Confronting Ageism: Perspectives from Age Studies and the Social Sciences

We cannot choose not to be old. And once we are considered “old” in important settings, no amount of theoretical deconstruction or individual behavior or good attitude makes it reversible for any of us. (Margaret Morganroth Gullette, 2017, xix).

Ageism, or the systematic devaluation of persons because of age (usually advancing age), is arguably one of the last forms of open and socially acceptable discrimination. Birthday cards, television commercials that poke fun at older persons by depicting them as childlike or silly, self-deprecating humor (e.g., “I’m having a senior moment”), and other forms of ageism reinforce the idea that aging is “bad” and something of which to be ashamed.

Although one would think that the field of gerontology would be the last place for ageism and ageist practices to be tolerated, this is not necessarily the case. “Gerontologist” is a broad term that includes people with degrees in the interdisciplinary field of gerontology; researchers from traditional disciplines (e.g., sociology, psychology) who study some aspects of aging; professionals from various clinical disciplines (e.g., nursing) or specialties whose practice involves the care or concerns of older persons; and others who work in some way with people on age-related issues (e.g., attorneys, financial planners). Such a vast array of people with different backgrounds who identify as gerontologists can lead to a lack of common understanding about basic issues, such as what language to use when discussing older persons. For example, hotly contested terms in gerontology include words such as “elderly,” “demented,” or the abbreviation PWD (for “person with dementia,” an abbreviation that saves on word counts in journal articles but simultaneously reduces the person living with dementia to a less-than-person status), which are considered to be demeaning and disrespectful. Unfortunately, such ageist language can still be found in publications, in classrooms, and in the workplace. Thus, ageist language, which in turn reflects an intentional or unintentional deep-seated devaluation of older age itself, is alive and well in the field.

Two important books that take on ageism and ageist practices are Margarette Morganroth Gullette’s (2017) Ending Ageism or How Not to Shoot Old People and Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism (2018), edited by Liat Ayalon and Clemens Tesch-Römer. The books are complementary in their in-depth approach to confronting ageism, yet are written from different perspectives (age studies and social sciences, respectively) to serve different purposes. Simply stated, the age studies (or humanities) perspective is aimed at raising consciousness, in much the same way that gender studies has done with sexism, thereby “calling out” what might otherwise go unnoticed within our culture at large. In a slightly different vein, the social sciences perspective provides a foundation for further research on ageism by laying out different theoretical perspectives and research findings that may be easily taken up and expanded by other researchers.

Gullette uses an age studies perspective to create a compelling and enlightening cultural critique of ageism. Age studies is concerned with understanding how people are located within social practices and conditions, based on the construct of age (e.g., “old,” “middle aged,” “young”). Age studies scholars may draw from cultural representations of age in novels, advertisements, music, or numerous other artifacts to examine how age is performed, critiqued, or positioned within the larger cultural discourse. Questions from an age studies perspective might include: How is ageism supported or challenged in popular culture? What, if anything, is being done to confront ageist acts?

Gullette’s book is rooted in the personal, framed through the politics of culture. She begins by pointing out that although Robert Butler identified “ageism” as a social problem two years after “sexism” was coined, ageism was slow to be taken up as a social cause. Throughout the book, Gullette uses a personal, first-person voice and, in this way, masterfully weaves together personal experiences with cultural implications. For example, she describes her aging mother’s “diagnosis” of Alzheimer’s disease (in the absence of any formal assessment by her clinician), while also exploring dementia defenses. The dementia defense, or people claiming dementia to avoid prosecution, has been used by well-known figures, such as former U.S. Navy Captain Ray E. Davis, who was wanted in the death of two Americans in Chile during the 1970s; Chilean General Pinochet, whose successful coup coincided with Davis’s involvement; and certain fictional characters (e.g., Uncle Junior from the television drama The Sopranos). Such dementia defenses, Gullette argues, use ageist assumptions and fears, embedded in the discourse of dementia, or what she calls a “kind of soft ageism [that] can make people sentimental about the unrepentant old, even though they have committed mighty evils” (p. 119). The power of the age studies approach is that it reminds the reader that ageism isn’t something that happens to some other group, safely viewed from the distance of objectivity, but rather, it is part of our lives, our culture, and our world.

Ayalon and Tesch-Römer’s edited volume takes a social science approach to meticulously examine ageism from various points of view. The book itself, which is freely available through open access, is the result of an European Union–funded interdisciplinary research network (called COST [European Cooperation in Science and Technology]) composed of researchers from 35 countries, representing many disciplines. The goals for the book include uncovering the origins and manifestations of ageism, to better understand how often and in what situations ageism occurs, and reviewing research designs and interventions that may be effective in countering ageism in a variety of settings and sectors.

The book is divided into four sections. The first, which focuses on the concepts of etiology, includes five chapters that address age stereotypes, gendered ageism, the origins of ageism, and ageism in the work place. The chapters are rich with theory (e.g., terror management theory, role congruity theory, stereotype embodiment theory, social identity theory) and research that explore the underpinnings of internal and external ageism. The second section, on the manifestation and consequences of ageism, includes 10 chapters that address the diverse settings in which ageism occurs, such as the labor market and health-care settings. Other chapters in this section consider the unrealistic expectations of “successful aging,” the positioning of older persons as societal burdens, ageism in psychotherapy, and ageism and dementia. A particularly timely chapter on immigration policy looks at experiences such as cumulative disadvantages and ageism and their combined effects on older immigrants.

Section three focuses on interventions to fight ageism and includes five chapters covering legal and educational interventions and initiatives to combat ageism. These chapters include an overview of anti-ageism and ageism within the legal system, a close look at ageism and the rights of older persons, two chapters focused on European approaches to ageism, and a generational intelligence contact model aimed at bringing generations together in new ways that are not framed around chronological age. The fourth and final section on ageism research has seven chapters that consider methodological designs, social surveys, cross-cultural considerations, and research findings on various topics, such as ageism in the attitudes of children, health care, and the labor market. Overall, the 31 chapters lay out what is arguably the most comprehensive research review of ageism to date. The book itself could form the basis of an entire course on ageism; individual chapters also can function as stand-alone readings on the topic.

In thinking about these two outstanding books, I’d return to the topic of gerontology. As gerontologists, we need to take a strong stand against ageism and ageist practices. We should not view ageism as a separate topic of study within gerontology, but rather as an essential element of all gerontological endeavors. We must also raise awareness among our colleagues, students, friends, coworkers, clinicians, journals, and magazines of the damaging effects of ageism, and confront ageism and ageist acts whenever and wherever they occur. In short, as both books remind us, the time to act is now.

Kate de Medeiros is the O’Toole Family Professor in gerontology at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. She is the author of The Short Guide to Aging and Gerontology (Policy Press), Narrative Gerontology in Research and Practice (Springer Publishing), and numerous peer-reviewed articles on the experience of growing old.