In the first part of our series, we generally introduced the concept of ageism as an ideology from which age discrimination arises. We emphasized that this is not a problem exclusively for seniors, even though this phenomenon is more widespread in higher age groups and has more serious consequences. In this part we will focus on its most significant causes. Ageism is so complex that it is not possible to identify one single or the most serious cause. Some of them occur independently, some work together, and their importance mutually reinforces each other.

We probably would never have talked about the concept of ageism and age discrimination if there had not been a strong need to classify and differentiate people by their chronological age and/or membership in a certain generation. While a certain degree of this differentiation existed (and still exists) in all known historical cultures, the magnitude and importance of the role that chronological age plays in the life of the present-day person is entirely a modern matter. The need for rationalization emerging from industrialization, along with new forms of social control and administration of productive relations, made time and age stand out as central categories for nearly all activities needed to maintain an orderly system of production and organization. Time (its measurement) and age became highly efficient tools for the rational organization of public services and transfers.

The transformation to modernity brought age-layered social groups, supported by newly identified life stages and legally bureaucratic “reliance” on age as a criterion of entitlement and competence that the state requires for defining civic rights and obligations [Fry 2002]. As state pressure rises for the availability of individual age information, this information also becomes significant for the individual himself or herself, because “there is practically no social role that does not contain some kind of age limit” [Hazan 1994: 61]. It is not up to our discretion whether we add age in the “other relevant information” field in a bank loan application. If we want to understand what is happening in the world as presented by the media, we must accept as part of our common knowledge that the number in brackets in a newspaper article does not refer to weight or a house number, but to age. Ignorance of the current day, month, and year will even be considered a sign of a neurological disorder. Under these conditions, it is only one step away from using chronological age as an axis of differentiating and discriminatory conduct.

Another structural cause of ageism is the very increase in the number and proportion of older people in society. Demographic alarmism, as these publicly articulated fears are called, works subliminally with individually conditioned fears of aging as such. Among individual sources of ageism are primarily fear of death and aging as psychosomatic decline (in its extreme form, gerontophobia), and frustration and aggression, from which hostility (1) toward members of minority groups arises. A significant factor in the development of ageism on the individual level is selective perception (e.g., in professional ageism). Because stereotypes about old age have a strong tendency to be accepted by seniors themselves, ageism is deepened and replicated also through autostereotypes in the spirit of the self-fulfilling prophecy—when a senior accepts the idea of themselves as less capable, their performance will tend to actually decline. This in turn confirms negative attitudes around them as “correct.”

Among individual causes, the social identity theory developed by Tajfel and Turner [1986] is also cited, which assumes that seniors try to maintain a more positive image of seniors, while younger people prefer their own group, achieving this through more negative views of the senior group. Palmore [1990] points out in age stereotypes the double standards for evaluating the “my” and “the other” group: Young people may make mistakes or be slow without the label that they are incapacitated; young people can forget a name or address without being considered senile or being treated with patronizing condescension…

Among the most commonly cited popular prejudices or myths about old age are aging as illness, poverty, impotence (asexuality), ugliness, mental illness, senility, uselessness (superfluousness), loneliness, depression, childlikeness, but also (quasi-)positive shortcut perceptions of old age as a period of wisdom, political power, kindness, wealth, and individual freedom. As stereotypical generalizations, these views are unjustified and inaccurate, because seniors are, due to long-term layering of experiences, events, and social and professional roles and gains (or losses) from them, one of the most heterogeneous age-defined groups in society. The high internal heterogeneity of this group also implies that while there are many individuals in older age who do not match negative stereotypes, there are also individuals who are carriers of these characteristics. The critique of a stereotype therefore should not argue that “old age is never like that,” but that “old age is not always and for everyone like that.”

The final possible sources of ageism and age discrimination, which we will briefly mention here, are the theory of “age/generational conflict” and the theory of “age segregation.” The age/generational conflict theory is based on the assumption that society has only a limited amount of scarce goods and prestigious roles. If these are allocated and claimed on the basis of an age criterion or generational affiliation, they can create age (or generational) rivalry. In such a situation, disadvantaged groups are prompted to claim more power, and privileged groups respond with stronger efforts to protect their privileges. A practical example is the already mentioned demographic panics, where generations contributing to social systems are set against generations drawing from social systems. Some forms of age/generational conflict are likely present in most societies, but they take different forms and intensity. Manifestations of the conflict vary from verbal arguments (remember the various Facebook groups) to displays of violent behavior. Yet it is only very rarely that it appears as a problem of the whole society.

The problem of age segregation, by contrast, is very widespread and can be described in simplified form as real or symbolic separation of age groups in society. Spatial age segregation based on age means not only senior housing complexes or entire “villages” (the construction of whose now includes in the Czech Republic) but also nursing homes isolated on “green fields” at the edges of districts or cities, a high concentration of elderly populations in historical city centers, etc. Institutional age segregation appears when the principles and norms that define certain social institutions include chronological age as a necessary condition of participation, most often in the areas of education and work. As a result, the integration of older persons is threatened by the loss of social roles and disruption of group membership. Cultural age segregation is reproduced primarily through language. Language here serves as a key that enables people to describe and emphasize differences between age categories and create distinctions between “us” and “them.” Forms of this segregation are primarily symbolic.

I believe that where meaningful cross-generational interactions do not take place, there is a high risk of ageism emerging. Conversely, in environments where members of different age groups work together, age stereotypes and prejudices are reduced. This is also supported by survey results carried out in the Czech Republic: more than 30 % of respondents aged 18 – 29 stated that they did not have a close person older than 70. These respondents were more likely to agree with statements such as: “old people should live somewhere where they do not bother anyone” [Vidovićová 2008].

Unfortunately, in practice there is no stronger consensus as to which cause of ageism deserves the greatest attention, for example from policymakers or interventions, and whose treatment would lead, for instance, to complete eradication of this ideology. Because of the mutual interdependence of the individual causes, it is necessary to act on each of them separately, while at the same time being aware of their interconnectedness. One of the relatively well-implementable and demonstrably positive interventions is investment in removing segregating barriers and increasing the mutual exposure of people of different ages and different generational experience. Campaigns by non-profit organizations, such as “Today’s Taboo Is Called Old Age,” are one possible path to opening such dialogues.

Author: Mgr. Lucie Vidovićová, Ph.D. Research assistant, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno The author cooperates as an expert guarantor in the Diakonie ČCE social campaign on the topic of ageism. The project “Ageism” was supported by grant GA ČR 403/06/1647. List of references used: Fry, C. L. 2002 “Age”. Pp. 21-24 in Ekerdt, D. J. (ed.) 2002. Encyclopedia of Aging. New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. Hazan, H. 1994. Construction and Deconstruction of Old Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. 1986. “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”. Pp. 7-17 in Worchel, S., Austin, W.G. (eds.). 1986. The psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Vidovićová, L. 2008. Aging, age and discrimination – new contexts. Brno: Masaryk University.

(1) tendency toward hostile aggressive impulses – editor’s note

Expert journal Social Services - May 2011

Cover and content of the issue HERE (PDF, 899KB)

The journal Sociální služby was founded in 2009 through the transformation of the previous APSS CZ Newsletter. It is published ten times a year in 36–48 A4 pages in a print run of 3,500–4,000 copies for approximately 16,000 readers from providers, organizers and users of social services, representatives of public administration, and students and teachers at higher education institutions in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

More information can be obtained at the websites http://www.socialnisluzby.eu and http://www.apsscr.cz.

Orders for member organizations of APSS CZ are processed directly by the publisher or editorial office at: Kotnovská 137, 390 05 Tábor, Czech Republic, tel./fax: +420 381 213 332, mobile + 420 606 751 156 or +420 606 832 551, e-mail: redakce@apsscr.cz.

Past issues: Whole issue - January 2010 (PDF, 4,54 MB)