“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters” (Austen)
So begins Pride and Prejudice, one of the most popular romantic novels in history. From its very first lines it exposes us to how the society of its time perceived love and marriage. Reading it in 2024, I can't help but feel the distance of these words from the reality we live in today—as if the love Austen described looked less and less like our modern lives. Why? What has changed about love and about the way we see it?
Jane Austen wrote her book in an England of rigid class structures and little social mobility, where marrying was seen as a strategic move in search of financial stability and higher social status. Yet a woman's role was tied mainly to the domestic sphere, and her access to education or employment was restricted compared to a man's.
Austen's narrative transcends its historical context. The development of the relationship between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy toward an interaction based on mutual respect and affection is a critique of the tradition of marriage as mere social and financial obligation, and it proposes that love can be more than that.
We have become more individualistic. Lonelier. The automobile, our pretty suburban homes, digital social networks, and the growing difficulty of interacting with other people have radically transformed the way we build relationships in the twenty-first century. This love built out of mutual respect and affection is not unique to the relationship between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. It is a total shift in our society's expectations. It is an evolution of romantic relationships that has been observed by Anthony Giddens.
Giddens observes that in modernity there are changes in the expectations of heterosexual romantic interaction: a romantic love develops in which one no longer chooses a partner by family, traditional, or economic rules, but by their personal qualities (Giddens, 1992).
Romantic love is a phenomenon of modernity. It represents the individuality we are able to develop once we stop thinking of the family as the essential unit of society. Now, choosing a partner is similar to doing the shopping at the supermarket. We don't buy the same products as everyone else, nor in the same quantities. We choose by analyzing what aligns with our needs, what we like to eat, what falls within our comfort zone to prepare, and what is healthy for us (though this last step isn't always the same in romantic relationships) (Giddens, 1992).
But this is not the love that transforms the twenty-first century, and that Jane Austen speaks of. That love is "confluent love." This love rests on the equal participation of both sexes, in a pure relationship that exists for its own sake and is sustained only as long as both individuals are happy. It is a relationship of emotional communication, in which there is sexual and emotional equality (Giddens, 1992).
The cry of "I just don't know if he loves me"—once heard from the rooftops of tenement buildings as women confessed their romantic disappointments to their friends—has been replaced by "if you don't love me, we can't be together" and "tell me you love me." And, as if that weren't enough, those rooftop conversations have themselves been disappearing. As if finally being heard by the man gave the woman so much peace and security that she no longer even wants to gather with her friends.
This transformation becomes possible thanks to multiple changes in people's ways of life brought about by modernization and globalization (Giddens, 1992). The family and religious traditions lose their influence as arbiters of sexuality as people pursue their own individuality, with the goal of continuous personal development. The growing power of science over intimacy reduces the insecurity of having sex before marriage. And the de-feminization of love hands the reins of relationships to the individual and creates the expectation that the man will participate actively in the relationship (Giddens, 1992).
The couple becomes a process of constructing identity and lifestyle, grounded in trust, individuality, and free choice in our lives. This new kind of couple often results in more egalitarian, happier relationships with greater autonomy (Tenorio Tovar, 2012). But at the same time, they become contingent in nature, where fear of commitment breeds insecurity, resulting in higher levels of anxiety and addiction. In this era of unprecedented freedom we encounter a conflict: we value the commitment and security of a lasting relationship, but we long for the freedom to change course and leave that relationship if necessary.
We also observe an evolution in the kinds of people who form couples. The decline of social pressure has opened the door to previously unthinkable relationships, such as same-sex and interracial unions. These changes, though subtle, reflect a progressive erosion of the taboos surrounding unconventional relationships. Studies reveal that young adults from sexual minorities are more willing to explore relationships with people of different races or in less stable economic situations than their heterosexual counterparts, thereby challenging established traditions. Individuals have more freedom, and therefore feel empowered to make less traditional choices (Hull, 2010).
Despite the existence of confluent love, the presence of traditional or romantic love is still felt. For example, in one study, Ann Swidler found that when people talk about love and relationships, they oscillate between two contradictory visions of intimacy. On one hand, they recognize that love and relationships require hard work to be sustained; on the other, they hold that the permanence of relationships should be taken for granted, even in strong marriages (Hull, 2010). This discourse reflects what Giddens calls confluent love, but it also draws on elements of romantic love, such as the belief in an eternal love capable of overcoming any obstacle.
Swidler suggests that this duality arises because, while the pragmatic view aligns with people's everyday experience of love, the myth of romantic love corresponds to fundamental elements of marriage as an institution and to ideas transmitted by earlier generations and the media (Hull, 2010). Despite the emergence of a new model of intimacy, marriage as a social institution keeps the romantic model culturally relevant. This persistence is surprising, since it contradicts the idea of a total transformation of intimacy and suggests that marriage still retains its influence over modern relationships.
In "late modernity," characterized by the dynamism of social change, as Giddens indicates, globalization introduces and facilitates access to new cultural patterns and models (Giddens, 1995: 28). This accelerated change applies to every social interaction and practice, taking on the same fast, multicultural nature that characterizes other sectors of life in a globalized world. It is therefore common to observe people holding both visions of love in mind at once.
Today, romantic relationships are immersed in a distinct social and cultural context, one that involves changes in individual attitudes and in collective social perception. Despite the great social openness to choose what we want, we cannot forget that every choice is defined by the subject's real material and social situation, whose influence is increasingly relevant.
The rise of a network of incels (involuntary celibates) who struggle to find a partner—submerged in loneliness and in addiction to adult digital content—is a product of the constant challenge that finding a partner represents in a world that is ever more globalized and digitized, where physical interaction is overshadowed by digital interaction.
Carol Smart and Beccy Shipman criticize Giddens's theory of a radical transformation of intimacy in the modern world precisely because it ignores this aspect (Hull, 2010). They argue that Giddens fails by not prioritizing the diversity of cultural values and practices that exist in the Western world.
To truly understand love in modernity, one must understand everything that surrounds the individual, including their capacity to interact emotionally and their access to different types of capital. The fact that Giddens doesn't take these factors into account also prevents him from explaining other phenomena in romantic relationships, such as gender inequity—especially in household chores, where even in "apparently egalitarian" heterosexual couples there is a constant disparity in the distribution of work that leans disproportionately toward the woman (Hull, 2010).
Conclusion
The concept of love in our modern era is in constant evolution, shaped by globalization and by the loosening of traditional social norms and pressures. This transformation reflects a complex interweaving of individual freedom and cultural change, where old conventions give way to new forms of relationship and of expressing love.
Globalization has expanded love's horizons, allowing forms of relationship once considered atypical—such as same-sex and interracial unions—to emerge and be accepted. This symbolizes a significant social openness, where individual choice and the diversity of relationships are valued and respected more than ever. Yet this freedom of choice comes with its own challenges, such as the uncertainty and anxiety that often accompany the absence of clear structures and norms.
Moreover, modernity has brought with it a duality in the perception of love. On one hand, we see a move away from the traditional romantic vision of love, where permanence and unconditional commitment were the cornerstones. On the other, a longing for those same romantic ideals persists, showing that—despite social and cultural change—the desire for a lasting and meaningful love remains a central pillar in many people's lives.
This shift in the conception of love is also reflected in the emergence of phenomena like that of the "incels," a group that symbolizes the complexity and, at times, the dysfunction of relationships in the digital, globalized age. These new realities challenge existing theories of love and intimacy, suggesting that understanding love in modernity requires a holistic approach that takes into account not only individual emotions and experiences, but also the broader social, cultural, and economic context.
Ultimately, our understanding of love in the modern era is a reflection of the interplay between individual autonomy and evolving cultural traditions. As we navigate this shifting landscape, it becomes clear that love remains an essential and complex element of human experience—one that continues to adapt and flourish in new and often unexpected forms. In this globalized world, where borders blur and norms are redefined, love emerges as a beacon of hope and connection, a universal bond that, despite the challenges, keeps uniting people in their shared search for happiness and meaning.
References
- Andrade, A. G. (2015). El amor como problema sociológico. Acta Sociológica, 66, 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acso.2015.05.002
- Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love, and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford University - Press.
- Hull, K. E., Meier, A., & Ortyl, T. (2010). The Changing Landscape of Love and Marriage. Contexts (Berkeley, Calif.), 9(2), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2010.9.2.32
- Austen, Jane. Orgullo y prejuicio.
- Ruiseñor, E. S. G. (n.d.). Intimidad y modernidad. Precisiones conceptuales y su pertinencia para el caso de México.
- Tenorio Tovar, N. (2012). Repensando el amor y la sexualidad: Una mirada desde la segunda modernidad. Sociológica (México), 27(76), 07–52.