Reconsidering Successful Aging: A Call for Renewed and Expanded Academic Critiques and Conceptualizations
Abstract
Many scholars now critique successful aging terminology. Nonetheless, there is incomplete analysis of the political motivations behind the development of and/or effects of widespread use of these terms. This article suggests that analysis of the people who developed the terms and the settings within which they work parallels an analysis of the terms themselves and illustrates the continuing negative perception of aging. This study fleshes out a more thorough critique of the sociopolitical contexts surrounding the successful aging paradigm so that it can help renew and expand existing critiques. The authors conclude that researchers need to be wary of adopting successful aging terminology without considering and expanding their understanding of the political motivations and results that accompanies it. New, expanded conceptualizations of successful aging are needed so that socially minded researchers and practitioners of gerontology do not contribute to ageism and discrimination against older adults.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The field's dominant view of what it means to age successfully is ageist in its treatment of middle age as the standard and its failure to challenge the devaluation of later life stages.
“For example, the field's dominant view of what it means to age successfully is ageist in its treatment of middle age as the standard and its failure to challenge the devaluation of later life stages (e.g., Calasanti 2016, Dillaway & Byrnes 2009, Katz & Calasanti 2015).”
From Centering Age Inequality: Developing a Sociology-of-Age Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Dillaway & Byrnes 2009
Ageism is found in gerontological research.
“Ageism is even found in gerontological research-a surprising observation given the field's sensitivity to older adults' experiences.”
From Centering Age Inequality: Developing a Sociology-of-Age Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Dillaway & Byrnes 2009
The successful aging discourse buttresses the neoliberal agenda.
“By constructing aging as an ongoing struggle by the individual to stave off age-related declines and maintain high levels of productivity, the successful aging discourse buttresses the neoliberal agenda.”
From Centering Age Inequality: Developing a Sociology-of-Age Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Dillaway & Byrnes 2009
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 231
- Authors
- Dillaway, H. E., & Byrnes, M.
- Affiliations
- Wayne State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dillaway, Heather E.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Gerontology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-05-12
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 702-722
- ISSN
- 0733-4648 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-4523
- OpenAlex
- W2143543764
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 6.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Gerontology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Aging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
- Keywords
- successful aging, ageism, older adults, political motivation, sociopolitical context, gerontology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
