| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR |
a Yale University New Haven, Connecticut
b Duke Center on Aging, Box 3003 Duke University Medical Center Durham, NC 27710
To the Editor:
I share Dr. Palmore's view that "ageism is a major problem in our society" (Palmore 2000
). However, I disagree with the remedy he proposes: replacing terms that he believes have negative connotations, including "old," with another set that he believes has neutral or positive connotations, including "older person."
Replacing "old" with "older person" implies that she or he should be defined in relation to younger individuals in our society, and therefore enhances the marginalization that is part of ageism. In the same way, "female doctor" perpetuates the notion that the unmarked term "doctor" properly applies to males.
Similarly, the terms "grandparent" and "retired person," that Dr. Palmore also advocates, implicitly send a message that their identity should be defined in relation to the young; that is, by the work history of their younger years or by their line of succession. Further, these terms reinforce the belief that grandparenthood and retirement are inevitable states. According to a recent survey of baby boomers, 80% reported that they expect to continue working during "retirement," either full- or part-time.
Another type of problem arises from giving an unfamiliar meaning to a familiar term, such as the proposed "veteran," which could have an unanticipated consequence. Awkward substitutions may provoke a notion that there is something pejorative about the replaced term, even if it is not the case; or else accentuate the pejorative connotation, if it does exist, by indirectly drawing attention to it.
The underlying assumption of the editorial is that it is "language that implicitly perpetuates ageism." Instead, the terms reflect ageism. It seems futile to change the mirror when the image persists. This futility was discovered by those who had been called "Negroes" before the Civil Rights Movement. Amidst chants of "Black is beautiful," they replaced the term with "Blacks." But "Blacks" was eventually replaced with "African Americans" because changing terms had not altered reality: the persistence of prejudice by Whites, and the internalized effects of it on the targets.
We need to work towards a time when those who have reached old age, as well as those who have not, share a conviction that gray is beautiful, or at least acceptable. When we achieve this, the connotation of labels will no longer be an issue.
Dr. Palmore replies:
I appreciate Dr. Levy's concern with ageism in our society and how to reduce it. Our main disagreement appears to be whether negative terms perpetuate ageism or merely "reflect ageism."
There is a considerable body of research that shows that the terms and concepts people use both reflect AND affect attitudes (Palmore 1999; Blair and Banaji 1996; Banaji and Hardin 1996). Furthermore, it is common sense that this is so: If we call someone "senile" or "decrepit," this will usually affect the listener's perception and attitude toward the person.
As for which terms are more negative, neutral, or positive, there is much controversy in the field. However, it seems clear that when "aging" is used as a euphemism for deterioration, and when "old" is used as a euphemism for senile or decrepit, it tends to perpetuate the stereotype that these are equivalent terms.
My plea is simply that we gerontologists become especially sensitive and careful about the connotations and effects of the terms we use for "senior citizens."
References
| ||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
