Love and Instinct

Are children capable of experiencing romantic love--the voluntary appreciation of someone's existence rather than simply the biologically required deference to caretakers? Most would agree they do, whether superficially in the form of a crush or instinctually as they are required, in the form of the "parent and child bond." The implication is that because the parental bond is accelerated to such high and holy heights, all other romantic inclinations the child may experience must be superficial and ultimately meaningless, even if most believe kids are entitled to their "meaningless and superficial" love interests. The children who are the ones feeling the feelings, understandably, see it differently. What adults declare superficial may be entirely meaningful to children, whether it is expressed toward peers, or more controversially, toward other adults. By this relative standard, we'll assume they do feel genuine romantic love, and determine why their parents are not the typical recipients of it.

It almost becomes superficial to speak of the parent and child bond and shower all the typical high and holy platitudes it absorbs, seeing as it's naturally expected from birth and required in life. It could be likened to any biological attribute children are either born possessing or not, such as hearing, movement, or sight. For those born without sight, we mourn their loss and develop their other abilities to prepare them for life in the world. In much the same way, we mourn the loss and deprivation of a child's connection to his or her birth parents or their separation from that instinctual, biologically required love, and help find suitable replacements. However, unlike the acquisition of sight when a child is born possessing it (which is expected), we actually celebrate and sanctify instinctual parent-to-child "hallowed co-relation" when it is born intact, despite it being simply what it is--a biological bond of necessity developed in most mammals by evolution.

Indeed, contact comfort studies by Harlow showed that parental nurturing and touch is a biological necessity as important as food intake to developing primates, with the conclusion that humans aren't so different, so parental love's biological roots are well established, but this is not what we mean when we think of "romantic love." In romantic love, one is not typically dependent on the other for basic survival purposes (and if they are, it's because they were already previously drawn together by romantic love rather than just biological assignment).This is not meant though to undermine the significance of the parent/child relationship, just to say that it is a relationship required by evolutionary circumstance, and not voluntary romantic love.

It is not so clear in the case of adoptive or custodial parents, and other adult family members. This is because the love between a custodial or adoptive parent is socially required, even if not biologically expected. When the adoptive parent and child relationship turns sour, we don't mourn it as much as we would had the relationship been tied together by birth. If anything, we mourn the breakdown of that relationship as a last lingering pent up sorrow over the greater loss of the original birth parents. This all makes it seem likely that a child who is dependent on a custodial or adoptive parent for basic survival, has less of a biological expectation of love for their caretakers, which makes their fondness for their caretakers when it happens more of a voluntary act, to a certain extent--which makes it closer to true romantic love, which is voluntary.

The less of a biological expectation there is for a child to love someone, the more voluntary their associations become, and therefore, the more genuine, but also, the less they are regarded by society as such. This deceleration of our perception is greater magnified where a child's romantic (voluntary) love is at its highest and most genuine (when the child finds him or herself in love with a benevolent friend for which there is no biological or social requirement lending justification to their feelings). So once again, the simplest form of love, that which is instinctual, is celebrated to such high and holy heights when children are concerned, while their more genuine and voluntary form of love for relative strangers, when it happens, is passed off as superficial and meaningless.

But perhaps I should explain my intentions better. There is a difference between instinctual love (the parent/child bond), and romantic love (the voluntary relationship), and I've used the word 'genuine' to describe that difference--"romantic love is more genuine than instinctual love." What I mean by "genuine" is not that romantic love is necessarily more "felt" than instinctual, just that it is not demanded of the child, and is entered into entirely voluntarily rather than by obligation. It is typically understood that unions entered into voluntarily carry more significance than unions where partners are set up by circumstance.

It is meant as a definitional descriptor rather than a measure of feeling, because, in all fairness, instinctual love is longer lasting and more unconditional, and romantic love is often fleeting or beset by conditions. Instinctual love, when conditional or fleeting, is mourned as the terrible loss that it is (a birth parent's love for their child shouldn't be non-existent or conditional). On the other hand, we may feel sad when romantic love expresses itself as conditional or fleeting, and certainly the child does, but not to the extent we would for the loss of a child's instinctual love bond. We may even feel such losses "come with the territory" in romantic love--that love entered into voluntarily incurs such risks by its nature. Meanwhile, love entered into by birth, as it is thought, should never come to that.

Ideally, romantic love enriches life though, which was nurtured and developed by the instinctual love of a parent figure, and even acts as an extension or manifestation of the biological parent/child bond. To deny children this ability to form intimate relationships with benevolent friends, both peers and adults--and to enter into romantic love relationships mutually beneficially expressed and voluntary by nature--is to deprive them the ability to take their circumstances, the instinctual love that has nurtured them, and extend it outward towards others of their choosing early on in life. It's the denial of an enriching experience, particularly if the child is limited to school or the cover of dark to express it. For the child's safety and the health of the experience, it's better that a child's romantic life does not feel threatened or alienated in the context of their own home, and that parents opt to exercise their judgment rather than just ban such expressions outright.