The Essence of Love and Identity in Romantic Relationships

What is love? What are its essential characteristics? What roles do romantic relationships play in the formation and transformation of our own identities? Such are critical questions for understanding the human experience, for love is quite possibly the most essential and fundamental experience we may have. It is no wonder, then, that philosophers and thinkers have grappled with these questions for ages, coming up with a wide range of answers which seek to explain and legitimize the love experience. Yet, to answer these questions, it is equally important to ask how our context defines our relationships, and how our relationships are structured in such a way to give meaning to the emotions we feel and describe as “love.” Through an exploration of the writings of Piazzesi, Solomon, and Kollontai, I seek in this paper to describe love and its essential characteristics while exploring the role romantic relationships play in the formation of our identities. By exploring relationships of different forms and definitions of love coming from different contexts, an approach suggested by Piazzesi, I attempt to find the characteristics of love, if there are any, which are transcendental of context. Ultimately, I arrive at the conclusion that love, outside of context of relationship and explanation given to legitimize it in a given context, involves the “fulfillment” of the individual through identity-construction and role-identification and the “transformation” of the individual through personal betterment. Love itself, we may conclude, is hard to define as an all-encompassing concept, for it exists in many forms and different contexts; nonetheless, love is the emotional experience which includes these crucial characteristics which we use to legitimize and justify the form of relationship in which those emotions are manifest.

Prior to further inquiry into the concept of love, however, an important caveat must be recognized – the form of a romantic relationship, in which love is manifest, is very much the product of our cultural and social context. As perhaps the most “important psychological and social factor” in the human experience, love has “always instinctively [been] organized in [society’s] interest,” whether for reasons of economy, spirituality, or social cohesion (Kollontai 285). According to the different needs of different societies, then, what constitutes a “loving” experience may alter as the result of disparate discourses on the matter. As Kollontai and Piazzesi would point out, these discourses are the products of historical, cultural, and economic variation, and are therefore subject to change over time and space. Indeed, as demonstrated through Kollontai’s historical perspectives on love, the epitomical form of a loving relationship, as culturally perceived and desired, has evolved considerably over the course of Western civilization – beginning with a love for one’s blood relatives in kinship communities, evolving into a love for friendship in the ancient world, a chivalrous love in the feudal era, and, finally, into the private, intimate relationships of contemporary times. Piazzesi rightfully argues that the discourses, social norms, and understandings which shape and sustain these relationships provide “individuals, couples, and groups with frameworks for the definition (‘for making sense’) of their experience;” that is, they give meaning and legitimacy to the contextual “how and with whom” by which people love (Piazzesi 5). Accordingly, by “defining” love, attributing to it certain characteristics and elements, we are legitimizing an experience shaped around our context. This variable nature of the experience of love, influenced by culture and history, poses difficulties for the development of a singular “concept of love.” Like Piazzesi argues, a general definition of love, which is removed from an immersion in contextual experience, misses the “historical diversity, the social character, and the semantic richness of ordinary experience,” and therefore fails to acknowledge that cultural nuances influence the manner by which love is manifest in and connected to a relationship (Piazzesi 3). Nor does providing a “minimal definition” to love, which seeks to find a universal” essence” to love by reducing it to its simplest and most basic elements, do justice in meaningfully describing what love is, for it detaches the concept of love from the variety of experiences and social expectations which we associate with and define it by. Rather, to establish a more personal, more pertinent, and therefore more “meaningful” concept of love, we should take Piazzesi’s suggested approach, which is to explore how we arrange our relationships so as to feel like we are experiencing love; to, as Piazzesi’s analogy puts it, see how we “get the feeling of being in a romantic living room” (Piazzesi 7). Such is the approach I will take, exploring how Solomon’s and Kollenti’s writings on relationships, defined by their contextual circumstances, show the connection between love and a relationship, along with its implications on identity. Comparing the similar motivations of love laid out by these authors will hopefully provide closer a closer understanding of the transcendental romantic love experience, unaffected by the form of a relationship.

As previously mentioned, the romantic relationship of two people in a union is considered the quintessential loving relationship in our current context, and shapes our discourses surrounding love. Kollontai argues that this form of relationship is the product of a bourgeois society, which places emphasis on the “married couple, working together to improve their welfare and to increase the wealth of their particular family” (Kollontai 284). Furthermore, the “moral ideal of a love the embraced both the flesh and the soul,” has been propagated by the bourgeoisie as crucial elements in loving relationships (Kollontai 283). The discourses surrounding love in this context, then, naturally point to the union of two people with a physical and emotional connection as the key to experiencing love. But what are the characteristics of love which we experience in this form of relationship, or, better put, how does this structure of romantic relationship shape our definition of a loving experience? To answer this, we can turn to Solomon, who writes that love is the “attempt to create for ourselves a sense of wholeness or completion through a union… with another person” (Solomon 194). A crucial element of this “wholeness” is in the process of forging a mutual identity with another in a relationship. The “identity theory” of love, which Solomon bases his arguments on love around, states that the self is, individually, indeterminate, and is rather “defined with and through others” (Solomon 197). Though we individually attempt to define our “true” selves, giving priority through our actions to some of our features over others, there is no “true” self or set of roles which dominates over others. Rather, who we are and the value of our person, or the worth of our accomplishments, depends a great deal upon the opinions of others, who help establish the “way we ‘fit’ in the world” (Solomon 201). As Solomon puts it, “we are the persons we think ourselves to be and become through the eyes and opinions of the people around us” (Solomon 202); that is, our identity may be self-constructed, but is mutually defined and established. Such is equally the case in our self-esteem and self-worth, for the self is “never assured” (Solomon 200). Rather, it “consists of proving oneself to be what one is,” depending on the value held by others of our person in order to be reinforced. This is why we choose the friends and – more importantly – the lovers that we do, for they are the ones who make us feel “virtuous and worthwhile (Solomon 201). In addition to the role that love and relationships play in the definition of our identity, they, according to Solomon, also play a role in the transformation of the self. Romantic love is “a redefinition of oneself in terms of goodness,” for it embodies a desire for self-improvement. The lover wishes to not only be loved for what they are, but for what they can become, their “ideal self” (Solomon 206). The desire to improve oneself comes from the creation of roles inherent in the establishment of a relationship; we dress and act the roles we would like to play in order to attract a partner, and, once that relationship has been established, we develop and perfect those parts “to the point where they seem as if they were completely natural” (Solomon 207).

Thus, as can be seen through Solomon’s writings, the essential characteristics of love include an establishment of identity through mutual definition and a self-transformation of identity toward “goodness.” We may not “become ourselves” in our romantic relationships, for the self is never assured nor ever “perfectly” defined, but we do narrow and define the set of roles we wish to take on and the characteristics of ourselves which foster and support our relationships. Being in love in a romantic relationship, in effect, helps us find our “place in the world.” While all the networks of people and opinions in our lives help form a sense of ourselves, Solomon rightfully acknowledges that “it is love that often proves to be definitive” (Solomon 207.) Yet he ascribes these essential characteristics of love to only relationships which encompass a union of two people. As our identity and self is, in part, intimate and private, it takes “one and only one other person” to really know and be in contact with it, according to Solomon (207). Accordingly, many of our essential attributes are determined by that single other person, who is “closest” to us. Looking back to Piazzesi, though, a question must be asked – are the characteristics of love put forth by Solomon absolute, or are they simply manifestations of the monogamous form of relationship which he understands in his context? That is, are these characteristics simply legitimizing the love we experience in a relationship, giving us a sense of “being in that romantic living room?” Or, are these characteristics transcendental of context, equally capable of being manifested in a different form of relationship? To answer this question, we may turn to Kollontai, who presents arguments about the characteristics and nature of love which extend beyond the sphere of a monogamous union between two lovers.

To begin, Kollontai takes an opposition to Solomon’s last point, stating that “love is not in the least a ‘private’ matter concerning only the two loving persons; love posses a uniting element which is valuable to the collective” (Kollontai 279). As had been previously mentioned, Kollontai then lays out the historical development of loving relationships, demonstrating how they have evolved and changed their fundamental character in order to satisfy the needs of society. The modern concept of monogamy, sustained by bourgeois discourses, has developed to support the need to accumulate and concentrate capital within the family unit. The characteristics Solomon ascribes to a monogamous union, then, indeed are simply legitimizing an experience developed for extraneous needs. Yet, as Kollontai argues, love can “not be contained within the limits set down by bourgeois ideologists,” and, with a change in context, can be “set free” to take shape in different forms. For Kollontai, the key among these different forms is polyamory, which allows for a “fulfillment” not possible in a monogamous union. She writes that a “man may feel sympathy and protective tenderness [for one woman], and for another he might find support and understanding for the strivings of his intellect” (Kollontai 288). Why must he choose one of the two, thereby tearing “himself apart and crippling his inner self, if only the possession of both types of inner bond affords the fullness of living” (Kollontai 288)? By having multiple intimate, romantic relationships, then, the individual can find themselves more “satisfied,” more “complete,” in ways which are impossible in Solomon’s context. The multi-sidedness of this emotional experience and fulfillment, Kollontai argues, would assist in the growth of the bonds between people which would benefit the growth of the communist collective, a reflection  of the context in which Kollontai exists. Kollontai further lays out the qualities of love, which would help benefit the “collective” for which she writes. Among them, mirroring the statements of Solomon, is the nature of “transformation” in love, in which the individual betters themselves intellectually, creatively, and emotionally as a response to their lover. Yet, whereas Solomon argued that such betterment is only possible through an intimacy with one other person, whose opinions reign supreme, Kollontai argues that it can exist in both the “private” and “public” sphere (Kollontai 290). In a collectivized society, built “upon the principles of comradeship and solidarity linking all members of the collective,” then, the characteristics of love are such that they help build ties with all of individuals of the society, not just a single other person, and thus manifest themselves in polygamous relationships. Again, as seen through the lens of Piazzesi and in the case of Solomon, contextual circumstances influence the nature of love as seen by Kollontai, and the form of our relationships, in this particular case polygamous ones, legitimize the experience of that love.

Yet we see two distinct characteristics of love which transcend context emerging from these two authors which transcend context. The first is a broad sense of “fulfillment,” of finding completion and meaning for ourselves. Solomon describes this fulfillment in terms of identity-construction, detailing how our identity is mutually defined through our lovers; the unsure nature of identity, which needs to be defined by another, should be expected in the individualistic society in which he wrote. Developing identity, then, helps “fulfill” and “complete” the individual in that form of society, for it helps establish their place, role, and value in the world. For Kollontai, this “fufillment” comes in building ties to the broader collective, again a natural reflection of the society in which she wrote. Through the establishment of multiple romantic relationships, which may help develop and grow the individual in different ways, the individual is bound closer to the collective and the collective accordingly grows closer. In a society of solidarity, then, love helps “fulfill” the individual in that it allows them solidify their role and place within the collective as another member working toward the broader, collective good. The second characteristic of love we see emergent is its “transformative” nature, which moves the individual toward bettering themselves. Again, the reason for this “transformation” is different according to context; for Solomon, it is in response to having a lover, for the beloved wishes to be loved for, and therefore wishes to develop, their ideal self. For Kollontai, this transformation need not be “private” but rather should be “public,” as would benefit a collectivized society, and comes about as a desire to help strengthen and develop the collective. Nonetheless, the transformation of identity through personal betterment is a crucial element of love for both these writers, regardless of their context.

Through this exploration of love and romantic relationships as they exist in different contexts, two crucial characteristics emerge: “fulfillment” of the individual and “transformation” of the individual. Love, we can conclude, is thus the experiencing of these two characteristics, plus others dependent upon context, and the legitimization of our relationships by the presence of these characteristics. Ultimately, regardless of the form of romantic relationship in which we experience love, we become ourselves in our relationships, and find and satisfy our place in society in our relationships. Though love took on other characteristics  throughout history, these two characteristics, as laid out by the authors explored herein, are transcendental of context. Piazzesi warns against making a “minimal definition” to love, but, using these characteristics as fundamentals, perhaps with them we are closer to a true and encompassing concept of love.

Parasitic Host Manipulation – A Possible Source of Zombification in Humans?

Below is a faux research article I wrote on ‘zombification’ in humans for a course analyzing the biological, political, sociological, and psychological aspects and implications of a zombie apocalypse.


Zombified humans display an array of behavioral traits which differ greatly from non-zombified humans; these traits are manifest in the relentless aggression and insatiable hunger for human flesh which are characteristic of zombie behavior. The danger which these zombies present to humanity is enormous, so understanding the sources and processes of zombification is vital to combating the zombies and preventing further cases of zombification. There are a number of possible pathogenic sources of this zombification, but one of them, parasitic zombification, is arguably the most likely. Some parasite species have demonstrated an ability to alter the behavior of their hosts, and the processes through which they do this are beginning to become better understood. As this parasitic behavioral manipulation comes closest to the sort of behavioral changes we observe in the zombies, detailing the processes of parasitism and host manipulation and applying them to a zombie model is very important. Doing so will greatly aid scientists and government officials in understanding, combating, and preventing this zombie apocalypse.

Background on Parasitism

Parasitism entails a non-mutual relationship between two organisms in which one, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host (Chandler, 1955). These parasites can be protozoa, which are microscopic, one celled organisms that live and multiple within their host;  helminths, which are large, multicellular organisms which also live within their host but cannot multiply while in an adult stage whilst inside their host; and ectoparasites, which include ticks, fleas, lice, and other organisms which attach or borrow into the skin of their host and remain there for long periods of time. Parasites often show a high degree of specialization, reproduce at rates which are much faster than their host, and rely upon their host in order to propagate their species (About Parasites, 2010).

Parasites can come in an array of shapes and sizes, infect and attack a diverse range of species and bodily systems, and cause ailments whose symptoms can be inconvenient to lethal, yet one specific group of parasites are particularly dangerous and, in the case of human zombification, important for study. These parasites hijack their host’s nervous system and manipulate their behaviors, often producing zombie-like behaviors in their host (Knight 2013). The behaviors which parasitic host manipulation can cause have often been divided into three well documented categories (Poulin et al., 1994). In the first, parasites manipulate their hosts in such a way as to favor transmission to their next host, often by rendering the former more susceptible to predation. In the second, they can  force a host into a habitat other than the one in which it usually lives, because the parasite must either exit or propagate in that habitat. The third type of manipulation causes the host to attempt to transmit the parasite via the spread of blood. This sort of transmission is most often seen in blood-sucking insects, who transmit the parasites while gorging on the blood of their prey.

Mechanisms Used by Manipulative Parasites

Manipulative parasites use a number of different mechanisms to control the behaviors of their hosts. Different parasites make use different mechanisms, producing different behaviors and effects, yet the array of possible mechanisms and results make it clear that parasites have a large set of tools for controlling and manipulating their hosts. These mechanisms include energetic drain, site of infection influences, manipulation of the immune system, and neuromodulation.

image00Rates of behavioral modification mechanisms used by manipulative parasites

One way Parasites manipulate host behaviors is through the extraction of energy, in the form of nutrition, from their hosts. When the host becomes starved for nutrients, their behavior might change, and if the energy drain impairs their physiology they might become sluggish or display lower physical performance. On the other hand, if a host is drained of energy, it might become more active and increaser foraging rates. Either way, the change in behavior could benefit the parasite responsible for the energy drain. Yet while this method of behavioral alteration demonstrates that such manipulation need not be complex, it does also lead to general behavior changes that might not benefit the transmission of the parasite, leading to inefficient transmission rates and putting the host at danger of malnutrition and death, thereby also killing the parasite (Lafferty & Shaw, 2013).

Another manner in which parasites manipulate their hosts is through the use of their host’s immune system. Because parasitic infection elicits host immune responses that are designed to overcome the invading parasite, parasites have to negotiate the host’s immune defenses in order to establish an infection. The continuing nature of the infection means that the parasite must continually evade the host’s immune system. However, many parasites demonstrate the ability to exploit host immune defense mechanisms for their own benefit. Research has shown that  parasite-exerted effects on the immune system may influence neuromodulator pathways, thereby altering the behavior of the host. For example, neuroinflammation is a common immune response of the brain to injury or invading pathogens. Several studies have demonstrated that that parasites may incorporate these host neuroinflammatory responses into their behavior modification strategy, using things such as nitric oxide (NO), rodlet cells, and alteration of neuromodulators to alter host behavior. For example, nitric Oxide, in addition to an immune response, functions as a neurotransmitter that can influence brain monoaminergic activity (Helluy & Thomas, 2010). Another example is the trematode Schistoso mamansoni, which secretes opioid peptides into its host, thus influencing both host immunity and neural function (Kavaliers et al., 1999). Inhibiting the host immune system while also utilizing it to neurally control the behavior of the host  is an evolutionary capability which has given manipulative parasites great advantages over their hosts. As parasites are constantly being target by the hosts immune system, they will consistently have resources to alter the behavior of the host.

Manipulative parasites can occupy a range of sites within their host. They are often found in the body cavity, muscles, central nervous system, and other parts, such as the brain. By occupying and damaging key these organ systems, these parasites can change host behavior. For example, the parasite Diplostomum spatheceum infects and damages the eye of a fish, causing it to become more susceptible to predation and thus the parasite more easily spread. Other parasites infect other parts of their host’s body, such as their muscles, in order to change the strength and function of these parts of the body and thus help the parasite spread more easily through transmission.

image01Infection location rates of manipulative paraistes in their hosts.

A key organ system for the manipulation of host behavior is the central nervous system; these parasites are able to manipulate behavior either through damage of the system or more subtle, neural manipulation (McConkey et al., 2013). The location in the brain and central nervous system of where this manipulation occurs is significant: various receptions of a certain hormone or neurotransmitter may produce different behavioral results depending on where they are located in the brain (McConkey et al., 2013). Parasites which want to manipulate their hosts behaviors in specific ways via neuromodulation must thus be located in and targeting specific locations within their hosts brains.

Numerous studies have shown that parasites achieve manipulation by directly or indirectly altering concentrations of hormones or neurotransmitters in their hosts. Concentrations of these substances that can be synthesized by the host and that have effects on behavior are altered following infection, thereby changing the behavior of the host. These substances could be produced by the parasite and released into the host, or actively taken from the host by the parasite and then rereleased (Knight 2013).

Monoamine neurotransmitters, which include the catecholamines DA, adrenaline (epinephrine, EP) and NE, the indoleamine 5-HT, and octopamine (OA), are potent neuromodulators. Monoamines influence many types of behaviors in vertebrates and invertebrates, including those related to activity, movement, stress, social activity and reproduction. The manipulation of these neurotransmitters is common in parasites which control their host’s behavior. One of the most striking and consistently documented behavioral modifications can be seen through parasite-induced changes in indoleamine 5-HT. Changes in 5-HT-altered behaviors in both vertebrates and invertebrates demonstrate the ubiquity of 5-HT as well as its widespread use in animals of varying complexity. Indeed, 5-HT is a major neuromuscular neurotransmitter used in the most primitive animals and its role expands into neuromodulator and neurohormone in more complex animals, where it controls additional physiological functions and behaviors, including stress responses and immune challenges. By altering indoleamine 5-HT, parasites take advantage of their hosts through the manipulation of their behaviors (Knight 2013).

The other neurotransmitters also have significant impacts on host behavior. DA has been found to stimulate locomotion, aggression, dominance and reproductive behavior in fish and mammals, and when altered can produced altered behavior in these categories. OA is a neurotransmitter and hormone that regulates other neuromodulators and that also influences many behaviors, including fight-or-flight reactions, stress, aggression, locomotion and feeding (Knight 2013).

Despite an understanding of these mechanisms for altering host behavior, researchers still do not know whether parasites alter host neuromodulators by secreting their own neurochemicals to produce a change in host neurochemical activity, or whether they secret chemicals which trigger a host response, thereby leading to altered neurochemical activity (Adamo 2013). Unfortunately, the complexity and interconnectedness of neuromodulator systems make it difficult for researchers to discern the specific mechanisms responsible for changes in behavior. Yet the complex nature of these systems might also help parasites induce widespread behavioral changes in their hosts with minimal effort; because these monoamines regulate one another in feedback loops, a parasite need only alter the activity of one in order to effect regulatory changes in the others (Knight 2013).

Applying parasitic host manipulation to the zombie model

Zombified humans display an array of behavioral traits which are starkly different from non-zombified humans. They are relentlessly aggressive, and have an insatiable desire for human flesh; indeed, it seems that the main motivating force for zombies is the search for and consumption of human flesh. They also display significantly lessened cognitive skills and capabilities, demonstrating a change in the physiology of their brain. As of yet, the source of zombification has not been identified, yet it is known to be highly infectious and spread through the bite of a zombie or the transference of zombie blood (Mogk 2011).

Could zombification be caused by a parasite manipulating human behavior? The characteristics of zombies, zombification, and parasitic behavioral manipulation seem to point in that direction. Zombification occurs from the transfer of blood and from a bite of a zombie. It is entirely possible that a parasite causing the zombie infection is transferred through blood and that, by attacking humans and spreading their blood, zombies are acting as a sort of vector for these parasites. If this is the case, the parasite would fall into the category of host manipulator which the host to attempt to transmit the parasite via the spread of blood. While this sort of host manipulation is most often seen in host insects, it could be that this parasite is making use of humans instead.

The insatiable hunger which zombified humans display could be a result of the energy drain caused by the parasite as it feeds off of and controls the human host. By reducing the amount of nutrients in the host body, the parasite could be causing the host’s hypothalamus to increase the host’s desire for food in order to replenish the nutrient loss. By doing so, the zombie will continue to display and act upon its hunger for human flesh, thereby causing it to continue to attack humans and spread the parasite.

The lessened cognitive capabilities of the zombified humans could be a result of damage caused to the frontal lobe by the parasite. Such damage would decrease thinking function, memory tasks, planning, and attention; all of these traits seem to be deficient in zombified humans (Mogk 2011). This damage could perhaps be intentional, for the aggressive behaviors which zombies display against other humans require a lessened sense of empathy, reasoning skills, and other traits which inhibit these behaviors in nonzombified human beings.

The behaviors which zombies exhibit could be the result of behavioral modification caused by parasitic manipulation. As has been discussed, the monoamine neurotransmitters DA and OA influence locomotive, aggressive, and dominant behaviors in mammals. It is entirely possible that the parasite infecting zombies manipulates these neurotransmitters to increase aggression and dominance in zombified humans, thereby causing them the rage which fuels their attacks on humans and the transmission of the parasite. Furthermore, it is likely that this parasite manipulates other neurotransmitters and hormones to inhibit the sense of pain which zombies may feel, thereby causing their seeming immunity to pain, and increase their desire for food in the form of human flesh. Further neuromodulation, albeit in ways not yet discussed or researched, can cause the zombies to specifically seek out non-zombified human beings for attack and prioritize humans as a source of food, ensuring that the parasite thus has the greatest rate of propagation possible.

Further research

The recent spate of zombie attacks have elicited much notice and concern, yet little study. Although the characteristics of the zombies are understood and the way in which the infection is spread is recognized, the specific source of zombification and the method in which humans are zombified has still not yet been discovered. In order to effectively combat the zombies and prevent a disaster on an apocalyptic scale, scientists and government officials must discover this source and study it in order to develop an effective medicine and countermeasures.

This article has outlined the possibility for the source of zombification to be a behaviorally manipulative parasite. The characteristics of the zombies all fit within the scope of symptoms caused by such parasites, and the behaviors of the zombies seem to resemble the behaviors which such parasites could cause. By proposing a possible source of zombification, this article hopes to help scientists more easily and readily pinpoint, or discount, a possible cause to the looming zombie apocalypse. In doing so, they will be more prepared to quickly develop countermeasures which will help halt the spread of the zombies and the zombie infection.

Scientists must now make it a priority to capture a zombie and study its physiology, in particular its brain. They should focus on determining whether there are any parasites located within the brain of the zombified human, and, if so, begin the process of developing an effective medicine or vaccine to combat and prevent the spread of these parasites and their behavioral manipulation. The specific mechanisms and neuromodulators and neurotransmitters which parasite uses, if it is indeed found, will also be an area of study which is necessary. By studying these, scientists will better understand how parasites might control their hosts, how future parasites might attempt to control a human host, and how the human brain works with regards to these functions anyway. Such research will be invaluable for preventing future zombie outbreaks and for better understanding the anatomy and function of the human mind.


About Parasites. (2010, November 2).  Retrieved May 10, 2001, from

A.C. Chandler. (1955). Introduction to Parasitology: With Special Reference to the Parasites of Man. New York: Wiley.

Adamo, S. A. (2013). Parasites: Evolution’s Neurobiologists. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 3–10.

Helluy, S. and Thomas, F. (2010). Parasitic Manipulation and Neuroinflammation: Evidence From The System Microphallus Papillorobustus (Trematoda) – Gammarus (Crustacea). Parasit.Vectors 3, 38.

Kavaliers, M., Colwell, D., Choleris, E. (1999). Parasites and Behavior: an Ethopharmacological  Analysis and Biomedical Implications. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 23, 1037–1045.

Knight, Katherine. (2013). How Pernicious Parasites Turn Victims Into Zombies. J. Exp. Biol. 216.

Lafferty, K. D. and Shaw, J. C. (2013). Comparing Mechanisms of Host Manipulation Across Host and Parasite Taxa. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 56–66.

McConkey, G. A., Martin, H. L., Bristow, G. C. and Webster, J. P. (2013). Toxoplasma Gondii Infection and Behaviour – Location, Location, Location? J. Exp. Biol. 216, 113–119.

Mogk, Matt. (2011). Everything You Wanted to Know About Zombies. New York:     Gallery Books.

Poulin, R., Brodeur, J. and Moore, J. (1994). Parasite Manipulation of Host Behavior: Should Hosts Always Lose? Oikos 70, 479–484.

Reflections on Gender Normativity

Contemporary discourses on gender normativity, which manifest themselves in both the behaviors characteristic of modern male and female relationships and the perceptions males and females have of themselves and each other, revolve around what has been termed “the double bind;” men and women are socialized with contradictory, mutually incompatible instructions on how to behave toward the opposite sex, and are given equally contradictory requirements for how they must portray themselves. The writers Susan Bordo and Jackson Katz, in their works discussing these norms, demonstrate how these contradictions contribute to a social environment in which sexual violence and aggressiveness is, if not explicitly condoned and encouraged, at least implicitly tolerated and enabled. In this brief analysis of their works, I will detail the discourse of the “double bind of masculinity” as described by Susan Bordo along with the contradictory expectations of female sexuality as described by Jackson Katz. From there, I will set out to demonstrate how these norms affect male and female sexual relationships, and will connect these discourses to my own experiences as a modern-day male.

In “Gentleman or Beast: The Double Bind of Masculinity,” a chapter of  Susan Bordo’s broader work on the social norms affecting men, Bordo describes how men are expected to be “an animal and a gentleman;” that is, society celebrates “untamed male aggression” (Bordo 234) yet also expects it to be “nicely, sexily contained at the same time.” As evidenced by the popularity of aggressive sports such as football and boxing, male violence, “primal aggressiveness,” which drives the equally “primal” male sexuality, is digested and rewarded by society, for it breaks from the taboos of civilization, allowing us to act out, or at the least experience vicariously, the inherent aggressiveness within us all. Figures such as boxers or sports stars are given a significant amount of leeway in their reckless behaviors, or are even allowed to get away with rape, creating a perception in men that they should embody the characteristics which define these individuals. The tremendous admiration and respect placed upon male aggressiveness develops an understanding that the societal taboos against violence need not apply to them. Furthermore, as Bordo puts it, the primitive, aggressive, violent male “turns a girl on” (Bordo 236), bringing out her primal urges as well. Accordingly, men develop an understanding that, to be a “real” man (and therefore a real sexual being), the taboos against violence should not apply to them. Men who do not fit the characteristics of the aggressive male, who display elements of compassion or tenderness, are meanwhile dubbed as “gay” (Bordo 240). From this comes the allowance for the aggressive, primal man to commit acts of violence, and thus sexual violence, with a degree of tolerance, the “boys will be boys” phenomena. Meanwhile, the men who are least likely to commit violence toward women, the ones who are compassionate and nonviolent, find themselves “paralyzed, caught between [their] desire to ‘act like a man’ and fear of giving offense” (Bordo 240). The “double bind” which they experience as a result of contradictory expectations keeps them from actively redefining sexual discourses and norms through action.

Jackson Katz, in “It Takes a Village to Rape a Woman,” a chapter of his book “The Macho Paradox,” discusses the idea of “rape culture,” in which pervasive social norms create an environment conducive to sexual assault. Katz focuses on the norms involving female sexuality, detailing how girls “link their feminine identity with men’s use of their bodies” because of society’s portrayal of a woman’s femininity as being intertwined with her sexuality (Katz 152). Furthermore, women experience a “double bind” in the pressures they feel to present themselves as both sexual beings while also maintaining an air of chastity, forced to be, as Katz puts it, “both a virgin and a whore” (Katz 152). Yet because of elements of victim-blaming in our society, and because of the pressures to present themselves in a chaste manner, women who are sexually aggressive are despised, and are considered not the victim of sexual assault but as the catalyst for it. Because of these two pressures, women find themselves believing that “men have a right” to their body, thereby making them susceptible to accepting unwanted advances, and, when assaulted, often fail to consider themselves as the victims of rape… for society derides the sexualized, sexually active female as a “whore” rather than as a potential victim (Katz 152).

These, then, are two prominent discourses which comprise the cultural norms surrounding male and female sexuality and sexual relationships, from which arises an environment which incubates sexual assault. Because of the discourses surrounding manliness, men feel as though they must be sexually aggressive, violent individuals in order to to portray themselves as “men;” a sexually aggressive, violent man is not one to readily accept “no” for an answer from a woman rejecting his sexual advances. Women, meanwhile, feel that they must act sexual in order to exhibit and embody their femininity, and thus are more susceptible to accepting undesired sexual advances by men lest they appear “prude.” Yet, because women fear being labeled a “whore” due to the contradictory expectations society has placed on them, they are much less likely to consider themselves victims of sexual violence or assault when placed into circumstances that resemble it; if they dressed provocatively (as society expected) and acted sexualized (as society expected), then it must be their fault that they were raped. This, then, is a culture in which men feel that they must be aggressive toward women sexually in order to embody their manliness, and women feel as though they must let men have their bodies yet cannot consider any advances toward them as illegitimate or as assault. Such is a context in which rape can occur, and indeed, such is the context in which rape often occurs without any reporting and with women being put into the position of not even considering the action rape.

My own personal experiences as a contemporary male in this society has reflected, to a degree, these different discourses on sexuality and relationships. I find particularly pertinent to my experiences Bordo’s concept of the “double bind of masculinity,” in that I would consider myself the compassionate, non-violent man who does not embody the traditional characteristics of “manliness” and who therefore does not portray himself as a sexual being. This has left me rather frustrated in the realm of my sexual relationships, where I have not found overwhelming levels of success; after all, it is the aggressive, primal male who “turns women on,” not the intellectual, compassionate male. From this is emergent a degree of disappointment toward women and a degree of tolerance for the aggressive actions “primal” men display, actions which often contribute themselves to rape. If they can “get some” by acting violent and brutish, at least they’re “getting some,” which is more than could be said for me. This degree of tolerance, borne from envy, does not and cannot allow for the changing of broader discourses about sexuality nor does it do much to help end the crisis of rape characteristic of our society.

I also find myself timid, “paralyzed” even, when dealing with sexual situations, for I find myself recognizing the “double bind” that women are placed in; I often worry whether women I am sexually engaged with are accepting my advances lest they appear they had led me on, or if their “indicators of interest” (flirting, etc.) were simply appearances made to satisfy the requirements of society rather them demonstrators of real interest. Of course, my timidity is likely borne from other reasons as well, yet these discourses about sexuality still serve as a basis in shaping the way I think.

The discourses surrounding male and female sexuality, as demonstrated by Jackson Katz and Susan Bordo in their works about these norms, create an environment which, if not explicitly tolerates, at the least makes possible, sexual violence and rape. Expectations on men to act aggressively and violent makes them more susceptible to committing sexual violence, while expectations on women to act sexualized puts them in the position to be assaulted. These discourses are pervasive, and, as evidenced by the continuing crisis of rape, run deep in our society. Furthermore, in my own experiences as a contemporary male, I’ve found my behaviors and perceptions influenced and shaped by my understanding of these norms.