Gerontological Theory: The Search for the Holy Grail

The Need for Theory: Critical Approaches to Social Gerontology, edited by Simon Biggs, Ariela Lowenstein, and Jon Hendricks. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., Amityville, NY, 2003, 263 pp., $47.00 (cloth). Gerontology has been a field criticized for being rich with data but starved for theoretical constructs to inform its research (Bass & Ferraro, 2000; Bengtson, Parrott, & Burgess, 1996; Bengtson, Rice, & Johnson, 1999; Biggs, Lowenstein, & Hendricks, 2003; Birren & Bengtson, 1988; Katz, 1996; Longino, 2005; Maddox & Campbell, 1985; Marshall, 1999; Minkler, 1996; Moody, 1988; Myers, 1996; Phillipson, 1998; Walker, 1999). Like a ship without a rudder, gerontological research has been viewed by some as drifting from study to study without a larger intellectual consensus or direction. The criticism of researchers assembling vast amounts of empirical evidence without the associated abstract reflection has been a criticism that is not unique to social gerontology and has its antecedents in the work of Talcott Parsons in the 1940s and 1950s (e.g., Parsons, 1997; Savage, 1981), in which he unleashed a stinging critique of the empirical sociological research of his time. This is not to excuse or understate social gerontology's modest theoretical evolution by pointing out that sociologists have long been fretting over such matters but to put the criticism in historical perspective. Further, contributions to gerontology have not been entirely without theory—for there have been numerous theoretical constructs, which have appeared in the literature. As Longino notes about gerontological research and theory, “All studies and the papers that are written from them are driven by ideas” (Longino, 2005, p. S172). Unfortunately, many of the early theories emergent in the development of the field have melted away due to their oversimplicity, inadequate or even contradictory empirical evidence to support the theoretical construct, or a lack of intellectual staying power in the community of scholars (Biggs et al., 2003). It is often the case that these theoretical writings about research concerning the aged or the aging society emerge from the underpinnings in one of social gerontology's core disciplines—work which viewed from an interdisciplinary gerontological perch could be criticized as unidimensional in perspective. Such theoretical formulations are customarily specialized and narrow, restricted to questions of aging or the aging society that are often associated with a particular discipline or subdiscipline and lacking the robustness and complexity with which gerontologists seek to examine the aging phenomenon. Therefore, theories have been developed and research carried out that examine gerontological components primarily from a disciplinary perspective or a particular framework allied with an established group of scholars. Examples of more recent theoretical papers that have been solicited and published in The Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences include conceptual articles on life course theory (November, 2003), feminist theory (November, 2004), critical theory (May, 2005), and one on the relationship between childhood studies and aging research (July, 2005). Part of the criticism voiced is that the existing theoretical works that have been published may be inadequate, in that they either incorporate the micro levels involving the psycho-social disciplines without blending with the larger political, cultural, and economic conditions that interact with the behavior of individuals and groups, or they do just the opposite. Some social gerontologists have argued that many of these concepts are simply not reflective of the many levels on which scholars need to consider aging individuals and groups in a societal context. Hagestad and Dannefer (2001) refer to this phenomenon as the “microfication of gerontology” where individual- and problem-centered analysis prevails, often ignoring the larger social dynamics that influence these outcomes. Settersten writes that “Specifying and measuring the effects of social contexts on individuals—as opposed to the standard practice of assessing individual statuses or activities in social domains—remain ‘elusive' in social gerontology” (Settersten, 2005, p. S177). It is this desire for a more integrated and unified theory reflective of the aspirations of gerontology where there is interest in theory development and where there is ample room for criticism of what has been posited. This search for a larger scale unified theory is, indeed, gerontology's “holy grail.” Perhaps part of gerontology's strength—its explicit goal of drawing upon a range of disciplines to understand the aging individual within a societal context—has also been part of its difficulty in building fundamental theoretical constructs. That is, social gerontology scholars, for the most part, have been well trained in the disciplinary culture and theoretical foundations of their primary field. Strong theoretical traditions exist in the disciplines of the social and behavioral sciences, be it sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, or political science, to name a few. As Ruth Ray puts forth in her chapter, the proponents of one perspective or another, rather than adding to a cumulative discourse across the disciplines, have led to the establishment of an unconnected patchwork quilt of ideas, each with its own adherents and supporters. In an effort to be inclusive and welcoming to the many different disciplines, professions, and perspectives interested in aging, too often the gerontology community has simply included additional perspectives rather than debate their appropriateness in the development of an integrated gerontological imagination. Rather than seeking to achieve integration of ideas or, even in selected cases, the dismissal of some ideas, the experience has been much more of a community that has added data and segmented concepts creating a collection of findings and ideas that hang together more like separate charms on a bracelet than the interlocking threads of a woven tapestry. Efforts at inclusiveness by bringing new members into the multidisciplinary gerontology family have at times overridden the more commonplace heated arguments and intense disagreements that have characterized better established fields. The public's general interest and concern about aging and the aging society has helped serve as a magnet attracting public and private funding for research. The volumes of data and numerous studies have helped fuel a growing self-criticism among gerontologists that the research, while informative, has not sufficiently shaped theory, and the emerging theories have been inadequate guides in shaping the empirical work itself. The effort of inclusiveness and the level playing field in which a variety of ideas and findings have equal merit in gerontology may have helped lead to a reluctance to engage in the great debates and intense arguments which would inevitably lead to a more restrictive and less welcoming community of scholars. The challenges facing the development of gerontology as a discipline run deeper than merely its desire to be multidisciplinary and inclusive. As Achenbaum (1995) has noted, numerous academics have crossed the disciplinary frontier to help build the field of gerontology. Given the politics of academe, these faculty are taking academic risks, in that promotion and tenure often lie within the control of a traditional discipline. Rewards are distributed to those who have earned national recognition for their department through academic accomplishments involving the leading journals and publications within their field. An economist's publication in a gerontological journal may be viewed by his or her peers as a less valued accomplishment than a publication in the leading economics journal. For some who are interested in gerontology, attention must be paid to their traditional discipline if they are to thrive in their home department. This schism has led to a caution among gerontology researchers and scholars where they can love to be at the frontier, but attention must be paid to the one who pays the bills. This love for gerontology, but practical need to remain true to their home departments, has forced many a scholar to be careful not to wander too far out of the discipline and has promoted a kind of “dual citizenship” for a number of gerontologists (Bass & Ferraro, 2000). In recognition of this duality, Achenbaum writes that, “successful researchers on aging generally lead split lives; they must satisfy their own discipline's standards for tenure and annual raises while interacting with gerontological scholars from divergent backgrounds” (Achenbaum, 1995, p. 11). Although this is far less a concern for those in research positions or those in gerontology schools or departments, for the overwhelming number of faculty the reality of the university structure is a salient issue. The risk associated with going too far afield may also be another factor which has led to the retardation of the development of gerontological theory. Allegiances to the home department and ties to the core discipline are deep seated and visceral. These deep ties can manifest themselves in the extension of well-worn theories from the core discipline adapted to gerontology. This extension is understandable and, even in some cases, extremely useful in explaining the phenomena studied. However, it leads to some of the outcomes discussed in the chapters prepared for The Need for Theory: Critical Approaches to Social Gerontology edited by Simon Biggs, Ariela Lowenstein, and Jon Hendricks. Rather than building a series of theoretical postulates that are refined and developed over time, gerontology has been better characterized as a series of discrete theories that remain separate islands without bridges to connect them. These separate spaces remain independent and unconnected with their own specialized constituency of believers. Without the forced integration and the development of ideas where intellectual real estate is fought for—that is, a gerontology where the allegiance is to gerontology alone—it may be easier to allow theories to coexist in gerontology rather than take on major arguments. By taking on major arguments and fighting for perspectives in the discourse of ideas, gerontologists would undoubtedly need to engage in full-time intellectualism within gerontology itself, leaving little time for activities in their traditional core discipline. And, at this time, there are only a few who have this opportunity. Nevertheless, it only takes a few great minds to construct theories reflective of gerontology's complexity. Interestingly, in The Need for Theory, the editors, perhaps inadvertently, have demonstrated that there is a growing intellectual foundation emerging in social gerontology. Emanating from the critics of gerontological scholarship, often involving a collection of talented humanists and social scientists, a gerontological conceptual framework (or frameworks) has begun to emerge. These critical gerontologists, during a 30-year period, have developed the kind of intellectual discourse that has continued to build upon the work of one another. Rather than segmented and categorical, the work has been additive and cumulative involving contributions from scholars in Europe and the United States. Developed as a radical critique of the prevailing wisdom (or, depending on your point of view, the lack thereof), the critical gerontologists have developed the kind of solid foundation that perhaps can now lead to the development of a mainstream unified theory. Branching off from sociological critical theory inherited from Marx, the critical gerontologists owe an allegiance to scholars such as Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas, Max Horkheimer, and Theodor Adorno, known collectively as the Frankfurt School. More recently, postmodernist scholars such as Chris Gilleard and Paul Higgs (2000, 2005) have deviated from the critical gerontologists and pointed to patterns of consumption and the desires and wants of elders as one way to understand the culture of a consumer-driven, aging society. The irony is that these counter-perspectives may have provided the very insight in which social gerontology can now develop a unifying theoretical foundation. In the three decades of intellectual discourse generated by the critical gerontologists, a range of important contributions has been made by people such as Carroll Estes, Chris Phillipson, Laura Katz Olson, Simon Biggs, Steve Katz, Tom Cole, Rick Moody, Meredith Minkler, Anne-Marie Guillemard, Martha Holstein, Martin Kohli, Victor Marshall, John Myles, and Alan Walker, to name a few. While these scholars are not necessarily in agreement with one another, they have provided a template for serious scholarly discourse and informed critical thinking. The Need for Theory: Critical Approaches to Social Gerontology is an edited book composed of 14 chapters focusing on gerontology theory (12 chapters and an introduction and conclusion by the editors) with significant contributions from the critical gerontology perspective. As readers of The Gerontologist are well aware, edited volumes have become quite common in gerontology and can serve as another mechanism to provide multidisciplinary involvement and inclusion. Based on the earlier statements about the field, some of these edited volumes can merely be a rounding-up of essays from different contributors from a range of disciplines with little connectedness or direction. In the case of The Need for Theory, however, rather than a loose collection of random articles, the editors have been conscientious in providing an organizational structure for the articles and a logic for their inclusion in the volume. The book is divided into three sections, one on “theorizing gerontology,” a second on “theorizing micro relations,” and a third on “theorizing macro relations.” The title is carefully constructed to reflect the purpose of the book, which is about the need for theory and a discussion of “critical approaches to social gerontology.” Note that the book title does not promise the development of theory, but speaks to the need for theory. It also emphasizes the critical approaches to social gerontology, which further delineates the focus of the book—and the editors stay true to their stated objective. The editors have assembled a tightly constructed volume, despite the involvement of numerous contributors. Further, the editors have taken care to write a thoughtful introduction and conclusion as well, and each of the three has written their own significant solo chapter. The chapters of the book are brief and to the point, usually less than 20 pages of text. The brevity of the chapters and the relatively small number of the chapters make the book an easy read while still addressing a challenging involving abstract and thoughtful reflection in gerontology. of the chapters are written by of the United States. For and are from the Ariela is from Chris is from is from and is from attention to theoretical has been paid by scholars of the United and the contributions to the book, for the most part, are The editors have significant to what has been and their attention to is with the care to this volume, there are still which The different contributors to the often the but may different For three of the chapters refer to gerontology as a however, chapters do Based on the does gerontology the of a it a unifying its own a of independent intellectual and of academic standards and While some of these have been the is still out in the of gerontology has established a unifying and research These are not discussed in the the which is in in the book, may be to and not the standards by to be as theory. The is true for the which in the written by and and also in the by Hendricks. The way is in this is much more a different than in works on the & The editors not these of the of and their across the The of is a and its own discussion the of this In the developed the to just different individuals may the but different In his research of individuals to and write the that to a For the and the have very different and depending on the culture from which one to the and of a can be different depending on who the one the for it may have very different for the the this between the of the in this case by the and the of the by the may be by the editors, or would help in the real of the across the very chapters in The Need for Theory, three are and the a of by Jon Hendricks, and the of for Critical by Chris Phillipson, and in and a by Carroll of these chapters attention and be as for an gerontology in its own insight to the theoretical in gerontology and, taken a to the development of a theoretical of aging and the elders in society. are well and as to the intellectual challenges in gerontology now and as to the Although a and unified theory for of gerontology may not be due to its it may be within for the within social gerontology. Such a theory at the As theory development in the field an scholars may have additional to and this the theory must the experience of the individual with that of the larger context. Hendricks, in his in The Need for Theory, that the goal of the is a conceptual between and as they out in life course and only does this as a goal of the chapter, but it a goal for gerontological theory and research. as they are in social and economic contexts as well as larger which can have a influence on the people and their have significant in of of and of life that have been the life in less positions their a different of leading to a different economic and of outcomes and for growing The individual aging experience is by the and effects in which their unique is in the of his on to Estes, and p. the and of the and even the of the aging itself, are by in the social structure and the economic and political that It is this integration of individual and larger scale political which a unified theory in her that the conceptual underpinnings need to consider within and among social social and the Although to it is important not to the power and of in the development of the theoretical framework and the of these less on the the theory must be in that social influence and, in individuals and groups influence these larger social Rather than or the and between groups, and their is and with each each emphasizes that these do not the the or or society. levels are viewed in of rather than the development of theory need to complexity in of experience of aging in a society and the unique of and time not and the discourse about the aging experience in a society with and between the rich and the many cultural, and within the aging but the aging society is one with The theoretical framework must this and if it is to provide to the notes that and are by social life with its and The of and is by public constructs to work and name but a to understand the aging experience a reflection upon its and to the aging which these are one of the gerontology has earned its In his solo in The Need for Theory, a conceptual for of social life is as a of the conceptual It three of social life the and the and the Unfortunately, this of the complexity of social gerontology. While these three are salient they take in a of economic and private and public that have an influence on The conceptual would be if it the in which the take It is this kind of and complexity that need to be added to the emerging conceptual that are to be that to be part of a unified theory of social gerontology is the of theoretical evolution and This is is important to the of the constructs that has in the development of the has been the of and the of a time for many where there is less to research has the associated with and However, as the has become far more and in the of and the that influence private have the easy of The of this is a from to to from to or to the from to The emerging social gerontology theory to be that as scale political or economic take gerontological theory can also For there is growing evidence of a in for providing life economic The is true of that, in many have the for support from that of the in the of to the in the of of these larger scale is that there is on to more and more that either by or the social by the social have become private which in may individuals to on for The effects of and a growing political reluctance to social a in culture for private and in may have a on individual and These may even the of the for the theory of social gerontology must build into its foundation the of and For in the that aging experience an in the of the in social theory be sufficiently to to must in its to discourse and as larger and For a theory to exist there must be critical theory in a for a conceptual of arguments and a of gerontological emerge that is not or The social gerontology theory that is about to emerge must be and a with critical gerontology if a unified theory is to and The Need for is an edited book that The book is well written and raises a variety of salient More to the point, the book some building for the of a conceptual foundation constructed upon the important work of critical a more social gerontology is on the of a unified theory that can serve as a foundation for more research in social gerontology. only is a conceptual foundation of unified theory the but with the it could be made in the For the of with support for individuals or a could a for papers addressing unified theory in social gerontology. The could be and of national recognition to scholars to take one more and themselves in a that their disciplines of and an theory in gerontology.