'All You Need Is Love': From Romance to Romanticism: The Beatles, Romantic Love and

Cultural Change
Author(s): Colin Campbell
Source: Etnofoor, Vol. 19, No. 1, ROMANTIC LOVE (2006), pp. 111-123
Published by: Stichting Etnofoor
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25758113 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 10:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Stichting Etnofoor is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Etnofoor.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 'AllYou Need Is Love'
From Romance toRomanticism: The Beatles, Romantic Love
and Cultural Change

Colin Campbell, University ofYork*

ABSTRACT By focusingon itsplace inpopular culture,and inparticularthepopular song,

this paper attempts to show that the 'romantic love complex' is not simply of significance
because of its role in interpersonal but can also act as a significant force for cul
relationships
tural change. This claim is then illustrated through an examination of the lyrics of The Beatles'

songs and how the way that these changed between the early and late 1960s reveals that their
evolution from 'mere rock 'n' rollers' to sophisticated advocates of a revolutionary romanticism
was onlymade possible because of their initialcommitmentto the idea (and the ideal) of
romantic love.

Introduction

Recent discussions of the role and nature of intimate relationships in contemporary

Western society have suggested that romantic love has declined in significance as
individuals increasingly enter into something approximating to a 'pure relationship'
which, based on mutual satisfaction, is quickly terminated ifeither partner judges it to
be unfulfilling (Giddens 2002). In otherwords it is assumed that individuals increas
ingly regard each other as 'objects of consumption' and consequently 'judge them
after thepattern of consumer objects by thevolume of pleasure theyare likely to offer,
and in value formoney terms' (Bauman 2003:75); an attitude thatcould not be further
removed from the classic model of passionate 'romantic' attachment.Whether such
claims can be substantiated is open to question, but they are indicative of thewide
spread tendency to treat romantic love as if itwere an anachronism, a 'fiction', or at
thevery least, an irrelevance,when itcomes to examining the socio-cultural dynamics
ofmodern Western societies; and, what ismore, to assume that its only significance
lies in its role, if indeed it still has one, in intimatepersonal relationships. But is this
attitude justified? Or could itbe thatromantic love actually has a farmore significant
role to play in such societies, perhaps even acting as a dynamic force for cultural
change? This is the possibility that I should like to explore in thispaper.
One can say that there are two principal ways inwhich the complex of ideas and
emotion generally known as romantic love is linked to thewider socio-cultural world
ofWestern civilization. The first is via the institutionofmarriage, whether the latter is

*
With the assistance of Danae Mcleod.

ETNOFOOR,XIX(l) 2006,pp. 111-123 111

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 - in these less
formally recognised as such, or legalistic, or perhaps one should say
-
moralistic, times with continuing cohabitation without benefit of a ceremony. Here
romantic love generally functions, as indeed it has done since themid eighteenth
century, to provide the principal justification for the choice of a partner. Indeed, out
side of those traditionalistic ethnic groups who continue to tryand enforce arranged
marriage, romantic love is widely regarded as the sole acceptable justification for
such a choice. Whether in fact romantic love should be the sole, or even theprincipal,
basis for the choice of marriage partner,was a highly controversial issue when the
practice firstbecame widespread in the eighteenth century and has remained so down
to the present day, with relationship counsellors frequently advising couples to pay
equal weight tomore sober and utilitarian considerations such as thepresence of com
mon interestsand a similarity of background.
The other obvious and closely-related manner inwhich the romantic love complex
is connected to the larger socio-cultural reality that is the civilization of theWestern
world is via the entertainmentmedia, where itfeatures as a highly prominent ingredi
ent in the varied diet ofmaterial presented in novels, poems, films, plays, operas and
songs. This of course is in one sense no more than one would expect, given the cen
tralitythat romantic love has traditionally occupied in the personal lives of the inhab
itantsof theWest. But then it also represents the continuation of a long tradition,one
stretchingas far back as the classical Greco-Roman world, inwhich themes relating
to 'love' (though not necessarily of the 'romantic' variety) appeared as a central ingre
dient of poems, songs and plays. However a significant development occurred in the
eighteenth centurywith the appearance of a new medium inwhich romantic love was
the principal subject-matter.This was the novel, and itwas credited with preaching
'the gospel' of romantic love to a generation of largelymiddle-class young women
(Watt 1957). Today, while the novel still plays a part in the process of socialising the
young into 'the romantic faith', it is largely the cinema that now fulfils this role,
especially in thedeveloping world. But then romantic love has also long been a central
element of thepopular song, and it is this fact that is the startingpoint for the argument
to be advanced here.1

However it is firstnecessary to returnto the central question of how romantic love

itself should be conceived, and in particular how it is to be distinguished from other
forms of love. As has frequently been noted, not only are there several varieties of
love, but even when the term is restricted to an emotion experienced by two adults
who are in an intimate relationship the term is often used to refer to several different
phenomena, such as close friendship, erotic enjoyment or self-sacrifice (Lee 1973;
Steinberg 1986). The position adopted here is that romantic love is best distinguished
from these by the distinct cluster of values and beliefs with which this particularly
strong emotion is commonly associated. The historian Lawrence Stone provides an
excellent description ofwhat these are. He identifies them as:

thenotion thatthereis only one person in theworld with whom one can fullyunite at all
levels; thepersonalityof thatperson is so idealized thatthenormal faultsand foibles of
humannaturedisappear fromview; love is often likea thunderbolt and strikesat firstsight;
love is themost importantthingin theworld, towhich all otherconsiderations,particularly

112

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 material ones, should be sacrificed; and, lastly, the giving of full rein to personal emotions
is admirable, no matter how exaggerated and absurd the resulting conduct may appear to
others (1977:287).

The importantpoint to note here is thatalthough some historians, and indeed anthro
pologists, have claimed that romantic love is a near-universal phenomenon, one that
can be found inmany differentcultures and historical periods (Jankowiak and Fischer
1992), Stone's definition shows this not to be the case. For while 'love', understood
as a very intense affection which is felt by one adult for another,may indeed be a
universal phenomenon, 'romantic love', as defined here, is clearly a highly specific
cultural complex, one that originated inWestern Europe in the eighteenth century.
Indeed once romantic love is defined in thisway then it is immediately clear that it is
a by-product of the great cultural movements of romanticism and sentimentalism,
while at the same time being a development of themedieval idea of courtly love
(Newman 1968; Boas 1977). None of which is to suggest that individuals who lived
in other societies and at other times could not have experienced 'passionate love'
whilst possibly holding to some of the above beliefs. Rather it is to emphasize thatnot
only did this particular cluster of beliefs firstdevelop at this time but also that itwas
during theRomantic Movement thatpassionate love firstbecame redefined as a great
'blessing' rather than, as conceived of in both classical, medieval and neo-classical
thought,as a 'disease' and a 'curse', one that robbed individuals of both theirhealth
and their common-sense. For as Stone notes, itwas at this time thatyoung ladies (it
was nearly always young ladies who were the 'victims' of romantic love at this time)
became 'proud of these symptoms of frustratedpassion, rather than seeing them, as
previous generations would have done, as signs of unfortunatemental derangement'
(1977:286). The immediate consequence of this 'elevation' of romantic love was that
itbecame fashionable and hence commonplace, with the result that itbecame the sole
justification for a choice of a life-long partner that ithas remained to this day. Unfor
tunately it is all too easy to forgetromantic love's connection with thesewider cultural
movements, while at the same timeblurring thedistinction between romantic love and
other forms of interpersonal affectionate attachment,with the result that thephenom
enon is commonly discussed as if ithas no significance outside the 'ghetto' of personal
relationships. It will be argued here that this view is seriously mistaken and that
romantic love can and indeed has played a significant role in the cultural dynamics of
modern societies, acting as a significant and powerful force for cultural change.

Romantic love and marriage

But firstit is important to recognize thatromantic love is a powerful revolutionary and

subversive force even within the restricted confines of inter-personal relationships
and marriage. That romantic love should be seen in this light is demonstrated clearly
enough by Denis de Rougement (1956), who shows how, because of its origins in
courtly love, ithas always been an essentially adulterous phenomenon, fundamentally
at odds with not justmarriage but any long-term stable relationship; as De Rougement

113

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
says, 'passion and marriage are essentially irreconcilable' (1956:277). This incompat
ibilitywas clearly recognized by the self-appointed guardians of traditionalmorality
and 'respectability' during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and they
fought a long rearguard action against what they saw as its 'corrupting' and 'subver
sive' influence. However, when they found that itwas impossible to successfully
stigmatize, let alone eliminate, romantic love, they eventually conceded defeat. The
price demanded as part of the resulting 'peace terms', that is to say the 'price' for
accepting that romantic passion was a legitimate sole motive for choosing a partner,
was that it should be closely tied tomonogamous marriage; an alliance that, as De
Rougement notes, was bound to fail. The consequence of which is the present-day
pragmatic 'solution' to the conundrum of a society committed to the irreconcilable
ideals of romantic passion and life-long monogamous marriage, which is serial
monogamy. That is, individuals still generally hold to theVictorian insistence on the
association between love and marriage, while valuing passion highly enough to aban
don one marriage partner in favor of another as soon as passion wanes. It is a compro
mise that fits well with the general contemporary cultural emphasis on dynamic
change, whether as expressed in fashion, technological innovation or personal devel
opment, while at the same time having the effect of seriously undermining the effec
tiveness of the family as the primary institutionresponsible for the socialization of the
young. Yet it effectively demonstrates the extent towhich romantic love tends to be
subversive of established norms. For it is, inWeberian terminology, the 'charismatic'
force which, present in everyday life, continually challenges both traditional and
rational-legal forms of authority.None of thishowever would seem to be of any great
moment as far as the culture ofmodern societies in general in concerned, given that
this 'subversive' forcewould only appear to operate within the confines of the limited
arena of interpersonal relationships. But this is to overlook the fact, as noted above,
that the beliefs and values of romantic love are to be found throughout contemporary
society, and especially in themedia. It is also to forget the intimate relationship that
exists between romantic love and the broader philosophy of romanticism and hence
thepossibility that the formercould serve as a springboard for thedevelopment of the
latter;which, itwill be argued, is precisely what happened in the 1960s.

The counter-culture and Romanticism

The 'counter culture' of themid to late 1960s and early 1970s represents one of the
great cultural upheavals ofmodern times. In fact, that socio-cultural phenomenon that
generally goes by the name of 'the counter culture', or 'the youth movement of the
1960s', was a broad and diverse movement, peaking between 1964 and 1968, and
embracing a variety of social groups.2 In addition, it took somewhat differentforms in
North America and in Europe, and even then, between theEast andWest coasts of
North America and between the various countries of Europe, such as Holland, the
United Kingdom and France. Despite these differences it is stillpossible to specify the
central ingredients of thismovement as comprising a rejection of all hierarchy,
bureaucracy and established forms of authority,coupled with an associated dismissal

114

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of (whatwere perceived to be) thevalues and attitudes of 'theolder generation'. There
was then a tendency to link these negative ideas with some (less widely held) positive
beliefs. The main one here was that the participants were engaged in the construction
of an 'alternative' society, one thatwould ensure the imminent transformation of
Western civilization into something approximating to a Utopia. These basic beliefs
were thenexpressed in a common involvement in drug-use, sex, and to a lesser extent,
mysticism and meditation, togetherwith such communal events as open-air concerts,
'be-ins' and 'love-ins', and occasionally, the establishment of communes. An under

ground press, consisting of newspapers, pamphlets and posters, helped to bind the
movement together, in addition to the crucial role played by rock music, and espe
cially such leading figures as Bob Dylan and theBeatles. Although themillenarian
expectations of the counter culturalists were not fulfilled, themovement has had a
profound effect on the culture and civilization of theWest being largely responsible
for kick-starting such significant developments as feminism, the gay and lesbian
movements, the cult of political correctness, the environmental movement, and the
New Age and human potential movements. Given all this it is highly significant to
note that romanticism was the philosophy that lay at the very heart of the counter
culture. For thosewho studied themovement, such as the sociologists Bernice Martin
(1981) and Frank Musgrove (1974), are quite clear about the fact that the young peo
ple who participated in thismovement were, in effect, 'thenew romantics'; something
thatTheodore Roszak also emphasizes (1971), if indirectly, by choosing Blake's
poetry as the vehicle with which to give sympathetic articulation to the counter-cul
turalposition. But then, in addition, King (1972) draws attention to the same parallel,
only with a more North American emphasis, when he describes the principal social
theoristsof the counter culture, that is to say Paul Goodman, Norman O. Brown, and
Herbert Marcuse, as 'theorists of a second transcendentalist revolt' (1972:174), tran
scendentalism being the form in which romanticism manifested itself in North
America. Although it is not easy to define romanticism, which is something of a con
troversial term within intellectual and art history, there is some agreement concerning
thekey features of thisbroad cultural tendency. It is for example amovement inwhich
feeling and passion is elevated above reason and logic, and inwhich an emphasis is
placed upon thepower of imagination and the importance of intense emotional experi
ence. Indeed conceived of as a philosophy, romanticism involves believing that insight
into reality can only be attained throughpowerful emotional and imaginative experi
ence, and that,as Keats put it, 'what the imagination seizes as Beauty must be truth'.
Given then thatwhat romantics typically see in their imagination iswhat theydesire,
there is necessarily a powerful strainof perfectionism within romanticism, something
thatwas very evident in theUtopian dreams of the 1960s counter culturalists.Now the
issue which is of particular relevance in thiscontext concerns the forceswhich brought
this youthful cultural revolution into being and whether romantic love might have
an
played an importantrole in thatprocess; a hypothesis thatwill be explored through
examination of the career of The Beatles.

115

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Romantic love and The Beatles

Before 1966 Lennon and McCartney wrote only one kind of lyric, and thatwas the
kind associated with the popular romantic song. Approximately half the songs they
wrote and performed could be said to belong to this category.And theywere inmany
ways very conventional, both in content and form. Indeed if therewas anything at all
unusual or special about the Beatles' lyrics at this time itwas merely the fervent
intensitywith which romantic feelings were expressed, coupled with the use of
snatches of the kind of direct, often vernacular, conversation typical of teenagers of
the time.One thing that should be noted however is quite how central romantic love
was in these early songs; for although themusic of The Beatles clearly derived from
the rock 'n' roll tradition, this is less obviously true of their lyrics. In the early years
theywere clearly influenced by such established performers as Elvis Presley, Buddy
Holly, Chuck Berry and Little Richard and commonly included songs like Twist and
Shout, Roll Over Beethoven and Kansas City in their act. Yet a comparison of the
lyrics of these songs with those which John and Paul wrote at this time reveals a
considerable difference. For whilst the rock 'n' roll culture which these songs epito
mize commonly deals with such topics as dancing and male narcissism in addition to
romantic love, there isn't a single Beatles' song out of the total of nearly sixty issued
between October 1962 and July 1965 which is concerned with anything except boy
girl romance. This is important,and helps to explain the shiftfrom romance to roman
ticism thathappened later.
For it is widely recognized that, sometime in the years between 1965 and 1967,
The Beatles metamorphosed from straightforwardrock 'n' roll performers to sophis
ticated artistswith a markedly 'bohemian' bent, becoming in the process widely rec
ognized as spokesmen and unofficial 'leaders' of the emerging counter culture. How
and why this transformationoccurred has been the subject ofmuch debate and discus
sion (see Davies 1969; Macdonald 1998). However one thingwhich is clear is that
during this period The Beatles began to experience a degree of self-doubt and conse
quently began to ask themselves some essentially philosophical questions.
For although The Beatles may have taken an essentially working-class male musi
cal form- rock 'n' roll' - as themedium throughwhich to express theirgenius, they
were far from being uneducated working class youths themselves. Indeed Ringo was
the only one with a genuine working class background, while John,Paul and George
all had intellectual and artistic interests from an early age. This became important
when by 1966 theyhad attained their life's ambition, which was, as they expressed it,
to be 'bigger thanElvis' (Campbell and Murphy 1980:xxvi). For, the problem now
became, what next? How could The Beatles find a new goal, cope with the problems
of fame, and yet remain loyal to theirpast? Or, as Hunter Davies, theirofficial biog
rapher, expresses it: 'when the touringhad to stop theirconcern was with themselves,
what was the point of it all' (1969:233). 'What was the point of it all' embraced such
questions as 'what is themeaning of success?', 'Who am I?' and 'What is themeaning
of love and life itself?' For the achievement ofmaterial success had thrust these for
merly neglected questions into the foreground. This thenwas the context inwhich
they half-consciously, half-subconsciously, turned to 'love' for an answer. After all,

116

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 'love' had served themwell todate; a passionate feeling for the sensibilities of roman
tic love having been theirprimary stock-in-trade since the beginning of their rise to
fame. Indeed although they still saw themselves as a rock 'n' roll band The Beatles'
identityas creative artistswas exclusively linked to the composition and performance
of love songs. It is this factwhich provides thekey to an understanding of the subse
quent development of their lyrics. For now they turned to 'love' once again, but this
time notmerely as a means to achieve worldly success but as the basis for a total and
-
satisfyingphilosophy of life. In this theyremained essentially true to themselves The
Beatles always believed passionately in thepower of love - merely extrapolating this
faith from its restrictedbasis in the context of boy-girl attachments. Hence therewas
no sudden change of direction or dramaticmetamorphosis from simple rock 'n' rollers
to consummate artists but rather a process of development inwhich a commitment to
romanticism emerged logically from a simple faith in romance.

Love is all you need

The lyrics of The Beatles' early songs had dealt with all the various nuances of the
primary romanticism of boy-girl relationships, at least as far as these are perceived
from themale standpoint.Many involved expressions of a lover's entreaties to the
loved one (for example inLove Me Do, Please Please Me), or of declarations of love
and devotion (for example inFrom Me to You, All My Loving), while some expressed
gratitude for a love received (Thank You Girl, Vll Cry Instead), or simply celebrated
the joy of being in love (/Should Have Known Better, I'm Happy Just toDance with
You). Equally numerous however, although interestinglyenough not by anymeans as
popular with the public at the time,were the songs thatdealt with the darker side of
romance. There is the fear thata love will not be returned (If I Fell) togetherwith the
total dejection of the spurned lover (I'm Down, I'm a Loser), and themisery of a lover
betrayed (TellMe Why, What You're Doing). Finally, there is the bitterness and even
hatred that jealousy can bring (You Can't Do That, Run for Your Life). What is sig
nificant is thatan examination of these songs with the benefit of hindsight reveals that
they contain, in embryo as itwere, many of the themes that are central to the later
romanticism. The delight and wonder associated with falling in love, for example, is
clearly seen as theprototype for the later celebrations of themore general 'conversion'
experiences thatwere typical of those young people who 'turned on, tuned in, and
dropped out' during the 1960s. At the same time thatconcern with the intense personal
loneliness of the abandoned or rejected lover (or indeed theperson who has yet to find
love) becomes, in turn, themodel for the later treatment of loneliness in general.
Whilst the description of theunity experienced by lovers, that transcendence of sepa
rate individuality in the 'oneness' of love thatStone identifies as a key component of
the romantic love complex, is itself the basis for the quasi-Eastern mysticism that
appears from 1967 onwards, where the emphasis is on the 'oceanic' experience of
are
unitywith all things. Indeed, thereare few subjects treated in the later songs which
not presaged in thisway. Especially notable in this respect is the later rejection of
materialism from the standpoint of a deep spiritual concern. See, forexample, George's

117

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
reference to 'gaining theworld and losing your soul' (WithinYou, Without You), and
'When your prized possessions start toweigh you down' (And Your Bird Can Sing),
which is clearly heralded in 1964 in thewords 'I don't care too much formoney,
money can't buy me love' (Can't Buy Me Love).
The principal difference thereforebetween the lyrical content of the earlier and
later songs is that the sentiments and attitudes contained in the earlier ones are taken
out of the restrictive context of romantic love and extrapolated in a self-conscious
fashion to life itself.And it is this process of extrapolation which is the key to an
understanding of the relationship between the early and later songs as The Beatles
move from a primary concern with romance to a total commitment to romanticism. In
the early songs love is personalized and restricted since it is always associated with a
lover.Thus the benefits of love, such as the overcoming of loneliness and attainment
of happiness and security are necessarily inseparable from the acquisition of a person
who can perform this role.At the same time, love is seen primarily as an exchange of
affection between individuals and is necessarily destroyed if one party withdraws
from the exchange. But love comes to be redefined in the later songs and seen less as
'a shared high' than as a philosophy of life, an attitudewhich does not require recip
rocation from another in order to survive, but can and indeed should be held toward
all people and all living things.Love in this sense is also viewed as incompatible with
the negative feelings of jealousy and bitternesswhich are inherent in romantic attach
ments. The song which clearly marks the turningpoint in thisprocess of redefinition
is The Word:

Say theword and you'll be free

Say theword and be likeme
Say theword I'm thinkingof
Have you heard the word is love?3

There is nothing in this lyric to suggest that love is being thought of in the restricted
context of boy-girl romance. Indeed, theusual personalized dialogue is absent and the
'you'mentioned is clearly plural.What is suggested is that love is 'theway' or answer
to life's problems, an answer which has to be arrived at through a conversion experi
ence ('In the beginning Imisunderstood') and yet which has been widely expressed
before in religion and the arts ('Everywhere I go I hear it said /In thegood and thebad
books I have read', The Word). Obviously one cannot assume in relation to any of the
songs written after this thatwhenever theword love appears it refersmerely to boy
girl romance. One could say that thisdoes continue tobe the archetype of The Beatles'
romanticism, the fundamental analogy for a philosophy of life,yet love is now clearly
conceived of as a general outgoing emotion applied to all kinds of people with whom
one might not be 'in love' (like Eleanor Rigby for example), or even to nature itself.
Thus while the romantic lover simply sends 'All his loving' to the beloved (AllMy
Loving), the,individual who subscribes to a fully romantic vision of life feels or 'sends'
love to everyone. Love is thus 'the word' for a positive tenderness and openness
toward theworld. The Beatles have faith in love because they see it as the power that
can overcome all obstacles. This is the great theme of romanticism, that of a world

118

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
made perfect through thepower of love (see Abercrombie 1926), and it is the explicit
philosophy of The Beatles between 1966 and 1970. This message of salvation is
stressed over and over again, for 'There's nothing you can do that can't be done'
love's power, everyone can be 'saved' and 'learn how to be you,' 'it's easy',
through
for after all: 'all you need is love.'
As this last slogan suggests, the transitionfrom a concern with romance to a com
mitment to romanticism involves a move from the largely self-concerned celebration
of the pangs and passions associated with being 'in love' to an evangelical desire to
convert others to 'the religion of love'. Consequently during themiddle to late sixties
The Beatles effectivelybecome evangelists for romanticism. This is very clear in such
songs as The Word, Strawberry Fields Forever, Fool on theHill, and Nowhere Man,
even though one can also detect a certain ironic self-deprecation in these lyrics, as if
the former rock 'n' rollers are rather embarrassed to find that theyhave become seri
ous-minded philosophers. However, as theygradually rediscover themselves and gain
confidence in theirnew spiritual awareness theydrop themore didactic and exhorta
tive approach - exemplified in The Word and employed by George inWithin You,
Without You - in favor of demonstrating the truthand wisdom of theirvision. Conse
quently instead of attempting to tell us about the truth,with exhortations like 'try to
realize it's all within yourself (WithinYou,Without You) or 'Have you heard theword
is love?' (The Word), they come to concentratemore and more upon showing us how,
through the power of love, one's experience of life can be transformed.Consequently
as operators of theMagical Mystery Tour for example, they arrive to 'take (us) away',
and in Strawberry Fields Forever they offer to take us down to the Fields, while in
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds it is newspaper taxis which arrive to 'take us away'.
Again and again in the later songs the lyricsprovide the same offerof transportas The
Beatles become our guides to a better, truervision of theworld.
But then such evangelism also requires thatbefore potential converts can be shown
what reality is trulylike theymust firstof all realize that thenormal way inwhich they
see theworld iswrong; that they are, in fact, 'blind' to truthand unappreciative of the
marvels which surround them, just like the individual who has yet to fall in love. It is
hence with sympathetic sadness and a touch of kind exasperation that thismessage is
presented in such songs as She's Leaving Home, The Fool on theHill and Nowhere
Man. The poor Nowhere Man cannot see 'that theworld is at his command' anymore
than the parents in She's Leaving Home can see what it is they have failed to do for
their daughter. Most ordinary people are presented as 'nowhere' men and women
leading miserable lives in a dull, grey world, much indeed as life in Pepperland is
portrayed under theBlue Meanies.4 An overwhelming feature of such an existence is
that it is characterized by loneliness and The Beatles, in their persona as Sergeant
Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, feel a very special sympathy for 'all the lonely
people' (Eleanor Rigby). Thus theyplead with us to throwoff our blindness, to simply
open our eyes and see the truth.Prudence, perhaps living up to her name, is slow to
cast off her 'nowhere' view of theworld and has to be persuaded to 'open up (her)
eyes' and 'come out to play' so that she can learn that she is 'partof everything '(Dear
Prudence).

Repeatedly The Beatles urge us to simply relax and letour senses work unhindered,

119

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to 'let itout and let it in' (Hey Jude) or simplyLet It Be, so thatwe might see, hear and
feel theworld directly.And, in case we are simply too hidebound to take theiradvice
or too stupid to realize thewisdom of it, they are prepared to show us exactly how the
world can be magically recreated througha total openness to sensory experience. This
they do in Penny Lane where the very ordinariness of the everyday scene is trans
formed into something 'very strange,' - a vision - merely by using one's senses to the
full, by allowing Penny Lane to be 'inmy ears and inmy eyes.' The message is clear:
all of us live in a street called Penny Lane. Yet to realize our blindness and open our
eyes is really only the first step on the road to trueenlightenment. For it is only when
we have done that, thatwe are in a position to discover the 'true point of it all,' the
purpose of life.There can be littledoubt what The Beatles consider this to be, for it is
-
'the word', 'all you need' 'love'.

It is now possible to see, not simply how The Beatles managed tomake the transi
tion from 'simple rock 'n' rollers' to consummate 'bohemian' artists, but also how
theywere able to act as unofficial 'leaders' of the burgeoning 'underground' or coun
ter culturemovement of the 1960s as well. For thiswas - in its initial phase at least
- a revolution carried forward in the name of
'love', a simple four-letterword that
came to stand forkindness, benevolence and sympathy for all living things,as well as
sex, in theminds of the idealistic young of theperiod.5 However it is important to note
that although the presence of the romantic love complex in the culture did greatly
assist the development of this romantic movement, it also served towork 'against'
aspects of the broader ideology of romanticism. This tension arouse because of
romanticism's commitment to 'communal' values and the consequent stress on the
importance of such group entities as 'nation', 'tribe', 'folk' or 'people'. This tension
was most apparent in themany communes that sprang up during the 1960s counter
culture and the fact that itwas romantic attachments between couples that frequently
worked to undermine theirco-operative and communal ethos (see Mills 1973;West
hues 1972.)

Conclusion

There is an understandable tendency to assume that the lyrics of popular songs have
little significance other than as an ingredient in a product that is intended to provide
light-heartedentertainment.Consequently phrases such as 'money can't buy you love'
or 'love is all you need', when they are encountered in the lyrics of popular songs, are
commonly dismissed as littlemore than empty cliches or platitudes, redolent of a
populist sentimentalism, but hardly expressive of a fundamentally serious philosophy
of life.And of course inmany cases this is indeed generally what theyhad become in
the hands of the tin-pan alley hacks who wrote commercial popular songs in the
late1950s. But to take such a view is to forget theprovenance of the ideas and attitudes
that comprise the popular notion of romantic love. For these had their origins in a
widespread, powerful and influentialphilosophical cum aestheticmovement. The fact
that this had been more than two hundred years ago did notmean that therewas no
longer any possibility ofmaking a link between the two, and itwas indeed precisely

120

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
this connection thatThe Beatles, albeit at firstunwittingly, succeeded in resurrecting.
For, just as passion quickly becomes transformed,upon cooling, intomere sentiment,
so too can what are apparently no more than sentimental phrases, if invigoratedwith
sufficient intensityof emotion, become powerful expressions of a romantic philoso
- -
phy; and it is clear that the laterBeatles' songs those from 1967 onwards do indeed
display an obvious and very explicit romanticism. But then it is also easy to overlook
the fact that romantic love centres round idealisation. Not just the idealisation of the
loved one, although that is obviously crucial, but also the idealisation of experience
itself.For a central belief of the cultural cluster that comprises romantic love is that
being in love transformsone's experience of theworld and not just one's perception
of the object of one's love. Thus love makes one's sensual experience more intense,
such that individuals feel more 'alive', while the natural world ismagically 'trans
formed', such that 'nightingales sing inBerkeley Square'. This iswhat gives love its
revolutionary potential, for in transformingan individual's experience of theworld it
transforms life itself. It follows that if enough people can undergo this 'transforma
tion' then thewhole world could indeed come to resemble a Utopia.
We can now see how it is a mistake to treat the romantic love complex as if itwere
largely an 'irrelevance' in themodern world. For although the example given above to
show its intimate connection with a large-scale and significant cultural movement
concerns events that are now part ofmodern history, the crucial link in question still
- whether the - to
exists; as too does the power of popular media song or the cinema
affect the values and attitudes of ordinary people by disseminating the 'gospel' of
love.

Not that it is intended to suggest that the romanticism of the 1960s counter-culture
stemmed entirely from the cultural complex of romantic love, or indeed was brought
intobeing single-handedly by The Beatles, for therewere other important ingredients
that contributed to the emergence and growth of this powerful socio-cultural move
ment, as well as other significant singer-prophets,most especially Bob Dylan. Indeed
romanticism had left itsmark onmodern society in otherways thanvia the institution
alisation of romantic love,most noticeably in the socio-cultural phenomenon of bohe
mianism, and this was also a significant factor facilitating the emergence of the
counter-culture.However there can be littledoubt, notmerely thatThe Beatles acted
as a crucial catalyst in thisprocess but that theywere able to do so because theyhad,
from the beginning of their career, been deeply committed to that unique cultural
cluster of values and beliefs that is romantic love. One can thereforejustifiably con
clude that its role, as by far themost widespread and embedded of the 'romantic'
ingredients inmodern society,was crucial in facilitating the cultural revolution of the
1960s.

E-mail: cbc3@york.ac.uk

121

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes

1 ' '
For an account of' the popular song' and how itdiffers from the art song' and the folk song'
see Lee (1970).
2 Formaterial on the 1960s counterculturesee
Musgrove (1974), Gitlin (1987) andMarwick
(1998).
3 All theBeatles'
lyricsquoted in thisarticleare takenfromCampbell andMurphy (1980).
4 The Blue Meanies featuredin theanimated filmYellow Submarine and
theywere thekill
joy enemies of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
5 This lasted for
only a briefperiod in themid sixties,foraftertheapparent 'failure'of the
early hopes for revolutionary change, and in response to a widespread overreaction to peace
ful protests on the part of the authorities, some of the young turned to violence.

References

Abercrombie, L.
1926 Romanticism. London: Martin Seeker.

Bauman, Z.
2003 Liquid Love. Cambridge: PolityPress.
Boas,R.
1977 The Origin andMeaning ofCourtlyLove: A Critical StudyofEuropean Scholarship.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Campbell, C.
and A. Murphy
1980 Things We Said Today: The Complete Lyrics and a Concordance to the Beatles' Songs
1962-1970. Ann Arbor: Pierian Press.

Davies, H.
1969 The Beatles: The Authorized Biography. London: Granada Publishing.
Giddens, A.
2002 Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping our Lives. London: Profile
Books.

Gitlin, T.
1987 The Sixties: Years ofHope, Days of Rage. New York: Bantam Books.

Jankowiak, W. R. and E. F. Fischer

1992 A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Romantic Love. Ethnology 31(2): 149-155.

King,R.
1972 The Party ofEros: Radical Social Thoughtand theRealm ofFreedom. New York:
Dell PublishingCo.
Lee,E
1970 Music of the People. London: Barrie and Jenkins.

Lee, J.
1973 Love Styles. London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd.

Macdonald, I.
1998 Revolution in theHead: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties. London:
Pimlico.

Martin, B.
1981 A Sociology ofContemporaryCultural Change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

122

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Marwick, A.
1998 The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States,
C.1958-C.1974. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mills, R.
1973 Young Outsiders: A study of Alternative Communities London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.

Musgrove,F.
1974 Ecstasy and Holiness: Counter Culture and the Open Society. London: Methuen.

Newman, F. X.
1968 TheMeaning ofCourtlyLove. Albany NY: StateUniversityofNew York.
Roszak, T.
The Making
1971 of a Counter-Culture. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Rougemont, D. de
1956 Passion and Society. Trans, by Montgomery Belgion. London: Faber and Faber.

Sternberg, R.
1986 A TriangularTheory ofLove. Psychological Review 93:119-135.
Stone, L.
1977 The Family, Sex andMarriage inEngland 1500-1800. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson.

Watt, I.
1957 The Rise of theNovel: Studies inDefoe, Richardson and Fielding. Berkeley, (Califor
nia): University of California Press.

Westhues,K.
1972 Society's Shadow: Studies in the Sociology of Countercultures. Toronto: McGraw
Hill Ryerson.

123

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:45:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions