 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Robert Sternberg
Talk about it:
Robert Sternberg is an academic with a strong intellectual bent who argues a somewhat "academic" theory of love and relationships. Not surprisingly, his work was given a "Strongly Recommended" rating by a panel of experts (who are academics), and not surprisingly, his work did not sell well and is now out of print. The basics of his theory: there is a triangle of love.
"The type and quality of a relationship depends on the strength of each side of the triangle in each partner and how closely the partners' triangles match. So . . . why, if Sternberg's work is so respected . . . has practically no one outside of a few college campuses heard of him? And why do so many more messy, gooey approaches (such as John Gray's) sell millions? Well, we look at it this way . . . Sternberg's reductionistic approach often has the emotional effect of weighing and measuring a cold, dead flounder on a scale. The very act of graphing out a love relationship - which is the core premise of Sternberg's theory - is abhorrent to many, striking them as about as unromantic as it gets. ("Hey honey, you know, I've been thinking . . . the "fire of sexual and romantic passion" side of our love triangle as been a little weak lately . . . what do you say we spice it up a bit?") There may be truth and practicality, but what matters most in this area is the delivery. Had he titled his work "Triangles are from Mars, Squares are from Uranus" he might have fared better. (This is also a problem that the work of Aaron Beck suffers from).
So Sternberg's theory seems OK, but very dry, and therefore destined to sit well with academics and equally destined to fall flat in the Hollywoodish arena of popular self-help. Like an Frankenstein trying to do gymnastics, the idea of an academic intellectual trying to take on "love" creates the image in mind of a mathematician with a wheelbarrow full of graphs, charts, calculators, and slide rules, thinking and theorizing constantly, and trying desperately to calculate and graph . . . say, the flight path of a bird or the direction of a hurricane. This is a fine book to read, but the effect of reading it may cause one to think more about love - which, some might say, does not help in truly understanding love. In order to "analyze," you must detach and become as objective as possible - the very opposite of "intimacy." And if "love" can be broken down, reductionist-style, into more basic components . . . then there is a very good chance that it isn't really love. Love and relationships are a matter of the heart; and theories such as Mr. Sternberg's - useful as they may be in certain contexts - deal with aspects of the mind. Relationships are about uniting; analysis and theorizing are largely about dividing (meaning, to "stand back from" in order to get a better look or larger perspective) So, dig into it if you want to, but don't expect this to transform you into a good lover. At best, it might reveal which side of your triangle needs work.
Talk about it:
|
|
|
copyright © LiveReal.com. All rights reserved