Tove Harnett
Docent
Ageism and Age Logics in Social Work
Författare
Summary, in English
Introduction: Age is a commonly used criterion in social work, ranging from entry to methadone programs to exit from disability benefits and is used to determining appropriate treatment and support for clients. While it may be relevant to treat people differently based on age, seemingly “natural” age differences make age stereotyping difficult to challenge as ageism. The aim of this presentation is to introduce the concept of age logics, defined as age-related reasoning that is culturally established and used to explain or justify particular arrangements.
Methods and data: In order to critically assess the use of age logics in social work, we draw on data from studies om “wet” care facilities for people who age with substance misuse and complex needs. No treatment is provided and residents can consume alcohol and other substances for the rest of their lives. The empirical data consists of interviews with 31 residents, 11 caseworkers and 12 staff members at two Swedish wet eldercare facilities. Interviewees were asked about the policy of the facilities and existing age limits. Wet care facilities constitute a case for highlighting age logics since their approach – to accept that residents are active in their use or alcohol and drugs – is not in line with official Swedish policies, and since they have a lower age limit at 50 years for entrance to a care home for older people. It could therefore be expected that interviewees give reason for existing arrangements in ways that reveals age logics at work.
Results: The analysis identified four types of age logics linking chronological age with its meanings: (a) A logic of changeability referred to the assumption that ‘older’ persons with a long history of substance misuse were unable to change. (b) A logic of lifestyle established a division between young and old as being active versus calm, with the latter category matching the lifestyle of a facility for persons above the age of 50 years. (c) A logic of function focused on residents as ageing prematurely – with a body that was worn out and thus suitable for eldercare. (d) A logic of administrative fit where the match between a resident’s chronological age and the existing age limit justified placement. Together these age logics constructed an ideal type of the ‘older addict’, which justified existing arrangements.
Conclusions: Reflecting on what part age plays in social work policy and practice is a route to social change. In the presentation we will discuss the use of age logics from a broader perspective that involves different ages and age categorizations and propose an age logic checklist with the following questions: 1. What age logic is used and how does it relate to culturally established ways of understanding age? 2. What identities are produced by the age logic in this context? 3. What risks and gains are associated with this age logic? 4. Is there a need for change? Using this list makes it possible to reveal when age logics become ageism.
Methods and data: In order to critically assess the use of age logics in social work, we draw on data from studies om “wet” care facilities for people who age with substance misuse and complex needs. No treatment is provided and residents can consume alcohol and other substances for the rest of their lives. The empirical data consists of interviews with 31 residents, 11 caseworkers and 12 staff members at two Swedish wet eldercare facilities. Interviewees were asked about the policy of the facilities and existing age limits. Wet care facilities constitute a case for highlighting age logics since their approach – to accept that residents are active in their use or alcohol and drugs – is not in line with official Swedish policies, and since they have a lower age limit at 50 years for entrance to a care home for older people. It could therefore be expected that interviewees give reason for existing arrangements in ways that reveals age logics at work.
Results: The analysis identified four types of age logics linking chronological age with its meanings: (a) A logic of changeability referred to the assumption that ‘older’ persons with a long history of substance misuse were unable to change. (b) A logic of lifestyle established a division between young and old as being active versus calm, with the latter category matching the lifestyle of a facility for persons above the age of 50 years. (c) A logic of function focused on residents as ageing prematurely – with a body that was worn out and thus suitable for eldercare. (d) A logic of administrative fit where the match between a resident’s chronological age and the existing age limit justified placement. Together these age logics constructed an ideal type of the ‘older addict’, which justified existing arrangements.
Conclusions: Reflecting on what part age plays in social work policy and practice is a route to social change. In the presentation we will discuss the use of age logics from a broader perspective that involves different ages and age categorizations and propose an age logic checklist with the following questions: 1. What age logic is used and how does it relate to culturally established ways of understanding age? 2. What identities are produced by the age logic in this context? 3. What risks and gains are associated with this age logic? 4. Is there a need for change? Using this list makes it possible to reveal when age logics become ageism.
Avdelning/ar
- Socialhögskolan
- Äldre och åldrande
- LU profilområde: Proaktivt åldrande
Publiceringsår
2024-04-18
Språk
Engelska
Dokumenttyp
Konferensbidrag: abstract
Ämne
- Social Work
Conference name
13th European Conference for Social Work Research
Conference date
2024-04-17 - 2024-04-19
Conference place
Vilnius, Lithuania
Aktiv
Published
Projekt
- Specialist eldercare for people with substance abuse and complex needs: Promising practices or institutionalized ageism?