Dr.
Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University and scientist behind
Match.com, gave a lecture discussing the biological reasons that humans fall
in, and stay in, love. During “Lust, Romance, Attachment: The Drive to Love and
Who We Choose,” Dr. Fisher discusses the four main categories (based on the
chemicals in the brain) that a person can fall into that define their love
personality. These four groups are: Dopamine, Serotonin, Testosterone, and
Estrogen and Oxytocin. Which group we are in determines whether we fall in love
with those who are similar to us or different. But, as Dr. Fisher also points
out, there are many factors involved when two people fall in love. So why do
two people fall in love? Why don’t they fall for someone else? In Cymbeline, why does the King’s daughter marry
against her family’s wishes? Based on Fisher’s categories, some people are more
likely to fall for someone that is of a different category. Although
socioeconomic status, intelligence, education, physical features, religion, and
social values are very important in a relationship, they are not always this
way. Why would Imogen fall for Posthumus if she knows he is below her? They
have many things in common. But if Imogen is the Testosterone or Estrogen
groups, she will seek a partner who is unlike her.
The
drive to fall in love is deeply rooted in humans and is often stronger than the
sex drive. When someone falls in love, certain regions of the brain involved in
basic decision-making shut down, allowing us to look past someone’s flaws or
circumstances. This is possibly the reason why Imogen, and many other
Shakespearean characters, fall in love outside of their social circles, even if
it means risking their own family relations.
Meredith, it sounds as though this was a very compelling lecture; I hope you enjoyed it. I certainly appreciate your overview. These chemical categories give us one way of making sense of (the perversities of) human desire and affection. At least, they give us a how, if not exactly a why. It's interesting that Shakespeare's characters seem to fit in Fisher's paradigm, but I wonder whether you think Shakespeare cares about the how or why of love in Cymbeline. Is love in that play based on difference or similitude? Or does the play show ambivalence on that subject? (We've talked about the inconsistent representation of 'nobility.') And by making love so entangled with misrecognition, Shakespeare seems to insinuate that chemistry can't have the last word--we may desire our opposite, but do we recognize him as such? I would like to see you mull over these implications a little. You could use a bit of productive friction in here. But this is good work and a strong choice of Themester event.
ReplyDelete