On the nature of love, two unusual songs: Somebody to Love, I Will Always Love You [Generativity Part 1]

Yesterday evening I was doing something or another, I forget just exactly what, when all of a sudden I heard that old Jefferson Airplane song playing in my inner ear: “Somebody to Love.” I realized, with something of a shock, that it expressed a view of love that is both important and very rare in the world of popular song, or so it seemed to me. So I did what I do in such situations and consulted a chatbot, in this case Anthropic’s Claude.

I put the question to it and it agreed that the sentiment was rare in popular music. Here’s its characterization:

...the existential need to give love, to have someone in your life who can receive your care, attention, and emotional investment. It’s about love as an active force that needs expression, not just a passive state of being loved or a distant admiration.

It went on to discuss that, mentioning the Sufi tradition, Christian mysticism, and Erik Erikson’s concept of generativity. It’s been a long time since I read Erikson, so I asked about that. Among other things Claude noted:

Generativity is Erik Erikson’s term for the seventh stage in his eight-stage model of psychosocial development, typically occurring during middle adulthood (roughly ages 40-65). It represents one of his most profound insights into human psychological development.

The Core Concept: Generativity is the concern for establishing and guiding the next generation, for creating things that will outlast one’s own life, and for contributing to society’s welfare. It’s fundamentally about productivity and creativity in service of future generations rather than just personal advancement.

Ah, OK, I get it. Generativity figured strongly in my paper about Shakespeare’s psycho-literary development: At the Edge of the Modern, or Why is Prospero Shakespeare’s Greatest Creation? I argued that Shakespeare’s late romances (especially The Winter’s Tale and The Tempest) show his transition to the generative stage of his life. Now that I think about it, I wonder if that’s what’s going on in Goethe’s Faust. I began re-reading it a decade ago but never got beyond the first book. Still you might want to take a look at my first post in that series: Rereading Goethe’s Faust 0: Assessing my life at the dawn of a new era. Perhaps I should go back and finish the re-reading, it might resonate with by current interest in Homo Ludens and related matters.

But I digress. Getting back to Claude I then realized that there was another song with a similar sentiment, “I Will Always Love You.” Claude agreed, but pointed out interesting differences between the two songs. Along the way I flashed on Ralph Harper, and Episcopal priest and mystic who spoke in one of the courses I took with Richard Macksey in the old days at Johns Hopkins. Here’s a prompt I put to Claude:

So tell me about Sufi tradition and Christian mysticism. I remember an Episcopal minister who came to speak in one of my classes at Johns Hopkins back in the 1960s. His name was Ralph Harper. I have one of his books, I forget the title, where he says, that the question of life’s meaning isn’t something that can be answered in language, it’s not a message of some sort. Rather, it’s about what can you do. And what you can do is love.

Claude’s response was interesting, as always. I’ve appended the entire discussion.

* * * * *

Love as something you give

Somebody to love

It’s common in the literature and songs of love to express the need to be loved, and the need to worship a beloved to object. How common is it to experience love as something you need to give to someone, not as adoration, but simply as, well, love? I thinking of hit song that Jefferson Airplane had back in the 1960s. I struck me as being about love as something you need to give to another. Here’s the lyrics:

When the truth is found to be lies
And all the joy within you dies
Don’t you want somebody to love
Don’t you need somebody to love
Wouldn’t you love somebody to love
You better find somebody to love
Love, love

When the garden flowers, baby are dead, yes and
Your mind, your mind is so full of red
Don’t you want somebody to love
Don’t you need somebody to love
Wouldn’t you love somebody to love
You better find somebody to love

Your eyes, I say your eyes may look like his
Yeah, but in your head, baby
I’m afraid you don’t know where it is
Don’t you want somebody to love
Don’t you need somebody to love
Wouldn’t you love somebody to love
You better find somebody to love

Tears are running down
They’re all running down your breast
And your friends, baby
They treat you like a guest
Don’t you want somebody to love
Don’t you need somebody to love
Wouldn’t you love somebody to love
You better find somebody to love

You’ve identified something profound in that Jefferson Airplane song (“Somebody to Love” by Grace Slick). The lyrics do express love as something you need to give rather than simply receive or worship from afar - it’s about the human necessity to have an outlet for love, to have someone who can receive and reciprocate that love.

This perspective on love as something we need to express and share is actually quite significant but often overlooked in popular discourse about relationships. Most love songs, as you note, focus on:

• Wanting to be loved (“Love me tender,” “I want to be loved by you”)
• Adoration/worship (“You are so beautiful,” “I can’t help falling in love”)
• Loss and longing (“I can’t live without you,” “My heart will go on”)

But the Jefferson Airplane song captures something different - the existential need to give love, to have someone in your life who can receive your care, attention, and emotional investment. It’s about love as an active force that needs expression, not just a passive state of being loved or a distant admiration.

This resonates with some deeper psychological and spiritual truths. In psychology, there’s recognition that humans have a fundamental need not just to be loved but to love - to care for others, to be needed, to contribute meaningfully to someone else’s wellbeing. This is part of what Erik Erikson called “generativity” - the need to nurture and guide the next generation or contribute to society.

From a spiritual perspective, many traditions emphasize love as something that flows through us rather than something we simply receive. The Sufi tradition, for instance, speaks of love as a divine force that we channel and express. The mystical Christian tradition talks about love as God’s presence flowing through human hearts to others.

The song’s repeated question “Wouldn’t you love somebody to love?” is particularly insightful - it suggests that loving itself is a joy, that having someone to care for deeply is its own reward, independent of whether that love is perfectly reciprocated.

This connects to your earlier discussion about transformational sexuality and spiritual partnership - where the relationship becomes a vehicle for something larger than individual pleasure or security, but a way of channeling and expressing fundamental life energy or spiritual force.

Generativity

It’s been a long time since I read Erikson. Tell me more about generativity.

Generativity is Erik Erikson’s term for the seventh stage in his eight-stage model of psychosocial development, typically occurring during middle adulthood (roughly ages 40-65). It represents one of his most profound insights into human psychological development.

The Core Concept: Generativity is the concern for establishing and guiding the next generation, for creating things that will outlast one’s own life, and for contributing to society’s welfare. It’s fundamentally about productivity and creativity in service of future generations rather than just personal advancement.

Beyond Just Parenting: While having and raising children is the most obvious expression of generativity, Erikson emphasized it goes much broader:

1. Mentoring younger colleagues or students
2. Creating art, literature, or innovations that benefit others
3. Building institutions or contributing to community development
4. Teaching, coaching, or any form of knowledge transmission
5. Environmental stewardship for future generations

The Psychological Crisis: This stage involves the tension between generativity vs. stagnation. Those who successfully navigate this stage develop a sense of usefulness and accomplishment in contributing to society. Those who fail may experience stagnation - a sense of unfulfillment, self-absorption, or feeling that their life lacks meaning or impact.

The Deeper Drive: What’s particularly relevant to your question about love as something we need to give is that Erikson saw generativity as a fundamental human drive - not just a nice thing to do, but a psychological necessity for healthy development. He believed humans have an innate need to be needed, to care for others, and to contribute something meaningful.

Connection to Love: This relates directly to your observation about the Jefferson Airplane song. The need to “love somebody to love” isn’t just about romantic fulfillment - it’s about this deeper generative impulse to care for, nurture, and contribute to another person’s wellbeing. Whether through parenting, mentoring, friendship, or romantic partnership, we need outlets for our caring impulses.

Erikson’s insight was that this isn’t altruism - it’s actually essential for our own psychological health and sense of meaning.

It’s interesting that you put the age for generativity as middle age. The Jefferson Airplane was speaking to late teens and twenty-year olds. And the sentiment in that song, it just struck me as being rare. Offhand I can’t think of any other examples.

You’re absolutely right, and that’s a fascinating observation. Erikson did place generativity in middle age (40-65), but the Jefferson Airplane song was indeed speaking to a much younger audience - late teens and twenties - about what seems to be that same fundamental drive to give love rather than just receive it.

This suggests a few possibilities:

1. Erikson’s timeline might be culturally specific - perhaps tied to the more conventional life patterns of his era, where people were expected to focus on identity formation and career establishment in their twenties, then settle into generative roles later. The 1960s counterculture was already challenging those timelines

 
2. The song might be capturing something universal that emerges earlier than Erikson theorized - this deep human need to have someone to care for, to channel love toward. Maybe what we think of as “generativity” isn’t really age-dependent but is a fundamental human drive that can emerge whenever circumstances allow.

 
3. The rarity you’ve noticed is telling - most popular music aimed at young people focuses on being desired, being loved, conquest, or heartbreak. Songs about needing someone to give love to are indeed unusual. This might reflect broader cultural patterns where we don’t typically validate or even recognize this drive in young people.

The 1960s counterculture was explicitly challenging conventional developmental assumptions - the idea that you had to wait until middle age to think about meaning, purpose, or contributing to something larger than yourself. Maybe Grace Slick was articulating something that resonated with young people who were already feeling that generative impulse, even though the broader culture didn’t expect or encourage it at their age.

It’s also worth noting that the song emerged during a time of intense social activism among young people - perhaps the need to “love somebody to love” was finding expression not just romantically but through social movements, communes, and other forms of caring for community and humanity.

You’re right that it’s rare to find other examples of this sentiment in popular music aimed at young audiences.

Mysticism and Ralph Harper

So tell me about Sufi tradition and Christian mysticism. I remember an Episcopal minister who came to speak in one of my classes at Johns Hopkins back in the 1960s. His name was Ralph Harper. I have one of his books, I forget the title, where he says, that the question of life’s meaning isn’t something that can be answered in language, it’s not a message of some sort. Rather, it’s about what can you do. And what you can do is love.

Ralph Harper was a remarkable figure - an Episcopal priest, theologian, and philosopher who taught at Johns Hopkins and wrote extensively on existentialism and mysticism. His perspective that life’s meaning isn’t a linguistic “message” but rather expressed through the capacity to love reflects deep currents in both Christian mysticism and Sufi thought.

Christian Mysticism and Love: The Christian mystical tradition, from figures like Pseudo-Dionysius and Meister Eckhart to more modern voices like Thomas Merton, emphasizes that ultimate reality (God) is beyond conceptual understanding and can only be approached through love. This tradition speaks of:

• Apophatic theology - the idea that God is beyond human language and concepts
• Union through love rather than intellectual comprehension
• The notion that love is both the path to and the essence of divine connection
• Figures like John of the Cross writing about love as the way the soul merges with the divine

Sufi Tradition: Sufism similarly emphasizes love (ishq) as the fundamental spiritual force. Key concepts include:

• Love as the essence of existence - the idea that divine love is what brings the universe into being
• The lover, beloved, and love as one - ultimately all distinctions dissolve in the experience of divine love
• Rumi’s famous lines about love being the bridge between “you and everything”
• The concept that human love is a reflection of and pathway to divine love

Harper’s Insight: What Harper seems to have been expressing aligns with both traditions - that meaning isn’t something we discover through analysis or receive as information, but something we enact through our capacity to love. This is deeply mystical because it suggests:

• Meaning is participatory rather than propositional
• Love is both the means and the end
• The “answer” to existence is found in the doing, not the knowing

This connects beautifully to your earlier observation about the Jefferson Airplane song - perhaps what they were articulating wasn’t just a psychological need but a spiritual insight about love as the fundamental creative force that needs expression through us.

The book you’re thinking of might be “The Sleeping Beauty” or “On Presence” - both explore these themes of love and meaning beyond language.

Whitney Houston, Dolly Parton

I just thought of Whitney Houston’s song, “I will always love you.” Lyrics:

If I should stay
I would only be in your way
So I’ll go, but I know
I’ll think of you every step of the way

And I will always love you
I will always love you
You
My darling, you, mm-mm

Bittersweet memories
That is all I’m taking with me
So goodbye, please don’t cry
We both know I’m not what you, you need

And I will always love you
I will always love you

I hope life treats you kind
And I hope you have all you’ve dreamed of
And I wish you joy and happiness
But above all this, I wish you love

And I will always love you
I will always love you
I will always love you
I will always love you
I will always love you
I, I will always love you

You
Darling, I love you
Ooh, I’ll always, I’ll always love you

That’s a brilliant example! Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You” (originally written and performed by Dolly Parton) does indeed express love as something the singer needs to give rather than receive, but it’s quite different from the Jefferson Airplane song.

In “I Will Always Love You,” the love is:

• Sacrificial and selfless - “If I should stay I would only be in your way”
• About the beloved’s wellbeing - “I wish you joy and happiness”
• Unconditional and enduring - continuing even through separation
• A gift freely given - no expectation of reciprocation or return

This represents love as an act of generosity and care that transcends personal desire or need. The singer is essentially saying “I love you enough to let you go” and “my love for you will continue regardless of whether we’re together.”

But there’s an interesting contrast with the Jefferson Airplane song:

Jefferson Airplane expresses the existential need to have someone to love - love as a fundamental human drive that requires an object/recipient for psychological wholeness.

Whitney Houston expresses love as something that flows regardless of circumstance - love as a state of being or spiritual condition that doesn’t depend on proximity or reciprocation.

Both songs are about giving love rather than receiving it, but they approach it from different angles:

• One says “I need someone to love” (love as essential human function)
• The other says “I will always love you” (love as spiritual commitment)

You’ve identified two rare examples of songs that focus on love as something to be expressed rather than received. The Whitney Houston version, in particular, has that mystical quality Ralph Harper might have recognized - love as something you do rather than something you get or even understand.

The question then becomes, why is that sentiment so rare in popular culture.

That’s a profound question that gets at something fundamental about how our culture understands and represents love. Several factors likely contribute to this rarity:

1. Consumer Culture Logic: Popular culture, especially commercial music, operates on a consumer model where the audience is positioned as wanting/needing something. Songs about wanting to be loved, wanting someone back, or being heartbroken appeal to the listener’s sense of lack or desire. “I need someone to love” doesn’t fit the consumer paradigm as neatly - it suggests the listener already has something to give rather than something they need to acquire.

2. Narcissistic vs. Generative Orientations: Much of popular culture reflects what psychologists call narcissistic concerns - how do I feel, what do I need, am I attractive/desirable, will I be hurt. The generative impulse (“what can I give”) requires a more mature psychological orientation that may not resonate with the primary demographic for popular music.

3. Cultural Individualism: Western individualistic culture emphasizes personal fulfillment, self-actualization, and getting your needs met. The idea that you might need to give love for your own wellbeing runs counter to this framework. It suggests interdependence rather than independence.

4. Vulnerability and Power: Expressing that you need someone to love reveals a different kind of vulnerability than expressing that you want to be loved. It acknowledges that your wellbeing depends on having someone to care for - which can feel less empowering than positioning yourself as the desired object.

5. Historical/Religious Associations: The sentiment of needing to give love has strong associations with religious/spiritual traditions (Christian charity, Buddhist compassion, etc.) that secular popular culture often avoids. It can sound “preachy” rather than relatable.

6. Gender Dynamics: Traditional gender roles have often assigned the “giving love/caring” role primarily to women, while men were expected to be more focused on achievement, conquest, or being served. This may have made the sentiment seem less universal or commercially appealing.

The rarity itself might explain why those two songs feel so striking - they’re touching on something deep and true about human nature that popular culture rarely acknowledges or validates.

Whitney Houston was certainly raised in the Christian church. Her mother, Sissy, was a famous gospel singer. I don’t know about Dolly Parton, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she had a religious upbringing.

You’re absolutely right on both counts. Whitney Houston grew up deeply immersed in the Black church tradition - her mother Cissy Houston was indeed a renowned gospel singer who performed with groups like the Sweet Inspirations (who backed Aretha Franklin and Elvis Presley). Whitney literally cut her teeth singing in church, and that gospel foundation profoundly shaped her vocal style and, presumably, her understanding of love as something spiritual and selfless.

Dolly Parton also had a deeply religious upbringing in rural Tennessee. She’s spoken often about her Pentecostal background and how her faith has influenced her songwriting. She’s written numerous gospel songs throughout her career and has always been open about her Christian beliefs.

This religious grounding helps explain why both women could access and articulate that particular understanding of love - love as service, sacrifice, and spiritual commitment rather than just personal fulfillment. The Christian tradition, especially in its gospel and Pentecostal expressions, emphasizes love as:

• Agape - selfless, unconditional love that seeks the other’s good
• Service to others as a form of worship and spiritual practice
• Sacrifice as an expression of the highest love
• Love as a commandment - something you’re called to do, not just feel

When Dolly wrote “I Will Always Love You,” she was drawing from a cultural and spiritual tradition that sees love as something you give rather than get. When Whitney performed it, she brought her own gospel-trained understanding of love as spiritual practice.

This might explain why that sentiment is so rare in secular popular culture - it requires a framework that sees love as something larger than personal satisfaction or romantic fulfillment. Most popular music operates from a more individualistic, psychological framework rather than a spiritual or religious one.

The fact that both examples you’ve identified come from artists with deep religious roots suggests that this understanding of love as something you need to give may be more accessible to those raised in traditions that explicitly teach it.