When Ambivalence is a Strength
Ambivalence is not good or bad by itself, but depends on how you use it. Much psychological literature categorizes ambivalence as a negative trait or affect state. For example, ambivalent attachment styles are thought to be maladaptive, and stem from receiving inconsistent attention from one’s caregiver during their childhood. Ambivalent attitudes are thought to be “uncomfortable” and are often used as synonymous with “anxious.” I have read descriptions of ambivalent people having a “detached personality” and a “fearful nature.”
While ambivalent thoughts or feelings can be a negative experience, that does not mean ambivalence is a negative trait, or exclusively contributes to negative affect. First, the word ambivalence was coined by a Swiss psychologist, Eugene Bleue, in 1910. It was adopted from “equivalence,” but switching out “equi-” root with “ambi-.” Equivalence means something like “the condition of having equal value.” Interestingly, the word ambivalent comes from the latin root “ambi-” meaning “both” or “on both sides.” “Valentia” means “strength.” In casual usage, ambivalence typically means something like “simultaneous conflicting feelings.” While I recognize that the casual usage is opposite in meaning to “equivalent,” it is worth noting that it’s roots denote a similar meaning as “equivalent.” It is also worth noting that Bleue’s contribution to psychology is the identification of ambivalence as a trait in schizophrenic patients. In this context, ambivalent denotes “the coexistence of mutually exclusive contradictions within the psyche.”
Feeling ambivalent and stressed out by life's paradoxes is a common experience of well-adjusted and high-functioning individuals. In Deborah Luepnitz’s book Schopenhauer's Porcupines, she tells a story about porcupines as a metaphor for human intimacy. When winter comes, a troop of porcupines may huddle closer together for warmth. The closer they get, the greater the likelihood they poke each other with their quills. Just like porcupines in the cold, we need to risk pain in order to experience closeness.
Everyone knows this to be true. Arguably, if you are not ambivalent towards intimacy, then what does that say about you? Sex is full of things that both excite and disgust us. If one makes everything about sex distgusting or everything exciting, then they are missing something. In some languages, there is no word to distinguish between fear and surprise. This makes sense because nervousness and excitement have virtually identical physiological effects. Intimacy, sex, nervousness, excitement— these experiences can and do trigger a lot of ambivalence in people. The fact that the “evidence-based practices” characterize ambivalence is something to be corrected may be misguided.
When you feel more than one way about something, then it is possible that each way you feel has some truth to it. When each perspective has value, you actually have the freedom to choose which one to act upon. Agency can be paralyzing, which is maybe why ambivalence is sometimes described as anxiety. It does not have to be that way. You can combine your ambivalence with committed action. By having access to two or more perspectives and outcomes, you are more free to choose the ones you want. You’re not dismissing the other perspectives when you make that choice to think and act and feel in accordance with only one. Ambivalence, when understood this way, is a superpower. It’s about having access to multiple perspectives and the ability to choose the one that serves you best, moment-to-moment.
If ambivalence has you down, or if you are curious about this topic, reach out to me for a free consultation.