Challenging Esther Perel's idea that “love is not a permanent state of enthusiasm”
Tuesday, June 18, 2024.
Esther Perel, a renowned psychotherapist and relationship expert, has captured the hearts and minds of many with her insights on love and desire.
One of her most provocative ideas is that "love is not a permanent state of enthusiasm."
Perel argues that love evolves over time and that expecting perpetual passion is unrealistic and detrimental to relationships.
While her perspective offers a refreshing departure from the fairy-tale notion of everlasting passion, it is essential to critically examine whether or not this idea may inadvertently capitulate to Cultural Narcissism.
Esther Perel's Perspective
Esther Perel, despite her European roots, has emerged as a major thought leader on intimate relationships in the USA. Perhaps she has even revolutionized the way we think about love and relationships.
In her widely acclaimed book, Mating in Captivity, she explores the tension between the need for security and the desire for surprise, arguing that maintaining desire in long-term relationships requires embracing the paradoxes of love.
According to Perel, love is dynamic and fluid, characterized by phases of intense passion interspersed with periods of calm and routine. She states:
"Love is a verb. It requires ongoing effort, attention, and investment. The expectation of a constant state of enthusiasm is a burden that can extinguish the very flame it seeks to keep alive."
Perel's approach encourages couples to accept the natural ebb and flow of feelings, ostensibly fostering a more sustainable and realistic understanding of love.
She emphasizes the importance of novelty, mystery, and individuality in maintaining desire, arguing that the predictability often sought in relationships can stifle eroticism. This is where it starts to get messy for me.
Cultural Narcissism and the quest for perpetual passion
Cultural Narcissism, a term popularized by sociologist Christopher Lasch, describes a societal trend toward self-absorption, superficiality, and an incessant quest for validation and excitement.
In a culture that increasingly values instant gratification and constant stimulation, Perel's assertion that love is not a permanent state of enthusiasm can be seen as a double-edged sword. Is it dissuading the self-absorbed?
Very often we don’t go elsewhere because we are looking for another person. We go elsewhere because we are looking for another self. It isn’t so much that we want to leave the person we are with as we want to leave the person we have become. Esther Perel.
Perel’s perspective challenges the unrealistic expectations perpetuated by romantic comedies and fairy tales.
However, it also risks reinforcing a narcissistic mindset where relationships are valued only for their ability to provide perpetual excitement and self-fulfillment. Her focus on individual satisfaction vs. mutual growth and commitment can undermine the deeper, more enduring aspects of love.
The erosion of commitment and the rise of individualism
While insightful, Perel's ideas must be considered within the broader context of a culture that increasingly prioritizes individualism over collective well-being.
Love rests on two pillars: surrender and autonomy. Our need for togetherness exists alongside our need for separateness. Esther Perel
I think that the notion of what constitutes “separateness” is debatable because it is culturally bound.
The emphasis on maintaining desire through novelty and personal fulfillment can inadvertently encourage a self-centered relationship approach. In a society where commitment is often seen as limiting and outdated, the idea that love should be constantly thrilling can lead to a cycle of dissatisfaction and serial monogamy. Perel and I are in complete agreement here.
However, I don’t object to Perel’s caveat. I object to her focus.
Psychologist Joshua Coleman notes:
"The rise of individualism has shifted our expectations of marriage and relationships. We now seek partners who can fulfill our every need and desire, which can be a recipe for perpetual dissatisfaction."
Perel herself acknowledges the complexity of balancing individual desires with relational stability. She states:
"Our partners are not here to make us happy. They are here to witness our lives. The pursuit of happiness and fulfillment is a personal journey, not a relational obligation."
But Ester, what’s so bad about relational obligations? Or the notion that I’m here to please and delight my partner and that they operate within the same relational frame?
The role of cultural narratives in shaping love
Cultural narratives play a significant role in shaping our expectations of love and relationships. I agree that the description of love as an all-consuming, euphoric experience can create unrealistic standards that will be difficult to maintain.
Perel's assertion that love is not a permanent state of enthusiasm challenges these narratives, yet it must be carefully articulated to avoid promoting a superficial understanding of love.
In her TED Talk, Perel emphasizes the importance of embracing the full spectrum of emotions in relationships:
"Great love stories are not without conflict. They involve perseverance, commitment, and the willingness to navigate the challenges that come with intimacy."
This perspective aligns with the notion that true love involves more than just passion—it requires resilience, empathy, and mutual support. However, the cultural shift towards valuing excitement over stability can make it difficult to appreciate these deeper aspects of love.
Finding a Balanced Perspective
To truly appreciate Perel's insights, it is crucial to strike a balance between the desire for excitement and the need for stability.
While it is important to recognize that love is not a permanent state of enthusiasm, we must also value the quieter, more enduring aspects of relationships.
The challenge lies in cultivating a relationship that honors both the individual's quest for fulfillment and the collective commitment to growth and support.
Psychotherapist and author Harville Hendrix emphasizes the importance of creating a safe and nurturing environment in relationships:
"True intimacy is built on the foundation of safety and trust. It involves the willingness to be vulnerable and to support each other through life's challenges."
This holistic view of love exhorts us to move beyond the superficial allure of perpetual passion and cultivate dynamic and enduring relationships. A misreading of Perel devalues relational safety:
Today, we turn to one person to provide what an entire village once did: a sense of grounding, meaning, and continuity. At the same time, we expect our committed relationships to be romantic as well as emotionally and sexually fulfilling. Is it any wonder that so many relationships crumble under the weight of it all? Esther Perel
But what does Esther mean by “the weight of it all?” Why is her discussion of relational restlessness so matter-of-fact?
Any discussion of narcissistic injuries has apparently been swept under the rug.
Trouble looms when monogamy is no longer a free expression of loyalty but a form of enforced compliance. Esther Perel
One of the definitions of compliance is “unworthy or excessive acquiescence.” But in the USA, we don’t frame these issues as compliance or acquiescence.
We see them as being faithful… or being a cheat.
The one word I hear when people have affairs is that they feel alive.
They don't talk about the fact they're having sex. They feel like they are engaged with their life.
They describe an experience that beats back the deadness inside, which isn't the fault of the marriage or the partner. It's often the deadness that they have allowed to creep in for years on their own.
But by definition, it's a transgressive act. And transgression is a breaking of the rules. And it gives you a sense of ownership and freedom. And ownership and freedom gives you a feeling of aliveness. It's a chain. Esther Perel
Ownership. Freedom. Transgression. Aliveness. Here, Perel engages directly with Cultural Narcissism but offers only a thin journalistic reportage:
One of the big misconceptions is that affairs or trysts are flings about sex. And sometimes they are, but much more often they are about desire. And that is very different. The desire to feel special, to feel seen, to feel appreciated, to be laughed at or with.
The desire to be desired.
That does not manifest in a sexual act per se.
Affairs make you feel alive. Alchemy means it's not about the actual sex, but the sexuality, the energy, the aura. It's the imagination and anticipation of it as much or instead of the actual experience of it. Esther Perel
No, in all due respect, Esther, I think it’s about the narcissistic load.
Our partner's sexuality does not belong to us. It isn't just for and about us, and we should not assume that it rightfully falls within our jurisdiction. Esther Perel
This is Perel at perhaps her most European core sensibility.
I think it’s safe for me to say that most American couples might grudgingly agree that our partner’s sexuality doesn’t belong to us… but we do feel that if we’re a committed spouse with kids… we sorta have a 99-year lease.
Final thoughts
Esther Perel's idea that "love is not a permanent state of enthusiasm" offers a valuable counterpoint to the unrealistic expectations often associated with romantic love. However, it also subtly dissuades, indulges, and normalizes narcissistic inclinations.
Consequently, it becomes essential to critically examine how this perspective aligns with the broader cultural context of narcissism and individualism.
The desire for novelty and excitement often contradicts love's deeper, more enduring aspects.
The question is, can we foster fulfilling and sustainable relationships? Although Esther is a rich and subtle thinker, I fear Esther's ideas are eagerly misunderstood and seen through a self-absorbed lens, especially by American couples.
The very ingredients that nurture love - mutuality, reciprocity, protection, worry, responsibility for the other - are sometimes the very ingredients that stifle desire. Esther Perel.
No, I think they stifle lust and self-absorption more readily. At the risk of sounding unkind, I think Esther has made a bit of a fetish of desire.
There is not one person who can fulfill all your needs. You may choose a partner who is your intellectual equal, and he may not be your most compatible sexual partner.
And then there's the duality between security and adventure.
A relationship that gives you plenty of novelty, and adventure, may not provide the stability you long for. Time, continuity and familiarity with somebody gives you other things in life but won't necessarily give you the kind of intense lustful experiences that you may have when you first meet someone and are curious about penetrating the mystery of them. Esther Perel.
However, a narcissist readily assumes that all of their needs can and should be fulfilled, including “intense, lustful experiences.” I prefer to challenge cultural and personal narcissism more directly and with far less forbearance.
Perel’s arguments are well-constructed inducements to remain in the shallow end of the pool, scanning the horizon for a better deal:
The power of transgression is the archetypal, foundational story of the Bible. We want to break our own codes - sometimes of morality, sometimes of ethics, sometimes of the power structure, sometimes of the institution of marriage - because there is freedom and power in transgression. Esther Perel
I’ve worked with many couples attempting to recover from soul-crushing infidelity. I’ve never heard anyone say anything resembling her statement that “there is freedom and power in transgression.” Except for the narcissists.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
