Customer Reviews

Against Love: A Polemic

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

Kipnis romps through this book with such enthusiasm, it's a delight to read. She looks in every nook and cranny of relationships and holds forth expansively. What a sharp, clever mind is at work.

We're asked to consider many things about relationships, not just marriage and not just heterosexual relationships...why is it such a difficult thing for two people to get along, let alone love, over an extended period of time? She rightly says that the 50% divorce rate doesn't include the people who remain in marriages of misery. Kipnis offers adultery as a way in which people can feel the rush of coming to life, but she doesn't hesitate to describe the difficulties of taking that route and that it can easily be only a temporary escape. Why does our culture almost desperately hold marriage up as a standard, even while many of those promoting it most seem to have the greatest difficulty practicing what they preach?

When I finished the book I thought of the Buddhist idea that the source of suffering is desire. I also thought of how our society promotes desire as a universal good that should be followed at all times, particularly if the path leads into a store. Is it just a coincidence that while I am shopping for food at the grocery store I can hear love songs being played over the public address system? We want people to want, the encouragement, the inducement is constant. It drives our economy. With every taboo falling or fallen we are consumed with desire without restraint, arriving at our destiny as perfect consumers.

Marriage, institutionalized as the most private place of intimacy, is desperately supported because we'd like to believe there is some preserve where crass consumerism can't intrude, but as Kipnis relates we've taken marketing to heart and present ourselves as appealing products on the mating scene. Is it surprising that the product doesn't hold up over time? Image is everything from your car to your house to your job and if one shops for an appealing persona using one's own, how can the charade be expected to last when the pair become known to each other down to every image-busting detail of toothbrushing and body odor?

Our culture promotes levity, with everything light and easy and fun. Design life for yourself and don't take it too seriously! We all are practiced at that. But don't we also desperately long for there to be a place of deep and lasting meaning that lies beyond daily superficiality? Marriage is billed as such, but where is one to begin with little experience of sincerity, constancy, commitment and real joy, when we are constantly blinded by appearances?

Left unsaid in this book is what I think love is: the unaccountable desire to do for another in ways large or small, to put that person first for the pure pleasure of seeing that person happy, relieved, empowered as a result. There's joy in this benign power beyond anything one can do for oneself. When the other person feels the same way, it can't get any better, marriage or not. In such a situation, the relationship is not hard work because the thing to do is always clear and the ways in which to do it are infinitely varied; you become a craftsman of happiness, happy in your work. I believe Kipnis' book is not against this love, but against the easily exploitable, yet untenable popular image of love which can make a relationship seem like a prison.

Reading Laura Kipnis' Against Love: A Polemic, is a guilty pleasure, like drinking an extra glass of wine at dinner. In a dazzling display of wit, social science, and chutzpah, Kipnis takes on the prevailing ideal of monogamy and makes a case that monogamy is not the not the blissful byproduct of a committed love-match, but a social contract that serves to police and oppress both parties involved. The heros of marriage, in Kipnis' view, are the adulterers, boldly striking out against chafing domestic bonds.

In the chapter titled, "Domestic Gulags," Kipnis rebuts the idea that lasting relationships are hard work. "When monogamy becomes labor, when desire is organized contractually, with accounts kept and fidelity extracted like labor from employees, with marriage as a domestic factory policed by means of rigid shop-floor discipline designed to keep the wives and husbands and domestic partners of the world choke-chained to the status quo machinery-is this really what we mean by a `good relationship'?" (19). Kipnis holds up adultery as the acting-out of what our collective social unconscious already holds true. ". . . if adultery is a de facto referendum on the sustainability of monogamy-and it would be difficult to argue that it's not-this also makes it the nearest thing to a popular uprising against the regimes of contemporary coupledom (28). The current and rising levels of divorce and the increase in complicated extended family grouping (one expert calls it a family shrub instead of a family tree-because families now tend to grow horizontally, with exes and steps and ex-steps, etc.) are strong evidence that "contemporary coupledom" is a social institution changing before our eyes, while governments, politicians, and religious institutions continue to rely on an out-dated idea of marriage and simply encourage all the coupled to work harder . . . witness Louisiana's covenant marriage law.

Operating on this theory, Kipnis makes some salient points about our national obsession with the sex lives of politicians. While publicly upholding the virtue of holding to fidelity and marriage, many politicians were caught operating outside the bounds of their own marriages. Kipnis says, "What was a poor constituent to think? Maybe that dogged fidelity really isn't all it's touted to be? That out-dated vows should be rewritten, not just blindly reaffirmed (168)? She likens the politician-caught-with-his-pants-down phenomenon to politicians as players acting out our national unconscious and conscious confusion in "some new avant garde form of national political dinner theater." (30).

Social theory aside, Kipnis' descriptions of the process and feeling of entering an adulterous affair are dead on and extremely funny. Her first example involves hooking up at an academic conference, where she describes the interior monologue of the about-to-be adulterous player, " . . . you slowly become aware of a muffled but not completely unfamiliar feeling stirring deep within, a distant rumbling getting louder and louder, like a herd of elephants massing on the bushveld . . . oh God, it's your libido, once a well known freedom fighter, now a sorry, shriveled thing, from swaggering outlaw to model citizen, Janis Joplin to Barry Manilow in just a few short decades" (5).

Another point that rings true: at the heart of what makes adultery such a vibrant experience is that falling in love is not merely about loving the other, it's about rediscovering and falling in love again with oneself.

But love affairs can feel utterly transforming and how few opportunities there are to feel that way in normal life, which by definition militates against transformation. You get to surrender to emotions you forgot you could have: to desire and to being desired (how overwhelming that can feel when it's been awhile), and the thrill of the new thing, of course, but what really keeps you glued to the phone till all hours of the night is a very different new love object: yourself. The new beloved mirrors this fascinating new self back to you, and admit it, you're madly in love with both of them (132).

Kipnis' hilarious nine page listing of "What can't you do because you're in a couple" is worth reading aloud at dinner parties.

Does Kipnis really believe that adultery is the savior of marriage? While she uses all her intellectual powers and writerly charm to put together a compelling case, her main intent is to open a dialogue. One must know that the term polemic by definition is a one-sided argument, deliberately controversial in nature. As Kipnis says in her introduction, it's "designed to be the prose equivalent of a small explosive device placed under your E-Z-Boy lounger" (4). Reading Against Love may rattle a few windows, and a few previously unexamined convictions as well.

To steal a query from S.J.Perelman (and if you're going to pilfer a witticism, he da man), does anybody mind if I make love in public? After reading Kipnis' book, I feel liberated, as if a weight has been lifted from my shoulders, as if I am at long last breathing great lungfuls of clear intellectual purity after a lifetime among the broken-spirited, colorless drudges and cat's paws of capitalistic romantic fantasy. Kipnis, you're my dream girl of the neo-Marxist relationship polemicists.

This is actually a pretty good read if you're comfortable with the smart-arsed academic, tongue-in-cheek variety. There is a completely unnecessary but fun-to-read bit at the beginning about what Kipnis intends through the polemic form, and like most books written on wide ranging subjects by the professoriat, Kipnis keeps so many argumentative balls in the air at once it's like watching a Benzedrined juggler. But the notion that adulterers are a species of avant gardists who are necessarily challenging the confines and assumptions of a social institution that needs some serious thought--if not a complete overhaul--is not without merit. (Actually, it's got a lot of merit, if you give her arguments half a chance.) That we are all in thrall of the notion of monogamous domestic coupledom, and use it almost as a substitute for notions of God in a secular world, or as something approaching an Aristotelian Form, is actually pretty consonant with the evidence. Almost everybody buys into the notion that a "True Love" is "out there somewhere," that it's just a question of object (the right person--you know "The One") but almost nobody questions these things. Or that the only receptacle for adult love is religiously sanctified, state sanctioned permanent monogamy. We have, as Kipnis eloquently put it, "mortgaged our emotional well-being to intimacy institutions that hinge on elaborate fictions themselves. ..." Erich Fromm made a similar point almost 50 years ago in "The Art of Loving," but Kipnis, bless her soul, is a lot funnier.

All in all, this book is an eye-opener, provocative in an elegant way, deft, devastatingly hilarious in places (the oyster metaphor on page 70 literally caused me to laugh out loud and drop the book). And if you're among the recently lovelorn (don't ask!) this book will do more to make you feel better than all of the Dr. Phil garbage in the world. My only gripe is that this book is so entertaining, so interesting, and so challenging--and the photo on the inside of the dust cover so fetching--that I wanted to take its author canoeing in the moonlight to pledge my eternal fealty to working for her happiness, and sing some Bing Crosby tunes while strumming a ukelele. My fault for reading that Giddins bio before attacking "Against Love," but, hell, some guys just never learn.

With divorce rates increasing by 30 percent since 1970, Laura Kipnis considers marital dissatisfaction to be a national epidemic in our country. Tossing one cherry bomb after the next at the institution of marriage, her book is not so much a polemic against love, as a brutally honest argument in favor of unconditional love and the pursuit of happiness outside the "domestic gulags" of marriage. Kipnis compares the love-takes-work ethic of marriage to industrial factory work, and entertains the possibility that "there could be forms of daily life based on something other than isolated households and sexually exclusive couples" (p. 179). She calls singles and adulterers "freedom fighters," who have escaped the barbed-wire fences of the Christian model of marriage so deeply ingrained within America, a nation we mustn't forget that was founded on a Declaration of Independence. Kipnis is an academic. Her book is smart and witty. The eight-page catalogue of things you can't do because you're in a couple, but sacrifices we nevertheless make for the sake of companionship and occasional sex (pp. 84-92), will leave more than a few readers questioning the point of romantic relationships altogether. By rattling a few convictions about married life, AGAINST LOVE succeeds at exactly what it sets out to do.

G. Merritt

I'm not sure if Miss Kipnis is proposing a radical new state of social existence in Against Love or if she is an unusually keen observer of the human condition, or both.

It doesn't matter. Against Love is not only an entertaining read, but westerners (especially women, who actually think about this stuff) will find the book secretly, sinfully provocative, while struggling to come to terms with a philosophy most of them will find threatening: "Hummm sounds like fun. Maybe. But what about the kids? More hummm. And what if my girlfriends decide they want to cheat on their husbands... with MY husband. A girl could drive herself mad with all of the possibilities.

But there's a way to read this book without coming away irredeemably frustrated. First come to grips with the harsh reality that There Is No Answer to this most maddening of human pursuits, and that there never will be. And that just when you've become a little to smart for your own good and decided "Forget monogamy and family values (a repellant phrase if ever there was one); from here on end I'm practicing serial polygammy;" along comes Fate and WHAM there you go again shopping for a sensible car and a neighborhood with Good Schools. Or maybe you're already in one of those Committed Relationships and that same Fate points all of your hormones in the direction of Forbidden Fruit. There are no rules, at least not that survive the end of the day. Miss Kipnis is a sharp gal and she obviously knows this. I can't see why she took a stand for poligamy or adultery, or why anyone would defend monogamy either. But polemic sells. Enjoy the book.

Against Love is an extremely interesting work. As the author states, it is a polemic (confrontational argument), not an essay or balanced account of the subject. It is purposefully designed to push the reader into a confrontatory state regarding the subject of love, especially in the context of marriage/coupling in current U.S. society.

I found Kipnis' writing wonderful, witty, intense, and refreshing. She is the first author I have read in a long time that sent me packing off to the dictionary more than once in a book. She is erudite without being a stuffy academic, knowledgable without being pedantic, and humorous without being gross. I see her as having the honesty of a Carol Queen, the political savy and wit of a Molly Ivins or Jim Hightower, the insightful intellect of a Noam Chomsky, and more. This is one of the few books I have read in the last few years that had me laughing out loud in places. She really hits the nail right on the thumb. Regardless of how you feel about the topic or the ideas discussed, her writing alone is worth reading the book.

Of course, I may be biased. Her writing style is similar enough to mine that I felt very much at home with this book, and read it quickly. She does write in a style that is complex, with long sentences (and paranthetical asides). She also has a substantial vocabulary. Her use of style is neither narcissistic nor exhibitionistic, however. Her use of language in her presentation of ideas is pointed and precise, and it is difficult to put the book down once one starts reading it. (I found myself reading it in one sitting.) Despite being divided into chapters, it reads more like one long, flowing discussion.

As far as the actual material, it is not an exhaustive history of marriage and courtship behavior in U.S. society. It is a series of observations and arguments exploring the weakness of the concepts of love and marriage as they are viewed today by mainstream U.S. culture. Kipnis connects recent biological research, various social theories, and behavior reported by people in therapy to weave her arguments. She does address some historical material in order to provide context for her arguments, but again, it is by no means exhaustive. She does provide enough information, however, sources cited in the text and a bibliography and reference list, to encourage more in-depth exploration.

It is meant to be a starting point for further exploration and discussion, and offers no surprise happy endings and no panaceas. This is not a book about how to be polyamorous, develop new relationship styles, swing, or live happily alone. It is an intellectual broadside fired at the status quo in order to get people to open up and think about something which is normally not in their conscious awareness, and to question that which is usually mindlessly accepted.

This book is remarkably thought provoking. It is also well-written and does not lack for humor. Kipniss tackles difficult subjects: love, monogamy, social manipulation, social control. This is not an easy read. While I laughed at points, I also alternated between feeling sad, angry, self-doubting, relieved and excited. I felt. I thought. I stretched myself. Heck, I even had the priveledge of getting out my dictionary and learning a few new words.

Ms. Kipnis helpfully clarifies her position on "love" by calling her book a "polemic". Swift's treatise on the Irish problem of over-population and famine entitled "A Modest Proposal" was also a polemic and advocated cannibalism as a solution. Ms. Kipnis is not interested in presenting an empirically based "balanced" point of view but an hyperbolically stated skewering of a supposed ideal. This is provocative (and is meant to be). It is a point of view not generally expressed and it certainly made me think although I did not always agree with her conclusions.

Laura Kipnis has titled her book "a polemic" and it is that. She marshals arguments and data to show that love, the Holy Grail that so many long for, is not only elusive but also often not the panacea that is promised by society. The love she is referring to is the romantic love we in the Western World base our marriages and relationships on. She does not touch the subject of other loves; love of children, friends and/or family.

I found the first half of the book somewhat difficult but the last half redeemed the entire book. She puts a microscope on the society that holds love and its' rewards as the goal we should all strive for. Yet that same society puts so many obstacles in the path of sustaining it. Her thesis is that love is difficult to live with and even more difficult to sustain. She exposes the conformity and fear of being "different" that society demands from it citizens. The ideals; that love should last a lifetime; that love should be a constant and non-deviating emotion in a marriage; that when in love, one never looks at another woman or man. All rather difficult. Equating "working at love" with the current climate of burgeoning work hours and efforts demanded at even the most mundane of jobs strikes a chord.

Interesting and provocative reading that should spark further thinking and conversation.

What a courageous and wonderful book! Kipnis has the dignity to credit Marx and others for first revealing the truth about "marriage" (that it's about maintaining and securing the social order, not fulfilling the human need for bonding and companionship) along with the honesty, wit and keen powers of observation to demolish its central myth, "love." Keepers of the faith shudder, for good reason, because she never fails to provoke nods of recognition with her relentless and often amusing chronicle of the miseries of married life, thereby casting an air of inevitability on adultery, the solution resorted to by many, and longed for and thought about by many more.

She offers no solutions, but leaves no doubt that the model of idealized and eternal coupledom -- the soul of "love" -- has nothing to do with human nature, and should be dropped.

Good social criticism that skewers deeply held beliefs succeeds only when it rings with truth to the reader. This Kipnis achieves with more than a margin to spare.

Psychotherapists, preachers, and talk-show hypocrites beware!