ET TU, ME? THEN FALL ROMANCE: Intriguing little Salon review of the final book by psychoanalyst Stephen Mitchell. His theory --which sounds all grand and hifalutin in the best Jung-Freud traditions; thank god the salvationist instinct within within psychology has not completely disappeared-- is that we, consciously, end our more love-like feelings and replace them with steadier ones out of fear:

Why, Mitchell asks, should romance so inevitably wane, to be replaced -- and this is if you're lucky -- by something solid, steady ... and slightly-to-excruciatingly dull? Popular explanations are thick on the ground: Romance depends on mystery, but long-term relationships depend on understanding. Romance gets its fizz from sexuality, but partnership demands tenderness and caring, not lust. Romance is based on idealization of the other, and idealizing anyone is asking for trouble. Freud described his yearning patients neatly: "Where they love, they have no desire; where they desire, they cannot love."

The problem is real, and all the explanations are true, Mitchell says, but only partly, inadequately true. His own view, both warmed and deepened by a 30-year clinical practice of what came to be called "relational psychoanalysis," is that romantic love doesn't die a natural, inevitable death: We kill it, out of fear. It's just too dangerous, he says, to experience erotic currents toward somebody you actually know, somebody who shares not only your bed but the chores and the cable bill. What if he or she stopped desiring you? Compared to the emotional risks of long-term domestic passion, Mitchell observes, the zipless fuck is as daring as oatmeal.

Via the Yahoo evpsych list. Meanwhile I saw Kate & Leopold this weekend voluntarily. I am such a sap.