Since 2000, my work has focused on exploring the theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of an elaborated concept of ambivalence in different areas of life and disciplines. The starting point was the presentation of the scope of the concept of ambivalence for understanding the relationships between parents and their adult children as an alternative to the then dominant orientation towards the idea of generational solidarity (
5.51). Supported by this, a critical attitude to this dominant orientation developed quickly (
4.60,
4.62,
5.58,
5.59).
This was followed by sociological analysis of knowledge, starting from the introduction of the concept of ambivalence in 1910 by the psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler and its subsequent reception in many fields of life and, accordingly, in several scientific disciplines. I propose to derive a differentiated, elaborated understanding from these developments (
5.88). In the meantime, I consider the following elements as fundamental:
Ambivalences can be understood as
modes of human experience; that is, of thinking, feeling, and willing. They are found especially in intimate forms of life, at turning points in the course of life, and in general patterns of action (
4.84,
4.91,
4.92,
4.100). Examples are complex actions, including roles such as motherhood, or complex behavior patterns such as shame, trauma, or keeping secrets. There is also talk of ambivalence in relation to general social developments.
Experiences of ambivalence are structurally based on the fact that polar opposites or differences are perceived simultaneously in people's relationships and in their relationships with social, cultural and ecological environments, and they are more or less explicitly expressed.
Dynamically, this occurs intermittently or permanently in movements of back and forth, hesitation, procrastination, pausing, reconsideration, and doubt. To characterize this complex dynamic, I propose the term vacillating, originating from the Latin "vacillare," meaning trembling.
People differ, depending on how they process this experience, in their
sensibility for ambivalences, as well as in their ability to communicate them to others and to perceive it in others (
4.99).
Sensibility for ambivalences is particularly relevant in professional relationships. It also manifests itself in aesthetic activities like writing, painting, composing, performing music, and dancing as well as how such aesthetic activities and works are perceived and interpreted.
The
relevance of experiences of ambivalence can be seen in the fact that they accentuate the development and unfolding of important facets of
individualidentity, i.e. of the self, furthermore, of
collective identities by confirming, modifying and or questioning them. This includes texts in the fields of art (cf. 1.18,
4.37) music (
4.90) and literature (
4.96,
4.99).
In practice, it is important to distinguish between constructive and destructive experiences of ambivalence, i.e. those that are conducive to the shaping of relationships and the articulation of identity, and those that prove to be burdensome and detrimental.
Since experiences of ambivalence can be observed in different fields of life, they stimulate and enrich transdisciplinary comparisons and knowledge transfers.
Ambivalences can be attributed to specific modes of logic, i.e. both for and against as opposed to either-or.
Because of the concept's openness to meaning, analysis of ambivalence can in turn generate experiences of ambivalence.
Ambivalence quickly attracted attention and is accepted as a complementary or alternative perspective. Remarkably, this is also true in Eastern cultures.
The concept is useful to illustrate the fundamental change in the family and its definition as a result of developments in reproductive medicine (
5.94).
I propose the following definition of ambivalence: Ambivalence, from a social and cultural science perspective, refers to experiences of vascillation between polar differences of feeling, thinking,willing and social structures. Their pragmatic scope is evident in the accentuation of facets of individual and collective identities and in the associated characteristic patterns of relationships between people, to cultural objects, in the search for meaning in actions, related decisions and the associated applications of power and domination.
This understanding of ambivalence can be characterized as a sociological-pragmatic "middle range perspective," that is, as dynamically mediating between theory, empiricism, and practice. It differs from other understandings, especially those in which ambivalence is spoken of substantively; that is, as an independent force or as an acting entity. However, the concepts of ambivalence can also be used in the context of analyzing the dynamics of socio-cultural developments.
See also the memos
7.1 and
7.2.