Intellectual Romance

Intellectual Romance

What is an intellectual romance? A romance of the intellect, of course; it isn’t a romance between intellectuals, as in a love affair between intellectual people. Here is a standard definition: “The connection between two people in a relationship where they share ideals, thoughts, and opinions, finding stimulation and enjoyment in each other’s intellect”. That sounds about right: it is a relationship, often quite intense, in which people click intellectually; they enjoy talking about intellectual matters together. It is perfectly possible, indeed common, to have an intellectual romance with someone of the sex you are not attracted to sexually or romantically. The word “intellectual” in the phrase “intellectual romance” cancels the ordinary meaning of the word “romance”, like “decoy” in “decoy duck”. An intellectual romance is not a romance tout court. That is surely obvious, a matter of simple semantics. Thus, a rule against romance is not a rule against intellectual romance. To infer “A and B are in a romantic relationship” from “A and B are in an intellectual romance” would be a non-sequitur of numbing grossness (as philosophers like to say): it would be tantamount to supposing that because A and B like talking philosophy together they must be having sex! And notice that having an intellectual romance does not imply having a Platonic romance either: that is a quite different thing. These distinctions need to keep straight.

Many universities have rules governing relationships between faculty and students. Sometimes romantic or amorous relationships are banned altogether; sometimes it is required that such relationships be reported to an administrator, so that the student is not evaluated by the faculty member (the same thing applies to inter-faculty relationships). But no university prohibits intellectual romances, or requires that they be reported so that the teacher is no longer allowed to evaluate the student. No one thinks that if two people enjoy intellectual discussions together they should be prevented from being in a teacher-student relationship. Sometimes a degree (or type) of affection is created in such relationships—it would be strange if it were not—but no one thinks this a reason to discourage or ban such relationships. On the contrary, we generally think intellectual romances are a good thing—they foster intellectual engagement. It would be totally bizarre to introduces rules that require reassignment when people enter into such relationships. No sane person would think that the existence of an intellectually romantic relationship is a good ground for disciplinary action against either teacher or student; in fact, a degree of such attachment is extremely common (I have had many such relationships, mainly with other men). No faculty handbook ever contains a rule restricting the development of intellectual romances (so-called): that would be equivalent to banning intellectual friendships or partnerships or companionships.

Suppose a university administrator were to argue that A and B were having a romance, Platonic or sexual, because they had described their relationship as an “intellectual romance”. That is, A and B used this phrase in order to distinguish their relationship from a romance proper (a “love affair”), but the administrator cited their use of this phrase as evidence that they were really having a straightforward romance. Wouldn’t this be an obvious logical fallacy (of numbing grossness)? Suppose the administrator then used this to discipline the teacher, perhaps to the extent of firing him or her (revoking tenure etc.). Wouldn’t that be completely absurd—just a bad pun? Surely, no intelligent person could be guilty of such poor reasoning and mental confusion. What if the teacher’s career was destroyed because of this fallacious reasoning? Wouldn’t that be patently unjust, comically so? The administrator thinks he can detach “romance” from “intellectual” and derive the conclusion that A and B are in violation of the rules against (unreported) romantic relationships. Isn’t this laughable nonsense? It’s like supposing that a teacher violated the rule against bringing ducks into the classroom by bringing a decoy duck in.