We develop the concept of ambivalence as structurally created contradictions that are made manifest in interaction. We discuss how our reconceptualization enhances the relevance of ambivalence to sociological analyses of family ties. Ambivalence is a particularly useful concept when imbedded in a theoretical framework that views social structure as structured social relations, and individuals as actors who exercise agency as they negotiate relationships within the constraints of social structure. The strengths of conceptualizing ambivalence within this framework are illustrated with examples of caring for older family members and of balancing paid work and family responsibilities.A long-standing concern in family research generally, and about intergenerational ties in particular, is the limited development of theoretical concepts and perspectives. Assessments of research and theory related to family ties and aging have emphasized several key themes: the need for multilevel analysis that connects interactions within families to social structure and culture, the importance of viewing conflict as a central feature of social life, the need to focus on relationships and families rather than on individuals exclusive-

The 2002 exchange on ambivalence in the Journal of Marriage and Family (Vol. 64, No. 3), published under the editorship of Alexis Walker, prompted an impressive array of research on family ties, in particular intergenerational relationships. Following a discussion of the concept's theoretical underpinnings, the author argues that advancing the concept of ambivalence rests on realizing its multilevel potential by addressing the interplay of shifting contradictions experienced by individuals and in relationships and embedded in social institutions and in macro‐level arrangements and processes. She considers progress and limitations in a critical review of predominant applications of ambivalence and then investigates research that advances ambivalence as a bridging concept across multiple levels of analysis. Work on atypical family ties, dependency, contradictory cultural expectations due to migration and social change, families and the welfare state, and on climate change and disability promotes the multilevel potential of ambivalence and points to ways to advance its promise in theory and practice.

ࡗ Ambivalence, Family Ties, and Doing SociologyWe are excited and encouraged by the enthusiasm that our work on ambivalence has generated. Considering the comments in confidential reviews and, now, the public responses that you have just read has been intellectually stimulating. We thank all of the reviewers for the time and effort that they spent reviewing and responding to our work, especially Sara Curran for her innovative and challenging feedback. Like our colleagues, we commend Alexis Walker for proposing this opportunity for open debate and exchange. The willingness to publish theoretical work and to foster discussion supports the goal of articles such as ours to move the understanding of family relations forward by building ideas.Clearly, we are not the first to suggest ambivalence as a useful concept in the study of family relations. However, ours is among very few attempts to develop ambivalence as a distinctly sociological concept connected to strong theoretical traditions in our discipline. Our response addresses four key issues. First, we hope to put to rest the notion that ambivalence can somehow be subsumed within the solidarity model. Then we discuss three interlocking issues related to our thinking about family relationships: assumptions about ''science,'' the distinction between theory and ideology, and views about what constitutes the ''stuff'' of sociology. We use this approach to highlight fundamental differences (and sometimes, parallels) between our views of theory, so-

Data from a multi-stage quota sample of adults aged 55 and over were used to examine the effect of parent status on three measures of subjective well-being--avowed happiness, depression, and satisfaction with life. Unlike other studies, we employed four categories of parent status: close parents, distant parents, those who chose not to have children, and those who are childless by circumstance. We found significant differences in subjective well-being between close parents and distant parents, and between close parents and the childless by circumstance but not the childless by choice. We also found important differences, by gender, in which factors predict subjective well-being.

The authors examine the impact of gender, marital status, and parent status on emotional closeness, confiding, and contact among siblings in middle and later life. Using data from a multistage quota sample that includes 528 respondents aged 55 and older who have one or more siblings, characteristics of both the respondent and the sibling or sibling network are studied. Separate analyses are conducted for the entire sibling network and for the sibling of greatest closeness, confiding, and contact. Women and respondents with sisters, the single (never married), and the childless tend to have more active sibling ties than their counterparts. Several control variables (number of siblings, geographic proximity, age, and education) are also significant. Emotional closeness to siblings is an important factor related to confiding and contact. Findings are discussed in the context of socially proscribed familial obligation and emotional attachment as bases for involvement with siblings.