I. Introduction: Pair Bonding and the inspiration for this project
From Psychology Today “On Marriage and Pair Bonds”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201205/marriage-and-pair-bonds
Dr. Agustin Fuentes notes, “It is not human nature to seek marriage and a specific romantic relationship, but it is our nature to pair bond and it is our culture to seek marriage.” He argues that although the concept of love and marriage gained popularity in the 16th century and therefore are conflated, they are not the same thing. Biologically, there are two types of pair bonds: social and sexual. The social pair bond consists of a strong behavioral psychological relationship and the sexual bond is a physiological companionship between two individuals. In humans specifically, pair bonds are developed through social interactions and biological activity of both neurotransmitters and hormones. Either way, pair bonds are central patterns in human evolution, as they consist of complex social networks. However, historians and social scientists view marriage as a social system that legitimizes reproduction and inheritance of property, regulation of sexual intercourse, and the cultural sanctioning of romance and love.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines boning as “something (such as an idea, interest, experience, or feeling) that is shared between people or groups and forms a connection between them” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bond). Human bonding develops through attachments based on emotions like affection and trust. The term pair bonding often insinuates socially monogamous relationships, which have become the contemporary societal norm in the United States. According to David Barash and Judith Lipton’s book, The Myth of Monogamy, there are a few different types of pair bonds: short-term (transient mating), long-term (bonding for a significant amount of life), lifelong (mated for life), social (attachment for territorial reasons), clandestine (quick extra-pair copulations), and dynamic (ape-like mating systems). In humans, all of these bonds can present themselves in different ways. Although these bonds are neurological, contemporary culture has conflated them with marriage or lifelong partnerships. These extreme “bonds” have been used to explain and articulate the feelings of love.
My inspiration for this project came from the exploration of the research addressed above. As the youngest of five children and a product of a happy marriage, I have been sensing a pattern among my siblings and their significant others, as well within relatives, friends, peers, etc. In my experience, I have noticed that as people get older, they tend to yearn for, search, find, and attach themselves to suitable mates. Often times (or at least I hope), these mates are people who are compatible with their significant other, show trust and companionship, and have both a social and sexual attraction. But as I watch these pairs form, I cannot help but wonder why these bonds form. Are these bonds an intimate desire between two people or a socially constructed mechanism used in our society? What is the relationship between these two elements and how does that lead to the desire and need for companionship?
This idea of companionship has been important to me throughout my college career. I grew up surrounded by the Jewish value of Tikkun Olam, “you are not obligated to complete the work of repairing the world, but neither are you free to desist from it.” For me, this translated into a passion for building interpersonal relationships and forming connections for the purpose of making the world a better place. After finding a pattern between all of these different people in my life and my passion for wanting to connect with people on a deeper level, I started to apply my theory and question to my work at the University of Michigan, specifically regarding my work in the social work field. Once I began to understand theories and practices of effective social work, I started to see a correlation between the work and building interpersonal relationships. Through my involvement with the Intergroup Relations Program, I learned about the importance of getting to know people, learning about their background and history, and then understanding how to respect and trust them, before diving into intense conversations about structural, institutional, and societal oppression. It is these bonds that people form that allow them to connect on a deeper level, and discuss such contentious topics, because they have a defined relationship. Therefore, I think exploring and starting to understand the nature of companionship and why we feel the desire to find companionship can help when trying to use this tactic as a means for social change. If we all connect and develop meaningful interpersonal relationships, we can begin to understand and respect new perspectives and opinions. In my experience, ignorance and hatred comes from a lack of understanding or a lack of knowledge, which then leads to fear. However, if we get to know each other and learn from different cultures and backgrounds, we can ultimately grow from one another. However, in order to use this tactic, we must first understand why these relationships form in the first place.
Thus, my interest in this topic is two-fold: I have a genuine affinity for wanting to build and understand interpersonal relationships and I think it could be an agent for social change. If we all understood why we feel the need to find companionship, maybe we can begin to better understand where it comes from and what it looks like.