Download THE LIFE COURSE PERSPECTIVE AND THE DISENGAGEMENT

1
THE LIFE COURSE PERSPECTIVE AND THE DISENGAGEMENT THEORY
Introduction
Our goal as geriatric social workers is to promote human health and well being
through a person centered approach, acknowledging diversity, social and economic
justice and the promotion of human rights and equality (CSWE, 2008). In order to
efficiently serve our aging clients, we need to be mindful of Aging theory. Gerontological
theories not only examine the aging process on both the macro and micro levels, but
also provide us with a working framework for social work practice (Bengtson et al.,
2005). Although a number of aging specific theories exist, the two most influential
theories are the Life Course perspective and the Disengagement theory.
Life Course Perspective
The Life Course perspective is highly respected in the field of Aging because it
addresses the impact of social determinants throughout the life course on health
outcomes in later life (Elder, 1975). A thorough analysis of past biological, psychological,
and social conditions allow us as social workers to be more properly equipped to
understand our clients (Dannefer, 2006). The Life Course perspective is defined by five
principles: linked lives (cohort), historical time and place, transition, agency, and
relationships (Bengtson et al., 2005 & Hutchinson, 2008). The confluence of these
principles supports our working knowledge on the impact of time on a client’s behavior.
The Life Course perspective accounts for historical social change as well as our
changing society (Hutchinson, 2008). The Life Course perspective allows social
2
scientists and social workers to look at correlations linked to an individual and their
environment.
The Life Course perspective is comprehensive in its universal applicability in the
social sciences. For example, Walker’s (1983) research was consistent in its correlation
of socio-economic status throughout the life course to poverty in old age. This research
demonstrates the importance of improving social determinants early in life because of
their impact on poverty and well being in later life. Preventative measures should be
utilized to reduce risk factors in later life (Kellam et al. 1997). Like all theories, the Life
Course perspective does have limitations.
Limitation of the Life Course Perspective
The Life Course perspective fails to link the micro world of individual and family
to the macro society (social and formal organizations) (Hutchinson, 2008). Even
though the Life Course perspective has the potential to address global diversity, research
thus far has only focused on affluent populations, therefore limiting its applicability
globally (Dannefer, 2003). Additionally, the Life Course perspective has a predisposed
bias for undesirable outcomes linking negative life experiences to poor outcomes in later
life (Hutchinson, 2008). Future research should take a more positive perspective at
addressing human behavior.
Disengagement Theory
The Disengagement theory is a highly controversial because it is based on the
premise that in order to ‘age the right way’ in midlife, an individual must disengage from
3
society to prepare for death (Cumming et al., 1961). The Disengagement theory adheres
to a reduction in social activity in all settings, specifically in the workplace. This theory
is seen as mutually beneficial in the work place because it facilitates the smooth transfer
of roles from older generations to younger generations while preparing older adults for
the latter stages of life and ultimately death (Victor, 2005). According to this theory,
retirement maintains balance in worker turnover and ensures a graceful exit for older
workers.
Limitations of the Disengagement Theory
Although the Disengagement theory was the first multi-disciplinary theory in
Gerontology, its premise that as an individual ages they gradually disengage from
society is outdated (Achenbaum et al., 1994). Not only does the Disengagement theory
lack factual credibility through the use of empirical evidence, its weak postulates make it
difficult to test how an individual disengages (Achenbaum et al., 1994). When an
individual retires, they experience a triple role loss: loss in employment, loss in sense of
self and loss in social interaction. The Disengagement theory does not account for
psychological adjustment to aging, quality of life and role loss (Victor, 2005 & Harris et
al., 1978). This theory attempts to incorporate both macro and micro level studies into
its postulation; however, it does not succeed because the theory’s focal point is centered
on the system in which aging occurs, and not the individual (Hutchinson, 2008).
Theory and Practice
Both the Life Course perspective and the Disengagement theory are unique in
their postulates and goals; nonetheless, the Life Course perspective is best suited for
4
social work practice. When researching these two theories, I had a number of questions
regarding the validity of the Disengagement theory. “Is disengagement natural?
Desirable? Voluntary? (e.g. is this a conscious choice?) Its lack of clarity ultimately
impacted my view that the Life Course perspective is a more comprehensive approach to
understanding a clients needs as both an individual and demographic level. The Life
Course perspective is most effective in practice because it provides the opportunity to
build on strengths perspective and a client’s ability to change (Hutchinson, 2008). It
additionally allows for a culturally sensitive practice because its five principles provide a
deeper, more meaningful insight to address factors and experiences that have influenced
an individual throughout their life course.
REFERENCES
Achenbaum, A.W. & Bengtson, V. (1994). Re-engaging the Disengagement theory of
aging: on the history and assessment of theory development in gerontology. The
Gerontologist, 34(6), 756-763.
Bengtson, V., Putney, N. & Johnson, M. (2005). The problem of theory in gerontology
today. In Malcolm L. Johnson (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of age and ageing (pp.
3-20). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Council on Social Work Education (2008). Educational policy and accreditation
standards. Retrieved
from http://www.cswe.org/Accreditation/2008EPASDescription.aspx
Cummings, E. & Henry, W.E. (1961). Growing Old. New York, NY: Basic Books.
5
Dannefer, D (2003). Cumulative advantage/disadvantage and the life course: crossfertilizing age. The Journals of Gerontology; 58B, (6), S327.
Dannefer, D. (2006). Reciprocal co-optation: the relationship of critical theory and
social gerontology. In Baars, J., Dannefer, D., Phillipson, C. & Walker, A. (Eds.), Aging,
globalization and inequality: the new critical gerontology (pp. 103-122). New York,
NY: Baywood.
Elder, G.H. (1975). Age Differentiation and the life course. Annual Review of
Sociology, 1,165-190.
Harris, J. E., & Bodden, J.L. (1978). An activity group experience for disengaged elderly
persons. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25(4), 325-330.
Hutchison, E.D. (2008). Dimensions of Human Behavior: The changing life course, 3rd
edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kellam, S. & Van Horn, Y. (1997). Life course, community epidemiology and preventive
trials: A Scientific structure for preventative research. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 25 (2), 177-188.
Victor, C. (2005). The social context of ageing: a textbook of gerontology. London, UK:
Routledge.
Walker, A. (1983). The social production of old age. Ageing and Society, 3, 387-396.