Discontents, Thesis Eleven, November 8
Engdahl, Emma (2018) Depressive love – A social pathology. London, Routledge
Evans, M. (2003). Love: An unromantic discussion. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Fink, J. and Gabb, J. (2018) Couple Relationships in the 21st Century: Research, Policy, Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Finkel, Eli (2017) The All-or-nothing Marriage – How the Best Marriages Work, Dutton
Fisher, H. (2015) Slow love: how casual sex may be improving marriage, Nautilus, 5 March, Casual Sex May Be Improving America’s Marriages’, dated 2 March. https:// nautil.us/issue/22/slow/casual-sex-is-improving-americas-marriages.
Fisher, H. (2016) Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray, New York: Norton.
Fisher, H. and Garcia, J. (2018) Slow love: courtship in the digital age, in R. Sternberg and K. Sternberg (eds) The New Psychology of Love, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. (2007) The Laws of Emotions, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fromm, E. (1956) The Art of Loving, New York: Harper & Row.
Fromm, E. (1976) To Have or to Be? New York: Harper & Row.
Giddens, A. (2013) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies, Cambridge: Polity.
Gross, N. and Simmons, S. (2002) Intimacy as a double-edged phenomenon? An empirical test of Giddens, Social Forces, 81(2): 531–55, doi: 10.1353/sof.2003.0011.
Hansen, Nils Gunder (2024) Moderne Kærlighed – Følelsernes forvandling i kultur og litteratur, København: Gads Forlag
Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. and Purvis, J. (2020) What’s Next in Love and Sex: Psychological and Cultural Perspectives, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hochschild, A. (2003) The Commercialization of Intimate Life: Notes from Home and Work, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hochschild, A. (2012) The Outsourced Self: Intimate Life in Market Times, New York: Metropolitan Books.
Hooff, J., 2013, Modem Accounts? Confidentiality and Change in Heterosexual Relationships. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Hooks, B., 2000, All About Love. New visions. New York: Harper/Perennial.
Illouz, E. (2007) Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity.
Illouz, E. (2008) Saving the Modern Soul: Therapy, Emotions, and the Culture of Self-Help, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Illouz, E. (2011) Why Love Hurts: A Sociological Explanation, Cambridge: Polity.
Illouz, E. (2019) The End of Love: A Sociology of Negative Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jamieson, L. (1999) Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the ‘pure relationship’, Sociology, 33(3): 477–94, doi: 10.1177/S0038038599000310.
Jepsen, R., 2018, Fanget i fantasien om kærlighed. Dansk Sociologi, No. 4/29, 2018: 56-79. https://doi.org/10.22439/dansoc.v29i4.5950
Klinenberg, E., 2012, Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone. London: Penguin Books.
Kobayashi, K., Funk, L. & Khan, Mushira M., 2017, ‘Constructing a sense of commitment in ‘Living Apart Together’ (LAT) relationships: Interpretive agency and individualization’. Current Sociology, no. 65(7), 991-1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116653237
Lindholm, C., 1995, Love as an Experience of Transcendence. In Jankowiak, William (ed.): Romantic passion – A universal experience? New York: Columbia University Press.
Lipset, D. (2020) Bodies on the market [Review of The End of Love], 1 May, Los Angeles Review of Books, Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Review of Books (Non-profit organization) https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/bodies-on-the-market/
Luhmann, N., 2010, Love: A Sketch, Polity Press: Cambridge.
Poder, P. (2023). Courage, Risks and Dating in the COVID-19 Crisis. I P. Ward, & K. Foley (red.), The Emerald Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions for a Post-Pandemic World: Imagined Emotions and Emotional Futures. United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Poder, P. (2023). The end of contemporary love life? Emotions and Society, 5(1), 100-119. https://doi.org/10.1332/263169021X16528868423539 UK: Bristol University Press
Poder, P. (2019). Book review essay. What makes contemporary love relationships endurable? A Review of ”Ordinary Relationships – A Sociological Study of Emotions, Reflexivity and Culture” by Julie Brownlie. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan 2014, ”Couple Relationships in the 21st Century – Research, Policy, Practice” by Jacqui Gabb and Janet Fink. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan 2018 and ”Love and Society – Special Social Forms and the Master Emotion by Swen Seebach. London. Routledge 2017. Emotions and Society, 1(1), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1332/263168919X15580836411887
Poder, P. (2018). (review): Emma Engdahl: Depressive love – A social pathology. London, Routledge 2018 (122 sider, ISBN 978-1-138-05015-0). Dansk Sociologi, 29(3), 71-74
Poder, P. (2018). Book Review: Swen Seebach: Love and Society: Special Social Forms and The Master Emotion. London: Routledge, 2017, 214 pp. Acta Sociologica. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699318798756
Rosenfeld, M., Thomas, R. and Hausen, S. (2019) Disintermediating your friends: how online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2019, 116(36): 17753–758, doi: 10.1073/ pnas.1908630116.
Rusu, M. S. (2018). Theorising love in sociological thought: Classical contributions to a sociology of love. Journal of Classical Sociology, 18(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X17700645
Scheff, T.J. (2006) Goffman Unbound! A New Paradigm for Social Science, London: Routledge.
Scheff, T.J. (2015) What’s Love Got to Do with It? – Emotions and Relationships in Pop Songs, London: Routledge.
Seebach, S. (2017) Love and Society: Special Social Forms and the Master Emotion, London: Routledge.
Simmel, G. (1921). Fragment über die Liebe. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur.
Smart, C. (2007) Personal Life: New Directions in Sociological Thinking, Cambridge: Polity.
Thagaard, T. (2005) Følelser og Fornuft. Kjærlighetens Sosiologi, [Feelings and Reason. The Sociology of Love] Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Thomsen, M, & Poder, P. (2022). Engagerede kærlighedsliv: En kvalitativ analyse af refleksive unges forelskelse og selvidentitets- og relationsarbejde. Dansk Sociologi, 33(1), 9-31. København.
van Hoof, J. (2013) Modern Couples? Continuity and Change in Heterosexual Relationships, London: Routledge.
Poul Poder is an Associate Professor in Sociology at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
differensmagazine.com 