A Sociological Reinterpretation of Affective Relationships Between Expected Reciprocity and the Gratuitous Gift
Abstract: This article proposes a critical reinterpretation of the concept of courtship through a sociological and philosophical perspective centered on the intentionality of action. Contrary to traditional interpretations that consider courtship a natural and necessary stage in the construction of a romantic relationship, it is argued that it may be understood as a form of goal-oriented action, in which gestures of care, attention, and generosity are performed with the aim of obtaining a desired outcome. The central thesis of this article is that the nature of a relationship is not primarily determined by observable behaviors but by the intention that generates them. Through a dialogue with the sociology of action, gift theory, reflections on symbolic capital, the philosophy of love, and selected contributions from Islamic ethical thought, a theoretical distinction is proposed between courtship as a logic of expected reciprocity and love as a practice of gratuitousness.
Keywords: #Love #Courtship #Intentionality #Gift #Gratuitousness #Reciprocity #AffectiveRelationships #SociologyOfAction #SymbolicCapital #Generosity #SymbolicManipulation #RelationalEthics #ElhemBeddouda #EthicaSocietas #EthicaSocietasJournal #ScientificJournal #HumanSciences #SocialSciences #ethicasocietasupli
Elhem Beddouda is a professional educator, holding a degree in Educational Sciences and Training Processes from the University of Parma, with a thesis entitled “Islam and the Educational Function: Perspectives on Religious Assistance in Prison.” She is currently enrolled in the degree programme “Global Studies for Sustainable Local and International Development and Cooperation” at the same University.
Introduction. The Problem of Intention in Affective Relationships
In most human societies, courtship is considered the prelude to love. Before a relationship is established, there is assumed to be a phase characterized by attention, gifts, availability, acts of care, and strategies of emotional approach. This narrative is so deeply rooted that it appears almost self-evident: people court because they love, or in order to arrive at love.
However, a deeper reflection invites us to question this assumption. Is it really possible to identify courtship with love? Or does it represent a different relational dynamic, characterized by its own internal logic?
The issue becomes particularly relevant when attention shifts from gestures to intentions. In social life, we tend to evaluate relationships based on what people do. Yet two individuals may perform exactly the same actions for radically different reasons.
One person may offer a gift because they genuinely wish to make another person happy. Another may offer the very same gift because they wish to be chosen, loved, or desired. The observable behavior is identical; the intentionality that generates it is profoundly different.
From this observation arises the fundamental thesis of the present contribution: the nature of a relationship is not primarily defined by the gestures that compose it but by the intentional logic from which those gestures emerge. If this is true, then the distinction between love and courtship may be far deeper than is commonly believed.
Intentionality as the Foundation of Relational Reality
The social sciences have often privileged the analysis of observable behaviors. Yet since the origins of the sociology of action, human conduct has been understood as something that cannot be reduced to mere external behavior.
To understand an action means to understand the subjective meaning attributed to it by the actor. The same gesture may assume completely different meanings depending on the intentions that animate it.
This insight becomes particularly relevant in the sphere of affective relationships. A hug, a gift, a kind word, or a constant presence may be manifestations of authentic love or instruments aimed at obtaining an emotional response.
The most common mistake consists in confusing behavior with its meaning. From a phenomenological perspective, what defines an action is not simply what is done but the reason why it is done.
The difference between love and courtship emerges precisely within this invisible space of intentionality.
The Logic of Courtship: When the Gesture Becomes a Means
In its most general form, courtship may be defined as the set of practices through which an individual seeks to generate interest, attraction, or emotional involvement in another person.
This definition already contains a decisive element: the existence of an objective.
One courts another person so that something may happen. One wishes to be noticed, appreciated, chosen, or reciprocated. The gestures performed during courtship therefore possess a teleological dimension: they are oriented toward a future outcome.
From this perspective, courtship exhibits characteristics analogous to forms of goal-oriented action. Actions are evaluated according to their effectiveness in producing a particular outcome. Indeed, very frequently these gestures disappear or diminish drastically once the objective has been achieved.
Naturally, this does not mean that courtship is necessarily false or ill-intentioned. It does mean, however, that it contains an instrumental structure: care is offered in order to generate closeness, attention is offered in order to generate interest, and availability is offered in order to generate reciprocity.
In other words, the gesture is performed in function of something that transcends it.
Persuasion, Recognition, and the Construction of Bonds
The idea of symbolic manipulation is often associated with intentional deception. However, from a broader sociological perspective, manipulation means influencing another person’s behavior or perception by directing it toward a particular outcome.
In this sense, courtship inevitably contains a persuasive dimension: the person who courts seeks to produce a change in the other, wishes to be perceived in a certain way, seeks to increase the likelihood of being chosen, and attempts to influence the emotional disposition of the other person.
Once again, this does not necessarily constitute morally negative behavior. Nevertheless, it involves a form of intervention in another person’s subjectivity that differs from love understood as the simple pursuit of the other’s well-being.
The other is not merely a person to be loved; they also become the recipient of a relational project.
Gift Between Reciprocity and Gratuitousness
Reflection on the gift allows us to deepen this distinction further.
The gift is never merely the transfer of goods. It creates bonds, obligations, and reciprocal expectations. In most human societies, the gift generates a threefold dynamic: giving, receiving, and reciprocating.
Courtship may be interpreted as a particular form of symbolic gift economy. Time, attention, emotional energy, and availability are offered with the implicit expectation that such investments will produce a response.
Authentic love, by contrast, appears to approach a different ideal: that of the gift that does not demand restitution.
Not because reciprocity is undesirable, but because it does not constitute the original reason for the gesture. The authentic lover does not give in order to receive; they give because, intrinsically, loving already means giving.
Desirability, Symbolic Capital, and Recognition
Every human relationship is traversed by processes of value attribution.
Courtship may also be interpreted as a process of constructing one’s own symbolic capital. Through acts of generosity, availability, and emotional competence, individuals seek to increase their relational value in the eyes of another: they construct a desirable image, highlight admirable qualities, and emphasize aspects of themselves capable of generating attraction.
From this perspective, courtship appears as a sophisticated form of strategic self-presentation. Love, by contrast, seems to operate according to a different logic. Its primary aim is not to make oneself desirable but to recognize the value of the other independently of any return that such recognition may generate.
Love as the Capacity to Give
One of the deepest insights of contemporary reflections on love is the claim that the fundamental problem is not how to be loved but how to love.
Modern individuals often tend to consider love as something to be obtained. The dominant question therefore becomes: how can I make myself loved?
Authentic love completely overturns this perspective. The question is no longer how to obtain love, but how to become a person capable of loving.
Within this framework, giving does not represent either a loss or an investment. It constitutes the very expression of human vitality. Love does not give because it hopes to receive. Receiving becomes simply one of the possible consequences of giving, but it does not necessarily imply reciprocity.
The Ethical Perspective of the Islamic Tradition
A surprisingly similar vision emerges within the Islamic tradition through the well-known teaching attributed to the Prophet Muhammad:
«تَهَادَوْا تَحَابُّوا»
“Exchange gifts and you will love one another.”
A superficial reading might interpret this saying as a relational technique: give gifts so that people will love you. However, a deeper ethical reading suggests something different.
The gift is not presented as a manipulative instrument aimed at obtaining love. Rather, it is described as a practice of generosity capable of naturally creating closeness, goodwill, and affection.
Love is not the price of the gift.
Love is the fruit that may emerge from the gift.
The distinction is subtle yet decisive. In the first case, the gift is subordinated to the outcome. In the second case, the outcome emerges spontaneously from the quality of the gesture itself.
This formulation closely resembles the idea that the moral value of an action depends upon the intention that generates it rather than solely upon the effects it produces.
Love as an End Rather Than a Means
The central thesis of this article may be summarized through a fundamental distinction.
In courtship, love represents the end. Gestures represent the means.
In authentic love, by contrast, the gesture itself becomes the end. Care is offered for the joy of caring, presence is offered for the joy of being present, and the gift is offered for the joy of giving.
Love is no longer something to be obtained but something to be expressed.
Paradoxically, it is precisely when love ceases to be an objective that it becomes possible to experience it in its fullest form.
Conclusions: Two Relational Logics Compared
Contemporary societies tend to regard courtship and love as different moments within the same process. The analysis proposed here suggests instead that they may represent two profoundly different relational logics.
The first is oriented toward expected reciprocity, outcomes, and the construction of bonds through strategies of approach.
The second is oriented toward gratuitousness, recognition of the other, and the capacity to give without subordinating the gesture to the prospect of return.
What distinguishes these two logics is not observable behavior. The same gestures may belong to either one. The difference lies in the origin of the action.
Ultimately, love is not defined by what it does but by why it does it.
Two individuals may offer the same gift, speak the same words, and make the same sacrifices. Yet one may act in order to obtain love, while the other acts because they already love.
It is within this invisible difference of intention that the profound nature of a relationship is determined.
REFERENCES
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Fromm, E. (1956). The Art of Loving. New York: Harper & Row.
Levinas, E. (1961). Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Mauss, M. (1925). The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Weber, M. (1922). Economy and Society. Tübingen: Mohr.
Islamic Prophetic Tradition. Hadith: «تَهَادَوْا تَحَابُّوا» (Tahādaw wa taḥābbū), “Exchange gifts and you will love one another.”
FIVE LAST CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE SAME AUTHOR
DESTROYING IMAGES, GOVERNING MEMORY: JIHADIST ICONOCLASM AND COGNITIVE WARFARE
HUMANOID ROBOTS: REPRODUCTION OF THE LIVING AND ONTOLOGICAL LIMIT
MOTHERHOOD INFLUENCERS: BETWEEN CATALOG PREGNANCIES AND LIVED-IN HOMES
VITAL POVERTY, ALGORITHMS, AND THE PREVENTION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
LOVE IN THE AGE OF INDIVIDUALISM
FIVE LATEST CONTRIBUTIONS ON PSYCHOLOGY
TWO SUICIDES ON THE SAME DAY: A CARABINIERI OFFICER TAKES HIS OWN LIFE IN VARAZZE
HAPPY WORK: TOWARD A NEW CULTURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL WELLBEING
ANOTHER YOUNG LOCAL POLICE OFFICER HAS DIED BY SUICIDE
FIVE LATEST CONTRIBUTIONS
GUANTÁNAMO AND THE MILITARY DIPLOMACY OF DETERRENCE
THE PIETRO MENNEA GOLDEN GALA LIGHTS UP ROME AND ITALIAN SPORT
TWO SUICIDES ON THE SAME DAY: A CARABINIERI OFFICER TAKES HIS OWN LIFE IN VARAZZE
THE EIGHTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC
Ethica Societas is a free, non-profit review published by a social cooperative non-profit organization
Copyright Ethica Societas, Human&Social Science Review © 2026 by Ethica Societas UPLI onlus.
ISSN 2785-602X. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0