Can the Concept of Age Equality Challenge Prejudice and Ageism?
A recent article in ‘Ageing and Society’[1]presented a critique of the concept of age equality and of the limited scope it offers as a means for challenging old-age prejudice. This paper presents a brief overview of Colin Duncan’s critique.
Introduction
Duncan begins by stressing that age equality as a theoretical construct and policy application is highly problematic in confronting age discrimination that affects older people. The current thinking and policy that embrace age-equality constructs may be contributing to, rather than confronting, the marginalisation of older people.
Age Legislation and Older People
The recent introduction of the European Union framework Equal Treatment Directive (Council Directive 2000/78/EC) and subsequent enactment of age legislation in the United Kingdom (UK) in October 2006 combating discrimination in employment and vocational training has several implications for older people. Employees have the right to request that they continue to be employed beyond the default retirement age of 65. The legislation also outlaws age discrimination in recruitment, promotion and harassment as well as unfair dismissal and other workforce practices. The legislation excludes older people outside employment and vocational training in that it is assumed that ageism in the workplace is widely regarded as the most significant and damaging aspect of age discrimination.
Legal Remedy
Duncan argues that if it is accepted that old-age prejudice should be confronted and that the current age equality legislation is deficient in challenging this prejudice, adoption of the human rights principle of ‘equal human dignity,’ might secure better protection for older people. Equal respect for the dignity of people of different ages will on occasion require treating different age groups differently.
Social Constructions of Ageing
Duncan’s notes how the version of anti-ageism incorporated into UK and European law reinforces notions of ‘age neutrality’ and ‘agelessness’ which for many older people is a double edged sword. Not only can age neutrality dilute and downgrade special protection for older people, elements of positive ageing can embrace anti-ageing as well as anti-ageist sentiments, thereby promoting and perpetuating old age discrimination. Negative connotations of old age are reinforced as something to be avoided and feared. Associating growing old with decline, dependency and mortality mean that people distance themselves from labels such as ‘elderly’ or ‘old’.
He shows how underrepresentation or exclusion from employment, the media and advertising services along with the ageist assumptions underlying many aspects of health care, social services and education provision, not only reinforce this message but these attitudes become part of the rules of institutions that govern the conduct of everyday life and, “...blend imperceptibility into everyday values and attitudes that... have a drastic effect on the way older people lead their lives.”
Affordability and Intergenerational Equity
In parallel to discussions of age equality legislation and social constructions of ageing, he highlights how questions of ‘affordability’ have entered the debate. A headline such as ‘demographic time bomb’ and questions over older people’s share of public resources relative to younger groups presents distinct challenges. While these themes of ‘affordability’ and ‘intergenerational inequity’ are often presented as related, he stresses that they are actually discrete issues.
The myth of the demographic time bomb derives from the crudely fashioned ‘old age support ratio’ – those aged 65 or more years relative to the number in working age. Duncan argues that a more accurate measure is the ‘total economic support ratio’ which compares those in work against those who are not, including children. He concludes that this measure suggests that any changes in economic dependency will be manageable.
Intergenerational inequity is a highly complex syndrome and prone to facile misunderstandings. He argues for ‘processional justice’, that is justice over time between age groups and generations. Different age groups have different needs, and unequal treatment need not violate justice if each cohort benefits equally over a lifetime. In this respect age inequality differs fundamentally from gender, race and other forms of discrimination, which has not been recognised within anti-discrimination frameworks. He also notes that private transfers within families are usually downward, from older generations to younger members but are usually ignored in discussions of generational equality. This not only includes economic transactions but provision of informal care. Such complexities seldom arise in debates over demographics or generational equity.
Conclusions
Duncan concludes by arguing that simple equality constructs do not lend itself to the many manifestations of old-age prejudice. The ‘agelessness’ and ‘age neutrality’ constructs that is evident in current age equality legislation is unlikely to work in favour of older people. A shift is needed towards human rights constructs such as ‘dignity’ which can endorse differential treatment; challenge utilitarian treatment in the allocation of resources; and confront demeaning attitudes and treatment of older people reinforced by this ‘agelessness’ and ‘age neutrality.’ The need for activism by or on behalf of older people needs to move beyond defending pension and welfare arrangements as these simply inadequately reflect or confront the roots of prejudice. Alternatively such activism could contribute to a climate for change towards newer more positive visions and experiences of older people both within and outside employment. However, new thinking and changes of emphasis will be required by advocacy groups, policy makers, researchers and the academic community.
January 2009
For further information contact: Judith Cross, Policy Officer, CARDI, t: +44 (0) 90690066: m: +353 (0) 867904171; www.cardi.ie
1
[1] Duncan, C. 2008. The Dangers and Limitations of Equality Agendas as a Means for Tackling Old-Age Prejudice. Ageing and Society 28, 8, 113-1158