ANDREI SIMIC
Book Review Essay ANTHROPOLOGICAL
GERONTOLOGY
COMES OF A G E
David A. Kertzer and Jennie Keith (eds.), Age & Anthropological Theory Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984, 344 pp. Nancy Foner, Ages in Conflict: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Inequality Between Old and Young. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984, ix + 305 pp.
It is widely believed that anthropology has been a latecomer to the field of gerontology. In at least one respect this has been true. Only during approximately that last decade have aging and old age come to be generally recognized as a subfield within the discipline. In this regard, anthropology has once again shown itself to be more a follower of history and culture change than their precursor. Of course, what has occurred is that in our society aging and the elderly have become the broad focous of popular, governmental, and academic concern as a so-called social problem. Surely a major contributing factor to this has been the increasing numbers of older persons in our society. However, perhaps more significantly; there has come about a profound change in our attitudes toward growing old as well as in the ideas and values that the elderly hold about themselves and their role in society. It was not so long ago that the elderly appeared to have constituted a kind of social category and were thus integrated into society as individuals within the context of ageheterogeneous families, neighborhoods, local communities, churches, voluntary associations, and the like, in the context of what Berger and Neuhaus (1977) have labeled "mediating structures". However, with the weakening of these grassroots institutions, and the redefinition of their functions, a new, not entirely positive self-image stemming from feelings of marginality and alienation has emerged on the part of many older people who have increasingly come to see themselves as an age-homogeneous, quasi-corporate common-interest group in some ways analagous to an ethnic or racial minority. In turn, this has stimulated the development of new adaptive strategies including political activism which has resulted in both a heightening of public concern for the plight of the aged and increased governmental and private funding for research on gerontological issues. Anthropologists, although lagging behind those in some of the other
Journal of Cross-CulturalGerontologyI (1986) 325--330. © 1986 by D. ReidelPublishing Company.
326
ANDREI SIMIC
biological and social sciences, have in recent times joined in the study of gerontology in both increasing strength and with considerable distinction as the two volumes considered here amply demonstrate. It was inevitable that American anthropologists would eventually take serious note of the profound concern for the aged which had surfaced in their midst. Nevertheless, it would be entirely erroneous to suggest that attention to aging, seniority, and the life cycle had ever been lacking in the ethnographic literature, and to negate this impression one need only cite such classic works as those of Arensberg (1937), Fortes (1949), and Hart and Pilling (1979). The case was simply that gerontological topics had rarely provided the central organizing principle for anthropological research. For the most part, such concerns had been integrated within holistic community studies or under the rubric of other substantive or theoretical foci. There were, of course, notable exceptions such as the pioneering works of Simmons (1945), Clark (1967), and Cowgill and Holmes (1972), all of which pointed out the potential of aging and seniority as subjects for ethnological investigation and theory-building. Thus, what has taken place recently within the discipline represents not so much a shift in subject matter, as the addition of a new analytic strategy employing the age principle as a dependent variable. In this regard, the ethnology of aging is clearly in its formative and exploratory phase. Reflecting this, both Kertzer and Keith's edited collection and Foner's monograph represent, each in its own way, an attempt to bring coherence to the field, to reexamine previous anthropological knowledge and theory from the standpoint of the life course, and to suggest new directions for research on aging. In Age and Anthropological Theory the editors have brought together twelve essays spanning a wide gamut of traditional anthropological concerns. Each contribution attempts to examine some categorical area of existing knowlege or theory from the perspective of aging or age differences within social groups. The chapters deal with such diverse topics as primatology and evolution, human biological adaptation, social structure, kinship, cultural economics, social change, sociolinguistics, medical anthropology, and ritual. This seeming disunity actually serves to make one of the major points of this volume, that is, the age factor is a ubiquitous aspect of almost every topical area studied by anthropologists. Having established this fact, a revelation that in retrospect seems painfully obvious, the editors pose the question as to why anthropologists have previously paid so scant attention to aging and its varied social and cultural elaborations. Their answer asserts that there is a common bias among socio-cultural anthropologists, what they identify as a "hypersensitivity" to the "clarity of nature/culture boundaries", resulting in a tendency to defend such lines of demarcation when they are "threatened by too much stress on the biological aspects of human adaptation" (p. 20). Indeed, with the notable exception of BeaU's essay on aging as a factor in the physical study
BOOK REVIEW ESSAY
327
of human populations, the majority of contributors have stressed the primacy of culture for the molding and understanding of the aging process. Even primatologist Phyllis Dolhinow's well-conceived and succinct chapter concludes that it is "the human network of social support that permits the aged to live", and that "old age is a very recent human phenomenon and it has come about in some cultures long after we developed all the biological characteristics of modern humans" (p. 77). In other words, old age must be largely treated as a cultural and social artifact. The nature/culture tension is perhaps explored most neutrally in Eugene Hammel's largely methodological paper 'Age in Fortesian Coordinates', which embodies a demographic approach to ethnology. Hammel distinguishes between "age as a measure of elapsed time", that is, as a product of the natural order, and "age as an attribute", and as such belonging to the cultural and social universe. He points out a number of ways in which these two characteristics interact and can be measured without imputing necessary ascendancy to either. In contrast, Barbara Myerhoff's concluding discussion of aging and ritual eloquently underscores the fragile link between nature and culture. For example, she points out that while rites of passage are occasionally coordinated with biology such as when the marriageability of a girl is celebrated at the onset of menstruation, more often than not physical changes are not recognized at all, or are out of synchrony with cultural identities. While I personally find such arguments somewhat fragile and open to dispute on a number of levels, they nevertheless stimulate the effort to understand the interrelationship of nature and culture as well as the limits of both for understanding human behavior. In her 'Forward' to Age and Athropological Theory, Matilda White Riley identifies the volume's principle mission as the examination of "the implications of a focus on age for theoretical development in the various realms of anthropology" (p. 7). This promise is to a great extent fulfilled inasmuch as the contributors have succeeded in demonstrating that the age principle can be applied as an analytic perspective to almost any of the traditional anthropological conceptual categories such as kinship and family, politics, economics, law, social organization, ritual, and so forth. On the other hand, whether aging per se constitutes a domain of the same order as these, or whether it simply remains an attribute of broader, overarching categories is yet to be established. For those contemplating a career in the anthropology of aging, the Kertzer/Keith volume will provide an insightful introduction to the field. In particular, the editors are to be lauded for their concise and systematic introduction which not only summarizes the history and state of the field, but also places the anthropological study of aging and the life cycle in the context of parallel developments in psychology and sociology. In contrast to the Kertzer/Keith volume, Age in Conflict offers an indepth, problem-oriented analysis of intergenerational and other age-based
328
ANDREI SIMI(2
inequalities. The inevitability of such conflict provides the basis for Nancy Foner's principle hypothesis which proposes that age differences necessarily result in structural inequality. This thesis is supported by a spectrum of ethnographic data and commentary drawn from a world-wide sample of traditional societies. In the author's own words, "this is a book about conflict and tension . . . . It deals with strains that are generated by age inequalities in nonindustrial societies throughout the world" (p. ix). It is interesting to note in light of this study the kind of negative ethnocentric view of aging and the elderly that has inhibited the understanding of our own condition. This is largely because we have not grasped the realities of old age elsewhere or even at other periods in our own history. Surely one of the panhuman universals is the ubiquity of dissatisfaction among people of all ages and in every culture. Contrary to this observation, much of the literature on aging in America has been characterized by the recurring attempt to evaluate levels of satisfaction and contentment among the elderly as if these states were somehow part of the natural and expected condition of humanity. Not only does this represent a middle-class American cultural bias, but also reflects what might be called the grass-is-greener syndrome, an idea which inevitably leads us to nourish the fantasy that in other kinds of societies the elderly have surely found greater happiness. In particular, there has been a tendency to idealize the position of the aged in primitive and peasant societies where elders are thought to enjoy positions of power and respect in the affectionate bosoms of younger kinsmen and neighbors. However, as cherished as this dream may be, even a casual reading of the ethnographic literature reveals that in such cultures intergenerational relationships are fraught, more often than not, with tension, conflict, suspicion, and at times even with open violence. Moreover, as Foner notes, what is equally obvious is that not all older persons have managed to gain access to desired statuses, wealth, and prestige regardless of what generalized prerogatives may be associated with old age and generational position in a society. In other words, geriatric paradises are seemingly illusory. Furthermore, as Foner's evidence unequivocally asserts, the malaise of the elderly is simply the other side of the coin of the dissatisfactions of younger people with whom they are associated. Drawing on data from dozens of ethnographic accounts, Foner explores an impressive range of institutional and substantive categories in terms of the age factor and generational differences, for example: the control of material and human resources; access to ritual and mystic powers; the possession of special knowledge and skills, kinship and family; childrearing practices; sex roles and the differing life trajectories of men and women; aggression and conflict resolution; social control; and perhaps most significantly, social change. The analysis of aging in these varied contexts underscores several major conclusions in addition to the sub-
BOOK REVIEW ESSAY
329
stantiation of the author's major hypothesis; aging must be studied contextually and as a process commencing with birth; inequalities related to age differences are as significant and amenable to study as are other kinds of social distinctions such as those based on sex and class; and, age must be conceptualized as both an absolute and a relative phenomenon. If a single major criticism were to be leveled at this work, it would be that the reader is sometimes overwhelmed by the richness of the ethnographic examples and the multiplicity of their implications. This is, of course, also a strength since numerous avenues for future research are implicitly and explicitly suggested by the author. F o r instance, the concept that rapid social change inevitably leads to disruptive discontinuities in the lives of older people is negated. Foner asserts that in m a n y instances the transformations that have characterized the last century have not actually undercut the status of the elderly in nonindustrial societies, but that these changes have at times offered new opportunities for older persons to either maintain or to increase their powers. In m a n y ways this echoes the contention of Oscar Lewis (1952) that urbanization did not inevitably lead to social pathology, but that it would assume different forms and meanings depending on the specific cultural and historical context in which it ocurred. In this respect, the study of aging in anthropology is very much at the same stage as was that of urbanism and urbanization when Lewis carried out his now famous and controversial studies of the culture of poverty. In a similar way we are just now beginning to understand the significance of both cultural variation and modernization in respect to aging and the position of the elderly. Foner's study is both ambitious and concise, and the evidence presented is compelling in its consistency with her hypothesis that "inequalities between old and young are built into the very fabric of nonindustrial societies". This volume, together with that of Kertzer and Keith, represents what is known colloquially as "the state of the art". N o t only has anthropological gerontology come of age, but its integrated approach has vastly expanded the previous boundaries of the topic. REFERENCES CITED Arensberg, C. M. 1968 The Irish Countryman. Garden City: Natural History Press (originally published in 1937). Berger, P. L. and R. J. Neubaus 1977 To Empower People: The Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Clark, M. 1967 The Anthropology of Aging: A New Area for Studies of Culture and Personality. The Gerontologist 7:55--64. Cowgill, D. and L. Holmes (eds.) 1972 Aging and Modernization. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts. Fortes, M. 1949 The Web of Kinship Among the Tallensi. London: Oxford University Press.
330
A N D R E I SIMIC
Hart, C.W.M. and A. Pilling 1979 The Tiwi of North Australia. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Lewis, O. 1952 Urbanization without Breakdown: A Case Study. The Scientific Monthly 75: 31--41. Simmons, L.W. 1972 The Role of the Aged in Primitive Society. New Haven: Yale University Press (originally publsihed in 1945).
Institutefor Urban and Applied Anthropology, Department of Anthropology University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, Calif. 90089-0661, U.S.A.
Book Review Essay ANTHROPOLOGICAL
GERONTOLOGY
COMES OF A G E
David A. Kertzer and Jennie Keith (eds.), Age & Anthropological Theory Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984, 344 pp. Nancy Foner, Ages in Conflict: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Inequality Between Old and Young. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984, ix + 305 pp.
It is widely believed that anthropology has been a latecomer to the field of gerontology. In at least one respect this has been true. Only during approximately that last decade have aging and old age come to be generally recognized as a subfield within the discipline. In this regard, anthropology has once again shown itself to be more a follower of history and culture change than their precursor. Of course, what has occurred is that in our society aging and the elderly have become the broad focous of popular, governmental, and academic concern as a so-called social problem. Surely a major contributing factor to this has been the increasing numbers of older persons in our society. However, perhaps more significantly; there has come about a profound change in our attitudes toward growing old as well as in the ideas and values that the elderly hold about themselves and their role in society. It was not so long ago that the elderly appeared to have constituted a kind of social category and were thus integrated into society as individuals within the context of ageheterogeneous families, neighborhoods, local communities, churches, voluntary associations, and the like, in the context of what Berger and Neuhaus (1977) have labeled "mediating structures". However, with the weakening of these grassroots institutions, and the redefinition of their functions, a new, not entirely positive self-image stemming from feelings of marginality and alienation has emerged on the part of many older people who have increasingly come to see themselves as an age-homogeneous, quasi-corporate common-interest group in some ways analagous to an ethnic or racial minority. In turn, this has stimulated the development of new adaptive strategies including political activism which has resulted in both a heightening of public concern for the plight of the aged and increased governmental and private funding for research on gerontological issues. Anthropologists, although lagging behind those in some of the other
Journal of Cross-CulturalGerontologyI (1986) 325--330. © 1986 by D. ReidelPublishing Company.
326
ANDREI SIMIC
biological and social sciences, have in recent times joined in the study of gerontology in both increasing strength and with considerable distinction as the two volumes considered here amply demonstrate. It was inevitable that American anthropologists would eventually take serious note of the profound concern for the aged which had surfaced in their midst. Nevertheless, it would be entirely erroneous to suggest that attention to aging, seniority, and the life cycle had ever been lacking in the ethnographic literature, and to negate this impression one need only cite such classic works as those of Arensberg (1937), Fortes (1949), and Hart and Pilling (1979). The case was simply that gerontological topics had rarely provided the central organizing principle for anthropological research. For the most part, such concerns had been integrated within holistic community studies or under the rubric of other substantive or theoretical foci. There were, of course, notable exceptions such as the pioneering works of Simmons (1945), Clark (1967), and Cowgill and Holmes (1972), all of which pointed out the potential of aging and seniority as subjects for ethnological investigation and theory-building. Thus, what has taken place recently within the discipline represents not so much a shift in subject matter, as the addition of a new analytic strategy employing the age principle as a dependent variable. In this regard, the ethnology of aging is clearly in its formative and exploratory phase. Reflecting this, both Kertzer and Keith's edited collection and Foner's monograph represent, each in its own way, an attempt to bring coherence to the field, to reexamine previous anthropological knowledge and theory from the standpoint of the life course, and to suggest new directions for research on aging. In Age and Anthropological Theory the editors have brought together twelve essays spanning a wide gamut of traditional anthropological concerns. Each contribution attempts to examine some categorical area of existing knowlege or theory from the perspective of aging or age differences within social groups. The chapters deal with such diverse topics as primatology and evolution, human biological adaptation, social structure, kinship, cultural economics, social change, sociolinguistics, medical anthropology, and ritual. This seeming disunity actually serves to make one of the major points of this volume, that is, the age factor is a ubiquitous aspect of almost every topical area studied by anthropologists. Having established this fact, a revelation that in retrospect seems painfully obvious, the editors pose the question as to why anthropologists have previously paid so scant attention to aging and its varied social and cultural elaborations. Their answer asserts that there is a common bias among socio-cultural anthropologists, what they identify as a "hypersensitivity" to the "clarity of nature/culture boundaries", resulting in a tendency to defend such lines of demarcation when they are "threatened by too much stress on the biological aspects of human adaptation" (p. 20). Indeed, with the notable exception of BeaU's essay on aging as a factor in the physical study
BOOK REVIEW ESSAY
327
of human populations, the majority of contributors have stressed the primacy of culture for the molding and understanding of the aging process. Even primatologist Phyllis Dolhinow's well-conceived and succinct chapter concludes that it is "the human network of social support that permits the aged to live", and that "old age is a very recent human phenomenon and it has come about in some cultures long after we developed all the biological characteristics of modern humans" (p. 77). In other words, old age must be largely treated as a cultural and social artifact. The nature/culture tension is perhaps explored most neutrally in Eugene Hammel's largely methodological paper 'Age in Fortesian Coordinates', which embodies a demographic approach to ethnology. Hammel distinguishes between "age as a measure of elapsed time", that is, as a product of the natural order, and "age as an attribute", and as such belonging to the cultural and social universe. He points out a number of ways in which these two characteristics interact and can be measured without imputing necessary ascendancy to either. In contrast, Barbara Myerhoff's concluding discussion of aging and ritual eloquently underscores the fragile link between nature and culture. For example, she points out that while rites of passage are occasionally coordinated with biology such as when the marriageability of a girl is celebrated at the onset of menstruation, more often than not physical changes are not recognized at all, or are out of synchrony with cultural identities. While I personally find such arguments somewhat fragile and open to dispute on a number of levels, they nevertheless stimulate the effort to understand the interrelationship of nature and culture as well as the limits of both for understanding human behavior. In her 'Forward' to Age and Athropological Theory, Matilda White Riley identifies the volume's principle mission as the examination of "the implications of a focus on age for theoretical development in the various realms of anthropology" (p. 7). This promise is to a great extent fulfilled inasmuch as the contributors have succeeded in demonstrating that the age principle can be applied as an analytic perspective to almost any of the traditional anthropological conceptual categories such as kinship and family, politics, economics, law, social organization, ritual, and so forth. On the other hand, whether aging per se constitutes a domain of the same order as these, or whether it simply remains an attribute of broader, overarching categories is yet to be established. For those contemplating a career in the anthropology of aging, the Kertzer/Keith volume will provide an insightful introduction to the field. In particular, the editors are to be lauded for their concise and systematic introduction which not only summarizes the history and state of the field, but also places the anthropological study of aging and the life cycle in the context of parallel developments in psychology and sociology. In contrast to the Kertzer/Keith volume, Age in Conflict offers an indepth, problem-oriented analysis of intergenerational and other age-based
328
ANDREI SIMI(2
inequalities. The inevitability of such conflict provides the basis for Nancy Foner's principle hypothesis which proposes that age differences necessarily result in structural inequality. This thesis is supported by a spectrum of ethnographic data and commentary drawn from a world-wide sample of traditional societies. In the author's own words, "this is a book about conflict and tension . . . . It deals with strains that are generated by age inequalities in nonindustrial societies throughout the world" (p. ix). It is interesting to note in light of this study the kind of negative ethnocentric view of aging and the elderly that has inhibited the understanding of our own condition. This is largely because we have not grasped the realities of old age elsewhere or even at other periods in our own history. Surely one of the panhuman universals is the ubiquity of dissatisfaction among people of all ages and in every culture. Contrary to this observation, much of the literature on aging in America has been characterized by the recurring attempt to evaluate levels of satisfaction and contentment among the elderly as if these states were somehow part of the natural and expected condition of humanity. Not only does this represent a middle-class American cultural bias, but also reflects what might be called the grass-is-greener syndrome, an idea which inevitably leads us to nourish the fantasy that in other kinds of societies the elderly have surely found greater happiness. In particular, there has been a tendency to idealize the position of the aged in primitive and peasant societies where elders are thought to enjoy positions of power and respect in the affectionate bosoms of younger kinsmen and neighbors. However, as cherished as this dream may be, even a casual reading of the ethnographic literature reveals that in such cultures intergenerational relationships are fraught, more often than not, with tension, conflict, suspicion, and at times even with open violence. Moreover, as Foner notes, what is equally obvious is that not all older persons have managed to gain access to desired statuses, wealth, and prestige regardless of what generalized prerogatives may be associated with old age and generational position in a society. In other words, geriatric paradises are seemingly illusory. Furthermore, as Foner's evidence unequivocally asserts, the malaise of the elderly is simply the other side of the coin of the dissatisfactions of younger people with whom they are associated. Drawing on data from dozens of ethnographic accounts, Foner explores an impressive range of institutional and substantive categories in terms of the age factor and generational differences, for example: the control of material and human resources; access to ritual and mystic powers; the possession of special knowledge and skills, kinship and family; childrearing practices; sex roles and the differing life trajectories of men and women; aggression and conflict resolution; social control; and perhaps most significantly, social change. The analysis of aging in these varied contexts underscores several major conclusions in addition to the sub-
BOOK REVIEW ESSAY
329
stantiation of the author's major hypothesis; aging must be studied contextually and as a process commencing with birth; inequalities related to age differences are as significant and amenable to study as are other kinds of social distinctions such as those based on sex and class; and, age must be conceptualized as both an absolute and a relative phenomenon. If a single major criticism were to be leveled at this work, it would be that the reader is sometimes overwhelmed by the richness of the ethnographic examples and the multiplicity of their implications. This is, of course, also a strength since numerous avenues for future research are implicitly and explicitly suggested by the author. F o r instance, the concept that rapid social change inevitably leads to disruptive discontinuities in the lives of older people is negated. Foner asserts that in m a n y instances the transformations that have characterized the last century have not actually undercut the status of the elderly in nonindustrial societies, but that these changes have at times offered new opportunities for older persons to either maintain or to increase their powers. In m a n y ways this echoes the contention of Oscar Lewis (1952) that urbanization did not inevitably lead to social pathology, but that it would assume different forms and meanings depending on the specific cultural and historical context in which it ocurred. In this respect, the study of aging in anthropology is very much at the same stage as was that of urbanism and urbanization when Lewis carried out his now famous and controversial studies of the culture of poverty. In a similar way we are just now beginning to understand the significance of both cultural variation and modernization in respect to aging and the position of the elderly. Foner's study is both ambitious and concise, and the evidence presented is compelling in its consistency with her hypothesis that "inequalities between old and young are built into the very fabric of nonindustrial societies". This volume, together with that of Kertzer and Keith, represents what is known colloquially as "the state of the art". N o t only has anthropological gerontology come of age, but its integrated approach has vastly expanded the previous boundaries of the topic. REFERENCES CITED Arensberg, C. M. 1968 The Irish Countryman. Garden City: Natural History Press (originally published in 1937). Berger, P. L. and R. J. Neubaus 1977 To Empower People: The Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Clark, M. 1967 The Anthropology of Aging: A New Area for Studies of Culture and Personality. The Gerontologist 7:55--64. Cowgill, D. and L. Holmes (eds.) 1972 Aging and Modernization. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts. Fortes, M. 1949 The Web of Kinship Among the Tallensi. London: Oxford University Press.
330
A N D R E I SIMIC
Hart, C.W.M. and A. Pilling 1979 The Tiwi of North Australia. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Lewis, O. 1952 Urbanization without Breakdown: A Case Study. The Scientific Monthly 75: 31--41. Simmons, L.W. 1972 The Role of the Aged in Primitive Society. New Haven: Yale University Press (originally publsihed in 1945).
Institutefor Urban and Applied Anthropology, Department of Anthropology University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, Calif. 90089-0661, U.S.A.
