Natural vs. conventional

Love is probably the emotion most talked about and extolled by Americans and probably also the least understood. In large measure this is because love seems a natural human emotion that requires no explanation. It is taken for granted that love for one's spouse and children is a universal element in human experience, something that men of all places and ages have felt in common. Affection and warmth are universal, to be sure, but not love in the middle-class sense of the word. What seems to be a natural emotional response is largely a conventional response.

The range of human emotional potential is broad, and that set of responses which accorded the highest value in one society may not be highly regarded in another. Thus, filial piety was considered the finest emotion in traditional Chinese society, patriotism was the transcendent emotion in ancient Sparta, the Puritans extolled the fear of God above all else, and the modern Americans exalt love.

--Gail and Snell Putney, The Adjusted American: Normal Neuroses in the Individual and Society (1964)

An excellent book by two sociologists, analyzing some of the assumptions underlying mid-century, middle class American society, and their psychological ramifications. Particularly interesting are discussions, like the one above, about the consequences of equating natural with conventional. (They use "love" in a few different ways in the book, some more consistent and precise than others, so it's difficult to get the full sense of that discussion from just this quote. I am emphasizing the "emotional potential" point more here).

(J)