The Making of an Elder Culture

Reflections on the Future of America's Most Audacious Generation

Theodore Roszak

• Publisher: New Society Publishers
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781550924350
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Gerontology
• Index: Social Sciences

The author of The Making of a Counter Culture delves into how the baby boomers can take on the unfinished business of their rebellious youth. The Summer of Love. Vietnam. Woodstock. These are the milestones of the baby boomer generation Theodore Roszak chronicled in his 1969 breakthrough book The Making of a Counter Culture. Part of an unprecedented longevity revolution, those boomers form the most educated, most socially conscientious, politically savvy older generation the world has ever seen. And they are preparing for Act Two. The Making of an Elder Culture reminds the boomers of the creative role they once played in our society and of the moral and intellectual resources they have to draw upon for radical transformation in their later years. Seeing the experience of aging as a revolution in consciousness, it predicts an "elder insurgency" where boomers return to take up what they left undone in their youth. Freed from competitive individualism, military-industrial bravado, and the careerist rat race, who better to forge a compassionate economy? Who better positioned not only to demand Social Security and Medicare for themselves, but to champion "Entitlements for Everyone?" Fusing the green, the gray, and the just, Eldertown can be an achievable, truly sustainable future. Part demographic study, part history, part critique, and part appeal, Theodore Roszak's take on the imminent transformation of our world is as wise as it is inspired—and utterly appealing. "Abrilliant and highly original thesis. I commend Roszak for writing the book." —Tom Pochari, World Affairs Monthly "Roszak champions the possibility of restoring that lost commitment to the ideals of liberation." — Tom Hartley

CHAPTER 1

Maturity Rules

We are not “senior citizens” or “golden-agers.” We are the elders, the experienced ones; we are maturing, growing adults responsible for the survival of our society. We are not wrinkled babies, succumbing to trivial, purposeless waste of our years and our time. We are a new breed of old people.

— Maggie Kuhn, A Dialogue on Age

Ready or not, like it or not — the modern world is tilting steadily toward gerontocracy. Irresistible trends in family life, medical science, public health, and fiscal economics all run in the direction of senior dominance. Those trends, growing stronger with each passing year, begin to appear as permanent a condition as our species has ever known, the long road into a future nobody anticipated until the latter years of the 20th century.

Not that elders stand ready to take over the day-to-day tasks of government or to lord it over the rest of the population. Rather, what we must now expect is that their priorities will soon have a claim on political power and our economic resources that few elected leaders will care to question or obstruct. There will always be many issues governments must face — war and revolution, poverty and terrorism, domestic strife, the ups and downs of the world economy. But for as far as we can see into the years ahead, all these affairs of state will have to play out against a very different, totally unfamiliar background that makes the needs and values of the old paramount.

dp n="13" folio="2" ?

How can it be otherwise? In another generation most industrial societies will have arrived at an unprecedented condition: Their populations will number more people above the age of 50 than below. Some nations will take a bit longer joining this “quiet revolution,” as the United Nations has called it, but the United States, western Europe, and Japan are already within sight of senior dominance. As of the first decade of the 21st century in the United States, 8,000 people who were born between 1946 and 1964 — the baby-boom generation — began turning 60 every day. By 2011 that number rises to 11,000 — which is the number of American babies currently being born each day. Already, there is one person over the age of 60 in the United States for every child below the age of four.

Move ahead 50 years. By 2050, there will be ten people over 60 for every three children below the age of four. Wait another generation or so, and there will be more people above the age of 60 than below. Wait another generation beyond that, and... well, beyond that, things grow somewhat speculative, as life expectancy becomes more dependent on breakthroughs in biotechnology aimed at identifying the exact source of aging. But breakthroughs there will be. Geneticists are already competing to produce a Methuselah Mouse that will live the equivalent of human centuries. If they succeed, they will receive handsome rewards and much acclaim. Can we doubt that people will clamor to have the same blessing? And once this longevous vermin’s genes are grafted into the human genome, who can say how many people will survive to age 160, 200, or beyond? Would that be a good thing? I admit to being uncertain. I cannot envision such a world, nor am I sure I would want to live in it. But it is even harder to imagine anyone willing to demand that we call off the effort.

Meanwhile, even without the aid of advanced genetic tinkering, societies that are preponderantly youthful today will not be so in another 20 years. When we hear that 60% of the population in India is below the age of 30, or that 40% of Iranians are below 25, we should bear in mind that all those young people are grist for the senior mill. They are growing older every day and, like our own boomers, will eventually become the largest senior population in their country’s history. Such is the fate of baby booms. (Remember: When the Summer of Love was happening in San Francisco in 1967, there were 90 million people below the age of 25 in the United States — nearly half the population. Youth seemed in a permanent ascendancy. And see where we are today.) Unless we can imagine a science-fiction scenario in which the world is devastated by a plague that primarily targets the elderly, the modern world can only grow older. But, by an ironic twist of fate, the only plague we have going in the world today is AIDS, which strikes at the sexually active young and their afflicted offspring, leaving a disproportionate number of the elderly to inherit the ravaged societies of Africa and Asia.

We lose sight of the demographic force behind mass longevity when we view the baby boom in a short-sighted perspective — a transient demographic bulge rather like a pig being swallowed by a python. Seen in that way, we might imagine that at some point in the course of the 21st century the python will have digested the pig and things will return to their normal state of youthfulness, a society of young families, newborn babies, growing children, citizens in their middle years... and here and there some marginal grandparently boomers helping with the kids or retired to a galaxy of their own far, far away. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Since the late 19th century, aging has been the normal state of all industrial societies; it is a sustained trend. Societies designed to cater to the needs of aging populations will soon become the accepted political condition of our species. Acknowledging that fact will, at some point, slide so smoothly into the conventional wisdom that future generations may not realize that this is a major new feature of modern life, this is different, this is not what human culture was ever meant to be — and it all started now.

Odd that something so foreseeable has remained unforeseen for generations. The senior dominance has been wholly predictable since at least the beginning of the 20th century. Smaller families, longer life expectancy — one simply had to follow where the demographic numbers were trending. In the late 1930s, when hard times had placed a spotlight on the plight of the indigent old throughout the western world, the American philosopher John Dewey predicted with some foreboding that our society was headed toward unprecedented longevity — which in his time meant 60, 65, 70 years of age. In a prescient 1937 essay written for the first conference ever held on aging in the United States, Dewey observed, “The changes which have brought about a great reduction of infant mortality and the lengthening of the span of life for those who survive the hazards of infancy have had important social effects so that social conditions have been created which confront civilization with issues of the most serious nature.” He might have gone on to add that aging was a principal theme of the country’s history. Our society has never been younger than it was at the beginning of white colonization. Then, the continent was experiencing an influx of young immigrant families from Europe who were determined to stock the land with all the children they could beget. Since then we have been growing steadily older, by Dewey’s day reaching the point at which a third of the population was over the age of 50. “The main purpose of these introductory remarks,” Dewey wrote, “is to call attention to the fact that there is a problem and one of a scope having no precedent in human history.” So start planning for a longevous society now, Dewey advised.¹

But nobody did. The war intervened, and then — fatefully — the postwar baby boom. After a fashion that now seems little short of delusionary, policy makers and the public generally immersed themselves in the strange belief that the world was getting younger — exactly the opposite of what should have been obvious. The baby boom should have been seen as a blip in the steady trend toward aging. But then the misapprehension is easy to understand. In the aftermath of horror, people everywhere craved renewal and vitality. So the reproductive outburst that followed World War II eclipsed the underlying demographic reality of our time. People, wanting to start over again, were swept up in a cult of youth. The market rushed to reinforce their wishfulness. Here were millions of pampered American kids on whom parents with fat paychecks were willing to lavish their postwar affluence. And what prospering, victorious America was, other societies sought to become: young, young, young. Thanks to an advertising industry eager to move the goods, the youth of the nation came to be seen as prime consumers — in fact, the chief customers — for clothes, music, movies, toiletries, magazines, cars, furnishings. At the same time, pundits, inspired by the country’s spectacular wartime achievements, were easily carried away by great technological expectations. Novelty and innovation were in the air: faster means of transportation, more rapid communications, more ingenious electronic gadgets, a new generation of household appliances, automated assembly lines, more glitzy merchandise, artificial intelligence, high-rise cities, the colonization of outer space. And because all these grand designs belonged to the future, they belonged to the young, who came to be spoken of as if they were an ageless class, permanently endowed with vitality, daring, and optimism, a deathless Pepsi generation that would always be there. “What happened in the sixties,” the marketing analyst Thomas Frank observed, “is that hip became central to the way American capitalism understood itself and explained itself to the public.... Suddenly youth became a consuming position to which all could aspire.... The conceptual position of youthfulness became as great an element of the marketing picture as youth itself.” Frank called this “the conquest of the cool.”² Unfortunately for his industry, it is a beach-head that cannot be held.

Once the cool had supposedly been conquered, the main marketing topic of the day — and for the next 30 years — was, “What are the young up to? What do they like? What are they reading, buying, wearing, talking about?” A profession of cool-hunters emerged, grown-ups who dedicated their lives to the whims of adolescents. And perhaps those who spent so much time confabulating with the sensibilities of the young came to feel vicariously young themselves, people who were hot, clued in, with it, and all the more unwilling to give up on the youthful market. In any case, this transitory fascination has remained the great commercial topic of our economy, even as the young demographic became less numerous and less affluent. In such an intellectual ambience, those above the age of 40 simply dropped out of sight. Many elders who could not keep up with the pace were willing to yield to the spirit of the times, ensconcing themselves (if they could afford to do so) in distant retirement communities in self-imposed exile. Thus, society was surrendered to the young. From the 1940s through the 1980s, who could have imagined a world ruled by the elderly? And because such a future was unthinkable, nobody spent much time thinking about it. Instead, as if the task of defining social reality belonged exclusively to entrepreneurs, market analysts, and engineers, those who specialized in brainstorming world’s-fair visions of things to come focused on an endless succession of scientific amazements, intoxicating visions that simply ignored the most obvious biological realities of our species. Yet all the while, steadily and without fanfare and as invincibly as all living things blossom, ripen, and mature, more people were living longer. And as they did so, they were creating a possibility not even the most far-sighted futurists had anticipated.

dp n="18" folio="7" ?

Return to the beginning of the 20th century. In 1900 most people in the western world could look back upon a family history where one out of every three babies died within a year, where it was commonplace for women to expire in childbirth, where few grandparents lived into their sixties, where most elderly citizens had little more than the county home or the workhouse to look forward to once they could no longer earn their own way. However amazing people then might find the technological wonders of our day to be, there are things far more incredible: a world where the women of Japan and France are leading the way to a life expectancy beyond 85 years — with their husbands not that far behind them. A world where money needed to pay for the elderly ill could begin to outstrip money spent on the tools of war. A world where, like a target in a gun sight, the genetic locus of senescence could be coming ever more steadily into sharp focus.

Now that it is so clearly upon us, senior dominance is viewed with horrified amazement by many politicians and economists. Because it is the very opposite of what they anticipated, they see mass longevity as a fiscal calamity, a prospect wholly at odds with all they hold dear. The country is filling up with the wrong people — old people, people who by definition take little interest in innovation, who care more about secure investments, savings accounts and prescription costs than the next hot thing on the market and who will be claiming more and more of our resources, influencing ever more of our political policies. Hardly a week goes by but the evening news or the op-ed page takes up the drum-beat: “Be warned! Old people are coming! Old people are coming!” Gerontocracy, in the judgment of many pundits, threatens bankruptcy, backwardness, and stagnation. They ask: “How can we afford all these people?” And, less audibly, they ask: “How are we going to sell them i-Phones, HDTV, flashy clothes, new movies, the next American icon?”

dp n="19" folio="8" ?

Their Finest Hour

That bleak outlook is exactly what The Making of an Elder Culture rejects. It is not only wrong, it is exactly wrong by 180 degrees. The elder culture that is being improvised all around us day by day may not turn out to be an endless vista of fast-paced economic expansion and technological gadgetry, but it promises to be the road toward a saner, more compassionate, more sustainable world — altogether, a more important turning point than ever presented itself in the 1960s when boomers were coming of age. This, at last, is what the dissenting idealism of the 1960s was, in its highest and brightest expression, all about: a transformation of values that may finally reveal the goal of industrialization, the life-enhancing destiny that has lain hidden in the wrenching violence and extravagant physical and spiritual costs. In raising that possibility, I cling to one hope. Boomers, who will usher us into senior dominance, are the best educated, most socially conscientious, most politically savvy older generation the world has ever seen. They grew up entertaining (if not always endorsing) countercultural values, reveling in their willingness to search beyond the limits of convention. Given sufficient awareness and inspiration, I believe that generation will want to do good things with the power that history has unexpectedly thrust upon it in its senior years. What boomers left undone in their youth, they will return to take up in their maturity, if for no other reason than because they will want to make old age interesting. Just as the Dutch have won land back from the sea, we have won years back from death. That gives us the grand project of using those extra years to build a culture that is morally remarkable.

The elder culture we will be exploring in these pages is not the outgrowth of a well-defined social philosophy, much less is it a blueprint for the future. Like the counter culture of the 1960s and 1970s on which it draws in spirit and for ideas, it is a surprising proliferation of divergent values that emerge from a new demographic reality. Far from being a detailed agenda ordered up by a political movement or an ideological faction, it is the way in which our lives are being reconfigured by the convergence of numerous unplanned but inexorable developments in medical science, public health, economics, brain physiology, biotechnology, gender roles, generational relations, and social policy. Under the demographic pressure of an aging population, we are seeing radical changes in work and family life, career choices and retirement, man-woman relationships, health care, and city planning.

As people in greater numbers live long enough to suffer late-onset diseases, those same demographic pressures are redirecting medical research toward new genetic therapies that may contribute to an astonishing extension of life expectancy. We are discovering that the best way to treat many diseases of old age is to nip them in the bud by forms of prenatal intervention that will bring benefits throughout a lifetime. That in turn is forcing new budgetary priorities upon us that will make some traditional expenditures and investments — such as military adventures, space exploration, corporate welfare — less urgent and more difficult to afford. And that will force us to revise public policy. At the same time, as research on the aging brain becomes more widespread, we will find ourselves revising our understanding of the mind, its limits and its unexplored potential — a project that has enormous philosophical implications. This, in time, will open new avenues in education that may lead to the reevaluation of expertise and experience. And as new living patterns arise among a growing population of elders, our relations with the natural environment are likely to change as they come to reflect new, more discriminating patterns of consumption, transportation, housing, nutrition, recreation, lifestyle. A grand panorama of change, but behind it a common theme: more people are living longer.

The greatest challenge of mass longevity is the fact that so few have seen it coming except those who would deny it and defeat it — in large measure by condemning boomers as a failed generation. That is an unusual, perhaps a unique, political tactic. Is there any other generation in history that has faced such adversarial hostility — which is perhaps a clear measure of its power? Conservatives, especially the neoconservatives who came to power during the Reagan presidency, see the cost of an aging society as the prime obstacle to their project of building a corporate-dominated, market-based, highly militarized global economy. They have accurately seen the entitlements and the life expectancy now available to the many as the antithesis of a Social-Darwinist ethic that serves the few. Since the 1970s, far-right ideologues have been doing all they can to make the United States incapable of dealing with the demographic facts of life in the 21st century. Nothing clashes more with their hopes for an American imperial order than a society whose future lies in the hands of 75 million aging boomers. Conservatives cannot turn back the clock on longevity; but they can make it so fearful and painful an experience that we will be ever more reluctant to pay the price that good health and long life demand.

More nefariously, neoconservatives can make the old feel guilty for becoming such a supposedly great burden to their long-suffering children — even though these children will themselves soon be moving into their fifties and sixties. Like the stereotypic welfare queen Ronald Reagan liked to bash, the greedy geezer is a figment of political propaganda, an image of other people’s detestable parents somewhere out there in Florida or Arizona or aboard The Love Boat, living it up at your expense. Even so, conservative guilt-tripping has been remarkably successful among boomers themselves, some of whom, in an astonishing display of social masochism, are willing to bear the blame for being so numerous and living so long. That is what one finds in editorials and commentaries — most of them written by boomers — lamenting how the “rise of the wrinklies” will drain the national treasury. In a brutally satirical novel about his avaricious generation titled Boomsday, Christopher Buckley rushed to defend his children from the boomers’ legacy: “mountainous debt, a deflating economy, and 77 million people retiring.” The heroine of his tale proposes a solution, a morbid sort of annuity. Pay boomers in advance to commit suicide at 75. But what do parents like Buckley need to apologize for? That their parents produced so many of them? That they kept fit and lived longer? That they followed doctor’s orders and lived longer still? That they lived long enough to need a payback on the help they once gave kids who were in many cases dependent on them for 20 years or more? What such mea culpa gestures fail to grasp is that the power that boomers inherit is their chance to create a better world for their children and all who follow them.

There is a terrible irony to the anti-elder campaign that conservatives are waging. Why are they not celebrating mass longevity as capitalism’s greatest achievement? For is this not the economic system that has delivered the productivity that makes life longer and richer for all of us? But, then, perhaps that has never been the objective of the corporate elite for whom the gap between have and have-not serves as the first line of defense for social privilege. So, by way of upper-class tax cuts and profligate military spending, they have been rushing to cripple our economy so that there will be no way to meet the needs of an aging population gracefully. They have done a supremel...