I think this song speaks to more than others have touched on.
The first verse makes the message plain: love should not be possessive. But the next verses take it deeper.
"If it's a mirror you want..."
This verse is evocative of the many different roles we can both play and project in relationships.
Eg. You can see your reflection or you can see your shadow...we can both captivate and be captivated, imprison others and/or imprison ourselves.
But there is also another sub-theme of material affluence vs poverty.
"prisoner in the dark" vs "gilded cage"
As Sting was in analysis at the time he wrote this it was probably kickng up a lot of material.
"Forever conditioned to believe that we can't live/We can't live here and be happy with less
/So many riches, so many souls/Everything we see that we want to possess"
This stanza speaks to the confusion between love and materiality.
And I don't think Sting is the only one who is confused. This is a very western, late capitalist ("conditioned to believe" = a lifetime of consuming marketing) problem.
"Free" is a word we use to refer to personal liberty, but it also is a way we describe the condition of something we don't have to pay (money) for.
I think sometimes we don't know if love is something we have to pay for on some level, or if we have to earn it, or
If we're worth it, or if we can afford it. We might think we will only get it if we earn more first. Or we don't have it because we're too poor (shameful).
But in an ideal world love is free, everyone gets it, everyone deserves it, love is given freely, effortlessly, and without end.
A gift economy.
Now we confuse poverty with personal worth, and lovelessness. We disparage the poor. We equate poverty with uselessness/worthlessness.
Whereas in a perfect world, all are equal.
I think this song speaks to more than others have touched on. The first verse makes the message plain: love should not be possessive. But the next verses take it deeper. "If it's a mirror you want..." This verse is evocative of the many different roles we can both play and project in relationships. Eg. You can see your reflection or you can see your shadow...we can both captivate and be captivated, imprison others and/or imprison ourselves. But there is also another sub-theme of material affluence vs poverty. "prisoner in the dark" vs "gilded cage" As Sting was in analysis at the time he wrote this it was probably kickng up a lot of material. "Forever conditioned to believe that we can't live/We can't live here and be happy with less /So many riches, so many souls/Everything we see that we want to possess" This stanza speaks to the confusion between love and materiality. And I don't think Sting is the only one who is confused. This is a very western, late capitalist ("conditioned to believe" = a lifetime of consuming marketing) problem. "Free" is a word we use to refer to personal liberty, but it also is a way we describe the condition of something we don't have to pay (money) for. I think sometimes we don't know if love is something we have to pay for on some level, or if we have to earn it, or If we're worth it, or if we can afford it. We might think we will only get it if we earn more first. Or we don't have it because we're too poor (shameful). But in an ideal world love is free, everyone gets it, everyone deserves it, love is given freely, effortlessly, and without end. A gift economy. Now we confuse poverty with personal worth, and lovelessness. We disparage the poor. We equate poverty with uselessness/worthlessness. Whereas in a perfect world, all are equal.
[Edit: edits]