Don’t think of love as a language. Experts say to think of love as a balanced diet instead.
As Meyers-Briggs quizzes are to corporate bonding retreats, love languages are to Hinge profiles. They show up again and again on dating sites, and on relationship advice forums and social media memes and debunking podcasts. There is something about the idea of love languages that seems to make people feel very passionately: My love language is words of affirmation. My love language is clean sheets. My boyfriend says he doesn’t have a love language, and I don’t know how to express my love to him. Love languages are bull crap. My love language is hating on love languages.
These agents of provocation emerged from the mind of Baptist pastor Gary Chapman, author of the 1992 book The 5 Love Languages. Chapman developed his theory of love languages while he was offering pastoral care to couples who came to his church looking for support in their marriages. As Chapman sees it, the reason married people fight is that they are each trying to express their love in ways the other person doesn’t understand. It is as if, he explains, they are speaking different languages.
Chapman’s initial modest offering has developed into a full-fledged media universe: The 5 Love Languages of Children, The 5 Love Languages Singles Edition, The 5 Love Languages for Men, The 5 Love Languages of Teenagers, The 5 Love Languages Military Edition. There is an app. There are Chapman-hosted podcasts.
The basic premise of the Chapman universe, however, has a pleasing Hogwarts house-style simplicity. Chapman cataloged five love languages, which he says are all the same for everybody: quality time, physical touch, receiving gifts, acts of service, and words of affirmation. You get one love language as your primary and another as your secondary, like being on the cusp in astrology. You aren’t allowed to have more than that. Ideally, you and your partner should have at least one in common. To pick your language, you take the personality quiz at the back of the book, now available online.
For true believers, the love languages are the key to relationship communication. Say one person feels loved when they’re cuddling (physical touch), while their partner considers cleaning the house (acts of service) to be the ultimate expression of their affection. Both of them might feel as though they’re putting in all the work for the relationship and as though the other person is neglecting them. Chapman’s love language concept gives both parties a way of talking about what they’re missing from one another without accusations.
Critics, however, point to Chapman’s rigid and conservative gender politics (most prominent in the earliest editions of the book) and the lack of scientific basis for his theories. Love languages, they warn, can be too inflexible to be practical.
“If someone identifies their primary love language as ‘gifts,’ they might unconsciously downplay the significance of spending quality time, being physically affectionate, engaging in deep conversations, and so on,” says Gideon Park, a co-author of a recent psychology paper examining the academic research on love languages. “This could create a narrow understanding of what constitutes love, hindering the richness and diversity of emotional connections.”
In the name of richness and diversity, let’s take a close look at the concept of love languages. Here’s what they get right, and what they get very wrong.
The scientific research into love languages is mixed at best
The paper Park worked on under lead author Emily Impett lays out three foundational tenets of The 5 Love Languages, which the researchers then checked against existing relationship science research. The three tenets are the basis of Chapman’s argument: There are exactly five love languages, everyone has exactly one primary love language, and when you match languages with your partner, you’re happier. According to the literature review from Impett et al., there does not seem to be empirical evidence for any of these three principles.
The paper finds few consistent results between studies about how people experience love. Still, when researchers ask people about what makes them feel loved, the reasons they list don’t necessarily have to do with ideas like “words of affirmation” or “acts of service.” One study in 2013 found that their subjects listed acts that sorted themselves into categories of sacrificial, intimate, quality time, supportive, and comforting love. Another study in 2010 found that subjects thought it was important when their partners made an effort to get to know their friends and talked about the best ways to deal with fights.
Impett et al. argue that it’s a losing battle to try to fit the way people love into preexisting categories. “A more comprehensive understanding of how people communicate love,” they write, “would require a bottom-up approach.” A good researcher would let people tell them what they thought love languages looked like, rather than imposing their own categories on their subjects.
When researchers do work with Chapman’s five categories, they tend to find that people aren’t willing to confine themselves to one primary love language. When people are asked to rate the importance of each love language on a scale of 1 to 5, they tend to give all 4s and 5s. If you try to force their hand by designing a test that makes them choose one, the same person will end up with a different answer depending on how you administer the test.
Finally, researchers consistently find that there’s no correlation between matching love languages with your partner and reporting higher relationship satisfaction. It simply doesn’t seem to matter whether you and your partner are native speakers of the same love language.
What does seem to matter is whether you and your partners are willing to learn each other’s languages. Two different studies have found that when you perceive your partner as speaking your love language well, your relationship satisfaction goes up. Although Impett et al. critique the methodology of those studies, they seem to point to a pretty basic conclusion: If you and your partner have thought about how to express affection for one another, and you do it on a regular basis, you’re likely to be pretty happy. Used well, Chapman’s love languages can be an effective tool for getting there.
Chapman’s gender and sexual politics are pretty worrisome
Chapman has never claimed that the love languages are based on any kind of scientifically rigorous process. They have always been an impressionistic tool that comes from the observations he made during his time as a pastor, counseling couples at his Baptist church in North Carolina in the ’80s and ’90s. That’s a specific political and cultural context, and it informs the way the theory of the love languages developed.
In the 1992 edition of The 5 Love Languages, Chapman is explicit about the demographics of the couples he worked with. They are white, heterosexual, conservative Christian couples. The book is structured under the assumption that the wife will stay at home and care for the house and children while the husband goes to work to provide for her. It is a thoroughly heterosexual, monogamous book that chooses not to acknowledge the existence of queer people, to say nothing of poly or trans people.
As the debunking podcast If Books Could Kill laid out in April 2023, most of the couple fights Chapman uses as examples tend to involve wives nagging their husbands to take care of chores. In one case, Chapman explains to a henpecked husband that while he thinks the best way to express love is through sex (physical touch), his wife only experiences love if he helps her with vacuuming (acts of service). If the husband would just help out with vacuuming once in a while, Chapman goes on, the wife will feel just as loved as the husband does when they have sex. The idea that the wife might be interested in sex but can’t focus on it while never-ending housework piles up all around her is not one Chapman engages with.
The most infamous of these examples comes with the case study of Ann, who goes to Chapman for guidance in dealing with her husband’s cruelty. “Is it possible to love someone you hate?” she asks Chapman. In response, he gives her Bible passages about loving one’s enemies and tells her that her husband’s love language is probably physical touch. In order to save the marriage, he advises her, she should stop all complaints about her husband and start initiating sex at least twice a week.
Ann tells Chapman that sex with her husband is difficult for her because she feels so estranged from her husband. When they’re intimate, she says, she feels “used rather than loved.” Lots of women feel this way, Chapman tells her. Her Christian faith will help her through it. Ann does as Chapman tells her to, and the marriage is saved.
In later editions, Chapman revised this case study. (He told the Washington Post that “physical abuse today is far more evident and apparent than it was when I wrote the book.”) In the new version, Chapman tells Ann to be more physically affectionate with her husband — ruffle his hair, kiss him on the cheek — and perhaps consider working her way up to initiating sex when their relationship has recovered some.
The new advice is less blatantly misogynistic than the advice of the first edition, but both contain the same underlying logic: If a woman’s husband is emotionally abusive toward her, it is her responsibility to coddle him and mollify him until he decides to treat her better. In real life, however, the only person who can control the behavior of an abuser is the abuser themselves.
Some of this ideology has made its way into the structure of the love language model. In their paper, Impett et al. note that some studies associate high relationship satisfaction with high respect for each other’s autonomy and personal goals outside of the relationship. Such egalitarian goals do not appear anywhere in Chapman’s models.
Instead of the love languages, consider aiming for a love diet
The love languages might be a flawed concept, but they speak deeply to thousands of people. Partly, that’s because people love a personality quiz, and the love languages come with one. But Chapman also had a key insight that he was able to express with the straightforward and intuitive metaphor of different languages: The way that you express and experience love might be different from the way your partner expresses and experiences love. That’s a valuable idea.
“If I had to pick one reason why I think many couples find Chapman’s book to be helpful,” says Park, “it is not because they learned their own or their partner’s love language but because it gets people to identify any currently unmet needs in their relationship and opens up lines of communication to address those needs.”
Still, the research suggests that adhering rigidly to the love language model won’t serve you well over time, in large part because it doesn’t match how human relationships work. We love in many ways, not just one.
“It is very likely that in one situation, someone might need a certain type of love or support,” says Park. “Perhaps after losing out on a promotion, you just need your partner to listen and provide you with words of affirmation. Maybe on an anniversary dinner, affection makes you feel special. Or during a particularly stressful time at work, having a partner take on extra household tasks is the best way to support you.”
In their paper, Impett et al. suggest replacing the metaphor of the love languages with a new one: the love diet.
“People should make sure they have a nutritionally balanced relationship,” they argue.
Under this metaphor, choosing one primary love language is something like a crash diet where you eat nothing but fruit, even though your body also needs carbs and fats and proteins to survive. For Impett et al., healthy relationships should prioritize quality time and physical touch, compliments and presents and helping each other out, plus all the other categories of love that don’t fit into Chapman’s model. “If they feel that something is missing,” the paper continues, “they could discuss that imbalance (unmet need) with their partner.”
Gary Chapman’s five love languages taught a lot of people how to start talking about their needs. It might be time for the conversation to evolve — perhaps over dinner.
----------------------------------------
By: Constance Grady
Title: What the 5 love languages get right, and what they get very wrong
Sourced From: www.vox.com/culture/24067506/5-love-languages-gary-chapman
Published Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:00:00 +0000
