Dimensions of change: three studies of the construction of ageing

Functionalist concepts such as ‘role’, ‘status’, and ‘social moblility’ are of little analytical value in socio-gerontological discourse which focuses on ‘roleless-ness’, 1 status ambiguity, 2 ‘no exit’, 3 anomie 4 and career impasse. 5 From the point of view of the sociology of knowledge, such conceptual inadequacies reflect a lack of fit between raw data and the analytical tools, 6 an incongruity that stems from ethnocentric and, in our case, ageocentric 7 postulates inherent in the analyst’s own phase of the life course. One might assume that by invoking anthropological relativism to handle such problems of judgement, the conceptual myopia which blurs our field of vision concerning ageing could be rectified. However, a cursory glance at the literature reveals a consistent failure to conceptualise ageing satisfactorily. Neither as a social construct, such as ‘culture’ 8 or ‘age grades’, 9 nor as an intersubjective 10 or subjective experience 11 has the phenomenon of ageing been transcended to suggest a coherent explanatory model. It is for this reason and the desire to avoid fuzzy concepts such as ‘role exit’, 12 ‘déculturation’, 13 ‘myth’ 14 and ‘disengagement’ 15 that this discussion may seem distant from any common connotation of ageing in modern society. Instead, we are presented with a transformation from a state of linearly oriented existence governed by progress in occupational careers and set family trajectories to a state of socially dependent sinecure-based existence.