Better to Have Loved and Lost Than Never Have Loved at All?
...Better to Have Loved and Lost Than Never Have Loved at All?
Was Tennyson right about love and loss?
In my 10 years of blogging here at Blogger, one of the most popular posts I ever wrote was, “Is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all?” That was in 2008. Was Tennyson correct?
To answer the question posed by the poet Tennyson, I looked at just one very narrow way of thinking about love — romantic love, using the institution of marriage as an imperfect measure of it. As I noted at the time, I have never ascribed to such a limited understanding of love, and as a poetry scholar noted in the comments section, that’s not what Tennyson had in mind either.
Poetry aside, the question I addressed is this: If you stay single all your life, are you better off or worse off than if you marry, but then get divorced or become widowed? In my original blog post (below), I said that lifelong single people were typically better off than divorced or widowed people in the kinds of ways that researchers typically measure, such as their happiness and health. However, some studies suggest that life is better if you're married.
In the intervening decade, social science research on marital status has grown increasingly sophisticated. Instead of comparing different people (currently married, divorced, widowed, always single) at one point in time, a method of study that is fraught with big problems, contemporary researchers more often follow the same people over time, as they marry or divorce or become widowed or stay single.
Some are homeless like being single it' s a lifestyle choice.
Most often, the results of the new research underscore the same message about the implications of having loved and lost, only in a more compelling way. People who marry and then divorce or become widowed typically end up less healthy and less happy than they were when they were single or married.
And practice apparently doesn't figure into this in that if you divorce and remarry serially, many times, you' re not necessarily happier. If you marry once and then you have a 50% for a divorce, if you remarry you've got 75% for another divorce and so forth and so on.
Where the new research becomes even more dramatic is in challenging the longstanding claims that people who marry become happier and healthier and better off in other ways, too. At best, people who marry experience a brief increase in happiness early on — a honeymoon effect — but then go back to being as happy or as unhappy as they were when they were single or married for the first time. But even this honeymoon effect is not enjoyed by everyone who marries, but only those who marry and stay married. The people who marry and then divorce typically are already becoming a bit less happy as the day of their wedding approaches.
The results for health are even more shattering of the myths we have grown up with. In some studies, by some measures, people who marry end up less healthy than they were when they were single. Even when studies show an initial improvement for those who marry, the decrease for people who divorce is sometimes much bigger.
In summary, the latest, most sophisticated research suggests that people who marry may end up no better off, and sometimes a bit worse off, than they were when they were single. When people do get a bit of a boost early on in their marriage, that is sometimes more than offset by the losses in health or happiness that they suffer if they divorce or become widowed, incrementally more so if it's a serial situation.
( If you are concerned that it is all bad news for people who divorce, that’s not true, either. A big study of women between 50 and 79 showed that the women who divorced became healthier than those who stayed married. The women who stayed single were also healthier than those who got married.
( If the love is bad love you're more stressful, get skinnier and unhealthier, however if the love is good, you're more stressless, more fatter and healthier as a result) )
Here is the original blog post: "Is It Better to Have Loved and Lost Than Never to Have Loved at All?"
Even if poetry is not your thing, you probably know by heart the words of Alfred Lord Tennyson:
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
If you define love narrowly as romantic love, operationalized as the institution of marriage, though I surely don't, then Tennyson has been felled by science — the data show that it's just not true. In happiness, health, longevity, and just about everything else that has been studied, except maybe wealth, people who have always been single do better than people who were previously married (divorced or widowed).
As is often the case in marital status comparisons, the differences can be small. But they are quite consistent in the opposite direction than Tennyson would have led us to believe. (I provide a critical overview of the research in the science chapter of the book Singled Out. Karen Rook and Laura Zettel reviewed studies of physical health here.)
The question is why: Why do people who have always been single do better than people who are divorced or widowed?
Scholars of marriage have a ready response. It even has its own name, with three variations: the "stress" or "crisis" or "loss" hypothesis. People who have always been single have not experienced the same depth of stress (or crisis or loss) as people who have divorced or become widowed.
The explanation has an intuitive appeal, and charts of relevant data often seem consistent. For example, if you look at graphs of people's happiness over time, as they get married and then divorced or widowed, you can see happiness plunging as the year of the divorce approaches, or during the year of the partner's death, and then you can see it slowly start to rebound as the dissolution of the marriage recedes further into the past. (The graphs are on pages 38 and 39 of Singled Out.)
Studies of marital status take a fine-grained view of people who have gotten married. They separate out of that group the people who eventually divorce or become widowed. Then they find that the divorced and widowed people sometimes do worse than the currently married people. (In other studies, married people are divided by the quality of their marriage, or their economic or class status, or any of a wide array of other variables.) Now consider what happens when people who have always been single are included in studies: This "never-married" group is one big, undifferentiated blob. It is as if people who study marriage have an attitude of "they all look alike" when it comes to their views of single people.
My point is hardly earth-shattering, but I have rarely seen it acknowledged in the scientific literature: People who have always been single also experience intense stress, acute crises, and devastating losses. If you were to ask single people about such experiences and plot the lifelines of their happiness the same way the lifelines of the once-married are typically plotted, I think you would see something similar. Single people also experience stress and sadness and grief when someone they love dies, or when a profoundly important relationship falls apart (and it doesn't have to be a romantic relationship). You can't see it in the results of the published studies, because the singles who have experienced great losses are not separated out the way that divorced and widowed people are separated from the still-married.
There is something else important about the published literature on marital status. When people who have always been single fare better than some other group (such as the previously married), scholars rarely propose an explanation that assumes that single people may actually have some special skills and strengths.
You may have heard someone breakdown fear as an acronym: False Evidence Appearing Real. It applies to this point because some people think that they regret their break-up because of the relationship — but really, it's more about being scared to start over.
Read More: https://www.thelist.com/62528/regrets-break-might-really-mean/s/youre-scared-to-start-over/?utm_campaign=clip
Think of all the tasks that married people divide between them. The splits are a little less likely to be traditional than they once were (she takes care of the kids and the cooking, he pays the bills and mows the lawn), but they are often apportioned in some way. While the marriage lasts, this can be useful and efficient. When it is over, though, the newly uncoupled individuals are left with mastery of only those tasks that were once in their domain. Even memory is implicated, as when one person in the couple took charge of remembering the birthdays, and the other kept track of the times for the oil changes.
People who have always been single, though, are likely to find some way of accomplishing all of the tasks of everyday life. Maybe they master some, tap a network of friends for others, and hire people to do the rest. One way or another, they get things done. I think that's a strength.
Maybe, too, the network is part of the answer. Perhaps people who have always been single maintain a more diversified relationship portfolio than the married people who invest all of their relationship capital into just one person. Maybe single people have friendships that have endured longer than many marriages. Maybe they attend to those friendships consistently, rather than stowing them on the back burner while focusing on "The One." [2018 update: Research has shown that this is true.] Maybe that's why they do better than people who were previously married.
I'm generating hypotheses. They could be wrong. What is important — and, I think, stunning — is that my suggestions are mostly new. Scholarly research on marriage dates back more than half a century. It has been supported by journals, conferences, degree programs, and piles and piles of funding. For all that, there have been hardly any scholars who have been able or willing to step outside the conventional ways of thinking and pursue the kinds of possibilities I'm suggesting here.
My argument is in the spirit of diversity. Just as there were many ways of thinking that never did get much notice when psychological (or medical) research focused mainly on men, or primarily on white people, or overwhelmingly on heterosexuals, so too has the absence of the singles' perspective left us intellectually poorer. Fortunately, that is starting to change (here and here).
Finally, going back to the initial question that motivated this post (is it better to have loved and lost…): Of course, my point is not that we should steer clear of love. As I've said before in this space, I think we should embrace big, broad meanings of love. What we should steer clear of are narrow ways of thinking that leave us all locked in small, stifling ideological boxes.
Each week of the past eleven years, I have poured tremendous time, thought, love, and resources into Brain Pickings, which remains free (and ad-free) and is made possible by patronage. If you find any joy and stimulation here, please consider supporting my labor of love by becoming a Sustaining Patron with a recurring monthly donation, between a cup of tea and a Brooklyn lunch. And if you already donate, from the bottom of my heart: THANK YOU.
Monthly donation
♥ $3 / month
♥ $5 / month
♥ $7 / month
♥ $10 / month
♥ $25 / month
START NOW
One-time donation
You can also become a Spontaneous Supporter with a one-time donation in any amount:
GIVE NOW
Comments
Post a Comment