Challenging Love Languages: Insights and Criticisms

A lot of good ideas come from utter trash. Freud, for example, is a widely discredited psychologist, a cokehead, and a little suspect with his female clients, yet an incredibly insightful literary scholar whose ideas continue to be used as a framework in that discipline, at least, as well as being foundational to other psychologists like Lacan and Jung whose ideas do continue to be used in their original field. What I’m saying is: whilst Christian ‘keep your marriage together’ propaganda doesn’t seem like a great place to look for advice on healthy relationships, there can be little insights that, taken out of context, do apply more widely. That’s the category I put ‘love languages’ in: whilst I wouldn’t necessarily advocate for them wholesale, I do think there’s a nugget of truth in there that can help us.

Love languages (registered trademark) were first theorised by Gary Chapman, a Baptist minister with a Ph.D. in adult education from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He will speak at various events for $10,000 – $15,000, and is a regular contributor to ‘Focus on the Family’ – not an official hate group, but certainly affiliated with a number of both groups and individuals who are (indeed, in the roundtable I watched with Chapman, the host subtly advocated conversion therapy and suggested that his organisation would practice it). I won’t deny that this is a mixed bag for my interpretation of the man and his beliefs: whilst Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary are an accredited university and Chapman has, in his own words, “completed postgraduate work at the University of North Carolina and Duke University”, neither university he later attended has any mention of him on their website and I am sceptical of how this is phrased. It should also go without saying, though I will not leave it unsaid, that to put a trademark on an idea may be common practice in technological or scientific academia (I legitimately do not know) but it is unheard of in social science circles. Imagine if Laura Mulvey had ideated The Male Gaze™ and disallowed other people to publish books on the topic… imagine how much poorer the academy would be, and how much less concrete the idea would be today without the robust back-and-forth of rigorous discussion. In order to protect his speaking arrangements, Chapman has stymied progression of his own idea.[1] I do also think, however, that adult education is a great thing to focus on – a valuable social service, and often disregarded as a unique skill – and some of his content for Focus on the Family has been sound advice, such as this roundtable in which Chapman both acknowledges the power and individuality of adult children as well as the flaws he may or may not have passed on (very Philip Larkin of him). I appreciate that the morals he is talking about instilling on adult children is good money management rather than the talking points I might expect from the Christian right, and I also appreciate that his focus is on communication, which I do believe solves most problems. When Chapman does turn to the talking points I expected – talking about cohabitation like it’s impractical and immoral, talking about parents weeping in his office because their child has come out to them – he advocates love, albeit love that is conditional on being allowed to preach in and no understanding of (or even wish to understand) the other side, all whilst explicitly saying it’s not Christian to be queer. Essentially, I am able to acknowledge that whilst Gary Chapman is not the kind of person to whom I would turn for advice, that doesn’t mean that he is an invalid or impractical source of advice (and I certainly liked him a damn sight more than the host, whose counselling service legitimately worried me).

I recently re-watched the Big Joel video on Love Languages. I’ve probably watched other videos on Love Languages too – they’re kind of an easy target for the kind of softball video essay I watch whilst I’m doing the dishes. Like pointing out that the Meyer’s-Briggs was invented by two crime authors or that IQ is racist [2] it’s easy content: a socially accepted thing with unexpected roots that may make you think differently about it (personally I think authors would be well-placed to do a character study, though I probably wouldn’t make any kind of personality test a condition of a workplace, and I’ve worked in schools long enough to believe any kind of test is BS but to understand why we try), but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth interrogating a phrase that has entered our collective vernacular.

I agree with Joel on a number of things – firstly, that five is not enough love languages. He makes a compelling case that humour belongs on the list, but without thinking too hard I came up with co-operation, and culture. It’s possible that these could fall under other categories, but I think they’re defined aspects of how people relate to each other. I also agree that the languages are interconnected – is booking your joint holiday a gift or an act of service? As Joel says, how are you getting any physical touch without quality time? A partner who prefers words of affirmation is unlikely to feel unloved when receiving a gift, and though they will likely appreciate a heartfelt card they would probably be disappointed if that was all their partner gave them for their birthday. I like the reading of love languages as a metaphorical tool, like tarot (or, indeed, personality quizzes), which allows for fruitful and robust discussion about what we want from our partners and, one thing which likely goes against the intentions of the creator, I do believe it is also a powerful tool for feminist discourse, since women are conditioned to do acts of service and desire gifts or words of affirmation. Doing all the housework and getting words in return, or being expected to buy gifts on 70¢ to the male $, is enough to make somebody reach for their Betty Friedan, and having the vocabulary to say ‘I appreciate and require this to make our relationship valuable to me’ makes ideas like love languages and emotional labour valuable. I agree that Chapman taking his metaphor too literally is a problem, and would posit that it’s something he learned in self-help circles rather than higher education, and would prefer that his PhD training shone through.

I don’t, however, think that all Joel’s criticisms are fair: he suggests that “Where will you find the time? You will make it.” is an unfair way to treat a client, and whilst I do agree that Joel’s assessment that it’s “orders of magnitude more difficult to solve” that this man is tired from work, I also think it’s disingenuous to suggest that the people seeking the help of this middle-American, white, wealthy relationship counsellor are unable to meet a call to prioritise their time to save their relationship. Any time this man spends with his kids, friends, dinner, hobbies, can be re-appropriated to include quality time with his wife – could she play ball with him and his son, could they turn off the TV whilst they eat or have dinner without the kids one night a week, could he work from home one morning a week so that they can have coffee together? Personally I think he should show the kids he prioritises her by introducing them to something she loves – he could take them all to a musical or a history museum (or any other, less gendered, hobby the wife has) to allow them to see her shine, and enjoy elevating the woman he married. The demographic Chapman works with is more likely to have a homemaker – how is the wife enabling her husband to work less? Could she pick up a part-time job and have him lose a day of work so they can spend time together without the kids? Whilst this is all conjecture – for all we know this particular guy works nights and his wife has two part-time jobs to keep ends meet – it’s no more unreasonable a supposition that this anecdotal man is not prioritising his wife than to suggest he works so hard he literally has no spare time, and it’s a question of how you define ‘quality time’ that allows us to suggest solutions. Sure, the wife probably doesn’t want her ‘date night’ to include her children too, but a night playing board games is better than not getting to chat to the man you married.

I remember a friend of mine telling me that my love-language is definitely gift-giving. I think that’s a really great interpretation of the term: not that these are the things we must receive to feel loved, but that this is the way we know to show somebody how we care about them. I don’t see this friend enough, but she knows I care about her because she still has the physical objects I’ve given her – and I still have a gift I bought when she told me she got a new job that I’m looking forward to giving her. I wish I could have more ‘quality time’ with my husband (don’t we all?), but when I have to work late I almost always bring him some kind of present – a chocolate bar, a postcard, some fancy coffee he can have for breakfast. In my drawer there is a gift for another friend whose birthday was in January, and this represents to me that I will and must see my friend again – even though she’s a busy working mother and I am running myself ragged with a PhD and a job. I like to give gifts, and always put a lot of thought into them; I like to imagine what somebody would like but wouldn’t buy themselves, I like to seek out unusual things which match their hobbies or interests, even if I don’t share them. I don’t expect the same flavour of love in return. The love language I think I’d like from my own friends and family is loyalty, something I’m not very good at – I’d like them to hold me to that ‘we need to get a drink sometime!’ or ‘please can we call each other soon?’ because not only did I truly mean it, I was looking forward to seeing them and dropped the ball. I appreciate that my husband’s love language is caring for me and enabling my passions: he reads poems he doesn’t like because I study them, thinks of names for my quiz teams, cooks for me when I’m home late, and hunts down pictures of animals I like to send me when I’m having a bad day. Those are the things he knows how to do and he chooses to spend his efforts on me. What he asks for in return isn’t gifts, it’s appreciation, and hard work of my own. A complementary life can and should possess the vocabulary to describe what we are able to give and seeking to receive, but it shouldn’t assume that those are the same thing; beyond that, love is something we bestow in the ways we know how, and we should acknowledge that we can grow our skillset to complement somebody who is worth it.

[1] I have a good-faith belief that this article falls under the category of criticism and review which is legal under UK law. As a former employee in publishing and a current librarian and PhD student I think I have a better than average understanding of the law surrounding this, but due to the position I worked in publishing (ie – not legal or commissioning) I am not an expert by any means. My lay-interpretation of this, in British law at least, would be that it is legal to write a direct criticism of the idea trademarked but that a book developing the idea further or interpreting it in a fresh way would be copyright infringement, and also that were a psychiatrist or relationship counsellor to claim to use ‘love languages’ in their practice they would require permission and possibly a license from Chapman. I would also suggest that any diagrams used in Chapman’s books are protected from reproduction, which, as somebody who has spent a lot of this year reading Žižek on Lacan (who fucken loves a diagram), makes my mind reel.

[2] Fun fact: I was once rejected by a job entirely based on the results of a psychometric test. Like, I’d got the job, had to do the test, and they contacted me and told me that ‘based on the test I wasn’t a good fit for the team’. I probably wasn’t a good fit, but I’m still offended – though it didn’t kill my love for personality tests. Anyway, I’m an ENFJ and I used to be an ENFP so idk what was up, they’re pretty normal results, and I personally consider myself an unafraid introvert so tbh I think the test is skewed.

On This Topic:

• The original Big Joel video in question
• Copyright guidance for academics and from CILIP is more interesting than you might think. Also there is the whole Lindsay Ellis wolf saga thing, which is honestly a great discussion of copyright law.
• Here is Rina Sawayama with a magnanimous and loving song, because LGBTQ people deserve some love and representation and an acknowledgement of the difficulty they went through, but sometimes this is as good as it gets and she knows that. And here is Chappell Roan, because the community deserves better; we could go to hell but we’ll probably be fine. Throw in the queen of queer Christianity Julien Baker just to tell homophobes to shut it.

To-Do:

• I literally have a list of people I’m planning on talking to next week, when I have time. If you just received a text from me, please forgive my intermittent attentions and know I love you.
• Plan library lunches. I bought myself a cute bento box and matching cutlery set when I was in Japan and now is the time to be using it.
• Chase up WP email

Today’s Culture:

• Getting back into bridge via the teaching of it. Although you should probably learn from somebody more qualified than me.
• The new Lucy Dacus album is a triumph. I can’t say ‘best yet’ because Historian and her work with boygenius is right there, but it belongs in the S-tier with those, I literally cannot choose. I will forever be gutted I didn’t get to see her tour this in a museum round the corner from my house.
• Whilst I’m out of work (read: focussed on my PhD and working intermittently) this summer, I want to read a long book. I intend to finish Shōgun, but is it finally time for War & Peace? Vanity Fair? I have so many long books on my list.