4 Generational Groups, Intergenerational Communications & Ageism
Learning Objective:
- Understanding generational groups and the the differences between each group
- Defining ageism and its relevance in intergenerational communications
Generational Groups, Intergenerational Communications and Ageism
With the various generational groups in today’s society, the expression of ageism is brought back to light showing how communication amongst the generations is exhibited. This is important as we look at the effectiveness of communication between generational groups and how ageism effects certain age groups in reference to professional life, particularly witnessing how more elderly generations are forced to work into what has traditionally been their retirement years, and other instances that cross over into discrimination due to age.
In the Beginning
Ageism is a bias against, discrimination towards, or bullying of individuals and groups on the basis of their age. Ageism, first brought to light in 1969 by Robert Neil Butler, was described as “the subjective experience implied in the popular notion of the generation gap…a deep seated uneasiness on the part of the young and middle-aged – a personal revulsion to and distaste for growing old, disease, and disability” (p. 243). The term was coined to describe discrimination against the elderly, patterned on the terminology of sexism and racism
When viewing intergenerational communications (IC), it can be defined broadly as interactions between two distinct generations. The term generation can be considered based on role relationships (e.g., grandparent vs. grandchild; aging parent vs. adult children); age cohort (e.g., Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, Millennials); or developmental stage (e.g., adolescents, middle-aged adults, elders). These definitions reflect different theoretical perspectives, such as a lifespan approach, family dynamics, or intergroup theories, and they direct researchers’ attention to various aspects of communication and relationships across generations. Research on IC has added to understanding of antecedents, motivations, processes, and consequences of communication across generations, and the ways in which individual characteristics and/or social/historical context jointly shape our interpretations of and responses to such interactions.
In the Present
The definition of ageism has evolved to include cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components as well, such as age stereotypes, beliefs, age prejudice, attitudes, age discrimination, and actions (Ayalon & Tesch-Römer), which manifest at individual, interpersonal, institutional, and cultural levels resulting in older people being perceived and treated differently due to their age (Iversen et al.).
Intergenerational conflicts in everyday life are not a rare phenomenon. Traditionally, the blame for them has been shifted onto the younger generation, but it is apparent that this is not always justified [see 1, pp. 116–19]. Everyday conflicts are typically discussed abstractly and in broad general terms, with the elderly generally considered the “victims.” Available studies of intergenerational relations provide evidence that the problem, while not antagonistic in character [2, p. 117], is still significant [see 3, p. 62; 4, p. 29].
Respondents with attitudes and/or life experience relevant to the study’s aims were selected by a preliminary questionnaire survey; in addition, use was made of a set of fifty interviews collected by the author concerning problems of gerontology. The respondents were college students in the second through fifth years of study enrolled in various faculties at Saratov State Technical University. The interviews were conducted in a university building, in calm surroundings and without third parties present; they were recorded on a digital device; the quotations cited below preserve the expressions and character of the respondents’ word usage. The conflicts being examined have a number of characteristics that make them different from conflicts with peers or even conflicts between representatives of other age groups. A typical intergenerational conflict is situational; the worldview component is expressed more starkly; it generally unfolds as a standoff of values and is very often interpreted by participants as a group conflict—in terms of generational identity—rather than an individual conflict. Rapid decentralization is characteristic: the conflict episode per se very often is not developed further, but becomes a reason for further communicative activity (discussion with other witnesses, scolding of the opponent). The conflict itself is almost exclusively verbal; any more serious cases tend to be due to external factors (such as alcohol intoxication) rather than to any depth or unresolved character of the conflict situation itself.
The most frequent causes of conflicts are actual or imagined forms in which young people “fail to show respect,” such as not giving up their seat in public transportation, not letting an older person go ahead in a line, or lack of initiative. In actuality, the gist of the conflict tends to stem from complaints not so much against a specific person but rather against the situation. As a result, the elderly most often turn out to be the aggressors. They take the position of the “aggressive victim,” who does not have sufficient resources to defend his interests fully on his own or to “restore justice,” and publicly appeals to norms that the person who is to blame should comply with. As a rule, the way out of the situation is at the initiative of the younger person, generally by evasion. Aggressive responses are (relatively) rare: the entrenched culture of everyday interaction does not spell out prescriptions for situations in which older people are at fault. As it is tacitly assumed that they cannot be, there are virtually no legitimate strategies; any strategies are viewed as deviant. Aggression on the part of a younger person is a behavioral marker, offering the possibility of assuming, say, a readiness to resort to physical violence. But we are not looking at cases involving crimes (the operant logic of the opposition is not “between old and young” but “between strong and weak”).
Moving forward to ageism today, let’s look at how it is viewed via social media. Ageism in social media is not new. In 2019, for example, before the COVID-19 pandemic, the catchphrase “OK, Boomer” went viral around the world on TikTok and other social media platforms. It became a slogan for “Millennials” who felt “Baby Boomers” were out-of-touch with modern realities because of outdated and conservative beliefs, and were delaying progress on important societal issues, such as domestic economic inequities and global climate change.
Even looking at the term “COVID-19,” it has many names based on the generational group; several of the names pertain to older adults. The virus is referred to as the “Boomer Doomer,” “Senior Deleter” and “Elder Repeller.” However, one name that is arguably the most viral is “Boomer Remover” which was a trending topic and hashtag on Twitter in March 2020. According to some opinions shared online, the “purpose” of COVID-19 as the “Boomer Remover” is to: efficiently address global and domestic overpopulation by targeting older adults and sparing the lives of children, youth, and younger adults; decrease the demand and burden that older adults put on health care and tax systems; remove older adults from society so that more jobs, opportunities, and resources can be provided to younger and healthier people; and reduce the number of right-wing conservative voters.
COVID-19 acts against older adults and serves in favor of younger adults. Younger age groups are “the desirables” while the older age group portrays “the undesirables”—not only are older adults undesirable, they are viewed as an expendable nuisance to younger generations.
In the Future
Indeed, research has shown that the kinds of messages elderly people receive from their younger counterparts (as well as from their peers) can have a significant impact on their reports of life satisfaction and self‐esteem (Cai, Giles, & Noels, Citation1998; Noels, Giles, Cai, & Turay, Citation1999; Noels, Giles, Gallois, & Ng, Citation2001). For example, less patronizing and more accommodating talk from young people (strangers and family members) can have positive benefits on psychological well‐being (see Giles, McCann, Ota, & Noels, Citation2002).
Much of the study of intergenerational communication has focused on younger‐to‐older adult communication (see Williams & Nussbaum, Citation2001). Although there are different facets to this, one of importance for the present investigation concerns young people’s judgments of their past encounters with older people as a type of inter‐group communication (Harwood, Giles, & Ryan, Citation1995; Tajfel & Turner, Citation1986; Williams & Garrett, Citation2005). This has shown that the former find members of the older generation to be non‐accommodating—that is, complaining, not listening, and stereotypic of them (e.g., Giles et al., Citation2003). For their part, young people report feeling it necessary to be respectful, yet are also avoidant of their elders (Williams et al., Citation1997; see also, Ryan, Kwong See, Meneer, & Trovato, Citation1992). Accordingly, young people report that their intergenerational encounters have been rather dissatisfactory (Williams & Giles, Citation1996) despite frequent intergenerational contact, at least in family settings (Hartley, Citation1992). These findings are cross‐culturally resilient to the extent they span an array of different cultures (e.g., in Asia, Europe, North America) having disparate religious and social traditions concerning values attending the aging process (e.g., Giles, Ballard, & McCann, Citation2002; McCann, Ota, Giles, & Caraker, Citation2003).
Clearly, such a communicative state of affairs—whereby people, younger and even certain elderly folk themselves (e.g., Williams & Guendouzi, Citation2000), express intergenerational angst when talking to older people—does little to promote elderly well‐being in contemporary societies.
In reality however, age is also a unique social category because the boundaries between generational groups are constantly in transition. Younger people will one day be members of the out group, whereas older people will have once been in-group members and both parties may be aware of this. Each generation is arguably uniquely placed in time because the particular historical period in which it matured has unique characteristics that interact with development. Thus, different generations are likely to be exposed to different sets of developmental experiences (Schaie & Strother, 1968). The fuzzy nature of the intergroup boundaries is what makes age-categorization a unique and interesting intergroup phenomenon. Intergroup theorists commonly consider that groups who are alike in some ways experience an increased desire to differentiate from each other. We feel a greater sense of threat from outgroup members when group boundaries are unclear and may go to extra lengths to shore up those boundaries by emphasizing difference. Many younger people feel very threatened by the thought of their own aging and try to avoid confronting the fact that they too may one day belong to the outgroup. This could be why some young people actively avoid interacting with older people and even experience a form of extreme aversion to older people known as gerontophobia (Levin & Levin, 1980). Not only has intergroup theory provided a driving force at the heart of many recent studies of intergenerational interaction, it is also at the heart of many current theories that focus on communication and aging. Intergroup theory is not a communication theory: although it helps us understand how people might identify and act as group members, it does not tell us what kind of communication to expect when persons of very different groups meet and interact. It does suggest that under certain conditions, such as when group membership is valued and is salient, people might choose to be competitive, seeking to enhance their own self-esteem at the expense of that of other people. Of course, an alternative is communicative cooperation and seeking common ground. By extending intergroup theory to examine the way individuals behaving as group members communicate with each other, communication accommodation theory (CAT) bridges the gap between intergroup theory and communication. As demonstrated throughout the rest of this book, CAT has made an important contribution to the understanding of intergenerational communication.
Bring to Light:
This will focus on “The University of Missouri System settles discrimination lawsuit” in which a white woman, Rachel Brown, sued alleging age discrimination and racial discrimination because of her opposition to DEI initiatives at the school (an interesting spin).