Do Pain and Struggle Constitute a Fundamental Part of Love?

Artwork by Tonia Davenport—from her wonderful series “B&W and Red All Over”

A while back, I read this relationship break-up anecdote at Galleycat, from a poetry-devoted reader:

The book was a collection of love poems by William Carlos Williams. The poem was “Asphodel, that Greeny Flower.” And the specific line of the poem over which we disagreed was: “I cannot say that I have gone to hell for your love but often found myself there in your pursuit.”

Although my boyfriend and I had been dating seriously for about a year, we disagreed so vehemently about whether pain and struggle constitute a fundamental part of love that we decided to break up then and there after reading and discussing the poem.

When I shared this with The Conductor, he responded, “Who wouldn’t agree that pain and suffering are a fundamental part of love?” Then he argued that whoever did the breaking up in that relationship was the person who felt real pain in it—and was resentful the other person seemed to think it was all happy-fun time.

So I started to wonder: How can a person see love as something free from struggle? Theories:

Is it an ideal vision of love where it transcends pain?
Does it assume that ideal partners (if such a thing exists) do not struggle, have conflict, or hurt each other?
Is it a very Zen idea of love, where there’s a level of detachment that makes pain and struggle impossible? (Such thinking is absolute folly, but that’s a post for another day.)

Every relationship I’ve experienced has been different—always a new dynamic, a different type of understanding. Whenever you bring two people together, you have unique energies, patterns of behavior, and hang-ups.

I don’t really believe in true, soul-mate love. I do believe in love at first sight (though I differentiate it from true love). Either way, I can’t imagine any meaningful relationship free from pain and struggle. The one constant with anyone you love is that you have the ability to hurt each other, and you know exactly where to aim and how deep. Or, in the words of Leonard Cohen, “All I ever learned from love was how to shoot at someone who outdrew you.”

You do get better at it, I think. You get more mature. You drop the Hollywood, Disney-fied, cultural fantasies that create hang-ups.

Most of all, you practice gentleness and kindness, which takes strength. But the relationship hasn’t actualized until you’ve hurt each other.

“Whenever you’re in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude.” (William James)

Pingback: World of Islam » Blog Archive » Religious tensions in the suburbs
Tonia Davenport

If we're talking about theories (versus the difficult reality of actually trying to practice what we want to believe in), I think that there is a solution to suffering and it comes from two things: sufficient love of self–first–and from that follows unconditional love. As long as we look to another person, be it a relative, friend or romantic partner, to fulfill any one of a number of different needs, we will always experience suffering. It's extremely hard to get to that place of being able to love without strings attached. But it's a noble goal.
http://www.janefriedman.com Jane Friedman

Very much agree. I probably learned this lesson best from a book by Osho: Love, Freedom, and Aloneness [http://www.amazon.com/Love-Freedom-Aloneness-Vision-Relating/dp/0312262272]. The very first thing he tackles is love of self.
http://www.janefriedman.com Jane Friedman

Extra credit reading — every time I ponder this issue, I always remember what Alan Watts said about relationships:

If you know that this [ego] is an illusion, then you can allow yourself to take it quite seriously—having the thought, way back, that this is a game. So then you can take it seriously, you can allow yourself to get involved in life to the most ridiculous degree. Because you know it's alright. So let's really get into it. That is why a person who might be enlightened doesn't present a detached and indifferent attitude but is perfectly free to allow emotions, attachments. Seeing that it's a game provides a possibility for you to become involved in it much more incautiously than you normally are—to express feeling, to love, to throw yourself at the mercy of the goings-on completely. This very perception of the illusion makes it possible to live up the illusion. And so if someone is always in his attitude detached and reserved, it indicates that there's still a primordial fear of getting involved. And I must say that I can't understand that very well. I don't understand what people expect—that a so-called enlightened person should not need this, that, and the other (it might be beautiful surroundings, it might be love of people, it might be … I don't know what), but in other words you should scrub everything down to basic-basic, and at the end of that is let's scrub all the planet, let's scrub all the disease of life off it and have a nice, clean rock!

Well, I believe in color, I believe if you're going to do anything, let's really do it. And not take ourselves do damn seriously that we have to be scrubbed of every damn ornamentation and frivolity.
Sammie

Speaking of love and attachment, I was up until 2 am last night with a sick cat who may not live. I love this cat with all my heart. He adores me in his cat-like way. We've had eleven years together, but it's still hard to give him up.
On the human side, a person is now part of my daily life, yet I'm not sure I can trust him. I recently decided there's no use holding back and trying to love him halfway, saying, in effect, “I'll only love you if I sure it's safe.” It needs to be all or nothing. Otherwise, why bother? If he doesn't grow from this experience, then at least I will.
http://www.janefriedman.com Jane Friedman

A beautiful sentiment. Thanks so much for commenting.
http://twitter.com/so_you_know Annie Syed

my favorite quote on love and relationships is as follows:

“To love is a beautiful, mysterious event; do not miss it. Be neither too cautious nor too absorbed. Too many of us reason with our hearts and experience with our heads. It can not be so. The heart knows no logic beyond need and desire; the head has no senses except the common and the pragmatic. Neither, frankly, is particularly useful in love, anyway.
Rely on your sixth sense, that little voice within. There is no preparation or protection from the joy and pain of relationships. They are inseparable twins. One follows another.
And make no mistake: love is not gay abandon; it is to be courageous, to take risks, and to be disciplined.”

from Letter to Zenzele by J. Nozipo Maraire

and from my mother/father:

“Marriage, asides from being about similar life ideologies and values, is about “common” goals that two people want to work towards. Initially, “falling in love,” serves as the spark which ignites the fire which serves as the fuel for the work required to sustain a “real love,” which in turn propels two people through all the adversities that may follow in a lifetime while they pursue their personal and mutual goals. ”

lovely to see the quoting of alan watts here.

thanks for this…

~a.q.s.
http://inotherwordz.blogspot.com Jada Bradley

Letter to Zenzele is a wonderful and amazing book and I am always happy to know it is being read.
http://www.janefriedman.com Jane Friedman

Love this part: “Too many of us reason with our hearts and experience with our heads.” So true! Will have to look up that book now. Thanks for sharing.
Angela Parson Myers

I don't believe suffering is necessary to love, but I do believe it's common to it. Love is the most amazing emotion a person can feel. It's completely illogical to make yourself that vulnerable. And when you're that vulnerable, you will be hurt sooner or later–to what degree depends on the object of your affection and your own psychological condition. Yet it remains the ideal state of most of humanity. And it's worth it. It boggles the mind.
I do believe in soul-mates because I've been married to mine for nearly 47 years. That said, being soul-mates doesn't mean you don't want to kill one another once in awhile.
: – )
http://www.janefriedman.com Jane Friedman

I was waiting for a soul-mate believer to jump in! Thank you for commenting.
jeannevb

I wish I believed in soul mates. If I did, then I'd have to take far less responsibility in the success or failure of my choice in partners. It would simply be fate. Fate does bring people into our lives, but if we aren't prepared to meet them, even if it IS a “soul mate”, the relationship is doomed.

I've watched many a divorced friend fail the second, third and fourth time around. The reason? They didn't love themselves enough to have a healthy relationship. They put all their hope and dreams into another person's acceptance making them feel good about themselves. Hence, they repeated the same mistakes over and over and over again. Result: pain, rejection, self-loathing, continued false hope.

Learning to love yourself is not without pain either. The only way to do it is to peel back the layers of the onion, see the stinky mess that is inside, and love it anyway. There will indeed be tears, but once that onion is cooked, the taste is sweet… as is the love you will feel.
http://www.janefriedman.com Jane Friedman

Your comment reminds me of something Elizabeth Gilbert wrote in COMMITTED — about how Americans load all of our needs, wants, desires, hopes, dreams (in every area of life) onto our spouse. … And then we wonder why we are disappointed when our mate doesn't manage to totally fulfill us.
jeannevb

I just shared that sentiment with my teen girl. I suspect this generation will make different choices *fingers crossed*