Solidarity, Conflict, and Ambivalence: Complementary or Competing Perspectives on

Intergenerational Relationships?
Author(s): Vern Bengtson, Roseann Giarrusso, J. Beth Mabry and Merril Silverstein
Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Aug., 2002), pp. 568-576
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3599924
Accessed: 27-08-2017 19:02 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3599924?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family

This content downloaded from 194.166.108.60 on Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 VERN BENGTSON AND ROSEANN GIARRUSSO,
University of Southern California

J. BETH MABRY*
Indiana University of Pennsylvania

MERRIL SILVERSTEIN**
University of Southern California

Solidarity, Conflict, and Ambivalence:

Complementary or Competing Perspectives

on Intergenerational Relationships?

Ambivalence is an apt term to describe the con- in close-but-distant intimate relationships. Nor
tradictions we experience in our intimate social should the notion of ambivalence be a surprise to
relationships. We can feel it: the paradox between family researchers because they examine often con-
closeness and distance, the push and pull between flicting data concerning the antecedents and con-
intimacy and setting boundaries. Ambivalence is sequences of family processes on some outcome.
a phenomenological reality, a universal human ex- But does the concept of intergenerational ambiv-
perience, a reflection of the dilemmas we face in alence, proposed initially by Liischer and Pillemer
close relationships. (1998) and now expanded by Connidis and
That ambivalent feelings characterize family in- McMullin, provide something significantly new-
teractions will be no surprise to family therapists a more useful way to conceptualize and theorize
and psychotherapists because much of their prac- family relationships than previous conceptualiza-
tice involves helping people disentangle difficulties tions have achieved? If so, how should the concept
of ambivalence be refined and operationalized in
order to provide a better understanding of family
Andrus Gerontology Center, University of Southern Cali-
relationships? How does it relate to other, more es-
fornia, 3715 McClintock Avenue, Room 208, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-0191 (bengtson@usc.edu). tablished, concepts such as what has become
known as the intergenerational solidarity paradigm
*Department of Sociology, Indiana University of Pennsyl-
(Lowenstein, Katz, Prilutzky, & Hassoen, 2001)?
vania, 102 McElhaney Hall, 44 North Walk, Indiana, PA
15705. These are some of the questions raised by Con-
nidis and McMullin in their examination of "So-
"Andrus Gerontology Center, University of Southern Cal- ciological ambivalence and family ties." These
ifornia, 3715 McClintock Avenue, Room 208, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-0191.
are theoretical issues important to examine. We
congratulate Journal of Marriage and Family in
highlighting this theoretical discussion for public
Key Words: affect, ambivalence, conflict, intergenerational
relations, solidarity, theory. debate. We congratulate Connidis and McMullin

568 Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (August 2002): 568-576

This content downloaded from 194.166.108.60 on Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Solidarity, Conflict, and Ambivalence 569

thosethe
for their efforts to address relationships whose resources of
ambiguities may vary
the ac-
intergenerational ambivalence concept
cording to their social andusto
status. They remind that
strengthen its utility. Such
peopleexplication
of color, women, themoves the
elderly, and the poor
debate forward and will are
advance themore
likely to encounter building of
structured ambiva-
theory in family research.
lence than their privileged counterparts and they
are likely to have fewer options in negotiating that
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE AMBIVALENCE CONCEPT ambivalence. Connidis and McMullin's observa-
tions are consistent with a large body of previous
What is ambivalence in intergenerational relation- theoretical and empirical work in the sociology of
ships? Ltischer and Pillemer (1998) delineate two emotions, stress and coping, mental health, and
types: (a) sociological or structural ambivalence, the social structure and personality tradition of so-
which stems from an individual's location in the
cial psychology. This literature informs the study of
social structure, and (b) psychological or individ-
the negotiation processes surrounding contradictory
ual ambivalence, which refers to the feelings or
expectations, demands, and feelings within the con-
sentiments experienced by individuals when faced
text of social structure (for useful reviews see
with structural ambivalence. Their general defi-
Aneshensel, 1992; House, 1981; Pearlin, 1989;
nition of ambivalence, "... contradictions in re-
Smith-Lovin, 1995; Thoits, 1989, 1995).
lationships between parents and adult offspring
A second contribution is identifying aspects of
that cannot be reconciled" (Liischer & Pillemer,
structured ambivalence that have social policy im-
p. 416), incorporates both types.
plications. Because ambivalence is embedded in
Connidis and McMullin applaud Ltischer and
Pillemer for going beyond previous conceptuali- social structures, fundamental changes in struc-
zations of intergenerational relations that have tured social relations that may be achieved
been typified as wholly harmonious or wholly through social policy might relieve some of the
conflictual. However, they suggest that Ltischer structurally induced ambivalence. Connidis and
and Pillemer do not go far enough. Drawing on McMullin point to structural changes in work-
themes from critical theory (a rubric incorporating place policies (family leave, for instance) as an
themes from Marxism, feminism, and the Frank- attempt to reduce gender-based inequalities and
furt school), Connidis and McMullin argue that family work role conflicts and note that, despite
ambivalence must be reconceptualized as "social- such structural change, it remains largely women
ly structured contradictions made manifest in in- who make use of these policies. This suggests that
teraction" (p. 565). They assert that their concept cultural norms for gendered roles have not caught
of structured ambivalence is distinct from Liischer up with structural changes in workplace polices,
and Pillemer's structural or sociological ambiva- reflecting a phenomenon that Ogburn (1950)
lence. The Connidis and McMullin reconceptual- termed "cultural lag" to denote how cultural ide-
ization of ambivalence as socially structured em- ologies formed under earlier conditions may con-
phasizes that: (a) ambivalence is a feature of tinue to influence people's behavior under
structured sets of social relationships within which changed conditions. Thus, structured ambivalence
certain groups are privileged, (b) individuals ex- points to ways that institutions can help to reduce
ercise agency (to the extent possible) when deal-
ambivalence through policy. However, the effect
ing with ambivalence, (c) the negotiation of am-
of policy change on ambivalence may depend on
bivalence takes place through social interaction,
individuals navigating contradictions for them-
and (d) conflict is an inevitable feature of inter-
selves.
personal relationships, including intergenerational
Third, Connidis and McMullin remind us that
relationships.
Connidis and McMullin's construct of struc- family research that focuses only on harmony, or
only on conflict, is unidimensional and restrictive.
tured ambivalence adds to our understanding of
family relationships. First, by bringing in critical They call for research that incorporates dimen-
theory, they normalize the occurrence of conflict sions of both cohesion and conflict. They are cor-
rect. There is a dialectic between dimensions of
in intergenerational relations, suggesting it is a
backdrop to all social interaction. They raise im- solidarity and aspects of conflict. In our own
portant issues about managing and resolving con- work, as will be discussed further on, we have
tradictions and conflict, emphasizing that family data that has caused us to revise our conceptual
relationships are negotiated by individuals within model to incorporate both solidarity and conflict.

This content downloaded from 194.166.108.60 on Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 570 Journal of Marriage and Family

PROBLEMS WITH THE AMBIVALENCE CONCEPT ing modifications in social structure" (Turner,
1988, p. 8), perhaps including ways that members
Despite Connidis and McMullin's elaboration of of status groups (gender, ethnic, and age groups,
Ltischer and Pillemer's earlier version, the more for example) are allocated into different structural
basic question is whether structured ambivalence roles. Thus, it is not clear that structured ambiv-
is so different from prior theory and conceptual- alence represents something distinct and separate
izations, for example, symbolic interactionist ap- from the broader theories (critical theory and
proaches to role theory (Stryker & Statham, structural symbolic interactionist role theory)
1985), as to require its own distinctive conceptu- from which it draws.
alization. Connidis and McMullin argue that struc- Connidis and McMullin suggest that their ap-
tured ambivalence goes beyond the concepts of proach to understanding family relationships is
role conflict and role-set conflict (Merton, 1957) needed because the two dominant perspectives,
because it emphasizes individual agency. They solidarity or conflict, reflect a normative view on
point out, as Dennis Wrong (1961) did so long the one hand and a problematized view on the
ago, that when faced with conflicting roles or other. They argue that the ambivalence approach
norms, people do not simply select one competing is non-normative and does not emphasize prob-
set of expectations over another, thereby main- lems, thus overcoming the shortcomings of the
taining the status quo. Nor does everyone in a solidarity and conflict approaches. However, this
society share the same expectations for a given is not the case. Ambivalence is inherently nor-
role. Rather cultural beliefs, which may vary by mative, particularly sociological ambivalence that
group membership, shape the expectations that ensues from conflicting normative expectations at
pattern relationships among roles and statuses. both the cultural and structural levels. Ambiva-
Their concept of structured ambivalence is lence is also essentially problematic, otherwise it
strikingly similar to symbolic interactionist ver- would not require negotiation and resolution, cre-
sions of role theory (Stryker & Statham, 1985). ate discomfort, and stem from conflicting or con-
Structural symbolic interactionists have long ar- tradictory needs and demands. Hence, ambiva-
gued that individuals do not simply engage in lence shares the shortcomings Connidis and
role-taking, but rather in role-making (Turner, McMullin point out in other approaches.
1988). That is, they act with agency. They nego- Connidis and McMullin suggest that the soli-
tiate how they enact their roles, altering the way darity model is incompatible with ambivalence.
they perform a role or abandoning a role alto- Yet their view may be based on an inaccurate rep-
gether (Schooler, 1994), and at the same time, resentation of the solidarity model. Although the
they encounter role conflict in organizational set- ambivalence construct is a welcome and poten-
tings-where role expectations are more clearly tially fruitful addition to understanding families,
defined-individuals do experience role conflict we argue further on that it complements, rather
or role-set conflict (Biddle & Thomas, 1966). It is than replaces, the solidarity model and the conflict
unclear how this aspect of structured ambivalence model.
(agency) goes beyond the contributions already
made by structural symbolic interactionist role
CLEARING UP MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT THE
theory.
SOLIDARITY MODEL
Similarity between the structured ambivalence
approach and structural symbolic interactionist Connidis and McMullin sensitize us to the impor-
role theory is also found with regard to social tant issue of contextualizing family relationships
change. Connidis and McMullin suggest that within multiple social statuses and roles. Like
"when substantial numbers of individuals who Liischer and Pillemer (1998) before them, they
share a similar position attempt to negotiate thesuggest that ambivalence is something different
ambivalence created by current structural arrange-
and distinct from both family solidarity and family
ments, there is the potential for change" (p. 565).
conflict models. We feel there are ways that the
Symbolic interactionists also state that changes concept
in of ambivalence can complement existing
fulfilling normative expectations through negoti-solidarity and conflict frameworks. It is first nec-
ating contradictions can alter the social structure
essary to address the oversimplified characteriza-
as the changes "become institutionalized astions a of the solidarity and conflict perspectives on
changed set of role expectations. Each role change
family relationships to demonstrate this comple-
mentarity. The solidarity model seems to have
has ramifications through its role set, with result-

This content downloaded from 194.166.108.60 on Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Solidarity, Conflict, and Ambivalence 571

been twice misunderstood by on

cessive solidarity Connidis
one dimension, such andas social
McMullin: first in termssupport,
of dimensionality,
may induce dependency and result and in
lower solidarity on
second in the underlying polarities ofanother dimension, such as
relationships
it taps. This signals the need
greaterfor clarification
conflict. and ef-
Affection has many positive
explication of the multidimensional
fects but at extremenature
levels it can of the
be suffocating
solidarity model. and inhibit healthy development (Silverstein et al.,
First, claims that the solidarity model
1996). Thus, rather than beingis based
a singular and pos-
merely on positive aspectsitive
of family
view relationships
of family relationships, aspects of sol-
wrongly characterize theidarity
solidarity
may be arrayedmodel
in a varietyas uni-
of constella-
dimensional. On the contrary, each
tions, some ofrelative
reflecting theharmony,
multiple
many in
dimensions of solidarity which is distinct
some dimensions(orthogonal)
are positive whereas oth-
and each represents a dialectic: intimacy
ers are negative, and some in whichand too dis-
much of
tance (affectual solidarity), agreement
one type and dissent
of solidarity is harmful.
(consensual solidarity), dependence Apparent paradoxes andin theautonomy
simultaneous pres-
(functional solidarity), integration ence of positive sentiment andisolation
and conflict in inter-
(associational solidarity), generational opportunities and
relations reflect barri-
the emotional com-
ers (structural solidarity),plexities familism and individu-
of family life that are also distributed in
alism (normative solidarity). structuredWe suspect
ways. Research by that
Giarrussotheet al.
critique of the solidarity model as normative re-
(1990) indicates that parents are better able to sep-
flects a reaction to the positive, idealized conno-
arate their feelings of affect and conflict for their
tations provoked by the term solidarity. This is
children than children are able to separate their
the legacy of a model developed more than 30
experience of affect and conflict for their parents.
years ago. But any good theory adapts and adjusts
In other words, parents are more likely than their
to changes in the field and with the inclusion of
children to experience inconsistency in their ex-
conflict (Bengtson, Rosenthal, & Burton, 1995;
perience of affect and conflict in the relation-
Giarrusso, Silverstein, & Bengtson, 1990) and
ship-a phenomenon akin to ambivalence. There-
with a focus on the negative effects of solidarity
fore, in answering the question of ambivalence, a
(Silverstein, Chen, & Heller, 1996), the solidarity
solidarity-conflict model is well-suited to investi-
model has kept pace with recent empirical and
gating structured sorts of variation in the distri-
theoretical developments.
bution of mixed and contradictory feelings. Fur-
Thus, despite the connotation of solidarity as
thermore, hypothesis testing is possible to better
harmony and sunshine, this model's view of fam-
understand the source of this diversity. Theories
ilies is positive only when the dimensions of fam-
of the intergenerational stake phenomenon have
ily relationships are positively assessed. Converse-
been used to explain these data: generational po-
ly, when family relations are not positive, the
sition shapes the subjective meaning attributed to
solidarity model reveals them as negative on spe-
cific dimensions. The words the same relationship and
positive (Giarrusso, Stallings, &
negative
refer to valences along a dimensional thermometer
Bengtson, 1995).
and not to value judgments Indeed
or a predictions
disjuncture between any of the six
related
to outcomes. For example, family relationships dimensions of solidarity could be labeled ambiv-
that are more negative on a particular dimension alence. This type of ambivalence has been dem-
may consist of some people onstrated
who in the
areworkcontent
of Silverstein and
toBengtson
be
more tenuously connected (1997) in their development
along of typologies of in-
that dimension,
and thus, exhibit satisfaction with their family tergenerational relationships. Parrott, Giarrusso,
re-
lations. and Bengtson (1994) also found that dimensions
Second, we take issue with Connidis and of solidarity other than affect are negatively re-
McMullin's critique that solidarity "minimize[s] lated to conflict and to conflict tactics. High levels
the diversity of family experience" (p. 560). This of associational and functional solidarity were as-
too is a misapprehension of the solidarity frame- sociated with high levels of conflict as well as the
work. Because solidarity is multidimensional, use of conflict tactics between parents and adult
configurations of aspects of family relationships children. This study suggests that mixed feelings
are virtually unlimited. The dimensions of soli- are not limited to a tension between affect and
darity are synergistically related to one another in conflict but contradictions exist between and
ways that can be quite complex. For instance, ex- among the other dimensions of solidarity.

This content downloaded from 194.166.108.60 on Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 572 Journal of Marriage and Family

SOLIDARITY-CONFLICT rize (typically linear) relationships between vari-

AS A TYPOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT
The model (or paradigm) of intergenerational soli-
darity is fluid and open to revision; we are continu-
ing to develop it as we analyze data from intergen-
erational families. As Connidis and McMullin imply,
the time is ripe for revision of the solidarity model.
We must incorporate into it the fact of family con-
flict; we should also recognize the probability of am-
bivalent feelings. But first we should look at the smoothed to better understand larger social regu-
development of typologies of intergenerational re- larities.
lationships.
Solidarity is a classification scheme that sys-
tematically identifies the building blocks of inter-
generational relations as the core elements of sen-
timent, structure, and behavior. Why is this
useful? Turner and Beeghley (1981) note that ty-
pological explanations are useful in sciences that
have not yet developed a unified theory. Classi-
fication schemes are a prelude to scientific under-
standing and explanation. "Until one knows the
pattern or configuration of a phenomena, it may
be impossible to know what requires further ex-
planation" (Turner & Beeghley, p. 5). Indeed, the
dimensions of solidarity represent the core social
elements of family life. These dimensions can be
organized in an almost infinite number of arrange-
ments that can suit many theoretical orientations,
including functionalist, conflict, and critical theo-
ries.
However, typologies are not assembled chaot-
ically. Typologies must represent a limited num-
ber of configurations that reflect the contours of
social life, without being overwhelmed by its
ables, and to relegate deviant cases to the status
of empirical noise. In qualitative analysis ideo-
graphic explanations can be derived and the pro-
cess of negotiation in families can be understood
in more depth. In this sense, qualitative methods
are better at understanding how the complex ne-
gotiations result in particular family forms. Quan-
titative approaches often simplify complexity so
that the rough edges of social reality can be
COMPLEMENTARITY BETWEEN AMBIVALENCE
AND THE SOLIDARITY-CONFLICT MODEL
We believe that a common set of dimensions is
necessary to serve as a common metric for mak-
ing comparisons and describing family relation-
ships. Contrary to Connidis and McMullin's as-
sertions that the solidarity model is founded on
normative views of the family, the dimensions of
solidarity stem from theory and research in the
social psychology of small groups (Bengtson &
Roberts, 1991; Bengtson & Schrader, 1982). The
solidarity model was forged on the notion that
broader social structures and larger social contexts
affect family life and relationships-particularly
those related to aging, cohort status, and kinship
position. Indeed, the solidarity framework devel-
oped in response to concerns that widespread
changes at every level of society were affecting
the family and a means of registering such effects
was needed, whether effects were for better or
worse.

complexity, to be interpretable. In the natural The solidarity framework represents a no

world of families, larger cultural, societal, and clature for family integration in its vario
economic contexts in which families are embed-
pects. It is about the ties that bind famili
ded proscribe that families take on coherent gether, an issue of tremendous concern ov
forms. Less common forms-those that have less last quarter century as family forms have b
cultural coherence-are unstable and inherently more diverse and family norms more ambi
short-lived. Thus, a relationship maintained across The evidence gathered using solidarity as a
3,000 miles is unlikely to involve weekly face-to- mon metric for assessing the nature of inte
face contact and most estranged intergenerational erational relationships suggests that, indeed,
relationships have little transfers of resources tural location and sociocultural changes af
across generations. families (Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997).
Marginal cases that do not fit the more com- The ambivalence construct may be usef
mon patterns are considered deviant and, like any the life course perspective, as Connidi
outliers, are prime subjects for in-depth qualitative McMullin suggest. We believe it can also se
study. Indeed, some of the underlying critique of augment the solidarity and conflict appro
solidarity possibly reflects epistemological differ- For instance, ambivalence may emerge at t
ences between quantitative and qualitative meth- tersection of solidarity and conflict, as evid
ods in the social sciences. Quantitative science has our recent developments stressing contrad
tended to examine central tendencies, to summa- and paradoxical aspects of family life (Silve

This content downloaded from 194.166.108.60 on Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Solidarity, Conflict, and Ambivalence 573

& Bengtson, 1997). Indeed, an

study of operational
intergenerational defi-
relations for more than
nition of ambivalence can be derived from the three decades and has proven to have substantial
core dimensions of the solidarity paradigm. Dis- explanatory power across a variety of investiga-
engaged family relationships characterized by low tions that include diverse cultures (Lowenstein,
affect may reflect estrangement (high conflict, low Katz, Prilutzky, & Mehlhausen-Hassoen, 2001).
contact), conflict (high conflict, high contact), or For instance, parents of lower socioeconomic sta-
neutral civility (low conflict, high contact). Yet the tus tend to have less contact from adult children
operationalization of ambivalence is remarkably and live further from them (Greenwell & Bengt-
consistent with the solidarity-conflict model at the son, 1997), and gender differences are apparent in
microlevel of family life. By adding in other di- sons' and daughters' distinct motivations for con-
mensions from the solidarity model, we can test tact with their parents (Lawton, Silverstein &
these specifications quite formally. To be sure, the Bengtson, 1994). Social trends like divorce might
concept of ambivalence expands and challenges lead to more older individuals lacking support be-
the solidarity paradigm to go beyond its theoreti- cause functional solidarity (support, financial, and
cal coverage to include social structural factors instrumental) is lower between adult children and
and institutional domains (e.g., economic system, divorced parents (White, 1992). However, high
polity) that lie apart from but intersect with family rates of remarriage bode well as custodial mothers
life. For example, the impact of such structural who remarry strengthen parent-child solidarity
forces as women's work force participation or the (White, 1994). Even worldwide social changes af-
retrenchment of the welfare state on family dy- fect families in ways that register using the soli-
namics and qualities of family relationships can darity model. The effects of globalization corre-
be investigated through their effects on dimen- spond to declines in parent care and weaker
sions of family solidarity. normative solidarity (Bengtson & Putney, 2000),
Can the concept of ambivalence be reconciled but also in greater empathy and affection (Koy-
with the solidarity-conflict paradigm? Is the con- ano, 1996).
cept of ambivalence a component of the solidari- We have shown above that solidarity conflict
ty-conflict perspective, is it in competition with it, incorporates the concept of ambivalence. Using
or does it complement it? First, we see no com- the language of Kuhn (1962), we ask: Even if the
pelling reason that ambivalence and solidarity are concept of ambivalence is a central, perhaps axi-
in competition. We have already shown that am- omatic, part of family life, does this cause the sol-
bivalence is a useful concept that is actively pur- idarity paradigm to face a crisis of legitimacy? In
sued by researchers employing the solidarity-con- the Kuhnian understanding of science, established
flict model. Connidis and McMullin indicate that explanatory schemes that are increasingly less
their framing of ambivalence prompts an exami- able to explain empirical data are overtaken by
nation of how it is that some family relationships their emerging competitors if they can explain
become "either relatively harmonious or relative- more phenomena. A fundamental question raised
ly conflicted" (p. 559) through the negotiation of by Connidis and McMullin's approach is whether
ambivalence. It seems then that measures of har- the phenomenon of ambivalence can be accounted
mony and conflict from the solidarity-conflict for by the solidarity paradigm as currently expli-
model remain necessary and relevant to examin- cated or revised. Our perspective is that the recent
ing ambivalence in intergenerational relationships. advocacy of ambivalence as a central concept in
Second, the notion of structured ambivalence intergenerational studies has provided an oppor-
has expanded the applicability of the solidarity- tunity for the solidarity paradigm to widen its ex-
conflict model by suggesting institutional sectors planatory breadth.
that intersect with family systems to produce sol- Connidis and McMullin claim the dimensions
idarity-conflict outcomes. Strictly speaking, this of solidarity reflect only outcomes of the ways
type of ambivalence is beyond the intended scope family members negotiate their relationships and
of the intergenerational solidarity-conflict model can provide little useful information about the pro-
but not of its theoretical applicability to substan- cess. But if relationships are not negotiated
tive issues. For instance, scholars may employ the through an iterative process of feedback from oth-
solidarity-conflict model to operationalize empir- er family members concerning association, con-
ical models that test how work-family role strain flict, and exchanges of help and support, then how
affects mental health. else are family relationships negotiated? Even if
Third, the solidarity paradigm has guided the negotiation involves the resolution or accommo-

This content downloaded from 194.166.108.60 on Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 574 Journal of Marriage and Family

dation of role conflictwhy (a form

close relationships of structural
between parents and a
bivalence) it still must adultrevolve
children are related around
to self-esteem? the ne
tiation of existing and future
3. Delineate ambivalence fromsolidarities.
previous theoret- T
process of negotiation ical concepts and acknowledge
implies a temporal their common- proc
of working and reworking relationships
alities. For example, role theory suggests that based
changing contingencies. role conflict will lead to discomfort that will
The life course approach, a central
lead to the re-negotiation componen
of role expectations.
of the solidarity model, How highlights
is that different from structured
the ambiva-
paradox
dynamic equilibrium over lence? the life course. That
change and continuity 4. Demonstrate
are essentialthe difference between ambiva-
aspects of h
families achieve their lence qualities
and negative feelings. in We arethe face
puzzled by
the assertion
events at the microfamily andthat structural constraints on in-
macrohistorical l
dividual agency
els. Longitudinal processes areprovoke ambivalence
the life rather
blood
the solidarity-conflict
thanmodel
frustration, anger,
and and depression.
have This been t
raison d'etre for more than
point 30 years
of the conception of structuredof data
ambiva-
lection from the samelence requires elaboration.
family members. Conn
and McMullin's reformulation of ambivalence can

direct us to some of the key explanatory factors-- But the intergenerational solidarity model also
particularly those resulting from the unequal and requires explication. Here are some suggestions
structured distribution of economic and social for those who use the solidarity model in empir-
capital-that may affect the ability of families to ical analyses:
resolve or live successfully with ambivalence.
This is an important and vital notion that longi- 1. Be aware that intergenerational solidarity is not
tudinal designs are just beginning to approach and a unidimensional concept. It cannot be mea-
that will surely be a promising pathway for future sured by a single indicator. This creates both a
studies of solidarity and conflict to take over the problem and an opportunity for researchers. It
next few decades. is a problem because solidarity cannot be rep-
resented as a single higher order factor of its
DISCUSSION: WHERE WE SHOULD Go constituent dimensions; it is an opportunity be-
FROM HERE cause it requires several dimensions to be as-
sessed, which can lead to the development of
Ambivalence has already been useful as a heuris- useful typologies.
tic and sensitizing concept, reminding us of the2. Be aware that the dimensions of solidarity do
competing and often contradictory features of not operate in monotonic, consistent ways. It
close relationships. However, the concept of am- is not true that "more is better" in intergen-
bivalence will require further development to be use- erational solidarity. Excessive solidarity on one
ful in research and theory. We suggest four ways in dimension (support) may induce dependency
which future development should occur: and thus result in lower solidarity on another
dimension (affect). Moreover, although affec-
1. Show that ambivalence can be measured with tion usually has positive effects (e.g., as a pre-
both validity and reliability. This has not been dictor of longevity [Silverstein and Bengtson,
demonstrated so far. Particularly challenging 1991] or of self-esteem [Roberts and Bengtson,
will be the demonstration of measurement re- 1996]) at extreme levels it can be suffocating
liability. Like cognitive dissonance, ambiva- and inhibit individuals' well-being (Silverstein
lence is likely to generate a feeling of discom- et al., 1996).
fort and consequently be a temporary state, 3. More explicitly incorporate conflict into the
difficult to observe. measurement model. Conflict has been mea-
2. Demonstrate that ambivalence is theoretically sured and assessed in conjunction with soli-
and empirically useful-that it aids in predict- darity for some time now. In our study, the
ing or explaining relationships between vari- Longitudinal Study of Generations, intergen-
ables reflecting important family outcomes. For erational conflict has been assessed in conjunc-
example, how does ambivalence predict the tion with the six dimensions of solidarity since
likelihood of providing support to an elderly 1991. In analyzing these data, we are finding
parent? How does ambivalence help us explain that conflict tends to be orthogonal to affection,

This content downloaded from 194.166.108.60 on Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Solidarity, Conflict, and Ambivalence 575

not that conflict is the same as

intersection of theandabsence
solidarity of
conflict comes am-
affection. bivalence, both psychological and structural.
4. Is the term solidarity too value-laden as a la- But the primacy of solidarity, conflict, or am-
bel? If, so, then it might be a good idea to bivalence are not as important as their behavioral
change the name. If solidarity has overly pos- manifestations and what we do with them in cre-
itivistic or functionalist connotations-partic- ating understanding. Each is a lens through which
ularly for critical theorists-a different term to look at family relationships. Each shows us
may cast off the historical baggage that seems something slightly different about how family
to equate solidarity with sunshine. Solidarity is members attempt to stay together, what pulls them
a model, not a thing, and the term has become apart, and how they negotiate their differences.
reified far beyond what we had originally in-
tended. Perhaps it would be better to call it the NOTE
intergenerational solidarities model.
This research was funded by grants R01AG07977 and
5. Develop typologies that represent ambivalent T32-AG00037 from Social and Behavioral Sciences
family types (those that are inconsistent on di- program of the National Institute on Aging. Each author
mensions of solidarity) and trace the transitions shared equally in the development and writing of this
in these types over time. Connidis and Mc- article. Our thanks to Richard Suzman, Robin Barr, and
Daniel Berch of NIA for their support and encourage-
Mullin point out that solidarity may be the out-
ment. Thanks also to Linda Hall of USC for expert as-
come of the negotiation process through which sistance in processing this article.
family members work out their relationships;
thus it is only through longitudinal analysis REFERENCES
that the dynamic processes of solidarity and
conflict-and the conjunction of the two, plus Aneshensel, C. S. (1992). Social stress: Theory and re-
their resolution-can be traced. search. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 15-38.
Bengtson, V. L., & Putney, N. (2000). Who will care
for tomorrow's elderly? Consequences of population
We conclude that these concepts (ambivalence, aging east and west. In V. L. Bengtson, K-D. Kim,
solidarity, conflict) are not competing, antagonis- G. C. Myers, & K-S. Eun (Eds.), Aging in the east
tic approaches to family relationships. This is notand west: Families, states and the elderly (pp. 263-
286). New York: Springer.
a clash of paradigms, as might be inferred from
Bengtson, V. L., & Roberts, R. E. L. (1991). Intergen-
previous writings about the ambivalence concept. erational solidarity in aging families: An example of
Rather, each of these concepts can be useful in formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and
understanding and explaining intergenerational the Family, 53, 856-870.
ties. Bengtson, V. L., Rosenthal, C. J., & Burton, L. M.
(1995). Paradoxes of families and aging. In R. H.
Which comes first-ambivalence or solidarity? Binstock & L. K. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging
Which is more basic in the understanding of in- and the social sciences (4th ed., pp. 253-282). San
tergenerational relationships? The ambivalence Diego, CA: Academic Press.
advocates (Ltischer and Pillemer; Connidis and Bengtson, V. L., & Schrader, S. S. (1982). Parent-child
relations. In D. Mangen & W. Peterson (Eds.), Hand-
McMullin) argue that ambivalence comes first; book of research instruments in social gerontology
ambivalence is the basic human condition. Soli-
(Vol. 2, pp. 115-185). Minneapolis: University of
darity advocates would argue that solidarity must Minnesota Press.

exist before ambivalent feelings can occur. It
probably does not matter which comes first: more
important is to develop more useful ways to de-
scribe and explain the complexities of parent-child
relationships. If pushed to the wall, we would sug-
gest that solidarity-the bonds of cohesion that
hold a human group together--comes first, onto-
genetically; this is obviously the first stage of hu-
man relationships in infancy, as well as the first
stage of courtship in young adulthood. Then
comes conflict, as the ideal relationship devolves
into the reality of soiled diapers, toilet training,
and power struggles (or disagreements about fi-
nances or communication) later in life. From the
Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J. (1966). Role theory: Con-
cepts and research. New York: Wiley.
Giarrusso, R., Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1990,
November). Affect and conflict between middle-aged
parents and adult children. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of
America, Boston, MA.
Giarrusso, R., Stallings, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1995).
The "intergenerational stake" hypothesis revisited:
Parent-child differences in perceptions of relation-
ships 20 years later. In V. L. Bengtson, K. W. Schaie,
& L. M. Burton (Eds.), Adult intergenerational re-
lations: Effects of societal change (pp. 227-263).
New York: Springer.
Greenwell, L., & Bengtson, V. L. (1997). Geographic
distance and contact between middle-aged children
and their parents: The effects of social class over

This content downloaded from 194.166.108.60 on Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 576 Journal of Marriage and Family

twenty years. Journal of Schooler, C. (1994). A working conceptualization

Gerontology: Social of so- Scienc-
es, 52B(1), S13-S26. cial structure: Mertonian roots and psychological and
House, J. S. (1981). Social sociocultural structure relationships. and
Social Psychology Quar-
personality. I
M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner terly, 57, 262-273. (Eds.), Social psy-
chology: Sociological perspectives, Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1991).
(pp.Do close525-561).
par-
New York: Basic Books. ent-child relations reduce the mortality risk of older
parents? A test of the direct and buffering effects of
Koyano, W. (1996). Filial piety and intergenerational
intergenerational affection. The Journal of Health
solidarity in Japan. Australian Journal on Ageing, 15,
51-56. and Social Behavior, 32, 382-395.
Kuhn, T S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolu- Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1997). Intergenera-
tions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. tional solidarity and the structure of adult child-parent
Lawton, L., Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1994). relationships in American families. American Journal
Affection, social contact, and geographic distance be- of Sociology, 103, 429-460.
tween adult children and their parents. Journal of Silverstein, M., Chen, X., & Heller, K. (1996). Too
Marriage and the Family, 56, 57-68. much of a good thing? Intergenerational social sup-
Lowenstein, A., Katz, R., Prilutzky, D., & Mehlhausen- port and the psychological well-being of aging par-
Hassoen, D. (2001). The intergenerational solidarity ents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 970-
982.
paradigm. In S. O. Daatland & K. Herlofson (Eds.),
Smith-Lovin, L. (1995). The sociology of affect and
Ageing, intergenerational relations, caresystems and
emotion. In G. A. Fine, K. S. Cook, & J. S. House
quality of life: An introduction to the OASIS project
(pp. 11-30). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Social Re- (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psycholo-
search NOVA. gy (pp. 118-148). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stryker, S., & Statham, A. (1985). Symbolic interaction
Ltischer, K., & Pillemer, K. (1998). Intergenerational
and role theory. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),
ambivalence: A new approach to the study of parent-
Handbook of social psychology (pp. 311-378). New
child relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and
York: Random House.
the Family, 60, 413-425.
Thoits, P. A. (1989). The sociology of emotions. Annual
Merton, R. K. (1957). The role set: Problems in socio-
Review of Sociology, 15, 317-342.
logical theory. British Journal of Sociology, 8, 106-
120.
Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social support
processes: Where are we? What next? Journal of
Ogburn, W. E (1950). Social evolution reconsidered. In
Health and Social Behavior, (Special issue), 53-79.
O. D. Duncan (Ed.), On culture and social change: Turner, J. H., & Beeghley, L. (1981). The emergence of
Selected papers (pp. 17-32). Chicago: University of sociological theory. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Chicago Press. Turner, R. H. (1988). Personality in society: Social psy-
Parrott, T. M., Giarrusso, R., & Bengtson, V. L. (1994, chology's contribution to sociology. Social Psychol-
August). What predicts conflict in parent-adult child ogy Quarterly, 51, 1-10.
relationships? Paper presented at the annual meeting White, L. K. (1992). The effect of parental divorce and
of the American Sociological Association, Los An- remarriage on parental support for adult children.
geles, CA. Journal of Family Issues, 13(2), 234-250.
Pearlin, L. I. (1989). The sociological study of stress. White, L. K. (1994). Growing up with single parents
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30, 241-256. and step-parents: Long-term effects on family soli-
Roberts, R. E. L., & Bengtson, V. L. (1996). Affective darity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(4),
ties to parents in early adulthood and self-esteem 935-948.
across 20 years. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 96- Wrong, D. H. (1961). The oversocialized conception of
106. man. American Sociological Review, 26, 183-193.

This content downloaded from 194.166.108.60 on Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms