Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework
3.2 Theoretical Framework
3.2.1 Critical gerontology theory
According to Mortimer and Moen (2016), human behaviour and interaction are developed by human understandings and social interactions (Song et al., 2020; Tognoli et al., 2020). In contrast, biological essentialist orientation describes human behaviour as determined by biological influences (Doheny & Jones, 2020). Although aging is a biological process (Moskalev, 2019), the meanings, understandings and attitudes to being young, old or of a certain age are socially constructed, not a biological trait or concept determined by a person’s genetic makeup (van Dyk, 2016). Despite socially constructed roles and expectations being necessary for the organisation and functioning of any society, group or organisation (Gil-Lacruz et al., 2020), in many instances, these roles and expectations are inaccurate and based on stereotypical assumptions (Chiesa et al., 2019; Weber et al., 2019). Harris et al.
(2018) assert that knowledge and understanding of the world are not absolute—they are framed by discourses reflecting the ideas and perceptions of the dominant and influential groups in society, and usually disadvantage vulnerable groups and underprivileged
individuals (Katz & Calasanti, 2015). The theoretical lens of critical gerontology is applied in this study to understand the challenges and complexities older workers in Singapore face.
Critical gerontology is a broad area of scholarship concerned with identifying possibilities for enabling social change, including positive ideals for the last stage of life (Katz, 2019). Critical gerontology is derived from critical theory (McAllister, 2010), which uses a neo-Marxist approach to critique social structures and stimulate reforms (Hill, 2019).
The neo-Marxist approach considers economic structures the root cause of social manifestations and challenges (Bengtson et al., 1997). The main goal of a critical gerontology perspective is to identify wider social influences on the problems individuals experience (Norella et al., 2005; van Dyk, 2016). A critical perspective contends that as long as social problems are defined in individual terms, change may not happen. This challenges researchers and policymakers to evaluate the applicability of existing research, policy and programs to emerging elderly populations. Consequently, there is a need to examine the social structures, embedded knowledge and perceptions and consciousness that shape social policy on old age and older workers.
The critical gerontology theory encourages research on aging and its related policy and practices (Moody, 1992). For example, Estes and Phillipson (2007) questions the concepts underpinning traditional assumptions before the biomedical model of aging (Biggs et al., 2020) and take a sociological approach to challenge the belief that older people are a burden on society (Baars et al., 2016; Butler 1980). Critical gerontology theory also argues that the challenges associated with aging should not be attributed to individual decline and disabilities, rather the social structures that limit older people’s ability to express their strengths and continue contributing to society as assets (Moody & Sasser, 2018). Adopting a critical gerontology position is crucial to understanding and unravelling the complexities and challenges in the lives of older workers in Singapore.
Three theoretical concepts characterise critical gerontology theory (Estes & Phillipson, 2017). First, political economy claims that aging cannot be analysed separately from societal forces and contextual influences (Baars et al., 2016). Aging is designed by social construction and influenced by the norms, cultures and attitudes of the society in which it exists, including stereotypes and assumptions (Estes & Phillipson, 2017). Second, moral economy examines aging through beliefs, norms and moral values in a given setting (Gordon & Longino, 2000;
Hill, 2019; Polivka, 1999). Third, humanistic gerontology addresses larger questions of meaning in older people’s lives, including their lived and work experiences (Baars &
Dohmen, 2013; Portacolone & Herd, 2018; Skinner et al., 2015). The following paragraphs elaborate on these three concepts.
Critical gerontology theory has been applied in at least six areas of research, including aging, healthcare, politics and governance, retirement and economic challenges (Biggs et al., 2020) in qualitative and quantitative studies (Weil, 2017). The key principles of critical gerontology were developed from seven of the initial works in gerontology studies (Chaiklin, 1999; Kastenbaum et al., 1992; Katz, 2008; Kennedy & Minkler, 1998; Minkler, 1996;
Phillipson, 2003). These studies advocate interdisciplinary approaches in gerontology, particularly foundational theories involving the sociology, psychology and political economy of aging. Several other studies have also applied the theoretical lens of critical gerontology to argue against imperialistic notions of anti-aging driven by consumerism and societal perceptions (Ellison, 2013; King & Calasanti, 2006; Ojala et al., 2016; van Dyk, 2014;
Vincent, 2006). Aner and Kricheldorff (2017) and Rozanova (2010) interrogate stereotypes of successful aging by drawing on insights from critical gerontology and argue the notion of successful aging is subjective and dependent on contextual circumstances.
Besides studies on aging stereotypes, critical gerontology theory has been applied to analyse challenges older people experience in workplaces and professions, which revealed they were overlooked for job promotions and experienced difficulty when seeking
employment (Blackham, 2017; Foster & Walker, 2015; Lotherington et al., 2017; Rothenberg
& Gardner, 2011). In healthcare and social work, Cox and Pardasani (2017), Flores-Sandoval and Kinsella (2020), and Hachem et al. (2017) utilise critical gerontology as an instrument to facilitate critical reflection and educate society about older adults oppressed by socio- economic challenges. These challenges are expected to worsen due to demographical changes in the population, chronic governmental neglect, institutionalised ageism and a lack of societal awareness. Meanwhile, critical gerontology has also been used to question and challenge public policy involving the older population, although these studies are confined to Europe and the US (Baars et al., 2016; Moody & Sasser, 2018; Paris, 2018).
Critical gerontology is also applied to research in the field of employability and organisational psychology. Research studies (Bal & Jansen, 2016; Estes & Phillipson, 2017;
Halford et al., 2015; Rothenberg & Gardner, 2011; Zacher, 2015; Zacher & Rudolph, 2018) have applied this theory to highlight the importance of workplace flexibility and embracing diversity to accommodate older workers and recognise them as valued members of the workforce. In addition, Caines et al. (2020), Eppler-Hattab et al. (2020), and Sharit (2020) propose age-friendly workplaces through a critical gerontology perspective (Zacher &
Rudolph, 2017) to help older workers to perform better in their jobs. This theory has also been used to study how workers in organisations perform (Flores-Sandoval & Kinsella, 2020;
Zacher & Rudolph, 2017) in different contexts around the globe. While largely limited to Europe, Canada, and the US (Formosa & Galea, 2020), the studies found that appropriate and consistent support for older workers is crucial in helping them perform well at work.
Existing theories that explain, describe and justify various concepts in aging and older people (Alley et al., 2010, Bengtson et al., 1997; Hendricks et al., 2010) include Baltes’s (1999) lifespan theory, Havinghurst’s (1963) activity theory, Ryff’s (1989) successful aging theory, and Cumming and Henry’s (1961) disengagement theory (Bengtson et al., 1997;
Hendricks & Powell, 2009; Marshall & Clarke, 2007). However, none fully address the
complexities older workers in Singapore face. Despite addressing the narrow, negative societal attitudes and perspectives of aging, these theories cannot fully capture the challenges faced by older workers from political and societal structures, attitudes and influences coming from the entire employability ecosystem.