LOVE IN THE AGE OF INDIVIDUALISM - Elhem Beddouda - ETHICA SOCIETAS-Rivista di scienze umane e sociali

Autonomy, Emotional Withdrawal, and the Ambiguity of Emotional Intelligence in Contemporary Relationships

Abstract: In recent decades, socio-cultural transformations linked to individualism have profoundly reshaped how individuals conceive and experience intimate relationships. This article critically examines the hypothesis that contemporary individualism has eroded fundamental dimensions of love, such as sacrifice, patience, and responsibility toward others. Through an interdisciplinary theoretical approach, it explores the tension between autonomy and relational commitment, highlighting how self-prioritization can lead both to emancipation and to forms of emotional withdrawal. Particular attention is given to the ambiguity of emotional intelligence in interpreting implicit relational signals and to the risk of self-deception in unilateral dynamics. The article advances a non-conciliatory perspective: contemporary love is caught in a structural contradiction between the desire for connection and the rejection of vulnerability.

Keywords: #individualism #love #sacrifice #autonomy #emotionalWithdrawal #emotionalIntelligence #selfDeception #vulnerability #reciprocity #ElhemBeddouda #ethicasocietas #ethicasocietasjournal #scientificjournal #humanities #socialsciences #ethicasocietasupli

Elhem Beddouda, is a professional educator with a degree in Education and Training Sciences from the University of Parma, where she completed a thesis entitled Islam and Educational Function: Perspectives on Religious Assistance in Prison. She is currently enrolled in the Global Studies for Sustainable Local and International Development and Cooperation program at the same university.

Italian version

Introduction: love as a space of tension

Contemporary public discourse tends to oscillate between two opposing narratives: on the one hand, the celebration of individual autonomy; on the other, a nostalgic longing for forms of love perceived as more authentic, enduring, and grounded in sacrifice. This tension is not accidental but reflects a structural transformation in how relational bonds are formed.

Whereas in the past love was embedded within relatively stable social frameworks—marriage, community, shared norms—today it is configured as an individual choice that is continuously renegotiated. This transformation, rooted in individualism, has expanded possibilities for self-determination while simultaneously making relationships more fragile and exposed to the logic of reversibility.

Contemporary individualism: emancipation or disengagement?

Individualism is not a monolithic phenomenon. It encompasses both the legitimate pursuit of personal well-being and an increasing difficulty in tolerating relational discomfort.

On the one hand, individuals are encouraged to:

recognize their own needs
avoid relationships perceived as “toxic”
protect their psychological balance

On the other hand, this same logic produces less visible but significant effects:

a reduced capacity for negotiation
low tolerance for frustration
a tendency to interrupt rather than transform relationships

The result is a paradox: relationships become freer, yet more easily abandoned, and reciprocity becomes fragile and intermittent.

The disappearance of sacrifice: myth or reality?

One of the most recurrent claims in contemporary debate concerns the disappearance of romantic sacrifice. However, it is necessary to interrogate what is meant by sacrifice.

Historically, sacrifice has often been asymmetrical and normatively imposed, particularly on women. Its erosion therefore also represents progress. Yet, the complete elimination of the sacrificial dimension produces an unintended effect: the difficulty of sustaining relationships during phases of asymmetry.

Every relationship passes through moments in which:

one partner gives more
one partner is more fragile
one partner needs time

In the absence of a temporary willingness to sustain imbalance, the relationship collapses before it can consolidate. In this sense, what disappears is not sacrifice as oppression, but sacrifice as relational investment, closely linked to vulnerability.

Intolerance of vulnerability and emotional withdrawal

A central feature of contemporary love is the growing difficulty in sustaining vulnerability—both one’s own and that of the other.

Individuals are expected to be:

autonomous
emotionally stable
capable of self-regulation

This expectation produces a critical side effect: those who express need, insecurity, or slowness in opening up risk being perceived as “too much.”

As a result, a recurring dynamic emerges:

individuals are abandoned precisely when they most need reassurance
emotional withdrawal is justified as self-care
relational responsibility is redefined as optional

This does not necessarily indicate an absence of feeling, but rather a structural difficulty in bearing the emotional weight of the other.

Persistence, reciprocity, and the ambiguity of emotional intelligence

One of the most controversial dynamics in contemporary relationships concerns the interpretation of the other’s withdrawal. In contrast to a strictly behavioral reading—where distance signals lack of interest—an alternative perspective emerges: withdrawal may sometimes constitute an indirect request for help.

In many cases, individuals lack the emotional resources to explicitly express their need for closeness. Closure and avoidance may function as defensive strategies in the face of vulnerability. In this context, persistence may take on relational value.

It is here that emotional intelligence becomes central: the ability to detect implicit signals and recognize unspoken needs. However, this perspective introduces a critical ambiguity.

While some forms of withdrawal may indeed contain an unexpressed relational demand, not all distance should be interpreted this way. The systematic attribution of deeper meaning risks turning into self-deception, legitimizing unilateral persistence.

For persistence to be considered an expression of love, minimal relational conditions must be present:

signals, even intermittent, of openness
some degree of reciprocity
the absence of systematic rejection

In the absence of these elements, the interpretation of the other risks becoming a subjective construction rather than a relational reality.

Conclusion: an unresolved contradiction

Contemporary love cannot be reduced either to decline or to linear progress. Rather, it constitutes the site of a structural contradiction:

the desire for deep connection
the rejection of vulnerability and discomfort

Within this framework, individualism does not eliminate love but redefines its limits. What emerges is an unstable relational form in which the boundary between understanding the other and self-deception becomes increasingly difficult to trace.

The most uncomfortable question remains open: how much of what we call love is an actual relationship, and how much is a persistent interpretation in the absence of reciprocity?

REFERENCES