Tag: human behavior

What Love Means to Me

On July 7, 2026

A symbolic composition depicts a weathered stone doorway dividing two contrasting landscapes: one open, sunlit, and inviting, the other locked, shadowed, and overgrown. The accompanying imagery illustrates trust opening the door, acceptance keeping it open, and love emerging through relationship, while distrust, nonacceptance, and separation point toward the possibility of hate. The image visually represents the essay’s central theme that love and hate are not isolated emotions but emergent properties shaped by the quality of our relationships with people, animals, places, ideas, and the world around us. (Image generated by ChatGPT using DALL·E, 2026.)

People have been trying to define love for thousands of years, and I don’t think we’ve ever really succeeded. That isn’t because love isn’t real. Quite the opposite. It’s because love is an emotion, and emotions are incredibly difficult to describe without simply replacing one emotional word with another.

People will often define love as affection, devotion, attachment, or deep care. To me, those aren’t definitions. They’re descriptions of other feelings that often accompany love. They don’t really answer the question of what love is.

I’ve come to believe that we’re asking the wrong question.

Instead of asking, “What is love?” I’ve started asking, “What gives rise to the emotion we call love?”

This isn’t a philosophical proof or a scientific theory. It’s simply the understanding I’ve developed through my own experiences and the way I’ve come to see human relationships.

To me, love is the polar opposite of hate.

I don’t use either word casually. People often say they “love” pizza or “hate” Mondays, but those words have always meant something much stronger to me. Hate is one of the most powerful emotions a person can experience, and because I see love as its opposite, I believe love deserves the same respect. Neither word should be thrown around lightly.

Over time, I’ve also realized that trust is central to understanding love.

I used to think you couldn’t trust someone unless you loved them. I’ve changed my mind about that. Trust exists on a spectrum. We trust strangers to obey traffic laws. We trust coworkers to do their jobs. We trust doctors with our health. Those relationships don’t necessarily involve love.

What matters isn’t simply trust itself, but what trust makes possible.

I’ve begun thinking about relationships as rooms connected by a doorway.

Trust opens the door.

Acceptance keeps the door open.

Every time we trust someone, we allow them a little farther into our lives. Every time they accept us for who we genuinely are, rather than demanding we become someone else, that doorway remains open. The relationship deepens.

Eventually, something may begin to emerge from that shared space.

We call it love.

I don’t believe trust automatically becomes love any more than I believe planting a seed guarantees a flower will bloom. Trust and acceptance don’t force love into existence. They simply create the conditions in which love has the opportunity to grow.

The opposite is also true.

Distrust begins to close the door.

Nonacceptance locks it.

That doesn’t mean hate is inevitable. Distrust doesn’t automatically become hate any more than trust automatically becomes love. But distrust and rejection create conditions where resentment, fear, contempt, and eventually hate can begin to grow. They move a relationship in that direction.

To me, love and hate aren’t simply emotions floating around inside us. They emerge from the way we relate to the world around us.

This way of thinking also explains why I don’t believe in the phrase “unconditional love.”

In my mind, it’s almost an oxymoron.

If I only love someone as long as they become the person I want them to be, then I have to question whether I ever loved them in the first place. Perhaps I loved an idea of them. Perhaps I loved my expectations. But I wasn’t loving the person standing in front of me.

That doesn’t mean love has no boundaries. Relationships absolutely should have boundaries. Trust can be broken. People can become abusive, dishonest, or manipulative. Sometimes the healthiest choice is to walk away from a relationship.

But walking away because someone has violated trust is different from asking someone to abandon who they are in order to earn your love.

To me, genuine love begins with accepting another person as themselves.

As I’ve reflected on all of this, I’ve realized something else.

I don’t think love has an essence.

You can’t point to love the way you can point to a mountain or a tree. Love isn’t a physical object waiting to be discovered in nature. It’s a human construction—a way of understanding an emotional experience that arises through our relationships.

That doesn’t make it any less real.

Language is a human construction. Money is a human construction. Marriage is a human construction. They’re all profoundly real because they shape the way we live our lives. I think love belongs in that same category.

The way we experience and understand love is influenced by our individual lives, our cultures, and the historical moments in which we live. Someone from another society or another century might understand love differently than I do, and I don’t think either of us would necessarily be wrong.

Perhaps that’s why I keep coming back to anthropology.

Anthropology has taught me that human beings create meaning. We don’t simply discover it lying around in nature. We build it through our relationships, our cultures, our histories, and our shared experiences.

Love, I think, is one of those meanings.

So if someone asked me to define love today, I wouldn’t describe it with another emotion.

I’d say that love is an emergent property of a relationship.

Whether that relationship is with another person, a cat curled up beside you, a hobby that has become part of your identity, a place that feels like home, or even an idea that has shaped your life, love doesn’t simply appear. It grows through trust, acceptance, shared experience, and the ongoing relationship itself.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with this definition.

In fact, I hope they don’t feel obligated to. Every person’s understanding of love is shaped by the life they’ve lived.

This is simply mine.

The Past Is Another World

By Katherine Walter

On June 30, 2026

In anthropological theory

A split-scene illustration contrasts an ancient society with a modern urban landscape, divided by a central hourglass symbolizing the passage of time. The composition emphasizes that historical societies should first be understood according to the knowledge, values, and circumstances of their own era before being evaluated through contemporary moral frameworks, illustrating the concept of temporal relativity as an anthropological approach to interpreting the past. (Image generated by ChatGPT using DALL·E, 2026.)

Anthropologists are taught early in their education to avoid ethnocentrism. One of the primary methodological tools for doing so is cultural relativism, the principle that beliefs, customs, and social institutions should first be understood within the cultural context in which they exist rather than judged solely according to the standards of another culture (Boas, 1940; Herskovits, 1972). Cultural relativism does not require anthropologists to approve of every cultural practice they encounter. Rather, it requires them to understand those practices as the people within that society understood them before making comparisons or evaluations.

Over the years, I have wondered whether a similar principle might be applied to the study of the past. I propose the concept of temporal relativity as an anthropological analogy to cultural relativism. By temporal relativity, I mean the methodological principle that societies should first be understood according to the historical circumstances, knowledge, values, and social structures of their own time before being evaluated through the moral or cultural standards of the present.

I recognize that historians have long emphasized historical contextualization and have cautioned against presentism, the tendency to interpret the past primarily through modern assumptions and values. My intention is not to replace those concepts or to speak as a historian. Rather, I am approaching the question from the perspective of anthropology. If cultural relativism helps us understand differences between societies existing at the same time, perhaps temporal relativity can help us understand differences between societies separated by time.

Cultural relativism encourages anthropologists to ask what a particular belief or practice meant to the people who lived it. Instead of asking whether another culture is right or wrong according to our own standards, we ask how that culture understood itself. Temporal relativity asks similar questions, but across history rather than across geography. How did people of a particular period understand their own institutions? What assumptions about family, religion, economics, politics, and morality shaped their decisions? What alternatives were realistically imaginable within the historical conditions in which they lived?

Consider slavery in the ancient Mediterranean. From the perspective of contemporary human rights, slavery is morally unacceptable. Temporal relativity does not ask us to abandon that conclusion. Instead, it asks us first to understand why slavery was nearly universal throughout the ancient world, how it was justified philosophically and economically, and how people within those societies understood the institution. Only after reconstructing that historical framework can meaningful comparisons be made between their moral world and our own.

A similar example can be found in historical understandings of marriage. Many societies considered marriage shortly after puberty to be socially acceptable, often viewing the onset of menstruation as a transition into adulthood. Today, many societies would regard such marriages as child marriage or child abuse. Temporal relativity does not excuse these historical practices. Rather, it asks us to understand how those societies defined childhood, adulthood, family, and responsibility before evaluating them through contemporary moral frameworks.

This distinction between explanation and endorsement is essential. Cultural relativism has sometimes been criticized as encouraging moral relativism or excusing harmful cultural practices. I believe this criticism misunderstands cultural relativism as a methodological approach rather than a moral philosophy. Explaining why a society practiced something is not the same as approving of it. The same distinction applies to temporal relativity. Historical explanation should not be confused with historical endorsement.

One reason I find this concept useful is that it encourages intellectual humility. Every society, including our own, operates within assumptions that often appear self-evident to those living within them. Future generations may judge many of our own beliefs and institutions quite differently than we do today. Recognizing that possibility reminds us that we are not uniquely objective observers standing outside history. We are participants within it.

I do not suggest that the past should become immune from criticism or moral evaluation. Rather, I suggest that understanding should precede judgment. Anthropologists have long argued that understanding another culture requires temporarily setting aside one’s own assumptions. Temporal relativity proposes extending that same intellectual discipline across time. Before asking whether historical societies lived according to our standards, we should first ask how they understood themselves according to theirs.

Whether temporal relativity ultimately proves to be a useful concept is, of course, open to discussion. My intention is not to introduce a new historical methodology but to offer an anthropological perspective on historical interpretation. Just as cultural relativism encourages us to recognize that different societies construct different systems of meaning, temporal relativity encourages us to recognize that different historical periods often inhabited fundamentally different moral and intellectual worlds. Understanding those worlds on their own terms, I believe, allows us not only to understand the past more accurately but also to better recognize the historical assumptions that shape our own present.