Behaviorism is a theoretical perspective in psychology that emphasizes the role of learning and observable behaviors in understanding human and animal actions.
It assumes that behavior is either a reflex evoked by the pairing of certain antecedent stimuli in the environment, or a consequence of that individual’s history, including reinforcement and punishment contingencies, together with the individual’s current motivational state and controlling stimuli.
However, I must say that I do not identify with B. F. Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism. That is, I do not subscribe to the doctrine that behavior can be described and explained without making ultimate reference to mental events or internal psychological processes. I share the view with critics of Skinner that the sources of behavior are not solely external − in the environment, they are also internal − in the mind, in the psyche, in mentality, or whatever else one prefers to label that elusive domain.
Analytical behaviorism claims that mental concepts refer to behavioral tendencies and so must be translated into behavioral terms. I think that mental terms or concepts can be associated with behavioral concepts − but without the imminent need to deny ‘mentality,’ or firmly posit a non-physical mental substance, or establish causality between cognitive and behavioral events. That is, do we understand the inner and outer workings of sentient human beings to the point of closing the doors to novel insights down the road?
Love is a Form of Behaviorism
Now, wait a minute, don’t be so fast. Isn’t love a second-hand emotion? A danger to the prosperity of patriarchal lineages? A destroyer of rationality? Isn’t love uncontrollable and therefore best to be expunged?
Unconditional Love
In Matthew 5:43-48, Jesus instructs his followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, so that they, the followers, may be children of their Father in heaven.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:43-48
What is unconditional love but a sanctioned behavior aiming at rewards? I mean, when the Christian faith admonishes people to ‘love their enemies,’ can it be understood as anything else but instructing them to behave in a certain way that may actually betray their authentic sense and sensibilities? Can the Christian faith not be reduced to a mere form of unilateral behaviorism with the aim of and goal to coerce a reciprocal response as a reward? Is the Christian faith not just a means to the end of rewards?
I argue that human thriving − especially religious thriving, cannot transcend the aims of reward.
True Love
What is true love but a behavior? Now, wait a minute, don’t be so fast.
The expression ‘true love‘ is perhaps the provenance of the late Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Throughout all of his public life, he could not stop talking about true love. To his followers, the expression ‘true love’ is the hallmark indicating Moon’s origin, purity, and genuineness. The phrase ‘true love’ became the code word signifying the worth of all things Unificationism.
‘Living for the sake of others’ is the subsequent behavior that the iconic phrase of true love is meant to inspire. Much like unconditional love, true love does not require any intense liking or real passion in marital relationships. Once ‘great sex’ has commenced in marriage, true love can surely be recognized based on the proper behavior of continuously ‘living for the sake of others.’
This is not to say that ordinary people cannot find bliss in their marital relationship. But the simple advice to choose and abide by unconditional love is hardly a universal antidote to the vagaries and vicissitudes of the passions.
The motto of ‘living for the sake of others’ is perhaps a more familial motto in exclusive Christian circles or Asian countries, that is, in community-oriented and less individualistic cultures. It is a hard motto to catch on in Western culture which is infused with the still popular romantic traditions of the 19th Century.
Real Love
What is real love but a behavior? Now, wait a minute, don’t be so fast.
ChatGPT tells me that the expression ‘real love‘ is perhaps the provenance of Greg Baer, a psychiatrist and author known for his work on relationships. According to Baer, real love is a deep and unconditional love that goes beyond superficial affection and attachment. He argues that real love is based on genuine care and concern for another person’s well-being, rather than being driven by the desire to fulfill one’s own needs or expectations.
Baer suggests that real love is characterized by the following key principles:
- Unconditional Love: real love is not dependent on the actions or behaviors of the other person. It involves accepting and loving someone for who they are, flaws and all.
- Selflessness: real love is selfless and focused on giving rather than receiving. It involves acts of kindness, empathy, and support without expecting anything in return.
- Emotional Connection: real love fosters a deep emotional connection between individuals, allowing them to be vulnerable and open with each other.
- Authenticity: Baer emphasizes the importance of being authentic and honest in relationships, as real love cannot thrive in an environment of deception or pretense.
- Healing: Baer believes that real love has the power to heal emotional wounds and transform individuals, helping them become happier and more fulfilled.
ChatGPT summarizes Greg Baer as saying that real love is a profound and selfless form of love that is characterized by unconditional acceptance, genuine care, and a focus on the well-being of others. It is a love that transcends superficial attachments and is based on authenticity and emotional connection.
What would a love be called that is being driven by the desire to fulfill one’s own needs or expectations in addition to genuine care and concern for another person’s well-being? Am I splitting hair now? Perhaps. I have done so before.
Regardless, even Greg Baer’s real love cannot shake the impression of ‘cleaned-up’ behaviorism. “Love is what it is,” one might exhaustingly defer in defense of even an eminent psychiatrist such as Greg Baer and real love.
In any case, for many unloved folks, Bear’s explanation of real love can be a mightily positive motivator. That should count for due respect.
Involuntary Love
What I am missing in Sun Myung Moon’s and Greg Baer’s overlapping Christian versions of love is a reference to the involuntariness of liking and passion in intimate human relationships. I have read David Hume. Few people − seemingly − admit or deal with the natural human limits of a capacity for universal love and peace. Instead, we all ought to bend over backward to reach Heaven, and so we try.
There is an inherent danger in agreeing to marriage, arranged or not. The danger is that − eventually − the psychological limits of libido, sense, and sensibilities are reached by one or both partners, and subsequent barriers to mutual fulfillment in marriage cannot be simply ‘communicated’ away.
In spite of his best behaviors in terms of unconditional love, true love, and real love, a friend told me that he has been flagged down multiple times over the past few years by his suspecting spouse − for not loving, that is, for not acting enough in her interests. She feels rejected, he says. Suddenly, love is about what is in the heart and less about the proper behaviors of unconditional love, true love, or real love. In other words, perhaps, these sacred loves also require − in an unspeakable way − a partner’s total surrender and subsequent abject humiliation. That is, the level of self-denial demanded in some marriages can be to the case of being inhumane.
I can’t make you love me if you don’t…
Lamentation by R&B musician Bonnie Raitt
For some couples matched by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon in holy matrimony, a good dose of his exemplified behaviorism of ‘living for the sake of others’ is all that can save the day. However, the message that one can have a cake and eat it as well is an ambiguous proposition. This is unashamed propaganda if perpetuated by leaders as virtue posturing and/or to grow or maintain the ranks of their followers.
Truly blissful marriages − where two people’s libidos, senses, and sensibilities align pretty harmoniously so as to make bliss possible − are rare or few, even in the Unification movement. The Rev. and Mrs. Moon’s marriage relationship is now under scrutiny, with Mrs. Moon beginning to reveal troublesome disparities in their approach to their marital relationship. As a shared behavior, their approach of ‘living for the sake of others’ did not compel an exemplary relationship.
I think that, in the end, love is the signifying word for an extremely favorable valuation of an intimate relationship. In that regard, it is a very subjective expression that leaves the door open to anyone’s interpretation. What once was called true love to characterize their relationship seems to have been not so.
