Ben-Zeev (2021). Cyberspace. The Alternative Romantic Culture.pdf

Claude-Hélène Mayer Elisabeth Vanderheiden Editors International Handbook of Love Transcultural and Transdisciplinary Perspectives Editors Claude-Hélène Mayer Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management University of Johannesburg Johannesburg, South Africa Elisabeth Vanderheiden Global Institute for Transcultural Research Römerberg, Germany Institut für therapeutische Kommunikation und Sprachgebrauch Europa Universität Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), Germany ISBN 978-3-030-45995-6 ISBN 978-3-030-45996-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45996-3 (eBook) © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, speciﬁcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microﬁlms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a speciﬁc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional afﬁliations. Cover illustration: Sharon McCutcheon This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Chapter 5 Cyberspace: The Alternative Romantic Culture Aaron Ben-Ze’ev Abstract Cyberspace provides an alternative culture to one’s actual romantic setting. It enables participants to explore exciting romantic options without bearing signiﬁcant costs in terms of resources and efforts, and without necessarily violating signiﬁcant personal commitments. The new romantic culture, in which cyberspace has a prominent role, is both seductive and sustainable. Two major contributions of cyberspace to the romantic realm are facilitating ﬁnding a willing romantic partner, and creating more types of romantic relationships. Their impact upon the nature of romantic relations is examined. A major impact is making romantic relations more complex, diverse and ﬂexible, and at the same time briefer and more superﬁcial. The normative impact of cyberspace on the romantic culture is discussed, indicating the increasing violations of values and boundaries in our romantic behavior. Today’s abundance of romantic and sexual options facilitates ﬁnding love, but obstructs keeping it for a long time. However, the need for love does not disappear among young people as well as people in their later life, or when love is mature. A combination of ofﬂine and online interactions can be very fruitful for cultivating the romantic realm. Keywords Love · Cyberspace · Cyberlove · Diversity · Flexibility · Profundity 5.1 More and Different Romantic Options Cyberspace constitutes one of today’s most exciting social and cultural sites. This is also true of the romantic realm, in which seeking a romantic partner as well as conducting loving and sexual activities are very common. In fact, the most common way these days to meet a future spouse is online—and the popularity of this method is expected to soar in the near future. Studies indicate that the overall quality of A. Ben-Ze’ev (*) Department of Philosophy, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C.-H. Mayer, E. Vanderheiden (eds.), International Handbook of Love, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45996-3_5 83 84 A. Ben-Ze’ev relations started online is about the same, and sometimes even higher, than those began otherwise (Ortega & Hergovich, 2018; Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012). Cyberspace does not merely help people ﬁnd their romantic partner, but also enables some novel types of love, termed “cyberlove”. The new romantic culture, in which cyberspace has a prominent role, is extremely seductive for various reasons; two such main reasons are the abundance of available romantic options and the interactive nature of the romantic imagination in cyberspace. Whereas the ﬁrst feature signiﬁcantly increases the number of options for the common, ofﬂine type of relation, the second one adds other types of romantic relations that are easy to obtain. I begin by brieﬂy describing a few major facets of cyberlove and cybersex, and then discuss the aforementioned two reasons for the intense appeal of this cyber use. 5.1.1 Cyberlove and Cybersex Cyberlove is a romantic relationship that takes place mainly through a computer and application-mediated communication. Despite the fact that the partner is physically remote and sometimes somewhat anonymous, the emotion of love is experienced as fully and as intensely as in an ofﬂine relationship (Bergen, 2006; Jiang & Hancock, 2013; Kelmer, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2013; Stafford, 2005). Nevertheless, geographic proximity remains a strong driver of romantic interaction (Bruch & Newman, 2019). In a broad sense, cybersex (or in slang, “cybering”) refers to all types of sexually related activities offered in cyberspace, including mobile applications. People send provocative and erotic messages to each other with the purpose of bringing each other to orgasm as they masturbate together in real time. In cybersex, people describe body characteristics to one another, verbalize sexual actions and reactions, and make believe that the virtual happenings are real. Cybersex requires the articulation of sexual desire to an extent that would be most unusual in face-to-face encounters. In cyberspace, that which often remains unspoken must be put into words (Döring, 2002). When people are engaged in cybersex, they cannot actually kiss each other; nevertheless, the kiss they send is emotionally vivid, and its emotional impact is often similar to that of an actual kiss. Our active role in cyberspace makes this environment more enticing and exciting than that of daydreams, erotic novels, or X-rated movies. And it is this enhanced excitement that ampliﬁes the temptation to engage in sexual activities (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004, 4–6). Nevertheless, geographic proximity remains a strong driver of romantic interaction. The distinction between online relationships that are used as a way of ﬁnding an ofﬂine partner and online-only relationships is related to the more general distinction between considering the Internet as a cultural artifact—that is, a means of communication in an ofﬂine social world—and considering it as a culture of its own—that is, regarding cyberspace as a cultural space in its own right. Since the Internet is not a 5 Cyberspace: The Alternative Romantic Culture 85 uniﬁed phenomenon, the two uses of the Net coexist (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004, 133; Slater, 2002). 5.1.2 Abundant Available Romantic Options Cyberspace is an alternative, available culture providing us with ready access to a world of available options. It is easy and an inexpensive to reach desired partners, and simple to perform desired actions. It takes less effort to ﬁnd romantic partners in cyberspace than at bars, shopping malls, or supermarkets. Thus, in the United States meeting online has become the most popular way couples meet, eclipsing meeting through friends for the ﬁrst time around 2013. Traditional ways of meeting partners (through family, in church, in the neighborhood) have all been declining since World War II. Meeting through friends has been in decline since roughly 1995 (Rosenfeld, Thomas, & Hausen, 2019). Cyberspace is also highly available in the sense that it is highly accessible (for the time being, more so in the West than in other parts of the world). Connections to cyberspace are everywhere—home, work, hotels, and even cafes—and logging in takes no time at all. Thanks to the exceptional accessibility and convenience of cyberspace, people feel comfortable about entering and remaining there. Little investment is required to step into this imaginative paradise. Millions of people eagerly await you on the Net every moment of the day for full-blown romantic relations, or merely sexual interactions. These people are available, willing, and easy to ﬁnd. (It bears remembering, of course, that, as is true in ofﬂine life, most of those people will not suit or interest you and will not reply to your request to meet them.) Such overwhelming availability is associated with frequent novel changes, and this makes cyberspace intensely dynamic, unstable, and exciting (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004, 18–20). The abundance of romantic options does not merely include future novel romantic options, but also previous romantic relationships. Past lovers never quite disappear from view on the internet and social networks, and if some remnant of the closeness we once felt with them remains, people can feel entitled to be with them again. The ghosts of past lovers remain just a click away and may prevent lovers from accepting their own current romantic lot. Cyberspace increases one’s romantic options, not only in the sense of being able to identify many candidates previously unknown to us, but also in the sense of signiﬁcantly increasing the percentage in this group of those who are willing to start a relationship. There are, of course, cultural differences; overall, though, the direction is clear: greater usage of cyberspace in the initiation of romantic relationships. This is because of the egalitarian aspect of cyberspace. Interactions in this realm erase social constraints, particularly status differences. One does not have to be the product of many years of evolution, personal development, and luck in order to share the advantages enjoyed by handsome and rich people. In the virtual culture of cyberspace, these advantages are open to everyone. 86 A. Ben-Ze’ev The egalitarian aspect of cyberspace is also expressed in the fact that it is highly accessible for speciﬁc sectors of society that may have more difﬁculty ﬁnding a suitable partner. This is true of those who are physically disadvantaged, sick, older, younger, shy, unattractive, homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual. All of them—not to mention others—may ﬁnd the Net an attractive place to initiate and maintain romantic and sexual relationships. Indeed, up to 70% of homosexual relationships start online (Ortega & Hergovich, 2018). In many aspects, cyberspace seems to be an egalitarian medium—in theory, at least, everyone has access to it, and everyone is treated equally regardless of personal characteristics such as external appearance, gender, color, religion, race, age, disability, social status, and income level (Katz & Rice, 2002). On the Net, people connect because of what they have to say, and what is on their mind. While income level, education, and place of residence can clearly limit one’s access to the Internet, decreases in costs of computers and advancements in the developing world’s education and infrastructure make the Internet increasingly accessible. There are, however, other characteristics, such as creativity, intellect, interests, wit, a sense of humor, and the ability to respond quickly in a witty manner, that give an edge to those who possess such skills, and this makes the Internet less egalitarian. Bruch and Newman (2018) discuss another aspect of inequality in online dating, namely, the hierarchy of desirability. They argue that in light of the high volume of partners and low threshold for sending a message, competition for potential partners’ attention is likely ﬁercer online than ofﬂine. This may increase “the presence of a hierarchy of desirability online, and reduce people’s willingness to respond to less desirable mates: When there are plenty of ﬁsh in the sea, one can afford to throw a few back” (Bruch & Newman, 2018). Cyberspace can be likened to an enormous commune—a kind of mentally nude commune. People feel free to strip off their mental mask and unload their secret desires. Imagination, which paints cyberspace in exceptionally vivid colors, also helps people satisfy some of their profound desires. This does not mean, however, that personality differences or differences relating to gender, race, and age completely disappear, as such differences are connected to psychological, social, cultural, and physical differences that are not automatically eliminated by online communication (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004, 16–18). 5.1.3 Interactive Exciting Imagination Imagination has a crucial role in generating emotions. This role has to do with the comparative nature of emotions: emotional comparison involves reference to a situation that is different from the present one. Emotional imagination does not merely refer to situations that are not present to our senses, but also to situations that do not exist now—most of which will never exist at all. The important role of emotional imagination, and positive cognitive biases in particular, is clearly evident in the romantic realm. Contrary to the belief that lasting 5 Cyberspace: The Alternative Romantic Culture 87 romantic satisfaction depends on an accurate understanding of the partners’ real strengths and frailties, positive cognitive biases are quite valuable in making romantic relationships more satisfying and less distressing. Sustaining a sense of security often requires weaving an elaborate story that both embellishes a partner’s virtues and overlooks, or at least minimizes, his or her faults (Ben-Ze’ev & Goussinsky, 2008, Chap. 5; Gilbert, 2007: 26, 98; Taylor, 1989). Today, dreams are no longer the major tool for imagining a better situation. Cyberspace has taken up that role and run with it. In cyberspace, two lovers feel as if they are directly connected— as if their bodies do not interfere, allowing their hearts to be in direct communication. Online relationship as can be described as dreaming while awake and delight in these dreams. Imaginative activity is hardly new, of course; people have always imagined themselves doing all sorts of things with all sorts of others in all sorts of places. The novelty of cyberspace lies in the magnitude of the imaginary aspect and, in particular, in its interactive nature. Such interactivity has made this psychological reality a social and cultural reality as well: imaginary actions have become common practice for many people. Cyberspace is similar to ﬁctional space in the sense that in both cases the ﬂight into virtual reality is not so much a denial of reality as a form of exploring and playing with it. One crucial difference between the two is the interactive nature of cyberspace. In cyberspace, people do not merely read or watch a romantic affair undertaken by others, but in a sense, they are actually participating in it. The active nature of cyberspace is also expressed in the fact that ﬁnding a partner online does not involve patiently waiting for her to cross one’s path (a traditional ofﬂine method), but rather entails an active search through cyberspace for exactly what one seeks (Best & Delmege, 2012). The above considerations have revolutionized the role of imagination in personal relationships and have promoted imagination from being a peripheral tool used at best by artists, and at worst by dreamers and others who—it was thought, had nothing better to do—to a central means of personal relationship for ordinary folks who have busy, involved lives, but prefer to interact online. Although some areas of cyberspace can be regarded as electronic bedrooms, in other areas different types of personal relationships ﬂourish. Cyberspace is virtual in the sense that imagination is intrinsic to that space. In many online relationships, you can imagine your cybermate in whatever way you wish to, and you can describe yourself as you want to be seen. In another important sense, however, cyberspace is not virtual: online relationships are conducted between actual, ﬂesh-and-blood people. Although this relationship involves many imaginative aspects, the relationship itself is not imaginary. Cyberspace is a part of reality; it is, then, incorrect to regard it as the direct opposite of real space. Cyberspace is part of real space, and online relationships are real relationships (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004, 1–4). The active personal role in cyberspace makes this environment more enchanting than that of sexual fantasies, erotic novels and movies; hence, the massive temptation to engage in cybersex. Since the line separating passive observation from full interaction is crossed in cybersex, it becomes easier to blur the line separating 88 A. Ben-Ze’ev imagination from reality. The presence of interactive characteristics in the imaginary realm of an online relationship is a revolution in personal relationships, as it enables people to reap many of the beneﬁts associated with ofﬂine relationships without a signiﬁcant investment of resources. Cyberlove, which is a new kind of romantic relation, lacks some central features of ofﬂine love—but it may fulﬁll one’s basic romantic needs at a dramatically lower cost (Benski & Fisher, 2014; Ben-Ze’ev, 2004, 1–6). 5.2 The Impact of Cyberspace on Romantic Relations Cyberspace has had a tremendous impact on modern life in general and on the romantic realm in particular. Here, I focus on the impact of the aforementioned two reasons that cyberspace is such a bewitching romantic draw: the abundance of available romantic options and the interactive essence of the romantic imagination. Some immediate consequences of these features are an increase in the diversity and ﬂexibility, and hence the complexity, of the romantic culture, and making romantic relations briefer and more superﬁcial. 5.2.1 Increasing Diversity and Flexibility Cyberspace signiﬁcantly increases diversity and ﬂexibility in one’s romantic life. People are aware of more alluring romantic options, and staying in one’s romantic place becomes harder. Indeed, cybersex provides more ﬂexible boundaries than reallife sex. Survival in a diverse environment hinges on the ability to be ﬂexible. Modern technology enables us to maintain remote relationships. It not only offers more options for meeting willing people; it also provides more comfortable and efﬁcient ways to pursue several romantic relationships at the same time. Human life concerns not only—or even mainly—the present, but rather, and to a signiﬁcant extent, the realm of imagined possibilities, that is, opportunities which can be realized, or at least be imagined. The imaginary realm is much more central in cyberspace than in our ofﬂine environment. The realm of potential possibilities is promising, but risky as well. To guide our walk through this unknown territory we have created boundaries that eliminate those options that seem immoral or risky. In many circumstances, these boundaries may be suitable as general guidelines, but they cannot cover all the various circumstances. Hence, ﬂexibility involving overstepping the boundaries seems inevitable (Ben-Ze’ev & Goussinsky, 2008: Chap. 5). Quoidbach et al. (2014) argue that “emodiversity”—that is, the variety and abundance of the emotions that people experience—is an independent predictor of mental and physical health, such as decreased depression and fewer visits to doctors. They further claim that experiencing many different speciﬁc emotional states (e.g., 5 Cyberspace: The Alternative Romantic Culture 89 anger, shame, and sadness) can have more survival value than experiencing fewer or more global states (e.g., feeling bad). Since the diversity of these speciﬁc emotions provides richer information about our environment, the individual is more able to deal with a given emotional situation. (Quoidbach et al., 2014). Diversity in cyber society is increased in the sense of allowing people to meet strangers. In this regard, I suggest considering two major processes: (1) increasing the feasibility of meeting strangers, and (2) increasing the feasibility of meeting individuals who face a thinner market for potential partners, such as gays, lesbians, and middle-aged heterosexuals. Cyberspace increasingly allows people to meet and form relationships with perfects strangers, and hence increases the likelihood of interracial marriages in our societies, which is remarkably low (Ortega & Hergovich, 2018). On the other hand, cyberspace facilitates creating bonds between individuals who face a thin market. In the case of interracial marriages, the ﬁrst process seems to have great impact, while in the case of individuals facing a thin market, the impact of the second process is strong. Consequently, a very high percentage of homosexual relations begin online. Indeed, partnership rate has increased during the Internet era (consistent with Internet efﬁciency of search) for same-sex couples, but the heterosexual partnership rate has remained ﬂat (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012). The diversity in cyber society does not add new emotions to the ones we experience in our ofﬂine environment. Such diversity, however, does change the circumstances in which our emotions are generated—there are a greater number of circumstances in which the emotions are generated in a faster and more intense manner. Thus, people often fall in love in a faster and in a more intense manner in online relations than in ofﬂine ones. One reason for this is the greater role of imagination in these relations. Another reason concerns the issue of self-disclosure, which is vital in romantic relations. The greater sense of security due to physical separation means that self-disclosure is also more prevalent in cyberspace. This in turn increases intimacy and, accordingly, the seductiveness of online relationships is further enhanced (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004, Chap. 4). Davidson, Joinson, and Jones (2018) argue that there are several ways in which technology has shaped the ways in which relationships start, progress, maintained and end. Technology has vastly increased the volume of potential partners available to an individual, has transformed the pace and order in which a relationship develops, and has revised the way in which humans go about choosing a suitable partner (Davidson et al., 2018). Diversity is generally good for us. Is it also good in the romantic realm? Does the abundance of romantic options enhance the “quantity” and quality of love in the world? It seems that indeed these days, “love is in the air,” everywhere we look around. However, is this the love that people have dreamt about? Is it possible that the air is a bit polluted? Thaler and Sunstein (2009) discuss the drive for incessant options arguing that there is a signiﬁcant problem with the notion—popular in economics and ordinary life—that you can never be made worse off by having more choices because you can always turn some of them down. This principle, they argue, fails to take into account self-control, temptation, and the conﬂict between short-term desires and long-term 90 A. Ben-Ze’ev welfare. Thaler and Sunstein criticize the wish to have more mainly because it tends to privilege many superﬁcial, short-term desires and ignore our fewer, profound long-terms needs. Similarly, Barry Schwartz (2004) points out that maximizers’ unending desire for more leads to general dissatisfaction and reduces their sense of well-being. Oftentimes, it is, in fact, not good to have more or to be searching for more. And so, we hear: “More is less,” “Less is more,” “Too much of a good thing,” and “Too many are not enough.” In the romantic realm, these expressions refer to the current abundance of romantic options, which put people in an ongoing process of choosing, thereby hindering their ability to establish profound long-term love. Such circumstances often lead to frustration, sadness, and feelings of loneliness. The idea “Less is more” has a similar meaning. In focusing on fewer romantic partners, you can achieve greater profundity and meaningfulness. In this sense, less romantic quantity—that is, fewer romantic partners—is often associated with greater quality and romantic profundity. The expression “Too many are not enough” also refers to an imbalance preventing us from settling on what we have (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019, 152–154). It is worthwhile to remember that terms like “more” and “less”, and “too much” and “too little”, are domain- and context-dependent. Aristotle believed that the most important aspect of an activity is not its quantity, but whether it is appropriate—that is, how suitable it is in the given circumstances. Finding the appropriate ﬂexibility balance here is the key to romantic ﬂourishing. We can think of ﬂexibility, which is the quality of bending without breaking, as the ability to make changes in a situation that is changing. Stability is very valuable in romantic relations, and in particular for achieving profundity in these relations. Interestingly, in our diverse and dynamic culture, it is through ﬂexibility that our enduring romantic relationships remain stable. To understand this point, let us ﬁrst consider the value of psychological ﬂexibility in general health. Kashdan and Rottenberg (2010) discuss the importance of psychological ﬂexibility (and stability) for health. This ﬂexibility spans a wide range of human abilities, such as adapting to situational demands, shifting behavioral priorities when needed, maintaining balance among important life areas, and being open and committed to behaviors that ﬁt with deeply held values. These abilities capture the dynamic, ﬂuctuating, and context-speciﬁc behaviors of people navigating the challenges of daily life. Rigidity, which indicates a lack of sensitivity to one’s context, often points to psychopathology. Kashdan and Rottenberg (2010) claim that healthy people can manage themselves in the uncertain, unpredictable world around them, where novelty and change are the norm rather than the exception. With psychological ﬂexibility, we can ﬁnd ways to shape our automatic processes in better directions. In light of the more diverse nature of cyberspace, being able to add online interactions to our cultural repertory may enhance people’s health, if they do not neglect major ofﬂine interactions. Psychological ﬂexibility, which is essential to a ﬂourishing life, is also crucial in the romantic realm. This is largely so because romantic ﬂourishing presupposes general ﬂourishing. And romantic ﬂexibility echoes psychological ﬂexibility: 5 Cyberspace: The Alternative Romantic Culture 91 adapting to situational demands, shifting priorities, and maintaining a balance between life, love, and sexual needs. Regarding romantic stability as well, ﬂexibility, which involves bending some rigid rules, can prevent romantic relationships from breaking. It is easier to draw clear romantic (and other) boundaries than to keep them. Although normative boundaries are supposed to guide our behavior, reality is rather complicated. In this regard, the distinction between guiding and speciﬁc rules is relevant. Guiding principles provide general directions, such as “Drive safely,” rather than speciﬁc rules, like “Don’t exceed 100 miles per hour.” What constitutes safe driving can vary considerably, depending on different factors, such as driver competence and road conditions (Averill, Catlin, & Chon, 1990, 34). Similarly, what constitutes romantic ﬂourishing varies considerably, depending on personal and contextual features. People use speciﬁc rules to help them cope with their chaotic romantic culture, but there is no golden rule to tell us what constitutes a ﬂourishing, lasting romantic relationship. Our romantic life is made more complicated by the many alternatives available to us. These alternatives concern not merely ﬁnding a new partner, but also reunion with a former one. This widespread state, which prevails more among young adults, can be described as “not together, but not completely broken up”; it reﬂects the presence of dynamic trajectories involving “a heterogeneous and multidirectional array of transitions” (Binstock & Thornton, 2003). Since ex-lovers have a privileged place in our heart, and as it has become simpler to ﬁnd them, their contribution to the ﬂexible nature of our romantic culture is signiﬁcant. Extreme romantic ﬂexibility, in which we try every such alternative, is contrary to the values relating to who we are. However, extreme rigidity is likely to break us. Bending, which is a kind of compromise, is the ﬂexibility that enables what is less than ideal to be maintained and enhanced for a long time. People who refuse to compromise their ideals often end up abandoning them. It is indeed better to bend than to break. But too much bending can break us as well (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019, 235–236). Increasing ﬂexibility will probably modify present social and cultural forms such as marriage and cohabitation, as well as current romantic practices relating to courtship, casual sex, committed romantic relationships, and romantic exclusivity. Catherine Hakim (2012) argues that as the Pill made premarital sex among young people much easier, the internet facilitates playfairs among older married people. Recent history teaches us that we can expect a further relaxation of social and moral norms. In light of the complex, diverse, and ﬂexible nature of online relations, cyberspace has been a crucial factor in the relaxation of our norms. 5.2.2 Profundity and Superﬁciality Something that is profound extends far below the surface and has a lasting effect. Profound emotional experiences have a lingering impact on our life and personality. 92 A. Ben-Ze’ev Profound activities, however, are not necessarily pleasant activities. Some writers and artists experience great agony in the process of creating their works. In such cases, profundity typically involves deep, meaningful satisfaction in overcoming difﬁculties while using one’s most distinctive capacities. In the romantic realm, we can distinguish between profound and superﬁcial phenomena by paying attention to romantic intensity, on the one hand, and romantic profundity, on the other. Romantic intensity is a snapshot of a momentary peak of passionate, often sexual, desire. Romantic profundity goes beyond mere romantic intensity and refers to the lover’s broader and more enduring attitude. External change is highly signiﬁcant in generating romantic intensity; in romantic depth, familiarity, stability, and development are tremendously important. While romantic novelty is useful in preventing boredom, romantic familiarity is valuable in promoting ﬂourishing (Ben-Ze’ev & Krebs, 2018). The dynamic nature of cyberspace often upsets the delicate balance between change and stability in our lives, particularly in the romantic domain, as it signiﬁcantly increases the role of change. Ofﬂine boundaries that delineate, for instance, place, time, social and moral behavior, are of less weight in cyberspace, and people often feel freer to do in cyberspace deeds that they would not do in ofﬂine reality. Cyberspace has a less unitary, stable structure. To be in cyberspace is to be in a perpetual state of searching, an endless chase that rarely settles into stability. Hence, online events often lack a stable narrative, with an expected beginning and ending. Such never-ending events, which are analogous to unﬁnished business, increase uncertainty and frustration, and hence, emotional intensity (Almog, 2002; Ben-Ze’ev, 2004, 223–227). As I argue below, despite the diverse and ﬂexible nature of our cyber culture, many couples still enjoy a stable, enduring relationship. Nevertheless, it remains much easier these days to ﬁnd love than to develop it over an extended period of time. The technology associated with online relationships, and in particular the various mobile applications, make it easier, more convenient, and safer to increase ﬂexibility and reduce exclusivity. The romantic environment in cyberspace perfectly aligns with our accelerated society, while making this society even more sexually efﬁcient. Many people are too busy nowadays even to make superﬁcial sexual contacts on a face-to-face basis. They let their mobile applications do the work. Modern technology continues to improve the methods available for both initiating and maintaining ofﬂine (as well as online) sexual and romantic relations (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019, 183–185). In addition to the many websites offering potential partners, various mobile applications ease the initiation of a relationship. The popular application “Tinder” makes the selection process simple (selection is based mainly on external appearance) and easy (one sweeps the smartphone screen to the right to say “like” or to the left to say “pass”). Motivations for using this application vary; users are looking not merely for casual sex, but also for love, communication, validation of their selfworth, thrills or excitement, and to be trendy. Hence, “Tinder should not be seen as merely a fun, hookup app without any strings attached,” but also as a new way “to initiate committed romantic relationships” (Sumter, Vandenbosch, & Ligtenberg, 5 Cyberspace: The Alternative Romantic Culture 93 2017). It seems that online dating sites are excellent tools for locating possible romantic candidates, but much less useful in establishing long-term profound love (Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis, & Sprecher, 2012). Falling in love in cyberspace is akin to love at ﬁrst sight: we do not have all the required information and we ﬁll in the gaps with idealized assumptions. As in love at ﬁrst sight, the chat skips, in a sense, the usual process of information processing, and is directly “injected” into the brain evaluative centers. Thus, we can speak about “love at ﬁrst chat.” For example, one might detect in the ﬁrst chat a sense of humor and wittiness, and instantly fall in love with the sender. Our accelerated cyber culture is addicted to external change. Investing time in profound endeavors, including romantic relations, is not our ﬁrst—or even second or third—choice of activity. Yet romantic depth requires serious time investment. Over the past few decades, spouses have spent less and less time together, with work taking more and more of the clock share. And stress, information overload, and multitasking have made the moments that spouses do spend with one another feel less good (Finkel, Hui, Carswell, & Larson, 2014). Fast change is the hallmark of our throwaway and restless culture, which is based on overconsumption and excessive production of short-lived or disposable items. We are addicted to rapid novelty that takes place in constant ﬂux (Bauman, 2003; Rosa, 2013). For many people, remaining in one place feels like treading water. There is no rest for lovers, and not because the road of love on which they are traveling is not good; it might be a bit boring, but it is still a valuable road— probably one of the best in the history of humanity. Yet the novel road not taken is seen to be more attractive, and there appear to be many roads from which to choose. Chasing after a short-term fantasy is often the problem, not the solution. Fantasies about what is or might be “out there” often prove to be a poor substitute for what we already have. It does not take too much to become enslaved by our own fantasies about the possible (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019). The ease of establishing online relationships and the reduced investment that they require may make some of them superﬁcial, alongside the superﬁcial nature of our culture that emphasizes the value of immediate satisfaction. However, online relationships can also be used to establish romantic profundity. Both the internet and mobile applications provide an enjoyable and efﬁcient means by which various people get to know each other intimately without the distractions of external factors, such as appearance, age, geographical distance, race, nationality, religion, or marital status. As indicated above, this is likely to increase the number of international, intercultural, and interreligious marriages, ultimately modifying global social norms—in the main, making them more ﬂexible and often more superﬁcial (Ortega & Hergovich, 2018). We can expect that as technology develops, the norms of romantic relationships will also morph to include cyberspace as a realm in which viable romantic love can be achieved. Online social networks have increased the number of people we are in touch with, but they cannot sustain the profundity of a traditional friendship. Alongside greater romantic diversity and ﬂexibility, there has been another, somewhat surprising, development in romantic relationships: the increasing 94 A. Ben-Ze’ev presence of romantic profundity. No doubt about it—tempestuous romantic experiences are certainly valuable. However, our high-paced culture ﬂoods us with superﬁcial excitement. Slow, profound, or older people often fall victim to this rapid pace; fast and superﬁcial people have the edge. Social networks make connection between people faster and less profound, decreasing romantic profundity and increasing loneliness, which stems not from a lack of social connections, but from a lack of meaningful, profound connections. As we live longer and our society offers ever more superﬁcial experiences, romantic profundity has taken on even greater value. These days, it is not more brief, exciting experiences that we need for a happiness upgrade, but rather the ability to establish and enhance long-term robust romantic relationships (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019). 5.2.3 Romantic Complexity Are our romantic lives now more or less complex? The answer is not straightforward. On the one hand, the greater diversity and ﬂexibility promoted by cyberspace make our romantic life more complex; on the other, the greater superﬁciality that is promoted by cyberspace takes the romantic life to be simpler. In this regard, we can discuss two senses of romantic complexity: (a) holistic complexity, as when love is directed at the beloved as a complex, whole person; and (b) type complexity, as when one person’s love is directed at various individuals. The ﬁrst form of complexity, which is highly praised, underlies long-term profound love. The second form of complexity is more disputable. Polyamorous lovers practice it and maintain that such complexity does not damage, and can even enhance, the intensity and depth of their love overall. Profound romantic love involves a comprehensive attitude that takes cognizance of the rich and complex nature of the beloved (Ortega y Gasset, 1941, 43, 76–77). The lover’s comprehensive attitude is complex in its profundity, that is, it does not focus on simple narrow aspects of the beloved, but considers the beloved as a whole multifaceted being. Sexual desire is less comprehensive in this sense, as it typically focuses on the animate nature of a person’s body in the here-and-now, rather than their wider character and history. In romantic love we see both the forest and the trees, whereas in sexual desire we focus upon one or several trees. The limited nature of sexual desire is manifested in the notion of a “one-night stand.” One-night stands, although often meaningful and exciting, are inherently simple and limited (Ben-Ze’ev & Brunning, 2018; Förster, Epstude, & Özelsel, 2009). Prime examples in our culture of complexity that involves dealing with many different romantic experiences are consensual non-monogamous relations such as open marriage and polyamory. The complexity of these relations creates the need for an order of priorities. Such a hierarchy is obvious in open sexual relationships, where a clear difference exists between the primary relation and the secondary one. Polyamory is a more complicated romantic framework, as the involvement of 5 Cyberspace: The Alternative Romantic Culture 95 more people in the romantic framework is not limited to sexual activities—which is often the case in open marriages—but involves a comprehensive romantic attitude. Romantic complexity in polyamory is often dealt with by adopting the primarysecondary model. Primary and secondary relationships differ with respect to time spent together, physical cohabitation, child-rearing, and ﬁnances. The secondary relation, which is more novel, often enjoys greater romantic intensity. The primary partner has more rights and obligations than those of the secondary one in these aspects—this is mainly due to the connection of the primary partner to the children. We might say, in this regard, that the primary partner has “more shares in the business”. The secondary partner, who can be a primary partner in another relation, has the right to be treated with respect and attentiveness, though when conﬂicts arise, the primary partner usually has ﬁrst priority—albeit not an absolute one. Thus, it is possible that over time, the secondary relation evolves into a primary (or co-primary) form, and sometimes the primary-secondary aspect is not present, or at least is unclear. Indeed, there are polyamorous relations lacking a strict hierarchy, thereby involving a more complex romantic framework. While it is tempting to think that having more loving relations decreases conﬂicts and frustration in a simple way, polyamory is actually quite complex, requiring much time and effort to achieve the optimal arrangements for all concerned parties. 5.3 The Normative Impact of Cyberspace The normative aspects of online relationships raise greater interest as such relationships become more popular and their moral implications ever more powerful. Thus, more and more people are seeking divorce on grounds of virtual inﬁdelity: their spouses are having online affairs. The fact that their spouses never met their lovers does not seem to alleviate the experience of emotional and moral injury. The extensive use of imagination in cyberspace raises interesting moral questions concerning the assumed reality of the imaginative environment and its implications for our actual one. If the imaginative environment were in no sense real to us, it would be of little relevance to moral discussions. Imagination, however, has a powerful impact precisely because it is considered to be in some sense real, and hence may have a harmful impact on our actions. The active role of the participant in an online relationship raises the question of whether electronic correspondence has already left the imaginary realm; if so, online fantasizing could be considered to constitute immoral behavior. Taking a stand on this issue depends on the degree of reality we attribute to such relationships. Although online affairs are similar in some ways to lustful fantasies, people treat such affairs as real, and, in this sense, their moral status becomes problematic (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004, Chap. 9). Human communities need boundaries: living with others necessitates limiting our desires. However, globalization, in which cyberspace is a central arena of action, is essentially an act of crossing, fracturing, and breaking boundaries. The seductiveness of cyberspace and the effortlessness of becoming involved in online affairs also 96 A. Ben-Ze’ev entail risks: people are easily carried away, and the risk of addiction is high. Like other types of addiction, cyberspace does not merely satisfy needs but creates new, often unfulﬁllable ones. This can lower the probability of being satisﬁed with one’s romantic lot. Once people get used to violating boundaries in the virtual space, normative boundaries in real space are likely to be treated with greater ﬂexibility too. This, in turn, can weaken the safeguards against further violation. Indeed, it has been suggested that increasing development of technology may begin to change our existing attitudes both to monogamy and to human–robot relations (Davidson et al., 2018). The ﬂexible nature of boundaries in cyberspace is not necessarily immoral. On the contrary, adhering to strict boundaries in our romantic life can be immoral if such adherence does not take into account the speciﬁc, personal, and circumstantial aspects of the lover. Of course, greater ﬂexibility has its own costs. Take, for example, cybersex, where romantic and sexual boundaries are much more ﬂexible than in ofﬂine circumstances. This ﬂexibility has not reduced the number of ofﬂine violations of boundaries but rather increased it. With the expanded use of the internet and particularly mobile applications, romantic and sexual cheating has increased. Moreover, even if the sexual cheating is limited to the online arena, partners can feel betrayed and traumatized (Schneider, Weiss, & Samenow, 2012). As cybersex is often seen as less immoral—since it can be considered merely a process of talking that involves no actual physical encounter—some ofﬂine partners will tolerate or even support it (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004, 208–216). Letting your partner know about, and even watch, your sexual activity with another person is signiﬁcant in the sense that the committed couple knowingly accepts that sexual exclusivity is not an absolute category that should never be violated. Sexual exclusivity is thus seen as a continuum, and, in some circumstances, certain points along that continuum can permissibly be violated in sexual relationships. The internet and mobile applications facilitate not merely pleasurable sexual activities, but deep romantic relationships as well. A one-night cyberstand is more available and easier to keep a secret than its non-cyber counterpart. However, cyberspace also offers an outlet for developing alternative emotional ties sometimes without completely ruining the primary ofﬂine relationship. 5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations In our accelerated, cyber culture, more and more people are giving up the lengthy, and often unsuccessful, search for romantic profundity, and are instead settling for occasional, instantaneous sexual intensity. Many others, however, still yearn for romantic profundity—which produces the sweet fruits of romantic serenity and trust. Thus, most people, including the current generation of adolescents, continue to believe in the possibility of long-term love. A survey of young adults (ages 18–29) in the United States revealed that the vast majority holds highly optimistic 5 Cyberspace: The Alternative Romantic Culture 97 views about marriage, with 86% expecting to have a marriage that lasts a lifetime (Arnett, 2012). Similarly, Match’s eighth annual “Singles in America” study (2018) indicates that 69% of today’s singles are seeking a serious romantic relationship (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019, 201–203). The task of combining romantic intensity with profundity has never been so urgent. As the abundance of romantic opportunities is likely to reduce the number of people living without love, we may yet witness love’s comeback. Cyberspace has a signiﬁcant impact on ofﬂine romantic activities, as it offers increased opportunities, greater self-disclosure, decreased vulnerability, lesser commitment, an increase in boundary violations, and reduced exclusivity. Cyberspace provides technical tools that considerably improve the chances of ﬁnding a suitable partner (Schwartz & Velotta, 2018). Cyberspace also facilitates the opportunity to conduct several romantic and sexual relationships at the same time. Although cyberlove and cybersex are likely to become more popular, they cannot replace ofﬂine relationships. Nonetheless, they can complement them. Like the current romantic culture, cyberspace is multifaceted. Optimally, we will see more combinations of ofﬂine and online romantic relationships. The increased lure of the internet and mobile applications lower the likelihood that those with access to it will restrict themselves solely to ofﬂine relationships. However, since online relationships lack some basic romantic activities, such as touching and actual sex, satisfying ofﬂine relationships will continue to be considered an upgraded and more fulﬁlling relationship. Learning to integrate cyberspace with actual space in the romantic domain is a major future task for our culture. Indeed, many marriages now begin online. In comparison to marriages that began through traditional ofﬂine venues, those that began online were found to be slightly less likely to result in a marital breakup and were associated with slightly higher marital satisfaction among those respondents who remained married. We should pay attention to the fact that the internet may be altering both the dynamics and the outcomes of marriage itself (Cacioppo, Cacioppo, Gonzaga, Ogburn, & VanderWeele, 2013). Accurate outlooks on our future behavior require that research and practice take into account the above considerations concerning the complexity and ﬂexibility of our evolving cyber culture, as well as the vital distinction between short-term superﬁcial values and long-term profound ones. A life of mere dreams is dangerous because of its disconnect from reality. Online romantic relationships are beneﬁcial when they complement, rather than replace, ofﬂine relationships. Dreams, like cyberspace, are most valuable when they are bounded by reality. Combining ofﬂine and online relations is of vital importance for the ﬂourishing of our future culture. 98 A. Ben-Ze’ev References Almog, S. (2002). From Sterne and Borges to lost storytellers: Cyberspace, narrative, and law. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 13, 1–34. Arnett, J. J. (2012, December). The Clark University poll of emerging adults. http://www2.clarku. edu/clark-poll-emerging-adults/pdfs/clark-university-poll-emerging-adults-ﬁndings.pdf Averill, J. R., Catlin, G., & Chon, K. K. (1990). Rules of hope. New York: Springer. Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love. Cambridge: Polity Press. Benski, T., & Fisher, E. (Eds.). (2014). Internet and emotions. New York: Routledge. Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2019). The arc of love: How our romantic lives change over time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ben-Ze’ev, A., & Brunning, L. (2018). How complex is your love? The case of romantic compromises and polyamory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48, 98–116. Ben-Ze’ev, A., & Krebs, A. (2018). Love and time. In C. Grau & A. Smuts (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of love. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2004). Love online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ben-Ze’ev, A., & Goussinsky, R. (2008). In the name of love: Romantic ideology and its victims. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bergen, K. M. (2006). Women’s narratives about commuter marriage. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Best, K., & Delmege, S. (2012). The ﬁltered encounter: Online dating and the problem of ﬁltering through excessive information. Social Semiotics, 22, 237–258. Binstock, G., & Thornton, A. (2003). Separations, reconciliations, and living apart in cohabiting and marital unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 432–443. Bruch, E. E., & Newman, M. E. J. (2018). Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Science Advances, 4(8), eaap9815. Bruch, E. E., & Newman, M. E. J. (2019). Structure of online dating markets in US cities. Sociological Science, 6, 219–234. Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, 110, 1–6. Davidson, B., Joinson, A., & Jones, S. (2018). Technologically enhanced dating: Augmented human relationships, robots, and fantasy. In Z. Papcharissi (Ed.), A networked self and love (pp. 129–155). New York: Routledge. Döring, N. (2002). Studying online love and cyber romance. In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips, & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Online Social Sciences (pp. 333–356). Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychology Science in the Public Interest, 13, 3–66. Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 1–41. Förster, J., Epstude, K., & Özelsel, A. (2009). Why love has wings and sex has not: How reminders of love and sex inﬂuence creative and analytic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1479–1491. Gilbert, D. (2007). Stumbling on happiness. New York: Vintage. Hakim, C. (2012). The new rules. London: Gibson Square. Jiang, L. C., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication, 63, 556–577. Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological ﬂexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 865–878. 5 Cyberspace: The Alternative Romantic Culture 99 Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Syntopia: Access, civic involvement, and social interaction on the net. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The internet in everyday life (pp. 114–138). Malden: Blackwell. Kelmer, G., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Relationship quality, commitment, and stability in long-distance relationships. Family Process, 52, 257–270. Ortega, J., & Hergovich, P. (2018). The strength of absent ties: Social integration via online dating. arXiv preprint arXiv.1709.10478. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1941). On love (p. 1967). London: Jonathan Cape. Quoidbach, J., Gruber, J., Mikolajczak, M., Kogan, A., Kotsou, I., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Emodiversity and the emotional ecosystem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 2057–2066. Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration. New York: Columbia University Press. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77, 523–547. Rosenfeld, M. J., Thomas, R. J., & Hausen, S. (2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 17753–17758. Schneider, J. P., Weiss, R., & Samenow, C. (2012). Is it really cheating? Understanding the emotional reactions and clinical treatment of spouses and partners affected by cybersex inﬁdelity. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 19, 123–139. Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice. New York: HarperCollins. Schwartz, P., & Velotta, N. (2018). Online dating: Changing intimacy one swipe at a time? In J. Van Hook, S. M. McHale, & V. King (Eds.), Families and technology (pp. 57–88). Heidelberg: Springer. Slater, D. (2002). Social relationships and identity online and ofﬂine. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 533–546). London: Sage. Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross-residential relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sumter, S. R., Vandenbosch, L., & Ligtenberg, L. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 67–78. Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New York: Basic Books. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge. London: Penguin Books. Aaron Ben-Ze’ev is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Haifa, where he has served as Rector (2000–2004) and President (2004–2012). He is considered one of the world’s leading experts in the study of emotions. Major books: The Subtlety of Emotions (MIT, 2000), Love Online (Cambridge, 2004), In The Name of Love (Oxford, 2008); The Arc of Love (Chicago, 2019).

Ben-Zeev (2021). Cyberspace. The Alternative Romantic Culture.pdf

Document Details

Tags

Related

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue