Dillaway and Byrnes Reconsidering Successful Aging

http://jag.sagepub.com/Journal of Applied Gerontology

http://jag.sagepub.com/content/28/6/702The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0733464809333882

2009 2009 28: 702 originally published online 12 MayJournal of Applied Gerontology

Heather E. Dillaway and Mary ByrnesAcademic Critiques and Conceptualizations

Reconsidering Successful Aging : A Call for Renewed and Expanded

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Gerontological Society

can be found at:Journal of Applied GerontologyAdditional services and information for

http://jag.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jag.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jag.sagepub.com/content/28/6/702.refs.htmlCitations:

at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on February 28, 2011jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jag.sagepub.com/

http://jag.sagepub.com/content/28/6/702

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.southerngerontologicalsociety.org/sgs/index.asp

http://jag.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jag.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jag.sagepub.com/content/28/6/702.refs.html


702

Journal of Applied Gerontology

Volume 28 Number 6December 2009 702-722

© 2009 The Author(s)10.1177/0733464809333882

http://jag.sagepub.com

Manuscript received: November 11, 2007; final revision received: December 31, 2008; accepted: February 12, 2009.

Authors’ Note: Earlier versions of this article were presented at the American Sociological Association meetings in August 2004 and the Southern Sociological Society meetings in April 2005. The authors thank audience members for helpful comments. The authors also thank Peter Lichtenberg, Cathy Lysack, Jay Gubrium, Victor Marshall, and anonymous reviewers for their comments on previous drafts. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Heather E. Dillaway, Department of Sociology, Wayne State University, 2263 Faculty Administration Building, Detroit, MI 48202; e-mail: [email protected].

Reconsidering Successful AgingA Call for Renewed and Expanded Academic Critiques and ConceptualizationsHeather E. DillawayMary ByrnesWayne State University, Detroit, MI

Many scholars now critique successful aging terminology. Nonetheless, there is incomplete analysis of the political motivations behind the development of and/or effects of widespread use of these terms. This article suggests that analysis of the people who developed the terms and the settings within which they work parallels an analysis of the terms themselves and illustrates the continuing negative perception of aging. This study fleshes out a more thor-ough critique of the sociopolitical contexts surrounding the successful aging paradigm so that it can help renew and expand existing critiques. The authors conclude that researchers need to be wary of adopting successful aging terminology without considering and expanding their understanding of the political motivations and results that accompanies it. New, expanded conceptualizations of successful aging are needed so that socially minded researchers and practitioners of gerontology do not contribute to ageism and discrimination against older adults.

Keywords: successful aging; paradigm; critique; politics; conceptualization

Article



Dillaway, Byrnes / Reconsidering Successful Aging 703

Successful aging is a concept almost ubiquitous in gerontology today. As we enter the Institute of Gerontology on our very own university campus,

we are greeted by a large sign holding the slogan, “Promoting Successful Aging in Detroit and Beyond.” A perusal of the programs for the last three meetings of the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) demonstrates that there were over 200 presentations that held successful aging in their titles (http://www.geron.org). A search for successful aging on the Web site for the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) also garners links to hun-dreds of articles and blogs that use this language (http://www.aarp.org). Yet, does successful aging discourse really parallel how we think, and can it help us do what we do as scholars and practitioners of aging issues? What are the sociopolitical forces that surround the origins of successful aging discourse and, ultimately, should our knowledge of its origins affect our usage of suc-cessful aging terminology? This article represents our conceptual work to begin to understand the answers to these questions and, in doing so, we join many other researchers in their reconsiderations of this and other similar terminology (e.g., Estes, 2001; Holstein & Minkler, 2003; Martinson & Minkler, 2006; Minkler & Fadem, 2002; Rudman, 2006; Schulz, 2001).

The growth in gerontology scholarship parallels the aging and retire-ment of baby boomer cohorts in the United States and the frequently dis-cussed “crises” that older adults create for Social Security and Medicaid programs as well as for health care systems and individuals in younger generations (Estes, 2001; Gross, 2006; Kaufman, Shim, & Russ, 2004; Kolata, 2006; Siegel, 2004; Wysocki, 2003; Zaslow, 2002). A set of positive aging discourses have arisen within academic, medical, policy, and popular literatures in the last several decades, for example, on successful aging, productive aging, resourceful aging, independent aging, healthy aging, active aging, aging well, positive aging, normal aging, and civic engage-ment (Angus & Reeve, 2006; Estes, 2001; Kaufman et al., 2004; Rudman, 2006). To us, these discourses are all very similar. We have had the most contact with successful aging discourse over time, and we believe as others do (e.g., Angus & Reeve, 2006; Scheidt, Humpherys, & Yorgason, 1999) that it may have more impact on academic gerontology and policy arenas than other terminologies in the last few decades.1 Angus and Reeve (2006) even suggested that this terminology has become a mantra of sorts in a “society eager to find ways to reduce age-related losses” (p. 137).

Recent critics of the successful aging paradigm challenge mainstream gerontology and biomedicine to avoid the usage of successful aging termi-nology as it is currently defined and reconceptualize it on their own (e.g., Estes & Binney, 1989; Holstein & Minkler, 2003; Minkler & Fadem, 2002; Rudman, 2006; Svihula & Estes, 2007). Nonetheless, existing critiques of



704 Journal of Applied Gerontology

successful aging have had little impact on mainstream gerontology, bio-medicine, or policy arenas so far—perhaps not only because some of these critiques are so recent and have not had time to have an effect yet but also because these critiques are still tentative and incomplete. In addition, critics have spent more time critiquing the basic dimensions of the existing suc-cessful aging paradigm and less time attempting to create their own, new conceptualizations of this terminology. In this article, we urge fellow researchers and practitioners to renew and expand their critiques so that these critiques can be understood and consumed more fully by mainstream gerontology, and so that we can move on to develop our own comprehensive ideas about what successful aging means. The goal of this article is three-fold: (a) to describe briefly current literature about and critiques of success-ful aging, (b) to broaden critiques of the successful aging paradigm to highlight its complex sociopolitical origins and history, and (c) to bring renewed and expanded attention to the fact that academic gerontologists and practitioners must be wary of any uncritical use of successful aging termi-nology and, ultimately, extend our conceptualizations—if, indeed, we are going to continue using this terminology in our work. Ultimately, we aim to expand a political critique of the successful aging paradigm because we con-sider three things simultaneously: major authors of these terms, the political and economic contexts for the authors’ works, and the terms themselves—showing how successful aging discourse arose out of a very specific time and place context. In this way, we hint at a more comprehensive history of the sociopolitical origins of successful aging terminology than others before us.2

Major Themes in the Successful Aging Literature

Existing literature promotes successful aging as “adaptation to the proc-ess of growing old” and methods with which individuals can “age well” (Tate, Lah, & Cuddy, 2003; Torres, 2002). According to John Rowe, MD, and Robert Kahn, PhD, the anchoring authors of this literature, those who age “successfully” will show a low probability of disease and disease-related disability, or low risk factors for disease; a high functional level that includes both a physical component and a cognitive component; and active engagement with life (Kahana, Kahana, & Kercher, 2003; Kahn, 2002; Rowe & Kahn, 1987, 1997, 1998). Subsequent studies also meas-ure self-efficacy (Strawbridge, Wallhagen, & Cohen, 2002), everyday activities (Menec, 2003), productivity (Glass, Seeman, Herzog, Kahn, &




Berkman, 1995), value orientation (Torres, 1999, 2002), allostatic load (Seeman et al., 2005), positive spirituality as it relates to health and disease (Crowther, Parker, Achenbaum, Larimore, & Koenig, 2002), and social support as separate and distinct parts of success in aging. Rowe and Kahn (1998) argued that older adults can be seen as success-ful or usual at different moments in time as well as in individual activities they decide to pursue; therefore, the achievement of success-ful aging will be ongoing. The assumption is that individuals should be able to overcome personal barriers and work toward successful aging at all times; indeed, this is their responsibility.

Those older adults who show an absence or low risk of disease will not have heart disease, stroke, bronchitis, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, emphysema, or asthma over time (Strawbridge et al., 2002). They also do not smoke, are not hypertensive or obese, and have a body mass index of less than 30% over time (Strawbridge et al., 2002). Morbidity factors (e.g., high blood pressure, arthritis, and stomach trouble) are also used as a measure of disease and, therefore, individuals’ abilities to successfully age (Menec, 2003). Cognitive dimensions of successful aging include, among other things, the ability to remember things without difficulty, find the right word when talking (Strawbridge et al., 2002), recall three of six ideas in a recall test (Glass et al., 1995), and score an acceptable level on the short portable mental status questionnaire (SPMSQ; Menec, 2003). Other studies concentrate on activities of daily living (ADLs) and independent activities of daily living (IADLs; Glass et al., 1995; Menec, 2003; Strawbridge et al., 2002).

Due to the influence of Matilda Riley (1998),3 further operationalization of successful aging includes measures of active engagement or social activ-ity. Active engagement with life includes two key components: having and maintaining interpersonal relationships and productive activities (Rowe & Kahn, 1998). Successful aging studies have asked about interpersonal rela-tionships and individuals’ satisfaction with them as well as happiness, life satisfaction, mortality, social activities, and solitary activities of older adults, generally 60 and older (Glass et al., 1995; Menec, 2003; Strawbridge et al., 2002). Many studies measure productivity by quantifying hours of paid or unpaid employment, caregiving, active volunteering, or housework (Garfein & Herzog, 1995; Glass et al., 1995; Rowe & Kahn, 1998; Strawbridge et al., 2002). Rudman (2006) suggested that productivity has been measured primarily through one’s paid work, however. Conceptually, successful aging is hierarchically structured: To engage in interpersonal relationships and have high productivity, older adults must first take




precautions to remain disease free and work to achieve and hold their dis-ease free status (Kahana et al., 2003; Rowe & Kahn, 1998).

In measuring successful aging this way, the literature infers a calculable gold standard of aging. In addition, via Rowe and Kahn’s influence, the successful aging paradigm seems to define success as an outcome, rather than a process. In other words, aging is not a broad biosocial process that involves the development of new roles, viewpoints, and many interrelated social contexts but, rather, a game which can be won or lost on the basis of whether individuals are diagnosed as successful or usual. Successful aging literature also intimates that individuals can control whether they contract disease, their risk of disease, their mental health and well being, and their level of engagement with others. As much of the aging literature adheres to these types of quantitative, very positivistic, person-based measurements, we are potentially characterizing aging as undesirable and preventable (Kaufman et al., 2004).

Existing Critiques of the Successful Aging Paradigm

Anthropologists, sociologists, occupational therapists, feminist/critical gerontologists, some humanities scholars, and other qualitative research-ers of age identities have critiqued the current conceptualizations and domains of study within the successful aging paradigm. They engage in this critique either via an adherence to continuity theory or the study of social contexts for aging and individuals’ social locations (e.g., Angus & Reeve, 2006; Bearon, 1996; Becker, 1994; Gubrium, 1992; Holstein & Minkler, 2003; Kahana et al., 2003; Kaufman et al., 2004; Luborsky, 1994; Lysack & Seipke, 2002; Morell, 2003; Murphy, Scheer, Murphy, & Mack, 1988; Ray, 2004; Riley, 1998; Rudman, 2006; Scheidt et al., 1999). Critics of successful aging offer alternatives to the person-based conceptualizations of successful aging found in existing literature and political and popular dialogue.

Continuity theory suggests that people who age most “successfully” are “those who carry forward the habits, preferences, lifestyles, and relation-ships from midlife into late life” (Bearon, 1996, p. 2). Featherstone and Hepworth (1991), for instance, proposed that the baby boomers are holding onto youthful activities as it enters midlife and beyond, and that this conti-nuity offers the opportunity for aging to be redefined. The ideas presented by these critics emphasize the fact that aging individuals are more similar to youthful individuals than originally thought, and that aging individuals




are not always overcome by decline, disease, and disability (Cahan, 1997; Kahana et al., 2003). Even if older adults do experience decline or disabil-ity, they may not identify as unsuccessful agers and may still engage in life activities and maintain autonomy (Becker, 1994; Cremin, 1992; Kahana et al., 2003; Kaufman & Elder, 2002; Luborsky, 1994; Lysack & Seipke, 2002; Minkler & Fadem, 2002; Morell, 2003). Aging, at base, is a contex-tual process, dependent on the past and present conditions of individuals’ lives. Recent critics of the successful aging paradigm pay attention to these life course contexts for aging, thereby achieving an understanding of the cultural meanings and experiences of aging as they relate to the specific social contexts of individuals’ lives, what individuals perceive as positive versus negative aging experiences, and the changing definitions of aging itself (Calasanti, 2004; Calasanti, Slevin, & King, 2006; Cremin, 1992; Kahana et al., 2003; Kaufman & Elder, 2002; Lysack & Seipke, 2002; Luborsky, 1994; Morell, 2003; Murphy et al., 1988; Ray, 2004).

One of the most important and growing critiques of the successful aging paradigm in recent years revolves around the fact that successful aging terminology can only speak to privileged groups’ experiences of aging in U.S. society if, indeed, it speaks to any group’s experience. Thus, success-ful aging can be an exclusionary and problematic term (Angus & Reeve, 2006; Bearon, 1996; Becker, 1994; Crosnoe & Elder, 2002; Holstein & Minkler, 2003; Kahana et al., 2003; Kaufman et al., 2004; Martinson & Minkler, 2006; Morell, 2003; Rudman, 2006; Scheidt et al., 1999; Wray, 2003). As even Rowe and Kahn (1998) suggested, their conceptualizations and operationalizations of successful aging can limit the number of indi-viduals who will be seen as “good” at aging, for instance, they explain: “[S]ome obvious characteristics of successful physical agers appeared [within initial research studies]. They tended to be male, white, relatively affluent, better educated, and healthier than those who aged less well” (pp. 37, 122). Baltes and Smith (2003) further suggested that although the successful aging paradigm may fit the experience of the young old (i.e., younger than age 65 or 75, depending on the study), individuals in the Fourth Age (i.e., over age 75) cannot meet its expectations.

The creation of successful aging terminology parallels the definition and utilization of model minority terminology (Takaki, 2000), that is, that cer-tain racial/ethnic minorities (i.e., Asian Americans) are more successful than others due to traits and characteristics they hold or employ. Those who successfully age are held up to suggest that all individuals are capable of being healthy and productive, and that society should not have to provide help for groups when they become economically or socially dependent




(Takaki, 2000). That is, with a person-based explanation of successful aging intact, society does not have to provide support for those who fail at aging (Martinson & Minkler, 2006; Rudman, 2006; Scheidt et al., 1999).

The lack of in-depth attention to individuals’ multiple social locations is a considerable oversight in mainstream successful aging literature and del-egitimizes the diversity in the aging population itself (Angus & Reeve, 2006; Calasanti, 2004; Calasanti et al., 2006; Holstein & Minkler, 2003; Kahana et al., 2003; Minkler & Fadem, 2002; Rudman, 2006; Scheidt et al., 1999). Ultimately, this may mean that those of us who use the successful aging paradigm in our own work (whether we are researchers, practitioners, or policy makers) are discriminatory toward many older adults in the proc-ess. At the very least, we make individuals define normal aging processes more negatively than they might have without the influence of successful aging discourse and encourage fear about the inevitable approach of aging (Kaufman et al., 2004).

Expanding a Political Critique

In this section, we add to the important critiques outlined above and expand on what we see as the politically and medically motivated nature of the successful aging paradigm and the potential results of its widespread use. Caroll Estes (e.g., in 1979, 1983, 2001) and Estes & Binney (1989) had completed important work on the political economy of aging, and therefore we are simply expanding on this and other critics’ work in this area (see also Holstein & Minkler, 2003; Quadagno, 1999; Rudman, 2006; Schulz, 2001). Martinson and Minkler (2006) also recently critique civic engage-ment literature in this same way because this terminology has been used interchangeably with successful aging and other positive aging discourses in recent years. Following these important critiques, then, we reconsider and renew attention to the fact that the successful aging paradigm arose directly out of political and biomedical networks in the United States and was defined primarily by just a few individuals (perhaps only one or two). In addition, we believe that the development and use of successful aging as a concept may have facilitated and bolstered increased governmental con-cern about the burden of the aging population in the United States, even though the authors of successful aging terminology may say the opposite (i.e., that they write to discount political or public images of aging). The terms themselves may have become tools for furthering negative conceptu-alizations of aging and reducing the public burden of aging individuals,




thereby discriminating against older adults. Although critics of successful aging literature have been discussing this fact for 10 to 15 years, we need to be more forthright about the effects of a narrow conceptualization of successful aging than we have been and be ready to talk more openly about the potential need to resist the use of this terminology.

To reconsider and expand a political critique of the successful aging paradigm and its use, a multipronged analysis of the people who developed the paradigm and the setting within which they do/did their work (i.e., contexts of time and place) can be as important as any existing analysis of the terminology or paradigm itself (essentially the tools used to garner a specific political, economic, or popular result). By focusing on both the people and their setting, we help extend a sociopolitical/historical critique started by scholars such as Estes (2001), Minkler and colleagues (e.g., Holstein & Minkler 2003; Minkler & Fadem 2002; Martinson & Minkler 2006), Schulz (2001), Scheidt et al. (1999), and others, and understand bet-ter why/how we are continuing to view aging negatively, think in ageist terms, see cuts made to social welfare policy for older adults, and even discriminate against older adults ourselves.

Who Developed the Successful Aging Paradigm?

To understand successful aging, we must start with the development of productive aging, for the latter is a precursor to the development of the former term. The term productive aging was developed by Robert Butler, perhaps one of the most widely known scholars in gerontology. Dr. Butler served as the founding director of the National Institute on Aging (NIA) from 1975 to 1985, the founder of the first department of geriatrics at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and the founder, president and CEO of the International Longevity Center (in conjunction with Mount Sinai Hospital; http://www.ilcusa.org/who/ceo.htm). His first article on success-ful aging appeared in 1974 in the journal Mental Health. As an expert wit-ness, Dr. Butler has testified before the federal government on issues of the elderly on over 50 separate occasions testifying on issues of age discrimina-tion, the Older Americans Act (OAA), long-term care, Alzheimer’s disease, home health care, healthy aging, and successful aging to name a few. He is the author of 16 books, one of which, Why Survive? Being Old in America (1975), won the Pulitzer Prize. He is also the author of 124 peer-reviewed journal articles as well as 74 chapters in books (http://www.ilcusa.org/who/ceo.htm). Ironically, Dr. Butler is widely recognized across disciplines for having coined the term ageism in 1968 (as cited in Butler, 1975).




When Dr. Butler developed the notion of productive aging, he was direc-tor of Mount Sinai Hospital’s Geriatrics department. In a testimony before Congress, Dr. Butler claimed to have developed the idea of productive aging around 1978, while at Mount Sinai hospital, but it was not until 1985 that he published Productive Aging: Enhancing Vitality in Later Life. In this book, productive aging is defined as avoidance of disease or disease sus-ceptibility, high cognitive capacity, and active engagement with life (Butler & Gleason, 1985).

The model of productive aging was formally discussed at the 1982 Salzburg Seminar where the participants focused on the notion of produc-tive aging (Butler, Oberlink, & Schechter, 1990; McFadden, 2002). The goal of the Salzburg Seminar was to bring together a group of scholars to characterize a new outlook of the emerging older adult (McFadden, 2002). Within this seminar, Butler and his colleagues proposed to view older adults as agents in the last portion of their life. Gerontology, it was sug-gested, had not yet addressed the social aspects of those advances made in geriatrics that allowed older adults to remain healthier for a longer portion of their life. Because older adults now live longer and healthier lives, they argued that gerontologists must move away from models of aging that view the older adult as passive and dependent (e.g., dependency theory). Rather, gerontologists must propose a new model of aging that reflects the advances made in the medical establishment. The Salzburg Seminar resulted in a refined definition of the older adult: “The notion that we can, and must express and facilitate our personal and social productivity as we grow older” (Butler et al., 1990, p. xxxii).

The discourse from the 1982 Salzburg Seminar resulted in the sympo-sium “The Promise of Productive Aging” held in Washington, D.C., in the spring of 1987, the result of which was the edited book, The Promise of Productive Aging, (Butler et al., 1990). The rationale of the symposium was to bring forth knowledge about the positive ways in which people age and the aging process (Butler et al., 1990). That the symposium was held in the nation’s capital was not coincidental, as its attendants composed of schol-ars, public leaders, and policy makers serving in the U.S. Congress. The idea that productive aging was indeed political was explicated during this symposium. In fact, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) provided a political statement in the preface of The Promise of Productive Aging. Included in this same symposium and edited volume was John Rowe, MD

The idea of successful aging is discussed in Dr. Rowe’s contribution to The Promise of Productive Aging (Butler et al., 1990), in which he describes a normal aging process as a usual aging process. Rowe set forth an argument




about physiological conditions of an older population that affect physical performance; Rowe’s chapter is the opening chapter to a section of The Promise of Productive Aging, titled “Work Ability in Late Life,” (Butler et al., 1990).

The subsequent discourse of successful aging was developed by John Rowe and Robert Kahn and, like productive aging, this discourse discussed avoidance of disease or disease susceptibility, a high cognitive capacity, and active engagement with life (Bearon, 1996; Menec, 2003; Rowe & Kahn, 1998), as outlined in previous sections. The tenets of the two models or paradigms are at times indistinguishable, and there is no clear evidence as to why productive aging became a discourse separate from, or developed into a subsequent discourse on, successful aging. Because ideas associated with productive aging became popularly recognized as successful aging, and because ideas about successful aging and usual aging were initiated within Butler’s volume on productive aging, we believe the one term derived directly from the other. The only difference is that, perhaps, Rowe empha-sized physical functioning more within his work than Butler did in his, but this is our speculation.

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, one of many funders of the 1987 symposium, subsequently became the primary funder of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Aging and comprised 16 scholars. Led by principal investigator, Dr. Rowe, 12 of these individuals initiated the MacArthur Foundation Studies of Aging in America in 1988. Using results from these studies, Dr. Rowe and Robert Kahn, PhD, a psychologist and professor of public health at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, published the self-help, mass-marketed book, Successful Aging, in 1997.4

Dr. Rowe was the founding director of Harvard Medical School’s Division on Aging until 1988, when he joined the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. In the mid-90s, he made President Clinton’s short list of Food and Drug Administration commissioner choices (Gottleib, 2000). Dr. Rowe served as president and chief executive officer of Mount Sinai and New York University Medical Centers from 1998 to 2000, after merging these two hospitals. Dr. Rowe is now chairman and CEO of Aetna Inc., one of the United States’ largest health care organizations. His presence there was crucial to the financial turnaround of Aetna, which experienced a shaky relationship not only with investors but also between doctors and the insur-ance company: “[Before Rowe’s leadership] few Mount Sinai doctors accept[ed] Aetna’s insurance plan anymore” (Gottleib, 2000, p. 1). Thus,




Rowe is a medical doctor and businessman by trade, both of which we argue inevitably affect his perspectives on successful aging.

The National Political Setting

From existing political critiques, we know that the creation of positive discourses like successful aging in gerontology, biomedicine, and popular culture parallels efforts in political arenas to recreate the national imagery of the older adult (Estes, 2001; Estes & Binney, 1989; Martinson & Minkler, 2006; Powell, Williamson, & Branco, 1996; Quadagno, 1999; Scheidt et al., 1999; Schultz, 2001; Svihula & Estes, 2007). Furthermore, scholars already note that a redefinition of older adults as productive and successful within political arenas has been linked to the neo-conservative crisis resulting from the decreasing power of the political right in the 1960s (Estes, 2001; Powell et al., 1996; Quadagno, 1999; Rudman, 2006; Schultz, 2001; Svihula & Estes, 2007, 2008). At the time when Butler and Rowe were honing the suc-cessful aging paradigm, there was a “conservative Republican majority and growing conservatism among Democrats in Congress” (Svihula & Estes, 2007, p. 585), and politicians were already beginning to blame the welfare state, particularly entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, for the U.S. fiscal problems that dominated the 1970s. “Consistent expres-sion of values aligned with market ideology—values with objectives of national savings, capital accumulation, limited government responsibility, and wealth based on individual risk”—allowed a Social Security “crisis” to be constructed by federal politicians, in which older adults were seen as becoming increasingly dependent on younger workers for their fiscal well being and quality of life, even “greedy” in the receipt of Social Security “handouts” (Svihula & Estes, 2007, p. S85; Estes, 2001; Powell et al., 1996; Quadagno, 1999). Absolving social security into the private market and weaning older adults off a welfare system was viewed as the solution to U.S. economic woes and was portrayed as such by the media (Estes, 2001; Krugman, 2005; Powell et al., 1996; Quadagno, 1999; Schultz, 2001). Federal efforts to raise the retirement age (as a solution to the Social Security crisis) and encourage older adults to engage in paid work longer over the past few decades (Quadagno, 1999; Social Security Online, 2008) also coin-cided with operationalizations of successful aging as productivity, engage-ment, and even paid work activity (Rudman, 2006). As mentioned earlier, Rowe’s first piece on successful aging was about individuals’ abilities to work for pay later in life (Butler et al., 1990).5




Although we cannot prove in this article whether the successful aging paradigm resulted directly from specific political climates and settings, the coincidences outlined above cannot be ignored. We believe that, at the very least, certain political climates and settings that espoused certain ideologies subtly encouraged first Butler and then Rowe to conceptualize productive and successful aging paradigms in narrow ways. “Ideological concerns, rather than the issues, are central to policymaking” (Svihula & Estes, 2007, p. S79), and we argue that the ideologies behind federal policy making about older adults in the 1980s and 1990s also probably influenced the crea-tion of successful aging discourse in this case. Svihula and Estes (2007), Estes (2001), Powell et al. (1996), and Schultz (2001) have put forth similar arguments. In turn, though, the creation of academic discourse on success-ful aging potentially facilitates governments’ continued desires and abilities to make certain types of aging policy a reality or define aging adults in nar-row ways (Svihula & Estes, 2007). Thus, the very ideologies and political values that encourage the creation of successful aging discourse also may thrive on that discourse once it is created. We hint at this possibility as much as we can so that other scholars and practitioners can think about exploring more systematically the effects of the successful aging paradigm on recent policy making.

Schultz (2001) also believed that successful aging discourse can affect policy making, and that “it is no accident” that the origins of discourses like successful aging coincided with a change in or reconstruction of the public and political image of the elderly “as a group of ‘deserving poor’ unable to work—to a more negative image of ‘greedy geezers’ who are unwilling to work” (p. 62). Successful aging discourse helps “refocus the political debate and discussion about social welfare and programs for the elderly,” “provide a new perspective from which to view the elderly and their needs,” and “changes the way in which we think of aging and our images of older peo-ple” (Schultz, 2001, p. 62; see also Bass & Caro, 1992; Rudman, 2006; Svihula & Estes, 2007). A conservative political and social climate mani-fested over the last three decades that portrayed the older adult as greedy, dependent, and living the good life at the expense of younger workers, but these ideologies may have taken hold because they were bolstered by the creation of political and biomedical discourses on positive aging (Angus & Reeve, 2006; Estes, 2001; Quadagno, 1999; Rudman, 2006; Schultz, 2001). For instance, Rowe and Kahn (1998) suggested that “the relatively large numbers of baby boomers . . . will tend to drive up health care costs” (Italics in original, p. 186). Consequently, these authors argue that “the great chal-lenge for policymakers and leaders of organizations is how best to tap the




experience, energy, and motivation of older people” (Rowe & Kahn, 1998, p. 188) because individuals do want to “fight the clock” (Rowe & Kahn, 1997, p. 99).

Regardless of whether Rowe and Kahn (1998) initially developed these ideas themselves or in conjunction with politicians, once these ideas are in print they may facilitate subsequent federal policy decisions. Although Butler, Rowe, and Kahn suggest that they are writing to counteract the negative images of older adults—and may have had good intentions individually (especially since Butler publicly denounced ageism early on)—in practice their work may be used to help facilitate cuts in welfare spending and reify the notions of greedy older adults (Rudman, 2006; Schulz, 2001). Rowe and Kahn do not separate themselves from the construction of the national aging crises when making their arguments; in fact, they define themselves as acting within political contexts by urging “policymakers and leaders of organizations” to think about how to encourage older adults to be self-sufficient and engage in society (Rowe & Kahn, 1998, p. 188). Thus, per-haps Rowe and Kahn knew of their potential influence on politics as they wrote out the successful aging paradigm. On the other hand, to give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they could not realize the extent to which their arguments would actually reinforce negative definitions of older adults and facilitate government efforts to reduce welfare states because they were already too much a part of the political and biomedical settings within which they worked. We suggest that, at the very least, the initial authors of successful aging discourse were influenced by their career tra-jectories and the political settings in which they resided (illustrated by the previous section). We also propose tentatively that the successful aging paradigm may have been written with politics in mind and, if not, then suc-cessful aging discourse (once written) still may affect current policy mak-ing about older adults.

What evidence can we find of the influence of successful aging dis-course on politics? Informally perusing recent transcripts from meetings of the Subcommittee on Aging in the U.S. Congress between 2004 and 2006 (see http://aging.senate.gov), we find that Butler’s and Rowe’s ideas are often brought up in conversations on Medicare Reform, and Butler fre-quently testified in Medicare hearings during these times (appearing at the hearings approximately 50 times). Furthermore, we found several discus-sions of a “MacArthur study” or “the MacArthur study” (presumably headed up by John Rowe) as well as specific references to both Rowe and Kahn’s work on successful aging and Butler’s work on productive aging to ground discussions of the importance of older adults staying physically




healthy and actively engaged in society, especially in conversations about long-term care and social security.6

We believe that any analysis of positive discourses on aging should include attention to the complex and multifaceted political/historical con-texts within which the people, here Butler and Rowe, developed and pro-moted their terms. An analysis of the national political setting also facilitates understanding of how these terms develop directly out of yet also perhaps reinforce a particular political context. We cannot conclude defini-tively or empirically about the exact effects of certain political climates on specific authors or about the precise effects of the successful aging paradigm on current policy making, but we hopefully lay out enough coincidences about the authors of the successful aging paradigm and the sociopolitical forces on these authors and their ideas to coax other researchers to study these coincidences empirically. Thinking about the coincidences outlined in this article about the people involved in the creation of successful aging discourse and the political settings in which they worked as well as the potential evi-dence illustrating the usage of successful aging discourse in politics today, we could begin to think about whether Rowe and Butler are political pawns of sorts, no matter how powerful or important these two authors/doctors/researchers have been in their own right. Thus, perhaps the directionality of sociopolitical forces no longer matters because both the political climate and successful aging discourse may now affect each other simultaneously and there is no real separation between the ideologies about older adults found in academic discourse versus policy conversations. All of these connections and coincidences and potential cause and effect relationships need to be exam-ined much more thoroughly by future research than we can examine them here. We conclude this article with some further thoughts about how to renew and expand our and other’s critiques of Rowe and Kahn’s (1998) conceptu-alization of successful aging, as a way to spur on this future research.

Toward Broader Conceptualizations

This article is not empirical, in that it is not based on a new data analysis. Rather, it is a think piece that builds on existing critiques of successful aging and points to ways in which we can continue to think seriously about this mainstream gerontological paradigm. In this article, we reviewed the major themes in the successful aging literature. Second, we covered recent academic critiques of successful aging. Third, we made efforts to extend and expand on the political critiques started by scholars like Angus and




Reeve (2006), Estes (2001), Martinson and Minkler (2006), Minkler and Holstein (2003), Minkler and Fadem (2002), Scheidt et al. (1999), Schulz (2001), and Rudman (2006), among others. We have attempted to show that studying the origins of paradigms or discourses like successful aging, both in terms of the people who author them and the settings within which these people work, can help us understand why we are still faced with very nar-row definitions of what it means to age well in today’s society. Thinking simultaneously about the authors of successful aging and the places/time contexts within which the authors developed their paradigms also helps us understand why most successful aging research has been clinical/biomedi-cal and negative about aging processes, even though the terminology itself is used more broadly.

Butler, while attempting to eradicate ideas of older adults as sedentary and unproductive, unfortunately helped create a paradigm that espoused just the opposite dictate—that older adults must remain active and fully productive members of society. Perhaps, Butler has had good intentions over time but his ideas were/are shaped by a particular setting (a politically conservative policy realm) and network of people (other policy makers and doctors).7 Rowe derived his ideas within medical and business realms. Within this context, it makes sense that Rowe would have to see successful aging first and foremost as a lack of disease and usual aging as primarily a health care cost and economic burden.

As social scientists and practitioners of aging, we must think more about whether and how we will utilize the successful aging paradigm in our eve-ryday work. We must ask ourselves whether it is appropriate for us to uti-lize the successful aging paradigm if it cannot speak to a wide range of older adult experiences and/or our own worldviews on aging, or if its underlying ideology helps facilitate reductions in a welfare state. Ferraro (2006) suggested that we must “foster our own paradigm” (rather than rely on others’) and proposes that we develop a “gerontological imagination: ‘an awareness of the process of human aging that enables one to understand the scientific contributions of a variety of researchers studying aging’” (p. 572). We take this to mean that Ferraro is asking us to think more clearly about a broad process of aging, not the type of aging that successful aging dis-course typifies. Furthermore, as women’s health scholars have noted (Koeske, 1983), we are only a “simple adjunct” to biomedicine unless we make efforts to define our own perspectives on what successful aging is, and this perspective should be able to speak to all of us who fit underneath the umbrella of gerontological studies (p. 12; see also Martinson & Minkler, 2006). Ferraro (2006) suggested that gerontology is not yet a discipline in




and of itself because it has not yet worked out these theoretical or concep-tual issues and has not thought enough about what its intellectual and social/public presence is and should be.

We are not “Promoting Successful Aging and Beyond” (as the sign at the front of our own Institute of Gerontology suggests) until we know what Ferraro’s process of human aging is and could be—both in meaning and experience—for a range of older adults by age, race, gender, class, disabil-ity, work status, and other social locations and contexts. As researchers and practitioners, we may want to use the successful aging paradigm to under-stand some of the unique challenges of older adults. Because of its political and biomedical origins, however, we cannot assume the successful aging paradigm to be inclusionary to the various perspectives, structures, and social locations that older adults occupy. Should we continue to use current definitions of successful aging, we risk buying into an exclusionary, ageist, and even discriminatory perspective that does not suit or parallel our intel-lectual or advocacy goals. We may not only contribute to ageism but also help discriminate against the very people we are trying to serve as we engage in our academic research or more applied endeavors.

Eventually, we as social scientists and practitioners of aging should be able to enter into dialogue with biomedical researchers and policy makers as equals8 and debate the tenets of the successful aging paradigm, but, so far, few scholars seem to be able to do this because we have not done the conceptual and methodological work that would form the basis for this dialogue. Hopefully, our article makes it clear that we have not completely finished our critique of the successful aging paradigm or discourse, let alone thought enough about what our own ideas of successful aging really are. We have more conceptual work to do before we can fully debate and challenge the use of successful aging terminology. For now, we do remain Koeske’s adjunct to biomedicine (1983). Angus and Reeve (2006), Rudman (2006), Scheidt et al. (1999), and Estes (2001) intimated that we might be the adjunct of federal politics as well, if we unthinkingly continue to adopt a preestablished, narrowly defined paradigm or discourse in our own research. Alongside many other critical gerontologists, we argue that the academic use of successful aging terminology has limited the scope of aging research, in that successful aging is defined from the outside, rather than by aging individuals or academic researchers and practitioners (Kahana et al., 2003; Martinson & Minkler, 2006).

Especially because we currently exist in a politically conservative climate, researchers and practitioners need to be wary of adopting successful aging terminology in their everyday work without understanding the sociopolitical




forces that surround their origin and should work on thinking about the effects of our utilizations of the successful aging paradigm as it stands and broadens our own conceptualizations. This piece is meant to provoke more conceptual and empirical work, for we believe that social scientists in geron-tology must reconsider, renew, and expand our ideas on this topic. Hopefully, this article will spur practitioners of aging to second-guess their use of the existing successful aging paradigm when dealing one-on-one with aging individuals as well, and to look for the ideologies behind the aging policies that they confront on a daily basis. Alongside researchers, practitioners must begin to analyze systematically how the existing successful aging paradigm may limit how we serve local aging populations. As Weber (2001) suggested, we must engage in our everyday work with social justice in mind and think about how to advocate for the populations we study. If existing positive aging paradigms and terminology cannot help us search for social justice for the populations we study or serve, then we have an obligation to step back and conceptualize our own positions on aging. Eventually, we need to step out-side of our safe, discipline- or practice-bound work spaces with a new para-digm or discourse, based in empirical evidence, which will help explain the lived experiences of older adults.

Notes

1. This does not refute the importance of all of these individual terminologies, as they all serve their own purpose in specific time/place contexts. Each discourse on aging should be examined separately.

2. In this endeavor we write about the U.S. setting only.3. Initially Rowe and Kahn (1997, 1998) did not conceptualize engagement with life or

productivity as a dimension of successful aging, until they were critiqued by Matilda Riley (1998) for their paradigm’s narrowness. Engagement is now the third precondition of success-ful aging, coming after physical and cognitive function in importance. We thank an anony-mous reviewer for alerting us to Riley’s critique and contribution.

4. Based on our conversations with multiple colleagues, we believe that Dr. Kahn was not as politically connected as Rowe when he helped to develop the successful aging paradigm. We also suspect that Kahn’s participation in the successful aging project and his connection to Rowe was minimal at best, although we have not been able to confirm this; thus, we confine our analysis of people and their political connections to Rowe and Butler. Perhaps, Dr. Kahn was added as an author to legitimate Rowe’s work outside of biomedicine and politics, as his involvement could facilitate academic attention to the successful aging paradigm.

5. A parallel advocacy of “private” (vs. “public”) elder care by individuals in political sectors is evident in the United States and Canada in the last decade or so, as government bodies attempt to cut back on spending for formal care and release older adults’ care to their families (Ward-Griffin & Marshall, 2003, p. 2). The denial of physical and emotional caregiving by public institu-tions also corresponds to the growth of the successful aging mantra (Angus & Reeve, 2006).




6. Our brief analysis of subcommittee hearings was not systematic at all; rather, we perused subcommittee transcripts only to see whether there was any evidence of successful aging dis-course within political arenas. Future research is needed on exactly how often and to what extent this and other positive aging discourses affect policy creation within these forums because this was not our goal here. Svihula and Estes (2007) provided a good model for this activity.

7. In his current emphasis on longevity, we believe that Butler is an important advocate of extending health in aging (Olshansky, Perry, Miller, & Butler, 2006); thus, on the surface, Butler’s work seems to advocate for older adults. Nonetheless, in the “pursuit” of longevity and “health” in aging, Butler and his colleagues are arguing that longer, healthier life should be pursued because it can mean greater wealth for “individuals and nations” (Olshansky et al., 2006, p. 31). Indeed, “[h]ealthy older individuals accumulate more savings and investments than those beset by illness. They tend to remain productively engaged in society” (Olshansky et al., 2006, p. 31). Therefore, Butler and other authors of the newest positive aging discourses have not stepped back from their connections to certain political climates and/or market ide-ologies for understanding aging, and still seem to be influenced by these climates and ideolo-gies as they write.

8. One of our colleagues refers to gerontology as the “red-headed stepchild of biomedi-cine,” always seeking the approval of clinical/biomedical fields and political entities rather than trying to be a discipline in our own right with our own paradigms and goals. We suspect that Ferraro (2006) might agree with this analogy in part, as this comment illustrates our lack of ability to develop our own ideas about successful aging outside of biomedicine (see also Estes & Binney, 1989).

References

Angus, J., & Reeve, P. (2006). Ageism: A threat to “aging well” in the 21st century. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 25, 137-152.

Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (2003). New frontiers in the future of aging: From successful aging of the young old to the dilemmas of the fourth age. Gerontology, 49, 123-135.

Bass, S., & Caro, F. (1992). The new politics of productive aging. In Depth, 2(3), 59-79.Bearon, L. (1996). Successful aging: What does the “good life” look like? Forum for Family

and Consumer Issues, 1(3), 1-4.Becker, G. (1994). The oldest old: Autonomy in the face of frailty. Journal of Aging Studies,

8, 59-76.Butler, R. N. (1974). Successful aging. Mental Health, 58, 6-12.Butler, R. N. (1975) Why survive? Being old in America. New York: Harper & Row.Butler, R. N., & Gleason, H. P. (Eds.). (1985). Productive aging: Enhancing vitality in later

life. New York: Springer.Butler, R. N., Oberlink, M. R., & Schechter, M. (1990). The promise of productive aging:

From biology to social policy. New York: Springer.Cahan, V. (1997, March 17). Disability rate among older Americans declines dramatically

[NIH press release]. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Aging.

Calasanti, T. (2004). New directions in feminist gerontology: An introduction. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 1-8.




Calasanti, T., Slevin, K., & King, N. (2006). Ageism and feminism: From “et cetera” to center. National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA) Journal, 18(1), 13-30.

Cremin, M. C. (1992). Feeling old versus being old: Views of troubled aging. Social Science & Medicine, 34, 1305-1315.

Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G. H. (2002). Successful adaptation in the later years: A life course approach to aging. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65, 309-328.

Crowther, M., Parker, M., Achenbaum, W., Larimore, W., & Koenig, H. (2002). Rowe and Kahn’s model of successful aging revisited: Positive spirituality—the forgotten factor. The Gerontologist, 42, 613-620.

Estes, C. L. (1979). The aging enterprise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Estes, C. L. (1983). Social security: The social construction of a crisis. Milbank Memorial

Fund Quarterly: Health and Society, 61, 445-461.Estes, C. L. (Ed.). (2001). Social policy and aging: A critical perspective. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.Estes, C. L., & Binney, E. A. (1989). The biomedicalization of aging: Dangers and dilemmas.

The Gerontologist, 29, 587-596.Featherstone, M., & Hepworth, M. (1991). The mask of ageing and the postmodern life

course. In M. M. Featherstone & B. Turner (Eds.), The body: Social process and cultural theory (pp. 371-389). London: Sage.

Ferraro, K. F. (2006). Imagining the disciplinary advancement of gerontology: Whither the tipping point? The Gerontologist, 46, 571-573.

Garfein, A., & Herzog, R. (1995). Robust aging among the young-old, old-old, and oldest-old. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 50, S77-S87.

Glass, T., Seeman, T., Herzog, R., Kahn, R., & Berkman, L. (1995). Change in productive activity in late adulthood: MacArthur studies of successful aging. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 50, S65-S76.

Gottleib, S. (2000, October 16). Aetna’s new CEO can “Rowe” through choppy waters. American Medical News. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2000/10/16/bica1016.htm—18.8KB

Gross, J. (2006, October 18). Geriatrics lags in age of high-tech medicine. The New York Times. Available from http://www.nytimes.com

Gubrium, J. F. (1992). Qualitative research comes of age in gerontology. The Gerontologist, 32, 581-582.

Holstein, M. B., & Minkler, M. (2003). Self, society, and the “new gerontology.” The Gerontologist, 43, 787-796.

Kahana, E., Kahana, B., & Kercher, K. (2003). Emerging lifestyles and proactive options for successful ageing. Ageing International, 28, 155-180.

Kahn, R. L. (2002). Guest editorial: On “successful aging and well-being: Self-rated compared with Rowe and Kahn.” The Gerontologist, 42, 725-726.

Kaufman, G., & Elder, G. H. (2002). Revisiting age identity: A research note. Journal of Aging Studies, 16, 169-176.

Kaufman, S. R., Shim, J. K., & Russ, A. J. (2004). Revisiting the biomedicalization of aging: Clinical trends and ethical challenges. The Gerontologist, 44, 731-738.

Koeske, R. D. (1983). Lifting the curse of menstruation toward a feminist perspectives on the menstrual cycle. Women & Health, 8(2-3), 1-16.

Kolata, G. (2006, October 5). Old but not frail: A matter of heart and head. The New York Times. Available from http://www.nytimes.com




Krugman, P. (2005, May 2). A gut punch to the middle. The New York Times. Available from http://www.nytimes.com

Luborsky, M. (1994). The cultural adversity of physical disability: Erosion of full adult per-sonhood. Journal of Aging Studies, 8, 239-253.

Lysack, C., & Seipke, H. (2002). Communicating the occupational self: A qualitative study of oldest-old American women. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 9, 130-139.

Martinson, M., & Minkler, M. (2006). Civic engagement and older adults: A critical perspec-tive. The Gerontologist, 46, 318-324.

McFadden, S. H. (2002). Challenges and opportunities in the search for new models of aging. [Reviews of the books Productive aging: Concepts and challenges and Challenges of the third age: Meaning and purpose in later life.] The Gerontologist, 42, 705-709.

Menec, V. (2003). The relation between everyday activities and successful aging: A 6 year longitudinal study. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58, S74-S82.

Minkler, M., & Fadem, P. (2002). “Successful aging”: A disability perspective. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12, 229-235.

Minkler, M. B., & Holstein, M. (2003). Self, society, and the new “gerontology.” The Gerontologist, 43, 787-796.

Morell, C. M. (2003). Empowerment and long-living women: Return to the rejected body. Journal of Aging Studies, 17, 69-85.

Murphy, R., Scheer, J., Murphy, Y., & Mack, R. (1988). Physical disability and social liminal-ity: A study in the rituals of adversity. Social Science & Medicine, 26, 235-242.

Olshansky, S. J., Perry, D., Miller, R. A., & Butler, R. N. (2006, March). In pursuit of the longevity dividend. The Scientist, 20, 28-36.

Powell, L. A., Williamson, J. !., & Branco, K. (1996). The senior rights movement: Framing the policy debate in America. New York: Twayne.

Quadagno, J. (1999). Social security and the myth of the entitlement “crisis.” In R. Williamson, D. Watts-Roy, & E. Kingson (Eds.), The generational equity debate (pp. 140-156). New York: Columbia University Press.

Ray, R. (2004). Toward the croning of feminist gerontology. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 109-121.

Riley, M. W. (1998). Letter to the editor. The Gerontologist, 38, 51.Rowe, J., & Kahn, R. L. (1987). Human aging: Usual and successful. Science, 237, 143-149.Rowe, J., & Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful aging. The Gerontologist, 37, 433-441.Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1998). Successful aging. New York: Random House.Rudman, D. L. (2006). Positive aging and its implications for occupational possibilities in

later life. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73, 188-192.Scheidt, R. J., Humpherys, D. R., & Yorgason, J. B. (1999). Successful aging: What’s not to

like. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 18, 277-282.Schultz, J. H. (2001). The economics of aging. Westport, CT: Auburn House/Greenwood.Seeman, T. E., Huang, M. H., Bretsky, P., Crimmins, E., Launer, L., & Guralnik, J. M. (2005).

Education and APOE-e4 in longitudinal cognitive decline: MacArthur studies of success-ful aging. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60, 74-83.

Siegel, J. (2004, January 26). The way we live now. The Wall Street Journal, p. A14.Social Security Online. (2008). The full retirement age is increasing. Retrieved April 2, 2009,

from http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ageincrease.htm




Strawbridge, W., Wallhagen, M., & Cohen, R. (2002). Successful aging and well-being: Self rated compared with Rowe and Kahn. The Gerontologist, 42, 727-733.

Svihula, J., & Estes, C. L. (2007). Social security politics: Ideology and reform. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62, S79-S89.

Svihula, J., & Estes, C. L. (2008). Social security privatization: An ideologically structured movement. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 35, 75-104.

Takaki, R. (2000). Asian Americans: The myth of the Model Minority. In J. H. Skolnick & E. Currie (Eds.), Crisis in American institutions (11th ed., pp. 185-192). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Tate, R., Lah, L., & Cuddy, T. (2003). Definition of successful aging by elderly Canadian males: The Manitoba follow up study. The Gerontologist, 43, 735-744.

Torres, S. (1999). A culturally-relevant theoretical framework for the study of successful aging. Ageing & Society, 19, 33-51.

Torres, S. (2002). Relational values and ideas regarding “successful aging.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33, 417-430.

Ward-Griffin, C., & Marshall, V. (2003). Reconceptualizing the relationship between “public” and “private” eldercare. Journal of Aging Studies, 17, 189-208.

Weber, L. (2001). Understanding race, class, gender, and sexuality: A conceptual framework. New York: McGrawHill.

Wray, S. (2003). Women growing older: Agency, ethnicity and culture. Sociology, 37, 511-527.Wysocki, B. (2003, December 29). Tomorrow’s elderly fuel health-care spending and strain

system. The Wall Street Journal, p. A2.Zaslow, J. (2002, December 5). Moving on: Face it, baby boomers, you’ve peaked: A genera-

tion ponders aging, downsizing. The Wall Street Journal, p. D1.

Heather E. Dillaway is an associate professor and director of undergraduate studies in sociol-ogy at Wayne State University. Her broad research interests lie within the study of women’s health and structural inequalities (age, gender, race, class, and sexuality). Her current research project focuses on how women’s experiences of menopause and midlife are shaped by their social locations and contemporary social contexts.

Mary Byrnes is a PhD candidate in sociology at Wayne State University and an instructor at Loyola University Chicago. She is finishing a dissertation on individuals’ transitions into an urban age-segregated living facility and meanings of home. Her research agenda is focused on inequalities in aging and the sociology of place.

For reprints and permissions queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www .sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.



Dillaway and Byrnes Reconsidering Successful Aging

Documents

Transcript of Dillaway and Byrnes Reconsidering Successful Aging