Although Helen Fisher’s lecture (Lust, Romance, and
Attachment: The Drive to Love and Who We Choose) contained many strictly
biological details, I learned a great amount about attachment in general and
the motivation behind love itself.
Fisher is a Research Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers
University, and Chief Scientific Advisor to Chemistry.com. She began the
lecture by explaining the studies she had conducted, and what she had learned
from scanning the brains of people in and out of love. The prominence of
different chemicals, like dopamine or testosterone, created
different love personalities or profiles. The type of profile we have greatly influences
our decision about who to pursue, whether it be someone similar or our complete
opposite.
There were also specific areas of the brain that
corresponded to long -term feelings of love, as well as some corresponding
behaviors. More often than not, people tend to overestimate the positive
qualities of their partner after being with them for a long period of time, turning
off certain parts of their brains that would cause alarm or make them realize
they were not satisfied with the relationship.
When I considered the somewhat strange relationship between
Posthumus and Imogen, I started to try to explain parts of it with some of
these findings. In terms of Postumus’ sudden regret and guilt from Imogen’s
apparent demise, a lack of foresight could be attributed to a testosterone-fueled
love profile. It made him eager to love and be loved by someone else with
strong convictions, like Imogen. However it also makes it very easy for him to
get carried away and become very “territorial” with someone he believes is his,
protecting his masculinity.
Also, was Cymbeline so “in love” with the queen that he was
completely blind to any indication of her treachery? Was something in his brain
blinding him, or protecting his image and perception of her? Even though we do
not know exactly how long their relationship had been going on, a (hypothetical)
scan of Cymbeline’s brain would probably show that he was “in love”.
In any case, I was very glad that I chose to go to this
presentation, and will definitely continue to apply it to the inevitable
infatuation issues of other Shakespearean characters.
Rose, many thanks for this cogent account of a lecture that I now feel I (vicariously) observed. Attraction is everywhere in Shakespeare, of course, and you've offered two great readings here of the testosterone-driven love profile and its risks. One thought that came to mind reading this was whether you would read Cloten as another instance of this type. Cloten lacks the martial skill (if not the "martial though") of his rival, Posthumous, and in the BBC production on YouTube, he is portrayed as a bit fey: too pretty and precise in his attire and grooming. What do we make of his aggression, then, and what sort of chemical (im)balance might he represent? For that matter, what might we make of Helena in All's Well?
ReplyDeleteIf you would like to continue thinking about this topic, there is great work on masculinity in Shakespeare's age, as well as humoralism, the theory that bodies were made up of humors that affected their moods. There are also neat studies of Shakespeare and cognitive science, if you would like to pursue the Shakespeare and brain scans route. Our own Amy Cook, in Theatre and Drama, is a specialist in this area.
Excellent work!