Journal of Aging Studies 31 (2014) 93–103

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Aging Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaging

The appraisal of difference: Critical gerontology and the

active-ageing-paradigm
Silke van Dyk ⁎
University of Kassel, Nora-Platiel-Strasse 1, 34127 Kassel, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The article deals with the re-negotiation of old age in current times of flexible capitalism and its
Received 27 January 2014 analysis by Critical Gerontologists who criticize this process as age denial and midlife-imperialism.
Received in revised form 28 August 2014 Starting out from the instructive critique of active ageing and consumer-based anti-ageing
Accepted 28 August 2014 strategies, rooted in the heterogeneous field of Critical Gerontology, the here presented
Available online xxxx
contribution aims at critically reviewing and discussing this critique. The article exposes theoretical
pitfalls that make this critique run into a dead-end, since old age tends to be homogenized and
Keywords: sometimes even naturalized within Critical Gerontology: Though certainly often unintended, the
Critical Gerontology appreciation of old age as being positively different from midlife ends up with sheltering “old
Active ageing
people” as “the others” from the impositions of active society. After elaborating on this difference
Sameness/difference
perspective and discussing its problems, I will finally sketch some conceptual ideas, inspired by
New ageism
Poststructuralism poststructuralist thinking, on how to overcome the fruitless dichotomy of imperialism/sameness
Identity politics (“they have to be like us”) and difference (“they are the others”).
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction negotiation of old age, which constitutes a major challenge to

Discourses describing population ageing as a crisis are
omnipresent in Western industrialized countries: there is talk
about the collapse of pension schemes, health care and long-
term care systems, decreasing economic power and increasing
social inflexibility. At the same time, however, there is a
popular promise reminiscent of Friedrich Hölderlin's famous
lines “where the danger is, also grows the saving power”:
Parallel to the picture of elderly people as a dangerous bulk, the
non-frail “new elderly” (van Dyk & Lessenich, 2009) have been
discovered as potentially active and productive citizens. The
notions of active ageing revolve around the idea that these
retirees are capable and duty-bound to live a self-reliant life
and contribute to the public good (Deutscher Bundestag, 2010;
Council of the European Union, 2010). Against this backdrop
we have recently witnessed a fundamental socio-political re-
⁎ Tel.: +49 176 23967294.
E-mail address: silke.vandyk@uni-kassel.de.
Gerontology and Ageing Studies.
The popular focus on the able-bodied “young-old” or “new
elderly” comes along with the appraisal of their (ongoing)
“sameness” in terms of achievement-based midlife-norms and
capacities. Traditionally inclined to overcome the deficit model of
old age, it is not surprising, prima facie, that many gerontologists
have quite openly joined the coalition that sings the praise of the
“new elderly”, their virtues and resources. This approving stance
more or less characterizes the mainstream of gerontology, which
I will – deliberately simplifying – call “Happy Gerontology”: This
term, borrowed from Noberto Bobbio,1 suggests that Happy
Gerontologists tend to promote positive views on old age by
neglecting frailty, dementia and hardship, while stressing the
continuities between midlife and independent/active later life at
the same time.
1
In his essay “Of old age – De Senectute Bobbio complains: “The ‘happy
science’ of geriatrics considerably fosters, though unwillingly and meaning
well, the disguise of the maladies of senility.” (Bobbio, 2006: 60, author's
translation).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2014.08.008
0890-4065/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
94 S. van Dyk / Journal of Aging Studies 31 (2014) 93–103
It is up to streams of Critical Gerontology to take a contrary
view: Diverse as they are, rooted in a wide range of theoretical
perspectives, Critical Gerontologists reflect on the neoliberal
framing of old age activation as well as the exclusive character
of achievement- and continuity-based positive images of
ageing. After briefly presenting the rise of the active-ageing-
paradigm (2) and summarizing the critical objections against it
(3), it is the aim of this article to critically revisit and evaluate
the arguments of Critical Gerontologists (4). Without denying
their credits of having challenged the model of active ageing, I
will expose theoretical pitfalls that lead the critique of the
Happy Gerontology's “sameness promise” into the dead-end of
a homogenized difference: Though certainly often unintended,
the appraisal of old age as being positively different from
midlife ends up with sheltering “old people” from impositions
of active society. After elaborating on the roots of this difference
perspective and discussing its problems I will finally (5) sketch
some conceptual ideas on how to overcome the fruitless
dichotomy of sameness (“they have to be like us”) and
difference (“they are the others”). The article aims at broaden-
ing the view at the polyphonic field of age and ageing without
thereby dismissing the critique of neoliberal active ageing.
Active ageing — the renegotiation of old age
There is a broad range of actors promoting active and
productive ageing, including the World Health Organization
(WHO), the European Union, the OECD and the United Nations.
Back in 1999, which was declared the “International Year of
Older Persons” by the United Nations, the European Commis-
sion urged its member states to change “outmoded practices”
in relation to older persons: “Both within labour markets and
after retirement, there is the potential to facilitate the making
of greater contributions from people in the second half of their
lives” (European Commission, 1999: 21) and the UN stated:
“The potential of older persons is a powerful basis for future
development. This enables society to rely increasingly on the
skills, experience and wisdom of older persons, not only to take
the lead in their own betterment but also to participate actively
in that of society as a whole.” (UN, 2002: Article 10) Though
adopted in diverse ways due to different institutional settings
and national retirement cultures and despite a variety of
labels2, there is agreement on a general tendency towards old
age activation in Western industrialized countries (Davey &
Glasgow, 2006; Morrow-Howell, Hinterlong, & Sherradon,
2001; Moulaert & Biggs, 2012; van Dyk & Lessenich, 2009).
The crisis discourse on demographic ageing merges with
discourses on the exhaustion of the welfare state, which
together make up the argument that the rising amount of
elderly people threatens intergenerational solidarity. The idea
of “earned retirement” as a phase of leisure and repose is
increasingly replaced by a moral claim towards retirees to stay
productively engaged and to contribute to society (Moody,
2001: 181f.). In re-negotiating the meaning and duty of old age,
active ageing is not just conceived of as an economic necessity,
but it is presented as a win–win-situation that serves both
society as a whole and the elderly themselves: “The beauty of
this strategy is that it is good for everyone: from citizens of all
2
On the lack of conceptual clarity of active ageing see Boudiny (2012).
ages as ageing individuals, in terms of maximizing their
potential and quality of life, through to society as a whole, by
getting the best from human capital […].” (Walker, 2002: 137)
Next to the postponement of retirement age and the rise of
employment rates of older employees aged 55+ according to
the Lisbon Strategy (Ney, 2004), the debate is about the
extension of care work, mutual aid in neighborhoods, civic
engagement and voluntary work as well as lifelong learning.
The core areas and concrete policies, however, differ from
country to country, with major differences between those
countries with a deeply rooted retirement culture of “late
freedom” (Rosenmayr, 1983), such as Germany and France, and
the Anglo-Saxon countries that abolished mandatory retire-
ment age years ago. Notably the significance of paid work
beyond retirement age plays out very differently — empirically
as well as normatively (Boudiny, 2012; Scherger, Hagemann,
Hokema, & Luc, 2012).
The active-ageing-paradigm is not restricted to hetero-
productive activities that directly benefit others, but also
encompasses activities that affect the ageing process itself
(Walker, 2002: 124f.; WHO, 2002: 12). Whereas for a long time
ageing had been regarded a natural process of decline, the
plasticity of the ageing process has recently become popular.
The broad range of anti-ageing-products and -guidebooks as
well as the outstanding popularity of the “successful ageing”-
concept (Rowe & Kahn, 1998) are the most obvious evidence.
The health-related paradigm shift from a primarily curative to a
more preventive medical focus has been conducive to new
concepts of ageing and their focus on life-long prophylaxis and
prevention with regard to mental and physical health (van Dyk
& Graefe, 2010). The overlapping concepts of successful and
active ageing share the idea that there is not merely a general
potential to influence the ageing process in a “positive” way,
but an individual responsibility to do so (Davey & Glasgow,
2006).
Active ageing and academic paradigms
While active ageing is fairly new on the political agenda,
there is a long gerontological tradition that revolves around the
idea that decline in old age is not a natural process but a
consequence of the elderly's social disengagement. Confronting
the previously influential disengagement theory3, activity
theory proclaims life course continuity with older people to
be “the same as middle-aged people” (Havighurst, Neugarten,
& Tobin, 1968: 161). Activity theory claims that “it is better to
be active than to be inactive; to maintain the pattern
characteristic of middle age rather than to move to new
patterns of old age” (Havighurst Neugarten & Tobin, 1968:
161). As critics have pointed out, activity theory is not just
based on a rather loose concept of activity (Katz, 1996: 127) but
characterized by an overly optimistic and individualistic
account that disregards structural impediments to active
continuity and tends to neglect hardship and grievance in
(deep) old age. Though object of controversial debates, core
ideas of activity theory have remained influential over decades;
the rejection of deficit models of age(ing) and the scientific
3
“In our theory, aging is an inevitable mutual withdrawal or disengagement,
resulting in decreased interaction between the aging person and others in the
social systems he belongs to” (Cummings & Henry, 1961: 14f.).
 S. van Dyk / Journal of Aging Studies 31 (2014) 93–103
elaboration on the virtues of positive ageing are still constitu-
tive for gerontology (Katz, 1996: 123; Martinson & Halpern,
2011: 427). Though having been highly influential in aca-
demics (and partly in social work), activity theory remained a
niche phenomenon until old age became a matter of major
political interest in the present era of demographic change and
welfare state cutbacks. Happy to find open ears for the activity-
based gerontological heritage, many gerontologists tend to
appreciate and take up the active-ageing-paradigm (e.g. Butler
& Gleason, 1985; Naegele, 2013; Walker, 2002), even though
its resource-oriented concept of activity and the moral claim to
contribute to the common good set new priorities. The new
policy on active ageing, in turn, benefits from both the
widespread human desire to be considered active and
successful on the one hand (Biggs, 2004: 96) and an academic
heritage that proves as “a forerunner of productive ageing”
(Moody, 2001: 181) on the other.
As far as Anglo-Saxon countries are concerned, this political-
academic coalition for the re-valuation of old age finds another –
at first sight – unsuspicious ally: Along with its upcoming
popularity in humanities and social sciences, postmodern
analyses of ageing became popular in the late 1980s and 1990s.
They diagnosed a rather individualized “consumer culture”
(Blaikie, 1999; Featherstone & Hepworth, 1991; Gilleard,
1996), which allowed for a consumer-based, highly flexible
and fluid way of life for people of all ages. Though coming from a
different theoretical background and often adopted by scholars
who are more interested in subversive micro-politics than in the
liberal mainstream, the connecting points are evident: The
individualistic approach, the neglect of social inequalities and
structural impediments as well as the disregard of possible
hardships of old age turned out to be conducive to the neoliberal
zeitgeist (critically cf. Powell, 2006: 108f.). Hence, postmodern
Ageing Studies at least partly joined the “happy coalition”,
appreciating individual achievement and a supposedly ageless
later life according to midlife-standards.
Critical perspectives on active ageing — an assault on
naïve happiness
However, not everybody turned out to be happy: Critical
Gerontologists have entered the stage and question the claim
that active ageing is a “positive goal synonymous with apple
pie and motherhood” (Estes & Mahakian, 2001: 207). It is
beyond the scope of this article to do justice to the
heterogeneous field of Critical Gerontology and its diverse
theoretical roots. Since the late 1970s, Mainstream-
Gerontology has been criticized by the Marxian inspired
Political Economy of Ageing, though without its influence
ever having been truly challenged (Katz, 1996: 125f.). British
and American scholars rejected both the individualist activity
theory and the structural-functionalist disengagement theory.
Instead, they have analyzed “old age” as a social construction
according to capitalist rules, “conditioned by one's location in
the social structure and the economic and political factors that
affect it” (Estes, Swan, & Gerard, 1982: 155). Initially the main
focus was on how capitalist modes of production and related
state actions towards the elderly, such as social security and
medical programs, have constituted the “structured depen-
dency” of ageing (Townsend, 1981). The early works gave rise
to criticism regarding the overly structuralist perspective, the
95
neglect of agency and microperspectives as well as the
disregard of inequalities related to gender and race. In addition,
critics questioned the over-accentuation of dependency from
the state compared to market-led-dependencies (cf. Bury,
1995; 17ff.; Kohli, 1992: 237f.). These objections mostly
contributed to fruitful advancements of the paradigm, with
early scholars such as Caroll Estes and Chris Phillipson actively
contributing to this development (Estes, Biggs, & Phillipson,
2003). Upcoming neoliberalism further fostered the challenge
of structuralist assumptions, since the once criticized state-led
dependency increasingly gave rise to the individualization of
risks and the conduct of older people as consumers (Phillipson,
1998; Powell, 2006). At the same time, influences from Critical
Theory, Cultural Studies and by Foucauldian scholars contrib-
uted to an increasing awareness of cultural representations of
age and ageing and strengthened ethical questions. Altogether,
these developments gave rise to the heterogeneous field of
Critical Gerontology, even though the influence of some
streams, notably the role of postmodern thinking and the
influence of the Marxian heritage, are contested (cf. for
different definitions of Critical Gerontology Baars, 2006: 37;
Marshall & Clarke, 2007: 626). Having in mind the diverse roots
of Critical Gerontology, I am particularly interested in critical
analyses of the active-ageing-paradigm.
Active ageing and flexible capitalism
Critical Gerontologists analyze the active-ageing-paradigm
as a fundamental re-negotiation of old age within its wider
social, economic and political context, characterized by mar-
ketization, internationalization and welfare state change. This
critique refers to macro-level explanations and is rooted in the
Political-Economy of Ageing-approach. According to this view,
the promotion of active-ageing principles is not just a welcome
acknowledgement of older people and their potential but
concurrently approves of neoliberal welfare state restructuring:
basic principles of the active-ageing-paradigm – in particular
the individualization of risk and achievement – are diagnosed
as key concepts of a new social policy that combines a political
rhetoric of welfare state maintenance with a political practice of
social cutbacks: “The movement to enhance elder productivity,
which inevitably confounds successful ageing with productiv-
ity, provides the necessary cognitive framework for the retreat
of the state” (Estes & Mahakian, 2001: 208). Critical scholars
problematize civic engagement and voluntary work “to fill
gaping holes in the safety net” (Minkler & Holstein, 2008: 197),
placing “in private hands what once was in public commitment
to meet basic human needs, though realized differently in the
US and in Europe” (ibid.). This critique is not limited to the
compensatory function of concrete productive commitment
but additionally challenges the moral claim of ageing success-
fully with regard to mental and physical health and the
prevention of dependency. Healthy ageing surely is a wide-
spread desire, as many scholars admit. Concurrently, however,
the strict emphasis on individual performance and responsibil-
ity “fits in well with an era of privatism in health care” (Moody,
2001: 180).
Critical Gerontologists claim that their “mainstream” col-
leagues tend to either simply accept the supposed constraining
circumstances of population ageing and welfare state change or
deeply underestimate their encompassing influence on the re-
96 S. van Dyk / Journal of Aging Studies 31 (2014) 93–103
negotiation of old age. The underestimation of macro-level
conditions often involves critical accounts on active ageing that
follow a more “modest” line of critique than Critical Gerontol-
ogists do: Active and productive ageing is approved in principle
and acknowledged as a promising win–win-situation, however
criticized with regard to its application in increasingly
utilitarian terms (for a genealogy of this development cf.
Moulaert & Biggs, 2012). These academic advocates of active
ageing claim that the elderly should not be exploited (e.g.
Backes, 2006). Critical Gerontologists counter that exploitation
is not the exception but the rule, deeply rooted in the concept
itself (Estes et al., 2003: 74f.). Elaborating on hegemony and
power relations, they point at the naivety of “good activation”,
since the paradigm's political popularity is inextricably linked
to its utilitarian nature.
The government of old age
The analysis of the political economy of active ageing is
complemented by the analysis of activation as a regulation of
the (elderly) population, inspired by the Foucauldian critique
of bio-politics and governmentality. Governmentality is about
the (self-)conduct of people by way of truth claims, embedded
in the trilogy of power, knowledge and subjectivity (Foucault,
1991). This focus challenges the established view that active
ageing primarily provides new opportunities and that its
voluntary character (beyond the postponement of retirement
age) renders criticism and doubts needless. According to
critical scholars, the promotion of active ageing, no matter
how voluntary, constructs disciplinary pressure to correspond
to the new images of ageing: “Although ageing individuals are
seemingly offered a range of practices to free themselves from
the constraints of ‘oldness’, their autonomy is regulated
through a new set of social obligations bounded by neo-
liberal rationality” (Laliberte Rudman, 2006: 197). Following
this rationale, the approved possibility to age successfully
comes along with the social expectation and moral duty to do
so (Biggs & Powell, 2001: 96). Against this backdrop, formal
voluntariness is not as unproblematic as it might seem at first
glance, since older people are conducted to govern themselves
according to the influential truth claims of active ageing
(Powell, 2001: 128). At the same time, social pressure to
correspond to the activity-norm does not affect all elderly in
the same way: structural inequalities might “make it an
opportunity for some groups and extremely difficult or
threatening for others” (Estes et al., 2003: 74).
The re-valuation of old age as new ageism
Hence, Critical Gerontologists analyze the instrumental
character of old age activation, pointing at the powerful
governance-mode of self-conduct as well as to social inequal-
ities among elderly. The critique, however, aims even more at
the fundamental promise of the active-ageing paradigm, which
is so compelling to Happy Gerontologists: the promise to
overcome the former deficit perspective and to establish
positive images of ageing. In doing so, Critical Gerontologists
do not simply doubt the promised re-valuation of old age but
bring forward the argument that active, productive and
successful ageing even strengthens the devaluation of old age,
and “reinforce rather than challenge ageism” (Holstein, Parks,
& Waymack, 2011: 75). How does this argument work?
Critical scholars stress the close link of active ageing and
population ageing, which goes back to the idea that demo-
graphic change is a fundamental threat to society (Estes, 2006:
93). The notion of “age-crisis” is based on deeply negative
images of old age as well as the idea of the elderly as being
burdensome, which is not even questioned by new attempts to
redefine demographic change as a challenge: This re-definition
refers to the potentials of the healthy “young-old”, who are
thought to be capable of softening the burden of the rising
number of truly frail and dependent elderly. According to
Critical Gerontologists, we are not witnessing a general re-
valuation of old age but rather the attempt to liberate healthy
and capable retirees from negative age-stereotypes which at
the same time are persistently influential to others. Holstein
and Minkler diagnose a “new ageism” that “replaces an earlier
generalized dread of ageing with a more specific fear of ageing
with a disability” (Holstein & Minkler, 2003: 793). Elderly who
are dependent on care or suffer from dementia or severe
chronic disease are as marginalized and stereotyped as ever,
probably even more so: In times of plasticity, activation and
individualization, retirees who are not ageing successfully are
the “failed ones”, those who have not worked hard enough on
themselves,4 discovering themselves as being “transformed
into passive objects” (Biggs & Powell, 2001: 96). Linking
successful ageing to health, independence and productivity
has discriminatory effects on those who do not meet these
criteria: “Behind the elegant resource perspective, a misery
perspective is hidden in a new guise, where responsibility for
the misery of ageing becomes the responsibility of the
individual. If one is not active and does not keep fit, then one
has only oneself to blame” (Tornstam, 1992: 323).
Critical Gerontologists have raised ethical objections against
the idea of anti-discrimination and re-valuation based on
achievement and outcome. They criticize the attempt to
counter negative stereotypes of old age “by asserting that
older adults are in fact people who are valuable and worthy
because they do contribute to the society” (Martinson &
Halpern, 2011: 431). The critique is twofold: On the one hand
the critics claim that anti-discrimination has to be uncondi-
tional, not based on “doing” but on “being” (ibid.: 429). On the
other hand, and more specifically, there is a critical assault on
the intrusion of mid-life norms of “doing” like activity and
productivity, a process which is called “age-imperialism”: “By
age imperialism here is meant the imposition of the goals, aims,
priorities and agendas of one age group onto and into the lives
of other age groups. It is a more sophisticated ageism than a
simple dislike of old age” (Biggs, 2004). As early as the mid-
eighties the doyen of ageing research, Tomas Cole, stated: “The
contemporary attack on negative stereotypes of old age does
not achieve […]. Aimed at liberating older people from images
of passivity and debility, this attack frees (or subtly coerces) old
people to retain the ideals of the middle-aged middle class”
(Cole, 1984: 333). So, contrary to the Happy Gerontologists'
4
As the “fathers” of the successful-aging concept stress: “The frailty of old
age is largely reversible […]. What does it take to turn back the ageing clock? It's
surprisingly simple […]. Success is determined by good old-fashioned hard
work” (Rowe & Kahn, 1998: 102).
 S. van Dyk / Journal of Aging Studies 31 (2014) 93–103
view, Critical Gerontologists consider the concept of active
ageing itself as ageist and oppressive.
Critical Gerontology revisited — on the pathways
of difference
“Old age is different”
The critique of active ageing and anti-ageing-consumer
culture is based on a strong normative concept of difference
that rejects the extension of “mid-lifestylism” (Biggs, 1997:
567) as a misguided attempt to suggest continuity and
sameness where indeed a different phase of life starts: “Old
people are not, in fact, just like middle-aged persons but only
older. They are different” (Calasanti, Slevin, & King, 2006: 17).
The critics challenge midlife as an unquestioned universal
benchmark for the policy of sameness: “We are treated as if we
are all the same, and that sameness assumes a baseline that is
not drawn from later life itself” (Biggs, 2004: 103f.). Instead,
they advocate old age as its own benchmark which “need[s] to
be acknowledged, respected and cherished” (Cole, 1992: 229)
in its uniqueness and difference.
“Mature identity” and “gerotranscendence”
A closer look reveals differing conceptual motivations of the
difference claim: one influential thread goes back to analytical
psychology and its concept of human development, whereas
another important thread refers to the affirmation of differ-
ences such as gender and race. Names associated with the first
thread are, among others, Lars Tornstam and Simon Biggs in
particular. These authors refer to Carl Gustav Jung's works on
the process of human development and the distinct character
of the second half of (adult) life: “Wholly unprepared, we
embark upon the second half of life […]. Worse still, we take
this step with the false assumption that our truths and ideals
will serve us as hitherto. But we cannot live the afternoon of life
according to the programme of life's morning: for what in the
morning of life was true will at evening have become a lie” (Carl
Gustav Jung, quoted from Cole, 1992: 227). The authors, while
referring to Jung, assume “a natural patterning of the adult life
course” (Biggs, 2006: 112) with old age being “the final stage in
a natural progression towards maturation and wisdom”
(Tornstam, 1997: 143). This assumption of a natural patterning
implicates the problematization of mid-lifestyles in old age in
pathological terms: “The individual who attempts to maintain
the priorities of one life-phase into another is, in reality,
suffering from an age-related neurotic illness. Mid-lifestylism
[…] constitutes a hanging on to an illusion and an avoidance of
different existential questions that have to be asked in the
second half of life.” (Biggs, 1997: 568) Instead, Biggs points at
the “genuine experience of mature identity” (Biggs, 1999: 168)
with a deeper understanding of the priorities of life which,
according to his view, is increasingly interfered with and
obstructed by a “masquerade of sameness, conforming to social
expectations” (Biggs, 2006: 115). And according to Biggs these
expectations are based on the imperialism of midlife-norms.5
Adopting this idea of masquerade, he challenges the postmod-
ern concept of the “mask of ageing” (Featherstone & Hepworth,
5
Cole (1992) demonstrated that this universalization of midlife-norms and
their supremacy over the entire course of life goes back to the Victorian era.
97
1991) which was highly influential in the Anglo-Saxon debates
on ageing back in the 1990s and early 2000s. The “mask of
ageing” hypothesis assumes an inner continuity and youthful-
ness increasingly trapped inside the mask of an ageing body
and promotes anti-ageing consumer culture as a promise to
(partly) solve this contradiction. Biggs, on the contrary,
suggests a mature inner identity which is obscured by a policy
of sameness in the ageist Western consumer culture and
activity-oriented society.
Comparable to Bigg's concept of “mature identity” as an
alternative vision of old age, we find Lars Tornstam's popular
concept of “gerotranscendence” which is even more explicit
with regard to the complementary qualities of old age.
Tornstam suggests “gerotranscendence” as the final stage of
the individuation process according to C.G. Jung: “Simply put,
gerotranscendence is a shift in meta-perspective, from a
materialistic and pragmatic view of the world to a more cosmic
and transcendent one, normally accompanied by an increase in
life satisfaction” (Tornstam, 1997: 143). Tornstam states an
increased need for solitude and introspection in later life that
conflicts with social expectations of active and productive
ageing. He, too, establishes “an overflow of mid-life values
found in society at large […], which means that our choice of
conceptual delineations and theories carries the (sometimes
hidden) stamp of values that emphasize productivity, effec-
tiveness, and independence” (Tornstam, 1992: 322). Tornstam
criticizes middle-aged academics for applying their own
standards to older people, so that career work, leisure-time
activities and keep-fit measures are considered “normal”
interests and activities, even though they do not match the
priorities of later life, as he claims (ibid.: 323). He explicitly
addresses the traditional gerontological division line between
activity theory and disengagement theory, problematizing the
triumphal procession of activity theory in mainstream geron-
tology since the 1970s, which according to his view can be
traced back to the hegemony of midlife norms. Instead, he
proposes “a new metatheoretical understanding of the disen-
gagement pattern” (ibid.: 324) as the only true age-adequate
perspective.
Finally a somewhat less radical perspective of difference is
Harry R. Moody's concept of “conscious ageing” that refers to
Tornstam's “gerotranscendence” as a key motif (Moody, 2001:
178). Compared to Tornstam, however, Moody does not
universalize his concept as the true solution for every old
person but rather proposes “conscious ageing” as a “spiritual
opportunity” (Moody, 2005: 62) alongside other opportunities
to arrange later life. Furthermore, most of his examples that
prove the virtues of improved (self-)consciousness, “soul-
searching” (ibid.) and new forms of creativity in the case of
artists such as Matisse and Beethoven are related to substantial
advents of illness and frailty and not to old age per se.
Celebrating age like other differences
In addition to these approaches we find an equally strong
perspective of difference that is motivated quite differently. In
particular, feminist gerontologists have posed the question of
why there is no proud acknowledgement of old age, whereas
Women's Movement and Women's Studies have been raising
awareness and appreciation of what it means to live as a
woman in the current society. Problematizing on the wide-
spread norm of an “ageless self”, Molly Andrews asks: “Why is
98 S. van Dyk / Journal of Aging Studies 31 (2014) 93–103
it that so often attempts to speak about ageing in a positive light
result in a denial of ageing? While difference is celebrated in
axes such as race, gender, religion and nationality, the same is
not true for age. In pathetic terms, aimed, one might suppose, at
establishing acceptability of their subjects, researchers plea for
a blindness to difference” (Andrews, 1999: 309). Toni Calasanti
adds that old people “are different. As is the case with other
forms of oppression, we must acknowledge and accept these
differences, and even see them as valuable” (Calasanti et al.,
2006: 17). It is the youth-orientation of late modern Western
culture that is considered to “hinder us from perceiving value in
age” (Andrews, 1999: 315). Similar to Biggs and Tornstam,
Calasanti and Andrews as well as other Critical Gerontologists
such as Martha Holstein and Linn Sandberg problematize on
“age denial” as lying “at the heart of ageism” (Calasanti et al.,
2006: 16; cf. Holstein et al., 2011: 70f.; Sandberg, 2013: 34):
According to them, the hegemony of age denial reinforces the
negative stereotyping of all those who do not comply with the
standards of agelessness. Drawing on feminist critiques of the
policy of sameness6 that used to expound the problems of
androcentrism and the adaptation of women to male stan-
dards, these Critical Gerontologists challenge the hegemonial,
though unmarked standard of midlife: “Just as feminists
demonstrated that ‘adding women in’ to models based upon
men's experiences ultimately depicted women as ‘other’, so too
‘adding the old in’ to theories developed on the basis of younger
groups' experiences renders the old as deviant.” (Calasanti,
2003: 199) The valuation of difference – “affirmative old age”
(Sandberg, 2013: 11) – is instead based on the idea that it is
possible to keep and cherish the difference and to overcome the
underlying inequality at the same time (Calasanti, 2008: 155;
Holstein & Minkler, 2003: 795). So, the positive future
reference point is that “‘old’ carries positive content rather
than stigma as disease, mortality, or the absence of value. Only
then will old people no longer need to be ‘exceptional’ or spend
their time ‘staying young’ to be acceptable; only then will they
be free to be frail, or flabby, or have wrinkles — to be old, in all
its diversity” (Calasanti, 2003: 215).
Contrary to Biggs and Tornstam, who suggest a more
concrete vision of an alternative lifestyle in old age, this
perspective rather aims at a general appreciation of the social
and physical characteristics usually linked to later life. And
whereas those authors, referring to Jung's analytical psychol-
ogy, stress the process of individuation in supposed natural
though socially embedded stages, Toni Calasanti, Molly An-
drews, Martha Holstein and others are more interested in social
movement, co-operation and resistance based on the acknowl-
edgement of shared differences: “Liberation struggles are not
about assimilation but about asserting difference, endowing
that difference with dignity and prestige, and insisting on it as a
condition of self-definition and self-determination” (Greer
1999, quoted from Holstein & Minkler, 2003: 795).
6
Mostly this reference to feminist difference claims is rather general,
without further theoretical evaluations. For a more distinct and profound
discussion, referring to the concept of sexual difference by Rosa Braidotti and
Elisabeth Grosz see Sandberg (2013).
Politics of difference and the active-ageing paradigm
Though presented as two distinct perspectives on difference,
the two threads partly overlap and match with regard to their
strong perspective of difference and the idea that old age is “a
unique time in human development to be honored for itself”
(Holstein et al., 2011: 67) – often even including the third and
the fourth age without any differentiation. It lies in the nature of
the heterogeneity of Critical Gerontology that, of course, not all
authors share the conceptual ideas of one or the other thread in
detail – and some might even disapprove in general. Particularly
the Jungian foundation challenges constructionist perspectives
on the life course, without, however, having been explicitly
challenged by other Critical Gerontologists thus far. Never-
theless the foundational idea of difference has been spreading
as a more or less generalized conceptual basis for Critical
Gerontology's assault on both active and anti-ageing. Many of
the quoted protagonists are among the most prominent critics
of these paradigms: notably Moody (1993, 2001), Simon Biggs
(2001, 2004), Calasanti (2003, 2008) and Holstein (1999),
Holstein and Minkler (2003) have presented intriguing argu-
ments against old age activation and the increasing “tyranny to
prove one's productive value” (Calasanti, 2003: 214f.) — I have
summed up the core arguments previously. Furthermore, other
critical thinkers refer to either the idea of difference in general
or even to more distinct concepts, in order to argue against old
age activation and anti-ageing policy (cf. Liang & Luo, 2012;
Öberg, 1996), and the idea of “authentic ageing” (Estes et al.,
2003: 41) is widespread. Martinson and Halpern (2011), to give
just one example, refer to the works of Cole, Tornstam and
countless others from diverse backgrounds, in order to develop
their critique of elder volunteerism with its underlying idea of
productive continuity: According to their view, this promotion
“stands in stark contrast to a range of perspectives presented by
philosophers, developmental psychologists, sociologists, and
feminist scholars. While different from each other, these
perspectives have in common an understanding that late life
presents particular opportunities, perspectives, and experiences
unique to old age that involve movement away from or
different than the midlife focus on productive, work-like
activities […]. This is not to say that productive activities are
not a part of life for many older adults, but they are not
necessarily the anchor of one's identity as they tend to be when
one is younger” (Martinson & Halpern, 2011: 429). Again, as we
have already seen with Tornstam, the critique of active ageing
resembles notions understood from the disengagement
paradigm.
On the pitfalls of difference claims — a critique
It is beyond the scope of this article to review the various
concepts of difference in detail and, interestingly enough, there
is little literature doing so. Except from a few, rather isolated
critiques of concepts like “gerotranscendence” (cf. Jönson &
Magnusson, 2001) or the “late style” of artists as a style of its
own (cf. Hutcheon & Hutcheon, 2012), there is no critical
debate on the counter-discourse of difference against the
sameness-claims of Happy Gerontology. The following critical
discussion aims at the difference-claim in general, which gains
importance not despite but rather because of its diverse
conceptual roots. As instructive as Critical Gerontology's critical
assault on the repressive effects of active-ageing-claims and
 S. van Dyk / Journal of Aging Studies 31 (2014) 93–103
anti-ageing-consumer culture is, the attempt to protect old age
from these social expectations by a sheltering difference-claim
leads into another dead-end. The main message is: Old people
should be allowed to be what they “really are”: old —
particularly in times of neoliberal activation and “marketing
maturity” (Katz, 2005: 195). The problem with this message is:
It suggests that old age is a distinct category of reference which
can be easily determined. The implicated homogenization goes
so far that some authors even drop the distinction of third and
fourth age, in order to “re-unify” old age in its uniqueness and
broadness — as it is claimed (Holstein et al., 2011: 67).
However, where has the line of difference to be drawn? Why
is it, if we start out from retirement age as many do, that a 70-
year-old marathon runner should have more in common with a
90-year-old demented person than with a 50-year-old manag-
er? Instead of challenging the category of old age and analyzing
how the clear distinction between midlife and old age is
constantly (re-)produced and institutionalized, the difference
is often taken for granted. The constructionist focus, which
indeed plays a fundamental role in Critical Gerontology, is
restricted to the social construction of life(-styles) in old age,
whereas the age categorization itself, that is the construction of
old age and midlife with its age-related implications, remains
mostly unchallenged. Even though Critical Gerontologists have
done brilliant work to demonstrate the age-imperialism of
adult life, they eventually end up re-affirming the agelessness
of midlife: By sheltering the difference and rejecting ageless-
ness for old age, Critical Gerontology makes only old age into
age — therefore unwillingly reinforcing old age as “the other”,
deviating from the ageless norm. This critique is not meant to
deny the merit of Critical Gerontology to have addressed
questions of diversity and the intersection of old age with other
forms of inequalities (Holstein & Minkler, 2003; Laws, 1995).
However, this diversity perspective again is mostly restricted to
the heterogeneity and diversity in old age, without challenging
and de-constructing the binary opposition midlife/old age
itself: it is all about the appreciation of difference as the
“acceptance of old age in all its diversity” (Sandberg, 2013: 35;
cf. with almost identical words Calasanti, 2003: 215).
Furthermore, the critique of age-imperialism bears another
problem that somewhat blocks the critical stance of Critical
Gerontology towards neoliberal activation: Even though most
Critical Gerontologists take a critical stance towards the norms
of flexible capitalism, their critique is more explicit and defined
with regard to the “age-adequateness” of these norms.
Criticizing the intrusive application of so-called midlife-norms
of achievement, competitiveness and productivity to older
people suggests at the same time that these norms are rather
unproblematic for middle-aged people: Productivity, effective-
ness and independence “may become less important to us as
we age” (Tornstam, 1992: 322), as e.g. Tornstam states. The
primary focus on age-adequateness is not just ruling out the
possibility that achievement or competitiveness might be in
line with life priorities of some elderly, but it also neglects that
these norms might be oppressive to people in younger
years, too. Thus, if I expound the problems of collectively
sheltering older people, I do not give away the criticism of
neoliberal activation policies and consumer-based claims of
youthfulness — quite on the contrary: Giving up the homog-
enizing sheltering of some people (“the old”) rather makes us
aware of the consequences of productivity claims for many
99
different people of all ages, which of course have to be analyzed
with regard to their age-related implications.
The appreciation of difference is closely linked to the idea
that the binary division of midlife and old age can be freed from
the hierarchical order of its poles that used to result in the
negative stereotyping of old age. However, this perspective
entails several pitfalls: first of all the revaluation often comes
along with a kind of positive stereotyping that is as universal-
izing as the general devaluation of old age and might end up as
“repressive idealization” (Junker 1973: 13, quoted from
Hohmeier, 1978). “Being inside a box” (Andrews, 2012: 389),
no matter what kind of box, “can be suffocating” (ibid.). Having
in mind all the positive age stereotypes that are mobilized to
prove the valuable uniqueness of old age – wisdom and
experience, loyalty and reliability, non-competitiveness and
altruism, post-materialism and spirituality – Bill Bytheway
claims: “It is far less patronizing, far less self-righteous and far
less ageist, to state that: […] they are pretty ordinary. They have
lived long lives and survived many experiences” (Bytheway,
1995: 128). To some extent, though of course not intended,
these attributes and the underlying endorsement of at least
some disengagement arguments – elderly are non-competitive,
non-materialistic and longing for introspection – bear the
potential of legitimating and partly de-problematizing the
(social) exclusion of the elderly. Kathleen Woodward has
demonstrated the repressive character of one of the most
positive ascriptions to old age: wisdom. In her article “Against
wisdom: the social politics of anger and ageing” (Woodward,
2003: 55) Woodward demonstrates that the deeply rooted idea
that elderly people are wise deprives them of their right to feel
anger and protest against discrimination: “Wisdom, lack of
competition, cooperation, empathy: qualities all virtually
antithetical to anger. Where, then, does the rage go? It is not
transformed into outrage, into anger at injustice.” (Ibid.: 61)
Hence it is not just social exclusion that might be legitimized by
complementary qualities ascribed to old age, we also witness a
certain naturalization of life-satisfaction in later life, since all
forms of active disapproval are thought of as being age-
inadequate: “righteous anger is not associated with the old,
only peevishness and cantankerousness” (ibid.: 59).
Furthermore, it is rather doubtful that re-valuating old age
while cherishing the difference really proves to be a successful
strategy: Having in mind the power relations in capitalist
society and its promotion of flexibility, entrepreneurial spirit,
speed and creative destruction, the supposed positive images of
old age appear somewhat out-of-time. In fact they are in most
cases exactly the opposite of what is currently required from
adult people. In order to prevent naïve rhetorical appraisals that
are foredoomed in capitalist reality, Critical Gerontology's own
heritage of Political Economy of Ageing offers an outstanding
conceptual resource to analyze positive stereotypes such as
altruism, reliability and non-competitiveness within their
wider capitalist context.
Ambivalences of identity claims
Most surprising, however, is the fact that “difference” and
“identity” are referred to as rather unproblematic concepts
by many Critical Gerontologists, who in so doing ignore
decades of theoretical controversies on both the modern
dualism of sameness/difference and the ambivalent charac-
ter of identity as being enabling and restricting at the same
100 S. van Dyk / Journal of Aging Studies 31 (2014) 93–103
time (cf. Benhabib, Butler, Cornell, & Fraser, 1995; Williams,
1991). If authors such as Calasanti, Andrews and Holstein
claim that “difference” is valued and cherished in other fields
and that this could be a model for old age, too, then they
ignore an important fact: the strong difference-claim which
characterized the early Women's Movement, sexual libera-
tion struggles or the Black Power Movement has been
constantly challenged. Feminist, queer and postcolonial
scholars and activists have pointed at the repressive and
exclusive character of homogenized gender, sexual and race
differences, which eventually established new forms of
exclusion, as e.g. black women and working class women
have claimed with regard to the white, middle-class
character of the early Women's movement (Combahee
River Collective, 1978). Admittedly, particularly feminist
gerontologists have learned this lesson and stress diversity
in old age. However, they have not taken up the more radical
challenge of the difference-claim itself that is based on the
idea that the hierarchy of the poles (“male/female”, “het-
erosexual/homosexual”, “white/black”) is rooted in the
difference itself. A variety of theoretical scholars from
ethnomethodology to poststructuralism have pointed at the
close interlinkage of difference and inequality. If we follow this
perspective the re-valuation of “old age” turns out to be futile as
long as the dichotomous and hierarchical construction of the
poles “young-old” is not problematized at the same time. The
mechanism of differentiating the “real” and the “deviating” was
and is, as many authors have argued, “systematic to the logics
and practices of domination of women, people of colour, nature,
workers, animals — in short, domination of all constituted as
others, whose task is to mirror the self” (Haraway, 1991: 177).
Very few authors in Ageing Studies, namely Bill Bytheway
(1995), Gilleard and Higgs (2000: 138ff.), have raised aware-
ness of an age-hierarchy that is basically linked to or even
engrained in the categorization of different ages itself.
Furthermore, celebrating the difference of old age as a true
identity base for later life ignores the various critiques of the
concept of identity: “Given the trend away from identity politics
in sexuality studies, it seems curious that the identity ‘old’ has
not undergone similar transformation in age studies. The social
construction of ageing is widely acknowledged, but the expan-
sive and revisionist thought on “women” and “gay” finds few
parallels with ‘old’ as an identity” (Cruikshank, 2008: 149).
Particularly Judith Butler's challenge to gender and sexual
identity, brought up in her book “Gender Trouble”, turned out
to be overly influential to feminist and queer studies as well as to
corresponding social movements. As Butler (1990) and many
others claim, identity itself is not just enabling and meaningful
but exclusive and repressive at the same time: Any identity
marks its downside and produces abjects that are unintelligible
according to hegemonial identity standards. Having in mind the
sometimes harsh criticism of Critical Gerontologists of those who
are accused of unduly denying old age, this perspective helps in
understanding the potentially repressive character of “mature
identity” and “gerotranscendence”. In other words: Many Critical
Gerontologists miss the challenge of queer thinking that is
supposed “to name a space of difference […] without being
trapped in identity” (Jakobsen, 2003: 81). What would this
challenge implicate for Critical Gerontology? It would imply to
analyze how old age is made different socially, to review the
ongoing production of difference and its powerful effects, though
without claiming a positive normative difference that forms a
true age-identity instead.
The temporality of ageing
As inspiring as the recourse to identity critiques and feminist/
queer analyses is, Critical Gerontology has to do more than
borrowing from these theoretical resources: Contrary to gender
and race, age is marked by an explicit temporality, so Critical
Gerontology has to deal with the double structure of age and
ageing. The ageing process and its social organization on the
basis of life-course patterns (Kohli, 1985) is deeply engrained in
a chronology of ageing: “The very term ‘old age’ is thick with
cultural assumptions about chronology, the linear nature of time,
decline, as well as ‘natural’ change, and the life course with the
assumption of analogies to nature (seasons, gardens, fires), loss,
the diminution of life space, and the infringement upon the
person by the forces of nature” (Rubinstein, 1990: 113).
Postmodern critics have been challenging the restrictions of
this chronology, including the body-based “mask of ageing” and
promised endless youthfulness, timelessness and the blurring of
traditional life course boundaries in a post-traditional consumer
culture (Blaikie, 1999; Featherstone & Hepworth, 1991). Many
Critical Gerontologists, in return, have rightly claimed life's
finitude and the existential character of ageing, thereby,
however, having turned back the clock too far, with the Jungian
foundation even embracing and approving the natural character
of chronology. However, as long as the basic idea of chronology
itself is unchallenged, as long as midlife is seen as the “heyday”
(the “summer”) of life and old age as the “autumn” on the way
down to death — the idea of old age as a decline remains
formative. And this is even the case if the starting point is
currently postponed to later stages of life.
Summing up the critical review of the difference claim
stated by the Critical Gerontologists, we establish a “halved
constructionism” in a double sense: First, Critical Gerontology
shows a tendency to make only old age into age, thereby
approving the agelessness of midlife. The constructionist
perspective focuses on constructions of life and living in old
age, leaving the underlying dichotomous categorization of
midlife/old age unchallenged. Second, Critical Gerontologists
analyze the social constructions of concrete life courses, but
they naturalize the underlying chronology of life phases. For
this reason they suggest that “age denial” is an illusion,
resulting in false consciousness or even neurotic illness. Due
to this “halved constructionism”, Critical Gerontologists
problematize on those who deviate from the complementary
qualities and priorities ascribed to old age or who pursue
“unnatural” anti-ageing practices. However, “if there is no
natural body, there is not natural way to age” (Twigg, 2004:
63). Moreover, if there is no fixed chronology, there is no
natural way of development and no natural/authentic dealing
with existential questions such as life's finitude. This is no plea
to deny the existential and corporeal dimension of ageing. I
rather propose to open up the debate beyond unrealistic
continuity promises according to hegemonial standards on the
one hand and homogenizing difference claims on the other.
Conclusions and perspectives
The dominant active-ageing paradigm has been fruitfully
challenged and criticized by Critical Gerontologists who refer to
 S. van Dyk / Journal of Aging Studies 31 (2014) 93–103
a variety of theoretical perspectives, ranging from Marxian
Political Economy of Ageing to Cultural and Foucauldian
Gerontology. However, as I have demonstrated, this critique
runs into a dead-end: Old age tends to be homogenized and
sometimes even naturalized, in order to shelter and protect
“old people” from neoliberal activity claims. The good news is
that Critical Gerontology itself offers the conceptual resources
to escape this dead-end of difference: There is a strong self-
reflective tradition that may guide the critical reflection of the
active-ageing critique. Critical Gerontologists have been chal-
lenging the positivist and supposedly value-free stance of
Happy Gerontologists who do not deliberate on whether and
how gerontology forms its object of investigation (Moody,
2001: 191f.). Particularly authors inspired by Foucault's early
works have analyzed how gerontology constitutes “the old”:
“Like the aged body, the elderly population was not so much
discovered as it was constituted as a site of power knowledge
[…] The bulk of academic gerontological research is in fact
consumed with knowing the elderly population's growth, size,
movements, profiles, and needs. The question of how the
elderly come to be known in these populational terms,
however, is rarely addressed in mainstream gerontology”
(Katz, 1996: 49). Hence, this critical reflectivity is suited to
ask what kind of elderly population is generated by the Critical
Gerontologists' difference claim that stresses complementary
qualities and priorities in later life. Critical Gerontologists have
rightly been criticizing that the active-ageing paradigm leaves
“little place for alternative pathways for self and social
development” (Biggs, 2001: 314). In this spirit they have to
tolerate the counter-question of whether the suggested
alternative pathways in the shape of mature identity,
gerotranscendence or “late style” are oppressive themselves,
too.
In order to do so, Critical Gerontology is in need of concepts
that problematize on difference and (age) identity, which are
most prevalent in the works of post-structuralist authors.
However, despite the broad range of approaches contributing
to Critical Gerontology there is no distinct post-structuralist
stream. Critical Gerontology's mostly strict differentiation from
postmodern analyses, which have all too often been lumped
together with poststructuralist thinking (on the differences see
e.g. Butler, 1991), might explain this blank.7 Since it is beyond
the scope of this article to discuss poststructuralist perspectives
on age and ageing in detail, I will only briefly sketch some
ideas.8
Poststructuralist thinking (Williams, 2005) is inspiring for
analyzing existing social differences without reinforcing ho-
mogenizing identity-claims: Difference is not considered a
distinction of elements based on fixed identities but thought of
as a relation between elements that always carry the mark of
the other element. This perspective bears the potential to
7 need of protection. “Strategic essentialism” is about utilizing
The inspiring Foucauldian Gerontology does not close this gap, since it
refers to Foucault's early structuralist works on how powerfully knowledge is
generated as well as to his later analyses of governmentality and (self-)conduct,
none of which is poststructuralist.
8
A more intense discussion of poststructuralist perspectives in Ageing
Studies has to deal with two challenges in particular, the corporeal reality of
later life as well as the existential dimension of finiteness. Notably the latter is a
provocation to a paradigm based on a “future-oriented temporality” (Grosz,
1999: 4).
101
overcome the semi-constructionism that only makes old age
into age and to analyze how old age is constituted in relation to
an “unmarked”, supposedly ageless midlife — and vice versa.
Furthermore, poststructuralist thinkers have raised awareness
of the “violent hierarchies” of binary constructions such as
“man/woman” or “black/white” in modern societies. This
perspective challenges the attempt of Critical Gerontologists
to keep the difference while removing the inequality. Jacques
Derrida's (1986) double gesture of deconstruction opens up
another perspective: The first step is in accordance with
revaluation of old age by many Critical Gerontologists, since it
is about displaying the de-valued pole of the difference and
about challenging the hierarchy. The second step, however,
goes further and challenges the binary itself, deconstructing the
oppositional poles in their supposed purity. Hence, a decon-
structive perspective would be conducive to challenge the line
of difference between midlife and old age and to claim diversity
not just “within” the poles but also with regard to their
construction in relation to each other.
Another core element of poststructuralist thinking is the
idea that even the most influential violent hierarchies are only
temporarily fixed and reliant on permanent repetition. This
focus opens up an entirely new perspective on the criticized
“practices of sameness”: Instead of regarding them as age
denial, simply duplicating hegemonial midlife standards, the
concept of iterability draws attention to potentially subversive
re-articulations and shifts in meaning by repetition. Applied to
our topic, this could involve those elderly who copy produc-
tivity norms, who try to look middle-aged or who perform
work-like activities while possibly re-interpreting and slightly
changing these standards at the same time. Stressing the
subversive and empowering potentials of imitation, Judith
Butler states: “I think we make a mistake if we think that this
kind of mimesis results only in a slave morality, accepting and
fortifying the terms of authority. […] The voice that emerges
‘echoes’ the master discourse, but this echo nevertheless
establishes that there is a voice” (Butler, 2004: 201). According
to this view, the simple dichotomy of either sameness or
difference negates the factual diversity of voices and (political)
practices. This is not about collective resistance to midlife-
norms in the first place, but about successive shifts that,
however, might be politicized, as Judith Butler has demon-
strated with regard to the appropriation of former discrimina-
tory ascriptions by queer policy (Butler, 1990: 163ff.). The
queering of age, based on daily actions and practices, could
open out into both subcultural and political perspectives
against the homogenizing stereotyping of old age (cf.
Halberstam, 2003; Küpper, 2013).
Last but not least Critical Gerontology might profit from
“strategic essentialism” (Spivak, 1988), a concept known
from Postcolonial Studies. This concept opens up the
perspective to defend retirement against worklife extension
and activation claims without thereby naturalizing old age in
powerful difference claims “in a scrupulously visible polit-
ical interest” (ibid.: 13), so they serve a different purpose.
With regard to retirement this means using the ascribed
difference of “old age” to defend the liberation from selling
human labour and living up to productivity claims for at
least part of adult life. This “late freedom” could reopen new
opportunities for living that are usually debarred during
102 S. van Dyk / Journal of Aging Studies 31 (2014) 93–103
worklife. Without doubt, it is a less-than-ideal solution to tie
this liberation to fixed age limits. In consideration of current
power relations and the universal trend towards radicalized
marketization and commodification, however, this is more
than nothing.
References
Andrews, M. (1999). The seductiveness of agelessness. Ageing and Society,
19(3), 301–318.
Andrews, M. (2012). Unexpecting age. Journal of Aging Studies, 26(4), 386–393.
Baars, J. (2006). Beyond neomodernism, antimodernism, and postmodernism:
Basic categories for contemporary critical gerontology. In J. Baars, D.
Dannefer, C. Phillipson, & A. Walker (Eds.), Aging, globalization, and
inequality. The new critical gerontology (pp. 17–42). Amityville, New York:
Baywood.
Backes, G. (2006). Widersprüche und Ambivalenzen ehrenamtlicher und
freiwilliger Arbeit im Alter [Contradictions and ambivalences of voluntary
work in old age]. In K. R. Schroeter, & P. Zängl (Eds.), Altern und
bürgerschaftliches engagement (pp. 63–94)Old age and civic engagement
(pp. 63–94). Wiesbaden: VS.
Benhabib, S., Butler, J., Cornell, D., & Fraser, N. (1995). Feminist contentions. A
philosophical exchange. New York/London: Routledge.
Biggs, S. (1997). Choosing not to be old? Masks, bodies and identity
management in later life. Ageing and Society, 17(5), 553–570.
Biggs, S. (1999). The mature imagination. Dynamics of identity in midlife and
beyond. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Biggs, S. (2001). Towards critical narrativity. Stories of aging in contemporary
social policy. Journal of Aging Studies, 15(4), 303–316.
Biggs, S. (2004). New ageism: Age imperialism, personal experience and ageing
policy. In S. O. Daatland, & S. Biggs (Eds.), Ageing and diversity (pp. 95–106).
Bristol: The Policy Press.
Biggs, S. (2006). Ageing selves and others: Distinctiveness and uniformity in the
struggle for intergenerational solidarity. In J. A. Vincent, C. Philipson, & M.
Downs (Eds.), The futures of Old Age (pp. 109–116). London et al.: Sage.
Biggs, S., & Powell, J. L. (2001). A Foucauldian analysis of old age and the power
of social welfare. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 12(2), 93–112.
Blaikie, A. (1999). Ageing and popular culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bobbio, N. (2006). Vom Alter — De senectute [About age — De senectute]. Berlin:
Wagenbach.
Boudiny, K. (2012). Active ageing: From empty rhetoric to effective policy tool.
Ageing and Society. First view article. (pp. 1–22). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0144686X1200030X (published online 10 July 2012).
Bury, M. (1995). Ageing, gender and sociological theory. In S. Arber, & J. Ginn
(Eds.), Connecting gender and ageing. A sociological approach (pp. 15–29).
Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York et al.: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1991). Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of
‘Postmodernism’. Praxis International, 11(2), 150–165.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York/London: Routledge.
Butler, R. N., & Gleason, H. P. (1985). Productive aging. New York: Springer.
Bytheway, B. (1995). Ageism. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Calasanti, T. (2003). Theorizing age relations. In S. Biggs, A. Lowenstein, & J.
Hendricks (Eds.), The need for theory: Critical approaches to social
gerontology (pp. 199–218). Amityville, New York: Baywood.
Calasanti, T. (2008). A feminist confronts ageism. Journal of Aging Studies, 22(2),
152–157.
Calasanti, T., Slevin, K. F., & King, N. (2006). Ageism and feminism: From “Et
Cetera” to center. NWSA Journal, 18, 13–30.
Cole, T. R. (1984). Age, meaning, and well-being: Musings of a cultural historian.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 19(4), 329–336.
Cole, T. R. (1992). The journey of life. A cultural history of aging in America.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Combahee River Collective (1978). A black feminist statement. In Z. Eisenstein
(Ed.), Capitalist patriarchy and the case for social feminism (pp. 210–218).
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Council of the European Union (2010). Council conclusions on active ageing. The
Council of the European Union (Available on: www.consilium.europa.eu/
uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/114968.pdf (Accessed July 15,
2012)).
Cruikshank, M. (2008). Aging and identity politics. Journal of Aging Studies,
22(2), 147–151.
Cummings, E., & Henry, W. (1961). Growing old. The process of disengagement.
New York: Basic Books.
Davey, J., & Glasgow, K. (2006). Positive ageing — A critical analysis. Policy
Quarterly, 2(4), 21–27.
Derrida, J. (1986). Positionen [Positions]. Gespräche mit [Talks with] H. Ronse, J.
Kristeva, J.-L. Houdebine & G. Scarpetta. Wien: Passagen.
Deutscher Bundestag (2010). Sechster Bericht zur Lage der älteren Generation in
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Altersbilder in der Gesellschaft [The sixth
report on the situation of elderly people in Germany — Images of ageing].
(Drucksache 17/3815. Berlin).
Estes, C. L. (2006). Critical feminist perspectives, aging, and social policy. In J
Baars, D Dannefer, C Phillipson, & A Walker (Eds.), Aging, globalization, and
inequality. The new Critical Gerontology (pp. 81–101). Amityville New York:
Baywood Publishing Company.
Estes, C. L., Biggs, S., & Phillipson, C. (2003). Social theory, social policy and ageing.
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Estes, C. L., & Mahakian, J. L. (2001). The political economy of productive aging.
In N. Morrow-Howell, J. Hinterlong, & M. Sherraden (Eds.), Productive
Aging. Concepts and challenges. (pp. 197–213). Baltimore/London: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Estes, C. L., Swan, J. H., & Gerard, L. E. (1982). Dominant and competing
paradigms in gerontology: Toward a political economy of ageing. Ageing
and Society, 2(2), 151–164.
European Commission (1999). Towards a Europe for all ages. Promoting
prosperity and intergenerational solidarity. COM(1999) 221 final
Brussels.
Featherstone, M., & Hepworth, M. (1991). The mask of ageing and the
postmodern life course. In M. Featherstone, M. Hepworth, & B.S. Turner
(Eds.), The body. Social process and cultural theory (pp. 371–389). London/
Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, &
Peter Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality
(pp. 87–104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gilleard, C. (1996). Consumption and identity in later life: Toward a cultural
gerontology. Ageing and Society, 16(4), 489–498.
Gilleard, C., & Higgs, P. (2000). Cultures of ageing. Self, citizen and the body.
Harlow et al: Prentice Hall.
Grosz, E. (1999). Becoming. An introduction. In E. Grosz (Ed.), Becomings.
Explorations in time, memory, and futures (pp. 2–11). Ithaka/London: Cornell
University Press.
Halberstam, J. (2003). What's that smell? Queer temporalities and subcultural
lives. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 6(3), 313–333.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women. The reinvention of nature.
London: Free Association Books.
Havighurst, R. J., Neugarten, B., & Tobin, S. S. (1968). Disengagement and
patterns of aging. In Bernice Neugarten (Ed.), Middle age and aging
(pp. 161–177). Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Hohmeier, J. (1978). Alter als Stigma [Old age as stigma]. In J. Hohmeier, & H. -J.
Pohl (Eds.), Alter als Stigma oder Wie man alt gemacht wird (pp. 10–30)Old
age as stigma or how people are made old (pp. 10–30). Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp.
Holstein, M. (1999). Women and productive aging: Troubling implications. In
M. Minkler, & C. L. Estes (Eds.), Critical gerontology: Perspectives from
political and moral economy (pp. 359–373). Amityville, New York:
Baywood.
Holstein, M. B., & Minkler, M. (2003). Self, society and the ‘New Gerontology’.
The Gerontologist, 43(6), 787–796.
Holstein, M. B., Parks, J. A., & Waymack, M. H. (2011). Ethics, aging, and society.
New York: Springer.
Hutcheon, L., & Hutcheon, M. (2012, May). Late style(s): The ageism of the
singular. Occasion. Interdisciplinary studies of the humanities (pp. 4) (http://
occasion.stanford.edu/node/93).
Jakobsen, J. R. (2003). Queers are like Jews, aren't they. In D. Boyarin, D.
Itzkovitz, & A. Pellegrini (Eds.), Queer Theory and the Jewish Question
(pp. 64–89). New York: Columbia University Press.
Jönson, H., & Magnusson, J. A. (2001). A new age of old age? Gerotranscendence
and the re-enchantment of aging. Journal of Aging Studies, 15(4), 317–331.
Katz, S. (1996). Disciplining old age: The formation of gerontological knowledge.
Charlottesville/London: University Press of Virginia.
Katz, S. (2005). Growing older without aging? Postmodern time and senior
markets. In S Katz (Ed.), Cultural aging. Life course, lifestyle, and senior worlds
(pp. 188–201). Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Kohli, M. (1985). Die Institutionalisierung des Lebenslaufs. Historische Befunde
und theoretische Argumente [On the institutionalized life course. Historical
reports and theoretical arguments]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie, 37(1), 1–29.
Kohli, M. (1992). Altern in soziologischer Perspektive [Sociological perspectives
on ageing]. In P. Baltes, & J. Mittelstrass (Eds.), Zukunft des Alterns und
gesellschaftliche Entwicklung (pp. 213–259)The future of ageing and social
change (pp. 213–259). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Küpper, T. (2013). Of mimicry and age. Fashion ambivalences of the young-old.
In U Kriebernegg, & R Maierhofer (Eds.), The ages of life. Aging and living in
conflict? (pp. 133–143). Bielefeld: transcript.
 S. van Dyk / Journal of Aging Studies 31 (2014) 93–103
Laws, G. (1995). Understanding ageism: Lessons from feminism and postmod-
ernism. The Gerontologist, 35(1), 112–118.
Liang, J., & Luo, B. (2012). Toward a discourse shift in social gerontology: From
successful aging to harmonious aging. Journal of Aging Studies, 26(3),
327–334.
Marshall, V. W., & Clarke, P. J. (2007). Theories of aging: Social. In J. E. Birren
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of gerontology (pp. 621–630). Amsterdam: Elseviers/
Academic Press.
Martinson, M., & Halpern, J. (2011). Ethical implications of the promotion of
elder volunteerism: A critical perspective. Journal of Aging Studies, 25(4),
427–435.
Minkler, M., & Holstein, M. (2008). From civil rights to....civic engagement?
Concerns of two older critical gerontologists about a 'new social movement'
and what it portends. Journal of Aging Studies, 22(2), 196–204.
Moody, H. R. (1993). Age, productivity, and transcendence. In S. A. Bass, F. G.
Caro, & Y. -P. Chen (Eds.), Achieving a productive aging society (pp. 27–40).
Westport/London: Auburn House.
Moody, H. R. (2001). Productive aging and the ideology of old age. In N.
Morrow-Howell, J. Hinterlong, & M. Sherraden (Eds.), Productive aging.
Concepts and challenges (pp. 175–196). Baltimore/London: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Moody, H. R. (2005). From successful aging to conscious aging. In M. L. Wykle, P.
J. Whitehouse, & D. L. Morris (Eds.), Successful Aging Through the Life Span.
Intergenerational Issues in Health (pp. 55–68). New York: Springer.
Morrow-Howell, N., Hinterlong, J., & Sherradon, M. (Eds.). (2001). Productive
aging. Concepts and challenges. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press.
Moulaert, T., & Biggs, S. (2012). International and European policy on work and
retirement: Reinventing critical perspectives on active ageing and mature
subjectivity. Human Relations, 66(1), 23–43.
Naegele, G. (2013). Handlungsfelder einer zukunftsgerichteten Alterssozialpolitik
[Fields of action for a future-oriented social policy for the elderly]. Aus Politik
und Zeitgeschichte, 63(4–5), 18–23.
Ney, S. (2004). Active ageing policies in Europe: Between path dependency and
path departure. Deliverable D1: WP 1-Synthesis Report. The ACTIVAGE
Project.
Öberg, P. (1996). The absent body — A social gerontological paradox. Ageing and
Society, 16(6), 701–719.
Phillipson, C. (1998). Reconstructing old age. New agendas in social theory.
London et al.: Sage.
Powell, J. L. (2001). Theorising social gerontology: The case of social
philosophies of age. Sincronía(Summer), 1–10.
Powell, J. L. (2006). Social Theory and Aging. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Rosenmayr, L. (1983). Die späte Freiheit. Das Alter, ein Stück bewusst gelebten
Lebens [Late freedom. Old age, a piece of consciously lived life]. Berlin: Severin
und Siedler.
103
Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1998). Successful aging. New York: Dell Trade
Paperback.
Rubinstein, R. L. (1990). Nature, culture, gender, age: A critical review. In R. L.
Rubinstein (Ed.), Anthropology and aging. Comprehensive reviews
(pp. 109–128). Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer.
Rudman, D. L. (2006). Shaping the active, autonomous and responsible modern
retiree: An analysis of discursive technologies and their links with neo-
liberal political rationality. Ageing and Society, 26(2), 181–201.
Sandberg, L. (2013). Affirmative old age — The ageing body and feminist
theories on difference. International Journal of Ageing and Later Life, 8(1),
11–40.
Scherger, S., Hagemann, S., Hokema, A., & Luc, T. (2012). Between privilege and
burden. Work past retirement age in Germany and the UK. ZeS-Working
Paper No. 4/2012 (University of Bremen).
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Subalterns studies: Deconstructing historiography. In R.
Guha, & G. C. Spivak (Eds.), Selected subaltern studies (pp. 3–32). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Tornstam, L. (1992). The quo vadis of gerontology: On the scientific paradigm of
gerontology. The Gerontologist, 32(3), 318–326.
Tornstam, L. (1997). Gerotranscendence: The contemplative dimension of
aging. Journal of Aging Studies, 11(2), 143–154.
Townsend, P. (1981). The structured dependency of the elderly: A creation of
social policy in the twentieth century. Ageing and Society, 1(1), 5–28.
Twigg, J. (2004). The body, gender, and age: Feminist insights in social
gerontology. Journal of Aging Studies, 18(1), 59–73.
UN (2002, 8–12 Aprill). Report on the second world assembly on ageing.
(Madrid).
van Dyk, S., & Graefe, S. (2010). Fit ohne Ende – gesund ins Grab? Kritische
Anmerkungen zur Trias Alter, Gesundheit, Prävention [Fitness until the end
— Healthy into the grave? Critical remarks on the trilogy age, health and
prevention]. Jahrbuch für kritische Medizin, 4, 96–121.
van Dyk, S., & Lessenich, S. (Eds.). (2009). Die jungen Alten. Analysen einer neuen
SozialfigurThe young-olds. Analyses of a new social role. Frankfurt/New York:
Campus.
Walker, A. (2002). A strategy for active ageing. International Social Security
Review, 55(1), 121–139.
WHO (2002). Active ageing. A policy framework. World Health Organization to the
Second United Nations World Assembly on Ageing. Madrid: WHO.
Williams, J. C. (1991). Dissolving the sameness/difference debate. A postmod-
ern path beyond essentialism in feminist and critical race theory. Duke Law
Journal, 2, 296–323.
Williams, J. (2005). Understanding poststructuralism. Chesham: Acumen.
Woodward, K. (2003). Against wisdom: The social politics of anger and aging.
Journal of Aging Studies, 17(1), 55–67.