Ageism Awareness Day is today, and every day along the way
Ageism is part of a larger web of inequalities. A life course approach is key to addressing these interconnected impediments. Addressing ageism exclusively in the context of older persons misses this larger opportunity for positive change.
Tracey Gendron, in Ageism Unmasked: Exploring age bias and how to end it (2022, ch. 8), notes,
“The meaning we assign to being old, and the concept of age identity, is socially constructed.”
Ageism Awareness Day is commemorated today. The occasion is spearheaded by the National Center to Reframe Aging (NCRA, led by the Gerontological Society of America) and the American Society on Aging (ASA), which notes:
Ageism refers to stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel), and discrimination (how we act) toward others or ourselves based on age. It negatively impacts our health and well-being, our financial security, and the economy. It exists in many forms, influencing everything from personal interactions to public policy, and impacts us at every age.
Ageism Awareness Day is advanced and sustained through robust resoures on ASA’s web site and companion communication strategies and tools provided by NCRA. Efforts are informed by over a decade of research, including a FrameWorks Institute report, Finding the Frame: An Empirical Approach to Reframing Aging and Ageism (April 7, 2017), conducted by Julie Sweetland and colleagues.
In The Language of Ageism: Why We Need to Use Words Carefully, Tracey L. Gendron and colleagues note:
“There is an abundance of research describing the phenomenon of discriminatory linguistic encoding in areas such as racism and sexism… language encodes discriminatory stereotypes and scripts that are associated with inequalities and assist to normalize discrimination in everyday life. According to Ng (2007) language is power; and discrimination cannot be alleviated nor fully understood without language.”
In advance of Ageism Awareness Day, the National Center to Reframe Aging campaigned to change how “ageism” is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary. The definitions currently read:
The former, in referring to “the elderly,” objectifies older persons. Objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or thing, rather than as a human being with intrinsic value and dignity. This often involves reducing individuals to their physical appearance, disregarding their unique personality, intellectual abilities, and individuality.
Adrienne Ione helps here. In The Objectification of Our Aging Population, Ione notes:
“By saying ‘the elderly,’ we are reducing defining features and valuable contributions of members of our community to singular stereotyped anecdotal evidence. ‘The’ suggests a devaluing of humanness or a perception of less than. Use of the word ‘the’ is paramount to maintaining the age binary: young/old. Yet, this concept of binary is ill-informed.”
The latter definition, in referencing elderly people, does not take a person-first approach. The phrase, “elderly people,” places the adjective “elderly” before the noun “people.” This emphasizes a person’s age rather than their identity as human beings—with societal roles, rights, and responsibilities.
The National Center to Reframe Aging invited the public to sign a letter that proposed the following revision to the definitions of ageism:
“prejudice or discrimination against a particular age-group, especially older people.”
Ageism exists and persists when we fail to consider society and self through the lens of humanity; when we objectify the “other,” including our future selves.
It is through the lens of humanity that we achieve ageless equity — when the scales of justice balance the promise of our rising generations with our promise to those upon whose shoulders they stand.
It is through the lens of humanity that seniors are part of our shared solution and resolution to address ageless issues that face our world.
It is through the lens of humanity that we respect and realize our social compact between society and self — where “self” does not have an expiration date.
America’s public-health triumph of the 20th century gained us an extra three decades, added to our lives. Our longevity dividend must unite us, not divide us. To benefit fully from our longevity dividend, we must explore creative solutions to engage older adults into our social and economic fabric more, while protecting those of us who experience ageism and other forms abuse as we enter our new old age.
To be certain, the greatest impediment to elder justice is ageism. By living to the fullest each day, year after year, decade after decade, my grandmother, Brooke Astor, did so much to combat this unfortunate prejudice.
It is ironic, and so sad, that her ageless attitude did not shield her from ageism and, consequently, other forms of abuse. The same can be said for millions of older adults suffering similar harms today—and all along the way.
Age
Ageism has been present throughout history. “The history of old age has often been characterized by the search for an elusive ‘golden age of aging,’” opens Susannah R. Ottaway in The Decline of Life: Old Age in Eighteenth-Century England” (2004). Not so, claims Ottaway. To underescore Ottaway’s thesis, Sarah Lloyd explains that “the myth of a premodern ‘golden age of aging’ cannot describe a society fractured by gender and social differences,” (2005, 84) in a book review of The Decline of Life.
Today, over two centuries after the period of Ottaway’s research, Bridget Penhale, in Human rights and older people: process and perspectives, notes, “Where age is defined, it is likely to be posed in chronological terms, and although chronological old age varies both culturally and historically, this generally seems to fail to take account of any notion of psychological, social and functional age [1 (para 36)], or indeed of ageing processes.”
The intersection of multiple social identities, such as race, class, and gender, can compound the effects of disadvantage over the life course. This can lead to significant disparities in health, wealth, and well-being as individuals age in to later life, which may exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and introduce new challenges—and threats.
“Indeed, in the United States, where public policies on behalf of those aged 18–64 are stunningly absent, there is every reason to think that matters will get worse rather than better with the passage of life and time” observes Robert B. Hudson (2016, 39 ) as editor of Cumulative Advantage and Disadvantage: Across the Life Course, Across Generations in a themed Public Policy & Aging Report. Hudson continues,
“When the differential onset of aging-specific vulnerabilities is then added to this equation, one must believe that matters of inequality among the old are further exacerbated. In Corey Abramson’s apt phrasing, ‘the reality is that later life is not the end of inequality, it is inequality’s end game’ (Abramson, 2016).”
Ageism imposed on and by older individuals is an added vulnerability. In Optimizing Aging: A Call for a New Narrative (2020, 577), Manfred Diehl, et al., note:
“Decades of research have shown that biological and psychosocial aging are not as predetermined as had been thought for a long time. Yet, despite a large and growing evidence base, most individuals still hold negative views of aging that keep them from optimizing their chances for healthy and productive aging.”
At times enabled by ageism, accelerated aging may be enhanced by deprivation and abuse, which individual perpetrators and society may inhumanely consider a coup de grace, as a mean to rationalized their inhumane if not criminal acts. Penhale (2023, 106) continues:
“In certain circumstances, individuals seem to age more quickly; examples of such situations include when individuals are deprived of their liberty [2,(para 24ff)] or if they are or have been subject to situations of violence, abuse, neglect and/or exploitation, yet such findings are generally not accounted for within the definitions that are normally used to denote old age…”
What is the age of a person lying on the sidewalk and unhoused? What is the age of a person denied self-determination and rights when subject to guardianship? What is the age of a person harmed by poly-victimization and re-victimization that are escalated and enhanced? What is your age?
Ageless Equity
Elder justice is in its infancy compared to other realms that define our legal, ethical, and moral obligations. For humanity, elder justice can help complete, not compete with, other causes, mindful of Hegel’s words (EB), paraphrased that,
Elder justice has made too exclusive a claim in addressing ageism.
The fight against ageism needs a broader approach than anti-ageism campaigns alone can provide. Ageism isn’t an affliction that launches late in life; it starts at the starting gate. “Seniors” are 18, 21, and 81. Ageism can begin early, even in childhood; It may exacerbate the negative effects of other adverse childhood experiences (CDC). Ageism can occur among young children, leading to stereotyping, exclusion, and bullying between students in different grades.
By focusing solely on how ageism impacts older adults, we overlook the chance to tackle ageism within the context of wider societal inequities that persist throughout life. Cumulative intersectional inequities do not have an expiration date. Neither does justice. By embracing a life course perspective, we will achieve ageless equity, ensuring fairness across all stages of life.
By adopting life course and longitudinal approaches to aging, we will:
- Recognize that aging and ageism are lifelong experiences with lasting effects.
- Better understand how other forms of inequity across the lifespan interact with ageism.
- Foster an environment that facilitates open communication and collaboration among colleagues and citizens to address cumulative inequities. This will impart a hybrid vigor to address social harms and to foster justice.
Elder justice colleagues will learn more from experts in seemingly disparate disciplines who, in turn, will better appreciate how (George L. Maddox, 1970, 17),
Elder justice provides a subtle entry point as, “only age encompasses categories that every living person potentially joins,” observe Michael S. North and Susan T. Fiske (2012, 982).
On the upside, ageism, as it is less salient than other issues, provides a bridge to exploring more contentious socio-political issues. Conversations about valuing our shared future can lead to discussion about other forms of social harm without immediately triggering defensive reactions. This shared safe space holds the promise of a bright future.
On the downside, Margaret Morganroth Gullette, in Ending Ageism or How Not to Shoot Old People (2017, 60), concludes,
“…people suffer from uneven developments in emotional intelligence and that, without the benefit of age critique, ageism adds a new twist of prejudice to their mental stock. Aside from other definitions, ageism is what may be called a replacement bias.”
Ruth Ray Karpen, in Anti-Ageism: The Next Big Social Movement that includes a review of Gullette’s book, elaborates,
Ageism creates a breeding ground for ableism, a form of discrimination or prejudice against individuals with disabilities. In this environment, older people may be seen — and feel themselves — as inherently less capable, even before any personal disability arises. Examining the cumulative impact of ageism and ableism across the lifespan can help us devise more proactive solutions to address these and other intersecting inequalities. This provides a strengths-based approach to aging into disability and with disability (Polly Yeung and Mary Breheny 2022).
A proactive, preventive approach lies at the heart of justice, which must be forward-looking. In this environment, cumulative and intersectional inequities can be guided by pragmatic prospection, which is a cognitive process that involves imagining future events and planning for them. It’s a way to mentally simulate potential outcomes and adjust behavior accordingly.
As envisioned by Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs (2016, 3):
“In the present, the past is more knowable than the future — but people think far more about the future than the past. Both facts derive from the principle that the future can be changed whereas the past cannot. Our theory of pragmatic prospection holds that people think about the future so as to guide actions to bring about desirable outcomes. It proposes that thoughts about the future begin by imagining what one wants to happen, which is thus initially optimistic. A second stage of such prospective thinking maps out how to bring that about, and this stage is marked by consideration of obstacles, requisite steps, and other potential problems, and so it tends toward cautious realism and even pessimism.”
As aging is inherently future-oriented, this cognitive process becomes especially relevant to
- Set realistic targets and develop strategies to achieve them, whether it is learning a new skill, traveling, or maintaining health.
- Anticipate potential challenges and setbacks, which allows older adults to develop coping mechanisms, adjust their plans as neededm and enhance resilence in the face of uncertainties.
- Imagine a fulfilling and active future, which can motivate older adults to make healthy choices, engage in stimulating activities, and maintain strong social connections.
- Make informed decisions about healthcare, finances, and lifestyle choices that align with long-term goals.
- Envision future interactions with younger generations to foster empathy and understanding between different age groups.
Scared to death, of death
“In the USA, we have a tremendous anxiety about the aging process and death,” observes Todd D. Nelson (2012, 39) in Ageism: The Strange Case of Prejudice Against the Older You, in Disability and Aging Discrimination. Nelson refers to his earlier work as editor for Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons (2002). Nelson continues, “Traditional Eastern cultures…have had little or no anxiety about death and aging,” with reference to Becca Levy and Ellen Langer’s research (1994).
But, too often, our handling of our mortality — our “terror management” (Clay Routledge and Matthew Vess) — pivots to ageism instead of constructive ways to cope, and hope, and live.
Ageism, rooted in prejudice against older adults, can foster isolation and segregation. Individuals who hold ambivalent or ageist views may unconsciously distance themselves from older adults, including their own future selves. Consequently, campaigns that exclusively target ageism against older adults may unintentionally have the opposite effect if they reinforce stereotypes, overlook individual differences, or create divisions between generations.
For example, Boston’s Age Strong Campaign, “aims to dispel stereotypes about old people and promote positive messaging about aging. Unfortunately, it risks doing just the opposite,” observes Louise Aronson (February 17, 2020).
Such anti-ageist campaigns may further foster isolation and segregation, compromising a fundamental human need: to belong, as described in The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation in a seminal paper by Roy F. Baumeister and Mark R. Leary (1995).
Ageism, enhanced in the cruicible of modernity
Why did elder justice focus solely on ageism, rather than recognizing it as one of many interconnected forms of inequality that can impact individuals throughout their lives?
Hans-Joachim von Kondratowitz, in Valuing older people: A humanist approach to ageing (2009, 107), observes:
Experts and advocates for older persons misappropriated the term “ageism” in a moment of desperation.
In response to the rise of enhanced ageism in the mid-20th century, elder-abuse advocates understandably focused on addressing this discriminatory attitude to protect assailed older adults. As our elder-justice campaign advances from a defensive stance to a more proactive, preventive, holistic approach, it’s time to align our strategy with other causes, more.
What is past is prologue, and epilogue
Since the 1970s, I have taught and practiced historic preservation. Historic preservation and elder justice may seem like two very different fields, but they share profound commonalities:
- Both harness disparate disciplines for a common cause;
- Both seek to engage and empower communities to raise concern and capacity for our shared future;
- Both respect and protect the ageless value of that which is old, sometimes until it’s too late;
- Both share a common origin — they rose from the ashes of mid-20th-century modernity.
Union Station, in Portland, Maine, was a magnificent late-19th-century civic structure that fell victim to mid-century modernity, which railroaded the station to its premature destruction in 1961.
Mid-century modernity’s campaign devalued anything old, to include older places and older persons — for whom 1961 was a bad year, too.
In 1961, disengagement theory, sociology’s first formal theory on aging, was established in the publication of Growing Old: The Process of Disengagement by Elaine Cumming and William Henry. The authors’ theory posits that:
“…aging is an inevitable, mutual withdrawal or disengagement, resulting in decreased interaction between the aging person and others in the social system he [sic] belongs to.”
This emphasis is echoed in other influential books including Personal Adjustment in Old Age (Ruth Shonle Cavan, Ernest W. Burgess, and Robert J. Havighurst; 1949), whose purpose was “to define the nature, pattern, and problems of individual adjustment to aging.” Here, the burden was placed on individual older adults to adjust to given social, medical, and financial constraints. S.T. Kimble, in a contemporary peer review of Personal Adjustment in Old Age, described the research noting that aspects were “admittedly imperfect,” “of questionable value,” “entirely unwarranted,” and “open to serious criticism” (1949, 570).
“The reaction against the idea of disengagement was so great that it came to be cited as an example of the type of general theorising that gerontology should not indulge in” recapitulated Peter Coleman (1991, 217) with reference to Growing Old: The Process of Disengagement. Even at the time there were “claims for the theory’s insidious effects on social policy, buttressing custodial forms of treatment in institutions for example” critiques Peter Coleman (1991, 217).
A concurrent activity theory of aging developed. “The essence of this theory is that there is a positive relationship between activity and life satisfaction and that the greater the role loss, the lower the life satisfaction,” explain Bruce W. Lemon, Vern L. Bengtson, and James A. Peterson (1972, 511). In fact, “the two theories were actually referring to two different things, activity theory about individuals and disengagement theory about social systems,” note Lynott and Lynott (1996, 751).
For decades, sociologists, decision-makers, policymakers, agencies, economists, and employers contributed to the harmful effects of disengagement theory on social systems. The negative consequences of disengagement theory persist to this day.
Growing Old: The Process of Disengagement gave added momentum to other post-war trends. By the 1950s a combination of federal programs and corporate policies encouraged or compelled older workers to retire. This economic disengagement was driven by the perception of an excessive labor supply and the allure of financial incentives for retirees. Employers, who wanted to reboot their workforce, gave older adults the boot— Joan Harbison and colleagues chronicled in a broader context in Understanding “Elder Abuse and Neglect”: A Critique of Assumptions Underpinning Responses to the Mistreatment and Neglect of Older People (2012).
Born of the Great Depression, The Social Security Act of 1935 included Title I, which provided non-contributory, means-tested, old-age pensions and Title II (now considered as Social Security), which provided old-age insurance through a contributory social insurance scheme that included a Social Security Retirement Earnings Test (RET). The original RET was guided by the rationale that “one must be retired in order to collect retirement benefits from Social Security’s old-age insurance program.” An alternative interpretation is that the purpose of the RET was, “to force a choice on the aged worker: keep working and forgo the benefit or leave the workforce in order to collect…” According to this hypothesis, the RET was introduced into the Social Security Act of 1935 because “the designers of the program were motivated, at least in significant part, by the industrial policy objective of removing older workers from the workforce in order to make room for unemployed younger workers” (Larry W. DeWitt, 1999).
Talcott Parsons wrote the foreword for Growing Old: The Process of Disengagement. Earlier, in 1942, Parsons “…elevated age from the status of a conditional to an analytical variable,” as described by Vern Bengtson (2016) in Age and Sex in the Social Structure of the United States. In so doing, Parsons argued that age is a fundamental concept for understanding social structure — and now, as an analytical variable, for “scientifically” helping shape how people are positioned and expected to behave within society.
Modernity’s heightening of ageism was fueled and guided by the theory and practice of “disengagement.”
Just as first graders are primed to step in line, in their sixties many older adults stepped in line to embody this stereotype and play the part scripted by concepts considered in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman who received the American Sociological Association’s MacIver award — in 1961. Erving’s core concepts, such as the presentation of self, impression management, and social roles, can be applied to understanding how ageism might influence social interactions. For instance, older individuals may feel pressured to conform to certain age-related stereotypes or to downplay their age to avoid discrimination.
In taking a psychosocial approach to aging, Becca Levy (2009, 332) considers a theory of stereotype embodiment that:
“…proposes that stereotypes are embodied when their assimilation from the surrounding culture leads to self-definitions that, in turn, influence functioning and health. The theory has four components: The stereotypes (a) become internalized across the life span, (b) can operate unconsciously, (c) gain salience from self-relevance, and (d) utilize multiple pathways. The central message of the theory, and the research supporting it, is that the aging process is, in part, a social construct.”
In 1950, Erik Erikson’s Childhood and Society explored psychosocial development across the lifespan. Erikson proposed eight stages that individuals navigate, each with its own challenges and opportunities. As its title implies, the focus was on childhood, and adolescence. It was not until 1997 that, at age 94, Joan Erikson (Erik’s sage collaborator and wife) introduced a ninth stage, which included strengths-based gerotranscendence (Taiane Abreu and colleagues, 2023). But this was too late for the second half of the 20th century and its older adults.
Modernity’s devaluation of older adults created a fertile ground for ageism, and for elder abuse as an epidemic.
For some citizens, ageism, realized in the form of guardianship, is the coup de grace, the final blow. “Old age is not a diagnosis,” observes Atul Gawande in Being Mortal (2014, 39). Yet, “many statutes still [in the 1980s] included the term ‘advanced age’ in defining who needs a guardian,” notes Erica Wood of the American Bar Association (2019, 189). Ageism helps deprive citizens of constitution and humanitarian rights, and helps facilitate and perpetuate adult guardianship abuse and exploitation as a state-sponsored white-collar crime (Philip C. Marshall, 2023–2034).
Enhanced in the environment created and cultivated by Growing Old: The Process of Disengagement, modernity’s mid-century campaign gained formal recognition and its distinct name: ageism. The term “ageism,” originated in 1969 — publicly and in peer-reviewed publication — by gerontologist Robert Butler, first in reference to a proposed project in the affluent community of Chevy Chase, Maryland. Butler was quoted by Carl Bernstein who wrote a Washington Post article titled “Age and race fears seen in housing opposition.”
“Ageism,” as coined and circulated by Robert Butler, was informed by other social inequalities, racism and classicism. By examining ageism throughout life, we can develop a more proactive approach to address and dismantle the cumulative burdens of ageism and other intersectional inequalities. We should not focus exclusively on the later-life constraints of ageism, as often framed by the elder-justice community.
Tackling Abuse of Older People: Five priorities for the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing [2021–2030 (Five Priorities)] (World Health Organization. June 15, 2022) reads (p.10):
“A life-course approach is a temporal, societal perspective on the health and well-being of individuals and generations, with recognition that all stages of a person’s life are intricately intertwined with each other, with the lives of others born in the same period and with the lives of past and future generations. It includes recognition of how earlier influences — including past experiences of violence and abuse — may be risk factors for the abuse of older people.”
Informed by the guiding principles in UN Decade of Healthy Ageing: Plan of Action 2021–2030, Five Priorities indicates the following approaches should be considered: life-course, gender-specific, intersectional, inclusive and participatory, public health, and human rights. (p. 10–11) These will not be possible if elder justice maintains a limited approach to ageism, with its focus on older persons. Yet “combat ageism” is WHO Decade’s, first priority.
Coming to terms with the terms, and negative campaigns
“Abolish ageism,” “stop elder abuse,” and other campaigns that focus on negative messages are shortsighted. Such messaging may not be effective in changing people’s behavior. They often induce fear and anxiety. Such messaging can inadvertently reinforce harmful stereotypes and stigmas.
Ageism remains as warp and weft threads woven into the intricate fabric of our society’s inequalities. Robert Butler noted, with reference to the affluent community of Chevy Chase, Maryland, “recent events have revealed a complex interweaving of class, color, and age discrimination that may highlight the impact of these forces in our national life.” (1969, 243) Guided by Ariadne’s thread (Wikipedia), let us reexamine ageism informed by Butler’s initial observations and within the complex tapestry of other anti-social inequalities and pro-social solutions that shape our social fabric, our lives, and our future.
Humanity 101, to one-to-one
Martin Buber, an early 20th-century Jewish theologian, wrote “I and Thou” (Ich und Du). Buber tells us that “primary words” are not isolated words, but combined words. The word pair “I-It” implies and “I” with “It” considered as an object that is separate, an object that “I” experiences or uses. The word-pair “I-Thou” implies a relationship, which is the basis of our personal interdependence—and that of humanity, worldwide.
We journey toward a future that unites each of us and unites our present-future self, now. Along our shared path, transformation will be best achieved when there are transitions, in formation. Never before in history (which is a social construct, along with ageism), has society been provided with such a transformative time with elders. Not “by elders,” which primes a sense of independence, and disregard; not “for elders,” which may suggest patronizing dependency; but with elders and with our future selves throughout our journey, our life course. It’s about time.
Together, along our journey we will craft to a new normal — not a 101 relationship that implies a zero-sum game, but a one-to-one relationship that co-creates mutual gain to signal a collective change. This achievement is expressed by Cristina Bicchieri in Norms in the Wild:
“Norm creation and norm abandonment thus share common features: people must face a collective action problem, they must have shared reasons to change, their social expectations must collectively change, and their actions have to be coordinated. There are, however, important differences between norm creation and norm abandonment. To create a social norm, normative expectations must be created first, and empirical expectations will follow. To abandon a social norm instead, empirical expectations have to change first, and change in normative expectations will follow.”
“One of [Bernice] Neugarten’s most heralded contributions was to elucidate how age norms constrain human thought and behavior,” notes Kenneth F. Ferraro (2014, 129). In Sociological Perspectives on the Life Cycle, Bernice L. Neugarten and Nancy Datan title a section of their paper “Age Norms as a System of Social Control,” for example (1973, 53–79).
Susannah Ottaway, in describing a social relationship of “engaged independence” emphasizes, “A true ‘golden age of ageing’ would be found in a society possessing a cultural ideal of older people as integral, contributing members of their community, alongside a dependable system of social and economic support for the needy.” (2004, 2).
Tracey Gendron, in Ageism Unmasked: Exploring age bias and how to end it (2022, ch. 8), declares:
“The creation of an anti-ageist world is within our grasp; each and every person who commits to investing time and thought and planning into their own aging and elderhood will add one more brick to the foundation of a solid and stable structure. We each can play an essential role in building the critical mass needed to effect change in policy, laws, and practice.”
“The age-stereotype paradox is a social construct; therefore, dismantling it will require a societal effort,” notes Becca R. Levy (2017, S123). Levy, recommends, “establishment of an anti-aging czar and the launching of an aging-rights movement.” in Age-Stereotype Paradox: Opportunity for Social Change (S118). Levy has chronicled solutions in Breaking the Age Code: How Your Beliefs About Aging Determine How Long and Well You Live (2022).
“‘Old age will only be respected if it fights for itself, maintains its rights … and asserts control over its own to its last breath,’” echos Louise Aronson in Elderhood, quoting Cicero in her epigraph (2019).
Real impact demands shifting our focus from damage control to upstream interventions that tackle the root causes and prevent ageism from persisting. In Upstream: The Quest to Solve Problems Before They Happen, Dan Heath declares:
“My goal in this book is to convince you that we should shift more of our energies upstream: personally, organizationally, nationally, and globally. We can — and we should — stop dealing with the symptoms of problems, again and again, and start fixing them.”
Heath continues, “To go upstream is a declaration of agency: I don’t have to be at the mercy of these forces — I can control them. I can shape my world.” Going upstream will help both citizens and society reclaim agency for older persons and for our shared future.
In 2002, Robert H. Binstock, published “In Memoriam: Bernice L. Neugarten” in The Gerontologist. He lauded:
“Bernice’s prescience was further manifested in a lecture she delivered in 1982 in which she anticipated the emergence of the so-called ‘intergenerational equity’ construct (B. L. Neugarten 1996a). She observed, ‘The issue that underlies all the others and that will determine all the outcomes is how to maintain an age-integrated society and to guard against age divisiveness.’ She specifically observed that the political activities of aging advocacy groups may be contributing to a politics of age.”
CoGenerate is realizing Neugarten’s intergenerational equity while expanding human thought and behavior. As chronicled in its history:
“We were founded 25 years ago as Civic Ventures with the idea that the growing, older population was less a problem to be solved than an opportunity to be seized. In 2012, we became Encore.org to put a name on the years beyond midlife and imbue them with social purpose. Today, as CoGenerate, we focus on what the vast (and still growing) older population can do in collaboration with younger generations to solve our nation’s most pressing problems.”
By promoting a culture of engagement through intergenerational initiatives — like CoGenerate, ”bridging generational divides to co-create the future” — guided by Bicchieri’s work, we can forge a normative expectation of #engageism and abandon ageism.
Gratitude
I am grateful to the following persons for their work and/or review, which contributed to this article and contributes the cause:
- Cristina Bicchieri, S. J. Patterson Harvie Professor of Social Thought and Comparative Ethics, Department of Philosophy, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
- Sara Breindel, Ageism Consultant, American Society on Aging
- Patricia M. D’Antonio; Executive Director, National Center to Reframe Aging; Vice President, Policy & Professional Affairs, Gerontological Society of America
- Jean Davidson, Co-Director, Davidson Films, Inc.
- Marc Freedman, Founder and Co-CEO, CoGenerate
- Atul Gawande, Assistant Administrator for Global Health, USAID
- Tracey L. Gendron, Department of Gerontology, Virginia Commonwealth University
- Joan Harbison, Adjunct Professor, School of Social Work, Dalhousie University
- Adrienne Ione, Silver Linings Integrative Health
- Mark R. Leary, Professor Emeritus (Garonzik Family Professor of Psychology), Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University
- Becca R. Levy, Professor of Public Health (Social and Behavioral Sciences) and Psychology, Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Yale School of Public Health
- Bruce G. Link, Special Lecturer of Epidemiology and Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University
- Sarah Lloyd, Professor, History Department; Chair, University’s Heritage HubDirector; Director, Everyday Lives in War Centre; University of Hertfordshire
- Todd D. Nelson, Professor of Psychology, Psychology Department, Department of Psychology, College of Science, California State University
- Sik Hung Ng; Former Chair Professor of Psychology, Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences, City University of Hong Kong; Visiting Professor, Ethnic and Cultural Psychology Research Center, Renmin University of China; member, Asian Association of Social Psychology
- Eunice Lin Nichols, Co-CEO, CoGenerate
- Susannah R. Ottaway, Laird Bell Professor of History, Education & Professional History, Carleton College
- Briget Penhale, Emeritus Reader, School of Health Sciences; Member, Dementia & Complexity in Later Life; School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia
- Clay Routledge, Vice President of Research and Director of the Human Flourishing Lab, Archbridge Institute
- Julie Sweetland, Senior Advisor, FrameWorks Institute
- Matthew Vess, Associate Professor, Associate Head of Graduate Studies, Psychological & Brain Sciences, College of Liberal Arts at Texas A&M University
- Hans-Joachim von Kondratowitz, Senior advisor/Researcher, German Centre of Gerontology (DZA); Affiliated Lecturer, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Freie Universität Berlin
- Erica F. Wood, Assistant Director (ret.), ABA Commission on Law and Aging
#AgeismAwarenessDay #TalkAboutAgeism #EndAgeism #BeyondBrooke
