Authentic Love after Conflict: A Beauvoirian Ethics and the Foundations of Couple Repair
This paper proposes a Beauvoirian ethics of couple repair that argues authentic love, defined as reciprocal recognition, is structurally prone to conflict and infidelity, and suggests that while only consensual non-monogamy preserves authenticity, repair toward an I–Thou relationship is only possible through disclosed non-consensual infidelity when the offending party engages in repair, provided that cognitive-existential foundations for mutual recognition are re-established before communication skills training.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Love is often imagined as a quiet harbor, a place where two people find safety and agreement. Yet, for the French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, the very thing that makes love noble is also what makes it fragile. She believed that true love happens only when two free people recognize each other as equals, neither trying to own the other nor losing themselves in the other. This requires a constant, active choice to see the partner as a separate person with their own dreams and path. The philosopher Martin Buber described this as an "I–Thou" connection, a direct and honest meeting of two souls. But this paper argues that because both people are free and changing, their paths will inevitably cross in ways that cause friction. When two independent lives move together over years, across different situations and moods, they will sometimes clash. The paper suggests that this conflict is not a sign that love has failed, but a structural risk of love that works as it should. The real danger arises when that friction turns one person into a tool for the other, a shift the paper calls an "I–It" relationship, where one person is treated as an object to be used rather than a person to be met.
The author, Wing Chung Ho, uses this framework to examine a specific and painful type of relationship conflict: infidelity, or when one partner seeks intimacy outside the couple. The paper asks a difficult question: can a relationship recover after such a breach, and under what conditions? To answer this, the author sorts non-monogamous situations into distinct categories based on two simple rules: honesty and consent. The first category is consensual non-monogamy, where both partners know about and agree to outside relationships. The second is unilateral infidelity, where one partner hides the outside relationship from the other. The third is disclosed non-consensual infidelity, where the outside relationship is known, but the other partner does not agree to it. The paper finds that only the first category, where both partners are informed and willing, fits the definition of authentic love. The other two categories involve deception or domination, which break the essential bond of mutual recognition.
However, the paper focuses most intently on the third category, specifically the cases where the betrayed partner knows about the affair but does not consent, yet both partners still want to try to fix the relationship. The author argues that this is the only scenario where repair is philosophically possible, because both people share the same knowledge of the facts. If one person is hiding the truth, they cannot truly work together to rebuild the relationship. The paper suggests that when a couple in this situation seeks help, the standard approach of teaching them better communication skills is often the wrong first step. If the fundamental trust that they are seeing each other as real people has been shattered, talking better will just feel like a performance. Instead, the paper proposes that the couple must first rebuild the moral foundation of their connection. They need to confront the existential reality of their choices, acknowledge their freedom and responsibility, and re-establish a genuine presence with one another before they can effectively solve practical problems.
The study suggests that this repair process should follow a specific path, often found in cognitive-existential therapy. It begins by helping the partners process their deep emotions, such as grief, loneliness, and the fear of losing meaning, rather than rushing to fix the immediate argument. The goal is to move from a state where they view each other as obstacles or objects back to a state where they can see each other as free subjects again. Only after this shift in how they perceive one another does the paper recommend introducing communication techniques. The author emphasizes that this is not a guarantee of success, but a necessary sequence. Without first restoring the ability to meet as equals, any attempt to talk through the problem will likely fail because the connection required to make the talk meaningful is missing.
Ultimately, the paper concludes that authentic love is a difficult, ongoing task rather than a permanent state of harmony. It is a process that requires constant creation and re-creation of the relationship. Because people are free, they will inevitably face moments where their paths diverge, and conflict is a natural part of that freedom. The paper does not claim to solve the pain of infidelity, but it offers a clear map for understanding why it happens and how a couple might begin to heal. It argues that the path back to love is not about learning to speak more politely, but about learning to see each other again as free human beings who choose to be together, rather than as things to be managed. This approach treats the relationship as a living encounter that must be rebuilt from the inside out, starting with the recognition that both people are still free, and that their love depends on honoring that freedom even after it has been broken.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.