I'm beginning to think that maybe it's not just how much you love someone. Maybe what matters is who you are when you're with them. (Anne Tyler, The Accidental Tourist)
Love isn't a feeling, it's a policy. (Cookie's Fortune)
*****
Lately, I don't quite know whether the things I want in life - and, indirectly, from the people in my life - are reasonable expectations or unfair (and possibly impossible) impositions. Even worse, I'm not sure whether the disappointments I feel are a result of setting my sights too high or other people setting theirs too low. And so I find myself mired in thinking that I deserve better from the men in my life, yet settling for less because not settling makes me feel like a heartless bitch who can't sustain a relationship under even the best of circumstances. So what's a gal to do?
Despite self-identifying as an virtue ethicist (what matters are intentions, affects, and moral ambitiousness rather than rules or ethical laws per se), I have an innate tendency toward Kant, which I blame on (1) being raised Catholic by (2) concrete- and rule-bound dysfunctional parents (3) in Texas. So combine my intrinsic love for rules with my intellectual fondness for contextual thinking, and we've got a problem.
On the one hand, my more intellectual side says love can be thought of as a series of rules of interaction, a romantic version of Grice's Speech Acts with its own set of maxims. In this sense, our traditional notion of love fades away and a set of appropriate policies falls into place, a set of "if you love someone..." antecedents ripe for the conditional picking. Okay, good enough. [But you still need to come to some sort of understanding with the lover-in-question about how to write those conditional statements, which is an undertaking of the most difficult sort...]
Then comes along Anne Tyler, who says even THAT isn't sufficient, and we need to consider that maybe it's not even love in any current sense of the word - duty, rules, a feeling - and it's who we become when we're around that person with whom love has ceased to be a relevant concept. So forget rules or "love": what matters is the identity we create when around particular people. I suppose by extension this means that men who make me feel like Wonder Woman are ones I should keep around the longest, or at least the ones who should matter the most to me.
But here's the catch: what if the person who makes me feel like Wonder Woman fails to live up to the notion of love as a policy? Or what if someone rises to the occasion of following all the "if you love someone..." rules but can't even make me feel like American Maid? It isn't a question of which quotation is more accurate; they each articulate very real expectations we have for sincere and long-lasting love. But where do we draw the line? Are these like the scales of justice, appropriate within moderation on all ends of the spectrum but having an excess of one and lack of another becoming - as Aristotle might say - a moral weakness, if not a vice?
The question, then, becomes whether I'll find a man who thinks policy in all things romantic is on par with passion and who just happens to also make me feel like an Amazon princess with kick-ass thighs. I'll keep you posted. This is, after all, The Year of the Hip Mama.
