Radical Potential of Love
Like the rest of the crew at feministing, I'm not into the Hallmark card version of Valentine's, but I am pretty frickin' into L-O-V-E. I wrote this piece about it before I was a feministing contributor, so I thought I'd re-post it today in case people missed it and were in need of a little political love manifesto action:
Who you love and how you love them is as much a statement about your social conscience -- perhaps even a far more accurate and moving statement -- as the letters you write to Congress or the votes you cast. It is harder to be good to someone else. It has the potential to make them be good to others. And others are the fulcrum of social change.
P.S. Photo by Nikolai Johnson, my dude.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Radical Potential of Love.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11971
I love this. Other ARE the fulcrum of social change, Well put.
For some reason, this post is like an insulting slap in the face.
Who you love and how you love them is as much a statement about your social conscience... as the letters you write to Congress or the votes you cast.
...
How can you create a love that reflects your values instead of parroting the culture's bottom line-driven definitions?
I am a straight white dude who married a straight white chick I met at my mostly white high school. We dated for a couple of years and have been married for a few more.
Objectivly, its a fucking boring story. It's does not have Supreme Court case attached to it, it did not overcome great societal objection. It is what it is, two high-school sweethearts who fell in love.
And when I read your post it is like you cheapened it for being to plain, too normal. Like somehow I am at fault I did not fall in love with someone else.
It is not the moment we chose to love that we begin to move towards freedom, because love is so rarely a choice... It is the moment we critically and consciously choose how to shape our love that we move towards freedom... It is a critical response to our commercialized culture of romance, a rejection of that which feels outdated, a vision of a more inclusive, more authentic, more liberating relationship.
So what are you suggesting, I chose to love someone else? Something that is somehow more authentic? Something that is not somehow as outdated as a straight white couple?
I don't know if I am taking this post the wrong way, but it totally gets under my skin...but I am sure I will get over it.
A slap? really?
I saw the post as acknowledging that loving someone else (boring or not) is a revolutionary act. It expands your area of concern, for someone more than just the self.
And creating a foundation of love is a significant start to spreading that to others, even in the smallest of ways (say, making the decision to not engage in road rage). A lot of the problems in the world stem from the tendency to objectify or demonize the "other".
We do make choices about our relationships as love matures. Do we stick it out, work on it together? Do we move on when the first blush has faded (as the commercialized version of romance would expect of you)? You're choosing your course everyday you remain in love--that's not boring or outdated.
Yeah Steven. There's absolutely nothing inherent in your whiteness that precludes you from creating radical, authentic love that is a huge force of social change. In fact, the privilege that comes from being white and heterosexual makes it even more powerful, from a certain vantage point, if you reject the hypocrisy, discrimination, and inequality of "the romantic industrial complex" (as my friend Samhi puts it).
Radical from Merriam-Webster:
a-marked by considerable departure from the usual or traditional : Exreme.
There is nothing 'radical' about a heterosexual white couple, and when you place 'radical' and 'authentic' next to one another you imply, unintentionally or not, that there is a connection between the two.
Without my relationship being 'radical' the 'authenticity' of it is reduced.
You also implicitly indicate, again perhaps unintentionally, that becuase my relationship is not radical then I have not rejected "hypocrisy, discrimination, and inequality"
Steven,
Do you consider yourself a feminist or progressive in any way?
If so: How do your views manifest themselves in your relationship that makes it different than what mainstream society would expect.
For example: I hyphenated my name. I don't consider this very radical at all, however, the way many people react to it tell me that it is a radical decision that challenges the "women take husbands name" meme.
If you don't consider yourself a feminist then...well this is probably not the site for you to yell at a poster since she is writing with a specific frame of reference which is that we are feminists/belieive in feminist ideals and are interested in seeing them take hold in society
Steven,
You hand-picked the definition of radical that you feel least describes your love... Which means you think you love, is, what? Ordinary? Completely normal? What about deep love is ordinary? Really... Love is one of the most changing, affecting things that can come along and if it is truly a deep experience for you, there can be nothing more radical.
Mind you, the FIRST definition of radical in the MW11 (which does not refer to plants) is "of or relating to the origin." For more clarity, the definition you picked includes "tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions..."
And I challenge anyone who has truly loved another being to argue that such love has not promoted extreme changes in views, habits or conditions. As if the joy of love is not radical in nature. As if truly loving another doesn't push you to reconsider your own habits, points of view and behavior. I mean, come on... love is about drastically transforming one another for the better.
Are you exactly the same as you were before you fell in love with your partner? Ugh.
Wow, defensive much?
Your reaction says more about your own guilt and insecurities than it does about Courtenay's article. Maybe you ought to shift your focus to within (as is talked about in the article) and look at where that angry reaction comes from before lashing out at Courtenay and accusing her of attacking your relationship and saying things she didn't even get NEAR to saying.
Steven, I think you are reading this the wrong way. The post says you do not get much choice in who you love -- the point is in how you love. As a straight white chick married to a straight white guy, I see absolutely nothing offensive here. Quite the opposite.
The way I read it, Courtney is saying that there are a million ways in which your love can be social change. Something as banal as doing the chores jointly can already be a step towards social change, believe it or not.
It's not about being different in your choice of love -- since you don't get that choice anyway. It's about being different in your living out that love.
My reaction is very similar to Steven's. It's the inclusion of the words "who you love" coupled with the references to the Lovings and the author's own bi-racial relationship that make it feel like my relationships are just not good enough for the author. You know, as long as I am falling in love anyway, I'd be delighted to make it a political statement. Fact is, I'm a straight, white woman. My opportunities for falling in love radically are limited to men (since I'm straight and all) outside my ethnic group. If my personal dating history is any guide, men outside my ethnic group for the most part are not interested in me. Given the heteronormative nature of heterosexual dating, where men are a little freaked out if a woman approaches them, I'm stuck with who approaches me. That would be white dudes (mostly). I can choose how to love them, and I can attempt to make my white love into an agent of social change, but like Steven, my relationships will not have Supreme Court cases attached to them, will not overcome great societal objection. And frankly, the relationships I had with men outside my ethnic group made me feel fetishized. Not a good feeling. So the whole "who you love" part might need a little rethinking.
FumiousB, I am also a straight white woman. No one said that being a straight white woman means you're automatically incapable of living outside the box.
To go to personal experience, despite the heteronormative nature of heterosexual dating, I not only approached, but actively "courted" my (straight, white) husband. That, too, is an element of social change. When we married, I didn't change my last name at all: another element of social change. Maybe not as radical as if I were involved in a same-sex-biracial relationship, but, judging from the reactions I get, pretty radical.
The mere fact that my husband not only accepted, but thought it perfectly normal that I would not change my name upon marriage makes him radical, too. So "who you love" can also be a straight, white, radical guy.
Ok I am not getting all of this animosity towards this piece. Courtney never said you have to date someone of a different ethnicity. She never said you had to have a supreme court case attached to your love. Those were examples she gave, just as she mentioned that the women's right movement has created more equal marriages for our generation.
All she is saying that, we can write all the letters we want, but in order to make a change and really help shape society we must do it in our day to day things and who we love and the life we lead fall into that. I am a white girl married to a white guy. Our marriage is typical but the way we interact also says a lot about us and our influence on society. The way our love is expressed says a lot about us and our beliefs in equality and fairness. People that see our relationship and the way we refuse to apologize for some of our beliefs helps pave the way for others to see equal relationships as a good and positive thing.
I don't have a boyfriend but I frickin' love my friends, and they make up more of who I am than the combination of my personality, up-bringing, education, and politics combined. I completely agree with you, Courtney.
Love is an instinct, an accident, an epiphany, a stomach ache. ... We don't choose it. It harangues us.
To me, that's not love -- that's infatuation. Love IS a choice. We choose to be with the partner who respects us and the world -- rather than the one who sweeps us off our feet but isn't the greatest human being. Every single moment, we make choices about being loyal, unselfish, faithful, supportive, patient -- even (especially) when it's not easy.