I just watched thus video discussing Byung-Chul Han’s ideas about how love has changed in modern society and it was pretty interesting. I really enjoy this creator’s videos. Even just from this small introduction to Han’s work—since I haven’t yet read any of his writing—I feel an intuitive resonance with his perspective. What I most appreciated about this video was the creator’s caveat at the beginning: critiquing modern love doesn’t mean endorsing the past as an ideal or suggesting that returning to how things used to be is the only alternative. It’s a false dichotomy to assume that pointing out issues in contemporary relationships is inherently nostalgic or regressive.

Han’s critique challenges us to consider how our cultural shift toward commodification has fundamentally altered the way we relate to one another. In his view, love in its traditional sense involved encountering the “other”—someone irreducibly different, whose mystery and alterity drew us into transformative relationships. This form of love demanded openness, vulnerability, and the acceptance of unpredictability. However, as Han argues, modern society has reduced love to a transactional exchange, a commodified interaction in which the other is no longer recognized as truly other but rather as a mirror of our own desires and self-image.

This transformation reflects the broader tendencies of neoliberalism, where even our most intimate relationships are subjected to the logic of consumption. Dating apps, for instance, present love as a marketplace of curated profiles, where individuals are evaluated as products. This commodification prioritizes ease, convenience, and efficiency, eroding the depth and complexity of relationships. The unpredictable and sometimes difficult aspects of loving another person—their contradictions, flaws, and unassimilable qualities—are increasingly viewed as inconveniences rather than essential aspects of intimacy.

Han also suggests that this commodification of love aligns with the broader cultural obsession with self-optimization. In a world that demands constant productivity and perfection, relationships are no longer places to encounter the other but rather arenas to affirm the self. Partners are sought not for their uniqueness but for their ability to fulfill predefined roles, support ambitions, or enhance status.

I always feel compelled to bring up that I myself have an evolutionary psychology lens when looking at love and sometimes I cringe a little at discussions of love when they are too flowery. But one of the reasons love remains so mysterious is its grounding in evolutionary psychology. Human love is uniquely complex compared to other animals, including other primates, because of our distinct reproductive and social systems. Unlike species with straightforward reproductive strategies—such as harems, exclusively male-driven investment, or all-female rearing—humans developed a blended system. Hidden ovulation, for example, conceals female fertility, fostering long-term pair bonds and cooperation between men and women to raise offspring. This system evolved in part because human children require extensive care over long periods, demanding contributions from both sexes.

This cooperative framework, combined with the intricacies of human culture, makes love a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It encompasses elements of reproduction, social alliance, emotional attachment, and mutual investment. These evolutionary roots contribute to its depth, complexity, and the way it ebbs and flows with cultural shifts. While it’s tempting to romanticize love as something ineffable, I think it’s important to ground our understanding in the scientific realities of how and why love functions as it does. Flowery language can be a useful shorthand for describing emotions, which are themselves heuristics for navigating complex decisions, but it’s crucial to remember the biological underpinnings that shape these feelings.

So all that said and going back to the video, I think it’s important to acknowledge that this shift in how we approach relationships has brought significant benefits, particularly from the perspective of women and our historically limited roles within relationships and society. The autonomy that many women now have—the ability to choose relationships, to leave abusive ones, and to define ourselves outside of traditional relational expectations—represents enormous progress. In earlier paradigms of love, where women were often cast as the selfless caretakers or subordinated partners, the notion of the “other” in love was often one-sided, with men occupying the role of the mysterious, transformative figure while women were reduced to their utility or devotion. The changes in how we approach relationships now have allowed women to reclaim a sense of agency that was long denied.

Moreover, greater cultural awareness of boundaries, consent, and individual needs has brought a level of emotional intelligence to relationships that may not have existed in the past. The shift toward viewing love as something that involves negotiation and mutual respect—while it may feel transactional at times—also creates space for relationships where both partners can thrive as individuals. It’s possible to critique the commodification of love without dismissing the advances it has enabled, especially for those of us who have historically been denied freedom and equality within these structures.

Han’s critique serves as a valuable lens for examining the nuances of modern love. But instead of longing for a return to an earlier model, perhaps we should aim to combine the best aspects of both: a recognition of the other’s mystery and transformative potential, coupled with the autonomy and equality that modernity has brought to relationships. Love, like everything else, is not static—it evolves with culture, economy, and human understanding. The challenge is to remain conscious of these shifts so that we can navigate them with intention and wisdom. I don’t have any sort of solution to propose. I’m actually more a fan of descriptive philosophy as opposed to prescriptive myself. This video just got me thinking so I figured I’d write out my thoughts.