Ageism is an unchallenged "ism"
Robert Butler published three definitions of ageism, but he failed to acknowledge implicit versus explicit ageism. Implicit ageism needs special attention since it is rarely detected as such
Professor Per Erick Solem, professor of gerontology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Gjøvik
Every summer, when I saw the children who grew up in a beach town, I envied them. Not simply because they formed salt-in-the-hair gangs while I was meagerly sitting on my towel. But also for their familiarity with the sea that I, as a child used to vacations in the mountains, never developed and never will. The founding blocks of my upbringing were morning mist and fresh air mixed with the aroma of firewood and the velvety taste of home made apricot jam. I felt at home in the palette of greens of a mountain valley with its tactile repertoire: the prickly hearts of thistle, the soft docility of moss, the ruggedness of log piles, and the bite of nettle. As if it was a tape, the scent of thyme kept all this universe together.
Then, there was the beach. Blocks and blocks of coarse rock, dropped along the shore in what looked like precarious equilibrium. Tanned and wild, the gangs of children roamed about, looking for crabs in the crevices and hunting them with determination, while keeping their younger peers at bay. There was no way for me to become friends with the grainy surface of the rocks covered with barnacles and the occasional sharp tip. The pungent mix of seaweed and saltiness paired with the lateral crawl of black crabs, appearing and disappearing in tune with the movement of the waves, was like an alien world to me.
Fast forward a few decades, trying to avoid the contact with strings of kelp, I’m holding onto one ring of a massive anchor chain. Above me, in a circle of light, I can see the hull of the ship I’ve just left with my diving gear on. Floating in warm tropical water is a pleasure without marginal disutility. I’m hanging there, weightless, waiting for the rest of the divers to descend when I see a big, puffy orange jellyfish. My weariness for the sea is back in the blink of an eye. The animal is pulsating a few meters away and the more I look at it, the faster the rhythm of my breath goes. I hear big bubbles leaving my diving regulator and see them chase each other to the surface, while strands of sun rays run to the depth of the sea. I’m in a vacuum. It’s just the jellyfish and me, and the noise of my breathing instead of a scream. Unexpectedly, a thought appears in my mind and my mind translates it into words: “Jellyfish have no eyes. It is not coming after me.”
Because of the mysterious workings of the brain, this image returned in a flash, inspired by the depth of rationality displayed by the article I’ve just discovered: “A conceptual analysis of Ageism” by Thomas Nicolaj Iversen, Lars Larsen, and Per Erik Solem. The article is a clear-cut framework of age-based discrimination that illuminates the “what,” “where,” and “how” of ageism. While the term needs no explanation - so we think - many definitions co-exist at the same time. Even Robert Butler, who fathered the concept in 1969, came up with three different definitions during the course of his career. Ageism is an amalgam difficult to dissect, because it happens at different levels of interaction and awareness. All these elements find a place in this analysis that took into account 27 existing definitions of ageism. Professor Per Erik Solem, research professor at Oslo Metropolitan University, and professor in gerontology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Gjøvik, and co-author of the article has taken the time to clarify the definition, its apparent contradictions, ramifications, and implications.
What prompted you to write the article “A conceptual analysis of Ageism?”
Two Danish psychologists, Thomas Nicolaj Iversen and Lars Larsen, invited me to contribute to an article about the concept of ageism. As I had written a couple of articles about ageism previously, I saw the need to clarify the concept. “Ageism” was used in numerous ways, and results from various studies were hard to compare. In other words, the use of the concept was confusing. We proposed a new definition that incorporated four dimensions and twenty variants of how the concept of ageism was used. The intention was not to impose this complete definition on future research, but to help researchers to clarify their use of the concept and to facilitate comparison and communication between different studies.
You pointed out that Butler’s definition of ageism is incomplete. Can you explain what is missing and why it matters?
Robert Butler published three different definitions of ageism, in 1969, 1975 and 1980. The last one was most complete, but contained elements from only two of the dimensions we detected. In the 1980 version, Butler included institutional ageism, that is social structures and policies that inhibit the participation of older citizens, like mandatory retirement at a certain chronological age. This is an important perspective to include when it comes to counteract ageism. One of the dimensions that Butler’s definitions lacked was implicit versus explicit ageism. Implicit ageism may need special attention, since it is less often detected as ageism. Implicitly many oversimplified conceptions of older people are accepted as valid, even if they are oversimplified and ageist.
You proposed an alternative definition of ageism. Can you tell us more about it?
We defined ageism as “negative or positive stereotypes, prejudice and/or discrimination against (or to the advantage of) elderly people on the basis of their chronological age or on the basis of a perception of them as being “old” or “elderly.” Ageism can be implicit or explicit and can be expressed on a micro-, meso- or macro-level. The four dimensions I mentioned, include first the division in the three components; stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination.
The second dimension concerns the level where ageism operates: in individuals who hold ageist attitudes, in organizations and local neighborhoods with age segregation, and on the societal and cultural level with ageist legislation and general expectations of people based on chronological age only. The third dimension is about implicit versus explicit ageism. In the shape of blatant age discrimination, explicit ageism is legislated against in many countries. Implicit ageism is more demanding to combat. The fourth and final dimension we found was the split between positive and negative ageism.
Some researchers include the dimension of age of the victim in their definition of ageism, that is, they include ageism against young persons. We chose to reserve the concept for ageism against older persons, because the dynamics behind ‘ageism’ against young people are different from the dynamics of ageism against old people. The affective component in particular is different, as old age and dying most often in our culture, are feared, while youth is attractive. Discrimination because of young age has been called “jeunism” or “adultism.” In my opinion, discrimination of young people because of their young age is so distinctly different from discrimination because of old age, that different concepts are needed.
What are the components, aspects, forms and levels of ageism you have identified and how do they contribute to the spread of ageism?
It will be too much to dig into all the variants of ageism and their contribution to the spread of ageism. More research is needed on this question. However, in my opinion, we have to look for answers in existential conditions and the fear of aging and dying that may generate a need to keep a distance from what reminds us of our destiny. This need is probably deeply rooted, but not necessarily universal or equally strong in all cultures or in all individuals. Thus, the consequences of this human condition differ between individuals and between cultures, and ageism is avoidable.
The spread of ageism is difficult to combat because it is often implicit and not seen as ageism. When politicians state that “all the elderly should have single rooms in nursing homes,” or that “all the elderly should have their dinner served later in the afternoon,” it sounds nice. However, the truth is that a large majority of “the elderly” (often defined as 65+) live in their own homes and prepare their own meals. These examples are from Norwegian politics. Similar examples appear frequently in the media, and from various kinds of commentators.
Yours is a complex and encompassing definition. Can we dig deeper into the differences between institutional ageism and cultural ageism and how do they play out in our life?
Yes, the model is complex, and the dynamic interplay in real life between the variables involved is equally complex. The institutional ageism is present in age-graded social structures, in neighborhoods, in leisure activities and in legislation, for instance, on mandatory retirement. Cultural ageism is intrinsic in the culture and is expressed in language, humor and the mass media. Cultures differ in degree of ageism. Based on terror management research and research on cultural differences in attitudes towards death, a few variables seem to be prominent.
One is the social integration of the culture, i.e. if people are securely attached and appreciated in multigenerational social networks beyond the nuclear family; aging and dying seem less scary. Close contact and cooperation with nature in contrast to fighting and controlling nature, seems to promote acceptance also of the aging and dying part of the nature. Enjoying life, relaxed, without stress and with little achievement orientation and competitiveness, also seems to foster acceptance of the human destiny. Industrialized societies, interconnected in global competition producing destruction of nature, are far from living up to the characteristics of aging- and death-accepting cultures.
On the other hand, in our western industrialized cultures we also see an increased acceptance of diversity among older citizens. When I was growing up in post-war Norway, older persons had to behave within a more limited space than older citizens today. As an old person today, I am allowed to participate in a wide range of activities that previously were only acceptable for young people, and I may dress as I like. My grandparents had to dress according to their age.
Why are the “three classical components so central in understanding ageism?”
The three components (stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination) are central because they represent different paths for prevention of age discrimination. Discrimination is what we want to prevent. What people think and feel about aging and older citizens is less important if they keep their thoughts and feelings for themselves and refrain from discriminatory behavior. However, negative conceptions and unpleasant feelings may, as mentioned earlier, influence behavior unintentionally. Consequently, all three components need attention. In particular, the affective element may be hard to combat, as the fear of aging and fear of dying is deeply rooted in our culture. More openness may be one way to support acceptance of aging and dying. The cognitive component (stereotypes) may be counteracted by information and teaching about the realities of aging, while discriminatory behaviors may be reduced by influencing behaviors directly through legislation. The three components taken together and in combination, are likely to increase the potential of preventing ageism.
We tend to look at negative stereotypes of aging. Can you tell us about positive stereotypes, instead?
Most often we think of ageism as only negative, in the sense that older persons are met in more degrading ways than younger persons are. Older persons seem more often to be overlooked, or meet more restrictions on participation in society than younger persons. Typical stereotypes of older citizens portray them as more frail, dependent and cognitively impaired than the majority of older persons really are.
Typical positive stereotypes perceive older people in general as particularly wise or as deserving more respect and reverence than other age groups. These are stereotypes because aging in itself does not guarantee wisdom. Some older persons are definitively not wise, and all human beings deserve respect because they are human beings, not particularly because they are old. Examples of positive discrimination are deductions on traveling rates and theatre tickets, only because a certain chronological age is achieved. These are positive honors to older people.
However, positive discrimination may have negative effects or side effects, as when helping a presumed frail older person in a patronizing way, this builds passivity in the person. This is called “compassionate ageism” by the gerontologist Robert Binstock, or the “pitying positive” by the sociologist Lars Tornstam. To be kind and helpful towards others is fine, but it may be destructive when the kindness is based on oversimplified conceptions of the person’s inability to help him- or herself. Thus, both positive and negative stereotypes may have destructive effects. The challenge is to meet older persons, as others, with realistic expectations based on knowledge about aging and about the individual person in the situation he or she is located.
People can be discriminated against even based on positive ageism. How does this contribute to the spread of ageism?
The crucial point is that treating adults based on their chronological age only tends to reinforce oversimplified conceptions of older people and of aging. When it comes to positive ageism, we have to make distinctions between positive stereotypes, positive prejudice and positive discrimination. This is particularly so because positive prejudices, like compassion for older people, tends to be based on negative stereotypes. The background for pitying older people is that they are “old,” meaning frail, helpless and cognitively impaired. In this way, compassion for older people may reinforce and spread negative stereotypes about older people and aging.
You noticed that ageism operates without awareness and control. What can be done about it?
The simple answer is to bring it to awareness, which is easier said than done. In my opinion, more openness is needed on all levels, i.e. in the media, at workplaces, in families, schools etc., about both positive and negative aspects of aging. In other words, more realistic discussions about aging may create more realistic and nuanced conceptions about aging. Intergenerational contact in itself may contribute to such nuances, and contact should not be limited to contact between grandparents and grandchildren, but between older, middle-aged, and younger people, including children. Thus, meeting-places across age groups and generations should be encouraged. Death also needs increased attention. Openness about how we think and feel about dying should be expanded. This is not easy, because there is a danger of using death in an entertaining or distancing way that may help us to believe that death is not about me, but only about others. One way is to start with talking about death in plain words, like ‘Mary died today’ rather than “…passed away,” “…left us,” or other euphemisms.
There are no social sanctions against people who express negative prejudices or stereotypes against elderly people. Is this a sort of an "endorsement" by our culture?
As said, much ageism is not even recognized as ageism. Particularly, jokes about aging are widely endorsed. Some jokes about aging are fun and reasonable to laugh at, but when jokes are experienced by older people as humiliating or demeaning, their possibility for defending themselves is meager. By opposing, the stereotype of the “old grump” is likely to be reinforced. In this way, sanctions may be reversed to those protesting against a humiliating joke.
