[Jump to content]

THE PSYCHOLOGIST


[ Full graphics | Login | | Search ]

[Bypass: Main Menu]

[Bypass Search box]

[Bypass: Archive Years]
[IMAGE - Volume 18 - Part 2 - (February 2005)]
Search the Archive:
[Powered by Google]
[Tick]Free Online Access
[Padlock] Membership of the Society Required

[Bypass: Main Page Body]

[Open Access - No Logon Required] Volume 18 - Part 2 - (February 2005)

The Year of Relationships - Crazy for you

Frank Tallis asks whether psychologists should take lovesickness more seriously.

Pages: 72-74

[Download PDF] View the complete article as a PDF document
(Please note that some pictures may have been removed for copyright reasons)
[Discussion Forum] Discuss this article in our forum

Truly, madly, deeply. If you haven’t actually said those words, you’ve probably thought them – and they are very revealing. They suggest that, as a society, we consider ‘madness’ to be as significant an indicator of love’s authenticity as honesty and depth. We do not expect love to be rational – we expect it to be overwhelming, improvident and unpredictable. We expect to ‘go crazy’. The similarities between passionate love and mental illness have been noted since classical times. The ancient Greeks employed the term theia mania (or madness from the gods) to describe the sudden overthrow of reason associated with falling in love, and the principles of Hippocratic medicine provide a mechanism that explains why lovers are prone to emotional distress. According to the humoural model, if love becomes too ‘heated’, vital fluids evaporate creating a cold, dry state known as love melancholy (Babb, 1951; Burton, 1621/2001). The symptoms of love melancholy (or lovesickness) have been celebrated by poets and songwriters from classical times to the present day.


[Bypass: "Right Hand Panel"]

Would you like to
see your work here?
Contribute
and reach
45,000 psychologists!


Related Articles from the Archive




[ Full graphics | The Psychologist Home | Accessibility | Text Only | Site Map | Contact Us | BPS Website ]

© Copyright 2000-2010 The British Psychological Society