Search results

The literature on identity and identification can enrich our understanding of intergenerational behavior in organizations and society. In this chapter, I outline factors that lead the present generation to categorize future generations as part of their in-group, and circumstances under which people feel that it is consistent with their identity or self-concept to act on the behalf of future generations. Intergenerational identification is defined as the perception of “oneness” among generations such that multiple (two or more) generations consider themselves as part of a single group. I posit that intergenerational cooperation is more likely to occur when intergenerational identification is high. Finally, I elucidate the relationships among intergenerational identification, organizational identification, and intergenerational cooperation.

Although ambivalence is a common experience in family relations, the conceptualization of these relations has been focused on solidarity, closeness, and attraction on one hand, and on stress, distance, disruption, and abuse on the other. Ambivalence has not often been considered systematically for the analysis of intergenerational relations. Measurement instruments are not widely available for this purpose, because they tend to focus on one dimension at a time (Berscheid, 1983, pp. 115–116).

There is a long history of interest in the concept of ambivalence, as the contributions to the present volume show. It is therefore somewhat remarkable that until very recently, ambivalence has not been explicitly employed in research on intergenerational relations in later life. Given the popular acceptance of contradictory feelings about parents (Cohler, 1983) and the frequent portrayal of such contradictions in cultural products (Reinharz, 1986), this may be a major gap in research. However, the question remains: Is some degree of ambivalence in fact characteristic of parent-child relationships in later life? If so, do participants in these relationships identify ambivalence when it occurs? Further, is intergenerational ambivalence related to other variables of interest? This chapter presents results from a study that addressed the issue of ambivalence in older parent-adult child relations. Measures of intergenerational ambivalence were developed and employed in a sample of 189 older women.

This chapter is not about the development of the child; I am making this clear from the outset because the title could easily be misinterpreted that way by the readers who are unacquainted with social studies of childhood. Although ‘development’ and ‘child’ are familiar concepts, which combined in notions of ‘development of the child’ or ‘child development’ are parts of a century long, successful and dominant discourse, the notion of ‘development of childhood’ is rather begging questions, such as if there at all is such a thing as a theory of childhood development and if we need it. To my mind the brief answer to the first question is ‘no’, but quite a few authors have made thoughtful formulations about it and about generational relations without necessarily having intended to be theory builders (cf. Alanen, 2009). The answer to the second question is ‘yes’, I believe we need such a theory to come to terms with how children's life worlds have changed and how they have related to contemporaries belonging to other generations – adulthood, youth and old age.

Understood as the simultaneous experience of necessarily conflicting attitudes, wishes, feelings, or intentions, the concept of ambivalence has a complex history in psychological and social analysis. Lüscher (2000) reviewed the history of this concept, initially used in the study of abnormal states, and then generalized to the realm of the usual and expectable in social life. It should be noted at the outset that the term “ambivalence” presents two problems for social analysis: adoption of a term initially intended to portray abnormal states for the expectable course of adult life, and the extension of a concept founded on the study of personal states to social analysis. Consistent with Bleuler’s (Riklin, 1910/1911) initial discussion of the term ambivalence,¹ Freud (1909, 1912, 1912–1913, 1914) attempted to resolve the first problem by showing that ambivalence – as the experience of mixed and conflicting sentiments regarding those who are particularly important in one’s own life – inevitably emerges out of the child’s effort to resolve the tension between social reality and his or her own desire focused on the parents of early childhood. At the same time, Freud compounded the second problem by regarding the realm of the social as the personal writ large.

The traditional military experience is one in which the military provides the soldier with all the good things in life, including a role for spouses. Increasingly, however, as militaries modernize, they become more occupational and less institutional, and these traditional patterns break down. In the immediate post-war period, the issue of spouses and families was one that was strictly institutionally controlled, at least in the lives of rank-and-file soldiers. Soldiers were forbidden to marry in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with the reason cited for this being the national effort to retake the mainland. Presumably, it was feared that the psychological effect of “settling down” in Taiwan would dampen the soldiers’ zeal to leave the island in order to recapture the Chinese homeland from the Communists. It was much easier in this era for officers to marry, and in fact, marriages followed the pattern described by Moskos et al. of an institutional arrangement, with spouses playing an integral role to the military life. Starting in the 1950s, the National Women’s League – an organization made up mostly of officers’ wives – contributed to the overall military effort and the upkeep of morale by running charity drives, sewing uniforms, caring for injured servicemen, and providing classes. The group’s centrality to the military experience declined in the mid-1970s, but it continues its work even today, albeit in a less influential form.