Now before we dive balls deep into the critique, I do want to address my stance and approach regarding this guy and his ideas. Typically with approaches in psychological findings, some basis in scientific theory is a basic requirement. However, given Chapman’s background as a theologist, his book is much more conceptual and creatively driven. To critique his book on this premise and his approach would be a poor indicator of my judgment, and rather cheap shot if I critiqued his lack of quantitative evidence. As such, this critique will neither address this lack nor will it approach the proponents scientifically. I neither have a Ph.D. like our boy Chapman nor do I have many years of marriage counseling expertise. I am, however, a marketing student, which at face value is pretty impressive, but I feel like I did develop a feline intuition for sniffing out convincing useless pap when I see it (see “advertising”). The well-intentioned book is a step in the right direction, but let’s take a look at its shortcomings. As with anything, I believe strongly in the approach that with all things that seem too good to be true, to take it with a healthy dose of skepticism. It saves you a lot of trouble and time.
This book has its fair share of criticism. Much of this criticism stems from misunderstanding though. To be fair, Chapman’s main theory is rather foggy on the issue regarding whether love languages are obsolete, at least in the 1992 version of the book. The 2015 revival provided the spectrum approach- where an individual needs a combination of all of the whopping 5 love languages. Nonetheless, the focus seems to pinpoint to obsoletes. Critics note the lack of fluidity in Chapman’s thesis, where he often notes that the reception of love HAS to be one of your main love languages when the reality that Chapman tried to illustrate is true that we need all the 5 languages at varying degrees. This point is not clearly stated in his book, so as a result, a common misconception that stems from this book is that love languages are obsolete. A perfect example of this is when you ask a particular love interest what their love language is, they state it rather matter of factly. And if you’re an excellent listener, you’ll take these to heart. However, failure to touch on all aspects of these love languages is a large point of misunderstanding. Whether Chapman intended to make this point vague is up for debate, but in the mix of self-aggrandizing pap on behalf of Chapman and his “groundbreaking theory”, it’s an immense source of confusion for readers, and when they to try to implement this in their lives, shit may turn out to be unsuccessful. This has left lots of the adopters of the love language theory scratching their heads, as even with knowledge and active acknowledgment of their partner’s love language, they were met with yet another dead end.
Chapman’s background in Theology is dense in the overall tone and approach to relationships as well. Theologists generally have an incredible knack in writing self-help books of this nature, often sprinkling in ethics, theological concepts matter-of-factly and simplistically. Naturally, the tone of the book is friendly and guiding, like a lot of books similar to these are, but the manner in which concepts are exemplified are myopic and obtuse. An example of this is Chapman’s initial approach to relationships. Relationships are briefed as they’re something to weather through. While I share this sentiment, it’s conditional. It’s crucial to point out the expansive difference between poor compatibility and temporary/conditional disappointment, malice, or boredom with a truly compatible person. The overarching theme of “suffering through” reveals Chapman’s background in Christian theology and the foundational premises of marriage and relationships often depicted in biblical scripture (the Bible really is the only source mentioned in the book) and theological studies. These biblical allusions make it clear to readers that Chapman’s approach in addressing marital/relationship issues relies heavily on a largely Christian subtext, excluding other, less imperialistic views on marriage and connection. The topic of compatibility and it’s various facets was seldom addressed. At best, it was implied. The consequences of this can be very confusing. The book suggests that you have the ability to make it work with anyone, if you just weather through tough times, love is inevitable. This concept lends itself rather nicely in scenarios of arranged marriages, where partners are selected on a less-than autonomous basis, and compatibility is then less conventional. Even with this particular example, it further illustrates the various conditions under which love ultimately flourishes outside the scope of Chapman’s largely Western take an atmosphere of, the sociopolitical, and financial baseline of clientele he’s helped. While the ability to make love work with anyone is surely a possibility, the distinction between compatibility and the mere ups and downs of relationships is seldom considered as a possible option. Perhaps the book is meant to attract those who are already in relationships. Folks who may approach their partners run the risk of inhibiting a sort of one-size-fits-all approach and miss flags that may indicate incompatibility and shrug it off as a tougher lover.
On the subject of a “tougher lover” and incompatibility, and to conclude some of my main criticisms with this guide, Chapman has unknowingly (in my opinion) invited a quite toxic look at love. Throughout the novel, Chapman entertains the idea that you hold the ability to coax someone into reciprocating love by “filling their love tank”. The feeling if you just do X, Y, and Z, then the rubric for love is complete. This process is drying, taxing, and often leads to nowhere, leading you to exhaustion, emptiness, and drainage. Chapman’s answer to disconnect is to give more of yourself in ways you typically wouldn’t in hopes of satisfying another partner. Like most difficult but fruitful things in life, this takes time and energy. In no way is this a bad thing to do on your part, but be wary of the very real and possible consequences. If you’re in fact faced with a relationship with poor compatibility, or faced with the various personal baggage a person carries with them- love, the reciprocation- may be unavailable or even disregarded. When faced with such circumstances, the conscious effort in putting in work to meet another’s needs will fall on a deaf, dumb, and blind heart despite meeting their personal needs. Chapman has made numerous generalizations in this axiom, making the assumption that a person exclusively sticks around to be loved in a way that they most admire, ignoring the reality of emotional unavailability which is often not overtly exhibited to others, or the fact that the needs of the other person are never truly explained or shown due to the inability to express them themselves. Perhaps Chapman illustrates a point to not pursue such love or to cut the cord on relationships of these natures, but these seem far from being apparent when applied to real life. If this were true, then it would disprove his overarching approach to “working things out”, so this is improbable. Chapman, as I see it, suggests partners match their investments, which is an excellent concept. But here, Chapman presents a loop and a situation in which a person is stuck between “fighting for it” and “give more” to “fill a love tank”, that may in fact have a huge, gaping hole at the bottom. As I see it, the harder realities of human connection cease to exist in the vacuum of the 5 love languages. Chapman’s formula for function in this black and white approach to love invites room for emotional neglect for the sake of “working it out” and biting the bullet when faced with clear empty outcomes. As Jaques Lacan stated, "Love is giving something you don't have to someone who doesn't want it.”
In a lot of respects, we’re in need of a new and refreshing look at the 5 love languages, as I believe the conditional circumstances surrounding these concepts are far too antiquated, out of touch, and idealistic. The true nature of our realities, as complex and wacky they have become since the publishing of this book in 1992, requires a massive revisitation of interpersonal communication in the age of tech, wage disparity, sexual preferences, and digital communication. There surely is no expiration on great ideas, I realize this. Humbly, I must admit such circumstances and ideas presented in this book are due for a reality check. The fact that these concepts, from the start of its popularity, have already been met with qualifiers and takes is a sign of a set of initial ideas begging to be further explored, manipulated, and even altered for the better. The book’s approach misses key points of the nature of relationships, and instead -ironically- offers up 5 universal love languages which really only fundamentally appeal to a select type of people who’ve had the luxury of experiencing a rather consistent, surface-level, and myopic view of love; this view does away with the conditions under which love and interpersonal connection can flourish. 5 whole ass categories of love can surely be a slippery slope of obsoletism. Love is vastly different across cultures, income levels, sexual orientations, etc. The author’s failure to address these issues also presents an incredibly dire shortcoming in his very vanilla, privileged, and myopic approach to love. It’s easy to suggest the love languages as universal, as it appealed to our most cushioned and rudimentary understanding of love, and for this reason, we were so willing to lube up and run with it.
We’ve been floating in the outdated space of the 5 Love Languages for far too long. Chapman’s angle of focus is a reflection and product of the soup he swims in. This isn’t bad, as we all sort of are. But we must address it for what it is: outdated, basic, traditional, and despite its apparent universality, it’s a perfect example of just another view of love among many others. And it would be foolish to revere his claims as all-encompassing and customizable to you. It’s a Chapman and Chapman-type exclusive. I’m not advocating for the resignation of his ideas, as in a lot of respects, the odds are that the person reading this has the perfect conditions to practice it rather unproblematically. We shouldn’t treat the book and these ideas and an end-all-be-all guide to understanding another human being. We are much more complex and interesting than that.
So. Is it bullshit? Well, it’s not a complete waste of time.
Opmerkingen