Falling in Love via an App
This reflection was presented at the Saint-Anne Colloquium in May 2024, examining the potential differences between virtual encounters and those occurring in physical settings.
In May, the gardens of Sainte‑Anne take on an almost unreal quality. Under the soft spring warmth, peonies open like breaths, roses release a sweet fragrance, and tall trees cast shifting shadows across the paths. We gathered there for the GHU colloquium, in this suspended landscape where petals fall like slow snow. Between birdsong and the rustling of leaves, we spoke of encounters, desire, love, and of the way these experiences now so often unfold through an application. The theme of the colloquium focused on association in its psychoanalytic dimension, and I chose to explore how, within dating apps, people associate on the other, constructing internal images, projecting, displacing, condensing, dreaming the other before ever meeting them.
My talk explored a phenomenon that has become ordinary yet remains insufficiently examined: falling in love through an application. Many of us, or our patients, have sought a partner, whether for a brief encounter or a long‑term relationship, by sliding a finger across a screen. The aim was to question what distinguishes, or connects, these virtual encounters from those that arise in physical spaces, where bodies meet and recognize each other.
The first step is the initial engagement. Creating a profile is like composing an intimate scene: choosing a photograph, selecting a few words, adjusting a tone. As Ellison, Heino and Gibbs (2006) showed, online self‑presentation allows individuals to project desires and seek a mirroring image. Serge Tisseron (2018) has described how digital environments become projective spaces where fragments of the self are deposited in search of resonance.
Then comes the progression toward more direct communication. Phone calls or video exchanges help verify early projections, confirming or contradicting initial fantasies. This transition, often described as a moment of relational calibration (Rosenfeld, Thomas and Hausen, 2019), introduces a more embodied dimension, even at a distance. From a psychoanalytic perspective, the virtual object begins to acquire affective consistency, becoming an internal object in formation.
Today, the abundance of profiles and the speed of interactions have simplified the search while making it more calculated. Some users adopt a quasi‑statistical logic: the more possibilities, the more navigation is required. This dynamic can soothe abandonment anxieties, since one can always move on to the next. It also raises questions about how romantic choice becomes an act of control, a way to master one’s destiny rather than surrendering to chance, an idea developed by Illouz (2012). One might see in this a defense against uncertainty, an attempt to reduce the anxiety inherent in any encounter.
Word choice, spelling, and self‑presentation all influence perceived attractiveness. This process can help individuals clarify their preferences, but it can also reinforce a consumer‑like logic (Hobbs, Owen and Gerber, 2017). As Tisseron (2018) notes, digital platforms encourage a form of self‑display in which one becomes both subject and object of one’s own desire.
Being ghosted can trigger intense emotional reactions, especially in individuals with attachment vulnerabilities. Recent research shows that digital breakups can evoke affects comparable to traditional ones (Koessler, Kohut and Campbell, 2019). From a psychoanalytic viewpoint, ghosting often reactivates early experiences of object withdrawal, leaving the subject facing a void that is difficult to symbolize.
Family dynamics replay themselves in every context. The ability to contact a potential partner at any time can reactivate early relational patterns, while physical encounters impose limits that shape desire differently. Digital immediacy, by abolishing distance, sometimes intensifies dependency fantasies.
This leads to questions about how the body is engaged in virtual interactions. Somatic excitement can arise without physical presence, and emotions can be triggered without direct eye contact. As Döring (2021) notes, written communication can become a space of eroticization, where imagination compensates for the absent body. The digital body becomes a fantasized body, hollow yet active in psychic life.
Despite these differences, the similarities with in‑person encounters are striking. The search for a partner, sexual or romantic, often reflects early relational patterns. And although virtual interactions may seem more efficient or abundant, emotional experiences — excitement, hope, disappointment, grief — do not appear to differ significantly once the relationship is underway. The virtual, far from being a disaffected space, becomes a terrain where the same psychic dynamics unfold.
References
Döring, N. (2021). Digital sexual communication and intimacy. Journal of Sexual Research, 58(3), 257‑273.
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self‑presentation in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer‑Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415‑441.
Hobbs, M., Owen, S., & Gerber, L. (2017). Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy. Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 271‑284.
Illouz, E. (2012). Why Love Hurts. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Koessler, R., Kohut, T., & Campbell, L. (2019). When ghosting hurts: Emotional consequences of digital disappearance. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 62‑69.
Rosenfeld, M., Thomas, R., & Hausen, S. (2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating changed the nature of romantic relationships. PNAS, 116(36), 17753‑17758.
Tisseron, S. (2018). The Power of Screens. Paris: Les Liens qui Libèrent.
