10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

The N Yorker Intervi

Love Is Not a Permanent State of

Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther
Perel
By Alexandra Schwartz December 9, 2018

Photograph by Ernesto Urdaneta

rom the New Yorker Festival, the couples therapist and podcast host discusses
F in delity, apologies, and the problem with wedding vows these days.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 1/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

The psychotherapist Esther Perel knows how to work a room. Since the publication
of her rst book, “ Mating in Captivity,” in 2006, she has travelled the world,
speaking to audiences about love, sex, intimacy and in delity: the nuts and bolts of
romantic life. (Those who do not have an opportunity to see her live can watch her
on the stage, where her videos, subtitled in more than thirty languages, have
been viewed tens of millions of times.) Perel, who grew up in Antwerp as the
daughter of Holocaust survivors, got her start as a family therapist, focussing on
issues of trauma and cultural con ict. Couples have since become her clinical and
theoretical specialty. In a style marked by humor, frankness, and empathy, Perel’s
talks and books take a counterintuitive approach to answering provocative questions:
How did the romantic couple become the primary unit of organization in society?
Can romantic desire truly be sustained? Is in delity ever a good thing?

Last year, Perel gave her fans access to a different side of her work. In her Audible
podcast, “Where Should We Begin?”—which recently aired its third and nal
season—Perel conducts therapy sessions with real couples, one per episode, allowing
listeners unprecedented access to her cloistered consultation room. The appeal of the
show is partly voyeuristic; it is fascinating, not to mention unnerving, to hear other
people expose their most intimate feelings and con icts. It is also educational,
poignant, and often profound, a public service in a culture that loves to talk about
love, but rarely does so with honesty or humility. I rst spoke with Perel last year,
and caught up with her this fall onstage at the New Yorker Festival, where we
discussed her own family background, her theories about romantic life, and her role
as a mediator between a couple’s competing narratives. When we listened to clips
from her show, Perel handed out pillowy eye masks so that audience members could
focus more fully on her patients’ voices; as you listen to the audio clips amid the text
below, you might want to do the same by closing your eyes.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

My rst question has to do with your idea that the couple has never before been
such a central unit in our social organization. Why is that the case?

Because never in the history of family life was the emotional well-being of the
couple relevant to the survival of the family. The couple could be miserable for thirty
years, you were stuck for life, you married once—and, if you didn’t like it, you could
hope for an early death of your partner. Marriage was a pragmatic institution. You

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 2/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

need to have it, but, once you’re in it, it’s not a great thing, and certainly not for the
women.

And then we added romantic needs to the pairing, the need for belonging and for
companionship. We have gone up the Maslow ladder of needs, and now we are
bringing our need for self-actualization to the marriage. We keep wanting more. We
are asking from one person what once an entire village used to provide.

Do you think people are aware of any of this when they go looking for a partner?
We’re looking for “the one,” even if we’re a little bit cynical about that idea—

No, we’re not cynical at all.

O.K.

Marriage is an aggregate of multiple narratives. It belongs to the people who are in

it, but it also belongs to the people who are supporting it and living around it:
family, friends, community. As I once said, and it became a kind of a saying for me,
when you pick a partner, you pick a story, and then you nd yourself in a play you
never auditioned for. And that is when the narratives clash.

VIDEO FROM THE N YORKER

How to Write a New Yorker Cartoon Caption: Jon Hamm Edition

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 3/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

The rst thing you can ask yourself, from a cross-cultural point of view, is, Is
marriage between two people, in your mind? Or do you come from, or still live in, a
culture in which marriage is between two families? That will inform everything
about the boundaries around a relationship.

You’ve practiced therapy for over thirty years. In that time—in the United States,
certainly, and in large parts of the world—relationships have changed
signi cantly. We have gay marriage. Women are having children later than ever
before. Technology has become a huge factor in how we look for partners, and
then in how we maintain contact with them. What are some themes around
relationships that you see at the moment?

We come from a model where relationships, in our village lives, in our communal
structures, were very clear. The community gave you your sense of identity. You
knew who you were. You knew what was expected of you, and you knew how to
behave. You had a lot of certainty, a lot of belonging, zero freedom.

And we have urbanized, and we have moved, and we have taken on radical
individualism and aspirational materialism, and all of those things have created a
playing eld in which relationships are undergoing rapid changes.We have no idea
how to handle them. Rules have been replaced by choices. But at the same time we
have massive uncertainty and massive self-doubt. Every second book about
relationships these days is about belonging and loneliness.

So I think that’s the big thing that is changing: what used to be de ned by rules and
duty and obligation now has to take place in conversation. And so everything is a
freakin’ negotiation! You negotiate with your partner about what matters, where you
want to live, if you want to have children, how many children do you want to have, if
this is the right time to have children. It’s an absolute existential smorgasbord. But
at the same time it’s very difficult to have to de ne everything ourselves. We are not
just in pain for no reason, is what I’m trying to say.

So our expectations are really high. Our performance is somewhat lower.

Right. Good summary.

I want to ask you about apology, which is something I’ve been thinking about a
lot lately, especially around #MeToo. How can we expect people who have done
real wrong to others, in relationships, or in public, or at work, or wherever, to
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 4/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

apologize? Something in our society seems to not allow it. The potential
admission is too great.

Admission and apology are not the same. There are two justice systems, right?
There’s the restitutive system and the retributive system. One is focussed on healing.
One is focussed on punishment and vengeance.

The South Africans created a system for accountability: you don’t apologize; you
stand accountable. You describe the facts and you leave the other person the freedom
to decide what they want to do with it. If they want to forgive, because it’s in their
interest to forgive—not to forgive as in saying it was O.K., but just not to live being
eaten up with the hatred, with the hurt—that’s their freedom. You own your
wrongdoing. That’s one piece of the apology.

In terms of healing, what we do know is that pain is universal, but the meaning that
we give to our pain, and the way we narrate our pain, is highly cultural and
contextual. And there is nothing that helps us deal better with those experiences
than our connections with others. Social connection is the No. 1 salve for most of
the pain, and the hurt, and the trauma that we will experience. And communities
that come together naturally will provide that kind of buffer.

What makes the trauma worse is not the event itself. It’s the isolation, the secrecy,
and the shame that you have to then live with afterward. I know it professionally,
but I also know it through my own personal life. I mean, I grew up in that
experience. I watched it every day.

You grew up in Belgium, as the daughter of Holocaust survivors.

All Belgian Jews were deported, sixty thousand of them. A few thousand kids got
saved by being hidden. After the war, the entire Jewish community of Belgium—
which at this point amounts to about forty thousand people out of eleven million
Belgians—were people who came from the camps, from the woods, from hiding
places. The entire community was a community of survivors. That’s all we knew.
And the community of survivors, worldwide, without any input from psychiatrists or
psychologists, had gatherings—gatherings for the survivors of camp such-and-such,
gatherings for the survivors of village such-and-such, parties, planting of forests,
creating life, having children.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 5/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

And that coming together, why is it interesting? Because it’s the rst time people
understood that there was such a thing as an adult trauma. Before then, Freudian
thinking said it’s all between zero and ve. So now we had a notion that you could
have been perfectly ne before, but a cataclysmic event like this can destroy you, and
the only way you can remember a sense of continuity, a sense of purpose, a sense of
connection is by gathering with others. And that’s what I watched.

Your parents each were the only survivors in their respective families. What was
that like as a child, growing up in that kind of family? What was their marriage
like?

For a lot of people who married after World War II, it was “I’m alone, you’re alone,
I’ve lost everything, you’ve lost everything, let’s get married.” That really was the way
a lot of people mated. And many of them, once they had begun to reconstruct life,
didn’t really have much in common. I happened to be quite lucky. My parents met
the day of liberation, on the road. But she was more educated; he was rather
illiterate. So he adored her for life. And it was actually a very nice thing to watch.

But I think the more interesting distinction between my family and other families—
and you can extend this to all trauma—is that after this kind of experience,
sometimes there are people who are not dead, and sometimes there are people who
are alive. Some people survive, and some people thrive again. There were homes that
were morbid—you just couldn’t enjoy, because, if you enjoy, if you experience
pleasure, it means you’re not vigilant, it means you’re not on guard, it means you’re
not watching for the next danger.

And then there were the other people who really kind of decided to take life as a
vengeance, and to live it at every moment. And I am very lucky in that sense, that I
was in a household that veered to that extreme. You couldn’t be sad for two minutes,
or somebody would say, “What’s wrong? What’s the problem?” You never could have
a problem that was worthy enough of being sad, because who can compete with
Auschwitz? So, you know, it’s not like this is such a piece of cake, either.

You went to study in Israel, and then in the U.S. And when you got to the U.S.,
you met the man who became your husband.

Yes.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 6/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

So you became an American—or started the process of becoming an American—

rather unexpectedly.

I thought I would be in New York one year, and I never used my return ticket.

And when did you start working with couples? Why was that a focus?

MORE FROM

The New Yorker Interview

Garry Kasparov Says “I Don’t Think Karl Ove Knausgaard Barb

We Are Living in Character Exists Looks Back on “My Hea
Chaos, But Remains an Anymore”: A Struggle” By Ra
Incorrigible Optimist Conversation with
By Joshua Rothman
By Masha Gessen
Rachel Cusk
By Alexandra Schwartz

I was interested in issues of immigration and identity very early on. I studied
cultural relations and religious identity, the formation of identity. How does it
change in terms of voluntary migration or forced migration? And, particularly, with
an interest in looking at Jewish identify and how it evolves differently depending on
the national context. What is the difference between Jews in America, in Australia,
in South Africa, in Germany and Argentina, in Israel? So I got into studying how
relationships shift with big cultural changes. I spent twenty years, before any writing
about sexuality, working on culturally, racially, and religiously mixed families and
couples, here and abroad.

My book “Mating in Captivity” was a complete accident. I had no idea I would ever
write about any of the subjects that I’ve been talking about for the last few years.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 7/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

And couple’s therapy came out of family therapy, because in the past people came to
therapy because a child had problems. That was the legitimate reason for which you
could come as a family. Often, the child was the symptom-bearer of issues that were
actually located in the relationship. And, gradually, you would try to bring the people
to come. Couples therapy is the most difficult. It’s often the most useless. But it’s the
best theatre in town. I nd it captivating.

Well, so do we! You have a podcast called “Where Should We Begin?,” in which
you do a session of couple’s therapy with a couple that’s never come to you before.
We hear a couple being totally honest with each other—or not honest, in a lot of
cases—totally raw, either way, in this very, very, intimate setting. So, the idea to
do this show, I think, is insane! How did you decide to do it?

I was the consultant on the Showtime series “The Affair,” on the rst two seasons.
And June Cohen, from , came to a conversation with Audible and with Jesse
Baker, who is my executive co-producer. They wanted a kind of a podcast that would
be “he said, she said.” And I said, “That’s not at all the way a couple works, actually.
It’s what I say that makes you say the opposite of what you actually originally
intended to say, that then makes me say the thing that I’m going to regret
afterwards, or that I’ve been meaning to tell you for all of God knows how long.” It’s
much more circular.

And I said, “If you want, you should come and listen in on a session, and see if you
think there is material.” And it has become, without my thinking of it, almost like a
public-health campaign for relationships. You don’t feel it as much because you’re
saturated with content here, but in countries where there is nothing, it’s an
incredible thing for people who are coming out of situations where there are no
narratives that they can embrace for how they want to live their relational life. And
that’s when you start to really see the impact of such a thing that a book could never,
ever do.

I actually think it is unique, even in our culture. I think a lot of the relationships that
we’re used to encountering are scripted. They’re either on television—and even if
they’re brilliantly written, they are written—or in the celebrity zone. We see people’s
relationships, we analyze them. We try to look at the tea leaves of whatever the
photos are, in spite of ourselves. But we have no actual insight into what is
happening.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 8/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

So, we’re going to play a clip of the rst episode from this new season, “The Arc of
Love.” Give us a bit of context for what we’ll hear.

It is a young couple in their early twenties. They met in college in Iowa, where they
were the only two Mexicans, but she was an international student and he was a
Latino from Texas. Every month she crosses the border from Mexico to come and
visit him. And there is enormous pressure on the relationship to, basically, make sure
that they can continue to be together. And so romance is pitted against immigration.
Would this relationship evolve at the speed that it has if there wasn’t the pressure of
being afraid every time she crosses the border?

One thing that strikes me is the amount of raw emotion here. Often, on your
show, men are really vulnerable and open up about the pressures that are on them
and the feelings that I think we all know society tells them not to express so
openly. I’m curious what you hear when you listen to this particular clip?

I hear the plight of a responsible son—who, by the way, at twenty-one, gave the
passport to his mother. He gave citizenship to his mom, and with that he set her
free, and for the rst time she could go out and get a job. And it has completely
transformed the entire relationship between the mother and the father, who had met
only one time before they got married, and had a rather miserable time.

There is a certain kind of son who is often living between a rather rough, sometimes
grandiose father and a helpless mother. And he nds himself covering the unholy
triangle. That’s this boy. And so he wants to save her. And he actually did, by giving
her the papers. And he nds himself now with this woman, actually reënacting, for
the second time, a similar story.

I have never really participated in the notion that men don’t talk, men can’t talk
about their pains. I mean, they have a different way of going about it. Sometimes
they need more time, and you just have to shut up and wait—be quiet. And if you
don’t interrupt, it will come.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 9/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

And then you have to provide a compassionate environment that allows them to
experience their experience, whatever it is. You know, everybody’s talking about
vulnerability. And I’m not sure that “vulnerability” is necessarily the best word to use
when talking with men. I talk about “integrity,” and I talk about “honorable.”
Meanwhile, they’re sharing plenty of vulnerability, but it is a word that feels more
masculine to them.

But would that maybe reinforce a certain sense of cultural coding? We all know
that “honor” is considered a masculine quality, and isn’t the idea of being
“honorable” the same?

No, no. Because “honorable” is about how you behave and how you feel that you are
maintaining a sense of integrity and pride in your behavior. “Honor” is the counter-
force of shame.

It’s O.K. to use language that makes sense. If I like art, you’re going to work with me
and use metaphors that are related to art. And you don’t feel like you are playing into
a code because you’ve used language that speaks to me. I’m not afraid of that. What
is important is the experience itself. I didn’t make this man cry, it was waiting to
come out. So, you just need to make room and stay out of the way. Am I missing
something in your question?

I think it’s a hard question in general. We’ve seen over the past year how deep
some of these assumptions about what masculinity is, what femininity is, go, and
also how painful and destructive they really can be when they don’t go
questioned.

I’m not busy feeling like I’m reinforcing a status quo. I think that, at this moment,
there is such a sense that every word is fraught and every word can lock you into
something. To me, most couples come because they’re stuck. They’re repeating the
same thing over and over again, and they really think that if they do it one more
time, it will nally yield some better results.

Of course, it doesn’t. So what you do in couples therapy is like crust—you just try to
loosen it rst. That experience of him actually talking like that to her allows her to
see him very differently. Then you watch to see if her response to his new behavior is
going to be adapted to what she’s seeing, or if she’s going to continue to do the usual
without noticing that he’s completely different in front of her.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 10/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

And what you’re aiming for is exibility and adaptability, so that these two people
can engage in multiple different con gurations with each other, and not all the time
the same thing.

Let’s go to another clip, from the show at the end of this current season. And,
because the new season is called “The Arc of Love,” we start with the couple we
just heard, who are in their twenties, and now we’re with a much older couple.
They’re two divorce lawyers, and they’re actually divorced, but, interestingly, they
found that divorce has enabled them to have a better relationship than they did
when they were married.

Why did this couple come to you? This is a couple who is essentially done being a
couple. It’s an unusual moment to start couples therapy.

Or they’ve actually nally become the couple they always wanted to be but couldn’t
under the rubric called marriage. They had to step outside of the institution and all
its constraints, and all its political infrastructure, to actually be able to nally de ne
the relationship they wanted.

I have an idea of why they came, but I don’t think it's their idea of why they came.
Their idea of why they came was because they feel very strongly about not having a
divisive divorce. She came out of a background in which Mom and Dad constantly
berated each other, and she wanted so much for that not to be replicated. So they
have actually done a lot to protect the son. They travel together. They have family
holidays together. They have everything they actually wanted without the power
dynamic that poisoned their relationship.

I think they came because, on some level, I think he fantasized that he would want
to have a new relationship with her that is also romantic, and intimate. But he never
said it, and so it never came out. Maybe it’s my fantasy.

One thing we don’t hear in this clip is that, toward the end of their relationship,
he had an affair.

Right.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 11/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

Your last book, which is called “The State of Affairs,” is a rather unconventional
view of affairs—what they are, and what they do to a couple. If I understand
correctly, for the last seven years of your therapy practice, you’ve been seeing
couples exclusively who were dealing with in delity. And your idea is that it does
not necessarily spell the end. It just spells one end.

I wanted to write a book about modern relationships through the lens of in delity,
because in delity is about betrayal, and secrecy, and deception, and duplicity, and
love, and passion, and lust, and vengeance, and possessiveness—it’s the entire human
drama, and, I thought, except for the opera, where does one go for this?

So, I thought it is an incredible lens to look at one of the worst crises: How did
in delity become, in such a short amount of time, one of the leading causes of
divorce in the West? That’s a very important change to marriage, you know—

You mean because before people would not divorce over it?

Well, marriage was basically this institution that you did once, and that was it. There
was no exit. And, basically, delity was an imposition on women, in order to know
whose kids you need to feed and who gets the cows when I die. It was an economic
thing. It had nothing to do with love. And men practically had a license to cheat,
with all kinds of explanations for why it’s in their nature to roam.

So in delity has existed since marriage was invented. It’s the only commandment
that is repeated twice in the Bible, so somebody understood the human inclination
for transgression. I wanted to understand, Why do people cheat? And why do
people in happy relationships cheat—which is never assumed to be the case because
the notion is, if you have everything you want at home, there should be no reason to
go elsewhere. Hence, if you go elsewhere, there must be something missing.

It’s a tautology. I’ve seen so many people who are actually not at all in bad
relationships who have divorced. So, then, why has divorce not made in delity
obsolete?

Do you have a working de nition of love?

It’s a verb. That’s the rst thing. It’s an active engagement with all kinds of feelings
—positive ones and primitive ones and loathsome ones. But it’s a very active verb.
And it’s often surprising how it can kind of ebb and ow. It’s like the moon. We

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 12/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

think it’s disappeared and, suddenly, it shows up again. It’s not a permanent state of
enthusiasm. I’m thirty- ve years in a relationship, I practice. And I have two boys—I
practice. It’s not just romantic love.

I think that de nition today of love—“you are my everything”—where you really see
it, this complete exaltation, is in wedding vows. Have you ever noticed? I mean, it's,
“I will wipe every tear that streams down your face before you even notice it’s going
down.” I think a realistic vow is, “I will fuck up on a regular basis, and, on occasion,
I’ll admit it.”

Alexandra Schwartz is a staff writer at The New Yorker. Read more »

Video

Sur ng on Kelly Slater’s Machine-Made Wave

William Finnegan discusses his reporting on the best surfer in the world, Kelly Slater, and how his
revolutionary wave machine both advanced and disrupted the sur ng industry.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 13/14
10/12/2018 Love Is Not a Permanent State of Enthusiasm: An Interview with Esther Perel | The New Yorker

© 2018 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site
constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 5/25/18) and Privacy Policy and Cookie
Statement (updated 5/25/18). Your California Privacy Rights. The material on this site may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written
permission of Condé Nast. The New Yorker may earn a portion of sales from products and services that
are purchased through links on our site as part of our a iliate partnerships with retailers. Ad Choices

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/love-is-not-a-permanent-state-of-enthusiasm-an-interview-with-esther-perel 14/14