Challenges for Australian sociology

Abstract

Sociologist Nicole Asquith argues that, in Australia, when it ‘comes to population ageing, sociology has been, in large part, silent in the face of neo-liberal policies of positive ageing’ (2009: 255). In the absence of such critical research, governments at all levels since the 1990s have pursued policies of ageing that tends to subordinate the social needs of older Australians to the nation’s economic needs. This paper seeks to explain why the critical social gerontology movement has not taken root in Australia through an historical analysis of ageing research in Australia. Furthermore, it aims to demonstrate the rewards of critical analysis through new research into the discourses of positive ageing. It also shows how older Australians resist ‘responsible’ ageing and its regulation of them. This analysis is designed to inspire further critical engagement, which recognizes the diversity of older Australians, giving voice to their resistance, and better inform policy development.

Keywords

Australian sociology critical gerontology positive ageing responsibilization discourse

Introduction

In her article ‘Positive Ageing, Neoliberalism and Australian Sociology’, Asquith critically analyzes the responsibilization discourse of positive ageing as the ‘central plank’ (2009: 255) which informs Australian government policy in regard to population ageing. She argues that this discourse appears to offer increased autonomy to older Australians through encouragement to age in a healthy, productive and successful manner. In essence, however, it constitutes an individualized approach to population ageing driven by the economic priorities of society. This marginalises the social and individual needs of older Australians. It ‘shifts state support to private responsibility’ (Asquith, 2009: 260) such that the costs associated with ageing are then borne by families and individuals not necessarily with the capacity or resources to meet them. The fact that governments have enthusiastically embraced this approach for the past 15 years, Asquith asserts, arises in part from that the lack of ‘sociological engagement with the responsibilization agendas of contemporary, neoliberal governmentality’ (2009: 256). She concludes that a continuation of this silence by Australian sociology constitutes an abrogation of its responsibility.

This paper addresses these concerns in two ways. First, through an historical comparison of the development of ageing research in Australia with that in the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK), it illustrates how and seeks to understand why Australian sociology is largely absent from critical analysis of ageing policies and their impacts. Second, to illustrate how this might be otherwise, it discusses the findings of a small scale Australian research project undertaken by one of the authors regarding the impacts of the neo-liberal responsibilization discourse on older people (Bye, 2007).

Both the historical comparison and the research project apply a critical theory lens which seeks to critique society in order to change it (Calhoun, 1995: 35; Crotty, 1998: 130). ‘The aim of critical theory is to look beneath the surface of knowledge and reason, in order to see how they are distorted in an exploitative society’ (Miller and Brewer, 2003: 58). Such analysis leads the researcher to identify ‘who gains and who loses in specific situations’ (Kincheloe and McClaren, 2000: 281). There are many instances of positive outcomes for older Australians from current and past research, some of which has extended ideas about ageing beyond traditional gerontology (see, e.g., Kendig and Browning, 2010). However, much social gerontology in Australia lacks a critical perspective. Our analysis specifically responds to the call by Asquith for more critical engagement on the part of sociology and is purposefully focused on the absences and silences of past and ongoing research in Australian social gerontology.

An historical analysis

The multi-faceted nature of human ageing has meant that its study has attracted the interest of many disciplines whose endeavours collectively constitute the field of gerontology. Historically, gerontology has been led and dominated by those qualified in biomedicine with a particular interest in the physiology of ageing and health care of older people (Longino and Murphy, 1995). Australia is no exception to this. For example, the formation of Gerontology Society of New South Wales in 1962 at Licombe Hospital was initiated by a physiologist, Arthur Everitt (Everitt and Shaw, 1997: 51). Subsequently the Australian Association of Gerontology (AAG) was founded in 1964 following the initiative of a physician, David Wallace. The establishment of branches in other Australian states through the initiative of health professionals followed in the 1970s (Everitt and Shaw, 1992: 51). During that time a national research institute of gerontology and geriatric medicine opened in Melbourne, Victoria in 1977 (National Ageing Research Institute [NARI], 2010), again emphasizing a health focus in the emergence of Australian gerontology.

In the 1980s in Australia, several university research programmes into ageing were established and government funding for research on ageing grew as did government activity into aged care (Minichiello et al., 1988: 24). This saw the emergence of a distinctly social gerontology through a growing volume of research into social and psychological aspects of ageing. However, in a content analysis of scholarly Australian literature in social gerontology from 1980 to 1986, Minichiello et al. (1988) found an absence of broader interdisciplinary and collaborative research into ageing. They argued that ‘Australian clinicians, psychologists and sociologists have created many little islands of knowledge’ (Minichiello et al., 1988: 29) and called for bridges to be built between these to improve research data generated on ageing. More specifically, Minichiello and colleagues concluded that Australian sociology of ageing generally lacked critical analysis:

Most of the authors were working implicitly within the tradition of functionalist sociology, with attention focused on explaining how the aged integrate into the social system. Fewer worked from a political economy perspective, asking how society is adjusting to an ageing population. Life satisfaction, social adjustment and personal adjustment are the dominant themes. (1988: 26)

In contrast, as noted by Asquith (2009: 265), during the late 1970s, critical social gerontology had already begun to emerge in the northern hemisphere under Carol Estes in US (see Estes, 1979) and Chris Phillipson in the UK (see Phillipson, 1982). It critiqued the dominance of functionalist research focused on the individual experience of ageing in favour of political economy perspectives and ‘slowly gained a presence within the broader community of social gerontology’ (Polivka, 2006: 558). Today the voracity of ‘the critical gerontology movement’ (Bass, 2007: 409) is evident in scholarship in the northern hemisphere explicitly informed by critical inquiry and conflict, Foucauldian and feminist theories. This has led Ray to declare the coming of age in critical gerontology (2008). Its scope and orientation represents a logical home for critical sociologists interested in studying ageing at micro and macro levels.

Developments in the northern hemisphere illustrate how Australian sociology can become better engaged and the rewards that can follow from this. First, it allows ‘social structural explanations of social inequity rather than individual reasons such as the naturally diminishing physical or mental capacities of older people’ (McMullin, 2000: 520). Second, it is by nature reflexive and ‘looks inwards, as well as outward, critiquing the structures, assumptions and practices of mainstream gerontology, along with the socio-political environments in which we age’ (Ray, 2008: 97). Third, critical gerontology engages older people such that they are not ‘confined to involvement in limited and specific areas of the research process’ (Ray, 2007: 74). Accordingly, this allows a methodology with ‘a commitment to the full and proper involvement and participation of older people in all aspects of research, policy and practice’ (Bernard and Scharf, 2007: 7).

In Australia, a critical movement in gerontology has yet to fully emerge (Asquith 2009: 266). During the 1990s, instances of ageing research with a critical orientation were apparent in policy analysis of population ageing and aged care (see, e.g., Borowski et al. 1997; Courtney et al., 1997; Earle, 1999; Kendig and McCallum, 1990; Leveratt, 1999; Minichiello et al., 1992) and calls to involve older people themselves in ageing research (see, e.g. Russell and Schofield, 1995). However, social gerontology in Australia today tends to remain enmeshed in the ‘biomedical thrall’ (Powell and Hendricks, 2009: 84) largely devoid of critical sociological perspectives. The persistence and popularity of this orientation is apparent in the activities of organizations like the AAG which constitutes the largest multidisciplinary organization of people employed or interested in the area of ageing in Australia. The focus of its scholarly and other publications, and well-attended annual conferences, are predominately on health-related, especially psycho-social, aspects of ageing reflecting the dominant interests of its membership (see Australian Association of Gerontology [AAG], 2011).

The legacy of these historical developments helps explain why Australian social gerontology has not followed the northern hemisphere and spawned a cohesive critical movement. That this orientation remains entrenched is due to the ongoing and current institutional and research funding arrangements which tend to prioritize biomedical and neo-liberal economic perspectives. Specifically, the adoption of four National Research Priorities in Australia in 2002 designed ‘to improve research and broader policy outcomes’ (Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research [DIISR], 2002) has resulted in encouragement for health as well as policy oriented research into ageing. In particular, the second research priority ‘Promoting and Maintaining Good Health: Promoting Good Health and Well Being for All Australians’ specifies ‘Ageing well, ageing productively’ as one of its four goals. Its description, ‘Developing better social, medical and population health strategies to improve the mental and physical capacities of ageing people’ (Australian Research Council [ARC], 2010a), reveals an applied focus on the enhancement of capacity of older Australians; presumably to enable healthy and ‘productive’ ageing unaided by government support. The ‘ageing well, ageing productively’ research focus was specifically supported from 2004–9 through the establishment and operation of the nationally-funded Australian Research Council/National Health and Medical Research Council (ARC/NHMRC) Research Network in Ageing Well with an administrative centre based at the University of Sydney Faculty of Health Sciences. The network’s applied and policy orientation was apparent in its mission to ‘increase the scale, focus, and capacity of Australian research to inform national efforts to respond constructively to an ageing society’ (ARC/NHMRC, 2009a). Seven of the research network’s 48 foundation members listed sociology as their discipline area. Their key research interests were residential care, retirement, social aspects of aging, healthy ageing, ageism and sexual health and social gerontology (ARC/NHMRC, 2009b). Such research agendas can make significant contributions to improve the quality of life for older Australians. However, with the possible exception of ageism, areas of critical inquiry such as political activism, commodification and the regulation of ageing which call into question relations of power and also create space for interpretivist and humanistic perspectives as well as participatory research, were notably absent. We would argue that this absence limits an understanding of wider social forces which shape the lives and diverse experiences of older Australians.

Not unexpectedly in this ‘ageing well, ageing productively’ research climate, scholarship critical of current population ageing policies in Australia has emerged more readily from other quarters such as political economy (see for example Ray 2007: 74; Denniss, 2007; Doughney, 2006; Doughney and King, 2006). Even the recent release of the 2010 inter-generational report has again seen Australian sociology silent leaving the report’s implicitly alarmist arguments for ‘reducing fiscal pressures of an ageing population’ (Australian Government Treasury, 2010) to be challenged by online blogs (see for example Mitchell, 2010) and political science (Prasser, 2010). Furthermore, sociologists engaging in critical gerontology are not necessarily easy to identify given that their work and publications often occur in diverse fields and the some 500-member-strong Australian Sociological Association (TASA) currently has no thematic group dedicated to ageing research or social gerontology amongst its membership. Such observations support Asquith’s argument that in Australia ‘the field has been largely vacated by sociologists’ (2009: 266).

This lack of sociologists’ engagement in critical gerontology, combined with the trend towards biomedical and neo-liberal economic perspectives, is apparent now in Australian university-based research organizations and centres. In such settings, publicly-funded ageing research extends beyond its biomedical and psycho-social dimensions towards the economic activity investigation of economic regulation and management of older Australians. For example, the country’s newest ageing research organization, the Australian Institute for Population Ageing Research (AIPAR), opened in the School of Economics at the University of New South Wales. Its current government and industry-funded research ‘big budget’ projects include ‘managing longevity risk’, ‘working longer’, ‘research into the life cycle, labour force heterogeneity, financial status and public support of retirement timing’ (AIPAR, 2010a). AIPAR’s research publications reflect an applied economics perspective (AIPAR, 2010b). Another ARC-funded project in applied psychology at the same university, ‘Ageing and Self-Regulation’, aims to identify older Australians ‘susceptible to lapses in self-control’ (ARC, 2010b: 30) whose ‘self-regulation failures’ (ARC, 2010b: 30) may add to health, financial and social costs. Apart from being underpinned by a deficit model, this project aligns neatly with government ageing policies that emphasize individual responsibility. One wonders, however, whether this kind of research was envisaged by those who have worked hard to build Australia’s research capacity in ageing over the last decade.

A critical analysis of these developments suggests that research in Australia is suffering in much the same manner, identified by Smith (2010), as academic research in the UK. She argues that:

the process of seeking research funding shapes academic research and mediates the interplay between research and policy . . . [such] that the growing pressure to produce ‘policy relevant’ research is diminishing the capacity of academia to provide a space in which innovative and transformative ideas can be developed. (Smith, 2010: 176)

Thus the capacity of social gerontology in Australia to be imaginative and transformative in the tradition of critical inquiry (Crotty, 1988: 112–59) is constrained by the current national research funding environment. In this sense, Australian critical social gerontology cannot be said to be ‘ageing well’.

Nevertheless, outside Australian universities there are signs of a move away from empirically-driven research based on deficit models of ageing. One such indication is research into productive ageing generated by National Seniors Productive Ageing Centre (NSPAC; see Haukka, 2009). This particular study demonstrates the positive economic contributions of unpaid work by older Australians and their social contribution through civic participation, confirming earlier research undertaken by de Vaus et al. (2003) at the Institute of Family Studies. It aligns with a commitment specifically aimed to ‘challenge the view of ageing as a time of decline and dependency and help build a strong evidence base for productive ageing’ (NSPAC, 2010). For sociologists wishing to undertake critical research into ageing in Australia, it represents the kind of challenge to the dominant discourses of ageing and ageing policy well worthy of investigation, as will be demonstrated.

An example of critical gerontology in Australia

Research undertaken by one of the authors (Bye, 2007), provides a specific example of how sociologists can critically engage with current issues facing older Australians and the insights this analysis can offer. Bye’s research consisted of textual and discourse analysis of Australian government documents on the ageing population. It also consisted of a small sample of individual interviews with older people¹ and a case study affirming the directive to give voice to the perspective of older people themselves in ageing research (Asquith, 2009: 267; Ray, 2007: 74).

The construction of ageing as a problem

Bye’s research analyzed online Australian government documents relating to the ageing population from 1999 when these issues were first being discussed until 2003 when the research was being conducted. A specific focus is on the official government publication, the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia 2001 (Andrews, 2001). However, one of the first themes to emerge from the earlier 1999 documents was the focus on population ageing as a ‘problem’. Ageing has a long tradition of being constructed as a problem. Previously this may have been viewed within a medical context in terms of the costs of illnesses on the public health system, or in the labour market context in terms of the costs to the economy of over-supply of workers, where early retirement was overtly promoted by both government and businesses (Cooke, 2003: 12; Phillipson, 1998: 62–3; Rudman, 2006: 183). Current framings of the ‘problem’ of ageing within Australia, as noted in the government documents analyzed, reveal that demographic shifts and changing ratios of older people are viewed by the government as an excessive economic burden. One government fact sheet present on the official website reported the ageing of the population as ‘a long-term problem . . . [with] important ramifications . . . of long-term pressures on Australia’s fiscal finances’ (Access Economics, 1999, emphasis added). This framing and construction of population ageing as a problem becomes the basis for the responsibilization discourse which emerges in the later government documents. Asquith notes, ‘At the core of the construction of the “ageing population problem” is the perceived economic disaster’ (2009: 256). Yet the inevitability of economic pressure from an ageing population is by no means a certainty. Australian researchers, Hamilton and Hamilton, state that:

the [2002 intergenerational] report found that the ageing of the population did not constitute a crisis but rather a fairly manageable transition . . . [They continue to say] that despite this, the discourse of an ageing crisis continues to be used to promote policy change. (2006: 2)

An insightful analysis noted in Phillipson (1998: 95) is that the ‘problem of the ageing population’ concerns not inadequate resources but complex issues of the social division of responsibility. This leads to the primary challenge of this critical analysis: the assumption present in the government documents that the issue (problem), and therefore the solution, is individual in nature. The discourse surrounding population ageing has been framed as a deficit that must be managed primarily by individuals and their families. However, as Phillipson (1998: 95) notes, population change is structural in nature; it is not just a matter of increasing older people, but also a result of low fertility rates. Therefore, Asquith says, ‘its resolution will not be found in individual answers, and especially not in those directed only at the elderly’ (2009: 256). Rather than a logical strategy, Phillipson believes that the new discourses are ‘an ideological assessment about the place and value of older people in society’ (Phillipson, 1998: 95).

The Shift to the discourse of personal responsibility

The account of demographic changes from Australian government sources was first reported as a significant economic concern. This was clear from the earlier documents. However, in the later documents the concerns over demographic changes have been re-constructed as requiring an individual response from older people themselves. The presence of these two themes and, more importantly, the quite evident shift in focus between them was a key finding of Bye’s (2007) research. Bye notes a distinct difference in the focus and style between the earlier documents from government websites and the later official publication, the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia 2001 (NSAA; 2001). While earlier texts consisted of many references to the economic burden of an ageing population, particularly in regard to reduced labour force participation, these were considerably muted in the official NSAA document, where the references shifted to a focus on personal responsibility in areas of health and activity, productivity and self-provision (see Table 1 and Figure 1).

Table 1:

Key terms and concepts

	Economic	Activity/health	Productivity	Self-provision	Responsibility
1999 docs* (33pp)	54	3	98	14	14
2001 NSAA (61pp)	28	40	59	37	92

1999 documents: Population Ageing & the Economy: Resource Report Fact Sheets, Introduction of NSAA, Planning for an Ageing Australia, Mature Aged Workers and Achieving Age Balance in Workforce.

Figure 1:

Key terms and concepts

The government’s response to managing the potential economic burden of a larger senior cohort coupled with a shortage of workers is to place new expectations of responsibility on older people. This strategy accords with Asquith’s contention: ‘old people cause us troubles, so how can we make them responsible for fixing them for us?’ (2009: 266).

Deconstructing the discourse of personal responsibility

Given the history of negative framing of ageing, the new terms emerging in relation to older people, such as ‘active’ and ‘successful’, would seem to be a welcome change. However, as Miller and Brewer (2003) note, knowledge and reason are often distorted in an exploitative society, and so it is important to critically engage with emerging discourses and terms in order to fully identify the ways they are being used and their implications for older people. This indeed was the focus of Bye’s (2007) research. It looked at three features of the positive ageing discourse and focus on individual responsibility arising from the government documents analyzed. The first area was healthy and active ageing, the second was productive ageing and third was self-provision or financial independence. The analysis focused on the concept of ‘responsibilization’ which encompasses ‘the new forms in which the governed are encouraged, freely and rationally, to conduct themselves’ (Burchell, 1993: 276). Responsibilization ‘seeks to combine liberal economic assumptions and political arguments that favour reducing the state’s welfare role while simultaneously increasing an individual’s responsibility to meet their own needs’ (Dwyer, 2000: 62). While the discourses and policies of the responsibilization agenda do not manifest in the lives of all older people in the same, or necessarily negative, manner, the research highlights some of the less than satisfactory outcomes of this discourse.

Healthy/active ageing

The first major area of responsibility prominent in the documents analyzed is for older people to remain physically healthy and active. While there is evidence of improvement in health systems and support for ageing people, there was a strong message in the government documents regarding the responsibility for older Australians to measure up in this area. There were numerous references to the ‘responsibility’ older Australians had in making healthy lifestyle choices, with section four – ‘Healthy ageing’ of the NSAA – containing a definite discourse of the individual’s responsibility to remain healthy and active, mentioning lifestyle choices (eight times), obesity and diet choices (eight times), exercise and physical activity (six times), choices to smoke (five times) and drink (five times) in only 10 pages.

The official documents employed obligation modalities to suggest that older people were obliged to take certain actions: ‘It is time for Baby Boomers to look to their longer term health needs. They’ve got to stop smoking, drinking too much and eating bad food, and they have got to get active’ (Bishop, 2004). There is an implication here that older Australians may well have been irresponsible in their younger days and so now need to discipline and regulate themselves in new ways in order to age responsibly. Such assumptions can be highly inaccurate as well as offensive. The interviews conducted by Bye (2007) revealed that the respondents generally agreed with the government emphasis on health, and all believed that it is important to remain active. However, most made a distinction between what they saw as being active and what they felt the government’s goal was in using this term. They tended to be largely cynical of government initiatives in this area and believed the government promoted the term in order to ‘keep people healthier and perhaps away from the health system’ (interview, Paul).

The interviewees resisted the narrow definition presented by government texts and noted that being healthy did not only have to be restricted to physical activity, but could also include mental activities and could be anything beneficial to the individual, even sitting and reading a book or watching television. Nathan had retired in the last 12 months and still found himself to be extremely busy: ‘I think it’s personal . . . You need to be doing something that keeps your mind and body active in a way that suits you’ (interview, Nathan). However, he also made time to just sit and relax and read a book, and believed this was an important part of his day. This is in direct contrast to the government’s focus on activity. There is a distinct lack of clarity with terms such as active and healthy, and knowing exactly what this requires is becoming increasingly difficult for older people. With the focus so strongly on personal health choices of older people, there is little recognition by government of the part that structural forces and life-long experiences play in health outcomes. Asquith states that ‘Increasing the standard of health for older people will not be achieved exclusively, or even primarily, by actions taken by individuals’ (2009: 262–3). The focus, she says, should be on the health choices beginning in childhood, rather than those from 65 on (2009: 263).

Productive ageing

The second requirement evident in the government documents is that of productivity. This focus is a particularly significant part of the positive ageing concept, and was the one term that featured significantly in both earlier and later government documents in Bye’s discourse analysis (2007). The term was often linked to a perceived economic threat: ‘To ensure Australia copes with the budget implications of an ageing population it is essential to encourage increased workforce participation by workers aged 55–70’ (Access Economics, 1999).

While all the respondents in Bye’s interviews saw themselves as productive, they did not believe that being productive necessitated continued employment, and again many were cynical of, and were actively resisting, the government’s agenda in this discourse. When asked whether the new government’s initiatives might convince them to return to, or continue, working, most replied in the negative. Many felt they had contributed enough and had other things they wanted to do with their time: ‘I should not have to go back to work. I’ve paid my price for the nation’s economy by paying almost 50 percent tax for many years, so I’m not prepared to sacrifice what I want to do’ (interview, Diane). They seemed to be somewhat annoyed at this ‘changing the goal posts’ move:

that’s like changing the rules retrospectively. I mean you go through your whole life with this expectation that there will come a point where you can say – enough, I’m going to do my own thing now, and all of a sudden they come along and say – no, that don’t work anymore, we need you. (Interview, Nathan)

One challenge to the discourse of productivity is to the notion that older people should be held responsible for improving the nation’s economic standing. As noted by Asquith, ‘In effect, governments are demanding that individuals altruistically continue working to assist the generations to follow them’ (2009: 263). Historically, a measure of responsibility lay in older people removing themselves from the paid workforce to make way for younger workers. In the face of current demographic changes, the requirements for responsibility have shifted and become the exact opposite. Second is the issue of possible devaluing of individuals who choose not to continue working. Biggs notes that, ‘for older people, a narrative is emerging of social value through work or near-work situations’ (2001: 311). Estes and Mahakian warn, ‘The market rationale is imposed on individual aging through the concept of productivity in what may be described as a different but nonetheless judgemental and normative view of aging’ (2001: 204). ‘I don’t think they should be forced into it, I think it’s a . . . they should be just given the choice (interview, Greg). Asquith also reminds us that, while some older Australians are content to continue working in positions they enjoy, for many workers – particularly manual workers – continued employment is not viewed in a positive light, and may even be detrimental to health, contradicting the notion of ‘healthy’ ageing (2009: 264).

Just such an example of this disinclination to continue working arose in the case study of Jane. Jane had a very strong work ethic and had worked in paid employment all her life, even while looking after young children and after her husband walked out of their marriage. When she was in her 50s, after nursing her second husband who eventually died of leukaemia, Jane was contacted by Centrelink (the Australian government welfare agency), who instructed her to return to work. ‘I was a mental and physical wreck . . . I didn’t really want to do anything much’ (interview, Jane). Jane did return to work, but was physically and emotionally drained and, within a few years, she suffered a heart attack. After a short recuperation time, Jane was again instructed by Centrelink to find work, and was often required to apply for jobs in which she had no interest or that required considerable travel.

All they [Centrelink] said to me was ‘you’ve got to go back to work’ . . . I was so tired. They said to me we’ve got an interview for you at the coffee shop at . . . [a distant suburb] . . . and I thought I don’t really want to go to [there], I really don’t, and I didn’t show up at the interview. They were really angry with me. (Interview, Jane)

Eventually, at 58 years of age Jane began a demanding job at an aged care home working with dementia patients. At the time of the interview, Jane was aged 60 years and was required to continue working until age 64.5 years. She worries because she has heard of moves to increase the pension age to 67 years. Jane considered herself a very responsible and contributing citizen, but felt unfairly treated: ‘Not one bit of consideration for my health, my age, that I’ve worked all the time . . . not one bit of consideration’ (interview, Jane).

Jane’s story is an example of the consequences of policies that arise from economic imperatives rather than consideration of older people’s current needs and prior contributions. For older people in financial need where continued work is a necessity, productivity may become an obligation rather than opportunity, and a form of exploitation rather than of meaningful engagement, while ‘the real contributions they make during their lives go unrecognized and unrewarded’ (Hinterlong et al., 2001: 10). Asquith sees the productivity discourse as running counter to the century-long social contract that assured Australian workers of adequate support in their final years (2009: 263). She argues that working longer will not significantly affect the financial stability of older people, but instead is an economically-driven imperative designed to address predicted labour shortages.

Self-sufficient ageing

A further discourse identified in Bye’s analysis is the responsibility on older people to be financially self-sufficient. There were many references throughout the NSAA to ensuring sufficient levels of finances to provide an adequate income independent of the government pension: ‘People have a responsibility to make provision for themselves’ (Bishop, 1999); ‘Given that it is likely to be needed to last through a long period of retirement, sound individual management of this money will also be important’ (Andrews, 2001: 13).

The main challenge to this discourse of financial responsibility is that the ideal of planning successfully for retirement presupposes some measure of control. While all the respondents agreed with the ideal of personal responsibility and financial independence, they again resisted the government’s imposition of this expectation on all older people. It was acknowledged by both those who were and those who were not financially secure that this was often an unreachable goal for many older Australians: ‘I’m a great believer in being self-sufficient, even though obviously I am not at the moment’ (interview, Troy); ‘Well I think most people aim to achieve that . . . but a lot of us just haven’t been able to achieve it through one thing or another’ (interview, Greg).

A further issue with this discourse is that it highlights the economic divide amongst older people, to the detriment of those on the lower end. Gilleard and Higgs note, ‘The relative affluence of occupational and private pension holders separates them out from those older people as primarily welfare benefit recipients. It is the latter group who now constitute the “problem” of “old age”’ (2000: 103). Asquith argues, ‘A two-class system also emerges . . . In most cases, these older Australians will experience generational poverty, irrespective of their individual work choices, including retiring later’ (2009: 263). Previous ageing research has identified a socio-economic divide between older people who are financially independent and others who, due to various life chances, are not able to attain this. Pioneering research in Australia by Douglas-Smith determined that perceptions and experience of retirement were shaped by social class (1982: 24). Estes and Mahakian believe that social class is the most significant factor in determining possibilities for older people, as the potential for individual opportunity does not exist separately from social opportunities (2001: 202). This divide was evident in Bye’s interviews between some older individuals who were able to contribute to superannuation or set up financial investments, and others whose histories of casual employment, disability and divorce significantly affected their ability to be financially independent.

In summary, this analysis reveals significant problems with the ageing discourse as presented in the official government documents. First, the discourse frames changes in population ratios as an individual issue, laying blame with older Australians and delivering expectations of responsible behaviour necessary to correct the problem. The emerging terms such as healthy, active and productive are indicators of those expectations. Although there are some advantages to the new terms being used to refer to older people, as evidenced by their appropriation by older people themselves (namely interview participants and members of groups such as the National Seniors) these should not be accepted without critical analysis. While Asquith agrees that critical analysis is necessary, the authors would go further and disagree with her assertion that positive ageing is ‘not necessarily a wrong policy turn’ (2009: 267). Bye’s analysis and case study show that some of these expectations of responsibility are already being translated into policy that is coercive and restrictive. The use of new terms can potentially serve to negatively stereotype older people and erase any contribution they may have made through a lifetime of workforce participation, volunteer and community service, or through domestic labour as homemakers, or all three. Second, this discourse delivers unrealistic expectations, particularly given the differing resources and life experiences of older people. It is akin to setting performance indicators for ageing, which could be extended to coercive measures if individuals are not performing ageing well. This discourse increases the socio-economic divide between older people setting up a two-class system, and may produce a stigma whereby some older people are deemed to be healthy, productive, successful and responsible agers and others are deemed to have failed in these areas. Finally, the positive ageing discourse arises from and is driven by an economic imperative rather than an altruistic concern for older people. Its origins from economic concerns about population ageing are clearly exposed in the analysis of government documents. The new discourses and policies may have some merit. However, they are founded on unclear lay definitions which arise from economic imperatives that often subordinate the needs of individuals. Therefore critical analysis continues to be necessary to ensure that these new terms and their assumptions are not accepted without challenge.

Bye’s Research and critical engagement

This research demonstrates some of the rewards which emerge from critical analysis. Such engagement can lead to improved awareness of government agendas, increasingly with an economic imperative, and the possible coercive policies and practices which may follow. It also allows for the recognition of structural forces and macro explanations rather than a reliance on individual blame. Also it recognizes the diversity amongst older people and the differences in how they may be affected by new policies and directions; giving voice to marginalized older Australians. Finally, it demonstrates the agency of older people in resisting discourses of responsibilization.

Conclusion

Ageing research within Australia emerged from a biomedical background and is now beginning to be reflected in funding incentives and a focus on economics and labour force participation. However, recognizing and addressing that Australian sociology today is largely devoid of critical analysis in the area of ageing research has the potential to reap rich rewards. Critical engagement recognizes structural forces rather than simplistic blaming of the individual; it is reflexive in nature and has methodological advantages allowing the engagement of older people in the research process. Changes in the funding processes to include support for critical research, a call for sociologists to critically engage and follow US and UK examples, and more research initiated and undertaken by older people themselves, could serve to balance the current climate/focus of ageing research within Australia. Such moves would enable research, exemplified here, to reveal underlying assumptions of ageing discourses and policy and demonstrate the diversity of experiences of older people, many of whom are resisting and refashioning the dominant messages and expectations of how to age well. Our analysis is intended to inspire and provide a way forward for Australian sociologists in the field of ageing research.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Biographical notes

Lucinda Aberdeen (University of the Sunshine Coast) is a lecturer in sociology. Previously she has worked as a sociologist in local, state and federal governments settings in areas encompassing road accident research, social and environmental impact assessment and policy evaluation. Her current research interests include governmentality and the state viz a viz both indigenous issues and ageing. Address: University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Queensland, 4558, Australia. [email: laberdee@usc.edu.au]

Lee-anne Bye (University of the Sunshine Coast) undertook her Honours Research into issues concerning the ageing of the population and emerging discourses. Her current area of interest is in health care area, and she is currently undertaking PhD research into the impact of social capital on the retention of mature age nurses within hospitals. [email: lbye2@usc.edu.au]

References

Access Economics (1999) Population Ageing and the Economy – Research Report Fact Sheets. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Andrews

(2001) National Strategy for an Ageing Australia 2001. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Asquith

(2009) ‘Positive Ageing, Neoliberalism and Australian Sociology’, Journal of Sociology 45: 255–69.

Australian Association of Gerontology (AAG) (2011) URL (consulted February 2011): http://www.aag.asn.au

Australian Government Treasury (2010) ‘Intergenerational Report 2010: Australia to 2050: Future Challenges’, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia, URL (consulted February 2011): http://www.treasury.gov.au/igr/igr2010/report/pdf/IGR_2010.pdf

Australian Institute for Population Ageing Research (AIPAR) (2010a) About Us. University of New South Wales Australian School of Business, URL (consulted June 2010): http://www.business.unsw.edu.au/nps/servlet/portalservice?GI_ID=System.LoggedOutInheritableAreaandmaxWnd=_AIPAR_AboutUs

Australian Institute for Population Ageing Research (AIPAR) (2010b) Research Papers. University of New South Wales Australian School of Business, URL (consulted June 2010): http://www.business.unsw.edu.au/nps/servlet/portalservice?GI_ID=System.LoggedOutInheritableAreaandmaxWnd=_ResearchPapers

Australian Research Council (2010a) Australia’s National Research Priorities. Commonwealth of Australia, URL (consulted June 2010): http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/nrps_and_goals.pdf

Australian Research Council (2010b) Summary of Discovery Projects Proposals for Funding to Commence in 2010. Commonwealth of Australia, URL (consulted July 2010): http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/grants10/DP10_allstate.pdf

10.

Australian Research Council/National Health and Medical Research Council (ARC/NHMRC) (2009a) ARC/NHMRC Research Network in Ageing Well: Aim and Objectives, URL (consulted June 2010): http://www.ageingwell.edu.au/about_net_objectives.htm

11.

Australian Research Council/National Health and Medical Research Council (ARC/NHMRC) (2009b) ARC/NHMRC Research Network in Ageing Well: List of Participant Members, URL (consulted June 2010): http://www.ageingwell.edu.au/net_mem_participant.htm

12.

Bass

(2007) ‘The Emergence of The Golden Age of Social Gerontology?’, The Gerontologist 47(3): 408–12.

13.

Bernard

Scharf

(2007) ‘Critical Perspectives on Ageing Societies’, pp. 3–10 in Bernard

Scharf

(eds) Critical Perspectives on Ageing Societies. Bristol: The Policy Press.

14.

Biggs

(2001) ‘Toward Critical Narrativity: Stories of Aging in Contemporary Social Policy’, Journal of Aging Studies 15: 303–16.

15.

Bishop

(1999) Address to Council on the Ageing Congress on Mature Workers, 8 November. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government Publishing Service.

16.

Bishop

(2004) Ageless Workplace: Australia’s Continued Prosperity Depends On It, July. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government Publishing Service.

17.

Borowski

Encel

Ozanne

(1997) Ageing and Social Policy in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Burchell

(1993) ‘Liberal Government and Techniques of the Self’, Economy and Society 22(3): 267–82.

19.

Bye

(2007) From Redundancy to Responsibilisation Changing Discourses in Ageing: An Analysis of Neo-Liberal Responsibilisation Discourse and its Impact on the Subjective Identity and Lived Experience of Older People. Honours Thesis, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia.

20.

Calhoun

(1995) Critical Social Theory: Culture, History, and the Challenge of Difference. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing.

21.

Cooke

(2003) ‘Population and Labour Force Ageing in Six Countries’, WANE Working Paper No. 4 Workforce Ageing in the New Economy. London: University of Western Ontario.

22.

Crotty

(1998) The Foundations of Social Research. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

23.

Courtney

Minichiello

Waite

(1997) ‘Aged Care in Australia: A Critical Review of the Reforms’, Journal of Aging Studies 11(3): 229–50.

24.

Denniss

(2007) ‘Crisis of Cash or Crisis of Confidence: The Costs of Ageing’, The Australian Journal of Political Economy 59: 31–47.

25.

Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR) (2002) National Research Priorities Fact Sheet. Australian Government, URL (consulted July 2010): http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/AboutDIISR/FactSheets/Pages/NationalResearchPrioritiesFactSheet.aspx

26.

de Vaus

Gray M

Stanton

(2003) ‘Measuring the Value of Unpaid Household, Caring and Voluntary Work of Older Australians’, Research Paper 34(October). Australian Institute of Family Studies, URL (consulted January 2010): http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/respaper/RP34.pdf

27.

Doughney

(2006) ‘The Ageing Workforce? Separating Hype From Reality’, Journal of Economic and Social Policy 10(2): 25–59.

28.

Doughney

King

, (2006) ‘Rhetoric and Reality: Neo-Liberal Ideology and Ageing in Australia, 2003–2050’, The Australian Journal of Political Economy 58: 25–43.

29.

Douglas-Smith

(1982) ‘Class, Ageing and Retirement’, Australian Journal on Ageing 1(3): 24–8.

30.

Dwyer

(2000) Welfare Rights and Responsibilities: Contesting social citizenship. Bristol: Polity Press.

31.

Earle

(1999) Celebrating the International Year of Older Persons: Younging Longer or Ageing Younger? Journal of Family Studies 5(2): 258–66.

32.

Estes

(1979) The Aging Enterprise. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33.

Estes

Mahakian

(2001) ‘The Political Economy of Productive Aging’, pp. 197–213 in Morrow-Howell

Hinterlong

Sherraden

(eds) Productive Aging: Concepts and Challenges. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

34.

Everitt

Shaw

(1997) ‘The Formation of Gerontological Societies in Australia’, Australasian Journal on Ageing 16(2): 50–2.

35.

Gilleard

Higgs

(2000) Cultures of Ageing: Self, Citizen and the Body. New York: Prentice Hall.

36.

Hamilton

(2006) Rich Boomer, Poor Boomer: Retirement Prospects for the Not-So-Lucky Generation, URL (consulted October 2006): http://www.apo.org.au/linkboard/results.chtml?filename_num=94719

37.

Haukka

Sandra

Robb

Walter

Alam

Khorshed

(2009) Still Putting In: Measuring the Economic and Social Contributions of Older Australians. Project Report. Brisbane: National Seniors Productive Ageing Centre (NSPAC).

38.

Hinterlong

Morrow-Howell

Sherraden

(2001) ‘Principles and Perspectives’, pp. 3–18 in Morrow-Howell

Hinterlong

Sherraden

(eds) Productive Aging: Concepts and Challenges. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

39.

Kendig

Browning

(2010) ‘A Social View on Healthy Ageing: Multi-disciplinary Perspectives and Australian Evidence’, pp. 459–71 in Dannefer

Phillipson

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Gerontology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

40.

Kendig

McCallum

(eds) (1990) Grey Policy: Australian Policies for an Ageing Society. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

41.

Kincheloe

McLaren

(2000). ‘Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research’, pp. 279–314 in Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

42.

Leveratt

(1999) ‘Independence and Low-income Older Persons When Policy Meets Practice’, Family Matters 52: 19–22.

43.

Longino

Jr. Murphy

(1995) The Old Age Challenge to the Biomedical Model: Paradigm Strain and Health Policy. Amityville, NY: Baywood Press.

44.

McMullin

(2000) ‘Diversity and the State of Sociological Aging Theory’, The Gerontologist 40(5): 517–30.

45.

Miller

Brewer

(eds) (2003) The A–Z of Social Research. London: Sage Publications.

46.

Minichiello

Alexander

Jones

(1988) ‘Australian Literature in Social Gerontology: A Content Analysis of Trends Since 1980’, Australasian Journal on Ageing 7(2): 24–30.

47.

Minichiello

Alexander

Jones

(eds) (1992) Gerontology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Sydney: Prentice Hall.

48.

Mitchell

(2010) ‘Another Intergenerational Report – Another Waste of Time’, Billy Blog: Alternative Economic Thinking, URL (consulted May 2010): http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=7717http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/01/wayne-swan-gets-intergenerational/

49.

National Ageing Research Institute (NARI) (2010) NARI’s History, URL (consulted March 2010): http://www.mednwh.unimelb.edu.au/about_nari/about.htm

50.

National Seniors Productive Ageing Centre (2010) Research Grants – Guidelines for Applicants, URL (consulted June 2010): http://www.productiveageing.com.au/userfiles/file/2010%20RESEARCH%20GRANTS%20-%20Guidelines.pdf

51.

Phillipson

(1982) Capitalism and the Construction of Old Age. London: Macmillan.

52.

Phillipson

(1998) Reconstructing Old Age: New Agendas in Social Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications.

53.

Polivka

(2006) ‘Gerontology for the 21st Century’, The Gerontologist 46(4): 558–63.

54.

Powell

Hendricks

(2009) ‘The Sociological Construction of Ageing: Lessons for Theorizing’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 29(1/2): 84–94.

55.

Prasser

(2010) ‘The Intergenerational Report – repackaged policy’, Online Opinion: Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate, 10 February, URL (consulted March 2010): http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article= 10030

56.

Ray

(2007) ‘Redressing the Balance? The Participation of Older People in Research’, pp. 73–87 in Bernard

Scharf

(eds) Critical Perspectives on Ageing Societies. Bristol: The Policy Press.

57.

Ray

(2008) ‘Coming of Age in Critical Gerontology’, Journal of Aging Studies 22(2): 97–100.

58.

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’, Aging and Society 26: 181–201.

59.

Russell

Schofield

(1995) ‘Aged Care, Research and Policy Making: What Role for Older Consumers?’, Social Alternatives 14(2), 48–51.

60.

Smith

(2010) ‘Research, Policy and Funding – Academic Treadmills and the Squeeze on Intellectual Spaces’, The British Journal of Sociology 61(1): 176–95.