The aging of the post-war generation is not a surprise. For decades pundits have warned of a coming intergenerational conflict pitting the needs of aging boomers against younger generations.
I was just interviewed on the “Politics of Aging” in regards to my upcoming participation in a panel discussion on the same topic at the Poetics of Aging conference in San Francisco in November (ChangingAging is also a sponsor of this exciting event — formal announcement coming soon!). I was asked what pro-aging advocates have to say about this inevitable question: is providing for the needs of older people a zero sum game in which the young are robbed to care for the old?
My first response was to point out the fallacy in the argument. Our entitlement programs are based on a social compact in which we all pay in with the expectation the programs will be there for us in our old age. Yes, politicians have a tendency to promise more in future benefits and services than we can afford. Yes, adjustments will have to be made to keep the programs solvent. But no, that does not change the terms of the compact in which we all contribute and we all benefit. It is not a zero-sum game.
Secondly, I said the arguement is based on a “declinist” point of view that is widely universally embraced in contemporary American culture and absolutely rejected by pro-aging advocates. When aging is viewed only in terms of decline the conversation is inherently limited to the negtive aspects of aging. The social capital of elderhood and the important role it plays in society is ignored. The potential for human growth and development are ignored. In short, from a declinist perspective old people are seen only as a burden.
What then, the interviewer asked, is the alternative to a “declinist” viewpoint? It’s not just a point of view that aging leads to death — it’s a fact. And dying of old age is not cheap. What are these so-called benefits, how do we measure them and more importantly how do we convince society to embrace them?
How indeed? I can’t deny it will be an uphill battle to change the modern declinist paradigm. But changing that paradigm is what ChangingAging is all about. So I’ll give it a shot:
On the individual level research indicates happiness and self-satisfaction increase significantly in the second half of life. Given the value we place on happiness in our culture that should get most people excited about growing old. On a cultural level, we can thank senescence for the vast majority of folk art, according to research by the late and great Dr. Gene Cohen. A neuro-scientist, Cohen helped prove the concept of neuro-plasticity — that our brains continue to develop and grow our entire life. In fact, most people experience a liberation and explosion of creativity late in life, Cohen argued. Dr. Bill Thomas writes in “What are Old People For?” that evolutionary theory points to grandmothers as perhaps humankind’s greatest competitive adaptation. We are the only species that lives beyond our child-bearing years, and rather than being a burden on primitive human communities, it is believed grandmothers contributed to reducing infant mortality and therefore the success of our species. And traditionally, elders have played an essential role in guiding younger generations, providing wisdom, acting as peace-keepers and generally tempering the rashness and excesss of youth.
I could go on, and hope readers will back me up with a few more examples. But the real question is how do we actually convince our society to embrace the virtues of aging? What can we actually do to combat ageism and reduce our society’s debilitating obsession with youth? What is the roadmap for creating the kinds of sustainable, intergenerational communities that can benefit from and support elders and elderhood?
I have a very simple answer to that question. But I would like to hear what readers have to say first.
Doug — Let the record show I defer to your critique! I’ve crossed out universally and absolutely — hyperbole is never helpful. We have a strong and passionate community, but I am not as sanguine about our influence on society at large. Even within the world of long term care the culture change movement makes up a small fraction of providers. And among that fraction, institutional creep is an ever-prevalent threat. I bring up the culture change movement because this community — caregivers, elders and family — lies at the heart of my simple solution.
More soon.
All change starts with education and education starts with the young. Eden encourages intergeneratinal relationships and these we must foster if we are to dispel the myths of aging. This is only one part of the answer but a very powerful beginning.
Hi Kavan,
I disagree with your third paragraph stateements using “universally” and “absolutely”and think you need to be softened a little. I think that the work that has been done by Dr. Thomas and MANY others has started to turn the ship away from declinist thinking in the minds of many people. The work that has been done needs to be built upon and and widened to more of the citizenry. And no one knows that better than you.
Secondly I think this country cannot continue down the path of spending our way into oblivion. The national debt is in an upward spiral that must be reversed.That does not mean killing social security, medicare, medicaid and other life supporting programs. But it does mean making changes that will make them affordable. Controls need to be established to prevent congress from using these programs’ funding for other purposes. I retired several years ago and calculated how much I had paid into social security in a lifetime of working. The number was huge and had ii been invested properly it would have easily paid for my SS income for the rest of my life.
Medicaid and Medicare are at great risk from the changes Obamacare has imposed. This must be fixed and substantive changes made to the system that will really reduce the cost of care in our coountry. A good start and a significant cost reduction could be accommplished by tort reform which would reduce the cost of medical practice, and if broad enough, the cost of manufacturing and other business. When that happens, our competition in the world will improve, jobs will return and we will all benefit.
But you won’t find much support for conservative thinking in San Francisco . . .
Best,
Doug