Can Love Last?: The Fate of Romance over Time

by Stephen A. Mitchell

Common wisdom has it that love is fragile, but leading psychoanalyst Stephen A. Mitchell argues that romance doesn't actually diminish in long-term relationships—it becomes increasingly dangerous. What we regard as the transience of love is really risk management. Mitchell shows that love can endure, if only we become aware of our self-destructive efforts to protect ourselves from its risks. "Those who read this book will love more wisely because of it."—Andrew Solomon, author of The Noonday Demon "[A] work on romance that is rich and multi-layered."—Publishers Weekly "Cheerful, open, and humane—you'd definitely have wanted him as your analyst."—Judith Shulevitz, The New York Times Book Review "[T]houghtful, compassionate, and profoundly optimistic."—JoAnn Gutin, Salon.com

Genres: Psychology, Relationships, Nonfiction, Psychoanalysis, Love, Philosophy, Self Help

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[Princessjay · Rating 4 out of 5]

A neo-psychoanalytical take on the vicissitude of love and romance. Mitchell's foundation argument is, romance requires spontaneity and uncertainty. We contain within our psyche simultaneously the longing for romance and adventure, as well the craving for stability and predictability, which in turn stifles romantic love. The more we love someone, the more we let them in to know us beneath our skin, the greater risk of unbearable pain at potential rejection. Most of us are wired to contain and lessen risks in our life, therefore as soon as we have romantic love, we immediately begin the process of deconstructing its power over us, in the process, killing its vital spark.

If we carefully examine our preconscious, even unconcious motivations -- things often overlooked in our busyness and business of living life -- we can see all the ways in which we strive to take the uncertainty OUT of our established relationships. How we do so: devaluing the beloved in various ways -- origin of such phrases as "familiarity breeds contempt", or, mutually cultivating the false belief that we know each other so thoroughly we can never surprise one another again.

I think I agree. The truth is, none of us can ever be known thoroughly because we are not static beings, but more an ever-unfolding story. Similarly, the relationship between two people are not static, but an unfolding story between two dynamic entities. For romantic love and passion to exist and last requires conscious decision, enormous personal strength (to cultivate and withstand continuous uncertainty), and self-knowledge. Not everyone is up for this. In fact, I think most people are disturbed by the notion that they or others are indefinable, unknowable; even angered by the sheer amount of effort involved in keeping romance alive. We mostly just want to get on with the business of living, and are perfectly fine living vicariously via movies, books, and the lives of celebrities. Yet I think this is an adventure well worthy of pursuit.

[Frank Calberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Takeways from reading the book:

What is desire?
- Page 34: Desire can be amusing and stimulating.
- Page 34: Desire without love lacks the intensity that deepens romantic passion.
- Page 50: Sexuality is well designed for rebellion against illusionary safety. Why? Because sexual response is unpredictable and not possible to willfully control. It entails vulnerability.
- Page 59: Sexual reproduction appeared on Earth because the intermingling of genetic material from two different organisms produced more adaptive results than the self-replication of a single organism. So variations evolved that made sexual reproduction more interesting than other ways to spend our time. Central to those variations were the evolution of genitals that produce intense pleasure when stimulated.
- Page 62: Sexuality is, by its very nature, antisocial.
- Page 64: Our sexuality is the animal within us. It drives us towards excess and indecency.
- Page 76-79: We think of sexuality as deeply personal and private because it is intense and because it surges from within us. Although it is one of our most common experiences, none of us knows what sex is like for anyone else.
- Page 86: The great enemy of eroticism is attachment.
- Page 91: Desire seeks novelty, adventure and surrender. In desire we search both for missing pieces of ourselves and for something beyond ourselves.
- Page 135: One of the most significant features of sexual desire is that it puts us in the position of needing another very much.

What is love without desire?
- Page 34: Love without desire can be secure.
- Page 34: Love without desire lacks adventure.
- Page 50: When people marry / establish a relationship and live together, they seek stability, certainty, predictability and permanence. A problem with this is that permanent safety stifles vitality. The characteristics, which people used to describe themselves before marriage / before establishing the relationship and living together, are used less when people marry. Examples: Being free, childlike, adventurous and spontaneous.
- Page 91: Love seeks control, stability, continuity and certainty. In love, we are searching for points of attachment, anchoring and something we can count on.

What is romance?
- Page 26: Romance is a mode of relating to another person which stimulates imaginative play.
- Page 27: Romance thrives on novelty, mystery and danger. It is like fireworks: Thrilling and short-lived.
- Page 27: Romance is inspired by fantasy and ideals.
- Page 34: Romance emerges in the tension between the part of love that has to do with desire and 2) the part of love that has to do with caring, friendship and security.
- Page 39: Romance emerges from the convergence of two conflicting needs: 1. The need to break out of established patterns and step over boundaries. 2. The need for predictability, reliability and anchoring.
- Page 83: The sense of surrender is central to romance.
- Page 155: Given the intense vulnerability generated by romantic love, aggression and guilt are always close by.
- Page 182: Is romantic love initiated, run and terminated by 1) a subconsciousness within us or 2) by a combination of conscious agency and unconscious motives?

Why do people seek romance?
- Page 26: People seek romance to give their lives meaning.
- Page 41: With the sexual revolution in the 1960s, sexual satisfaction became an important value for both women and men. One consequence of this was an increase in divorces.

Why does romance fade?
- Page 27-28: One way romance can fade is by degrading into passionless friendship. Why does this happen? Because people long for constancy in our relations with one another.
- Page 27-28: Another way romance can fade is by being reduced to purely sexual encounters. Why does that happen? Because romance is driven by desire. And desire is difficult to reconcile with other forms of love such as respect and admiration.
- Page 45: Habits dull romantic love.
- Page 47: Having only one partner for love increases safety. However, it also undermines the preconditions of desire.

[rogue · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps a better question is: Can anything last?

And then we must ask: Why do human beings so desperately want things to last?
Why are we so afraid of loss, of pain, of heartbreak, of our own fragile mortality?

It's especially poignant that Stephen Mitchell's posthumous book opens with a loving foreword by his widow, Margaret Black. She remembers him as wonderful husband and a brilliant thinker, always questioning the rules and resisting comfortable, static answers. How perfect then that the title of the book is a question! S. Mitchell's approach is one of constant enrichment: keep asking questions, and then ask why we ask those questions. Whatever is lost by an answer which might shatter our paradigms, which might "dethrone" man or God or any other idol from the center of the universe, is there to be gained back manifold by asking new questions. Like an eternal onion, the world can never be completely unpeeled, but we can enjoy the unpeeling.

If only we could treat our idea of love and our love for our partners in a similarly fearless fashion. But, according to S. Mitchell, love is the most scary and risky thing of all, way scarier than death! You don't get a choice with death, but love brings out all of our demands. It terrifies our ego to truly admit how much we need the other person. To protect ourselves, we create illusions of stability and permanence. We form patterns that we can understand and control. We fashion a home of our partners and cling to it with all our might, stifling true interaction, risk, and intimacy. In the process, we consider our partner boring and become so ourselves. We may even come to view our initial idealization as foolish infatuation, because this is much safer than revealing the true vulnerability of our hearts. And we do this all on purpose, whether we know it or not!

Knowing it, though, gives us the chance to try to stop the process of degrading our love and our beloved. It can give us an acceptance (without resignation) of our own tendencies and a higher aspiration to work through them. In reading Can Love Last, I get a glimpse of the many traps that our frailty leads us fall into, and an idea of a more real life, a more real love whose hem I can catch for a moment or two.... It is this fleeting dream of another beautiful castle built upon all of our fallen illusions that gives me hope.... the hope to live with courage and immediacy, without falling into courage as its own delusion or immediacy as a stale recipe. A tall order -- but such is life. I hope to enjoy trying, here & now with you.

Thank you, Stephen Mitchell, for this beautiful book. RIP.

He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy;
But he who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity's sun rise.
--William Blake

[Dolly · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read a lot of books about relationships and love. This is the best without a question. It is a serious study, not a self-help crap about how to get married. This is real, so real it can hurt, but it will give you so much perspective. It is a must. Stephen Mitchell of course is a psychoanalyst, one of the most important of the 20th-21st Century, so he knows that he is talking about.

[Kent · Rating 5 out of 5]

this book is really good, very accessible. Although its more of a philosophical than a self-help book. I skipped around to cherry-pick the case studies and then ended up re-reading the whole book from the beginning. I like his idea that passion in long term relationships doesn't dissipate because of familiarity -- the conventional wisdom -- but because it's risky to experience reckless physical abandon with somebody that you depend on for emotional and material stability. But what is the solution? I wish he had spend more time on recommending ways to fix things. Instead he says simply to avoid doing what you usually do -- to avoid habitual action and see what happens next. There's no way to force it. Sadly.

[Karl Gruenewald · Rating 5 out of 5]

A piercing look into relational dynamics and the human psychology that colours them, Mitchell deftly employs a broad range of literary, philosophical, and anecdotal references to imbue both poetry and clarity to this complicated subject matter. Despite this, I have no doubt that Can Love Last? is a book that will only increase in value with repeat reads.

[Nicko · Rating 4 out of 5]

Notes/Excerpts:

Many can love and they can desire but cannot experience both love and desire with the same person at the same time Freud noted “Where they love they have no desire where they desire they cannot love” We experience both deeply affectionate love and intensely passionate desire but often not at the same time not in relation to the same person Yet romance requires both love and desire

When people complain of dead and lifeless marriages it is often possible to show how precious the deadness is to them how carefully maintained and insisted upon how the very mechanical totally predictable quality of lovemaking serves as a bulwark against the dread of surprise and unpredictability Love by its very nature is not secure; we keep wanting to make it so

It is common for couples with a vibrant sexual life to fear marriage That fear is not wholly ungrounded Of course it is not marriage itself that kills desire but the way in which marriage can be constructed Before marriage couples often experience themselves as free childlike adventurous and spontaneous In marriage they may come to identify themselves and each other as “adults” now like their own mothers and fathers- as static institutions And they attribute the deadening that comes with stasis to the institution of marriage itself rather than to their own conflictual longings for certainty and permanence

There are surely relationships in which romantic passion dies over time; the price of abandoning them is often less than the price of endless years spent in resuscitation efforts

No animal is as sexually obsessed as human beings The colloquialism “fucking one’s brains out” expresses a longing to simplify sexual experience by detaching some from psyche but that will never happen And it is precisely the infusion of somatic events with psychological significance that makes our sexuality so dense with meanings and complications

What makes sex with someone unavailable or inaccessible outside the confines of relationships so compelling? Their allure is not simply that they provide an opportunity to explore the forbidden and precarious; they also provide an opportunity to explore the forbidden and precarious in a safer venue than do actual relationships

The appeal of the casual sexual affair:

“The zipless fuck was more than a fuck Zipless because when you came together zippers fell away like rose petals underwear blew off in one breath like dandelion fluff Tongues intertwined and turned to liquid Your whole soul flowed out through your tongue and into the mouth of your receiver Brevity is good never really knowing better and no talking at all best The zipless fuck is absolutely pure It is free of ulterior motives There are no power games The man is not “taking” and the woman is not “giving” Actual relationships as we grow to find out are always entangled with ulterior motives and power games

Oftentimes in relationships one mate wonders why the other does not reciprocate in professions of love often times it is that he is too anxious to allow himself that feeling So he projects his love into her experiences it as coming from her and controls it in her by distancing himself from her Love is in the air because that is where he projects it

Popular magazines offering advice to those wearily enduring long-term relationships provide many suggestions about things to do to improve them Desire and passion cannot be contrived; both exist in contexts and we have a good deal to do with constructing the contexts in which passion and desire are more or less likely to thrive The exhilaration of romantic passion generates claims for continuity and security that if taken too seriously inevitably snuff out the autonomy and spontaneity that were the ground of the passion in the first place

Romance in a relationship is a sandcastle for two It is a precondition for passion but not a permanent abode The sandcastles of romance demand by their

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed Mitchell's work here. He focuses on romance, but the book (like romance itself) weaves together much of humanhood. It's a book that is helpful for those looking for an introduction, as well as those interested in deepening their knowledge.

[Celine · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting but slightly too psycho-analytic in style for my taste. I would recommend reading Alain de Botton instead. Same introspective focus, but presented in a much more unique and engaging manner.

[Jacqueline Gunn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is absolutely brilliant. A seamless blend of philosophy and psychoanalysis, historical theories and new ideas, all written in clear and poetic prose, making it accessible to people outside of the field. Mitchell's writing reminds me why I love relational psychoanalysis so much.

[lisa_emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

Answer: perhaps. But it won't be easy. A very clear reading on the obstacles of love in a relationship.

[Sohum · Rating 5 out of 5]

this book is very good... it reconciles the psychoanalytic perspective with the necessity of allowing lovers to be agents... I may buy many copies of this book to distribute them freely

[Emily Carlin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stephen A. Mitchell walked so Esther Perel could run.

ETA: did not expect to see gödel escher bach referenced here #throwback

[Charlotte · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really felt like the cover art did not do this book any favors—this book was such a dream of philosophical and contemporary psychoanalytic contemplation of what it means to love someone, and what can happen to that relationship over time, within different circumstances, and based on some models of how Mitchell imagines we work as people. Beginning this, I remember thinking, young Charlotte would have loved this in its wide exploration. I think this older Charlotte is still quite pleased that Mitchell decided to write this book in this way.

There were some interesting distinctions on how we relate to guilt vs guiltiness(?) and pathos at the end that I thought were really useful in terms of thinking about the consequences of those choices, for me personally. The one thing I’ll say is that, listening to this as an audiobook, while nice during the clinical vignettes, made following some of the more theoretical buildings a bit more difficult. I’ll probably be checking this out as a book to go over some of those portions again and maybe update this review with some notes about that in a bit more detail.

[Matteo Albertinelli · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book for someone who wants to think about love from a rational viewpoint without risking to overlook its emotional and irrational sides.

I knew and loved Stephen Mitchell already for his professional books in the field of psychoanalysis and I think that this book is one of his best. He never uses citations to sound smart, but to better convey the meaning of what he thinks; he empowers the reader by giving the cultural context of what he is stating and a basic idea of where his thoughts come from, so that the reader itself is free to find out more for himself while being treated as more of an active colleague than a adoring disciple.

I don't think that the author wanted to write the definitive guide to love's nature. I think that his aim was to strike you enough to make his words help you through a personal, intimate journey by making your thoughts freer and richer.
(Which, by the way, is some of the best that psychoanalytic thinking can give to somebody.)

[Eden · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book dealing with the reality of long-term relationships with regards to passion and security. I love how he draws not only from his own clinical observations but also from multiple different disciplines to not only make his arguments and claims relatable, but also well supported. He does draw a lot from Freud, but he critiques Freud's theories and offers the more modern perspectives of psychoanalysis. The examples he provides from his clinical work are explained thoroughly and do a great job illustrating his arguments. He is essentially arguing that romance does not passively fade away on its own, but rather that we play an active (if often unconscious) role in the degradation of romance as we struggle to meet our needs for both safety and adventure. While this is not a self-help book offering solutions on how to fix a relationship, he gives the tools to help gain a better understanding of the self in order to see what we are doing in our relationships that cause the issues found in our relationships. "Sandcastles for Two" - relationships and romance require active work in order to maintain and rebuild/reshape the relationship as well as play in order to sustain it.

[Ingrid C · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was about to put a 2-start review but I quickly changed my mind because the fact that this book was definitely not for me, it doesn't mean it's bad.

Where do I start?... I haven't read many relationship books, I think I only read one of Esther Perel's books - that in my opinion was very well written - but it's also not fair to compare.

I guess what frustrates me the most about this book is that right in the foreword, the person who wrote that section of the book, says that this book is for everyone, meaning you don't need to be a psychologist or therapist, this book is supposed to be written in a colloquial/general language. Which, couldn't be farther from the truth. This book was difficult to read, I was only engaged in the first few chapters, then I was forcing myself to finish it, I was waiting for a section of the book that would blow my mind but it never happened.

I was definitely not the audience for this book, but I'm also having a hard time thinking who might be...Maybe psychologist, therapists or people already immersed in those fields... but if you're just trying to understand more about relationships, I wouldn't choose this book unless you already have some theoric knowledge.

[Mahira]

'The profound feeling of connection and belonging that is evoked in the experience of “home,” and in the presence of someone who comes from our home or with whom we have made a home, reflects a kind of matching, a pervasive resonance between what is inside us with what is outside us, between the past and the present, between what we were, what we are, and what we long to be.'

I took my sweet time reading this one. 4 months. This book was heavily ridden with psychoanalysis. I've already immersed myself into the works of Jungian analysts but Freud is something else. I found the concept of preconscious very fascinating.

Similarly, the idea of human experience being constructed—consciously (foreground), preconsciously (background), and unconsciously (behind the scenes) reiterates the concept of us not being as omnipotently self-determining as the Enlightenment/ Victorian ideal portrays us to be.

Disclaimer:
Do not go into this book thinking that you will come away with a concrete answer to the bimbonic question 'Can love last?' because you won't.

[Sharon Filadelfia · Rating 5 out of 5]

ok so - wow. Stephen Mitchell was clearly a genius and taken way too early. If I could have read only one book to help me understand the way things are (for me) in any relationship- familial, platonic or romantic, this would have been the one. I had many aha moments while slowly digesting this book. Not at first a page turner for me, but once I got into his rhythm and began to understand the overall premise - wow. Could not put it down. I won't spoil it by handing to you what I think the thesis statement is, and I don't think the title gives it away either. A remarkable recommendation from my psycho therapist boyfriend. I definitely recommend this one, if you're in the market for this genre...

[Mina Herz]

Life is finite. This book taught me nothing.

Recommended by Andrew Hubermann - in the context he raised it, he talks about how religions (I assume he's talking about Orthodox Jews and concept of Niddah) do not touch each other for 2 weeks - and how that behaviour, when based on a model of neuroscience, can be what leads to the most fulfilling and longlasting romantic relationships.

Okay, starting reading it. Tbh, my pet peeves are books that are annoying mixes of genuine neuroscience, clearly not intended for a general audience, and random anecdotes scattered in. It doesn't feel human. It feels disjointed and confused. Robert Sapolsky, you do this too. I love you guys, I know you want this to be personal. But I just want facts :(

[Vic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by a prolific psychoanalyst, this book describes and explains some of the pitfalls people encounter and essentially create for themselves in their romantic relationships. It's not a self-help book because it doesn't tell you what you should do to avoid these pitfalls or what you should do to necessarily improve your relationships. Instead, it gives you the knowledge of these pitfalls and you have to figure out what to do with that knowledge. Which is more meaningful and interesting to me.

[Veronica · Rating 5 out of 5]

A philosophical book that is pretty heavy. Worth reading for anyone who wants to expand their thinking as to what keeps long-term love going and passionate and what stifles passion. I learned just how powerful fear is and how much it can hold you back from risking and doing what you really want to do in a relationship. Also, that I can choose to or not to face my fears. At the end of the day, I am the one that has to live with myself and my choices.

[Lucy Wightman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stephen Mitchell died a sudden and early death. This was his final book. In graduate school I was subjected to his lengthy books on object relational theory, many of them weighed over 5 pounds. This book is a complete departure from his theorist self, although it is theoretical. A book that is before its time - amazing, and one to keep on the shelves.

[Ken Kavanagh · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insightful and compassionate account of a brilliant physiatrist's various patients and their emotional and sexual struggles, essential reading for anyone who has difficultly maintaining or entering into intimate relationships.

[Kimberlee Auerbach · Rating 5 out of 5]

Challenging, but important.

[Ken Hamm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very deliberate and thoughtful read. I enjoyed it.

[Alissa Elliott · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you have ever fallen in or out of love, and especially if you have ever fallen out of love and fall subsequently in love and hope not to fall out of love this time, this book is for you.

[Tamanh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very didactic, but the prose was unnecessarily incomprehensible and pretentious.

[chelsea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great guidance on relationships

Loved this book. The writing style is a bit dense but I still really enjoyed the material. I think it's going to help me in my future relationships.

[Piotr Wolny · Rating 2 out of 5]

Forword says:

[...] this book should not be directed toward the professional community of psychoanalysts but should be just for “people”— the more general educated public.

And at this, unfortunately, the book fails, or at least, it failed for me. As the foreword also promises that the author:

[...] was not that interested in getting his students to agree with his particular thinking; he was interested in getting them to think.

When I say that I didn't understand I'm not saying that I didn't understand the ideas the author tries to share, but that I couldn't decipher the ideas from the style of writing that was employed. There are a lot of "hard words" and "complicated sentences", making me get maybe 30% of the messages.

Sentences like:

On the healthier end of the continuum, as well, narcissism was associated with infantilism, which, in more subtle ways, is a regressive element, an immaturity in a system measured according to rationality and the overcoming of egocentricity.

Still are cryptic for me even after translating them back and forth in few ways.

For the parts that I did manage to understand - I found them intriguing, thought provoking and enlightening. Sprinkled with some interesting cases of patients or historical anecdotes. Those parts were also written in a simpler manner - making the entire book feel uneven in its style.

I really wish I could enjoy the author's insights more, but, because of the writing style, I failed to decipher them.