Conceptualization

The concept of ambivalence has been addressed from psychoanalytic approaches [21], structural functionalist [22], behavioral psychology [23] and postmodern studies [24]. Thus, ambivalence is shown as a concept with different disciplinary perspectives, yet it is always related to what is considered to be ambiguous, uncertain and contradictory.

In the last decades, there have been attempts to define the concept by highlighting its broad level of complexity. For instance, Romero Morales [25] explains that ambivalence constitutes the ability to discursively come and go based on an idea or its opposition. Therefore, it is an action that is not necessarily contradictory, but rather it is experienced as multiple and dynamic. Colli and Neto [26] understand ambivalence based on the tension that human beings experience between what was and what will be; a tension framed by living with the past, present and future. In this context, ambivalence is related to a space-time-multiple concept in which people are immersed.

From a sociological perspective, ambivalence has been approached in an indirect way. The seminal work by Georg Simmel [27] in 1908, while focusing on the situational status, demonstrates the existence of dualism since the subject is a social and individual being at the same time. Simmel’s approach does not speak of a double existence, but an ambivalent one, insofar as both aspects of human experience coexist. In this way, the subject must face non-coherent situations with different meanings, which forces them to take on contradictory attitudes, as was already describe in classic contribution as Goffman’s work [28]. This self must have a certain level of consistency to give the impression of continuity, seeking to deny contradictions. Society forces individuals to be self-consistent while promoting a complex and varying social reality that constantly leads to the inconsistency of that self.

The self is constituted by the conjunction of multiple signifiers and social imaginaries that represent a subject formed by multiplicity and fragmentation [27]. However, this multiplicity is based on the social context that determines it, to the extent that some contexts promote more plurality than others. Societies that present a higher level of differentiation and complexity also express it internally in each subject [29]. Thus, the self is always constituted in relation to the situation, generating an internally complex structure where different logics overlap [30].

In this study we define ambivalence as multiple representations, beliefs and attitudes towards social facts. Ambivalence can be translated into ambivalent actions, attitudes, beliefs and/or feelings. In other words, although the origin of ambivalence is external to the subject, it emerges and is displayed in people’s experiences. Ambivalence is always something that human beings encounter when interacting between what is individual and social.

Ambivalence in IPV studies

Ambivalence is directly and indirectly present in IPV studies. In terms of it being directly present, the conceptualization of ambivalent sexism has been essential [31]. It raises the fact that beliefs of sexism are marked by ambivalent ideas of non-uniform antipathies, which are intermingled with benevolent notions about a discriminated group, in this case women. Ambivalent sexism is constituted by direct hostile attitudes and apparently positive attitudes that ultimately limit the possibilities of women, putting into play a male over women domination strategy.

Likewise, ambivalence has been indirectly present in various research and analyses of IPV and gender relations, although without being named as such. Thus, the way traditional and modern values, attitudes and beliefs on gender roles coexist have been identified. For instance, this has been theorized by Marcela Lagarde [32], who introduces the concept of gender syncretism to refer to the pressure that contemporary women experience by having to fulfil the traditional housewife role alongside the modern elements of an emancipated woman. This logic of analysis can be observed in studies on the figure of the modern mother [33, 34] or when analyzing how women’s sexuality enters a contradictory framework, insofar as traditional beliefs collide with new imaginaries about the empowerment of the female body and sexual freedom [15]. The consequence is an impossible balance for young women to achieve as they are socially punished for everything they do [6].

In the case of masculinity studies, Bridges and Pascoe [35] perform a bibliographic review on the concept of hybrid masculinities, reflecting how several studies identify the coexistence of different gender values and beliefs in the imaginaries of masculinities. Within this line of research, other studies [36, 37] identify hybridity between the traditional and modern models of masculinity. However, they are far from leading men towards equality, as they reinforce the male domination system by enabling domination by men over women [38]. Finally, other researchers have identified ambivalences among young people when assessing IPV globally and situationally. These studies identify discourses where a general knowledge of IPV and its causes can be observed; and a clear condemnation can be seen. However, when the analysis is based on individual situations, certain forms of violence in couple relationships are justified. For instance, the possibility that women can be violent in self-defense [39]; that male violence is validated when being protective [7]; or normalizing daily sexist behavior and gender violence [40].

These studies highlight the contradictions in beliefs about masculinity, femininity and IPV, making clear to us the need to incorporate ambivalence as a category of analysis to understand current processes of change, marked by contradictions, tensions and ambiguities.

Sample characteristics

The interviewees included 20 young people (11 men and 9 women) aged between 18 and 24 years, from Alicante and Madrid. The participants were all cisgender men and women with different sexual orientations (2 men and 1 woman identified as LGTBI). Furthermore, different levels of education were included (2 men and 3 women without higher education [HE]). Young people especially involved in different forms of activism against IPV [AAIPV] were sought (2 women and 3 men activists) in order to identify particularities of their discourses on the topic and compare them to non-activists. Table 1 presents the demographic details of the sample.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Sociodemographic information of the participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310745.t001

The participants were recruited by handing out leaflets in education centers, NGOs and institutions that work with young people or sharing on social networks. They were informed on the aims of the research and that their identities would be concealed when using the information.

Procedure

The interviews were semi-structured where the interviewers used an initial script to discuss the different topics. They were conducted in Spanish and lasted approximately an hour and an hour and a half. The structure of the script was divided into three large blocks. The first block addresses the perception of gender, femininity, masculinity and IPV in a general way, with questions that enabled an open dialogue on each of the topics. The second block focuses on working on a series of vignettes on IPV situations (Table 2). Finally, the third block contains closed-ended questions in order to identify strategies to involve young men and women as transformation agents to eradicate IPV.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Description of the vignettes used in the interviews with young people regarding IPV in Spain (2019).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310745.t002

Participation was voluntary and participants had the option to withdraw from the study at any time. Written informed consent from the study participants was obtained prior to enrolment. Confidentiality was guaranteed in adherence to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679). The study was approved by the ethical committee of the University of Alicante, Spain (reference number UA-2019-04-15).

Information analysis

The interviews were analyzed based on the proposal of critical discourse analysis (CDA), seeking to link micro perspectives with macro perspectives, addressing what is singular as a whole and in relation to what is considered to be social [42]. In this sense, CDA breaks the notion of rigidity and uniqueness and incorporates the interaction of the multiple contexts, norms, rules and power in the analysis of the discourses [43].

The analysis process to address ambivalences included the following stages: First of all, we used Atlas.Ti program to code the interviews. Based on the bibliographic review of IPV in the young population in Spain, four discursive axes were identified: (i) the origin of IPV, (ii) condemning violence, (iii) women’s body and sexuality and (iv) control and jealousy. Afterwards, we analyzed each interview by examining all the codes related to the four discursive axes in order to identify ambivalences and coherence. Subsequently, the results of the ambivalences and coherence of each discursive axis were combined in all interviews. Finally, the results for each discursive axis were analyzed according to three types of ambivalence. These three types arise jointly from the analysis and the theoretical review.

The first type of ambivalence is situational ambivalence. This type of ambivalence is constructed based on the proposals by Simmel [27] and Goffman [28]. They suggest that subjects may find themselves faced with the incoherence of having to relate different meanings to the same facts, contradicting social status with individual status. Thus, this ambivalence is focused on the presence of ambiguous or contradictory meanings that occur between the perception of a specific situation of IPV (situational perception) and the general concept of IPV.

The second category is Attitudinal ambivalence, which is constructed based on the work of Glick and Fiske [31] and Thompson et al. [23]. It is understood as the presence of a double valuation (negative and positive) towards something. People can have incoherent feelings towards specific topics. This arises from the multiple beliefs which are expressed both in emotional forms and based on rationalization. Temporal ambivalence is the third category and refers to the valuation of a fact or situation influenced by the coexistence of two or more historical contexts, thus generating the presence of different values and beliefs towards the same fact [26]. The presence of different time frames coexisting in the construction of social imaginaries leads to the possibility of generating tensions on how social relations are understood (in this case, gender).

A fourth category of analysis is added by also paying attention to coherent discourses that emerge when there is a lack of ambivalence. In other words, it is present when participants have a uniform discourse towards a fact or situation. The analysis of this coherent discourse has two purposes. On the one hand, it helps to identify which aspects of IPV are most clearly perceived by young people. On the other hand, it helps to understand and analyze the ambivalent discourse through comparison.

Throughout the analysis, particular emphasis was placed on the differences between the discourses of activist and non-activist participants, as it was identified that inhabiting spaces of activism against IPV intervenes in the presence of ambivalence.

The analysis process was firstly conducted by the first author, who coded and categorized the information. The other three researchers took part in the second part of the analysis by reinforcing it and writing the article. The final results emerged from dialogue and feedback by all four authors.

Situational ambivalence

When analyzing situational ambivalence, it was possible to observe discourses where contradictions or ambiguities were generated when contrasting the way of thinking regarding general and situational forms of IPV. An example of this situation emerged in young non-activists who presented ambivalent discourses about jealousy and controlling friendships. Considering that a condemnation of jealousy was expressed, it was understood as a form of violence, while also being perceived as unavoidable in intimate relationships at the same time.

Absolutely nobody should have the authority to decide for another person, whether a man is with a woman, a man is with a man or a woman with a woman, it does not matter, it is simply the rights people have. (_)It is something that someone cannot avoid and, if you, if you reach a point where it is really hurting you to see that person liking a post, I understand that you need to have a conversation to ask your girl who that boy is (Non-activist Man).

Jealousy was perceived as a way of controlling to isolate the other person and reducing their ability to be autonomous. However, at the same time, jealousy was accepted as it was understood as unavoidable and normal in relationships. A fear of infidelity was an important justification of it. Social networks have a key role in this sense, as control in relationships occurs by not trusting interactions within said space. To this point, in many of the interviews, comments based on personal experience were expressed, generating situational ambivalences by contradicting what they understand as correct in the social sphere.

Likewise, something similar happens to what was reported in the last example when talking about sexual consent. We could see in non-activist women that, despite strongly positioning themselves on the need for consent in sexual relations in an intimate relationship, they naturalized the fact of giving in to pressure to have sexual relations as a way of not causing conflict. It was not seen as a violent sexual act as seen in the interview below.

It can be hinted, but then having it, I do not know, I would say no. A sexual relationship always has to be between two people, if it is not, it is not a consensual relationship. (_) Sometimes you give in, even if you do not want to, you end up doing it because it is like “oh…”. Yes, I have seen it (Non-activist Woman).

Another example occurred when discussing the causes and responsibilities of violence, where non-activists and activist men expressed ambivalent discourses that demonstrate recognition the social origin of violence, but place the main responsibility on the person who carries it out. The following interviewee gives an example of this.

Who are the people responsible? Everything comes from a point that goes much further back, from the education you have been given to the values you have had, what you have been able to see within your family or around you, even in the neighborhood where you have lived, everything can influence you to generate gender violence. (_) I think that Gustavo feels insecure and that is why he asks María to eliminate any person from her surroundings who could be a competitor or someone who can take away time, love or affection from him (Non-activist Woman).

Attitudinal ambivalence

In addition to situational ambivalence, other types of ambivalence were observed in the discourses, as is the case of attitudinal ambivalence where differentiated valuations were made depending on the fact being explored. A generalized example by young non-activists was to minimize verbal violence when compared to physical violence. In this case, they generally understood that IPV was never acceptable in all its senses. However, when assessing the different kinds of violence, they tended to establish a hierarchy, classing physical violence as intolerable. Verbal violence, which was perceived as less serious than physical violence. This discourse was repeated in non-activist women and men.

No, I do not think it is justified. Honestly, I do not want this to sound bad, but I could understand insulting another person. I understand that it is something that hurts, realizing they are cheating, for example, it hurts and when you are angry you can say “hey, you are this or you are that” and you insult them, but then hitting them, no, no, I do not think that is justified (Non-activist Woman).

Therefore, certain types of insults were understood to be tolerable as part of verbal violence, as they were considered to be a daily part of relationships. This type of differentiated assessment was also marked by the scope in which IPV is expressed. Non-activist men and women understood that IPV is intolerable in public spaces or in the presence of other people, but they could accept or understand that verbal violence occurs in private or intimate settings as expressed in the following excerpt.

There is no reason to hit another person (_) Uff. No, and if it is done, do it in private, not in public. Not even insulting, I am not sure, saying “you have been cheating on me, you are an idiot”, whatever, do it in private, not in public” (Non-activist Man).

The interviewees made differentiated assessments according to the different characteristics that violence could have regarding the modality and scope. These ambivalences, which reflected contradictory attitudes, were mainly influenced by temporal ambivalence, as seen in the following section.

Temporal ambivalence

In the case of this kind of ambivalence, young non-activists were identified to simultaneously have modern and traditional values on different analysis axes. An example of this was the discourses on women’s sexuality and freedom in relationships. In the case of female sexuality, young non-activists were ambivalent when expressing a discourse on women’s rights, while blaming them for the violence they receive because of their attitudes, ways of dressing or drinking alcohol.

I do not think she is to blame but, in this case, it is a girl, but it does not matter if it is a boy or a girl. So, everyone is free to dress however they want, however they feel comfortable and that does not mean someone else has the right to touch you (_). But what is true is that you have to be aware, nowadays, the way things are and so… I do not justify it, but, hey, if you dress like that nowadays, the way things are, it is true that you have more chances of something terrible happening (Non activist Woman).

Here the interviewee expressed that a woman should not be attacked because of the way she dresses or how she is behaving, but at the same time the person questioned the context or the way the victim dresses. This ambivalence was also present in the beliefs that non-activists have about intimate relationships when they expressed discourses about freedom in them, regarding the right that each person has to have the friends they want without the counterpart intruding. Yet, at the same time, they accepted control over friendships based on the idea of complementarity in intimate relationships, as expressed by the following interviewee.

[Decisions in the relationship should be made] mutually or one person sacrificing something, knowing that there will be retribution. I do not know if I am explaining myself. Everything has to be decided by the parties, or one of them, like any type of relationship, there are two in a relationship, one has to be the one that gives more and another the one that pushes more (_). A relationship is not being a slave to the other. I understand the fear, but you also have to understand, like you want to go out with your friends, you need to let your partner go out with their friends (Non-activist Man).

The notion of complementarity ends up becoming a justification for control which shows the presence of two different temporal models in discourses on relationships: a modern one in which each of the parties is open to independence, and a traditional one in which each party must give up and lose aspects of their individuality.

Coherence

In contrast to the aforementioned ambivalences, some coherent discourses regarding IPV were also been observed. The majority of them were by activists who completely condemned violence, understanding the social character that sustains it and being significantly aware of the topic. In particular, women activists did not hold women responsible for the violence they receive, did not justify jealousy or control in intimate relationships and they did not individualize the causes and responsibilities of IPV. Another coherent discourse, but in this case contrary to that of the women activists, was by non-activist men, both university students and not. The interviewees argued that the only person responsible for violence is the one who is violent, without mentioning or identifying social or cultural factors, as observed in the following excerpt.

I do not know if we can say it is an illness, but I would say so. Jealousy is an illness, but what is… Yes, I would say it is an illness (Non-activist Man).

Likewise, it is common for non-activist men interviewees to equate violence by men to that by women.

The person who attacks, rapes, more than a person, whether man or woman, is a rapist. I do not identify the person as a man or a woman (Non-activist Man).

Thus, these men showed the only discourse without the presence of ambivalence among the young non-activists. The construction of this discursive ambivalence in the young people interviewed will be discussed in depth below.