I haven’t thought much about Gary Chapman’s The Five Love Languages in a long time, but recently my Family Life Education class did a presentation on this subject. I tend to see most evangelical book empires of that sort as an attempt by publishers to cash in on an author’s popularity, and I am not a big fan of Christian pop psychology to begin with. Still, I am reasonable enough to acknowledge that there is something to the five love languages. I’m not crazy about limiting ourselves to a magical five, but the general principle that different forms of expression mean more to different people is hard to argue with.
I could argue, however, with the gender stereotypes I saw in our class’s brief discussion of the love languages. Skits tended to put women in traditional roles (whether the homemaker or the career woman with a second-shift), and the sorts of ideas thrown out by the class were also discussed in a stereotypical manner. For example, a wife putting on sexy lingerie and having some fun with her husband somehow got put under “acts of service,” rather than more appropriate categories like “physical touch,” or even “quality time.” Inspired by my frustration, I decided to survey the online love language quizzes for husbands and wives to see to what extent gender stereotypes just come with the territory. When we think of caring for one another through words of affirmation, physical touch, gifts, quality time, and acts of service, do we need to make intentional efforts to avoid unhelpful assumptions about gender?
Between my class experience (at a moderate seminary!) and my perusal of the online quizzes, I think so. It seems Chapman—in the quizzes, if not also in his books or various teaching materials—thinks certain love languages express themselves differently along gender lines, something that should be known by those potentially using his work in their churches or recommending it to friends. As innocuous as we might assume the five love languages to be based on their decidedly less-than-revolutionary level of helpfulness, we must be aware that along with the good, the decent, and the obvious lurks a potentially more damaging element.
17 Comments
I should probably re-read Chapman’s book before commenting on this article – but as it is not currently on my bookshelf I will comment anyway! I read this book quite a while ago and actually found it quite interesting and useful. However, this all changed when I attended a Marriage Course where the book was used. It was then, in the way the book was interpreted, that the gender stereotypes became a cause of irritation for me. I guess when I read it originally I allowed a certain amount of gender assumptions to pass me by – but when they were taught during the course as the norm, and the outworking of the languages moulded to fit the stereotypes I lost a lot of respect for the book. I should probably find my copy and read it again to consider this properly.
I really enjoy personality analysis tools, like the Five Love Languages, Myers-Briggs, the four temperaments in all their various forms, etc. I get a kick out of the psychology of it all, and I’ve taken more ridiculous online quizzes than I can recount.
However, I feel like all of these tools, no matter how good, have a tendency to fall into the same trap of stereotyping (at the lay level, anyway). It seems to me that an attitude of, “Well, I know your love language / Myers-Briggs letters / temperament, and therefore I know how you work” is more likely to also say, “You are a woman, and therefore I know how you work”.
People are astoundingly complex and deep, and no one method will successfully categorize everyone at once. Yet it seems to me this is where a lot of otherwise good ideas start to get out of balance, moving from accurate broad categories, to locked narrow definitions, and perhaps even ultimately standards to attain to.
So often we end up trying to figure each other out without all the mess of communication, emotional investment, humility and vulnerability that comes with the territory of real friendship. It seems to me like we’re generally more comfortable with classifying people than caring for them.
Maybe the adherence to gender roles in the book is a reflection of the fact that the book was written twenty years ago. At that time in the evangelical Christian culture, the push for traditional gender roles in Christian homes was intense. Women who didn’t adhere to those roles were looked upon very dimly.
Maybe if Mr. Chapman were writing this book in 2012 rather than 1992, he would write it differently? (Unless he is a strict complementarian and wants to promote that view).
Humans tend to simplify the complexities of life in order to try to get a handle on them. One way humans try to simplify is to find patterns, again in order to explain the past and predict the future. So we form categories and do our best to differentiate this from that.
Once we have a category, then we assign examples to that categorie. As pointed out, the examples can get assigned by gender. I first noticed this in the Love and Respect teaching, Eggerich would assign the exact same behavior to a different category depending on whether the actor was a man or a woman with their predetermined categories aligned with comp doctrine. Whoa! What was going on there? Talk about force fitting.
The truth is all of us have worldview grids and we categorize and emphasize and discard sensory data based on our grid; it is just more obvious to us when another’s grid is different from ours.
I now see 5LL and similar as an entryway to discussion, but the trick is to not let it confine the discussion. If you think everyone is the same, it is a revelation to find out that it is not necessarily so, that there are 5LL or whatever.
Just discovering that people can be different in what is meaningful to them (and that no one is right or wrong in this, just different) is a priceless insight.
My church is discussing families. Instead of trying to come up with a church-wide generic family mission statement, they asked each family to come up with their own mission statement and they post the ones they have received so far as examples to others. I see this as a very wise thing to do, as each family is different.
Recognising that authors of books which categorise people, do so with the best of intentions, in our experience it mostly ends up with people observing others and noticing the traits which are not so acceptable. That said, 5LL seems better in that it explains different ways of showing love and that not everyone appreciates or even understands the same love ‘language’.
I proofread a parenting book once which included the concept of love languages and the authors had written their own suggestions of how love could be shown. The examples were very influenced by gender expectations which I was able to change with no complaints from the authors..phew!
Another point with the 5LL teaching is that the book says that we are all born with a particular love language. I would question this, as at various stages in our lives we appreciate love being shown in different ways according to what is happening around us, our health, our single or marital status, our financial position etc. Also, children born in deprived circumstances would have different needs from those who are more privileged. These needs would change if the child was fortunate enough to have an improved situation later on.
Every time we have used the 5LL in training sessions or counselling, it has proved to be helpful but we just use the concept to encourage people to find out how the other person thinks and feels. This puts aside any gender bias as people are listening to what others say and trying to not have any expectations.
I usually say “I’ll accept them all, anytime with thanks” and try to show them all in various situations.
Yes, what I do when I come across “gendered” groupings is just to make them symmetrical across both genders. This is (most of the time) a quick and easy way to make them egal.
I saw the 5 Love Languages as more of a counseling tool for couples who love each other, but seemingly cannot communicate that love effectively. It gives each person a ‘list’ of types of things to do, that the other has picked, that when they do them are defined as ‘I love you.’ To me, this was a way to begin paying attention and expressing (and receiving) love in a relationship. Since each person picked a ‘category’ there was some chance to personalize what one did. It is only the barest beginning of learning to see the other as a unique individual though. So sad that we even need to do this. I think that is why we look to gender roles rather than looking at the actual person to see what they like and need. It’s easier than getting to know someone ‘for real.’
I approach this topic the same way I approach many of the Christian self-help/relationship/marriage books; by using an old adage that I learned, of all places, on Jay Leno’s Headlines:
“Do not use beyond usefulness.”
That’s the advice that I always give to friends who ask if this or that marriage book is worth looking at. If some of the things in the book help your marriage, then good! But if they don’t help, or don’t describe you very well? Then stop reading and find something that DOES help. God did not write those books. You don’t have to read them and make them apply. Just use them if they’re useful, and quit when they’re not.
red, U R always so brilliant—i have 2 remember that one–do not use beyond usefulness—very, very good advice—another favorite of mine is eat the hay and spit out the sticks
Not only is the book biased, but one of the “Love Languages” is sex. Excuse me, “physical touch.”
One man on the Christian dating web site to which I used to subscribe said thus: “I have read the 5LL, and my language is physical touch. I want/need a LOT of sex from my woman. It’s how I express my love to her. So anyone who answers this must be prepared to give me lots and lots of sex.”
Oh, how nice. We’re not even dating and the man is demanding sex–and plenty of it. And, hey, it’s not about HIM or HIS pleasure–it’s how he expresses his love to “his woman.”
How about demonstrating sacrifical love as the Bible commands, and let the sex fall where it may? Studies have shown that men who help out around the house get more sex–the more they help, they more they get. It doesn’t seem very loving to me to demand sex, whatever our excuse is.
Lisa,
It’s been my experience that when physical touch is associated with sex, or equally when physical touch is subconsciously associated with sex, that person has an emotional and spiritual problem that they need healed of. It’s not all that uncommon. And women have the problem as well.
However, generally speaking touch is not supposed to be associated with sex. Touch is pure in itself and is supposed to convey many different things. Those who use touch inappropriately have difficulty discerning the difference. It’s too bad that the author of the 5LL was not aware of that.
I think the 5LL author put sex into the physical touch category, but as you point out, there are disadvantages to that, perhaps it should be in its own category.
There’s nothing to suggest that the author of 5LL mean anything other than ‘physical touch ‘ and since he is a counsellor, he probably knew that it could be interpreted as something else. Books are like sermons – you can’t always be responsible for how others hear/read it :-)
When the 5LL are used in a group setting, there is ample opportunity to explain the author’s intent (and to point out the fact that both women and men can ‘speak’ the same language) – there should be no gender bias toward any of the five types.
So I went and took the “assessment” twice. Once I did it as a “single person.” Once I did it as a “wife.” My results were basically the same, but I do see how the questions were worded differently. Interesting.