Back in My Day: Ageism is insidiously discriminatory
There’s no doubt that getting your job application rejected by an employer can be difficult to stomach. Often, employers may not even disclose their rationale for the rejection due to legal reasons or time constraints. We’re all human at the end of the day and curiosity can get the best of us; however, we want to improve and figure out how to ace the next interview, application or job opportunity.
Sadly, this whole charade sheds some light on our prejudice against accepted candidates or the company. For instance, identifying someone as a “diversity hire” — or accusing them of being accepted solely on the basis of their race or gender identity — can lead down a rabbit hole of distasteful thinking. That being said, there’s another issue that has been popping up recently. As you can expect from your resident gerontology student, I’m referring to the double-edged sword that is age in the workplace.
On one hand, employers can overlook younger, fresh-out-of-college workers in favor of experienced, long-time employees who bring a veteran presence to the workplace. The other side of this coin is that older employees get booted out for a young and fresh group of new employees.
To illustrate, I’ll even cite a quirky and unknown American comedy television show: “The Office.” The Student Gerontology Association hosted a Netflix Party event last week showcasing the episode “Dunder Mifflin Infinity.” In short, experimental company changes seem to push some of the older employees out of the office to make way for young, tech-savvy replacements. Michael, the regional manager played by Steve Carrell, and Creed Bratton, an employee of Dunder Mifflin played by none other than Creed Bratton himself, handle these changes in different ways throughout the course of the show. Where Creed tries to become more youthful and hip, Michael tackles ageism head-on in a hilarious “ageism seminar.”
Michael makes some fantastic points and some questionable ones but effectively shows what ageism looks like from an outsider’s perspective. Nonetheless, there’s just so much more to unpack when it comes to ageism.
Ageism doesn’t persist in just the workplace — it’s everywhere, so much that the World Health Organization designates it the “most socially ‘normalized’ of any prejudice.” Efforts to counteract this form of stereotyping and discrimination have been slowly but surely ramping up, with USC’s annual celebration of the International Day for Older Persons last week acting as a testament to the work being done on the academic front.
“But Lois,” you, the inquisitive reader, ask, “What’s the big deal? Everyone ages. Unlike other forms of discrimination such as sexism or racism, everyone undergoes the aging process and can be an older adult. So, if we’re just poking fun at the physical and emotional changes that everyone will eventually go through, is that so bad?”
Yes, it is.
For one, not everyone is fortunate enough to age into the later stages of life. We have certainly made improvements, but not all older adults are on the same playing field when it comes to available resources, whether those are social services, medical care or communication with family and friends. Life expectancy disparities are present across the world — country to country, city to city. For instance, a 2019 study by the Health Resources & Services Administration found that two cities in the state of Kansas have a life expectancy difference of over 14 years for their older adult populations. The many factors that characterize this discrepancy are certainly a story for another time but provide a necessary insight into some instances of ageism.
Additionally, a big issue with ageism lies in the theory of stereotype embodiment, wherein the internalization of negative stereotypes leads to their fruition later down the line. In TikTok terms, you “manifest” a reality, but in this case, instead of manifesting passing your midterm or finding your crush in a small niche coffee shop, you manifest changes such as being hard of hearing or even slight memory loss, all due to perceived stereotypes of older adults. This constant cycle of learning about negative stereotypes, internalizing them and exhibiting them continues to impact the newer generations of older adults.
That being said, we can divide these attitudes about aging into explicit and implicit biases, where explicit are controllable and external and implicit are natural and hidden. By recognizing these biases through implicit bias tests or reflection, we can better understand that aging isn’t necessarily the “deterioration” of the human body but rather a series of developmental changes that occur over time — I promise you that even just wording can make a world of a difference.
Recalling my last column installment, the stereotypes of older adults and technology are another clear example of ageist behaviors that undermine the ability of older people to participate in society to the fullest extent. When thinking about technology and who uses it, rarely do we ever picture older people surfing the web or scrolling through social media. That, in turn, translates into misconstrued stereotypes illustrating the inability of older adults to use technology or even that older adults despise such innovation altogether.
As it pertains to everyday conversations, I encourage you to think about the last time you saw a positive video of an older person on social media or, if you can, the last time you spoke directly to an older adult. What did you say and how did you say it? The concept of infantilizing older adults — the act of speaking to older adults as if they were children rather than functioning individuals — is equally harmful. The older adults in our lives and in heartwarming videos on social media should not be viewed in the same way as a cute puppy or kitten. They’re people, too, and demonstrate the same feelings and emotions as you along with the other seven billion people on this planet.
I present a final and timely point. With the presidential election closing in and the pandemic playing a large role in our new understanding of older adults, it’s important to steer clear of ageist biases when selecting our representatives at the government level. Looking at our current government officials, it’s incredibly easy to tear down these individuals using the “elderly” stereotype that depicts frail and “slow” older adults.
Here are a few of the current prominent officials and how they stack up age-wise: Sen. Elizabeth Warren is 71; President Donald Trump is 74; Former Vice President Joe Biden is 77; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is 78; Sen. Bernie Sanders is 79; Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is 80.
A quick search on the internet will bring up a handful of articles questioning the legitimacy of these older adults being in positions of power. With these officials reaching later into life, it may seem natural to have some doubts about their cognitive ability to lead the American people; however, it’s equally as important to recognize that, again, not all older adults are frail, weak and forgetful. Many of the politicians listed continue to make waves, whether you consider their age or not.
At the end of the day, discrimination of any form is unacceptable. Hopefully, we can reach the day where we figure out how to better care for our older adults — a point where we can reminisce about the changes we’ve made against ageism and discrimination in our lifetime, thinking, “Back in my day…”
Lois Angelo is a sophomore writing about the intersections of gerontology and social issues. He is also co-chief copy editor of the Daily Trojan. His column, “Back In My Day,” runs every other Tuesday.