Elsevier

Journal of Aging Studies

Volume 31, December 2014, Pages 93-103
Journal of Aging Studies

The appraisal of difference: Critical gerontology and the active-ageing-paradigm

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2014.08.008Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Critical Gerontology provides instructive objections against active ageing.

  • Active ageing negates inequalities, hardships and the capitalist framing of activation.

  • Critical Gerontology problematizes the extension of activity-based norms as new ageism.

  • This criticism tends to homogenize and even naturalize old age as being “different”.

  • “Queering age” allows to criticize active ageing without othering the elderly.

Abstract

The article deals with the re-negotiation of old age in current times of flexible capitalism and its analysis by Critical Gerontologists who criticize this process as age denial and midlife-imperialism. Starting out from the instructive critique of active ageing and consumer-based anti-ageing strategies, rooted in the heterogeneous field of Critical Gerontology, the here presented contribution aims at critically reviewing and discussing this critique. The article exposes theoretical pitfalls that make this critique run into a dead-end, since old age tends to be homogenized and sometimes even naturalized within Critical Gerontology: Though certainly often unintended, the appreciation of old age as being positively different from midlife ends up with sheltering “old people” as “the others” from the impositions of active society. After elaborating on this difference perspective and discussing its problems, I will finally sketch some conceptual ideas, inspired by poststructuralist thinking, on how to overcome the fruitless dichotomy of imperialism/sameness (“they have to be like us”) and difference (“they are the others”).

Introduction

Discourses describing population ageing as a crisis are omnipresent in Western industrialized countries: there is talk about the collapse of pension schemes, health care and long-term care systems, decreasing economic power and increasing social inflexibility. At the same time, however, there is a popular promise reminiscent of Friedrich Hölderlin's famous lines “where the danger is, also grows the saving power”: Parallel to the picture of elderly people as a dangerous bulk, the non-frail “new elderly” (van Dyk & Lessenich, 2009) have been discovered as potentially active and productive citizens. The notions of active ageing revolve around the idea that these retirees are capable and duty-bound to live a self-reliant life and contribute to the public good (Deutscher Bundestag, 2010; Council of the European Union, 2010). Against this backdrop we have recently witnessed a fundamental socio-political re-negotiation of old age, which constitutes a major challenge to Gerontology and Ageing Studies.

The popular focus on the able-bodied “young-old” or “new elderly” comes along with the appraisal of their (ongoing) “sameness” in terms of achievement-based midlife-norms and capacities. Traditionally inclined to overcome the deficit model of old age, it is not surprising, prima facie, that many gerontologists have quite openly joined the coalition that sings the praise of the “new elderly”, their virtues and resources. This approving stance more or less characterizes the mainstream of gerontology, which I will – deliberately simplifying – call “Happy Gerontology”: This term, borrowed from Noberto Bobbio,1 suggests that Happy Gerontologists tend to promote positive views on old age by neglecting frailty, dementia and hardship, while stressing the continuities between midlife and independent/active later life at the same time.

It is up to streams of Critical Gerontology to take a contrary view: Diverse as they are, rooted in a wide range of theoretical perspectives, Critical Gerontologists reflect on the neoliberal framing of old age activation as well as the exclusive character of achievement- and continuity-based positive images of ageing. After briefly presenting the rise of the active-ageing-paradigm (2) and summarizing the critical objections against it (3), it is the aim of this article to critically revisit and evaluate the arguments of Critical Gerontologists (4). Without denying their credits of having challenged the model of active ageing, I will expose theoretical pitfalls that lead the critique of the Happy Gerontology's “sameness promise” into the dead-end of a homogenized difference: Though certainly often unintended, the appraisal of old age as being positively different from midlife ends up with sheltering “old people” from impositions of active society. After elaborating on the roots of this difference perspective and discussing its problems I will finally (5) sketch some conceptual ideas on how to overcome the fruitless dichotomy of sameness (“they have to be like us”) and difference (“they are the others”). The article aims at broadening the view at the polyphonic field of age and ageing without thereby dismissing the critique of neoliberal active ageing.

Section snippets

Active ageing — the renegotiation of old age

There is a broad range of actors promoting active and productive ageing, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Union, the OECD and the United Nations. Back in 1999, which was declared the “International Year of Older Persons” by the United Nations, the European Commission urged its member states to change “outmoded practices” in relation to older persons: “Both within labour markets and after retirement, there is the potential to facilitate the making of greater

Critical perspectives on active ageing — an assault on naïve happiness

However, not everybody turned out to be happy: Critical Gerontologists have entered the stage and question the claim that active ageing is a “positive goal synonymous with apple pie and motherhood” (Estes & Mahakian, 2001: 207). It is beyond the scope of this article to do justice to the heterogeneous field of Critical Gerontology and its diverse theoretical roots. Since the late 1970s, Mainstream-Gerontology has been criticized by the Marxian inspired Political Economy of Ageing, though

“Old age is different”

The critique of active ageing and anti-ageing-consumer culture is based on a strong normative concept of difference that rejects the extension of “mid-lifestylism” (Biggs, 1997: 567) as a misguided attempt to suggest continuity and sameness where indeed a different phase of life starts: “Old people are not, in fact, just like middle-aged persons but only older. They are different” (Calasanti, Slevin, & King, 2006: 17). The critics challenge midlife as an unquestioned universal benchmark for the

Conclusions and perspectives

The dominant active-ageing paradigm has been fruitfully challenged and criticized by Critical Gerontologists who refer to a variety of theoretical perspectives, ranging from Marxian Political Economy of Ageing to Cultural and Foucauldian Gerontology. However, as I have demonstrated, this critique runs into a dead-end: Old age tends to be homogenized and sometimes even naturalized, in order to shelter and protect “old people” from neoliberal activity claims. The good news is that Critical

References (92)

  • J. Twigg

    The body, gender, and age: Feminist insights in social gerontology

    Journal of Aging Studies

    (2004)
  • K. Woodward

    Against wisdom: The social politics of anger and aging

    Journal of Aging Studies

    (2003)
  • M. Andrews

    The seductiveness of agelessness

    Ageing and Society

    (1999)
  • J. Baars

    Beyond neomodernism, antimodernism, and postmodernism: Basic categories for contemporary critical gerontology

  • G. Backes

    Widersprüche und Ambivalenzen ehrenamtlicher und freiwilliger Arbeit im Alter

  • S. Benhabib et al.

    Feminist contentions. A philosophical exchange

    (1995)
  • S. Biggs

    Choosing not to be old? Masks, bodies and identity management in later life

    Ageing and Society

    (1997)
  • S. Biggs

    The mature imagination. Dynamics of identity in midlife and beyond

    (1999)
  • S. Biggs

    New ageism: Age imperialism, personal experience and ageing policy

  • S. Biggs

    Ageing selves and others: Distinctiveness and uniformity in the struggle for intergenerational solidarity

  • S. Biggs et al.

    A Foucauldian analysis of old age and the power of social welfare

    Journal of Aging & Social Policy

    (2001)
  • A. Blaikie

    Ageing and popular culture

    (1999)
  • N. Bobbio

    Vom Alter — De senectute

    (2006)
  • K. Boudiny

    Active ageing: From empty rhetoric to effective policy tool

  • M. Bury

    Ageing, gender and sociological theory

  • J. Butler

    Gender trouble

    (1990)
  • J. Butler

    Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of ‘Postmodernism’

    Praxis International

    (1991)
  • J. Butler

    Undoing gender

    (2004)
  • R.N. Butler et al.

    Productive aging

    (1985)
  • B. Bytheway

    Ageism

    (1995)
  • T. Calasanti

    Theorizing age relations

  • T. Calasanti et al.

    Ageism and feminism: From “Et Cetera” to center

    NWSA Journal

    (2006)
  • T.R. Cole

    Age, meaning, and well-being: Musings of a cultural historian

    International Journal of Aging and Human Development

    (1984)
  • T.R. Cole

    The journey of life. A cultural history of aging in America

    (1992)
  • Combahee River Collective

    A black feminist statement

  • Council of the European Union

    Council conclusions on active ageing

    (2010)
  • E. Cummings et al.

    Growing old. The process of disengagement

    (1961)
  • J. Davey et al.

    Positive ageing — A critical analysis

    Policy Quarterly

    (2006)
  • J. Derrida

    Positionen

    Gespräche mit [Talks with] H. Ronse, J. Kristeva, J.-L. Houdebine & G. Scarpetta

    (1986)
  • Deutscher Bundestag

    Sechster Bericht zur Lage der älteren Generation in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Altersbilder in der Gesellschaft

    (2010)
  • C.L. Estes

    Critical feminist perspectives, aging, and social policy

  • C.L. Estes et al.

    Social theory, social policy and ageing

    (2003)
  • C.L. Estes et al.

    The political economy of productive aging

  • C.L. Estes et al.

    Dominant and competing paradigms in gerontology: Toward a political economy of ageing

    Ageing and Society

    (1982)
  • European Commission

    Towards a Europe for all ages. Promoting prosperity and intergenerational solidarity

  • M. Featherstone et al.

    The mask of ageing and the postmodern life course

  • Cited by (77)

    • Media portrayals of transitions from work to retirement in two ageing societies: the case of ageing baby boomers in Japan and Finland

      2022, Journal of Aging Studies
      Citation Excerpt :

      Although active ageing originally meant the participation of older people in social, economic, cultural, spiritual and civic affairs (World Health Organization (WHO), 2002), policy operationalisation of the concept has been dominated by a neoliberal perspective that prioritises the extension of working life (Foster & Walker, 2015; Walker & Maltby, 2012) and restricts the social contribution of older adults to work and work-like activities (Moulaert & Biggs, 2013). Currently, due to the prevailing constructions of active ageing, the idea of retirement is undergoing a transformation from well-earned leisure rewarded as a result of individuals' productive years to an increasing pressure on older workers to stay productively engaged and to contribute to society (Foster & Walker, 2021; Taylor & Earl, 2016; van Dyk, 2014). It can be argued that the emergence of the narrative of working longer, which is stimulated by the utilitarian approach to active ageing (Taylor & Earl, 2016), causes a major shift in the meaning of old age.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text