The Language of Ageism: Why We Need to Use Words Carefully

Abstract

The language of ageism is rooted in both explicit actions and implicit attitudes which make it highly complex and difficult to identify. Continued examination of linguistic encoding is needed in order to recognize and rectify language-based age discrimination.

A Theory of Relational Ageism: A Discourse Analysis of the 2015 White House Conference on Aging

“…Microageism included the comments and conversations whereby an individual described personal age, aging, or an age-related characteristic negatively either in a self-referential manner or regarding a loved one and included one subtheme: internalized ageism and internalized microaggression as previously identified by the authors on language-based age discrimination (Gendron, Welleford, Inker, & White, 2015). Microageism was expressed through age shaming; language that conveyed age or aging as shameful in a personal manner, and is illustrated by the following examples:…”

“…Consider the following example, if one has learned over time that expressing one's belief that being old is bad or conversely young is good (e.g., "I'm 65 years young") leads others to applaud and show approval, this expectation can influence one's behavior, perception of others' reactions, and one's self-concept or self-identity in current and subsequent interactions. With regard to ageism, common linguistic expressions of in-group and out-group discrimination include stereotypical assumptions and judgments, older people as different, uncharacteristic characteristics (the idea that certain actions and behaviors are unusual, or outside of the norm for older people), old as negative, young as positive, infantilization, internalized ageism, and internalized microaggression (Gendron, Welleford, Inker, & White, 2015). Microaggressions are brief and commonplace indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate slights or insults to the target person or group (Sue et al, 2007).…”

“…The hypothesis coding scheme was established by the research team and hypothesized that discourse that portrayed inequality (e.g., negative norms about aging) would be expressed during a professional aging-related event, likely with a lack of awareness and intent. The basis for this hypothesis was twofold: the identification of implicit language bias in regards to ageist language (Gendron et al, 2015) and personal experiences of witnessing professionals engaged in advocating for older people displaying ageism in social interactions.…”

“…In the next stage of analysis, the three authors evaluated the transcripts to determine if there was thematic agreement with a previously established coding scheme developed on language-based age discrimination (Gendron et al, 2015) in which full consensus was achieved. Then each author conducted open coding to independently generate additional descriptive codes and categories based on what was seen and heard in the data set.…”

“…Macroageism included expressions of explicit ageism representing a negative evaluation of older adults and aging and included two subthemes: uncharacteristic characteristic and "old" as a negative/"young" as a positive as previously identified by the authors on language-based age discrimination (Gendron, Welleford, Inker, & White, 2015). Macroageism included instances of explicit or externalized ageism that communicated broad generalizations about older adults and the aging population.…”