A Different Question: Humanity, Divinity, and the Gifts of Ambivalence
Susana McCollom, MA Theology, MA Sociology, Director, Ethnography & Workplace Chaplaincy, Institute for Spirituality & Health
In this paper, I share findings from a qualitative research study on attitudes toward ambivalence. Between 2015-2016, 50 in-depth interviews were conducted with Thought Leaders across U.S. cities. Over half of participants specialize in fields of psychology, spirituality, and religion; others are engaged in corporate, non-profit, arts, humanities, and city government work.
Most participants describe a contemporary society that thrives on being busy, sometimes as an intentional way to avoid intimacy. A Marketing Executive says: “People listen to you as long as you talk about surface stuff. But when it gets into personal or deeper subjects, they get uncomfortable. Society doesn’t want to go there.”
As part of this landscape, there is a resounding opinion that American society is not a fan of ambivalence, a condition that relentlessly calls us into raw corners of anxiety and self-doubt. In fact, several participants believe U.S. society perceives ambivalence as a weakness, and even immoral. Which is why, when it comes to ambivalence, people hold their cards close.
Thought Leader narratives reveal that ambivalence-related suffering actually stems from related factors including: 1) Self-Selected Isolation; 2) Hyper-focusing on a decision; and 3) A desire to control life outcomes. Persistent distraction and worry may be a small price to pay for ambivalence, compared to accounts of sleeplessness, isolation, back pain, stomach problems, depression, and fatigue.
Noted physical health effects of ambivalence are shown by other research, including a 2015 study on the absence of health marital health benefits brought by marital ambivalence.
On the other side of the suffering lies a different perspective. Personally, most participants prefer to dialogue with individuals who self-identify as ambivalent-leaning than with those who are non-ambivalent. There is expressed admiration for those who are willing to wrestle with such tension.
Several Thought Leaders within fields of spirituality and psychology believe ambivalence is an essential part of what it means to be human. A Buddhist Practitioner says, “It is our nature to be ambivalent,” while a Chaplaincy Director at a major U.S. Hospital says, “We live in flesh and in spirit. In love and in hate. To use a Paulist image, we live with the tension of being a saint and a devil.”
By denying our experience, we are essentially denying our nature, where our humanity conjoins with our spirit. The high social value placed on certainty distracts from the deeper experience asking for attention. Ambivalence is not about a decision; it is about asking different, more compassionate questions, sharing our struggles, and trusting in a force greater than ourselves – such as love, divinity, or a universal benevolence.
Findings indicate that we can make a collective impact by accompanying another in the intimacy of this space, through compassionate inquiry and listening. Practitioners within medical, health, and religious settings are in a unique position to cultivate a healing relationship; reconcile internal tensions; inspire curiosity (in lieu of judgment); and help transform suffering into meaning. By delving into the intimacy of another person’s life, we also uncover that of our own.
In this paper, I share findings from a qualitative research study on attitudes toward ambivalence. Between 2015-2016, 50 in-depth interviews were conducted with Thought Leaders across U.S. cities. Over half of participants specialize in fields of psychology, spirituality, and religion; others are engaged in corporate, non-profit, arts, humanities, and city government work.
Most participants describe a contemporary society that thrives on being busy, sometimes as an intentional way to avoid intimacy. A Marketing Executive says: “People listen to you as long as you talk about surface stuff. But when it gets into personal or deeper subjects, they get uncomfortable. Society doesn’t want to go there.”
As part of this landscape, there is a resounding opinion that American society is not a fan of ambivalence, a condition that relentlessly calls us into raw corners of anxiety and self-doubt. In fact, several participants believe U.S. society perceives ambivalence as a weakness, and even immoral. Which is why, when it comes to ambivalence, people hold their cards close.
Thought Leader narratives reveal that ambivalence-related suffering actually stems from related factors including: 1) Self-Selected Isolation; 2) Hyper-focusing on a decision; and 3) A desire to control life outcomes. Persistent distraction and worry may be a small price to pay for ambivalence, compared to accounts of sleeplessness, isolation, back pain, stomach problems, depression, and fatigue.
Noted physical health effects of ambivalence are shown by other research, including a 2015 study on the absence of health marital health benefits brought by marital ambivalence.
On the other side of the suffering lies a different perspective. Personally, most participants prefer to dialogue with individuals who self-identify as ambivalent-leaning than with those who are non-ambivalent. There is expressed admiration for those who are willing to wrestle with such tension.
Several Thought Leaders within fields of spirituality and psychology believe ambivalence is an essential part of what it means to be human. A Buddhist Practitioner says, “It is our nature to be ambivalent,” while a Chaplaincy Director at a major U.S. Hospital says, “We live in flesh and in spirit. In love and in hate. To use a Paulist image, we live with the tension of being a saint and a devil.”
By denying our experience, we are essentially denying our nature, where our humanity conjoins with our spirit. The high social value placed on certainty distracts from the deeper experience asking for attention. Ambivalence is not about a decision; it is about asking different, more compassionate questions, sharing our struggles, and trusting in a force greater than ourselves – such as love, divinity, or a universal benevolence.
Findings indicate that we can make a collective impact by accompanying another in the intimacy of this space, through compassionate inquiry and listening. Practitioners within medical, health, and religious settings are in a unique position to cultivate a healing relationship; reconcile internal tensions; inspire curiosity (in lieu of judgment); and help transform suffering into meaning. By delving into the intimacy of another person’s life, we also uncover that of our own.