Читать книгу Aging - Harry R. Moody - Страница 21

One of the earliest comprehensive attempts to explain the position of old age in modern society is the disengagement theory of aging (Cumming & Henry, 1961). The disengagement theory looks at old age as a time when both the older person and society engage in mutual separation, as in the case of retirement from work. From the perspective of this theory, the process of disengagement is understood to be a natural and normal tendency reflecting a basic biological rhythm of life. In other words, the process of disengagement is assumed to be functional, serving both society and the individual. Disengagement theory is related to modernization theory, which posits that the status of older adults must decline as society becomes more modern and efficient, so it is natural for older adults to disengage.

Becoming a grandparent can be an important life course transition.

istockphoto.com/elkor

Disengagement theory grew out of an extensive body of research known as the Kansas City Study of Adult Life, which was a 10-year longitudinal study of the transition from middle age to old age (Williams & Wirths, 1965). The idea of disengagement presented itself not only as an empirical account based on those findings but also as a theory to explain observations about modern societies; for example, why has the practice of retirement spread? But gerontologists have criticized disengagement theory (Hochschild, 1975); some have pointed out that the theory evolved during the 1950s and reflected social conditions quite different from those of today as well as distinctions between different societies.

Although the original disengagement theory is no longer often accepted, the pattern of disengagement does describe some behavior of some older people—for example, the seductiveness of the idea of early retirement. But there are growing numbers of older people whose behavior cannot be well described as withdrawal or disengagement from society. Disengagement as a global pattern of behavior can hardly be called natural or inevitable.

Another problem arises when we describe disengagement as “functional,” which is a synonym for “useful.” The same process that might be functional or useful for an organization—for instance, compulsory retirement at a predictable age—may not be at all useful for individuals, who might prefer flexible retirement or need to continue working because of economic necessity. In fact, it was widespread resentment at being forced to retire at a fixed age that led Congress to end mandatory retirement for most jobs in 1986.

There is also a lack of clarity about what behavior is actually being described by the concept of disengagement. For example, individuals might partially withdraw from one set of activities, such as those in the workplace, to spend more time on other activities, such as family and leisure pursuits; total withdrawal is quite uncommon. Although advancing age at some point is usually accompanied by losses in health, physical ability, and social networks, those who age most “successfully” adjust to and compensate for these losses by putting the changes of later life into a wider perspective, an attitude sometimes described as “wisdom.” Later life today, at least for those who are able to adapt to changes that come with aging, is often filled with a rich range of activities. The Kansas City Study investigators also found that with advancing age, there is, in fact, a trend toward greater interiority, meaning increased attention to the inner psychological world (Neugarten, 1964). Individuals appear to reach a peak of interest in activity and achievement in their middle years. As they anticipate later life, they may become more detached, more inclined toward “ego transcendence,” as if in anticipation of predictable role losses in later life (Tornstam, 2005).

Understood in this way, disengagement need not necessarily describe the outward behavior of individuals, but may refer to an inner attitude toward life. Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that all older people are inclined toward even a psychological stance of disengagement; some may have ambivalence about their own activities and attachments. Perhaps the greatest example in literature of that ambivalence is the tragic fate of Shakespeare’s King Lear, who tries to give up his role as king but is not quite able to withdraw from power and prestige. As a result, he brings disaster on his family and himself. King Lear’s example suggests that disengagement depends on having some sense of personal meaning that is distinct from the office one holds. The ability to achieve some degree of detachment, at any age, is a matter of wide individual difference. In later life, disengagement is the preferred style for some, whereas continued activity remains attractive for others.