How Love Became a Feeling

For the vast majority of human history, marriage was a practical arrangement centered on economic stability, social status, and the transfer of property. The now-dominant idea that romantic love should be the primary foundation for a lifelong partnership is a remarkably modern invention, emerging only in the last few centuries. This cultural shift, driven by philosophical movements, social revolutions, and technological change, transformed relationships from a contract into a connection. Understanding this chronological evolution provides crucial context for navigating the pressures and expectations of modern romance, where a partner is often expected to be a lover, best friend, and a catalyst for personal growth.

Ancient Foundations: Love as a Divided Concept

In the classical world of ancient Greece and Rome, the institution of marriage had little to do with the feeling of love. It was fundamentally a civic and economic transaction, a contract designed to ensure social order and family legacy. The primary purpose was pragmatic: to forge alliances between powerful families, consolidate wealth and land, and, most importantly, produce legitimate male heirs to inherit it all. If love happened to blossom within this framework, it was considered a fortunate but non-essential bonus.

The ancient Greeks, in particular, possessed a sophisticated and compartmentalized understanding of love, articulating different forms that occupied separate spheres of life.

Eros and Philia: A Separation of Passions

Plato’s writings, especially the *Symposium*, explore Eros: a passionate, often overwhelming, erotic desire. He frames it as a longing for something one lacks, a drive towards beauty, goodness, and ultimately, a connection with the divine. This intense, fiery love was rarely associated with one’s spouse. It was more commonly sought in relationships outside of the marital home, including affairs or with courtesans.

In contrast, Aristotle championed Philia in his *Nicomachean Ethics*. This is a calmer, more virtuous affection akin to a deep friendship or brotherly love. It was based on mutual respect, shared values, and goodwill between two good people. Aristotle considered Philia essential for a happy and virtuous life, and while it could exist between spouses, it was celebrated as the highest form of connection between male friends who engaged in civic and intellectual life together. The consensus view is that marriage was the domain of household management, while Eros and Philia were pursued elsewhere. However, an alternative perspective suggests that the ideal marriage would eventually cultivate a form of Philia, a companionate partnership that grew over time, even if it was not the initial basis for the union.

In Rome, the legalistic nature of relationships was even more pronounced. Marriage was a contract that solidified the power of the *paterfamilias*, the male head of the household. It was a utilitarian arrangement designed purely for societal stability and the orderly transfer of property.

The Middle Ages: Sacred Duty and Fictional Romance

With the consolidation of Christianity’s influence across Europe, the perception of marriage underwent a significant transformation, though its practical core remained intact. The Church elevated marriage to the status of a holy sacrament, an unbreakable and sacred vow made before God. This move served to regulate sexuality, channeling it exclusively within the marital framework to prevent sin and ensure procreation. While this added a layer of spiritual gravity, it did not fundamentally change the purpose of marriage from a social and economic arrangement. Love was still not the prerequisite.

At the same time, a new and powerful romantic ideal began to flourish in the high courts and literature of the era: courtly love.

The Invention of Romance

First appearing in the courts of 12th-century France, courtly love was a literary and cultural phenomenon that celebrated a knight’s passionate, chivalrous, and often unrequited devotion to a noble lady. This love was characterized by intense longing, heroic deeds performed in the lady’s name, and an idealization of the beloved. It was the birth of romance as we recognize many of its tropes today.

Crucially, this potent emotional experience was almost never directed at one’s own spouse. In fact, it was often adulterous in its fantasy, if not in practice. This created a stark dichotomy that defined the medieval understanding of relationships. Marriage was a permanent, earthbound duty for life and family. Romantic love, in its most passionate form, was an inspiring, unattainable fantasy belonging to the realm of art, poetry, and song.

Theologians also refined the concept of love. Following the Christian Apostle St. Paul’s definition of Agape—a selfless, unconditional love given as a gift from God—thinkers like St. Augustine sought to synthesize these ideas. He proposed the concept of Caritas, which combined the desiring love of Eros with the selfless love of Agape. For Augustine, the only proper love was Caritas directed toward God; love for other humans was acceptable only as a reflection of that divine love. This further entrenched the idea that intense, worldly passion was a dangerous distraction from one’s spiritual duties.

The Enlightenment’s Radical Shift: The Birth of the Love Match

The 17th and 18th centuries ushered in the Age of Enlightenment, a period of intellectual revolution that fundamentally challenged traditional sources of authority, from the monarchy to the church. Philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau championed radical new ideas of individualism, personal liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a fundamental human right. These ideas inevitably began to seep into the private sphere, planting the seeds for a revolution in how people thought about marriage.

This era gave rise to a concept sociologists call “affective individualism”: the growing belief that an individual’s internal feelings and personal choices should be the primary basis for major life decisions. For the first time in mainstream Western thought, influential voices began to argue that a marriage founded on genuine love, mutual affection, and companionship would not only be happier but also more virtuous and stable than one arranged for economic or dynastic gain.

The novel, a new and hugely popular literary form, became the primary vehicle for spreading this revolutionary idea. Authors like Samuel Richardson and, most famously, Jane Austen, wrote stories that dramatized the tension between social pressure, economic necessity, and personal affection. In novels like *Pride and Prejudice*, the ultimate moral triumph is the “love match,” where the protagonist rejects a financially secure but loveless union in favor of a partnership based on genuine esteem and emotional connection.

The prevailing view is that the Enlightenment decisively established marrying for love as the new moral and social ideal. An alternative interpretation, however, is that this shift was more of a rebranding than a complete overhaul. Economic and social considerations remained critically important, but they were now expected to be accompanied by, and articulated through, the language of love and personal choice. One had to find love, but within one’s own social class.

The Victorian Era: Institutionalizing Romance Under Strict Rules

The Victorian era (roughly 1837–1901) took the Enlightenment’s ideal of the love match and built a rigid social structure around it. This created a paradoxical world where intense romantic sentiment was the official goal, yet the path to achieving it was governed by some of the strictest rules of courtship and gender roles in history. Love was no longer just an ideal; it was an expectation channeled through a complex and repressive social code.

Separate Spheres and Codified Courtship

Victorian society was famously organized around the concept of “separate spheres.” The man’s domain was the public world of industry, commerce, and politics. The woman’s sphere was the private world of the home and family, where she was expected to be the “angel in the house,” a moral beacon for her husband and children. Marriage was the sacred institution where these two spheres intersected.

While the goal was a union based on love, the process of courtship was heavily policed to ensure social propriety and financial viability.

• Formalized Rituals: Courtship was not a private affair. It involved formal home visits, the exchange of calling cards, and the constant presence of chaperones to prevent any unchaperoned contact.
• Economic Realities: A man’s eligibility as a romantic partner was inextricably linked to his financial prospects and ability to provide for a family. Love was the emotional currency, but a sound economic footing was the non-negotiable price of entry.
• Commercialization of Affection: This era also saw the beginning of love’s commercialization. After 1847, Esther Howland began mass-producing Valentine’s Day cards in the United States, popularizing the expression of love through purchased goods. By 1881, her company’s annual sales had soared to $100,000, demonstrating the public’s appetite for tangible symbols of romantic feeling.

The Victorian model was a fusion of the new romantic ideal with old pragmatic concerns. The consensus is that it created a highly sentimentalized but also deeply repressed emotional landscape. A contrarian view might argue that this rigid structure, by creating such high stakes and clear boundaries, actually intensified the romantic feelings involved, making the eventual union feel like a greater emotional achievement.

The 20th Century Revolutions: The Great Uncoupling of Love, Sex, and Marriage

The 20th century unleashed a series of technological, social, and economic upheavals that systematically dismantled the Victorian model of the family. The traditional links that had bound sex, love, marriage, and procreation together for centuries were progressively weakened and, in many cases, broken entirely. This period marked the “great uncoupling,” shifting marriage from a social necessity to a personal choice.

Technology, Dating, and the Nuclear Family

The early part of the century saw the rise of a new social practice: dating. The invention and popularization of the automobile was a key driver, giving young, unmarried couples a degree of privacy and mobility that was previously unimaginable. Instead of formal, supervised courtship in the family parlor, couples could now go out for recreation. This shifted power away from parents and into the hands of the couple themselves, making personal chemistry a more central part of the selection process.

Following the turmoil of two world wars and the Great Depression, the 1950s saw the rise of the suburban nuclear family as the dominant cultural ideal in the West. A breadwinner husband, a homemaker wife, and two or more children became the aspirational model for a successful adult life, with marriage as its unquestioned centerpiece.

The Seismic Shifts of the 1960s and Beyond

Beginning in the 1960s, a series of revolutionary changes fundamentally altered the landscape of relationships.

1. The Birth Control Pill: Approved for contraceptive use in 1960, the Pill separated sexual intercourse from the risk of procreation on a mass scale for the first time in history. This allowed sex to be framed more as an act of intimacy and pleasure, rather than one with potentially life-altering consequences, and weakened the argument that it should be confined to marriage.
2. Second-Wave Feminism: The feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s directly challenged the “separate spheres” ideology. By advocating for women’s economic independence, educational opportunities, and reproductive rights, the movement made it possible for women to build fulfilling lives outside of marriage. Marriage was no longer the only path to financial security for a woman.
3. The Rise of No-Fault Divorce: The gradual adoption of no-fault divorce laws meant that a couple could end a marriage simply because it was no longer emotionally fulfilling, without having to prove a major transgression like adultery or abuse. This reinforced the idea that marriage’s primary purpose was personal happiness, and if that happiness ceased, the union could be dissolved.

These forces combined to make marriage an option rather than a prerequisite for a full adult life. By 2012, 23% of American men and 17% of women over the age of 25 had never been married, a significant increase from previous generations.

The Modern Era: The Self-Actualizing Partnership and the Paradox of Choice

We are now living in an age defined by individual choice, digital technology, and the pursuit of self-actualization. The purpose of a romantic partnership has shifted once again. It is no longer about merging two families or even two lives into a single unit. The modern ideal is a partnership designed to support and enhance two separate, individual selves.

Confluent Love and the Pure Relationship

Sociologists like Anthony Giddens describe the contemporary ideal as a “confluent” or “pure relationship.” This is a social relation entered into for its own sake—for what each person can get out of it—and it is maintained only as long as both partners believe it delivers enough satisfaction for them to stay in it. Its primary goals are mutual happiness, emotional intimacy, and personal growth.

The central question of a modern relationship has expanded from “Do I love you?” to “Does being with you help me become the best version of myself?” This places an immense amount of pressure on the partnership. A single person, our romantic partner, is now expected to be an all-in-one provider of support: an erotic lover, a best friend, an intellectual equal, a co-therapist, a career mentor, and a co-parent. The consensus is that this ideal places an unsustainable burden on modern relationships. An alternative perspective is that this high bar simply reflects a more honest and ambitious goal for human connection—that we are striving for a more holistic and meaningful partnership than ever before.

The Influence of Technology and Shifting Norms

Technology has further reshaped the landscape. The rise of online dating means that for many, relationships begin online. Data shows that 19% of relationships start this way, and 29% of Americans have used a dating app or website. This technology provides a seemingly infinite marketplace of potential partners, which can be empowering but also leads to the “paradox of choice,” where too many options can lead to anxiety and an inability to commit. This fosters low-commitment behaviors like “ghosting” and the rise of ambiguous “situationships.”

Modern relationship structures are more diverse than ever. By 2015, nearly a quarter of never-married adults aged 25 to 34 were living with a partner. Furthermore, societal taboos have eroded, with 17% of American marriages now being interracial, a testament to the prioritization of personal connection over outdated social restrictions. The evolution continues, driven by the foundational belief that love is an emotion to be cultivated for personal fulfillment.