Ways of Knowing: Aging
Paper #2
October 22, 2013
Silberman School of Social Work
SSN: 6122
Aging is a complex process, both physically and mentally. Since the 1950’s, researchers
have attempted to deconstruct the enigmatic relationship between the mind and the process of
aging. Multiple theories offer varying perspectives on assisting elders maintain a high quality of
life despite their advanced age. The two most prevalent sociologically based theories on aging
are “continuity theory” and “disengagement theory.” These two hypotheses approach the
complicated issue of aging in starkly differing methods. A close examination of continuity and
disengagement theories may help practitioners more fully understand the nuances within the field
of aging and consequently assist their clients utilizing more effective techniques.
Disengagement theory was among the first major theories in aging emerging in the
1960s. Cumming and Henry contend individuals must accept their inevitably natural decline.
Cumming and Henry define disengagement as the gradual withdrawal from society as someone
ages (Lynott & Lynott 1996). They argue it is in the best interest of the individual and of society
to withdraw in an effort to leave society undisturbed and sustain one’s peace of mind. I
witnessed the behavior Cumming and Henry articulate when my paternal grandfather began his
retirement. He ran a real estate practice in New Jersey for over fifty years. However, over time
he slowly relinquished most of the administrative responsibilities to a senior employee.
Eventually he was able to step out of the spotlight and retire—knowing that his successor had the
tools for success. He soon followed suit with his finances: gradually allowing my father to
manage such matters. My grandfather is now 85 years old, experiencing early stages of
Alzheimer’s and the benefits of disengagement. He did not postpone his disengagement until it
was absolutely crucial, instead opting to give his responsibilities to trusted individuals over
several years. For Cumming and Henry, gradual and incremental disengagement is the most
effective and beneficial way of addressing aging since it allows an individual to adjust to their
condition comfortably, rather than abruptly withdrawing from the world due to external factors
such as illness: like my grandfather’s Alzheimer’s.
There is however another methodology of dealing with aging—continuity theory, which
stands in opposition to disengagement theory. Continuity theorists argue it is crucial for an aging
person to continue to live life as they did prior to their status as an elderly person. Continuity
theorists view life as a journey, continuously chancing and as such, people must adapt to old age,
lifestyle changes must only take place under extreme necessity. It can be beneficial for a senior
to continue living as if nothing has changed (Parker 1995). That is to say, one must be able to
preserve a sense of self and existing social structure in the midst of old age. Elderly individuals
should simply continue to live as they have done before, without factoring age into the
metaphorical equation unless a situation warrants it. When my maternal grandfather reached his
80s, he did not alter his lifestyle. He had retired years earlier but continued to conduct himself as
he was accustomed to do. He attended lectures at Rutgers University, went to cultural events in
New York City, and drove a car up until the very end of his life. The cause of his death was
simply old age yet my grandfather never allowed his age to prevent him from doing as he
pleased. He lived unaffected by his advancing age and as therefore appeared to live very fully
and happily fur the duration of his life. Continuity theorists believe the key to happiness in old
age is staying true to oneself: simply put, doing the activities an individual has loved regardless
of age (Parker 1995).
These theories, though disparate, have both proven to be effective. That said however, a
critical evaluation of said theories is needed to highlight the particular pros and cons of each.
Critics of disengagement theory are critical of its emphasis on social systems rather than the
individual (Lynott & Lynott 1996). Social researchers have suggested that aging is an
individualized social issue that needs to be addressed on an individualized basis (Lynott &
Lynott 1996). One of the main arguments against disengagement theory is the tendency to
generalize the process of aging as a uniform societal experience. Rather, aging must be evaluated
in a context of the individual and his or her personal history. Critics of disengagement theory
claim the diversity and variation in the aging process can have a wide scope of manifestations:
such manifestations may derive from culture, gender and class (Achenbaum & Bengston 1994).
“Subcultures” of aging illuminate the ways in which particular groups handle aging differently
(Lynott 1996). Disengagement theory can be especially challenging for a senior individual, in
fact, might make one’s situation more stressful to cope with. Critics of disengagement theory
contend no two seniors experience aging in the exact same way. Social scientists have employed
this contention therefore, to undermine the necessity of withdrawing as one ages.
Proponents of disengagement theory view aging as a natural process: occurring
organically as someone gets older (Achenbaum & Bengston 1994). This upends the notion that
the individual should continue living life sans any disengagement. Cumming and Henry believe
“biology is destiny” (Achenbaum & Bengston 1994). This idea is directly at odds continuity
theory as it factors in the biological restrictions of aging. It is evitable that physical and cognitive
abilities must decline with age, and critics of continuity theory claim seniors must not fight back
against such processes. It may prove detrimental to one’s health and mental wellbeing to push
oneself beyond reasonable limits. Continuity theory does not accept the limits of nature and
therefore can be a dangerous course of aging.
I believe the principle problem of each theory is their emphasis on absolutes. I agree with
the idea espoused by critics of disengagement theory. All seniors are different and can handle
aging differently. For someone like my paternal grandfather, he had no choice but to disengage.
Though he didn’t know it at the time, he was making a very prudent decision to hand over his
responsibilities. If he had not disengaged, he would have had to make serious life decisions while
suffering from the early symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. However, my maternal grandfather
made the right decision for himself by not disengaging. His health was not rapidly declining and
his cognitive abilities stayed sharp until his death at the age of 90. For my maternal grandfather,
there was no point in preparing for the end of his life. He was happy and able to do what he
wanted; it would have been detrimental to force him into disengagement.
If I were a practicing gerontological social worker, I would choose neither disengagement
theory nor continuity theory as an absolute truth in my practice. Aging is a complex and
individualized issue. What’s more, theories are just that—theoretical claims, not definitive facts.
It is easy to see that all people are different and age very differently; there can be no “one size
fits all” approach when dealing with aging. Thus, no singular theory in isolation can fully explain
the best way to handle the aging process. If continuity is possible, it is one means of maintaining
happiness later in life. Alternatively, if it is not possible, disengagement is crucial for ensuring
that seniors do injure themselves due to an underlying condition. For seniors with dementia, any
work or serious responsibility is surely impossible. In other words, a decision such as this should
be made the senior, family members, and the social worker. There is no easy answer to aging and
the analyses of these two theories further prove that the aging process is not uniform.
Works Cited
Achenbaum, W. Andrew & Bengston, Vern (1994). Re-engaging the Disengagement Theory
of Aging: On the History and Assessment of Theory Development in Gerontology.
The Gerontologist, Vol 34, No 6, 756-763.
Lynott, Robert & Lynott Patricia (1996). Tracing the Course of Theoretical Development in
the Sociology of Aging. The Gerontologist, Vol 36, No 6, 749-760.
Parker, Rhonda (1995). Reminiscence: A Continuity Theory Framework. The Gerontologist,
Vol 35, No 5, 515-531.