No abstract

Chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia are characterized by being difficult to diagnose and having an elusive etiology and no clear-cut treatment strategy. The question of whether these illnesses are stigmatizing was investigated through interviews with 25 women with these illnesses. The women experienced stigmatization primarily before receiving a diagnosis, and the diffuse symptomatology associated with the illnesses were significant for stigmatization. Stigma consisted of questioning the veracity, morality, and accuracy of patient symptom descriptions and of psychologizing symptoms. Coping with stigma was also explored and found to comprise both withdrawal and approach strategies, depending on the individual's circumstances and goals.

The authors interviewed 12 women diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome and 13 with fibromyalgia with the aim of determining the strategies they perceive themselves as using to gain control over their situation during the health care process. The results highlight various strategies that the women report applying to find a way of managing the illness and to influence caregivers. They describe, for example, how they try to gain control over their situation by acquiring knowledge about the illness. The women also describe various power strategies they use in their interaction with the caregivers to take command of their situation, namely exiting, noncompliance, confrontation, persuasion/insistence, making demands, and demonstrative distancing.

During the last few decades a view of childhood as a generation has been introduced within what is called ‘new childhood studies’. Childhood as a structural and structuring concept, with methodological emphasis on studies on the aggregated level, is proposed by one of the main proponents of this view, Jens Qvortrup, while another perspective, here represented by Leena Alanen, takes Mannheim’s theoretical work on generations as a point of departure. These two points of view have had an impact on the new childhood studies, but at the same time they have not been made subject to critical discussion and are, thus, uncontested. There are, however, several conceptual as well as methodological issues and problems that should be discussed with regard to both perspectives. Issues raised in this article are, for example, the multiple meanings of the term ‘generation’ and the inherent problems in Mannheim’s conceptualization and its proposed use in childhood studies. Finally we discuss whether concepts like ‘life phase’ within life course research, and ‘age category’would be more clear and applicable than the proposed uses of ‘generation’, considering the theoretical interests behind this research.

Discussions concerning intersectionality have mainly focused on gender, class and ethnicity while the meaning of age is often disregarded. In this article we will open for a discussion about what the contributions in this context may be from an analysis of age and at the same time bring to the fore intersectionality analysis in the age based research. The article is partly constructed as an interplay between the research fields of sociology of childhood and social geronthology. Questions concerning the meaning of the age order for discussions about intersectionality are raised on the basis of these research fields. We also raise some issues about the conceptualization of intersectionality analysis. The discussion is for the most part exemplified by the interaction between gender and age.