Beware Ambivalence

Dennis Garvin
Dennis Garvin

Ambivalence is what you feel when your teenage daughter comes home at three in the morning carrying a Gideon Bible. –    Attributed to Gov. George Wallace

Ambivalence. What a great word.  Let’s play with it a little.  First coined in 1916 as a psychological term to describe conflicting feelings or urges, it derives from ambi, meaning ‘opposite,’ and valence, meaning ‘strengths.’  For example, I once knew a man who said he had trouble focusing while reading the Scriptures.  When I asked him how he solved the problem, he said that two shots of tequila helped shut out distractions so he could get into the Good Word.  Understand:  I was the one with the ambivalence, not him.

 However, the word could also properly be used to suggest opposing strengths or natures within a situation, human or otherwise.  So, if we use this word based on its pure denotation, it can refer to the conflict produced by opposing strengths or forces other than psychological.  Let’s go with that.

 Ambivalence can occur in simply being human.  In the Screwtape Letters, the demon Screwtape advises his nephew, Wormwood: ‘Humans are amphibians – half spirit and half animal (The Enemy’s (God) determination to produce such a revolting hybrid was one of the things that determined our Father [i.e., Satan] to withdraw his support from Him).’

Here, Screwtape chooses ‘amphibian’ rather than ambivalent, for literary license.   In this case, humans need to remain ‘middle of the road’ and allow equal expression of their spiritual and their animal natures.  Extremes on either side are undesirable.  Too much animal expression can destroy society.  In the other extreme, we have the people who are ‘so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good.’  Ambi-Valence in this case is healthy.

When it comes to politics, ambi-valence should be almost obligatory.  It is said that most elections are determined by the undecided middle group, with each political party having its share of extreme, undiscerning supporters. I think all of us should become ambivalent about our elected officials, ignoring what they say and merely assessing them on their basis of what occurs; what they vote for and what they permit.

For example, democratic voters must acknowledge that we have modern day Iran as a consequence of the policies of Democratic president, Jimmy Carter.  Republican voters must acknowledge that we have modern day Iraq as a consequence of the policies of a Republican president, George W. Bush.  There is blame on both sides.  Both parties have politicians whose tax records demonstrate that they became wealthy while in ‘public service.’  So the ‘man/woman of the people’ exists only in fantasy.  I think all voters should abandon the two traditional parties and join the Ambivalent party.

It is in society itself, however, that ambivalence is lethal.  Political correctness, however, mandates that we all demonstrate ambivalence.  We are denied legitimate expression of outrage and are forced into silence when pressure groups (themselves free from the constraints of ambivalence) successfully force the adoption of policies harmful to the general population.

For example, there was a time when the New York City police were accused of racial profiling when they stopped cars driven by African Americans on suspicion of being drug dealers headed into black neighborhoods.  The civil rights people argued that the proportion of cars driven by a given racial group should correspond to their percentage of the population.  Therefore, in order to stop a vehicle driven by an African American, the police had to also stop 5 cars driven by Caucasians.

The question that was not permitted: How long would a white man survive trying to engage in drug trafficking in a black inner city neighborhood?  Ambi-valence gave legitimacy to a complaint that was illogical.  Random searches were stopped.

The end result was a victory for the protestors.  The end result also was a complete failure of drug interdiction in the inner city. Who suffered as a consequence?  The African American inner city residents.

Another example is the issue of ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’  Our hamstrung society is now forced to live under the doctrine that any punishment that might be an effective deterrent to repeat offense is now ‘cruel and unusual.’  This doctrine forces ambivalence down the public throat.  Prison time is now viewed as almost a rite of passage.

I think that a different punishment might be more effective.  In colonial New England, a dunking chair or the Stocks were not terribly painful, but the public humiliation provided a pretty robust deterrent.  Likewise, taking a convicted criminal and pulling down his pants in public for the purpose of administering a spanking would be more likely to reduce recidivism.  But, because it would be cruel and unusual, we will not so protect society.

As we can see, when we have opposing forces in our lives or our thoughts, it is right to blend them; yet other times, wrong.  The trick is knowing when our valences need to be blended and when they should remain ambi.

I close with three quotes:

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. – Dante

The middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos  – Jim Hightower, Texas activist

The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity.  Even a dead fish can go with the flow. – Jim Hightower

Dennis Garvin is author of a book, ‘Case Files of an Angel,’ and co-author of ‘Growing up in Stephentown.’  Both are available online through Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble.com

 

Latest Articles

- Advertisement -

Latest Articles

- Advertisement -

Related Articles