As you name the ship, so shall it float

Describing a specific social perspective on ageing and developing a coherent concept is a complex task. Various concepts of ageing reflect distinct socioeconomic conditions and social discourses. Additionally, these concepts must be considered and analysed within the context of historical periods, local specificities, the underlying reasons for their emergence, and the institutions that advocate for them.

The formulation of social policy on ageing involves the application of certain ageing concepts that should also convey the state's vision of old age. While these concepts may permit some degree of theorisation, the corresponding policy measures must address numerous practical issues. For instance, the target group should be clearly defined, the desired outcomes should be specified, and the ways in which the proposed measures may assist in achieving these outcomes should be outlined. 

As Kohli (1988, p. 368) noted over three decades ago, “... [ageing] cannot be treated as a topic by itself since it also has consequences for how the social fabric as a whole has to be conceived.” The implications of policy decisions are substantial, as they influence both perceptions of ageing and societal expectations related to old age. The social policy concept of old age influences all age groups. For example, older adults serve as transmitters of experience, culture, and knowledge, acting as role models for younger generations. For working-age individuals, older adults represent indicators of how older people are treated in particular localities and how comfortable their living conditions are.

Formulating and applying concepts to policy measures requires extensive knowledge and careful consideration of multiple factors. Terminology and conceptual frameworks must be meticulously developed. In this context, the naming of concepts becomes particularly significant, especially when a term serves as the foundational concept for a social policy measure targeting older generations. But it would never be ideal. It should be concise yet descriptive, emphasising the primary idea. However, it never satisfies everyone since it also represents a conceptualisation of ageing that individuals are expected to adopt. For instance, concepts such as successful ageing or active ageing illustrate these challenges.

I keep thinking about these issues and concepts and discussing them with people from different backgrounds. Through discussions and literature reviews, it became clear that no single adjective adequately encapsulates all the desired ideas within an ageing concept. Terms such as resilient ageing, harmonious ageing, or decent ageing each present certain limitations. Even a label like "Ageing as you want" may fail to resonate with all individuals. Nonetheless, it avoids imposing pressure to conform to specific norms of activity or passivity; instead, it promotes diverse opportunities for individuals to shape their old age according to their personal values.

Developing concept names, their component parts, and the applied terminology remains challenging. In my thesis, I examined the Participation pillar, a key aspect of the widely adopted Active Ageing concept. A review of the literature raises questions about whether a clear distinction should be drawn between participation, social participation, and engagement (Levasseur et al., 2010). The term social participation may be more precise for policy measures that describe engagement in various activities such as volunteering, art classes, and handicraft groups. However, the Active Ageing Index includes caregiving for older adults and children as part of the Participation in Society domain. In my view, when caregiving occurs outside of family connections, social participation is an appropriate term. However, caregiving involving family members, such as grandchildren or older relatives, warrants recognition as a separate domain—Family Connections. In some cultures, older generations traditionally play an integral role in raising grandchildren; family members adhere to the tradition of caring for older relatives. Consequently, distinguishing social participation from family connections reflects more accurately the diverse roles older adults assume in different cultural contexts.

It soon became apparent that perceptions of what it means to be active and participate vary significantly. Several factors may contribute to this divergence:

1. Theory-ladenness

Personal experience, observations, cultural traditions, and openness (or resistance) to new information influence the assumptions made by those developing concepts. While researchers should ideally strive for neutrality and objectivity, practical realities introduce numerous socio-economic, cultural, and institutional nuances. These complexities shape both the understanding of a given situation and the capacity for long-term planning. The theory-laden nature of concept development is evident at both micro- and meso-levels, particularly when social projects are designed and named.

2. Generalisation

Conceptual frameworks often rely on generalisation. I consider generalisation among the most significant yet underestimated risks. Despite its drawbacks, generalisation is widely used to design effective policy measures. For instance, formulating social participation policies for older adults requires answering key questions:

• Who are Older Adults? Policy documents often present conflicting definitions, despite repeated acknowledgement that older populations are highly diverse. Perhaps, dividing this population into more specific subgroups may improve targeting strategies.
• Which types of participation should be prioritised? While physical activities are commonly promoted, online participation has also gained prominence. Social participation involves communication, support, changes of scenery, and trying different social roles. In my view, online participation cannot fully replace in-person social activities, which offer communication, support, changes of scenery, and opportunities to assume different social roles. Nevertheless, during the COVID-19 pandemic or in times of personal preference for solitude, online participation proved valuable. Consequently, participation options should remain flexible, accommodating both digital and face-to-face engagement based on individual needs and circumstances.

3. Heterogeneity

Accounting for heterogeneity is more complex than it may initially appear. Studies investigating this issue have identified a tendency to rely on average characteristics and generalisations (e.g. Stone et al., 2017). My research identified that beliefs, traditions, and personal values significantly influence social participation patterns. In some cultures, older adults focus primarily on their individual interests and leisure, while in others, they are expected to reside with family members and participate in domestic or communal activities.

Therefore, developing effective social policies requires directly engaging older adults from diverse backgrounds and gathering their insights. Meetings, focus groups, and surveys conducted before and after social projects may reveal invaluable perspectives. Such approaches not only provide insights into the needs and expectations of older participants but also enhance their involvement in shaping the direction of social initiatives. Encouraging older adults to contribute to project naming can be particularly impactful—after all, as the saying goes, “As you name the ship, so shall it float.”

References:

Kohli, M. (1988). Ageing as a Challenge for Sociological Theory. Ageing and Society, 8(4), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X00007169

Levasseur, M., Richard, L., Gauvin, L., & Raymond, É. (2010). Inventory and analysis of definitions of social participation found in the aging literature: Proposed taxonomy of social activities. Social Science and Medicine, 71(12), 2141–2149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.041

Stone, M. E., Lin, J., Dannefer, D., & Kelley-Moore, J. A. (2017). The Continued Eclipse of Heterogeneity in Gerontological Research. Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72(1), 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv068