Unconditional Love in Adult Relationships (Family Insourcing and Outsourcing)
Overview
- Speaker: Professor Sambakn (psychology professor at Cambridge; author of Malignance of Love: Narcissism Revisited)
- Topic: Clarifying the meaning of “unconditional love” in adult intimate relationships and tracing historical, cultural, and technological forces that shaped contemporary misunderstandings.
- Key thesis: Unconditional love means accepting a person’s core identity as they are, not condoning or accepting all behaviors; adult love can be unconditional in this sense while still requiring boundaries, discipline, and consequences for transgressions.
Historical and technological context
- Screens and social life: Over the past ~100 years, screens shifted from communal (cinema) to progressively more individual (TV -> personal computer -> smartphone), contributing to increased individuation and reduced communal experiences.
- Entertainment and the home: Entertainment moved from public/outside spaces to the home as technologies (video games, TV, personal devices) made the house the entertainment hub; this shift coincided with a decline in friendships, sexual activity among young people, and broader interpersonal connection.
- Family functions outsourced: From pre-modern times through the 19th century the family served many practical functions (education, eldercare, health); these were progressively outsourced to institutions (schools, hospitals). By late 20th century, the family retained comparatively few functional roles beyond entertainment, which technology then reintroduced into the household.
Conceptual clarification of “unconditional love”
- Precise definition: Acceptance of another person’s essence/core identity as they are — not conditional on performance, improvement, or particular behaviors.
- Distinction between essence and behavior: Loving the person’s core self is distinct from approving or tolerating all actions. Unconditional love does not imply overlooking abuse, ignoring violations, or refraining from setting limits.
- Misconceptions rebutted: Unconditional love ≠ license, complacency, codependency, or enabling. It also ≠ love based on an idealized or potential version of the partner.
Romanticism and the rise of unrealistic expectations
- Origins: Romanticism (18th–19th century, starting in Germany and evolving in Victorian England) promoted the idea that love should be all-consuming and that a partner should fulfill every need (emotional, sexual, intellectual, social, practical). Prior to this, marriages were largely transactional and goal-oriented.
- Consequences: Romantic ideals created unrealistic expectations (soulmate, twin flame, the One), leading to idealization followed by devaluation and relationship breakdowns. Romanticism encouraged the conflation of love with self-sacrifice and the rejection of compromise and negotiation.
- Link to narcissism: The romantic ideal of an all-satisfying partner is connected to narcissistic dynamics—seeking gratification through an idealized other and attempting to transform a partner to fit an imagined ideal.
The family–love tension and modern outcomes
- Romanticism vs. family-as-transaction: Romanticism framed love as antithetical to the transactional, effortful aspects of family life. As families were hollowed out and their functions outsourced, the romantic conception of love contributed to the decline of familial stability.
- Reintroduction of love to the home via entertainment: As entertainment returned to the family/home through technology, love and romantic excitement became associated with the household again—but treated increasingly as a form of entertainment (thrills, arousal), complicating expectations.
- Resulting confusion: People attempt to reconcile romantic ideals (non-transactional, eternal passion) with the inevitable transactional demands of family life by redefining “unconditional love” in legalistic, consent-like, or transactional terms (e.g., we’ll accept each other 100% and never criticize), which is a misuse of the term and leads to dysfunctional dynamics.
Practical implications and recommended stance
- Healthy adult love: Mature, mentally healthy adults should love intimate partners “unconditionally” in the sense of accepting their core identity without trying to change or remake them.
- Boundaries and discipline: Loving someone unconditionally does not preclude asserting boundaries, communicating expectations, imposing consequences for repeated or deliberate breaches, or disciplining harmful behavior. Indeed, boundaries and accountability often accompany healthy unconditional love (example: parental love).
- Rejecting change-as-love: Attempting to “improve” or transform a partner, or loving them for who they might become (potential/idealized self), is control or manipulation, not love.
- Transactional misunderstanding to avoid: Treating unconditional love as a no-limits pact that forbids disagreement, boundaries, or accountability is harmful and reflects a conflation of romantic fantasy with family realities.
Conclusion (summary points)
- Unconditional love = acceptance of personhood (essence), not unconditional approval of all behaviors.
- Boundaries, negotiation, discipline, and consequences are compatible with—and often necessary for—healthy unconditional love.
- Romanticism historically distorted expectations, creating the harmful myth that love should replace all transactional and pragmatic aspects of family life.
- Modern technological and social shifts (screen individualization; outsourcing family functions) have intensified misunderstandings about love by turning romantic experience into an at-home form of entertainment.
- Healthy intimate relationships require accepting partners as they are while simultaneously maintaining realistic, bounded, and negotiated arrangements.
Key quotations (paraphrased/essential):
- “Unconditional love means the acceptance of another person as he or she is—not the acceptance of another person’s performance.”
- “If you come across someone and your first thought is ‘I’m going to change them,’ that’s control, not love.”
- “Behavior is not the same as personality; loving who someone is is distinct from accepting everything they do.”
Suggested actions / talking points for follow-up or application:
- Clarify expectations in relationships: distinguish between loving a person’s core identity and tolerating harmful behaviors.
- Reinforce boundary-setting skills: practice asserting needs and imposing consistent consequences for repeated breaches.
- Educate about historical context: explain how romantic ideals can produce unrealistic expectations and encourage idealization/devaluation cycles.
- Consider couple or family interventions that emphasize negotiated responsibilities and realistic roles rather than mythic expectations of partner omnipotence.
