Proof of Love
Analysing Milan Kundera's "proof of love" from an evolutionary perspective
Milan Kundera, the Czech-born French novelist, has died. I came across this quote of his which got me thinking.
Love is by definition an unmerited gift; being loved without meriting it is the very proof of real love. If a woman tells me: I love you because you're intelligent, because you're decent, because you buy me gifts, because you don't chase women, because you do the dishes, then I'm disappointed; such love seems a rather self-interested business. How much finer it is to hear: I'm crazy about you even though you're neither intelligent nor decent, even though you're a liar, an egotist, a bastard.
It's interesting to ponder why the inability to provide reasons for choosing a romantic partner feels like “proof of real love”. I would say the relevant distinction here is between reaching a certain point via a process that is harder or easier to revoke.
Decisions based on emotions are harder to revoke since emotions are stubborn. Decisions based on reasons are easier to revoke since reason is shifty; all you need to revoke a decision or a certain course of action is a better reason so the future seems more uncertain when reason is governing your affairs rather than emotions. Basing your decisions on cost-benefit analysis opens the door for revoking your decision if the cost-benefit ratio changes in the future.
Because being heavily reliant on emotions in your decisions and actions means you will be more motivated and persistent in attaining a certain goal, observers can use the apparent emotionality of your decisions and actions to gauge your level of commitment to attaining that goal.
Now, if your decision has an effect on me, then I might care whether your decisions are based more on reason or emotions. In romantic partnerships, the adaptive challenge for each side is to diminish the risk of being abandoned by the other side. That means the demand that the other side is entering the partnership based on emotions will be greater. A calculated, emotion-free, approach will be looked at with suspicion.
But the fact that romantic choice was heavily based on emotions doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons behind it, and that having desirable traits did not play a role in romantic choice, as Kundera seems to suggest. That would defy evolutionary logic. Indeed, if that was the case—if people did not evaluate the traits of potential partners on some level— why would people invest so much effort in looking more attractive and desirable to the opposite sex? It is as if we are in a seemingly paradoxical situation where people want to give others reasons for liking them but at the same time would prefer that others weren’t basing their love toward them on those very reasons!
I think the “paradox” is resolved by distinguishing between our evolved and mostly unconscious cognitive procedures for evaluating one’s suitability as a romantic partner, and, on the other hand, reasoning as a process of providing reasons to others and evaluating the reasons provided by others. The function of the latter is not inquisitive, one of helping us get accurate beliefs and make better decisions. Rather, the function of reasoning is justificatory, one of helping us convince other people and to evaluate their arguments.
So if we were to apply the principle of charity, Kundera’s point is not to be understood as aimed against the first mechanism— that would be too high demand. It is aimed against the second one. In what sense?
One important feature of emotions, one that makes us think of emotions as “stubborn”, is that they are resistant to argumentation and persuasion. But it is a feature, not a bug! Emotions tend to override the arguments and reasons and there are situations where it could be beneficial for us not to “follow the argument wherever it leads”, contrary to Socrates' advice.
The fact that a person’s decision to be romantically involved with another person is not solely dependent on reasons, but is more reliant on emotions, means it is harder to revoke it because the person is less open about being persuaded to revoke it.
People could observe this emotionality of actions and use it as a cue to assess one’s seriousness and reliability as a potential partner.
Your inability to provide reasons for romantic choice doesn’t mean the choice is not, in some sense, “self-interested”, as Kundera writes. Instead, your inability to provide reasons indicates that you are in a state where your ability to be moved by reasons is diminished. And this diminished ability to be moved by reasons means your commitment to your current decisions and actions is higher thus providing some kind of assurance to your potential partner regarding the relationship’s future prospects.
And this, alas, is a “proof of love”. Not great, not terrible.