If you scanned the headlines for “love languages” in the last few weeks, you might come to the conclusion that they’ve been thoroughly debunked. Mashable headline: “Love languages are fake, scientists say.” The Washington Post: “Does your love language really matter? Scientists are skeptical.” Her: “Are love languages real? Science says no.”
Some recent headlines take a more moderate stance: “Love is more complex than ‘5 love languages,’ says expert” (Newswise). I agree with that one. But I think some commentators—or at least their headline writers—are rushing to ditch the whole “love language” idea, just to make their articles a little more dramatic.
The phrase “love language” has its roots in The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate by Gary Chapman. Chapman asserts that everyone has a primary love language, and if you send messages of love in the wrong language, your partner might not understand or appreciate them. His five languages are:
Acts of service
Quality time
Gifts
Words of affirmation
Physical touch
One old-fashioned example of this sort of mismatched communication is the breadwinner with a family at home. He works all day and often far into the night so that his wife and child or children will have everything they need. But if you asked Mom and the kids, they’d say that what they needed was more of Dad’s time, even if it meant less family money. Acts of service versus quality time.
Louis Hickman cross-examined the ideas in Chapman’s book, and his research countered a few of Chapman’s conclusions, especially the idea that everyone had a primary love language and was deaf to others. After all, when you read that list—acts, time, gifts, touch, words—you probably thought all five of those things sounded pretty good. And you might have needs or expressions that don’t fit into the five.
But…come on, smug headline writers, that doesn’t mean love languages don’t exist. Hickman himself says that the concept “could potentially be helpful if perhaps your partner feels that you are not providing enough of or too much of one of those types of behaviors.”
When Janice and I got together, I quickly took note of how many ways she was finding to say “I love you,” and I elected to do the same:
I’m there to talk whenever she’s upset; she makes dinner or has dinner covered most nights. (When she’s too tired, I’ll come up with something, often involving restaurants in easy walking distance, though I'm starting to attempt simple meals.) So that’s acts of service.
Quality time? We have a phone talk every workday evening, starting when she gets in the car to go home from work. It may seem silly to do this call right before we see each other, but as soon as she gets home, we slide into dinner mode (see above) and that’s not always “conversation mode.” (Janice adds, “Unless that conversation is ‘Get the hell out of my kitchen!’”) Weekends are more flexible, but we have a little rhythm where it doesn’t feel right if we don’t do some deep talking.
It’s rare for a day to pass without some verbal “I love you” from one of us, usually both. Our other words are chosen with an ear toward building each other up (not always easy when it’s time to clean the catboxes).
I would say physical touch matters a lot more to us than receiving gifts—neither of us are very materialistic, and the simple act of holding hands while watching the Super Bowl gives me a warm feeling: I’m with someone who wants to hold my hand. That said, on special occasions like birthdays, anniversaries, and of course, Valentine’s, we’ll pick up a little something. And on Christmas, more than a little. (Janice is an excellent gift-giver. I'm okay.)
So that’s Chapman’s five. What else? One I’d say is important is knowing when to nudge each other out of our comfort zones. Too much of that is a little dangerous—the relationship itself should be a zone of comfort. But when Janice gets on the exercise bike or I start planning events more than a few days in advance, we’re doing things we probably wouldn’t have done without each other's influence.
As for Chapman’s idea of primary love language, I think it’s true people have one thing they want from a partner above all others. For Janice, that’s talking things out. For me, it’s validation. We’re both good at those things for each other, which is a good start. But we couldn’t stop there.
I have a workaholic impulse, and we’ve both seen relationships end, our own and other people’s. So there’s an urgency to these little rituals. We both know not to take things for granted. As important as a spontaneous spark is now and then, what matters a lot more is reliability and stability.
And you build that by using a variety of channels. A variety of love languages. Which begins when you start thinking in terms of those different love languages.
I can’t say we’ve made Chapman’s work a playbook for our relationship—I didn’t even know the book existed until I started pre-researching this post. But in the years since it came out, the phrase “love languages” has taken on a life that goes far beyond it. That concept has informed our approach to relationships for the better. So I think it should be embraced, not discarded, even if new research makes the book itself less relevant.
Here’s hoping the idea helps others as much as it’s helped us. (Fingers crossed.)
Next: What, Wednesday already? Time to pick up something! And here comes another micross for you guys…!