Seductive Productivity and the Hijacking of Humans’ Adaptive Systems

Toxic love refers to a relationship dynamic characterized by emotional manipulation, dependency, control, and a lack of mutual respect: while healthy love is generally marked by care, empathy, and growth, toxic love fosters resentment, insecurity, and emotional turmoil. Importantly, the behaviors which constitute toxic love are often cyclical, involving periods of intense affection followed by emotional abuse, creating a confusing push-pull dynamic for those involved. From a psychological standpoint, toxic love often arises from unmet emotional needs, unresolved trauma, and/or deep-seated insecurities which emerge as manipulative behaviors. Both parties in a toxic relationship may be complicit, with one person seeking control and the other becoming increasingly submissive, thus perpetuating a destructive emotional cycle.

Toxic love may also result from unhealthy attachment styles, such as anxious or avoidant attachment, as described in attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988), as individuals with these attachment styles often struggle with trust, autonomy, and intimacy, which can fuel the unhealthy dynamics characteristic of toxic love. In a nutshell, toxic love operates at both a neurobiological and a socio-cultural level: from the perspective of neuroscience, it hijacks fundamental reward mechanisms in the brain, creating cycles of addiction, dependency, and emotional volatility; social scientists, on the other hand, have analyzed the ways in which these dynamics appear in broader cultural patterns, particularly in an economic system which thrives on performativity, consumption, and widely spread FOMO (“fear of missing out”) symptomatics: the postcapitalist framework.

Medical and Neuroscientific Findings

From a medical and neuroscientific perspective, toxic love can have profound effects on both the brain and the body. Neuroscientific research has revealed the ways in which the brain processes love as well as the reasons for which individuals remain in toxic relationships despite the obvious harm. The brain’s reward system is heavily involved in romantic attachment, with the release of dopamine and oxytocin reinforcing feelings of connection and affection. However, in toxic relationships, this reward system can become skewed, as intermittent reinforcement (periods of affection followed by neglect and/or abuse) creates a pattern similar to addiction.

Indeed, at its core, toxic love involves neurobiological mechanisms operating in ways eerily similar to addiction, reinforcing attachment even in harmful circumstances, resulting in addictive behaviors and emotional manipulation being enacted from within the subject him-/herself. Neuroscientific research suggests that romantic love shares common pathways with drug dependency, activating the dopaminergic reward system, particularly the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and the nucleus accumbens, the brain’s pleasure center, as it lights up not only during moments of love and affection but also during negative interactions, like conflict or rejection (Fisher, 2004; Fisher/Brown/Aron/Strong/Mashek, 2010). This paradoxical response may explain why people feel “addicted” to their toxic partners, as the brain continues to seek the highs of affection despite the emotional lows: the brain’s response to romantic rejection – particularly in toxic relationships – can activate areas associated with craving and addiction, thus providing insights into the reasons for which people feel “stuck” in unhealthy relationships. The brain regions responsible for pleasure, reward, and reinforcement, become hyperactive in toxic romantic interactions, making detachment from risky partners incredibly difficult: neurotransmitters such as dopamine, oxytocin, and cortisol play crucial roles in this process.

Dopamine and Oxytocin

Dopamine, the “reward chemical”, is heavily implicated in addiction, including love addiction, with studies having shown that romantic love activates brain regions associated with reward and craving, similar to the effects observed in substance abuse (Burunat, 2016; Fisher/Aron/Brown, 2006). This neural loop often makes detachment from destructive relationships painful, as intermittent reinforcement – a pattern in which moments of intense rewards (affection, validation, approval) are unpredictably given and withdrawn, while being followed by neglect and/or abuse of various degrees of severity – keeps the brain craving the next “high”. Such dynamic strengthens attachment through variable reward schedules, the same mechanism underlying gambling addiction (Lerner/Holloway/Seiler, 2021): when emotional highs are unpredictable, individuals become neurologically conditioned to crave their partner’s approval, mirroring the compulsions seen in substance abuse disorders.

In addition to dopamine, oxytocin, commonly dubbed the “love hormone”, enhances trust and bonding, but when paired with cortisol, the “stress hormone”, it can create a state of anxious dependency, therefore contributing to unhealthy attachment, with research suggesting that it can increase interhuman connection even when the relationship is detrimental (Campbell, 2010): cortisol spikes during emotional turmoil in unhealthy relationships, leading to a physiological cycle in which distress and relief become intertwined – sometimes referred to as “trauma bonding”, this phenomenon exemplifies the ways in which neurobiological mechanisms perpetuate toxic love.

Physical and Psychological Effects of Toxic Love

Neuroimaging studies have further shown that rejection and/or emotional abuse in toxic relationships activate the anterior cingulate cortex, the same region responsible for processing physical pain (Eisenberger, 2015), suggesting that emotional distress in toxic love is not merely psychological but has a tangible, embodied impact, reinforcing the difficulty of breaking free: this hormonal cocktail showcases reasons for which victims of toxic love may feel unable to leave destructive partners despite recognizing the harm. Precisely because toxic love often mirrors the neurochemical dynamics of addiction – in the same way that the brain craves the highs of a drug, individuals in toxic relationships may crave the brief moments of affection and validation following periods of emotional abuse –, the intermittent reinforcement creates a powerful emotional bond which can be tough to break, even when the relationship is clearly destructive. Furthermore, the amygdala, responsible for processing fear and stress, becomes hyperactive in toxic interactions, contributing to heightened anxiety and emotional volatility: neuroscientific research indicates that toxic relationships can trigger the brain’s stress response systems, activating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and releasing stress hormones, e.g., cortisol. Chronic exposure to such stress can lead to emotional exhaustion, depression, and perpetual anxiety.

The physical and psychological effects of toxic love are well-documented. Individuals in toxic relationships often experience symptoms of anxiety, depression, and even (complex) post-traumatic stress disorder ([c]PTSD): these mental health issues arise from prolonged exposure to emotional abuse, manipulation, and instability. Medical research has shown that individuals in toxic interactions are more likely to experience physical health problems such as high blood pressure, heart disease, and weakened immune systems. In addition, toxic love erodes self-esteem and contributes to a distorted sense of self-worth, as victims of toxic relationships may internalize their partner’s criticisms and begin to view themselves as unworthy of love and respect. This psychological damage can have long-term effects, making it difficult for individuals to form healthy relationships in the future.

Humanities and Social Sciences

In humanities and social sciences, toxic love is often described as a relationship dynamic in which the emotions of love, attachment, and passion are intertwined with control, manipulation, and dependency, thus providing critical foundations for understanding toxic love beyond the individual brain. To start with, from a psychoanalytic perspective, Jacques Lacan’s theory of desire suggests that love, particularly in capitalist societies, is structured around a perpetual lack – an unfulfilled longing which is never fully satisfied (Lacan, 1977). This aligns with Zygmunt Bauman’s concept of “liquid love”, in which relationships in post-WWII modernity have turned increasingly transient and transactional, marked by a tendency towards disposability (Bauman, 2003). On the other hand, in literary and philosophical discourse, toxic love has been frequently explored as a manifestation of power and control: for example, in Jean-Paul Sartre’s writings, relationships can devolve into what he describes as a “conflict of subjectivities,” wherein partners objectify each other to assert dominance. Sartre’s existentialist philosophy posits that toxic love stems from a desire to control the other person, which inherently denies them their freedom (Sartre, 1970).

Similarly, feminist theorists have critiqued toxic love within the framework of patriarchal structures, in which traditional gender roles enable one partner (often male) to exert power and control over the other (often female), thus further elucidating the gendered dimensions of toxic love: Bell Hooks argues that patriarchal ideologies often equate love with suffering, conditioning individuals – especially women – to tolerate emotional labor and self-sacrifice (Hooks, 2000). She defines unhealthy love as that type of love lacking the “mutual commitment to growth”, in which love is used as a tool to exert power and control, rather than as a bond of mutual respect and affection. Likewise, Eva Illouz explores the ways in which romantic suffering in modernity is commodified, with popular culture portraying dysfunctional relationships as passionate and desirable (Illouz, 2012). Such insights underscore the broader social mechanisms normalizing toxic love as a sociocultural and economic-political force.

Social and Psychological Underpinnings

In social and psychological terms, toxic love is often underpinned by unhealthy relational dynamics such as emotional manipulation, gaslighting, and codependency, involving patterns of emotional abuse and neglect, and in which one or both partners engage in behaviors damaging their partner’s self-esteem and sense of security. According to studies in relationship psychology, gaslighting – the phenomenon in which one partner manipulates the other into questioning one’s own reality – can be a common feature of toxic love, as it can erode an individual’s self-esteem and autonomy, making them increasingly dependent on the toxic partner. Codependency is another key factor in toxic love: codependent relationships involve one partner sacrificing their needs to please the other, leading to a loss of individual identity and an unhealthy reliance on the relationship for emotional stability. Melody Beattie, a prominent voice in the field of codependency recovery, argues that codependent individuals often lose themselves in relationships, becoming emotionally enmeshed to the point where they feel incomplete or inadequate without the other person, which can perpetuate the toxic cycle, as the codependent partner may tolerate emotional abuse or manipulation to maintain the relationship (Beattie, 1986). Lastly, social learning theory, developed by Albert Bandura, provides additional insights into the perpetuation of toxic love, suggesting that individuals may model toxic behaviors based on early family dynamics and/or previous relationships, leading them to normalize dysfunctional patterns of love and attachment – for instance, children who grow up in homes in which love is conditional and/or tied to manipulation may carry these patterns into their adult relationships, mistaking control for love (Bandura, 1971).

Literature and Everyday Life

The theme of power and control is a hallmark of many literary depictions of toxic love, of which two stand out due to their repeated representations in various media throughout the decades: in Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights (1847), the relationship between Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw illustrates a deep yet toxic bond, as their love is not based on mutual respect but rather an obsessive need for control and possession, ultimately leading to their emotional destruction. This type of toxic relationship reflects a recurring literary trope in which love, when entangled with domination and unresolved inner conflicts, causes emotional damage. The second equally impactful example is found in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (1925), with the relationship between Daisy Buchanan and Jay Gatsby being marked by obsession, manipulation, and emotional imbalance. Gatsby’s idealization of Daisy leads him to ignore her flaws and the fact that she is ultimately incapable of loving him in return, resulting in a devastating cycle of hope, deception, and disappointment. Like in literature and, more recently, cinema, in real life, cases of toxic love can be observed in abusive relationships, in which emotional and/or physical abuse become normalized, often featuring patterns of control, emotional volatility, and a lack of mutual respect.

Toxic love, characterized by control, manipulation, emotional abuse, power imbalances, and dependency, has devastating effects on individuals’ psychological and physical well-being. The humanities illuminate the dynamics of dominance and submission at play, social sciences offer insights into the psychological mechanisms of toxic love, and neurosciences reveal the physiological effects of such destructive relationships. With the brain’s reward system possibly keeping individuals trapped in these harmful interactions, the long-term consequences include anxiety, depression, and a diminished sense of self-worth: toxic love, when left unchecked, can lead to emotional exhaustion, physical depletion, and long-lasting psychological scars.

Resources

Bandura, Albert (1971). Social Learning Theory. Northbrook: General Learning Corporation.

Bauman, Zygmunt (2003). Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Cambridge: Polity.

Beattie, Melody (1986). Codependent No More: How to Stop Controlling Others and Start Caring for Yourself. Minneapolis: Hazelden Publishing.

Bowlby, John (1988). A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. New York: Basic Books.

Burunat, Enrique (2016). “Love Is Not an Emotion”, Psychology (2016) 7, pp. 1883-1910.

Campbell, Anne (2010). “Oxytocin and Human Social Behavior”, Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, (2010) 14(3), pp. 281-295.

Eisenberger, Naomi (2015). “Social Pain and the Brain: Controversies, Questions, and Where to Go from Here”, Annual Review of Psychology (2015) 66, pp. 601-629.

Fisher, Helen (2004). Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. New York: Henry Holt Publishers.

Fisher, Helen; Aron, Arthur; Brown, Lucy (2006). “Romantic Love: A Mammalian Brain System for Mate Choice”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences (2006) 361 (1476), pp. 2173-2186.

Fisher, Helen; Brown, Lucy; Aron, Arthur; Strong, Greg; Mashek, Debra (2010). “Reward, Addiction, and Emotion Regulation Systems Associated with Rejection in Love”, Journal of Neurophysiology (2010) 104:1, pp. 51-60.

Hooks, Bell (2000). All About Love: New Visions. New York: HarperCollins.

Illouz, Eva (2012). Why Love Hurts: A Sociological Explanation. Cambridge: Polity.

Lacan, Jacques (1977). Écrits: A Selection, translated by Bruce Fink. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Lerner, Talia; Holloway, Ashley; Seiler, Jillian (2021). “Dopamine, Updated: Reward Prediction Error and Beyond”, Current Opinion in Neurobiology (2021) 67, pp. 123-130.

Sartre, Jean-Paul (1970). L’Existentialisme est un humanisme. Paris: Éditions Nagel.