Exploring Ambivalence in Family Ties: Progress and Prospects

Published date01 February 2015
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12150
Date01 February 2015
AuthorIngrid Arnet Connidis
I A C University of Western Ontario
Exploring Ambivalence in Family Ties: Progress
and Prospects
The 2002 exchange on ambivalence in the Jour-
nal of Marriage and Family (Vol. 64, No. 3),
published under the editorship of Alexis Walker,
prompted an impressive array of research on
family ties, in particular intergenerational
relationships. Following a discussion of the
concept’s theoretical underpinnings, the author
argues that advancing the concept of ambiva-
lence rests on realizing its multilevel potential
by addressing the interplay of shifting con-
tradictions experienced by individuals and in
relationships and embedded in social insti-
tutions and in macro-level arrangements and
processes. She considers progress and lim-
itations in a critical review of predominant
applications of ambivalence and then investi-
gates research that advances ambivalence as
a bridging concept across multiple levels of
analysis. Work on atypical family ties, depen-
dency, contradictory cultural expectations due
to migration and social change, families and
the welfare state, and on climate change and
disability promotes the multilevel potential of
ambivalence and points to ways to advance its
promise in theory and practice.
In 2002, innovative editor Alexis Walker pub-
lished a special section on ambivalence in
Journal of Marriage and Family (Vol. 64, No.
3). The exchange resonated with many family
scholars ready for approaches more in keeping
Department of Sociology, Universityof Western Ontario,
London, Ontario N6A5C2, Canada (connidis@uwo.ca).
KeyWords: ambivalence, families and individuals in societal
context, family dynamics, family relations,inequality, theory.
with the growing complexity and diversity of
families and with more critical perspectives on
family dynamics. The purpose of this article
is to consider ways of advancing the concept
of ambivalence. To this end, I rst discuss the
concept’s underpinnings and then present an
analytical review of the extensive application
of ambivalence since that exchange in 2002.
My review aims to represent the ways that
ambivalence has been used in family research,
much of it on intergenerational ties. Work in
other countries and on other topics is considered
to gain insights about how to most fruitfully
apply ambivalence to family life. I consider the
advancement of ambivalence through attention
to its multilevel potential and conclude the
article with suggestions for future research.
Ambivalence is a signicant sensitizing
concept or construct rather than a theory (see
Lüscher, 2011; Lüscher & Hoff, 2013). A
pivotal question is “What does ambivalence
sensitize us to, and what are its theoretical
underpinnings?” First, ambivalence takes us
beyond the limits of dualistic views of family
life as either running smoothly or being conict
ridden (Lüscher & Pillemer, 1998; Pillemer &
Lüscher, 2004) by showcasing the coexistence
of contradictory sentiments, expectations, and
forces as characteristic of family and of social
life (Connidis & McMullin, 2002a, 2002b).
Second, ambivalence encourages multilevel
analysis that links individual experience; social
institutions; and macro-level systems of inequal-
ity, social, economic, and political processes,
and globalization. Addressing the intersection
of multiple levels of ambivalence remains a
key challenge to advancing the concept and its
application.
Journal of Marriage and Family 77 (February 2015): 77–95 77
DOI:10.1111/jomf.12150
78 Journal of Marriage and Family
T M P
 A
A multilevel treatment of ambivalence is central
to addressing the fundamental issue of how what
happens inside families relates to what happens
outside them. A key premise of ambivalence is
that the ongoing negotiation of contradictions
in family relationships is intricately connected
to the ways that social life is organized and
structured. In turn, the ways that individuals
negotiate their family ties inuence the social
world beyond them. A multilevel conception of
ambivalence ideally is uid, emphasizing con-
tinuous, reciprocal inuences among levels. Yet
there is often a disciplinary divide in focus, and
the earlier distinction made between psycho-
logical and sociological ambivalence continues
in research on family ties and intergenera-
tional relations. This terminology suggests an
unfortunate dichotomy, implicitly separating
micro-level from meso- and macro-level pro-
cesses, when the ultimate aim of a multilevel
conception of ambivalence is to stress their
interconnection.
At the individual level, psychological
ambivalence refers to the contradiction of
simultaneously holding positive and negative
sentiments or emotions about family rela-
tionships (Connidis, 2010). Ambivalence in
relationships also refers to contradictory behav-
iors or contradictions between behaviors and
sentiments. The experience of such ambivalence
uctuates in response to changing conditions
and to the way that ambivalence is interpreted,
negotiated, or managed (Hillcoat-Nallétamby
& Phillips, 2011; Lüscher, 2011). Attempts
to extend ambivalence beyond the individual
level led to a call for incorporating sociological
ambivalence in studies of intergenerational
relations. Lüscher and Pillemer (1998) identi-
ed ambivalence at this level as contradictions
in institutional resources and requirements.
Connidis and McMullin (2002a, 2002b) argued
for making the dynamic relationship between
individual agency and the inequality and con-
tradictions of structured social relations more
explicit and central to understanding the negoti-
ation of family relationships (Connidis, 2012b ).
In order to include social structure and the
mutual inuence of individual action and social
processes, Connidis (2010) called for the study
of “how social structural forces create contra-
dictions and conicts that are made manifest in
the social interactions of family life and must be
worked out in family members’ encounters with
one another, that is, sociological ambivalence”
(p. 140).
Structured social relations include gender,
class, age, race, ethnicity, sexualorientation, and
ability. The inequality that results is a crucial
source of ambivalence that permeates social
arrangements and interpersonal relationships.
The term structured ambivalence underscores
the contradictions created by structured social
relations (Connidis & McMullin, 2002a, 2002b)
and counters the heavy focus on ambiva-
lence as mixed feelings at the individual level.
Lorenz-Meyer (2004) identied several levelsof
ambivalence: personalambivalences, or coexist-
ing opposing feelings; structural ambivalences,
which are simultaneous “opposing offerings,
directives, or guidelines for action inherent in
institutional structures, such as state agencies or
social policies” (p. 247); and multiple ambiva-
lences, a term that refers to overlapping personal
and structural ambivalences. These capture well
a view of sociological ambivalencethat connects
contradictory feelings to structured ambivalence
(Connidis & Walker, 2009) and links family
dynamics to their social context (Connidis,
2012b; Willson, Shuey, & Elder, 2003).
A full consideration of ambivalence aims
at connecting the internal dynamics, mixed
emotions, and contradictory behavior of family
members and relationships to the contradic-
tions of social, cultural, political, and economic
arrangements and dynamics: the interactive
micro–meso–macro connection (Connidis,
2003a, 2010, 2011a, 2012b; Connidis &
McMullin, 2002a, 2002b; Lüscher, 2011;
Lüscher & Hoff, 2013; Lüscher & Pillemer,
1998). Thus, ambivalence can be observed in
individuals, relationships, social institutions,
and societies (Lettke & Klein, 2004). Con-
tradictions at the meso level of institutions,
including family and work, and at the macro
level create different expectations among groups
and variable capacities for negotiating family
relationships. Because relationships are worked
out in the context of contradictory structured
social relations and arrangements, ambivalence
precedes solidarity and conict (Lüscher, 2002).
The concept of agency-in-context (Settersten,
2003) connects individual action to constraints
and opportunities at the meso and macro levels
of social life. Over time, individuals act as
agents of their lives as best they can, choosing
the paths they will take as active participants

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT