DOI: 10.1111/1467-9752.

12687

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Lessons in love: Countering student belief in

romantic love myths

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

Jeff Standley1,2

1
Senior Lecturer, Birmingham City University,
School of Education and Social Work,
Birmingham, UK
2
Part-time PhD Student, University of
Birmingham, School of Education, Birmingham,
UK
Correspondence
Jeff Standley, Birmingham City University, City
South Campus, Westbourne Road,
Birmingham B15 3TN, UK.
Email: jeff.standley@bcu.ac.uk;
jxs1111@student.bham.ac.uk
Abstract
The Department for Education recently administered new
Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) guidance, one of the
aims of which is to foster students’ ability to develop and main-
tain healthy romantic relationships in adulthood. However,
while an education aimed at developing this capacity in young
people is welcomed, the RSE guidance does not directly address
conceptions of romantic love that shape how we actually con-
duct our love lives. Romantic love myths are a fundamental
part of cultures across the world and greatly influence our
behaviour and decision-making in romantic relationships. Belief
in these myths is associated with negative relationship out-
comes. Therefore, if we wish to improve students’ capacity to
effectively negotiate future relationships, RSE must directly
address conceptions of romantic love and its associated myths.
This paper proposes five criteria against which to assess stu-
dent beliefs to determine appropriate educational responses
to them. Given love’s complex nature, and the manner in
which related beliefs are held, it is argued that addressing this
topic through open philosophical exploration would be a pru-
dent educational approach to adopt within the classroom. This
may temper some of the potential harms of love myths while
respecting the right of students to freely hold and pursue their
own conceptions of love.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Philosophy of Education published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Philosophy of Education Society
of Great Britain.

J Philos Educ. 2022;56:739–751. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jope 739

740 STANDLEY

KEYWORDS
Belief, philosophy in schools, relationships and sex education, romantic
love myth

INTRODUCTION

The Department for Education (DfE) recently administered new Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) guidance,
which came into force in England in September 2020. A key aim of this was to foster children’s ability to develop and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

maintain healthy romantic relationships in adulthood (DfE, 2019). However, while an education aimed at developing
this capacity in young people is welcomed, the RSE guidance does not directly address conceptions of romantic love
that shape how people actually conduct their love lives.
Romantic love myths are a fundamental part of cultures across the world and influence our behaviour and
decision-making in romantic relationships. These myths are the set of socially shared beliefs about the supposed
true nature of love that tend to become uncritically embedded in our minds at a young age and are often associ-
ated with negative relationship outcomes in adulthood (Guerra-Marmolejo et al., 2021). Therefore, if we wish to
improve students’ capacity to effectively negotiate future relationships, RSE must directly address conceptions of
romantic love and its associated myths. Given love’s complex nature, and the manner in which associated beliefs
are held, I contend that philosophical exploration of this topic would be a suitable approach to adopt within the
classroom.
I shall begin by briefly outlining the key myths of romantic love commonly held by young people and the lacuna
within the RSE guidance regarding this topic. I then propose a set of criteria for assessing different student beliefs
to determine if, when and how educators should intervene to influence or challenge these in some way. This
is then applied to love myth beliefs to evaluate the appropriateness of educators’ possible responses to them.
Based on this evaluation, I argue for the topic of romantic love to be explored through philosophical study in the
classroom. Finally, I briefly outline some alternative philosophical conceptions of romantic love that may be of edu-
cational value in problematising and enriching students’ current beliefs about love to protect them from some of
the potential harms of love myths while respecting their right to freely hold and pursue their own conceptions of
love.

ROMANTIC LOVE MYTHS

Nussbaum (1988) contends that our conceptions of love are not taught in the classroom but are learned through our
complex interactions with society. She explains that one of a child’s most potent and persuasive means of learning
about society’s values and structures is through the stories it encounters. The beliefs children come to hold about
love, and the emotional experiences that these beliefs give rise to, will be shaped by stories in some form or other.
In contemporary Western cultures, these stories are perhaps most persuasively told through the dominant range of
media, such as film, literature, music and social media, which consistently promote a particular set of myths about
romantic love (Simpson et al., 2018).
As Roland Barthes (1973) has noted, myth is created through the appropriation and repurposing of popular culture,
through which dominant ideologies come to be seen as merely the natural order of things. Media representations of
romantic love carry certain connotations about what love is and what constitutes ‘real love’ within a romantic relation-
ship. For example, from Romeo’s first view of Juliet in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (1595) to Jack’s first glimpse of
Rose in Titanic (1997), popular media is replete with instances of love at first sight, which has subsequently become
embedded as an ideal in our notions of love. Through such a process, myth ‘abolishes the complexity of human acts, it
LESSONS IN LOVE 741

gives them the simplicity of essences . . . ’ (Barthes, 1973, p. 156). As a result, the often messy and complicated reality
of love is reduced to a simple set of, arguably unrealistic, propositions and ideals.
Romantic love myths may vary across cultures, but, according to Swidler (2001), commonly consist of the following
four core tenets: (1) love is a clear, sudden and definitive feeling (exemplified in the notion of ‘love at first sight’); (2)
love is exclusive and unique (there is ‘the one’ for us out there somewhere); (3) love can overcome any barrier (‘love
conquers all’); and (4) love endures for life (reflected in the marriage vow, ‘till death us do part’). In addition to recog-
nising these, Yela (2003) notes the following additional myths: jealously is an indicator of true love, the passionate love
experienced early in a relationship should be maintained indefinitely, and monogamous love is the only natural and
proper form of relationship. Despite the radical shift in the relationship landscape over the past century, as gender

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

roles have changed and a range of non-traditional forms of romantic relationship have received greater acceptance,
belief in longstanding myths of romantic love has remained high amongst young people, regardless of their gender or
sexuality (Meier et al., 2009).
Within romantic relationships, ‘the myths of romantic love play a fundamental role, as they are the main guides
of the appropriate ways of feeling, thinking and behaving’ (Cubells-Serra et al., 2021, p. 2). As Lamy (2016) puts it,
these myths provide the script that shapes how our love lives play out. For instance, if we think a romantic inter-
est is ‘the one’, irreplaceable by anyone else, then that belief may strongly influence whether and for how long
we choose to remain in that relationship. Given the power of belief in these myths, Weissbourd et al. (2013/14)
argue that we cannot leave the education of young people regarding romantic love to popular culture—to do so
would be an ‘epic abdication of responsibility’ (p. 55). Instead, we must seek to take educative action to counter this
influence.
The recently published RSE statutory guidance for England (DfE, 2019) aims to teach what constitutes a healthy
romantic relationship, stating that students should know the following:

how to recognise the characteristics and positive aspects of healthy one-to-one intimate relationships,
which include mutual respect, consent, loyalty, trust, shared interests and outlook, sex and friendship.
(DfE, 2019, p. 29)

This intention is admirable, but despite stressing the need to ‘teach what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in
relationships’ (DfE, 2019, p. 25), the guidance is uninterested in the notion of romantic love itself. It mentions the word
‘love’ just twice, and only in a general sense unrelated to romantic affairs, ignoring a key motivating factor in such rela-
tionships. For instance, even though a healthy relationship ideally should involve mutual respect and loyalty, as the RSE
guidance notes, if an individual believes their partner is ‘the one’ and that ‘real love’ should last forever, they may feel
they should stand by their beloved no matter what, even in the face of disrespect and disloyalty. The empirical research
on the topic (which, although it primarily comes from the United States and Spain, is thought to be typical of the West-
ern mindset in general) confirms the negative outcomes associated with young people’s belief in common romantic
love myths (these shall be explored more in the following section, but are highlighted briefly here). These include unre-
alistic relationship expectations, relationship dissatisfaction and controlling and abusive behaviour towards romantic
partners (see, amongst others, Guerra-Marmolejo et al., 2021; Marcos et al., 2020; Sánchez-Hernández et al., 2020;
Simpson et al., 2018).
Simpson et al. (2018) contend that effective relationship education may lead to a reduction in immature and sim-
plistic beliefs about love and relationships. Weissbourd and Givens Rolland (2013) agree that ‘[d]one well, relationship
courses can help wipe away the myths about love’ (p. 9). So, given their association with negative relationship out-
comes, it seems a logical move to develop educational programmes that set about reducing, or even eliminating
entirely, student beliefs in romantic love myths. However, this raises an interesting philosophical question: How do
we determine when we should attempt to influence students’ beliefs in some way? Furthermore, if some intervention
is deemed appropriate, how do we determine what form this should take? In the next section, I shall explore responses
to these questions.
742 STANDLEY

DETERMINING EDUCATIONAL RESPONSES TO STUDENT BELIEFS

Expanding on the work of Michael Hand and John Tillson (whose ideas I have adapted for criteria 1–3), I propose a set
of five criteria to help assess different types of student beliefs to determine when and how, if at all, we should attempt
to influence them: (1) Veracity, (2) Momentousness, (3) Student Cognitive Attitude, (4) Sacredness and (5) Likelihood of
Independent Belief-Rejection. I shall now explain each criterion in turn, outline its relevance and consider how student
belief in romantic love myths stack up against these. Through this process, we can also begin to make greater sense of
the nature of these beliefs and the role they play in our lives. This in turn will inform our responses to them.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

Veracity

When considering educational responses to specific beliefs, Tillson (2019) suggests we should ask whether the truth
of the matter concerned is certain, merely plausible, or outright false or unfounded. Generally, educators aim to guide
students away from falsity and towards truth, or at least from groundless beliefs to well-founded ones. We obviously
possess a clearer justification for challenging beliefs when they are patently false. For example, if a student was to
express the belief that 2 + 2 = 5 or that Paris was the capital of Spain, we would have little problem in either directly
correcting them or indirectly steering them towards identifying the truth of the matter themselves.
Clearly, beliefs about romantic love are not simple errors like these, but are they false? To answer that question, we
must identify what exactly belief in these myths amounts to. Conceptually speaking, such beliefs are obviously false
in the sense that many apparently legitimate and rewarding romantic relationships do not conform to the core love
myths. We can easily point to examples of strong relationships where love did not strike suddenly and powerfully but
grew gradually over time, as with many successful arranged marriages. There are also many instances of people having
multiple satisfying romantic relationships throughout their lives, challenging the notion of ‘the one’. The same evidence
would suggest that a relationship could be positive on the whole yet not endure forever, without it invalidating the
entire romance. And there are certainly instances of loving relationships not being able to overcome certain barriers
encountered, such as the obstacle of long-distance physical separation.
So, the core tenets are apparently not necessary conditions of romantic love in the conceptual sense, but, for some,
the counterexamples detailed may simply be dismissed as not being instances of ‘true love’. Such people may hold
the literal belief that one special person exists for them, who in some sense is their ‘other half’ and soulmate, who
they would form an unconquerable and enduring love with should they encounter them. This notion is reminiscent of
Aristophanes’ myth in Plato’s Symposium of bisected humans yearning for their physical counterpart from whom the
gods have separated them. The attitudes of literal believers are reflected in everyday conversations where an individ-
ual may comment on their current partner being ‘the one’, or retrospectively judge that in fact they were not ‘the one’
once a relationship ended, given it did not endure for life as the myth demands. So, although romantic relationships
need not conform to love myths, to be considered a case of ‘true love’, some may insist they must.
Given these myths are possibly unverifiable, it is hard to completely disprove them, however, neither are they veri-
fiably true. As a result, it is improbable that all believers in romantic love myths believe in them as a marker of true love
in the literal sense. But, if so, in what other sense may people believe in them? Rather than holding a literal belief in love
myths, some may believe in these as merely representations of ideals of love. They may desire an exclusive, powerful
and enduring relationship that begins with a love at first sight experience, but not literally believe in the notion of a
single soulmate existing for them in some kind of mystical sense. If we conceive of belief in love myths like this, then
they are not empirical claims that we can simply rule to be true or false, but merely normative propositions against
which one may evaluate the merits of a relationship.
It could also be the case that a single individual may believe in some myths in the normative sense and others
in the literal. For example, they may hold the desire for an exclusive relationship as an ideal, while also holding that
they could realise this with multiple possible loves (disbelieving in the myth of ‘the one’). But, concurrently, they may
LESSONS IN LOVE 743

believe that whoever they partner with should remain with them for life if the love is ‘real’ (believing in the myth of an
enduring love). Furthermore, Swidler (2001) notes that many people actually vacillate between contradictory visions
of love—back and forth from more pragmatic views to more idealistic, though rarely escaping the influence of love
myths entirely. In any case, when referring to believers in love myths, I have in mind all of these types of belief man-
ifestations. This is because, regardless of how the beliefs are held, they will inevitably influence people’s relationship
behaviour and decision-making to a considerable extent.
Where does this assessment of the veracity of love myths leave us? Hand (2008) advocates an elegant solution
for determining when educators may be obliged to encourage or discourage belief in some matter, or to maintain a
more neutral stance. The epistemic criterion posits that when an issue is epistemically settled, even if disagreement may

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

still persist between people, then we should guide our students towards the truth of the matter, as supported by the
available arguments and evidence. But romantic love myths cannot be decisively settled epistemically. Literal beliefs
in the myths may not be demonstrably false but are arguably sufficiently unfounded and overly reductive enough of
love’s complexity for us to approach with scepticism in the classroom. However, where the beliefs are held as ideals
in the normative sense, their veracity is far more controversial. The ideal of an exclusive, enduring love that strikes
one powerfully and suddenly is arguably a valid one to hold. When addressing a controversial matter of this type, the
epistemic criterion guides educators towards facilitating a more neutral exploration of the topic in the classroom—an
approach I endorse.

Momentousness

Momentousness in this context pertains to the degree of impact certain beliefs are likely to have on how one conducts
one’s life and what difference it would make if one’s beliefs were right or wrong (Hand, 2004; Tillson, 2019). Love is a
matter of central importance in most people’s lives, and, as already noted, our beliefs about love inevitably influence
our attitudes and behaviour towards our romantic relationships, whether or not we are conscious of this. Given the
extent to which children’s beliefs about love will likely shape key decisions taken in their adult lives, they are clearly
a matter of educational worth, assuming education is concerned with preparing children for how to live well in adult-
hood. Though these beliefs are obviously momentous in nature, it is worth taking some time to consider how they may
specifically shape one’s relationships.
The empirical literature on the topic suggests that belief in love myths is common in young people and often has a
negative impact on relationships. Evidence suggests they set unrealistic expectations, which increases the likelihood
of disappointment, disillusionment and relationship breakdown (Simpson et al., 2018). This is understandable consid-
ering the sheer weight of arguably impossible expectations placed on an individual to be the perfect soulmate whose
love will never waver. Indeed, as Franiuk et al. (2012) have shown, individuals who are strong or ‘pure soulmate theo-
rists’ (who subscribe fully to certain core love myths) are more likely to experience relationship dissatisfaction when
they do not feel their partner fit is ideal, which is a problem if the ‘ideal’ partner does not actually exist. But the neg-
ative impact of being unable to fulfil relationship expectations is far from the only problem stemming from romantic
love myths—they can also shape the interpersonal dynamics of relationships in potentially unhealthy ways.
When we form a relationship, a sort of tacit contractual agreement occurs between each party that shapes their
shared understanding of the parameters of the relationship and what they consent to by choosing to be a part of it. But
when one or both of the parties concerned subscribes to romantic love myths, this contract must be punctuated by a
series of clauses that place potentially harmful constraints on their relationship. Someone being ‘the one’ (exclusivity
clause) means they are inextricably tied to us, and not just for a time, but for life (enduring clause), with nothing being
permitted to break that tie (unconquerable clause).
These clauses posit the beloved as somehow belonging to their partner, without the option to stay or leave, or
to choose another (after all, there can only be one ‘one’). This increases the likelihood of a relationship marked by
possessiveness and control, which often takes the form of male over female possession in opposite-sex
744 STANDLEY

relationships. This is because societal expectations have traditionally afforded men more independence in relation-
ships, while women have been expected to give up their autonomy (Beauvoir, 1972; Soble, 1997). This holds to a
greater or lesser extent depending on whether one subscribes to love myths as literal truths or merely normative
ideals. The former will contend that this is how a romantic relationship must be, and the latter how it should be. In each
case, it seems the outcome may be broadly similar.
The empirical research confirms that romantic love myths are used to justify men’s controlling behaviour of women
and women’s commitment to abusive relationships (Sánchez-Hernández et al., 2020). The literature also reveals a
strong relationship between belief in romantic love myths and the holding of sexist attitudes and double standards;
taken together, these three factors are also strong indicators of gender-based violence, particularly against women

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

(Guerra-Marmolejo et al., 2021; Marcos et al., 2020). Ronald de Sousa (2015) refers to an extreme example of this
phenomenon amongst women in a Scottish prison, who held the shared belief that ‘a man only loves you if he beats
you . . . ’—failure to do so . . . showed that he didn’t care’ (p. 14). That love equates to a form of possession of the other
and necessarily involves suffering are further examples of love myths, inextricably tied to the core myths outlined
earlier, which help to sustain unhealthy relationships.
Though the empirical evidence does indeed suggest love myths often lead to negative outcomes for individuals
and relationships, we must avoid overlooking their potentially positive influences. In order to have the most profound
experiences of awe, wonder and ecstasy within romantic relationships, it seems reasonable to assume we must enter
them believing in love’s capacity to produce such outcomes. If true love is not confined to ‘the one’, is not enduring and
does not strike us like the proverbial lightning bolt, it may seem less special. Similar to a placebo effect, where one feels
an improvement in one’s health because one has the false belief that some faux medical intervention will induce this,
powerful experiences of love seem to carry an almost mystical character that may be most reliably produced through
holding questionable beliefs about love’s supposed mystical nature.
Indeed, there is empirical evidence to support the claim that unwarranted positive beliefs about relationships can
have a positive self-fulfilling effect (Murray et al., 1996). It makes sense that if someone believed their partner was ‘the
one’ and that love could overcome any hurdle, they may be more likely to persist through difficult times to develop a
deeper and more fulfilling relationship, thus seemingly proving the myths true (though conversely, one may be willing
to remain in a harmful relationship for longer too).
Do we have the right to limit people’s potential for such profound experiences of love, even if they likely result in
disappointment, pain and poorer outcomes in the long term? We are arguably going beyond our educational remit if we
completely remove this option by simply seeking to rid our students of belief in all love myths. But we must at least pro-
vide alternative conceptions of love for their consideration, which may provide a measure of balance to student ideas
about love and limit some of their worst excesses, including the tendency of love myths to oversimplify the complex
nature of romantic relationships.

Cognitive attitude

In cases where a belief could not be clearly determined to be true or false, and where no specific cognitive attitude
was warranted towards a proposition, as with belief in romantic love myths, Tillson (2019) argues that we should ask
whether the matter of concern ‘might well not be understood and rationally evaluated without intervention’ (p. 94).
I think little argument is required to support the claim that love is an aspect of many people’s lives where rationality
often falls by the wayside.
When in love, we often lack a clear understanding of many of our feelings, thoughts and behaviours, or those of
our beloved. We may also not be fully cognisant of our own beliefs about love and how these were formed, given
the way they are unconsciously absorbed from a wide variety of influences throughout childhood. Consequently, our
focus within any intervention should be to support students towards a better understanding of notions of romantic
love and an enhanced capacity for rationally reflecting upon their own action-guiding beliefs concerning this. This is
LESSONS IN LOVE 745

not to say that it is always wise to over-rationalise love—indeed, it seems that doing so may prove a hindrance to its
flourishing in some cases—but we at least want to lessen the negative influence that certain unchecked beliefs may
have on relationships.

Sacredness

Another reason, apart from their epistemically settled status, as to why correcting beliefs from the ‘simple error’
category would not be considered controversial, is that they are in no way sacred or fundamental to an individual’s

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

worldview. Learning that Madrid rather than Paris was the capital of Spain is unlikely to cause anyone distress or cast
doubt on the entire framework of beliefs that guide their life choices. However, when confronted with certain reli-
gious or philosophical convictions, even though they may lack epistemic warrant, it would generally be considered
controversial to directly challenge or try to ‘correct’ them. It seems we could not do so without causing potential psy-
chological distress and offence. Given the internal conflict this may trigger, such attempts may induce psychological
reactance. This occurs when someone feels that some aspect of their freedom (their religious freedom, for instance) is
threatened, which may result in greater attachment to their original convictions and anger towards the source of the
threat (such as a direct challenge to their beliefs) (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2020). So, challenging such beliefs, whether this
involved telling children that true love or even God did not really exist, may prove counterproductive.
Further to these practical barriers to belief-change, we must also be aware of possible legal barriers. Fundamen-
tal beliefs that shape life choices are afforded protection under rights legislation. Article 14 of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states: ‘State Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion’. Freedom of conscience is taken to refer to any kind of ethical or philosophical belief
that significantly impacts one’s way of living, regardless of whether it is theistic or non-theistic in nature, or whether it
is objectively true (de Jong, 2000). Our beliefs about love and relationships seem to have the potential to greatly shape
our way of life, more so than the vast majority of other beliefs we hold, so would fit this criterion. But what does it mean
for state parties to ‘respect’ these? Respect in this sense may be considered to involve some degree of protection of a
belief (Vandenhole et al., 2019). Any attempt to directly change a protected belief could certainly be construed as not
adhering to this principle.
According to the UN charter, limitations placed on beliefs in rights legislation are only concerned with their man-
ifestations, not their content. This may explain the singular focus on the practical aspect of relationships in the RSE
guidance and the absence of interest in addressing conceptions of love directly. Indeed, the DfE (2019) makes it clear
that RSE ‘must be taught sensitively . . . with respect to the backgrounds and beliefs of pupils’ (p. 4). But given the
evidence that associates belief in romantic love myths with poor outcomes, even though we may want to respect
these beliefs, we must act out of concern for their possible consequences. Though the action taken may not involve
directly attempting to somehow eradicate these beliefs, it must seek to alleviate the most egregious aspects of their
manifestation.

Likelihood of independent belief-rejection

One way educators may relieve themselves of any responsibility for countering student beliefs about love is if
these were likely to come to be rejected independently, based on young people’s assessment of the evidence
acquired through their personal experiences. As I have previously argued in relation to belief in the Santa Claus
myth, educators can justify not intervening to correct this false belief on the grounds that children will inevitably
soon revise this independently anyway, and will garner developmental benefits through the cognitive achievement
of doing so (Standley, 2020). Some may view belief in romantic love myths as similar to belief in Santa, as some-
thing idealised and immature that experience and maturity will rectify. Through early experiences of ‘puppy love’,
746 STANDLEY

young people may realise that love was not quite what was sold to them in popular culture and revise their beliefs
accordingly.
The strategy of leaving young people to make mistakes in their early romantic forays and to independently learn
from these offers various benefits. Learning through one’s own cognitive agency may be considered preferable to
learning through testimony (Pritchard, 2013), given it involves an individual generating their own empirical evidence
to support their newfound beliefs. Additionally, the likelihood of psychological reactance occurring is reduced, as the
source of belief conflict is generated internally rather than via an external threat. However, the cost of leaving these
beliefs to be self-rectified is too high.
Though rates of belief may dip over time, it is clear that many do hold onto belief in romantic love myths into

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

older age. It is certainly not unusual to encounter people in middle age still hoping to find ‘the one’. These beliefs do
not carry an inbuilt expiry date, unlike belief in Santa Claus, so we cannot be sure they will be outgrown. Also, some
people may make life-altering decisions about matters like marriage and children under the influence of these beliefs
before they may come to revise them. So, even when belief-revision does occur, it may be too late to prevent negative
consequences, some of which could be significant in nature—too significant to ignore.

LOVE AND PHILOSOPHY IN THE CLASSROOM

In summary, belief in romantic love myths significantly shapes our behaviour and decision-making in romantic rela-
tionships, sometimes with negative outcomes. Given these beliefs will not necessarily be outgrown as young people
mature, or at least not until harm has been incurred, educators should attempt to address such beliefs in the classroom.
However, any educative action should not simply seek to directly change these beliefs, given they may make possible
some profoundly positive experiences that some may not wish to give up, are epistemically controversial and may be
considered convictions of such central importance in one’s life that they must be treated with respect. While adhering
to these constraints, I shall now attempt to briefly detail a classroom strategy for studying the topic of romantic love
and assessing the competing beliefs and claims about its nature.
But how do we go about evaluating conceptualisations of love and their associated myths? As de Sousa
(2015) notes, we cannot reach a consensus regarding the truth of love as we would in fields like science and
mathematics:

When assessing a mathematical proof, all those deemed competent enough to understand it are
expected to agree. In all but the most arcane branches of mathematics, there is no room for saying:
‘I understand what you’re saying, but I disagree.’ In the case of physical phenomena and their explana-
tion, disagreement and debate are normal; but we expect a scientific consensus to emerge. When such
disputes are settled, that confirms our conviction that they refer to objective facts. . . But that does not
seem to be true of love. (pp. 6–7)

As many love beliefs refer to ideals about how to live one’s life, and in the case of literal belief in love myths may be
beyond empirical testing, a discussion of their merits fits firmly within the realm of philosophy. Lipman et al. (1980)
explain that philosophy is a discipline that seeks to introduce some criteria of excellence into our thinking processes
that can benefit children as thinkers. The authors note that it also helps children to think well about questions of central
importance to their lives, where easy answers do not present themselves. Returning to the views of Hand (2018), he
argues that the best justification for philosophical study within the school classroom is philosophy’s special ability to
tackle such prominent problems relevant to children’s worlds.
Gatley (2021) builds on Hand’s view, noting that the central educational value of philosophy is its capac-
ity to analyse and clarify ordinary concepts, which in turn help us to pose meaningful questions pertinent to
our everyday lives, such as ‘what is love?’ (p. 67). Such questions are not niche philosophical matters of value
LESSONS IN LOVE 747

only to serious philosophers—the kinds of questions Hand (2018) acknowledges we may be justified in sidestep-
ping in the classroom—children’s personal answers to these queries will go some way to shaping their romantic
relationships in their adult lives. It is therefore worth dedicating some serious thought to the kind of answers,
in the form of their personal philosophies of love, young people carry forth beyond the school gates into
adulthood.
A good place to start any education about romantic love would be to prompt students to reflect on and identify their
own beliefs about it. They can then start separating the likely truths from the probable myths, and the positive values
from the negative. In order to decipher myths and how they shape our beliefs, Barthes (1973) explains that we must
examine them in the context in which they were originally generated and communicated. By examining expressions of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

romantic love in film, literature, music and other forms of media, we can identify which myths are conveyed. We can
then make sense of the process of naturalisation where they came to be accepted as true rather than being politically,
socially and historically determined. Work can then begin on comparing the identified love myths with alternative
philosophical accounts, to help aid interrogation of their meaning and value.
Proposing a single preferable alternative philosophy of love for students to ponder would not facilitate a sufficient
exploration of love’s intricate complexities or any unravelling of its apparent contradictions. As de Sousa (2015) points
out, ‘Given the puzzles and paradoxes that lurk about the concept of love, no single approach will suffice to make sense
of it’ (p. 16). Similarly, Singer (2011) recognises that the complex and debatable nature of the phenomena means ‘one
should not look for a unitary solution to the nature of love’ (p. 17). Instead, by exposing students to a variety of con-
trasting conceptions of love, we may broaden their horizons and problematise their belief in romantic love myths by
prompting deeper reflection on these convictions. Our aim in studying this matter is not to profess what we consider
the truth of love to be (or not to be), but to provide students with the tools to determine and more meaningfully sub-
stantiate their own views. Exposure to some alternative conceptualisations of love’s nature, some examples of which I
shall share in the next section of the paper, may lead students to internalise these alongside or in place of existing ones.
This may help to mitigate the worst excesses of romantic love myth belief without directly attempting to eliminate the
beliefs themselves.
Once a range of competing conceptions about love and the related sets of beliefs that stem from these have been
identified and explored, students can work on extrapolating the likely outcomes of these, should they be carried into
relationships. A useful exercise may be to try to connect different theories of love and beliefs about its nature back to
the healthy prescription for romantic relationships outlined in the RSE guidance. This may help to determine which set
of beliefs are most likely to bring about such a relationship and which will most likely hinder this. This offers a way of
integrating the philosophical approach to learning about love with existing policy on relationship education while also
filling the gap that currently exists within this.

ALTERNATIVE PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTIONS OF ROMANTIC LOVE

I shall close this paper with a necessarily brief sketch of some alternative conceptions of love from the philosophical
literature that may counteract some of the main problems posed by belief in romantic love myths, three of which I
shall consider here: (1) They tend to lead to controlling and possessive behaviour (especially men over women); (2)
They tend to lead to unhealthy relationship dynamics, such as dependency; (3) Their focus largely rests on the object
of love, not on the actual act of loving, creating unrealistic expectations of the beloved and resulting in an abdication of
the responsibility to love well. In response to these issues (just a small sample of those posed by romantic love myths),
I shall now outline three different philosophical conceptions of love. In doing so, I shall consider how each of these
conceptions facilitates classroom discussion that offers a counterpoint to the identified relationship problems and
to the core love myths themselves. These should not be taken to be the only philosophical perspectives of worth—
indeed, I welcome more academic work that evaluates which philosophical views may be of most value for classroom
study.
748 STANDLEY

Love is a ‘robust concern’ for the beloved

This view places our caring for our partner’s welfare and happiness for their own sake as paramount to what it means
to love them (Helm, 2021). It is less about my feelings or individual view regarding the person and more about a sta-
ble motivational drive that shapes my behaviour towards them. My concern for my beloved’s welfare and happiness
reshapes my identity in such a way that I become vulnerable to what happens to them (White, 2001). Consequently,
as Fromm (1956) remarks, ‘When that concern is lacking, there is no love’ (p. 25). If I merely admire their beauty, enjoy
being near them or derive only sexual pleasure from them (not that love should not also involve such things), my love,
if we could even refer to it as such, would be deficient.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

De Sousa (2015) explains that this model of love is often tainted by the monogamist ideology that underpins com-
mon romantic love myths, which adds the condition that ‘I want your happiness but only if I cause it’ (p. 101). This
skewed perspective results in our own ego taking precedence over the welfare of our beloved and possessiveness
undermining the beneficence of our love. This prompts an interesting question worthy of class discussion: When does
caring become controlling? If I decide a certain action is in my beloved’s best interests, should I take it even if she does
not approve? If her welfare is my prime concern, it seems that I must. Singer (2011) contends that this view misunder-
stands notions of care and concern. To truly care for my beloved, it is necessary that I respect her autonomy, without
which she cannot flourish. And, as de Sousa (2015) adds, if ‘love is the joy of contemplating the beloved’s autonomy’ (p.
101), it should not be on the condition that they make ‘appropriate’ use of this. For him, care requires the relinquishing
of control, not the assertion of this.
This view pushes back somewhat against the sense of ownership of the other that can be associated with the notion
that they are ‘the one’ for us, and so in some sense ‘ours’. The patriarchal structure of society typically reinforces such
attitudes, generally placing the woman (in opposite-sex relationships) as the object to be possessed whose autonomy
must be restricted (Soble, 1997). As Beauvoir (1972) recognised in The Second Sex, whereas love forms just a part of a
man’s life, a woman traditionally must give up herself entirely to love, without reservation, thus sacrificing her inde-
pendence. Women historically have not entered into love from the same position as men, resulting in an imbalance in
romantic relationships, with men retaining a greater degree of autonomy. Beauvoir explains that this state of affairs
is sustained by further myths of romantic love, which posits that ‘loving is a woman’s central vocation . . . ’ and that ‘. . .
loving is what confirms a woman in her womanliness’ (Morgan, 1991, p. 396). It is hoped that this social inequity is
beginning to be rectified, but sensitive classroom discussion of these gender-based issues may help to accelerate this
process.
To allow our beloved the autonomy they require to flourish, there are various things we must seek to do. For Fromm
(1956), we must aim to overcome our own narcissistic tendencies to be able to respect our lover for who they are and
to allow them the space to be autonomous. For Lehrer (1997), we must learn to trust our beloved and the preferences
they hold that shape the autonomous choices they make. Without that trust, fear may lead to attempts to restrict their
independence. The importance of mutual respect and trust takes us back to the prescription of a healthy relationship
outlined in the RSE guidance, which will be a helpful link for students to make.

Love is a union

Several philosophers define love as a union between people, creating either a partial or total fusion of our cares
and concerns, rather than as an attitude held towards another. Nozick (1991) posits that love is constituted by our
reciprocated desire to form a ‘we’ with our beloved. This ‘we’ is a new entity in the world formed by a fresh set of inter-
connected relations between lovers that extinguishes their separateness. Erich Fromm’s (1956) classic treatise The Art
of Loving (all references to Fromm refer to this source) champions love’s power to break through the barriers that sep-
arate humans to overcome our isolation through union with others. But he warns that a mature love must still permit
us to retain our integrity, be ourselves and avoid dependency. When we pool our concerns as a couple, do I actually
LESSONS IN LOVE 749

give up my own concerns and sense of integrity? If not, are you forced to give up yours? And, as Soble (1997) points out
as a source of tension between the robust concern and union models of love, if your concerns become mine through
union, am I acting purely in self-interest in caring about them? These are all interesting and pertinent questions for
class discussion.
Fromm warns us of the dangers of attempting to fuse completely with our beloved, which carries the risk of ‘sym-
biotic attachment’ and dependency. This is often expressed in the form of one partner becoming passive and the other
dominating, or ‘enlarged egotism’, where we subsume the identity of the other completely into our own (Fromm, 1956,
p. 38). If we become totally wrapped up in one person and love only them, it encourages an indifference to others,
reducing our actual love for the world more broadly. To counter such dangers, Singer (2011) advocates the federation

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

model of union. He promotes love as each individual maintaining their own personal identity and interests, alongside
a third shared identity in which some of their interests and concerns are pooled, similar to how American states retain
a degree of independence whilst also forming a larger shared identity as the United States.
Vernon (2013) explains that this triangular form of love makes space in a relationship beyond the claustrophobic
confines of the couple, where they can be more sensitive to the world beyond themselves and increase their self-
awareness. Fromm feels this stance is necessary because love is not primarily an attitude towards a specific person,
but an orientation of character towards all, whether expressed in brotherly, motherly, erotic or self-love. Considering
love in this broader sense, reflective of Ancient Greek views, may make for a useful classroom exercise. Ultimately, it
seems desirable to cultivate loving attitudes in this more expansive sense, rather than the desire to hoard all of one’s
love within a single all-consuming relationship.

Love is an activity

For Fromm, the dominant ideology of love, which underpins common myths, leads most people to believe that it is
constituted by the love object rather than by our faculty for love. He contends that love is not about just finding the
right person; it is, rather, an activity. It is something we do. Just as the painter must learn the art of painting well, rather
than simply finding the right object to paint, we must seek to develop our capacity to love well. Fromm acknowledges
that this view of love goes against the dominant Western cultural ideology, where love must strike spontaneously and
powerfully. This puts the emphasis fully on the peculiarities of the individuals involved, which ignores the fact that we
are all largely the same, and could potentially love many others.
De Sousa (2015) also notes that our love for any particular individual is contingent. For example, say I love Tia, but
all of the qualities I adore in her are also possessed to an even greater degree by Priya, who I do not meet until I am
already in love with Tia. Therefore, on meeting Priya, I find I have no romantic interest in her. On the contrary, if I had
met Priya first, I could well have fallen in love with her and been romantically indifferent to Tia on meeting her later. If
the object of love is contingent in this way, it seems to strike a blow against mythical notions of ‘the one’, helping us to
focus more on the activity of love. This shifts the focus away from placing unrealistic expectations on our beloved and
puts it back on ourselves and our own behaviour within the relationship.
Fromm thinks we must aim to see our beloved more objectively as they really are, as an individual who embodies a
particular set of human qualities and frailties, rather than as a mythical soulmate figure. In particular, Fromm thinks we
should focus more on the active application of will, rather than considering ourselves passive recipients of love’s light-
ning bolt. A simple feeling alone will not sustain a long-term relationship—feelings will wax and wane—our judgements,
decisions, commitment and acts of will are what make a sustained and deep love possible (assuming such a love is our
goal). To achieve this, just as the painter works on his art, we must work on ourselves and our capacity to love, which
is a constant and ongoing challenge. Thinking about love in this manner may help students to re-evaluate any possible
obsessive and illusionary interest they may come to hold in potential love objects and instead move their focus back to
themselves, and what they must do to be ready to love and to love well. Indeed, maybe a central aim of RSE should be
to support students in their preparations towards this outcome.
750 STANDLEY

CONCLUDING REMARKS

There is little that we consider more valuable in our lives than romantic love. But despite its central importance, we
devote little time to educating young people about it and helping them to make sense of their conceptions and beliefs
about love that will shape their future romantic relationships. Though the DfE’s attempt to promote awareness of the
characteristics of a healthy loving relationship through relationships and sex education is positive, I have argued that
it does not go far enough. To help young people develop the capacity to make such relationships a reality, we must first
help them to learn about love’s nature and how their own beliefs about this, especially those pertaining to romantic
love myths, influence their behaviour in relationships.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

More academic work aimed at considering how to best address this vital topic in the classroom, and at evaluating
the range of philosophies of love that may be of educational value, would be warmly welcomed. Identifying the most
effective approaches and lesson content for prompting young people to reflect on and evaluate the ideals and beliefs
they hold about love seems an appropriate means of empowering them to reduce some of the pernicious influences
of romantic love myths within their future relationships. Finally, I think that further attempts at applying the criteria
presented in this paper for evaluating educational responses to student beliefs to other pertinent topics, or at further
developing and refining these criteria, would be of considerable academic value in the philosophy of education field.

ORCID
Jeff Standley https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0469-1382

REFERENCES
Barthes, R. (1973) Mythologies. Translated by A. Lavers. London: Paladin. Original 1957.
Beauvoir, S. de (1972) The second sex. Translated by H.M. Parshey. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Original published in 1949.
Cubells-Serra, J., Sánchez-Sicilia, A., Astudillo-Mendoza, P., Escandón-Nagel, N. & Baeza-Rivera, M.J. (2021) Assumption of
the myths of romantic love: its relationship with sex, type of sex-affective relationship, and sexual orientation. Frontiers in
Sociology, 6(May), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.621646
De Jong, C.D. (2000) The freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief in the United Nations (1946–1992). Intersentia:
Cambridge.
Department for Education (2019) Relationships education, relationships and sex education (RSE) and health education. London:
DfE.
Franiuk, R., Shain, E.A., Bieritz, L. & Murray, C. (2012) Relationship theories and relationship violence: is it beneficial to believe
in soulmates? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(6), 820–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512444374
Fromm, E. (1956) The art of loving. New York: Harper & Row.
Gatley, J. (2021) The educational value of analytic philosophy. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 7(1), 59–77.
https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2020.9
Guerra-Marmolejo, C., Fernández- Fernández, E., González-Cano-Caballero, G.-G., del Río, F.J. & Fernández-Ordóñez, E.
(2021) Factors related to gender violence and sex education in adolescents: a cross-sectional study. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5836. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115836
Hand, M. (2004) Religious education. In: White, J. (Ed.) Rethinking the school curriculum: values, aims and purpose. London:
Routledge Falmer, pp. 152–164.
Hand, M. (2008) What should we teach as controversial? A defense of the epistemic criterion. Educational Theory, 58(2), 213–
228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2008.00285.x
Hand, M. (2018) On the distinctive educational value of philosophy. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 5(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/
10.21913/jps.v5i1.1481
Helm, B. (2021) Love. In: Zalta, Z.N. (Ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/love/ [Accessed 22nd November 2021].
Lamy, L. (2016) Beyond emotion: love as an encounter of myth and drive. Emotion Review, 8(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1754073915594431
Lehrer, K. (1997) Love and autonomy. In: Lamb, R.E. (Ed.) Love analyzed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 107–122.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A.M. & Oscanyan, F.S. (1980) Philosophy in the classroom. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Marcos, V., Gancedo, Y., Castro, B. & Selaya, A. (2020) Dating violence victimization, perceived gravity in dating violence behav-
iors, sexism, romantic love myths and emotional dependence between female and male adolescents. Revista Iberoamericana
de Psicologia y Salud, 11(2), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.23923/j.rips.2020.02.040
LESSONS IN LOVE 751

Meier, A., Hull, K.E. & Ortyl, T.A. (2009) Young adult relationship values at the intersection of gender and sexuality. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 71(3), 510–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00616.x
Morgan, K.P. (1991) Romantic love, altruism and self-respect. In: Solomon, R.C. & Higgins, K.M. (Eds.) The philosophy of (erotic)
love. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, pp. 391–414.
Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G. & Griffin, D.W. (1996) The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: love
is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1155–1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.71.6.1155
Nozick, R. (1991) Love’s Bond. In: Solomon, R.C. & Higgins, K.M. (Eds.) The philosophy of (erotic) love. Lawrence: University Press
of Kansas, pp. 417–432.
Nussbaum, M. (1988) Narrative emotions: Beckett’s genealogy of love. Ethics, 98(2), 225–254.
Pritchard, D. (2013) Epistemic virtue and the epistemology of education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(2), 236–247.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/56/5/739/7000128 by guest on 07 February 2023

https://doi.org/10.1007/sl
Rosenberg, B.D. & Siegel, J.T. (2020) Reactance and spiritual possibilities: an application of psychological reactance theory.
In: Vail, K.E. & Routledge, C. (Eds.) The science of religion, spirituality, and existentialism. London: Academic Press, pp. 67–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-817204-9.00006-8
Sánchez-Hernández, M.D., Herrera-Enríquez, M.C. & Expósito, F. (2020) Controlling behaviors in couple relationships in the
digital age: acceptability of gender violence, sexism, and myths about romantic love. Psychosocial Intervention, 29(2), 67–81.
https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2020a1
Simpson, D.M., Leonhardt, N.D. & Hawkins, A.J. (2018) Learning about love: a meta-analytic study of individually-oriented
relationship education programs for adolescents and emerging adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(3), 477–489.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0725-1
Singer, I. (2011) Philosophy of love: a partial summing-up. London: MIT Press.
Soble, A. (1997) Union, autonomy and concern. In: Lamb, R.E. (Ed.) Love analyzed. Oxford: Westview Press, pp. 65–92.
de Sousa, R. (2015) Love: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Standley, J. (2020) The Santa Claus deception: the ethics of educator involvement. Theory and Research in Education, 18(2),
174–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878520947042
Swidler, A. (2001) Talk of love: how culture matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tillson, J. (2019) Children, religion and the ethics of influence. London: Bloomsbury.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (1989) Convention on the rights of the child. Geneva: United Nations
Human Rights. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Vandenhole, W., Türkelli, G.E. & Lembrechts, S. (2019) Children’s rights: a commentary on the convention on the rights of the child
and its protocols. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Vernon, M. (2013) What is love? Aeon. Available at: https://aeon.co/essays/true-love-lies-beyond-the-claustrophobia-of-
romance?s=09 [Accessed 3rd October 2021].
Weissbourd, R. & Givens Rolland, R. (2013) Learning about love. How schools can better prepare students for romantic
relationships. Harvard Education Letter, 29(2), 4–10.
Weissbourd, R., Peterson, A. & Weinstein, E. (2013/2014) Preparing students for romantic relationships. Phi Delta Kappan,
95(4), 54–58.
White, R.J. (2001) Love’s philosophy. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Yela, C. (2003) Love from social psychology. Madrid: Pirámide.

How to cite this article: Standley, J. (2022) Lessons in love: Countering student belief in romantic love myths.
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 56, 739–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12687