Ageing Societies and Technological Innovation

Demographic change has been declared as one of the main challenges for Western societies by politicians, journalists, industry and academia alike (Harper, 2006). The fact that societies are ageing is demonstrated through the growing number of older citizens relative to the rest of society. For example in Europe, the percentage of citizens aged 65 and above is projected to rise from 16% in 2010 to 29.3% in 2060 and the percentage of citizens aged over 80 is projected to increase from 4.1% in 2010 to 11.5% by 2060 (Creighton, 2014).

Most stakeholders agree that this change entails consequences for our health care and social systems as well as “labour supply, family and household structures, health and welfare service demand, patterns of saving and consumption, provision of housing and transport, leisure and community behavior, networks and social interaction” (Harper, 2006, p. 1). Associated fears of the financial burden to social security and health care systems are prominent. At the center of the discourse are “calls for action on the ‘ageing society’” (Moreira, 2017, p. 2) to tackle the “demographic burden” (Harper, 2006, p. 19). However, scholars in critical and social gerontology argue that most of the alarmist rhetoric about demographic ageing and projected social implications are based on flawed assumptions about older people (e.g. their ability to contribute to their communities) and the ageing process (e.g. as solely described in terms of decline and long-term care needs) (Harper, 2006; Moreira, 2017). For example, Harper (2006) argues that the provision of health care for older people is only one aspect of demographic change, as most people will live the remainders of their live after retirement in “reasonable health, with limited disability”. She proposes to shift focus, e.g. to inflexible retirement systems which cause a rising dependencies of older people rather than their unwillingness or incapacity to work.

Who is considered old, differs substantially across countries, depending for example on the median age and life expectancy. Neugarten defined in 1974 a distinction between the “young-old” versus the “old-old” (Neugarten, 1974), which was later adopted by Laslett in his distinction between the third and the fourth age (Laslett, 1987, 1991). Persons in their third age, usually starting with retirement, are still relatively healthy and have time to follow their hobbies, social activities and for life-long learning. In contrast, persons in their fourth age are characterised by declining mental and physical health, ending in final dependence, decrepitude, and death. Hence, there is a

principal binary opposition in the way later life is represented; namely the distinction between a fit, healthy and productive later life and an old age dogged by ill health, incapacity and neediness (Higgs & Gilleard, 2015, p. 10).

Whereas Laslett considered the third age a distinct life stage, he did not see it bounded by chronological age. Rather the transition from third to fourth age is a fluid and contingent process only depending on a persons’ abilities. Others have operationalised the idea and calculate the third-fourth age division by “the chronological age at which 50% of the birth cohort are no longer alive” (Baltes & Smith, 2003, p. 125 as cited in Higgs and Gilleard (2015)). Higgs and Gilleard (2015) argue that both concepts can be understood as social imaginaries about what it means to grow old. In the third age, social agency plays a critical role, it is very much influenced by lifestyle choice and identity:

Third age narratives and practices often sustain different identities and lifestyles and draw upon points of reference unrelated to agedness – such as one’s sexuality, gender or ethnicity, or the uses of one’s cultural and social capital – many implicitly reference ageing and old age (Higgs & Gilleard, 2015, p. 117).

There are a number of dividing practices between the third and fourth age which are reiterated in public discourse but also individual identity building. Most notable is the discourse around “successful ageing”, often also called “active ageing” which ascribes in an almost normative way a particular set of practices to performing third age identities. The distinction has received some criticism: On the hand it is argued that it destroys the “bond” between old people and their “shared experience of discrimination and social and cultural marginality” (Higgs & Gilleard, 2015, p. 11). Others have pointed out that the distinction between third and fourth age, conceals other, more fundamental differences such as socio-economic divisions in society (e.g. financial capital, social capital etc.). Holstein, Parks, and Waymack (2011) argue that

the paths to old age are deeply shaped by social location with some locations providing the foundation for a ‘successful’ old age while others make it very difficult especially for lower income women and people of color (p.xv).

In contrast, Higgs and Gilleard (2015) argue that much of the distinction between third and fourth age “lies outside these classical sociological structures” as for example “the cultures of the third age cannot be easily read off from an infrastructure of class, cohort and community” (Higgs & Gilleard, 2015, p. 115).

Increasingly the image of the frail, lonely and dependent elderly is accompanied by the notion of an active, healthy and capable older person. This has had a strong influence on how people perceive of themselves and their ageing bodies.

How we experience our aging bodies is thus complex, influenced by structural, institutional, and cultural forces and the myriad interactions that occur in the overlapping and discrete contexts in which we live. Our embodied selves shape and are shaped by these forces and interactions (Holstein et al., 2011, p. xiv).

The process of ageing is hence not only biological but also a symbolic, discursive and cultural phenomenon (Höppner & Urban, 2018; Wanka & Gallistl, 2018). Certain expectations and bodily norms—such as ageing actively and healthy—provide the basis for how age is being performed as social practice, through interactions with other people (Schroeter, 2005; Schroeter & Künemund, 2010). In this understanding old age is conceptualised as a social imaginary, which is a way

people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations (Taylor, 2003, p. 23).

What is receiving increasing scholarly attention is the materiality of age and ageing in the context of everyday life (e.g. Höppner & Urban, 2018). It moves away from social constructivist approaches to extent the frame of analysis beyond discursive practices, to ageing bodies and material environments: Within material gerontology things, technology and spaces are considered as part of sociomaterial assemblages. Ageing is understood as a “material-discursive practice” (Barad, 2003, 2007); it does not exclusively happen in a human body, but rather

[…] age and ageing are co-products of human interactions, discourses, things, technical artifacts, possessions, and mobilities, among other things. From such a perspective, ageing becomes a complex process in which human bodies and all kinds of materiality can be involved (Höppner & Urban, 2018, p. 2).

For the purpose of this book age has “analytical value” as it identifies “birth-cohort membership” and the potential of shared life-experiences such as the introduction of particular technologies during specific life events like childhood, youth or work life (Harper, 2006, p. 3). Bolin (2017) proposes the term “media generation” and argues that people of the same age group share media experiences throughout their life-course: “media technologies and content have become increasingly important components in everyday life, and hence also in the process of generation formation” (p. 5). Since age and ageing are co-products of human interactions, shared experiences, discourses and technologies, a “generational identity” is formed and shapes certain habits and modes of media use. Similarly, Hepp, Berg, and Roitsch (2017) argue that the concept of media generation is useful to describe groups of people who share specific experiences based on their personal “media biographies” and hence “developed a shared self-image as a media generation” (p. 109).

Overall are controversies about the “ageing society” not only a sign of its importance for our societies, but also shape “the way in which we approach, understand and manage ageing processes in society” (Moreira, 2017, p. 5). Moreira recommends to study the knowledge making practices, tools, technologies and knowledge making institutions that co-construct different positions about the “ageing society”. Similarly others have argued that in and of itself ageing is not a problem for which a solution is required, but for example, technology-driven discourses frame ageing in this particular way (Höppner & Urban, 2018; Neven & Peine, 2017; Neves & Vetere, 2019; Wanka & Gallistl, 2018). For example, older adults have become a key target group for technology design in the area of medical and assistive technologies (Bischof, 2017; Cozza, De Angeli, & Tonolli, 2017). Not surprisingly have many sought to develop technological solutions as response to the perceived challenges and opportunities of an ageing population (e.g. robot companions to address loneliness as discussed by Turkle, 2011). Most of these technological solutions frame ageing “as a ‘problem’ that can be managed by technology” (Vines, Pritchard, Wright, Olivier, & Brittain, 2015, p. 2). However, the relation between ageing and technology has been conceptualised in very different ways.

There are a number of policy responses to demographic ageing ranging from later retirement age and lifelong learning to approaches on local level covering age-friendly cities and communities. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a more supportive and enabling social and physical environment is essential for people to age in better conditions. The WHO Age-friendly Cities and Communities approach proposes a framework of eight interconnected domains that shall help to identify and address barriers to the well-being and participation of older people: built environment and outdoor spaces; housing; transportation; social participation; respect and social inclusion; civic participation and employment; communication and information; and community support and health services (Fig. 2).

By adapting environments to the WHO approach, the following objectives are pursued:

Technology, however, has not been sufficiently addressed in the WHO model. For example, the fields “social inclusion” and “civic participation and employment” do not include “essential features related to technology” (Marston & van Hoof, 2019, p. 7). This book demonstrates that questions around social inclusion as well as social participation are inherently also questions of digital inclusion and digital participation. Hence, participation in the design of technological futures is important for ensuring social participation. One policy field in which this becomes increasingly important are smart cities. A number of civil society organisations such as the AGE Platform Europe, the EU Covenant on Demographic Change, and organisations such as the WHO Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities (WHO GNAFCC) already promote a more inclusive approach to smart city developments. Co-creation may be one way to follow-up on the promise of engaging older citizens in inclusive future-making.