Too bad Jeffrey Kluger didn’t pay closer attention to Hannibal Lecter. He might have written a better article on “Why We Love,” out this week in Time Magazine, instead of giving us a flawed view of evolution and brain research. Still, in furtive glimpses of data, rather than quick quotes and pop theories, another way to think about love glides onto stage.
As I told my anthropology students yesterday, the initial assumptions we make so often dictate our ideas and our results. But those assumptions are generally presented as “facts” or assertions of truth, part of an unassailable background. So here are the ones packed into Kluger’s piece, right there at the beginning: (1) that humans rely on our wits, so “losing our faculties over a matter like sex” needs explaining (in other words, humans are rational, why have primitive passions); (2) that we evolved in a “savanna full of predators,” so getting distracted by love could be potentially dangerous, (3) that our genes have “concerns,” primary among them to make us reproduce as much as possible (“breed now and breed plenty gets that job done”), and (4) that we can extend these sorts of explanations to all “the rituals surrounding” sex, love and relationships (like a bunch of scientists drunk on their own ideas—explanatory expansion gone wild!).
Continue reading “Why We Love, The Time Magazine Version”