She's a clinical psychologist and has made adult love--specifically between couples--the focus of her research, pretty much her entire career. She gives a long description of John Bowlby, the main psychiatrist who pioneered the idea that children have an actual physical, survival need to be held and cuddled and cared for, back when it was believed that this would make them weaklings and sick adults. It took him years of experiments to convince his colleagues that when parents are emotionally and physically close to their children it results in happier, more well-adjusted children, which of course revolutionized how we see child-rearing.
Johnson and her colleagues believe the same thing about adults and love relationships. She cites all the studies that show how emotionally close relationships make you less sick, lower stress, help you face challenges, and so forth--that's the part I'm on. I'm sure you've heard many of those studies, as I have. But I've never seen them framed quite this way--as being part of a wave of revolution in the field of relationship studies, as big as what took place in child-rearing studies. The child-parent bonding is called "attachment theory" and that's the term she uses for her theory as well:
"when I tried to get my views published, most of my colleagues did not agree at all. First they said that emotion was something that adults should control. ... But most important, they argues, healthy adults are self-sufficient. Only dysfunctional people need or depend on others. We had names for these people: they were enmeshed, codependent, merged, fused. In other words, they were messed up. Spouses depending on each other too much was what wrecked marriages!"
I find this all veddy fascinating. I'm not someone who's naturally physically affectionate, or very emotional (except when pumped up on Topomax) but that doesn't mean I approve of myself, or am not making efforts to change. There are two stories that always come to my mind when I think about the importance of physical affection and emotion. The first is the Romanian orphanages.
It must have been in 1990, I was 17 years old, that I read a magazine story about them. That's when I learned that when babies aren't held and interacted with, they just tune of this world--they don't become social. It was one of the saddest but also most horrifying things I'd ever heard of (and it applies to animals too.) It's just a fact--living beings beings need other beings to interact with them, and touch them and I don't see why that would change in adulthood.
Which is why we all loved this photo, right?
The second is the story of Ayn Rand, but it's so good let's talk about it tomorrow. The point I wanted to make today is that allll of this reminded me, once more, of just how annoying it is that people make fun of romance novels.*
Romance novels spend all their time exploring the science of love, and how it helps us survive. Which kind of makes it science fiction. ;-)
"We now know that love is, in actuality, the pinnacle of evolution, the most compelling survival mechanism of the human species. Not because it induces us to mate and reproduce. We do manage to mate without love! But because love drives us to bond emotionally with a precious few others who offer us safe haven from the storms of life. Love is our bulwark, designed to provide emotional protection so we can cope with the ups and downs of existence. ... We need emotional attachments with a few irreplaceable others to be physically and mentally healthy--to survive." Dr Sue Johnson
_______
*I consider it all the more important for me to defend romance novels because I don't exclusively read them, so no one can say, "Ohh she's just being defensive cause she's a junky." I've read just as many books in the mystery genre as I have in the romance genre. And again in science fiction, and again in teen fiction. And certainly more general and "literary" fiction. ;-)
