Dr. Greg Baer's take on the issue, a surprisingly optimistic one given current cultural trends, is as his title states: Real Love: The Truth About Finding Unconditional Love and Fulfilling Relationships. Unconditional Love is defined by Dr. Baer as "unconditionally caring about the happiness of another person." He says, "With Real Love, nothing else matters; without it, nothing else is enough." Such phrases are set apart in boxes, and sprinkled throughout the book.
For Baer, the problem in most modern marriages--and the result of our country's 50% divorce rate--is not the institution of marriage itself, but a lack of Real Love. The lack of Real Love in most of our lives is not necessarily our own fault, but could be a result of a lack of Real Love that our parents showed to us. Baer sets the bar pretty high for Real, Unconditional Love. If you did something stupid as a kid, and your parents showed disappointment, this was--in Baer's mind--a kind of manipulation of conditional love. A lack of Real Love causes people to build up tactics (defined as "Getting and Protecting Behavior,") for receiving "Imitation Love."
To directly foil Baer, sex expert Laura Kipnis argues that it is the institutions of marriage and coupling, and not you, that makes love so troublesome. Her book, Against Love: A Polemic, is a not a self-help relationship book, but is, as the title says, a polemic. She states in the introduction that "polemics aren't measured; they don't tell both sides of the story." Instead, "polemics exist to poke holes in cultural pieties and turn received wisdom on its head." Kipnis attacks love on all accounts, in specific terms and in a more general overview. She lists, for instance, the things you cannot do if you're in a relationship: "you can't leave the house without saying where you're going"; "you can't not say what time you'll return"; "you can't read on the john without commentary." She also attacks the marriage system in America, which is, by all accounts, in a state of flux. However, she points out that there is no question of adapting the institution, or even questioning its role, even though many of our legislative policy makers have proven the shortcomings of wedding vows.
But what does either one of these books really tell us about our relationships? Is either practical? Does Kipnis seriously suppose that we'd all be better off in a kind of anarchical state of love, in which we are unconfined? What about people who want to--or have--found someone who they actually do love, and really do want to spend their life with? And does Baer seriously suppose that those of us already in relationships can sustain them with the vagueries of "Real Love"? That we can stay committed and in love by "loving unconditionally," supported by empty placards such as, "Don't blame your partner for your unhappiness, which is really caused by a long-standing lack of Real Love in your life"?
I seriously doubt anyone is going to shed their marital vows because of Kipnis' book, nor is she actually suggesting it. But her book does illuminate the rigid bounds that we find ourselves in as a society so committed to one structure. Baer's book, on the other hand, presents a broad argument in the hope that something in it will be applicable to someone's life. It is a rehashing of the same ambiguous self-help bullshit you hear from Dr. Phil and his contemporaries.
I read Kipnis' book first, because if it did wind up disrupting my own monogamous relationship, I would have Baer's book to patch up the holes. Ironically, it has been Kipnis' message that has stayed with me as a much more relevant guide to modern relationships. M. WILLIAM HELFRICH
