AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Age is a quantitative marker, set by humans as a means of control, yet the social construction of self and other allows these markers to have qualitative meaning. In the case of age, both children and the elderly suffer as a form of ‘other’ due to this classification. As these two groups are excluded, the age in between is included and forms the ‘self’ of Western society. In particular, the exclusion of the elderly results in ageism. When this is entrenched in societal structure, the effects are widespread. This essay will explore the formation of self and other in relation to age, and how this results on the one hand as inclusion, and on the other; ageism as a manifestation of exclusion. The essay will focus on this concept in specific relation to old age. Also discussed will be how this materially impacts those excluded through space, and even policy.

The self and other operate as means of controlling social groups through binary logic. They sustain a social hierarchy where it is undesirable to be at the bottom. In order to control understandings of the world, concepts unfamiliar to an individual are ‘othered’. This psychoanalytic tradition is sustained through a dialectic form of thinking where two extremes exist, with no middle ground; the self and other. This thought process is a social construction, contingent on social processes and majority groups (Cloke, 1999). This results in stereotyping; one group is marginalised for qualities that are only perceived (Cuddy and Fiske, 2002). Yet, as they are socially constructed they are neither essentialist nor biologically determined, and therefore open to critique and change (Holloway, 2005). This is evident as results vary across time and space, showing they are reliant upon people and environment, sustained by discourse. As such, the self cannot operate without the other, in accord with the theory of reflexivity (Cloke, 1999). Therefore, the concept of self and other has a direct relationship to inclusion and exclusion.

Age is no exception from these social forces as age identity is formed through self and other with consequences of inclusion and exclusion. In the case of age, the ‘other’ exists at both ends of the spectrum. Both children and the elderly are ‘othered’, and ‘in-between’ forms the self. Age is structured chronologically as a means of rationality, but has no intrinsic meaning (Bytheway, 2005). This is marked and controlled by birthdays which are an invention of the 18^th century. Yet, Van Gennep ([1908]1960:85-6; cited in Hockey and James, 2003) contests this means of measuring age. He argues that life is a series of transitions, and age is a means of stabilising these liminal periods. He sees age as a social identity and transitions as entering and exiting these social structures (Hockey and James, 2003). Whilst both theories may contrast, both clearly identify age as socially constructed. This social construction endorses age as a marker for groups of inclusion and exclusion. For example, a sixtieth birthday is seen by many as a consolidation of old age; Betty Friedan felt it was an acknowledgement of marginalisation (Bytheway, 2005). This specifically illustrates how the concept of self and other allows for one age group to impose a belief system on another. The irony of this is, unlike other social groups such as gender, race and class, age is universal. It is mobile; everyone has the ability to experience both childhood and old age. Thus, it is clear that through the notion of self and other, included and excluded groups are formed.

Age identity is further proven as a social construction as it differs over time and space. This demonstrates that the way in which self and other includes and excludes is malleable to social conditions. The Sukama of Tanzania link age to wealth, offspring and livestock, unmarked by physicality (Harper, 2006). This is an example of age identity differing over space in the context of different countries. The meaning of age has also developed in one space over time. Men’s clubs in Britain were once a source of pride to the skilled working class but are now associated with redundancy (Pain, 2001). Moreover, in primitive society, elders held authority, but between 1770 and 1820, development of family authority replaced this hierarchy (Blaikie, 1999). These diverse meanings of age identities demonstrate its variability over time and space, showing the way in which self and other operates is dependent on social conditions as opposed to biological determinism.

The dominant category, middle age, forms the self and is therefore included. A reason for this is the economic independence associated with this age, giving them consumer value and power within society. Yet, this age group is relatively unmarked and unseen, which is a common characteristic for the dominant group (Holloway, 2005). Despite this, stereotypes exist within this age group, such as the age of a mid-life crisis which consists of a change in lifestyle. Yet, these stereotypes are relatively minor, and the little analysis on this age group is a testament to its dominance. An irony surrounding the idea of middle-age as being the dominant and included group is that studies show that this is not necessarily associated with happiness. Research carried out by Arthur Stone (2010) on ‘a snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the United States’ concludes that middle-aged Americans consider themselves the least happy of all age groups. Thus, the dominant groups should not be taken for granted by perceived qualities, just as neither should the excluded group of the elderly.

Excluding senescence results in the phenomena of ageism, where value judgements based on age result in discrimination. Common perception of the elderly is that of ‘Doddering but dear’ (Cuddy and Fiske, 2002).  In their research of Americans’ perception of the elderly, Cuddy and Fiske discovered a patronising pattern in attitudes towards the elderly. Further research suggests old age in an assumed vulnerability (Grundy, 2006). This stereotyping dramatically compromises the variety of this group as the elderly are homogenised, when in reality they differ like any group of people (Cuddy and Fiske, 2002). The effects of this homogenisation are particularly evident when looking at open ended age categories. Gerontological research often leaves open ended categories for the elderly, exemplifying the unreliable nature of standardising age as it assumes similarities across this group (Bytheway, 2005). This in itself is a form of ageism. This categorisation and assumption of character is contested by the elderly. Research in North East England discovered an overwhelming response from elderly indicating that although physical frailty may affect them slightly, internally they felt no different (Mowl, Pain and Talbot, 2000). This is proof that it is externalities of ageing that carry stigma, but in no way reflect the internal reality of the elderly. Instead, ‘oldness’ is something imposed on them. This is a direct example of included groups in society acting through the self and excluding the other by way of imposition.

Tensions arise when exclusive stereotypes are contested. Hagerstad (1986; cited in Harper, 2006) noted a theory highlighting that life is lived in two separate registers. One of these is a sequence of institutionalised events such as school and work, the other un-institutionalised but stabilised through structures such as self-image. Tensions arise when these two registers fail to coincide. We see this result in ageism regularly (Harper, 2006). An example of this is when the elderly behave according to a younger social norm. When incidents like this arise, they are noticed, proven by Sleepyhead’s ad campaign in 2003 which featured an elderly lady dancing with pom-poms on the side lines of a sports match. The campaign’s success supports Hagerstad’s theory and demonstrates the rigid nature of societal norms created through age, and the consequences of breaking barriers of exclusion.                                    

The impacts of ageism across society inhibit public and private space as well as policy, proving ageism has tangible consequences throughout society. Ageism in the workplace is encouraged through elderly stereotypes, as shown in research which concluded that younger employees are rated as more competent to older employees despite no evidence. This illustrates that incompetence in the workplace lies solely ‘in the beholder’ (Cuddy and Fiske, 2002). An example of this was earlier this year, when BBC’s television show ‘Countryfile’ presenter, Miriam O’Reilly won a case against BBC for age discrimination. This is in line with Cuddy and Fiske’s research which reveals that television only portrays 1.5 percent of its characters as elderly, and most of these are minor roles. Ageism is also evident in medical policy. Butler (1998; cited in Bytheway, 2005) points out that a younger person is far more likely to be referred onto a specialist by a doctor than an elderly person with the same symptoms. It is also far more difficult to receive medical insurance as an elderly person (Cuddy and Fiske, 2002). Also indicative of this marginalisation is separation on a domestic level through retirement homes. As Pain explains, the home is considered an appropriate environment for the elderly, as the home space is associated with physical decline. Thus, spaces themselves are ascribed a certain age category, further highlighted when contrasted to a space associated which younger age groups, such as a dance club. This space excludes the elderly entirely and thus shows how ageism can affect space. Therefore, as an extension of the other, older age groups are excluded from the self, which has unfair and palpable ramifications.

Geographies of inclusion and exclusion are abundant across society and are a direct result of dominant groups taking on the role of the self and exerting themselves over the other. The discourses created through this are social constructions as they vary across time and space, yet sustain practices of discrimination. This is consistent in the case of age as the elderly are marginalised as a group. As the elderly suffer homogenisation through stereotyping, they are conscribed to certain places within society and discriminated against through policy. This highlights the overwhelming capacity of self and other to influence social groups within society. 

References

Anonymous. 2010 The U-bend of life, The Economist, 18^th December: 33-36

Blaikie, A. 1999 The history of old age: popular attitudes and policy perceptions, in Ageing and popular culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 28-56.

Bytheway, B. 2005 Ageism and age categorisation, Journal of social issues, 61(2): 361-374.

Cloke, P. 1999 Self-other, in Cloke, P., Crang, P. and Goodwin, M. eds Introducing human geographies, Arnold, London: 43-53.

Cuddy, A. and Fiske, S. 2002 Doddering but dear: process, content and function in stereotyping of older persons, in Nelson T. D. ed. Ageism: stereotyping and prejudice against older persons, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts: 3-26.

Grundy, E. 2006 Ageing and vulnerable elderly people: European perspectives, Ageing and Society, 26: 105-134.

Harper, S. 2006 Understanding age and ageing, in Ageing societies: myths, challenges and opportunities, Hodder Arnold, London.

Holloway, S. 2005 Identity and difference: age, disability and sexuality, Introducing human geographies, Arnold, London: 400-409

Hockey, J. L. and James, A 2003 The Structuring of Age, Social identities across the life course, Palgrave Macmillan, New York: 22-39.

Mowl, G., Pain, R and Talbot, C. 2000 The ageing body and the homespace, Area, 32(2): 189-197.

Pain, R. 2001 Age, generation and lifecourse, in Pain, R., Barke, M., Fuller, D., Gough, J., Macfarlane, R. and Mowl, G. eds. Introducing social geographies, Arnold, London: 141-164.