Ambivalence, Family Ties, and Doing Sociology

By Connidis, Ingrid Arnet; McMullin, Julie Ann | Journal of Marriage and Family, August 2002 | Go to article overview

Ambivalence, Family Ties, and Doing Sociology


Connidis, Ingrid Arnet, McMullin, Julie Ann, Journal of Marriage and Family


Key Words: agency, diversity, interpretive sociology, social structure.

We are excited and encouraged by the enthusiasm that our work on ambivalence has generated. Considering the comments in confidential reviews and, now, the public responses that you have just read has been intellectually stimulating. We thank all of the reviewers for the time and effort that they spent reviewing and responding to our work, especially Sara Curran for her innovative and challenging feedback. Like our colleagues, we commend Alexis Walker for proposing this opportunity for open debate and exchange. The willingness to publish theoretical work and to foster discussion supports the goal of articles such as ours to move the understanding of family relations forward by building ideas.

Clearly, we are not the first to suggest ambivalence as a useful concept in the study of family relations. However, ours is among very few attempts to develop ambivalence as a distinctly sociological concept connected to strong theoretical traditions in our discipline. Our response addresses four key issues. First, we hope to put to rest the notion that ambivalence can somehow be subsumed within the solidarity model. Then we discuss three interlocking issues related to our thinking about family relationships: assumptions about "science," the distinction between theory and ideology, and views about what constitutes the "stuff" of sociology. We use this approach to highlight fundamental differences (and sometimes, parallels) between our views of theory, society, and doing sociology and those of our commentators. This thematic approach also minimizes repetition and maintains our focus on major points. Before exploring these four issues, we make a summary comment or two about each of the responses.

Vern Bengtson, Roseann Giarrusso, Beth Mabry, and Merril Silverstein have launched a defence of the solidarity model more than a critique of our conception of ambivalence. Nonetheless, their discussion indicates serious misunderstandings about ambivalence and a quite different perspective from ours about family relations, science, and theory. Kurt Luscher is in fundamental agreement with us about the value of ambivalence as a concept for studying intergenerational relations, but he takes exception to some of our interpretations of his work with Pillemer (Lubscher & Pillemer, 1998), espouses some assumptions about science and theory that we do not share, and presents his own typology on ambivalence. His closing outlook suggests the promise and growing relevance of ambivalence to studying ever more diverse family relations. Finally, Sara Curran provides a good example of how attempts to think in new ways, as we have tried to do in presenting a sociological conception of ambivalence, can prompt others to take off with an idea in both expected and unexpected directions. Despite some points of divergence, she shares with us the value of theorizing before empirical evaluation, provides a sound summary of our article, and discusses motivation and accountability as ways of extending our conceptualization of ambivalence.

AMBIVALENCE AND SOLIDARITY: COMPATIBILITY? YES. CO-OPTATION? No.

Rather than rehash the history and shortcomings of solidarity as a concept, we focus on the assertion by Bengtson and his colleagues that ambivalence can somehow be subsumed within the solidarity model. Counter to their claim (Bengston, Giarrusson, Mabry, & Silverstein, 2002, p. 570), we do not suggest that ambivalence is incompatible with solidarity. This is largely because we do not consider them to be on the same plane. We develop a theoretical context for the sensitizing concept of ambivalence as a motivator of action (negotiating relationships). In contrast, solidarity is a set of operational definitions that reduces to six variables that may or may not vary together (in other words, may covary or operate independently).

Theoretical Concepts Versus Measures

The longitudinal, multigenerational data produced by the research projects at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, are among the best in the world. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Ambivalence, Family Ties, and Doing Sociology
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.