Since its invention in medieval Europe, the concept of romantic love has referred to a specific cultural template: a feudal-inspired dyad in which the man acts as a devoted servant (embodied in chivalry) and the woman is elevated to a pedestal traditionally reserved for a feudal lord. This structural relationship, adapted from feudal society and applied to intimate bonds, became the defining framework for romantic love. It spread globally and remains symbolically potent today—for instance, in the common image of a man kneeling on one knee to propose marriage, an act that implies the same roles between men and women even when not literally performed.

This core template—the feudal structure itself—is what distinguishes romantic love from other forms of affection. Over time, however, it has undergone what might be called category creep through its increasing association with two related but distinct elements:

1. The freedom to choose one’s love partner.
2. Sexual desire and activity.

Importantly, the sexual component was not inherent or necessary to the original model.

Courtly love (amour courtois), the direct precursor to what we call romantic love, was frequently and even ideally Platonic in nature. Troubadour poetry and chivalric literature often celebrated an elevated, non-physical devotion in which the man’s service and the woman’s pedestal remained pure; consummation was neither required nor always desired. Sex sometimes occurred as an additional element, but its presence or absence did not define the romantic construct. This historical reality demonstrates conclusively that sexual activity is merely an adjunct—something that may accompany the template but is not identical to it.

Because sexual desire is clearly an evolved human behavior, its frequent close proximity to the romantic template has encouraged academics and lay observers alike to interpret the entire phenomenon—including the cultural feudal template—as a biological universal rather than a historically specific construct. The result is a form of misplaced adaptationism: the assumption that because one component is innate, the whole package must be as well.

A Foundational Study and Its Limitations

A widely cited 1992 paper by William Jankowiak and Edward Fischer examined evidence of “romantic love” across 166 cultures and reported its presence in 147. Their criteria focused on generic features such as personal anguish and longing, love songs or folklore, elopements based on affection, and ethnographers’ reports. However, this definition notably omitted the feudal template—the man-as-vassal, woman-as-lord dynamic—that formed the heart of the European romantic love construct. Without that central element, what they described aligns more closely with broader passionate or pair-bonding experiences found across human societies than with romantic love in its historically specific sense.

Jankowiak and Fischer later acknowledged this distinction. In subsequent work and communications, they shifted to the more accurate term “passionate love” for their construct, recognizing that the original European romantic model was a unique cultural development that later spread worldwide. Their willingness to refine the terminology reflects intellectual honesty and humility.

Uncritical Reliance in Evolutionary Psychology

Despite these clarifications, some scholars continue to rely on the earlier framing. Steve Stewart-Williams, in his otherwise insightful book The Ape That Understood the Universe, relies on the Jankowiak and Fischer findings to make his conclusion without fully addressing the missing feudal component. He writes:

“The question all these findings raise is a straightforward one: If romantic love is an invention of Western culture, why is it found in every geographical region, historical period, and ethnic group? The simplest and most plausible answer is that romantic love is not an invention of Western culture. Instead, the idea that romantic love is an invention of Western culture is itself an invention of Western culture, and a rather implausible one at that. Human beings were falling in and out of love for hundreds of thousands of years before we ever had Hollywood blockbusters or knights in shining armor. We’re just that kind of animal – the kind that falls in love from time to time.”

This passage illustrates a category error and equivocation that weakens the analysis. By folding evolved sexual urges (eros) together with the culturally constructed feudal template under the single label “romantic love,” the argument treats a composite as purely biological. The feudal metaphor—man in service to an elevated beloved—is not a universal biological reflex; it is a medieval European innovation that has since globalized. Conflating it with sexual desire risks overlooking the genuine cultural novelty involved and perpetuates imprecise scholarship.

That said, Stewart-Williams usefully distinguishes “romantic love” from “companionate love,” the steadier form of attachment that often follows the intense early phase and supports long-term pair-bonding. As he notes:

“But the end of the crazy, can’t-keep-your-hands-off-each-other phase doesn’t necessarily herald the end of love. Sometimes romantic love matures into a distinct form of love, which psychologists call companionate love. … Companionate love is a less exhilarating form of love than romantic love, but in many ways, it’s more real. With romantic love, or at least early-stage romantic love, we often don’t really know the person we fall in love with.”

This differentiation is valuable, though the broader point remains: precise definitions matter. Romantic love, properly understood as the feudal template adapted to intimate relations, is a cultural achievement with a clear historical origin—not a timeless biological given. Sloppy handling of these distinctions in academic work, even by otherwise capable researchers, perpetuates confusion and overgeneralization. Clearer categorization allows us to appreciate both the evolved foundations of human attachment and the culturally inventive ways societies have shaped them.

References

Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31(2), 149-155.

Stewart-Williams, S. (2018). The Ape That Understood the Universe: How the Mind and Culture Evolve. Cambridge University Press.