| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
BOOK REVIEW |
Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Public Policy Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) Baltimore, MD 21250
The Need for Theory: Critical Approaches to Social Gerontology, edited by Simon Biggs, Ariela Lowenstein, and Jon Hendricks. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., Amityville, NY, 2003, 263 pp., $47.00 (cloth).
On Social Gerontology
Gerontology has been a field criticized for being rich with data but starved for theoretical constructs to inform its research (Bass & Ferraro, 2000; Bengtson, Parrott, & Burgess, 1996; Bengtson, Rice, & Johnson, 1999; Biggs, Lowenstein, & Hendricks, 2003; Birren & Bengtson, 1988; Katz, 1996; Longino, 2005; Maddox & Campbell, 1985; Marshall, 1999; Minkler, 1996; Moody, 1988; Myers, 1996; Phillipson, 1998; Walker, 1999). Like a ship without a rudder, gerontological research has been viewed by some as drifting from study to study without a larger intellectual consensus or direction. The criticism of researchers assembling vast amounts of empirical evidence without the associated abstract reflection has been a criticism that is not unique to social gerontology and has its antecedents in the work of Talcott Parsons in the 1940s and 1950s (e.g., Parsons, 1997; Savage, 1981), in which he unleashed a stinging critique of the empirical sociological research of his time.
This is not to excuse or understate social gerontology's modest theoretical evolution by pointing out that sociologists have long been fretting over such matters but to put the criticism in historical perspective. Further, contributions to gerontology have not been entirely without theory—for there have been numerous theoretical constructs, which have appeared in the literature. As Longino notes about gerontological research and theory, "All studies and the papers that are written from them are driven by ideas" (Longino, 2005, p. S172). Unfortunately, many of the early theories emergent in the development of the field have melted away due to their oversimplicity, inadequate or even contradictory empirical evidence to support the theoretical construct, or a lack of intellectual staying power in the community of scholars (Biggs et al., 2003). It is often the case that these theoretical writings about research concerning the aged or the aging society emerge from the underpinnings in one of social gerontology's core disciplines—work which viewed from an interdisciplinary gerontological perch could be criticized as unidimensional in perspective. Such theoretical formulations are customarily specialized and narrow, restricted to questions of aging or the aging society that are often associated with a particular discipline or subdiscipline and lacking the robustness and complexity with which gerontologists seek to examine the aging phenomenon.
Therefore, theories have been developed and research carried out that examine gerontological components primarily from a disciplinary perspective or a particular framework allied with an established group of scholars. Examples of more recent theoretical papers that have been solicited and published in The Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences include conceptual articles on life course theory (November, 2003), feminist theory (November, 2004), critical theory (May, 2005), and one on the relationship between childhood studies and aging research (July, 2005). Part of the criticism voiced is that the existing theoretical works that have been published may be inadequate, in that they either incorporate the micro levels involving the psycho-social disciplines without blending with the larger political, cultural, and economic conditions that interact with the behavior of individuals and groups, or they do just the opposite. Some social gerontologists have argued that many of these concepts are simply not reflective of the many levels on which scholars need to consider aging individuals and groups in a societal context.
Hagestad and Dannefer (2001) refer to this phenomenon as the "microfication of gerontology" where individual- and problem-centered analysis prevails, often ignoring the larger social dynamics that influence these outcomes. Settersten writes that "Specifying and measuring the effects of social contexts on individuals—as opposed to the standard practice of assessing individual statuses or activities in social domains—remain ‘elusive' in social gerontology" (Settersten, 2005, p. S177). It is this desire for a more integrated and unified theory reflective of the aspirations of gerontology where there is interest in theory development and where there is ample room for criticism of what has been posited. This search for a larger scale unified theory is, indeed, gerontology's "holy grail."
Perhaps part of gerontology's strength—its explicit goal of drawing upon a range of disciplines to understand the aging individual within a societal context—has also been part of its difficulty in building fundamental theoretical constructs. That is, social gerontology scholars, for the most part, have been well trained in the disciplinary culture and theoretical foundations of their primary field. Strong theoretical traditions exist in the disciplines of the social and behavioral sciences, be it sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, or political science, to name a few. As Ruth Ray puts forth in her chapter, the proponents of one perspective or another, rather than adding to a cumulative discourse across the disciplines, have led to the establishment of an unconnected patchwork quilt of ideas, each with its own adherents and supporters.
In an effort to be inclusive and welcoming to the many different disciplines, professions, and perspectives interested in aging, too often the gerontology community has simply included additional perspectives rather than debate their appropriateness in the development of an integrated gerontological imagination. Rather than seeking to achieve integration of ideas or, even in selected cases, the dismissal of some ideas, the experience has been much more of a community that has added data and segmented concepts creating a collection of findings and ideas that hang together more like separate charms on a bracelet than the interlocking threads of a woven tapestry. Efforts at inclusiveness by bringing new members into the multidisciplinary gerontology family have at times overridden the more commonplace heated arguments and intense disagreements that have characterized better established fields.
The public's general interest and concern about aging and the aging society has helped serve as a magnet attracting public and private funding for research. The volumes of data and numerous studies have helped fuel a growing self-criticism among gerontologists that the research, while informative, has not sufficiently shaped theory, and the emerging theories have been inadequate guides in shaping the empirical work itself. The effort of inclusiveness and the level playing field in which a variety of ideas and findings have equal merit in gerontology may have helped lead to a reluctance to engage in the great debates and intense arguments which would inevitably lead to a more restrictive and less welcoming community of scholars.
The challenges facing the development of gerontology as a discipline run deeper than merely its desire to be multidisciplinary and inclusive. As Achenbaum (1995) has noted, numerous academics have crossed the disciplinary frontier to help build the field of gerontology. Given the politics of academe, these faculty are taking academic risks, in that promotion and tenure often lie within the control of a traditional discipline. Rewards are distributed to those who have earned national recognition for their department through academic accomplishments involving the leading journals and publications within their field. An economist's publication in a gerontological journal may be viewed by his or her peers as a less valued accomplishment than a publication in the leading economics journal. For some who are interested in gerontology, attention must be paid to their traditional discipline if they are to thrive in their home department.
This schism has led to a caution among gerontology researchers and scholars where they can love to be at the frontier, but attention must be paid to the one who pays the bills. This love for gerontology, but practical need to remain true to their home departments, has forced many a scholar to be careful not to wander too far out of the discipline and has promoted a kind of "dual citizenship" for a number of gerontologists (Bass & Ferraro, 2000). In recognition of this duality, Achenbaum writes that, "successful researchers on aging generally lead split lives; they must satisfy their own discipline's standards for tenure and annual raises while interacting with gerontological scholars from divergent backgrounds" (Achenbaum, 1995, p. 11). Although this is far less a concern for those in research positions or those in gerontology schools or departments, for the overwhelming number of faculty the reality of the university structure is a salient issue.
The risk associated with going too far afield may also be another factor which has led to the retardation of the development of gerontological theory. Allegiances to the home department and ties to the core discipline are deep seated and visceral. These deep ties can manifest themselves in the extension of well-worn theories from the core discipline adapted to gerontology. This extension is understandable and, even in some cases, extremely useful in explaining the phenomena studied. However, it leads to some of the outcomes discussed in the chapters prepared for The Need for Theory: Critical Approaches to Social Gerontology edited by Simon Biggs, Ariela Lowenstein, and Jon Hendricks. Rather than building a series of theoretical postulates that are refined and developed over time, gerontology has been better characterized as a series of discrete theories that remain separate islands without bridges to connect them. These separate spaces remain independent and unconnected with their own specialized constituency of believers. Without the forced integration and the development of ideas where intellectual real estate is fought for—that is, a gerontology where the allegiance is to gerontology alone—it may be easier to allow theories to coexist in gerontology rather than take on major arguments. By taking on major arguments and fighting for perspectives in the discourse of ideas, gerontologists would undoubtedly need to engage in full-time intellectualism within gerontology itself, leaving little time for activities in their traditional core discipline. And, at this time, there are only a few who have this opportunity.
Nevertheless, it only takes a few great minds to construct theories reflective of gerontology's complexity. Interestingly, in The Need for Theory, the editors, perhaps inadvertently, have demonstrated that there is a growing intellectual foundation emerging in social gerontology. Emanating from the critics of gerontological scholarship, often involving a collection of talented humanists and social scientists, a gerontological conceptual framework (or frameworks) has begun to emerge. These critical gerontologists, during a 30-year period, have developed the kind of intellectual discourse that has continued to build upon the work of one another. Rather than segmented and categorical, the work has been additive and cumulative involving contributions from scholars in Europe and the United States.
Developed as a radical critique of the prevailing wisdom (or, depending on your point of view, the lack thereof), the critical gerontologists have developed the kind of solid foundation that perhaps can now lead to the development of a mainstream unified theory. Branching off from sociological critical theory inherited from Marx, the critical gerontologists owe an allegiance to scholars such as Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas, Max Horkheimer, and Theodor Adorno, known collectively as the Frankfurt School. More recently, postmodernist scholars such as Chris Gilleard and Paul Higgs (2000, 2005) have deviated from the critical gerontologists and pointed to patterns of consumption and the desires and wants of elders as one way to understand the culture of a consumer-driven, aging society. The irony is that these counter-perspectives may have provided the very insight in which social gerontology can now develop a unifying theoretical foundation.
In the three decades of intellectual discourse generated by the critical gerontologists, a range of important contributions has been made by people such as Carroll Estes, Chris Phillipson, Laura Katz Olson, Simon Biggs, Steve Katz, Tom Cole, Rick Moody, Meredith Minkler, Anne-Marie Guillemard, Martha Holstein, Martin Kohli, Victor Marshall, John Myles, and Alan Walker, to name a few. While these scholars are not necessarily in agreement with one another, they have provided a template for serious scholarly discourse and informed critical thinking.
The Need for Theory
The Need for Theory: Critical Approaches to Social Gerontology is an edited book composed of 14 chapters focusing on gerontology theory (12 chapters and an introduction and conclusion by the editors) with significant contributions from the critical gerontology perspective. As readers of The Gerontologist are well aware, edited volumes have become quite common in gerontology and can serve as another mechanism to provide multidisciplinary involvement and inclusion. Based on the earlier statements about the field, some of these edited volumes can merely be a rounding-up of essays from different contributors from a range of disciplines with little connectedness or direction. In the case of The Need for Theory, however, rather than a loose collection of random articles, the editors have been conscientious in providing an organizational structure for the articles and a logic for their inclusion in the volume.
The book is divided into three sections, one on "theorizing gerontology," a second on "theorizing micro relations," and a third on "theorizing macro relations." The title is carefully constructed to reflect the purpose of the book, which is about the need for theory and a discussion of "critical approaches to social gerontology." Note that the book title does not promise the development of theory, but speaks to the need for theory. It also emphasizes the critical approaches to social gerontology, which further delineates the focus of the book—and the editors stay true to their stated objective.
The editors have assembled a tightly constructed volume, despite the involvement of numerous contributors. Further, the editors have taken care to write a thoughtful introduction and conclusion as well, and each of the three has written their own significant solo chapter.
The chapters of the book are brief and to the point, usually less than 20 pages of text. The brevity of the chapters and the relatively small number of the chapters make the book an easy read while still addressing a challenging subject involving abstract thinking and thoughtful reflection in gerontology. Several of the chapters are written by authors outside of the United States. For example, authors Christina Bode, Freya Dittmann-Kohli, and Gerben Westerhof are from the Netherlands; Ariela Lowenstein is from Israel; Chris Phillipson is from England; Emmannuelle Tulle is from Scotland; and Hans-Joachim von Kondratowitz is from Germany. Clearly, considerable attention to theoretical issues has been paid by scholars outside of the United States, and the contributions to the book, for the most part, are exemplary.
The editors have obviously given significant thought to what has been assembled, and their attention to detail is appreciated. Even with the care given to this volume, there are still definitional issues which remain. The different contributors to the volume often use the same words, but may mean different things. For example, three of the chapters refer to gerontology as a discipline; however, other chapters do not. Based on the literature, does gerontology really meet the formal definition of a discipline? Has it achieved a unifying theme, its own distinct methods, a record of independent intellectual capital, and measures of academic standards and quality (Bramwell, 1985)? While some of these criteria have been achieved, the jury is still out in the determination of whether gerontology has established a unifying theme and distinct research methods. These issues are not discussed in the book.
Even the word "theory," which is used frequently in almost every chapter in the book, may be referring to "concepts" and might not meet the standards used by other authors to be considered as theory. The same is true for the word "meaning," which was extensively used in the chapter written by Westerhof, Dittmann-Kohli, and Bode, and also appears in the chapter by Hendricks. The way "meaning" is used in this context is much more topical, reflecting a different connotation than found in other works on the subject (see Weiss & Bass, 2002). The editors did not address these issues of the use of words and their intent across the chapters.
The meaning of words is a subject unto itself and merits its own discussion beyond the scope of this article. In the 1960s Lorand Szalay developed the Associative Group Analysis Test to determine just how different individuals may use the same words but actually mean different things. In his lifelong research Szalay asked thousands of individuals to free associate and write down the first words that come to mind when hearing a word. For example, the word "community" and the word "family" have very different associations and meanings depending on the culture from which one comes. According to Szalay, the form and understanding of a message can be different depending on who receives the message. When one uses the word "theory," for example, it may have very different interpretations for the person decoding the word. Obviously this distinction between the intent of the word, in this case by the author, and the understanding of the word by the reader may be different. Definitions by the editors, or tighter editing, would help in clarifying the real meaning of the words used across chapters.
Among the very fine chapters in The Need for Theory, three are particularly significant: Chapter 4 "Structure and Identity—Mind the Gap: Toward a Personal Resource Model of Successful Aging" by Jon Hendricks, Chapter 9 "Globalization and the Reconstruction of Old Age: New Challenges for Critical Gerontology" by Chris Phillipson, and Chapter 12 "Theoretical Perspectives in Old Age Policy: A Critique and a Proposal" by Carroll Estes. Each of these chapters merits special attention and should be considered as required reading for an introductory graduate gerontology course. Each, in its own way, provides insight to the theoretical issues in gerontology and, taken together, provides a guide to the development of a comprehensive theoretical view of aging and the elders in society. They are particularly well written, clear, and insightful as to the intellectual challenges in gerontology now and as we look to the future.
Toward Social Gerontological Theory
Although a grand and unified theory for all of gerontology may not be achievable due to its scope, it may be within reach for the subjects covered within social gerontology. Such a theory includes at least the following elements. As theory development in the field remains an ongoing process, other scholars may have additional elements to expand and enhance this list.
First, the theory must integrate the experience of the individual with that of the larger environmental context. Hendricks, in his chapter in The Need for Theory, states that the goal of the "chapter is pursue a conceptual union between individual-level factors and contextual considerations as they play out in life course change and personal agency" (p. 64). Not only does Hendricks set this as a goal of the chapter, but it remains a goal for gerontological theory and research.
People, as they age, are centered in social and economic contexts as well as larger world events which can have a profound influence on the personal experience. Those older people and their families "occupying advantaged positions" (p. 68) will likely have significant benefits in terms of health care, acquisition of services, and quality of life that have been accumulated throughout the entire life course. Those in less advantaged positions will accumulate throughout their lives a different set of experiences leading to a different economic and health portfolio of outcomes and preparation for growing old. The individual aging experience is influenced by the cohort and period effects in which their unique life-course is lived. Hendricks in the later portion of his chapter goes on to quote Estes, Swan, and Gerard (1982, p. 155) "... the status and resources of the elderly, and even the trajectory of the aging process itself, are conditioned by one's location in the social structure and the economic and political forces that affect it." It is this integration of individual and larger scale political economy which a unified theory should address. Estes states in her chapter that the conceptual underpinnings need to consider "the multi-level relationships within and among social structure, social processes, and the population" (p. 224). Although harder to pinpoint, it is important not to underestimate the power and persistence of macrolevel influences in the development of the theoretical framework and the consequences of these less visible influences on the public.
Second, the theory must be interactive in that social forces influence individuals, and, in exchange, individuals and groups influence these larger social forces. Rather than sequential or ordered, the relationships and interaction between individuals, groups, and their context is dynamic, fluid, and interactive with each influencing each other. Estes emphasizes that these issues do not begin "with the individual, the generation, institutions or organizations, or society. Rather, all levels are viewed in terms of mutual dependency, rather than opposition" (p. 224).
Third, the development of theory will need to embrace complexity in terms of experience of aging in a postindustrial society and the unique circumstance of cohort and time period effects. Unfortunately not neat and tidy, the discourse about the aging experience in a multifaceted, consumer-driven society ripe with inequality and expanding divergence between the rich and poor should represent the many cultural, ethnic, racial, gender, geographic, religious, and age differences within the aging population. Anything but homogenous, the aging society is one with enormous divergence. The theoretical framework must explicitly embrace this diversity and diffusion if it is to provide unity to the discussion. Hendricks notes that "experience, perception, and interpretation are mediated by one's social life space with its coupled norms, commitments, and entitlements. The relativity of personal experience, expectations, and self-concept is circumscribed by public constructs built-in to shared experiences affecting interaction, education, health, work and retirement—to name but a few" (p. 65). Trying to understand the aging experience requires a reflection upon its multidimensionality and multifaceted nature. Attempts to describe the aging experience, which miss these nuances, are one of the reasons why gerontology has earned its self-criticism.
In his solo chapter in The Need for Theory, Hendricks develops a conceptual model for "personal resource dimensions of social life space" (p. 72). A cubed-shaped figure is presented as a representation of the conceptual model. It lists three dimensions of social life space: 1) the physiological and psychological dimension, 2) the social–familial dimension, and 3) the fiduciary dimension. Unfortunately, this representation falls short of reflecting the complexity of social gerontology. While these three dimensions are salient elements, they take place in a primordial soup of policies, regulations, economic conditions, traditions, and private and public practices that have an enormous influence on personal resource dimensions. The conceptual model would be strengthened if it expanded the milieu in which the dimensions take place. It is this kind of interaction and multifaceted complexity that will need to be added to the emerging conceptual frameworks that are to be developed.
A fourth element that needs to be part of a unified theory of social gerontology is the importance of theoretical evolution and change. This is why Phillipson's contribution is so important to the anthology. One of the constructs that has ushered in the development of the Third Age has been the institutionalization of retirement and the consequences of a time period for many where there is less obligation to work. Considerable research has examined the issues associated with work, meaning, and retirement. However, as the postindustrial economy has become far more mobile and global in the location of production and services, the structures that influence private sector policies have extended beyond the easy regulatory reach of governments. The consequence of this increased globalization is a "move from ‘organized' to ‘disorganized capitalism' to shift from ‘simple' to reflexive modernity,' or to the transformation from mass assembly (‘fordist') to flexible service-driven (‘post-fordist') economies" (p. 165). The emerging social gerontology theory needs to be malleable enough so that as large scale political or economic changes take place gerontological theory can also adjust.
For example, there is growing evidence of a shift in government responsibility for providing later life economic security. The same is true of corporate policies that, in many instances, have changed the responsibility for pension support from that of the company, in the form of defined corporate pensions, to the individual, in the form of defined contribution plans. A consequence of these larger scale changes is that there is mounting financial pressure on working-age baby boom adults to cover more and more costs that were previously either covered by employers or the government. One-time social goods supported by the government (e.g. college tuition, social services, Medicare) have increasingly become private costs, which in turn may force individuals to cut back on personal savings, especially savings for retirement. The concomitant effects of federal deficits and a growing political reluctance to cover social costs, a change in corporate culture shifting obligations for private pensions, and difficulties in establishing personal savings may have a profound effect on individual choice and behavior. These macrolevel changes may even threaten the entire existence of the Third Age, except for the wealthy.
A robust theory of social gerontology must build into its foundation the expectation of constant flux and sociopolitical change. For example, in the unlikely event that future aging cohorts experience an expansion in the role of the state in social welfare, theory should be sufficiently malleable to adjust to changing circumstances. Its strength must come in its ability to encourage discourse and disagreement as larger world events and pressures assert themselves. For a robust theory to exist there must be critical theory operating in a crucial struggle for a conceptual understanding of human experience. Through arguments and counterarguments a pattern of gerontological imagination will emerge that is not static or entrenched. The social gerontology theory that is about to emerge must be dynamic and embrace a sustained dialog with critical gerontology if a unified theory is to grow, evolve, and change.
Concluding Thoughts
The Need for Theory is an edited book that will trigger considerable discussion. The book is well written and raises a variety of salient contemporary issues. More to the point, the book lays some building blocks for the direction of a conceptual foundation constructed upon the important work of critical gerontologists. With a bit more work, social gerontology is on the cusp of a unified theory that can serve as a foundation for more complex, multiple-measured research in social gerontology.
Not only is a conceptual foundation of unified theory around the corner, but with the proper incentives, it could be made available in the near future. For example, the Gerontological Society of America, with support for individuals or a foundation, could offer a competitive award for papers addressing unified theory in social gerontology. The prize could be monetary and of sufficient national recognition to encourage scholars to take one more step and immerse themselves in a dialog that goes beyond their disciplines of origin and builds an original theory in gerontology.
References
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  S. A. Bass INTELLECTUAL PERSPECTIVES ON AGING Gerontologist, April 1, 2008; 48(2): 265 - 270. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
