Communication of Love and Common Categories
The relationship between people always reminds me of a chemical reaction. It is a process involving the fabulous magic moments, with all the possibilities and complexities happened in the interaction. Like substances change the position of electrons to create or break the bond of atoms, we share, exchange, express, and response when we are in the communication, trying to find out our relationships. Communications, as a significant process, can be a conversation, language, linguistic, any medium help you deliver your information. I start to know the dynamic and complicated characteristics of the communication when I evaluate communication under one everlasting topic, love. Love contains the variety of emotions, can be communicated differently under different common categories human all have. These types somehow impact the nature of love, also our expression and interpretation about love. This paper will explore the changes and differences in the communication of love under the impact of three categories, first is the physical characteristic, second is generation and age, the last one is social class. Beyond that, I will further discuss how these common categories influenced the way I behave and how other people think about me, and my point view about the love.
The Communication of Love
Love at first sight
The discourse of love and romantic relationships are full of contradiction now that most of us will work so hard on our physical image even though we eager for love deep inside and hope it doesn’t change. Physical characteristics are all the outward feature and traits people notice when they see you at the first time. At first sight, physical appearance delivered lots of information through a nonverbal way; then people will assign you to the particular categories For example, like physical attractiveness. You will either in the good-looking group or belong to the group of just okay. The exception is impressive for me, the one with an average or unattractive face will not have categories, people will ignore them. The interlink between physical attractiveness and romantic love started from the language. The research (Collins, A., & De Jong, M., 2017) identified the word “hot,” “gorgeous” is used when men described women they like. The descriptive words used in the state became the implication of constructs of romantic love. When I saw Little, Jones, and DeBruine (2011) explained the standard of attractiveness based on the evolutionary theory, I realized a few people’s comments already categorized me to the good-looking group. Most people tend to think attractiveness will give me lots of advantages, like Barocas and Karolf (1971) reported that “The attractive appearance evoked more social reinforcement and enhanced cognitive-evaluative ratings of calmness, popularity, and friendship desirability.” I disagree with their research, they only evaluated the surface that people could easily see. People will give more award to an attractive person, but a little mistake he or she made would bring out more judgment and rumor. The envious feeling can unconsciously result in hostile behavior, typically when we communicate the love. When you thin how much positive response I received from boys, I should say the truth is most of the men describe me as a loose girl without my own opinion and personality (Collins & De Jong, 2017). They even compared me to other beautiful women and rated our attractiveness. Sometimes I feel myself is an object of this consumer culture and I am afraid the person who showed his love might only love my appearance and never really know who I am. From my perspective, it is problematic to regard physical attractiveness as a primary factor of a romantic relationship and the nature of love, and further relate the physical appearance to personality, self-satisfaction, and self-esteem. There may be some connection between character and physical appearance, but their look can never determine how they behave in the interpersonal relationship. Either man or woman needs to view others and self as knowable, real and consistent to build more security and complimentary in our relationship (Mansfield, 2000).
Digital communication of love
Today’s new millennials are in early young adulthood, characterized by diversity, liberty and more connection with technological and mobile communication. I am in my early twenties, and according to Erikson (McLeod, 2013), I am at the stage of intimacy sharing and long-term commitment seeking. Because of the digital social network, we can connect and understand another person without face to face communication. I would not disagree with how the technology makes our world smaller; it does benefit in multidirectional. Little, Jones and Debruine (2011) reported the healthy communication is challenging for some specific young adult after they got Cancer, and digital tool played a significant role as an interactive resource. Mobile technology changed the nature of love and created a new pattern for communicating the love. My personal experience affects me to hold the negative opinion about how we talk love through screen and data. It is frustrating when people asked about my Facebook ID instead of my name after the time we met; People can also become an intimate partner after the amount of texting and break up without trying to fix problems. Online information and profile save our time to know the person, which may take several days even years before the modern world. New millennials hold the idea of self-liberation and over concentrate on the profit. Because we have excellent access to the resources and information, we focus too much on self-difference and underestimate the uniqueness of others; we tend to regard ourselves as irreplaceable and trade other people with someone has more utility. The resources can be no limit and continue updating if you get the access. Love and Donovan (2013) found the texting can reduce the uncertainty between romantic partner, but they forgot to doubt the reliability of personal information the one provided. We can have multiple identities in the online world, Borae and Jorge identified we connected with other people by cheating name, age, and gender to hide the reality and to be the person they want to become. I think vulnerability and honesty are essential in our love and intimate relationship, I would like to fix the problems rather than quickly dissolved and find the substitution. Although my generation is more familiar with digital too and communicate the romantic relationship online, I still think the love communication need in-person conversation and only the time can bring the authentic to the love.
Love based on economy
The base of a romantic relationship should be mutual affection, but financial performance can make people determine whether they should have a romantic relationship. What I noticed is people always struggle with love and money, they tend to think love could lose guarantee if you are in poverty or have no money. The upper class has enough money, and they are eligible to enjoy the relationship, and lower class can only work longer to support the family. Social class is a subjective concept determined by the economic status and property you have. In my culture, traditionally two people from the different class should never be in love. A recent study showed study showed, “women marrying a man with a house and a good job ensures a comfortable future, for a man getting the right bride constitutes a strategy to acquire symbolic and social capital” (Zavoretti, 2016). My family belongs to “the Squeezed” which is like the middle class (A Guide to Social Class in Modern China, 2014, April 28). My own experience showed me the toxic relationship between social class and communication of love. It seems like the amount of money represents the possibility of having a long-term relationship and how much you would like to spend showed how much do you love me. Men from lower class would consider your family status and how much responsibility they must take before they decide to have a relationship with you, and the upper-classmen would worry about the women who have the romantic relationship with him only love his wealth and property. Zavoretti also showed that dissatisfaction among different social class with present-day practices of courtship and marriage, revolving around material wealth and sheer hedonism. From my perspective, the vast gap of wealth and social class make the nature of love complicated, the communication of love should base on real feelings, not relied on the status and wealth. I agree with Schatzman and Strauss (1995) because different social classes have different thoughts and perspectives, their speech order, vocabulary would make communication much harder. Economic well-being will harm the satisfaction of relationships, but it cannot be the determinant of love.
The standard categories people have could be harmful; it implies a standard of normality and a restriction of who we should be. It also affects how we communicate with each other, and our communication also changes the meaning and definition of different things. I explored the language of love under three categories, physical characteristic, age and generation, social class. According to my own experience, I noticed how large the nature of love changed. The standardized categories of the societies shaped the discourse of love and romantic relationships, and we will consider the types we are assigned, then behave and communicate like the majority.
A Guide to Social Class in Modern China. (2014, April 28). Retrieve from
Barocas, R., & Karolf, p. (1971). Effect of physical appearance on social responsiveness.
Psychological Report, 31, 495-500. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.19184.108.40.2065
Borae, J., & Jorge F. P. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: Mobile phone
use, relational uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles, Communication
Reports, 23(1), 39-51. DOI: 10.1080/08934211003598742
Collins, A., & De Jong, M. (2017). Love and looks: A discourse of romantic love and consumer culture. Acta Academic, 49, 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/24150479/aa49i1.5
Drouin, M., & Landgraff, C. (2012). Texting, sexting, and attachment in college students’ romantic relationships, Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 444–449. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.015
Lasen, M., C. (2007). Understanding social networking: On young people’s construction and co-construction of identity online. In K. Sangeetha (Ed.), Online Networking – Connecting People. India, Icfai University Press. (General Management). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ viewdoc/download/doi/10.1.1.168.3872&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Love, B., & Donovan, E., E. (2013). Online friends, offline loved ones, and full-time media:
Young adult “Mass Personal” use of communication resources for informational and emotional support. J Canc Educ, 29, 241–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13187-013-0579-5
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: evolutionary
based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 1638–1659. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0404
Mansfield, N. (2014). Subjectivity: Theories of the self from Freud to Haraway. Cultural Studies,
Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1995). Social class mode of communication, American
Journal of Sociology, 60(4), 329-338. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2772025
Zavoretti, R. (2016). Is it better to cry in a BMW, or to laugh on a bicycle? Marriage, ‘ﬁnancial
performance anxiety,’ and the production of class in Nanjing (People’s Republic of
China), modern Marriage. 50(4), 1190-1219.